T E R M I N O L O G I J A I R D A B A R T I S

Rūta MARCINKEVIČIENĖ

Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas

PROBLEMS WITH TERMS DESIGNATING LANGUAGE AND TEXT VARIETIES

1. Įvadas

The emergence of new terms and changes in the meanings of some previously used terms have recently created a need to review those linguistic terms that are directly associated with various types, units, and varieties of language. The best way to do so is systematically, discussing them not in isolation but in groups and pairs, so that the similarities and differences between their terminological meanings become clear. The main categories of the linguistic terms under discussion are also contrasted. One encompasses language as a system, although it may also focus on language use; the other is associated with the primary communicative unit of language—the text. This article aims to discuss both categories of terms denoting language varieties, identifying problems with their definitions and describing in greater detail terms that have received less attention. The aim will be pursued on the basis of three sources: available reference publications—dictionaries and handbooks; works in linguistics; and the use of certain terms in the Vytautas Magnus University Corpus of Contemporary Lithuanian, which comprises print media from 1994–2004.

2. Names of language system varieties

The first category would include long-established and well-described types of language, used without controversy (since language use accords with their definitions): the standard, or literary, language, and the dialect. Dialects, in turn, are divided into two groups: territorial, or geographical, and social and professional. The latter include professional or social jargon, argot, and slang (Palionis 1985: 16–

7

20). Of the two types of language mentioned, literary language is used in the corpus almost four times more often than standard language (2,615 and 736 times). Incidentally, KTŽ 1990 defines a language type typologically—as “a set of generalized language features on the basis of which languages are classified in typological classification.” Thus, the conception of a language type in Jonas Palionis’s textbook differs from that in KTŽ 1990.

Another not entirely problematic distinction is named by the terms spoken and written (bookish) language, understood as communication by speech and in writing. They are sometimes confused with the terms written and colloquial language (KTŽ 1990). The terms living language and the language of written works are also used, while in connection with the Saussurean dichotomy, that is, system and usage, the terms language and speech, or language and speaking, are used.

What is a general name for this group of terms? DLKŽ 2000 defines language as—3. “a particular variety of the system for expressing thought: Standard (literary) l. Written, colloquial l. Newspaper l. Poetic l. Verse l. The l. of Maironis, Žemaitė. Living, natural, clear, polished l.” (emphasis mine—R. M.). Thus, lexicographers propose the term variety, incidentally, also for standard (literary) language, which J. Palionis called a type. The examples given show that variety is understood very broadly in DLKŽ. Terminologists in linguistics should define more precisely language type, variety, kind, and certain other generalizing terms. Yet the word language itself inevitably has several terminological meanings: a system for expressing thought verbally (native l.), a variety of that system as mentioned above (poetic l.), a synonym for conversation, that is, a particular genre of spoken language (get into conversation), and a designation for public speaking (delivered a speech).

According to the domains (spheres) of language use, artistic and non-artistic language are distinguished. The latter can be further divided by the same criterion into everyday and domain-specific language, and the latter into scientific and administrative language. The kinds of language designated according to domains of use, together with the language of the media sphere, are called functional styles (Župerka 1997: 78).

The opposition between everyday and domain-specific language deserves separate discussion. It encompasses kinds of language distinguished according to two sets of criteria: privacy and publicity—that is, personal and official communication—as well as the features of generality and specialization. Everyday language, also called colloquial, is opposed to public language. Public and everyday, or colloquial, language, taken together, constitute the previously mentioned spoken language (Ko-

8

ženiauskienė 1999: 42). Taigi terminas sakytinė kalba gali būti suprantamas ir kaip šnekamosios kalbos sinonimas, ir kaip platesnės reikšmės žodis, apibrėpiantis tiek viešą, tiek privačią sakytinę komunikaciją. Skirtumas tik tas, kad šnekamoji kalba gali būti ir užrašyta, o sakytinė tik pasakyta, ištarta. Net ir užrašyta šnekamoji kalba netampa rašytine, nes išlaiko savitą struktūrą ir leksiką (apie loginius ir lingvistinius sakytinės ir rašytinės raiškos skirtumus žr. Nauckūnaitė 2003).

The other member of the opposition between everyday and domain-specific language is domain-specific language. This term is increasingly needed. It subsumes the language of particular fields of science and social life—legal, administrative, and other language. Moreover, it is highly suitable when translating into Lithuanian the very widespread English term, now denoted only by the acronym LSP – Language for Specific Purpose (a literal translation would be language intended for a specific purpose). English also has the opposite of this term, likewise denoted by an acronym: LGP – Language for General Purpose (language intended for a general, or ordinary, purpose). In computational linguistics and other fields, the synonym LSP, sublanguage, has also become established and widespread (translated morpheme by morpheme, it would be subspeech). It denotes any language with a restricted topic, such as the language of weather forecasts, navigators, or telegrams, which should be distinguished from the broader domain-specific language and perhaps called specialized, without confusing it with language for a particular specialty, understood as Lithuanian taught to students in connection with their particular specialty.

The term domain, designating a sphere of language use, has recently begun to be used in Lithuanian linguistics as well. The term is common in research on language attrition, especially in discussions of domain loss, the decline of domains of language use (see Vaicekauskienė 2004: 10 for a fuller discussion). Thus, several terms exist for naming language that is in some way special or specific. Unfortunately, Lithuanian has no term defining all non-specialized or non-domain-specific language. Neither everyday nor, still less, standard language is suitable here; a new term is needed, perhaps general-purpose, general, or ordinary language. The equivalent of Language for General Purpose that has appeared in documents of the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language, language of the general environment, does not fit particularly well alongside language for a particular specialty. Whatever they are called, the opposition between everyday and domain-specific language, formed according to two different—

9

criteria, would be better divided into two oppositions: according to publicity, everyday or private and public language; and according to specificity, general-purpose, general, ordinary, and domain-specific or specialty language. The pair of terms ordinary and domain-specific language would be especially apt.

