Coreference in English and German : A Theoretical Framework and Its Application in a Study of Court Decisions [1 ed.] 9783832593094, 9783832543396

Citation preview

Sanna Engell

Coreference in English and German A Theoretical Framework and its Application in a Study of Court Decisions

λογος

Sanna Engell

Coreference in English and German A Theoretical Framework and its Application in a Study of Court Decisions

Zugl.: Bonn, Univ., Diss., 2015

Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet u ¨ber http://dnb.d-nb.de abrufbar.

c

Copyright Logos Verlag Berlin GmbH 2017 Alle Rechte vorbehalten. ISBN 978-3-8325-4339-6

Logos Verlag Berlin GmbH Comeniushof, Gubener Str. 47, 10243 Berlin Tel.: +49 (0)30 42 85 10 90 Fax: +49 (0)30 42 85 10 92 INTERNET: http://www.logos-verlag.de

For my parents

Acknowledgements This book would not have been written without the support of many people. First of all, I would like to thank my thesis supervisor, Professor Dr. Jürgen Esser. The present study has benefited greatly from his feedback, suggestions and advice. He introduced me to many fascinating research areas of linguistics and provided an excellent research environment. I would also like to thank Professor Dr. Klaus P. Schneider, second supervisor of my thesis, for valuable suggestions and comments on the text. Furthermore, I would like to express my thanks to Professor Dr. Rolf Kreyer and my fellow doctoral candidates, Vera Benninghoven, Laura Göttmann, Sebastian Patt, Julia Sosnizka and Sharmila Vaz. We had many insightful discussions and it has been very interesting and helpful to exchange ideas and read each other’s theses. Any remaining infelicities in this book are, of course, my responsibility alone. A big thank you goes to my parents, who have supported me through my entire life. I dedicate this book to them. Finally, I thank my sisters and my friends for their interest and encouragement and for being there for me.

Table of contents 1 Introduction...........................................................................................1 2 The concept of coreference ..................................................................7 2.1 A definition of reference .................................................................7 2.2 Types of reference .........................................................................13 2.3 A definition of coreference............................................................17 2.4 Types of coreference .....................................................................20 2.5 Syntactic categories in nominal coreference chains......................29 3 Coreference chain elements in English and German: devices and functions..........................................................................33 3.1 Devices for anaphoric coreference ................................................33 3.1.1 Main devices for anaphoric coreference .............................33 3.1.1.1 Pronouns.................................................................33 3.1.1.2 Determiners............................................................39 3.1.1.3 Full noun phrases ...................................................40 3.1.2 Supplementing devices for anaphoric coreference .............52 3.2 Main devices for cataphoric coreference ......................................58 3.2.1 Pronouns..............................................................................58 3.2.2 Possessive determiners........................................................62 3.2.3 Full noun phrases ................................................................62 3.3 Devices for non-directional coreference .......................................66 3.3.1 Main devices........................................................................66 3.3.1.1 Pronouns.................................................................66 3.3.1.2 Full noun phrases ...................................................66 3.3.2 Supplementing devices........................................................77 3.4 Functions of coreference chain elements in English and German ..........................................................................................81 3.4.1 Functions of anaphoric and non-directional chain elements...............................................................................81 3.4.1.1 Level 1: creation of coreference ............................81

viii

Table of contents

3.4.1.2 Level 2: reduction, clarity of reference and specification ...........................................................84 3.4.1.3 Level 3: stylistic variation, evaluation and emphasis.................................................................90 3.4.2 Functions of cataphoric chain elements ..............................94 3.4.2.1 Level 1: creation of coreference ............................94 3.4.2.2 Level 2: textual organization and creation of suspense .................................................................96 3.5 Factors influencing the choice of coreferential devices................99 3.5.1 Language-specific features..................................................99 3.5.2 Accessibility of the referent ..............................................103 3.5.3 Genre or sub-genre of the text...........................................109 3.5.4 Stylistic preferences of the text producer..........................115 4 Related fields of research .................................................................117 4.1 Contrastive linguistics .................................................................117 4.1.1 Overview ...........................................................................117 4.1.2 Particularly relevant studies ..............................................119 4.2 Language and law........................................................................121 4.2.1 Overview ...........................................................................121 4.2.2 Particularly relevant studies ..............................................124 5 The Appellate Committee of the House of Lords and the Bundesgerichtshof in the legal systems of the United Kingdom and Germany.....................................................................................131 5.1 Legal traditions: common law and civil law ...............................131 5.2 The Appellate Committee of the House of Lords and the Bundesgerichtshof .......................................................................136 6 Methodology of the study of coreference in the court decisions .............................................................................................145 6.1 Compilation of the corpus ...........................................................145 6.2 Steps in the analysis of the court decisions .................................154 6.2.1 Identifying coreference chains ..........................................154