It might seem that using the long-established names of functional styles (scientific, administrative, media, everyday, artistic) would make similar terms such as administrative or everyday language unnecessary. However, language is not the same as style, as expressions such as the style of lesson language demonstrate (Župerka 1997: 83). Here, language is understood as a particular variety of language, and style as the distinctive character of that language, its particular features. Incidentally, as a term in philology, style denotes two different things: individual, or authorial, style and functional style, understood as “a collective habit of language use in different spheres of communication” (Župerka 1983: 11), and thus a particular variety of language that should not be confused with the style of a specific text. English uses two terms in this context: style and functional style (style and functional style), or more often style and register (style and register). Like functional style, register designates kinds of language use according to content, character, or functions, which in one way or another also determine the form of the language itself (Halliday et al. 1964: 77; Leckie-Tarry 1993: 28). In English, the term register is used to refer to different things—broad fields of activity, such as law, science, and religion. In this sense, register is synonymous with discourse. In another sense, registers are called spoken and written varieties of language, but most often register designates the public–private scale and the kinds of language arrayed along it; compare the widely known registers identified by M. Joos: frozen, formal, informal, colloquial, intimate (Joos 1961), that is, ritual, formal, informal, everyday. The term register has already appeared in works of literary theory translated into Lithuanian, naturally with the meaning of the English term (Hawthorn 1998; PMLS 2000). Linguists have also discussed it in comparison with functional style (Vladarskienė 2000). It is therefore worth considering whether register should be defined and incorporated into the system of Lithuanian linguistic terms to designate divisions along the scale of everyday or private and public language. In other words, register could be established as a term for language varieties in terms of their privacy–publicity or formality–intimacy.

10

3. Names of Communicative Language Units

The term style is used in both categories of terms that designate the diversity of language types, kinds, and varieties. It can be understood both as the style of the entire language and as the style of a particular text. The latter category, that is, terms for communicative language units, is associated with text. It comprises the principal term text, best defined by contrasting it with discourse and language, understood as public spoken language, or as an oration (Koženiauskienė 1999: 42). Another pair of terms is text type and genre. The term pairs text and discourse, and text type and genre need to be described in greater detail, since these widely used terms have not been discussed by linguists, even though they are used in works on text and corpus linguistics, linguistic text and genre analysis, rhetoric, stylistics, and other areas of linguistics. Public speeches have been examined in books on rhetoric (Koženiauskienė 1999; Nauckūnaitė 2000), so this term will not be discussed here.

There are several complementary ways to define terms. One is to draw on the conceptions of various authors who have used them; another, supplementary approach is to consider their actual use in language, especially in specialized contexts. Both approaches will be applied to the aforementioned term pairs, after first checking how the terms are defined in dictionaries and encyclopedias, since these words are not only linguistic terms but also part of everyday vocabulary.

3.1. Review of Reference Works

General-purpose explanatory dictionaries include only some of the words of interest here. DLKŽ 2000 defines text as 1. “a coherent linguistic composition,” 2. “the verbal part, as distinct from drawings, diagrams, etc.,” and 3. “the words of a musical work”; genre is “a unit for classifying works of art according to their structural features.” Two dictionaries of international words describe text similarly, adding several further, specific meanings [the typographic and computer-related meanings of text also given in them (TŽŽ 2001a; TŽŽ 2001b) are not relevant here]. Those dictionaries define genre in the same way as DLKŽ 2000, while discourse is described very abstractly and only as a term in two branches of science

11

term – [French discours – speech, language type, text] 1. linguistics: “an expression of thought about some subject, formed according to a certain system and usually developed at length,” 2. “in semiotics, a linguistic or non-linguistic process having some kind of meaning.” As might be expected, general-purpose dictionaries give not technical meanings but only general meanings, and only some of them, for the terms text, genre, discourse, which do not reflect the substantially changed understanding of the things these words designate.

More might be expected from specialized philological reference works, but here, too, one is disappointed, as the information provided is incomplete. KTŽ 1990 describes only one of the four terms—text. It is “a speech work or segment that forms a sequence of speech sounds or written characters and conveys certain defined content. In terms of scope, a text is unlimited.” LKE 1999 has no entries for genre, discourse, or text type, while text is described from only two perspectives: its written form and coherence, that is, as (a) “a recorded segment of language” and (b) “a set of sentences related in meaning.” Three text types are also listed: narrative, description, and reasoning. By contrast, LLE 2001 and translated handbooks of literary theory define genre and discourse, but not text or text type. Perhaps this is because traditionally the latter terms have been more closely associated with literary studies than with linguistics. Genre is defined here in a traditional and very narrow sense, solely as “a subdivision of the main branches of literature (emphasis mine – R.M.)—lyric poetry, epic, and drama—bringing together groups of works with similar structures.” In Jeremy Hawthorn’s Dictionary of Modern Literary Theory (Hawthorn 1998), genre, although still limited to the traditional meaning of genre as a literary type or subdivision, is given a broader conceptual scope: “genre is both a social and a literary or linguistic category.” The work presents the position of feminist genre scholar Anne Cranny-Francis, which the author finds acceptable: “although her definition of genre is based on textual matters (conventions, formulas, scope), her studies also raise social, historical, and ideological questions” (ibid.). As will be explained later, this conception of genre approaches genre as defined interdisciplinarily.

Discourse, unlike genre, is characterized much more variously in literary encyclopedias. LLE 2001 gives as many as three meanings of discourse

12

meanings: 1. “a conversation or discussion on a philosophical, political, religious, literary, or similar topic; a scholarly work, treatise”; 2. “In linguistics, discourse means any stretch of language larger than a sentence. In this respect, the concepts of discourse and text are often used as synonyms. Discourse is any linguistic activity—a poem, a Bible commentary, a newspaper editorial, or a toast”; 3. “In modern cultural theories, discourse also refers to other, non-verbal forms of expression (a film, advertisement, musical composition, ritual). In an even broader sense, discourse refers to the set of utterances and statements characteristic of any social activity (whether verbal or expressed in another form, such as visual or sign language) (medical, legal, political discourse, etc.).”

Jau minėtame J. Hawthorne Moderniosios literatūros teorijos žinyne (Hawthorn 1998) diskursas pristatomas per atskirų autorių deklaruojamus požiūrius ir iš jų darbų išryškėjusią termino diskursas vartoseną, kuri, beje, ne visada sutampa su tų pačių autorių pateikiamomis apibrėžtimis, kitaip sakant, autoriai ne visada nuosekliai vartoja savaip apibrėžtus terminus. Pastarasis terminų reikšmės suvokimo būdas, kai žiūrima ne tiek apibrėžčių, kiek realios vartosenos, yra artimas žemiau taikomam tekstynų lingvistikos metodui. J. Hawthorno žinyne pabrėžiama paini ir dviprasmiška diskurso vartosena. Lingvistikoje, ypač pragmatikoje, diskursu vadinama vartojama kalba, o ne kalba kaip abstrakti sistema. Anot Michaelo Stubbso, palyginti su tekstu, diskursas implikuoja platesnę sąvokos apimtį, be to, gali implikuoti sąveiką, nors nebūtinai. Cituojama Michaelo Foucault samprata, pagal kurią diskursai – „didelės pranešimų grupės“, taisyklių valdomos kalbos sritys, kurioms būdingos tam tikros „strateginės galimybės“. Tos taisyklės, konvencijos ir sistemos kontroliuoja, kaip, kada, kur ir kas kalbama viename ar kitame diskurse, pavyzdžiui, medicinos. Anot M. Foucault, kiekviena visuomenė tam tikru būdu kontroliuoja, atrenka, organizuoja ir paskirsto diskursų produkciją, o šių diskursus kontroliuojančių procesų tikslas yra saugoti nuo „jėgų ir pavojų“. Šiame leidinyje dar pristatoma E. Benveniste’o, R. Fowlerio ir M. Bachtino diskursui teikiamos prasmės. Dviejų pastarųjų autorių pozicijoms, šalia kitų aspektų, yra būdingas diskurso kaip ideologijos supratimas, pagal kurį diskursas įtvirtina įsitikinimus, vertybes ir kategorijas (Stubbs 2001: 165).

13

To summarize the cited publications, it can be said that text is described in them only according to three features: cohesion, unlimited extent, and verbal expression. DLKŽ 2000 and KTŽ 1990 define verbal expression more broadly—as spoken and written language—while LKE 1999 defines it more narrowly, as written language only. Genre is described rather succinctly, simply as a subdivision of art, or of the branch of art that is literature, with the addition of a somewhat broader, that is, social, rather than exclusively linguistic or literary, aspect of its analysis. Discourse, incidentally, is defined most broadly, and in very similar terms in LLE 2001 and translated reference works. Emphasizing the diverse uses of discourse, the following are identified as things designated by this term: a) discussion, a work implying interaction or dialogism; b) any verbal text, in other words, language used in a specific context, or non-verbal works; c) the set of utterances characteristic of social activity, certain ideologically committed spheres of language.

3.2. Review of linguistic studies

Another way to define the terms denoting varieties of language use would be to review the works of prominent theorists, in which these terms and the concepts they designate are described in detail. It should be said at the outset that the perspectives of reference works and various authors do not necessarily coincide. Moreover, the scope of definitions differs considerably—they range from dictionary definitions in reference works to monographic ones, which seek to describe concepts comprehensively and in detail.

3.2.1. Theoretical conception of text

Text is understood and defined in various ways, with different features or conditions for its emergence being identified. Perhaps the broadest definition of text is given by M. Halliday—as any functional use of language, any instance of real language that performs a particular role in the context of a non-linguistic situation. A text consists not so much of the words and sentences visible on the surface as of the meanings encoded in words and then decoded; text is therefore a semantic unit. What fundamentally distinguishes text from other semantic units of language (a morpheme, word, phrase, or sentence) is not so much its extent as its different structure,

14

its interaction with context, and the particularities of its production and comprehension. In this respect, text is a unique and singular linguistic construct (Halliday, Hasan 1991: 10).

There are various answers to the question of what makes a text a text. First, it must consist of grammatical sentences, but these alone are not enough. There must be a connection between the sentences. Readers must be able to sense and interpret it. Cohesion devices (text-forming devices), that is, words and phrases found in sentences, help create and establish the connections between sentences. But that is not all: in addition to these linguistic elements, non-linguistic factors make a text cohesive, namely, non-linguistic competence related to the subject matter and the content of the text. Thus, according to this conception, a text can be described as a coherent utterance consisting of several sentences (Nunan 1993: 4–5). Teun van Dijk (1998: 39) argues that only sequences of sentences that have a certain macrostructure can be regarded as texts. Here, macrostructure is understood as the thematic and propositional framework encompassing a text and linking linguistic elements into a textual whole.

M. Halliday points to the essential indeterminacy of the concept of text. For him, text is anything that has meaning in a particular situation; he regards text as continuous semantic selection (1978: 136–137). Thus, context and situation are among the conditions that enable the production and comprehension of text. From a social perspective, text is inseparable from context, understood etymologically as texts that go together, although what matters is not only these texts but the entire context of the linguistic and non-linguistic situation. It is precisely context that prompts us to view text in two ways: as a product and as a process, that is, as a closed, autonomous construct or as a construct determined by context. Text as a process is understood in terms of its interactivity and its capacity to make meanings discernible, which is most evident in dialogue. Text can be understood both as a particular object and as an activity determined by a specific situation and environment.