Table of contents 6.2.2 6.2.3 6.2.4 6.2.5 6.2.6

ix

Types of coreference .........................................................161 Syntactic categories of the chain elements .......................165 Devices for coreference.....................................................165 Functions of the coreference chain elements ....................171 Factors influencing the choice of coreferential devices....172

7 Results and discussion ......................................................................177 7.1 Frequencies and lengths of coreference chains ...........................177 7.2 Types of coreference ...................................................................185 7.3 Syntactic categories of the chain elements..................................191 7.4 Devices for coreference ...............................................................196 7.4.1 Devices for anaphoric coreference....................................196 7.4.1.1 Main anaphoric devices .......................................196 7.4.1.2 Supplementing anaphoric devices .......................205 7.4.2 Main devices for cataphoric coreference ..........................208 7.4.3 Devices for non-directional coreference ...........................215 7.4.3.1 Main non-directional devices...............................215 7.4.3.2 Supplementing non-directional devices...............220 7.5 Functions of the coreference chain elements ..............................225 7.5.1 Functions of the anaphoric chain elements .......................225 7.5.2 Functions of the cataphoric chain elements ......................232 7.5.3 Functions of the non-directional chain elements ..............236 7.6 Factors influencing the choice of coreferential devices..............241 7.6.1 Language-specific features................................................241 7.6.2 Accessibility of the referent ..............................................245 7.6.3 Genre or sub-genre of the texts .........................................249 7.6.4 Stylistic preferences of the text producer..........................253 8 Summary and conclusions ...............................................................255 References..............................................................................................269

1 Introduction Establishing coreference is one of the most important means to connect linguistic items with other linguistic items in the same text (cf. Brinker 2010: 37; Kunz 2010: 1). Coreference can be found very frequently in most texts and coreference chains often extend across long passages of a text or sometimes across an entire text (cf. Kunz 2010: 1). Studying coreference is essential for investigating how texts are produced and understood. Therefore, coreference has frequently been a research topic in textlinguistics and is also studied in other branches of linguistics, such as computational linguistics or psycholinguistics (cf. e.g. Halliday/Hasan 1976: 3, chapters 2 and 6; de Beaugrande/Dressler 1981: 54-66; van Deemter/Kibble 2000; Schmitt 2003; Brinker 2010: 26-44; Stede 2012: chapter 3; Warren 2013: 203f.). The findings of linguistic studies of coreference can be applied, for example, in machine translation or text summarization (cf. e.g. Leass/Schwall 1991; Azzam et al. 1999). The present study is a textlinguistic study of coreference. In this study, coreference is understood as the relation between two or more linguistic items in a text which refer to the same referent in the extralinguistic world (cf. e.g. Halliday/Hasan 1976: 3; Esser 2009: 34f.; Brinker 2010: 26). The following example illustrates this. It is taken from a short story by Hemingway and is provided by Schubert (2012: 34). (1) Nick was hungry. He did not believe he had ever been hungrier. (Hemingway 1980: 459) In the above example, Nick, He and he refer to the same referent in the extralinguistic world, namely to the person Nick. The three linguistic items are thus in a relation of coreference and are considered as elements of a ‘coreference chain’ (cf. Halliday/Hasan 1989: 84, who use the term ‘identity chain’, and Biber et al. 1999: 234; Azzam et al. 2000: 77; Kunz 2010: 1, 10). While there are several studies of aspects of coreference in English or in German, there exist so far only few contrastive studies of coreference

2

Chapter 1

in these two languages (for a notable exception cf. Kunz 2010). The present study intends to contribute to closing this gap by providing an indepth study of coreference in English and German in general and in English and German court decisions in particular. The study aims to answer the following research questions. First, it examines which linguistic devices can be used to establish coreference in English and in German. Second, it investigates which functions the elements of coreference chains fulfil in the two languages. Third, it analyzes which factors influence the choice of devices for coreference in English and German. In order to answer these research questions, the present study combines a theoretical part and an empirical part. The theoretical part presents a new framework of the linguistic devices for coreference in English and German, their functions and the factors which influence their use. This framework is then put to the test in a study of a 34,000 word corpus of British and German court decisions. One of the reasons for choosing the sub-genre of court decisions1 for the corpus study was that the linguistic features of court decisions have been shown to be relatively strongly influenced by the legal system(s) and the legal culture(s) of their country of origin (cf. Wetter 1960: 32f.; Lashöfer 1992: 2, 34-41, 73-80, 119-126). It was therefore assumed to be particularly interesting to study how these genre-related extralinguistic factors may influence the choice of devices for coreference in court decisions. The theoretical part of the present study begins with chapter 2. Since ‘reference’ and ‘coreference’ are two related concepts, section 2.1 provides a definition of the concept of reference. The next section 2.2 distinguishes different types of reference, such as ‘generic’, ‘non-specific’ and ‘specific’ reference. Section 2.3 contains a detailed definition of coreference. The following section 2.4 discusses different types of coreference. Two types of coreference have already been firmly established in the linguistic literature: ‘anaphoric’ and ‘cataphoric’ coreference (cf. e.g. Halli1

In the present study, court decisions are considered as a sub-genre of the genre ‘legal texts’ (cf. section 3.5.3).