Both text and context are semiotic phenomena, particular ways of conveying meaning; therefore, text can be defined in terms of how it relates to the situational context and how people determine the meanings of text on the basis of that context. It is believed that text and language in general are shaped by their functions and purposes (Halliday, Hasan 1991: 11–12). Tony Bex likewise views text only through the lens of context. According to him, texts cannot be autonomous and independent of contexts; they are always

15

part of linguistic interaction. Even a written text is not merely a product, but part of a process. Text producers select particular linguistic devices under the influence of the situations in which their texts occur, while the addressees of those texts recognize and interpret these linguistic devices (Bex 1996: 51).

M. Stubbs emphasizes the reality, naturalness, and authenticity of text. He defines text as naturally occurring, coherent spoken or written language used in real contexts. Texts are usually longer than a single sentence and have a particular structure. But there are also one-sentence texts (Exit, Painted, Closed for lunch), which are made into texts by their contexts. This means that language as it is actually used is part of social action, and therefore the interaction between language and culture must be studied (Stubbs 2001: 5–6).

The founders of text linguistics define text in a similar, though somewhat more detailed, way (Beaugrande 1981: 1). They describe text as a communicative event that meets several conditions—the seven criteria of textuality. According to their definition, a road sign, a newspaper article, an argument, or a novel are texts that conform to the conventions of particular genres or text types. All the genres listed have specific linguistic features, perform particular functions, and are associated with specific situations of their production and reception. These authors argue that there are internal and external conditions for the creation and reception of textual meaning. Some poems cannot be understood as texts (rather than spelling exercises) without certain circumstances, assumptions, expectations, or an understanding of genre. Thus, we set different requirements for texts belonging to different genres, and it is only on this basis that we understand texts of those genres as texts. These conditions, or criteria for identifying a text, include two kinds of textual cohesion: at the surface, syntactic level (cohesion, microstructure), or at the deeper, semantic level (coherence, macrostructure). Cohesion is associated with intertextuality—the relations between one text and others that can explain a particular text and facilitate its comprehension and interpretation. Another condition of text is intentionality, which encompasses the attitudes and aims of text producers. By this criterion, talking in one’s sleep is not a text, whereas a telephone directory is. The mirror image of intentionality is acceptability, which allows a given linguistic construct to be understood as a text under particular conditions. Acceptability is linked to the conventionality of a text, since unconventional texts may be unacceptable, not understood as texts

16

because they are incomprehensible, incoherent, or otherwise inadequate to the reader. The informativity of a text denotes the amount of new information and the ways in which it is conveyed, as well as the connections between new and old information in the text; its situationality, its interaction with the situation in which the text arises and is understood, determines the text’s transformation into discourse, that is, into text in context. The first criterion, cohesion, is internal; the others are external.

Summarizing these conceptions of text, we can say that the term text denotes a semantic, coherent unit of any length and structure, closely related to the context of verbal or nonverbal communication, natural, serving a particular purpose, and expressed in spoken, written, or even nonverbal language.

3.2.2. Theoretical conception of discourse

When text is understood broadly, in context, it may be designated by another term—discourse. Etymologically, the term discourse derives from the Latin verb discurrere (1. “to run about, disperse”) or from the noun formed from it, discursus (3. “utterance, reasoning”). Thomas Aquinas is said to have been the first to use this term in philosophy, where it meant intellect or thought, as opposed to simple intuition. Discursive meant thinking in concepts. The same opposition can be found in the works of T. Hobbes, G. W. Leibniz, and I. Kant. Over time, discourse came to denote intellectual discussion and later dialogue (Titscher et al. 2000: 20).

Today the term discourse may be used synonymously with text, but it is more often understood somewhat differently and more broadly—as socially oriented language, as text in context. Traditionally, text is more often understood as a written unit of language use (though not necessarily), whereas discourse encompasses both spoken and written language varieties. In both cases, the coherence and semantic character of text or discourse are emphasized. David Nunan defines text as a communicative event, whether spoken or written, and discourse as the interpretation of that communicative event in context (Nunan 1993: 6). M. Foucault characterizes the relationship between discourse and text, respectively, as the relationship between a system and its particular expression or instance, the social and the individual, and macrostructures and microstructures (see Stubbs 2001: 230).

17

T. Bex understands discourse somewhat more abstractly—as meaning that extends beyond individual texts or groups of texts and encompasses social behavior, since the meaning of discourse lies beyond language, in the society that uses it. Thus, meaning is a matter of agreement: it is not encoded in language alone, but is also created and tested by people communicating at any given moment (Bex 1996: 51). Similarly, T. van Dijk defines discourse not only as text in context, but also as social action (2001: 17–21).

Norman Fairclough identifies several conceptions of discourse: spoken dialogue contrasted with written texts; spoken or written language; the situational context of language use; the interaction between a reader or writer and a text; and even a style or genre, for example, media discourse (thanks to this author, the term media discourse became established and widespread in English). He himself maintains that discourse—language used in writing and speech, understood as a form of social practice—emphasizes the dialectical relationship between an individual communicative event and the situation, institution, and social structure that frame it. Thus, discourse is a socially determined phenomenon that involves situations, individuals with social identities, and the relationships between them or their groups. Discourse can not only reflect but also create reality, have an ideological impact, and legitimize positions of power and social inequality (Fairclough 1992: 3).

Clearly, discourse is understood as action, as an integral part of social life. The term discourse is generally used to refer to social activity through which we create meanings from linguistic and other semiotic resources (nonverbal gestures, voice modulation, etc.). This term, associated with its former meaning of “utterance,” emphasizes interaction and interpretation. Discourse encompasses participants, the types of situations in which texts are used, and the social systems and structures on which the creation and perception of a text are based. It denotes characteristic ways of speaking and writing, of language and text, associated with social activity (Titscher et al. 2000: 20).

3.2.3. Text and discourse

Having emerged later than text and evolved considerably, the term discourse is best defined only by comparison with text. Discourse is ex-

18

pressed in much more abstract and broader terms, with emphasis on its dialogical and interactive nature and its connections with society. The two terms, text and discourse, which previously referred to different things—written and spoken communication—are now sometimes used synonymously. The shift in the use of these terms in English was influenced by the established view that a text becomes a text not when its author writes it, but when a reader understands it. This interactive conception of textual meaning, jointly created by writer and reader, brought text much closer to discourse, understood as a kind of dialogue. Some discourse analysts argue that the differences between the meanings of these terms have almost disappeared (Widdowson 1995: 161). Others discern new differences in meaning (Garret, Bell 1998: 3).

The term text was initially used most often to name records of discourse processes, which encompass communicative events but are not limited to them. Text embodies all lower levels of language and other resources of meaning, such as genre conventions and genre expectations, as well as other expectations of the discourse community concerning the forms and functions of particular types of discourse. A text has a particular structure that enables it to be perceived as a whole. Understanding who says what to whom and under what circumstances makes it possible to connect the text with its social context and perceive it as a whole. Discourse is also used to refer to the customary language of a particular kind or field, cf.: academic, political discourse. In this sense, individual texts are merely concrete expressions of widespread discourse patterns and thus interact as the general and the particular (Stillar 1998: 147).

Nevertheless, the terms text and discourse are understood differently. This difference is also emphasized by the distinctions between the disciplines associated with them, namely text linguistics and discourse analysis. Traditional text linguistics is based on texts’ internal, linguistic features, whereas discourse analysis focuses on their external, social and cultural features. Linguistic text analysis encompasses the syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic levels, while many sociological methods are concerned with only one of these levels. The most recent work across various academic fields places greatest emphasis on the functional aspects of text and discourse; all of it shares the search for regularities, systematic repetitions, and patterns (for more on text functions and genres, see Marcinkevičienė 2004).

19

The two terms discussed, where they may be used synonymously, compete with one another, and one term overshadows the other. Linguists more often choose to use text, while philosophers, sociologists, and literary scholars prefer discourse. Glenn Stillar, for instance, prefers the term text to emphasize its concreteness and materiality, and its significance as a specific manifestation of discourse. In general, however, the concepts of text and discourse complement one another, since we perceive discourse as a whole through its concrete textual expression. The object of discourse analysis, meanwhile, is text that reflects social activity and social relations, that is, certain manifestations of discourse.

Summarizing the various approaches to discourse, we can say that it is associated with context, social behavior, a specific language-use situation, and the features of language use determined by that situation. Thus, discourse is understood much like text in its context of use, except that in the case of discourse, context extends much further, encompassing social phenomena; discourse is therefore a social phenomenon shaped by society.

3.2.4. Genre descriptions

The system of meanings and usage patterns of the term genre has been discussed in greater detail elsewhere (see Marcinkevičienė 2004), so here only the essential points will be briefly summarized. First, it should be noted that the term genre is used much more broadly today: it refers not only to genres of works of art, but also to genres of any text, such as a complaint, or any media outlet. In an even broader sense, any social actions can be classified into genres; cf. lesson, event genre. This more abstract usage is also reflected in the directions taken by genre research. Genre theory, which originated in literary studies, is now spreading into quite different fields. Over the past few decades, the genres of nonfiction, especially of the press, have been analyzed more extensively, and much has been written about films and new Internet genres—hypertext, email messages, and discussions.

Another distinctive feature of the genre concept is the effort to bring together patterns of language and patterns of human activity. In other words, the new concept of genre encompasses types of discourse analyzed in the social—

20

nėje ir kultūrinėje kalbos vartojimo plotmėje (Freedman 1994a: 3). Štai Guntheris Kressas teigia, kad įprastinės bendravimo formos lemia konvencines tekstų formas, t. y. tam tikrus specifinius žanrus. Žanrai turi savo formą ir reikšmę, atsiradusią dėl tuo žanru koduojamų socialinių bendravimo formų tikslų, funkcijų ir reikšmių. Todėl žanrai atspindi būdingiausias bet kurios bendruomenės socialines progas ir bendravimo formas (Kress 1989: 19). Žanro analizė turi būti siejama su konvencijų tyrimais.

The interaction between society and the genres popular within it can be seen in the fact that changes in society’s life give rise to new genres, and, conversely, new genres accelerate the development of society. For this reason, contemporary genre studies are grounded in the new rhetoric—the study of how rhetorical goals of communication are achieved through the use of various genres. The meaning of a genre is not simply the content of texts belonging to that genre; it also lies in its function. A genre is usually part of a ceremony or social action; that ceremony imposes certain constraints, which form the basis of the genre’s distinctiveness (Freedman 1994b: 59–60).

Genre is more closely associated with communication than text or discourse, and is even described as a social action. Although genres are recognized and defined on the basis of similarities in discourse form and other features (audience, mode of thought, situations), genre is determined not by the form or content of discourse, but by the rhetorical action it is intended to perform. Thus, genre represents a typical rhetorical action (Miller 1994a: 23–24). Reflecting certain patterns and models of language use, genre is an essential substance of our cultural life. Culture can therefore be characterized by the set of genres prevalent within it, while genre itself can be regarded as a specific and highly significant part of social life, an aspect of its communicative structure, and a particular structure of institutional power (Miller 1994b: 68–71). The more complex and diverse a society is, the more genres it has and the more varied its generic repertoire (Miller 1994a: 36). The same applies to individuals. The conception of genre as social action determines the relationship of genre to text, context, and discourse. The meaning of a text, its interpretation, is determined not only by the discourse to which it belongs, but also by its specific genre. Both are socially determined: discourse is shaped by the institutions that produce it—for example, media by journalism—while genre is shaped by customary communicative situations in which it arises.