Introduction

3

day/Hasan 1976: 14, 17; Biber et al. 1999: 234, 348; Esser 2009: 35, 49f.). In addition to these two types of coreference, the present study suggests a third type of coreference, which is called ‘non-directional coreference’ (for brief remarks on concepts related to non-directional coreference cf. Martin 1992: 145f.; van Deemter/Kibble 2000: 629f.). Section 2.5 then explains which syntactic categories can be part of coreference chains in English and German. Next, sections 3.1 to 3.3 present the different linguistic devices which can establish anaphoric, cataphoric and non-directional coreference in English and German. Based on previous research (cf. e.g. Halliday/Hasan 1976: 37f., 278; Hoey 1991: 53, 70; Brinker 2010: 26-29, 39), the present study develops its own comprehensive framework of devices for coreference in English and German. Section 3.4 then explains the different functions of elements of coreference chains in English and German, for example the functions ‘reduction’ or ‘specification’. The present study suggests a new framework of functions, based on previous research (cf. e.g. de Beaugrande/Dressler 1981: 60f.; Linke/Nussbaumer 2000: 312314; Esser 2009: 50, 123f.; Schubert 2012: 32f.). The final section of chapter 3, section 3.5, explains which factors can influence the choice of devices for coreference in an English or German text. Four factors are distinguished: language-specific features, the accessibility of the referent, the genre or sub-genre of the text and the stylistic preferences of the text producer (cf. e.g. Ariel 1988: 84; Biber et al. 1999: 237f.; Swanson 2003: 183f.; Kunz 2010: 19, 22). After the detailed theoretical discussion of coreference in English and German in chapters 2 and 3, chapter 4 provides an overview of further fields of research which are related to the present study. Since the present study compares how coreference is established in English and German, section 4.1 gives an overview of the research field ‘contrastive linguistics’. In addition, section 4.1 summarizes the results of studies in contrastive linguistics which are particularly relevant for the present study. Next, since the empirical part of the study analyzes coreference in court deci-

4

Chapter 1

sions, section 4.2 provides an overview of the research field ‘language and law’. Furthermore, section 4.2 discusses previous studies in the field ‘language and law’ which are closely related to the present study. As the empirical part of the present study focuses on coreference in British and German court decisions, chapter 5 briefly describes the legal systems of the United Kingdom and Germany. The legal systems of the two countries are based on two different ‘legal traditions’, ‘common law’ and ‘civil law’ (cf. Dickson 2005: 2; Merryman/Pérez-Perdomo 2007: 1; White/Willock 2007: 162; Slapper/Kelly 2012: 80). These legal traditions are explained in section 5.1. The court decisions analyzed in the present study are decisions of the British Appellate Committee of the House of Lords and of the German Bundesgerichtshof. Section 5.2 thus explains the position of the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords in the British court system and the position of the Bundesgerichtshof in the court system of Germany. One of the reasons for choosing decisions of the two courts was that the courts had a similar position in the court systems of the United Kingdom and Germany. Furthermore, both courts are, or were, final courts of appeal.2 Several previous studies have also focused on the linguistic features of the decisions of final courts of appeal (cf. e.g. Wetter 1960; Lashöfer 1992; Waters 1997; Blom-Cooper 2009). The results of the present study could thus be more easily compared with the results of these studies. This comparison of results can be found in chapter 7. Chapter 6 marks the beginning of the empirical part of the present study. The chapter explains the methodology of the empirical study of coreference in the court decisions. Section 6.1 describes how the corpus of court decisions was compiled. Section 6.2 then lists the different steps that were taken in the analysis of coreference in the corpus. First, in order to gain a general impression of the coreference chains in the court decisions, the following features were analyzed: the numbers and average 2

The Appellate Committee of the House of Lords was abolished in 2009 and replaced by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (cf. section 4.2.2 below).

Introduction

5

lengths of the coreference chains, the frequencies of the different types of coreference and the syntactic categories of the coreference chain elements (cf. sections 6.2.1 to 6.2.3). Then, the framework of coreference developed in the theoretical part was tested by analyzing the devices for coreference, the functions of the coreference chain elements and the factors which influenced the choice of coreferential devices in the court decisions (cf. sections 6.2.4 to 6.2.6). Chapter 7 presents the results of the empirical study and discusses them. It shows that the descriptive framework of the present study was successfully applied to the court decisions. In addition, it points out the similarities and differences between the ways in which coreference was established in the English sub-corpus and the German sub-corpus of the present study. Chapter 8 sums up the main findings of the present study. Furthermore, the chapter includes suggestions for further research.