21

Both genre and discourse have a specific, socially determined meaning; texts are therefore doubly determined by the type of discourse and the constraints of a particular genre. Both discourses and genres arise from the structure of a particular society and the various processes taking place within it; genres are conventional companions to social occasions through which social life unfolds. Discourse determines what is said, while genre determines how it is done, in accordance with forms dictated by the context. Although both discourse and genre determine the linguistic expression of a text, they are different things. For example, religious discourse may take various genres depending on the situation and audience; compare a priest’s sermon with a religious education textbook for fifth-graders. These two sources of textual meaning and form have much in common. First, both are social and cultural in nature; second, individual social institutions that generate a particular discourse have more or less stable repertoires of genres. Some discourses are incompatible with certain genres (cf. Kress 1989: 20–29). In any case, genre is a term of narrower semantic scope than text or discourse, since these are characterized by their genres, and not vice versa.

Thus, the concept of genre, like that of text and discourse, has broadened to encompass more phenomena of social context than before. The understanding of genre has changed the most in this respect, since genre has come to mean not only the conventions associated with types of works of art, but also all kinds of communication shaped by the communicative goals characteristic of each type. Broadly understood, genre denotes typical social actions and cultural-ideological phenomena.

3.2.5. Genre and text type

Many researchers describe the relationship between text type and genre in very similar terms. They argue that differences between texts are understood as features of different text types or discourses. The internal differences between texts (in terms of their structure and content) are called text or discourse types, while genres or registers are understood as externally defined classes of texts (Östman, Virtanen 1995: 246–247). Thus, the distinction between text types and genres corresponds to the internal and external features of texts. Internal features are linguistic (formal or semantic), while external features are communicative.

22

purpose and topic. However, it is difficult to maintain such a consistent distinction between types of features, and internal and external features often occur together (Pilergaard, Frandsen 1996: 2–3).

According to writing purposes or text functions, rhetorical text types have traditionally been distinguished. Their number and variety depend on how broadly the purposes are defined. Most often, 3–5 pure rhetorical text types are distinguished: description (description), narration (narration), exposition (exposition), and argumentation (argument). Other authors also add exhortation (hortatory type) and instruction (instruction). A three-part classification of text types has become established in the works of Lithuanian authors: description, narration, reasoning or argumentation (Koženiauskienė 1999: 155–178; Sirtautas, Grenda 1988: 185).

Text types also differ from genres in that no universally accepted classification of text types yet exists; consequently, the various text types identified by different authors should be regarded as provisional rather than definitive. Genres, by contrast, are classifications of texts recognized within a particular linguistic community. Another distinction between text type and genre is that text types can often be identified in individual parts or fragments of a text, whereas genre is a property of the text as a whole (Pilergaard, Frandsen 1996: 3). Genres and text types interact in various ways; that is, genres do not correspond one-to-one with text types: texts belonging to a single genre can consist of different types, and a single text type can be used in various genres—for example, narration occurs in fairy tales, news items, diaries, and descriptions of scientific experiments. Conversely, a diary includes not only narration but also other text types (Östman, Virtanen 1995: 246–247; Lee 2001: 41; Vestergaard 2000: 151–175).

3.3. Use of text, genre, and discourse in the corpus

Having reviewed the definitions of text and discourse offered by various authors, we can examine how these words are used in language and determine whether, and to what extent, theoretical postulates are reflected in actual usage. In other words, it is necessary to check whether the terms are defined in one way but in practice used differently. The best way to check how these words are used is to examine a corpus. However, this presents certain methodological problems. One of them arises from differences between languages.

23

Although text and discourse are international words, their usage may differ across languages; compare the analysis of the use of the international word apathy in English and Lithuanian (Marcinkevičienė 2002: 81–93). Definitions of these terms have been discussed in works by English-speaking authors, while Lithuanian-language corpora are used to analyze their usage.

Another problem is that investigating the use of these terms would require a specialized corpus of works on text linguistics and discourse analysis, in which the words under study are used as terms. The Lithuanian-language corpus is general in nature, so the usage of terms acceptable and characteristic of individual authors, and their understanding of the concepts they denote, may not always coincide with usage more broadly. However, it is not possible to compile a specialized corpus of Lithuanian-language linguistics, since the aforementioned branches of linguistics are entirely new in Lithuania. Even in the face of these problems, it is worth examining the usage of the words in question, in the expectation that (a) language-dependent differences in their usage are not very pronounced and (b) certain features of term usage may emerge even from a general-purpose corpus.

When the corpus is examined, the first thing that stands out is the uneven frequency of their use. Text is used much more frequently and in a wider range of contexts: 14,412 times in the singular and 10,902 times in the plural, compared with 1,467 and 238 occurrences, respectively, for discourse. Moreover, use of discourse is confined to specialized philosophical, literary-studies, and cultural-studies texts, from which the Lithuanian understanding of discourse emerges. In the broad sense, discourse is understood as language or speech with certain features, or as a mode of speech (e.g., discourse connecting the institutions of society, contemporary discourses saturated with arguments, institutions and discourses, manifesting itself in various discourses, within the framework of an imposed Marxist philosophical discourse), encompassing the texts of individual authors and the totality of their work (e.g., Hegel’s discourses on religion, determines the rhetoric of Nyka’s discourse, the author wove together a persuasive rhetorical discourse, we can discern two sources of Beauvoir’s discourse).

In the narrower sense, discourse denotes areas of particular fields of social activity or academic disciplines (social, scientific, political, philosophical, contemporary social discourse, the discourse of art specialists, the language of administrative discourses, the development of criticism of neoromantic discourse) or verbal communication with certain characteristics (deconstructive, inte

24

intellectual, critical, moral, erotic, official, totalitarian, interdisciplinary, ideological, contemporary scientific discourse, between speculative and poetic discourse, the rules of postmodern discourse do not allow).

Some contexts bring out a public, discursive nature of discourse (cf.: there has been no serious discourse on new music for eight years, a striking example of the latter discourse is the discussion, proved incapable of controlling all the events of discourse, Lithuanian “public intellectual discourse,” in public discourse we find only a cynical (and sometimes naïve) expression of male arrogance), as well as synonymous possibilities for using discourse and text, that is, contexts in which discourse can be replaced by text without major changes in meaning (this discourse speaks about reality, from phrase to discourse: to a poem, a philosophical essay, so I will try to discipline my discourse, metaphorization permeates every discourse: everyday, scientific, poetic, philosophical, etc.).

In other words, the use of discourse in a general-purpose corpus confirms its indicated meanings: (a) language in use, any verbal text; (b) a particular field of language; (c) interactive, discursive communication.

The situation is somewhat different in the case of text. Its usage, judging by the most frequent fixed word combinations, is more consistent. The most frequent epithets indicate a verbal, especially written, form of text (verbal, written, readable text), the language in which it is written (Lithuanian text, original text, text in English, Russian), its genre, character, or a specific work (text of a song, book, resolution, statement, oath, announcement, one’s speech; liturgical, old, professional, religious, literary, artistic, biblical texts). Other frequent phrases include: text analysis and interpretation, text structure, it is stated in the text, and further as in the text, in the text in place of words.

Thus, non-terminological use of text does not attest to some elements of the concept of text attributed to it by theorists, for example, that text can be spoken or even non-verbal. In actual Lithuanian usage, the traditional notion of written text prevails.

Similarly, genre, although defined quite broadly, is most often used in the corpus in its conventional sense, that is, to describe particular classes of works of art. The most frequent fixed word combinations are: genre of literature, operetta, novel, poetry, prose; genre and style, text and genre, a work of the genre, type or genre, theme and genre, various

25

genres and content, various, different genres. Other examples of usage show that genre is used to refer to (a) works of art, most often texts, and (b) media genres or events in general:

a) coefficients are proposed according to book genres: books for children and young people; to use examples of texts of various styles, types, and genres; this is the first Calvinist publication in Lithuanian in the genre of sermons; this will be an entirely new genre in Lithuania—an absurdist opera; light in genre, not rooted in pop; ceremonial speeches of a festive nature in a particular genre; ventures into the genre of magical realism;

b) the genre of the program itself requires it; the least popular genre is journalism and essay writing; this is determined by the genre and character of these events; does not shy away from journalistic writing, writes essays; to try out new television genres as well.

As the examples show, genre is often used imprecisely and synonymously with style (journalistic genre), a literary movement (genre of realism), and also to name spoken works. The frequent use of genre alongside other nouns denoting type (types, kinds, styles), without specifying finer subdivisions of each type, likewise indicates a meaning broader than that of a genre of artistic work alone. Thus, of all four terms analyzed, the actual use of this noun diverges most from the traditional meaning given in dictionaries and reference works, and comes closest to the broad definition of genre offered by theorists. Incidentally, genre is used much less frequently than text in the corpus, but more often than discourse: it occurs 2,041 times in the singular and half as often in the plural—1,027 times. The term text type was not found in the corpus.

4. Conclusions

1. This paper reviews several pairs of terms denoting language systems and the umbrella terms that summarize them:

a) l a n g u a g e t y p e s: the standard, or literary, language and dialects (geographical and social or professional);

b) l a n g u a g e v a r i e t i e s: language and speech, or speaking; spoken and written, or bookish, language; spoken and written language; living language and the language of written texts;

c) l a n g u a g e k i n d s according to its domains of use: literary and non-literary

26

language, comprising everyday and specialized language, the latter including scientific and administrative language;

specialized language (language for a particular profession, specialized language, language domain, or field) and general, general-purpose language; public and private language;

d) functional styles: scientific, administrative, journalistic, everyday, literary.

2. A comparison of the definitions of these linguistic terms across various sources revealed several problems. It is unclear which umbrella term—variety, type, or kind—should be used for the terms denoting the full functional and structural diversity of language. Moreover, the term language type should be defined more precisely, in light of trends in its use, and a term should be chosen for specialized language, language for a particular profession, specialized language, or language domain or field, as opposed to general-purpose, general, or ordinary language; perhaps the loanword register should be adopted to denote the various levels of public and private language.

3. Pairs of terms related to the most important communicative unit of language—the text—are discussed in greater detail:

e) text and discourse;

f) text type and genre.

They were analyzed using three sources: definitions of these terms in general and specialized philological reference works—dictionaries, handbooks, and encyclopedias; descriptions of the concepts designated by these terms in works on text linguistics, discourse analysis, and communication theory; and the use of these words in a general corpus.

4. It emerged that text and genre should be defined more broadly, so that the definitions of these terms reflect not only the theoretical understanding of the concepts they denote but also their changed actual use in language. Discourse and text type should be defined on the basis of the latest works in text linguistics and discourse analysis and incorporated into linguistic terminology.

5. This article sought to discuss systematically problems concerning certain linguistic terms, with the aim of encouraging discussion and proposals on the issues under consideration.

27

LITERATŪRA

Beaugrande de R. 1981: Introduction to text linguistics. New York–Amsterdam.

Bex T. 1996: Variety of written English: texts in society: societies in text, London and New York.

DLKŽ 2000: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas, Vilnius.

Fairclough N. 1992: Discourse and Social Change, Cambridge.

Freedman A. 1994a: Locating Genre Studies: Antecedents and Prospects. – Genre and the New Rhetoric. Ed. by A. Freedman and P. Medway, London, 3–20.

Freedman A. 1994b: Anyone for Tennis? – Genre and the New Rhetoric. Ed. by A. Freedman and P. Medway, London, 43–66.

Garret P., Bell A. 1998: Media Discourse: A Critical Overview. – Approaches to Media Discourse. Ed. by A. Bell and P. Garret, Malden, USA and Oxford, UK, 2–20.

Halliday M. A. K. 1978: Language as Social Semiotic, London.

Halliday M. A. K., Hasan R. 1991: Language, Context, and Text Aspects of Language in a Social-semiotic Perspective, Oxford.

Halliday M. A. K. ir kt. 1964: Halliday M. A. K., Macintosh A., Strevens D. D. The Linguistic Sciences and Language Teaching, London.

Hawthorn J. 1998: Moderniosios literatūros teorijos žinynas, Vilnius.

Joos M. 1961: The Five Clocks, Bloomington.

Koženiauskienė R. 1999: Retorika: iškalbos stilistika, Vilnius.

Kress G. 1989: Linguistic Processes in Sociocultural Practice, Oxford.

KTŽ 1990: Gaivenis K., Keinys S. Kalbotyros terminų žodynas, Kaunas.

Leckie-Tarry H. 1993: The specification of a text: register, genre and language teaching. – Register Analysis: Theory and Practice. Ed. by M. Ghadessy, London and New York, 26–42.

Lee D. YW. 2001: Genres, Registers, Text Types, Domains, and Styles: Claryfying the Concepts and Navigating a Path Through the BNC Jungle. – Language Learning and Technology 5/3, 37–72.

LKE 1999: Lietuvių kalbos enciklopedija, Vilnius.

LLE 2001: Lietuvių literatūros enciklopedija, Vilnius.

Marcinkevičienė R. 2002: Polygaminieji tekstynai – šalinis tarptautinių žodžių vartosenai tirti. – Kalbotyra 51 (3), 81–93.

Marcinkevičienė R. 2004: Spaudos žanrų tipologija (Vakarietiškoji patirtis). – Darbai ir dienos 38, 191–234.

Miller C. R. 1994a: Genre as a Social Action. – Genre and the New Rhetoric. Ed. by A. Freedman and P. Medway, London, 23–42.

Miller C. R. 1994b: Rhetorical Community: The Cultural Basis of Genre. – Genre and the New Rhetoric. Ed. by A. Freedman and P. Medway, London, 67–78.

Nauckūnaitė Z. 2000: Iškalbos mokymas, Kaunas.

Nauckūnaitė Z. 2003: Loginiai ir lingvistiniai sakytinės ir rašytinės kalbos skirtumai. – Žmogus ir žodis 1/5, 78–83.

Nunan D. 1993: Introducing Discourse Analysis, London.

28

Östman J.-O., Virtanen T. 1995: Discourse Analysis. – Handbook of Pragmatics (Manual). Ed. by J. Verschueren, J.-O. Östman, J. Blommaert, Ch. Bulcaen, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 239–253.

Palionis J. 1985: Kalbos mokslo pradmenys, Vilnius.

Pilergaard M., Frandsen F. 1996: Text Type. – Handbook of Pragmatics (Manual). Ed. by J. Verschueren, J.-O. Östman, J. Blommaert, Ch. Bulcaen, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1–13.

PMLS 2000: Pagrindinės moderniosios literatūrologijos sąvokos, Vilnius.

Sirtautas V., Grenda Č. 1988: Lietuvių kalbos sintaksė, Vilnius.

Stillar G. 1998: Analyzing Everyday Texts. Discourse, Rhetoric, and Social Perspectives, London.

Stubbs M. 1993: British Traditions in Analysis. From Firth to Sinclair. – Text and technology. In Honour of John Sinclair. Ed. by M. Baker, G. Francis and E. Tognini-Bonelli, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1–33.

Stubbs M. 2001: Words and Phrases. Corpus Studies of Lexical Semantics, Malden, USA and Oxford, UK.

Titscher S. ir kt. 2000: Titscher S., Meyer M., Wodak R., Vetter E. Methods of Text and Discourse Analysis, London.

Tolson A. 1996: Mediations. Text and Discourse in Media Studies, London.

TŽŽ 2001a: Vaitkevičiūtė V. Tarptautinių žodžių žodynas, Vilnius.

TŽŽ 2001b: Tarptautinių žodžių žodynas. Ats. red. A. Kinderys, Vilnius.

Vaičekauskienė L. 2004: Naujųjų lietuvių kalbos svetimžodžių norminimo teorija ir praktika. Daktaro disertacija, Vilnius.

van Dijk T. A. 1998: Opinion and Ideologies in the Press. – Approaches to Media Discourse. Ed. by A. Bell and P. Garret, Malden, USA and Oxford, UK, 23–63.

van Dijk T. A. 2001: Discourse, Ideology and Context. – Folia Linguistica 35/1–2, Berlin, 11–40.

Vestergaard T. 2000: From Genre to Sentence: the Leading Article and its Linguistic Realization. – English Media Texts – Past and Present. Language and textual structure. Ed. by F. Ungerer, Amsterdam / Philadelphia, 151–175.

Widdowson H. 1995: Discourse Analysis. A Critical View. – Language and Literature 4.3.

Vladarskienė R. 2000: Apie funkcinius stilius ir registrus. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 42, 132–140.

Župerka K. 1983: Lietuvių kalbos stilistika, Vilnius.

Župerka K. 1997: Stilistika, Šiauliai.

SOME PROBLEMS OF language AND text RELATED TERMS

Summary

The paper deals with two groups of Lithuanian linguistic terms. One group consists of the terms referring to different types and sorts of language as a system, e.g.

29

literary, standard language, language and speech, written and spoken, public and private language, functional styles, etc. Another group comprises the names of the communicative units of language, i.e. text, discourse, text type, and genre. The first group is merely overviewed pointing out the need to have more consistent generic names, and some equivalents for widely spread linguistic terms in English, such as language for general purpose vs language for specific purpose, and register. The second group of terms is analysed using three different sources: dictionaries and encyclopedias, theoretical papers, and the Corpus of Contemporary Lithuanian Language. Analysis of different sources revealed the discrepancy between the theoretical approaches to the notions mentioned above, definitions of the terms in general and specific dictionaries, and their usage in the general corpus. It was suggested to widen the definition of the terms text and genre in order to make them compatible with the most recent theoretical approaches as well as everyday usage. The other two terms discourse and text type were suggested to be included in the list of linguistic terms and defined.

Rūta MARCINKEVIČIENĖ

Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas

Donelaičio g. 58, LT-44248 Kaunas

E. paštas [email protected]

Gauta 2004-09-09

30