2 The concept of coreference 2.1 A definition of reference The present study is a study of coreference in English and German in general, and in British and German court decisions in particular. Before the concept of coreference will be explained in section 2.3, the related notion of reference will be discussed in the present section and different types of reference will be described in section 2.2. The concept of reference has been dealt with in different disciplines, such as logic, semantics, pragmatics or textlinguistics (cf. e.g. Halliday/Hasan 1976: chapter 2; Vater 2012: 1). There exist several different definitions of reference. The definition of reference in the present study is based on the approaches to reference in semantics and textlinguistics. Furthermore, the study adopts a part of the terminology used in the pragmatic approach to reference. We will first consider the way in which reference is usually defined in semantics. This will be illustrated by a definition by Lyons, who discusses the concept of reference from a semantic point of view. Lyons (1977: 174) writes: The term ‘reference’, as we shall define it below, has to do with the relationship which holds between an expression and what that expression stands for on particular occasions of its utterance. According to Lyons, reference can thus be described as the relation between a linguistic expression and the entity in the extralinguistic world to which the expression refers. Lyons (1977: 177) calls this entity ‘referent’. In the present study, ‘entity’ is used with a very general meaning that includes, for example, people, concrete objects or abstract concepts. It should be noted that Lyons’ definition of reference can be traced back to the writings by Frege (1975 [1892]: 41) and other philosophers who also discussed the relation between a linguistic item and the entity to which the item refers (for an overview cf. e.g. Wunderlich 1974: 236-255; Abbott 2010: chapter 2). Lyons (1977: 176) stresses that reference is an ut-

8

Chapter 2

terance-bound concept: only linguistic expressions that are used in specific utterances can have referents in the extralinguistic world whereas lexemes, which are more abstract and do not occur in actual utterances, do not have referents. Reference from a pragmatic point of view has been described, for example, by Searle (1969). According to Searle (1969: 22), uttering something in a language means to perform ‘speech acts’. Searle distinguishes between different types of speech acts. We will not discuss all types of speech acts in detail here, but will instead focus on the ‘propositional speech act’. Searle (1969: 23f.) explains that the propositional speech act consists of a ‘speech act of reference’ and ‘speech act of predication’. When performing a speech act of reference, the speaker or writer uses a linguistic item to refer to an entity in the extralinguistic world. When the speaker or writer performs a speech act of predication he or she says or writes something about the entity to which he or she refers. In the present study, the term ‘text producer’ will be used as a synonym for ‘speaker or writer’ and the term ‘text receiver’ as a synonym for ‘listener or reader’. The following example illustrates the speech acts of reference and predication. (1) Sam smokes habitually. (Searle 1969: 22) In the above example, the text producer uses the noun phrase Sam to refer to a person. This is the act of reference. Furthermore, the text producer uses smokes habitually to say something about the person Sam. This is the act of predication. Searle (1969: 28) emphasizes that linguistic items do not refer themselves. Instead, it is the text producer who uses a linguistic item to refer to an entity in the extralinguistic world. Searle (1969: 28) writes: To say that an expression refers (predicates, asserts, etc.) in my terminology is either senseless or is shorthand for saying that the expression is used by speakers to refer (predicate, assert, etc.); this is a shorthand that I shall frequently employ.

The concept of coreference

9

For reasons of brevity, other authors have followed Searle’s approach and use the expression “a linguistic item refers” as a short form for “the text producer uses a linguistic item to refer” (cf. e.g. Lyons 1977: 177; Chur 1993: 9). The present study will also use this short form. Halliday/Hasan (1976: chapter 2) discuss the concept of reference from a textlinguistic point of view. They suggest the following definition of reference: There are certain items in every language which have the property of reference, in the specific sense in which we are using the term here; that is to say, instead of being interpreted semantically in their own right, they make reference to something else for their interpretation. (Halliday/Hasan 1976: 31) Halliday/Hasan (1976: 37) thus view reference as a feature of certain linguistic items, such as personal pronouns, demonstrative pronouns or adverbs like there and then. These items can only be correctly interpreted by a listener or reader if they (i) refer to something that is present at the moment of the utterance or (ii) refer to another item in the same text. The difference between (i) and (ii) can be illustrated by the following two examples.1 (2) For he’s a jolly good fellow And so say all of us. (Halliday/Hasan 1976: 32) (3) John has moved to a new house. He had it built last year. (Halliday/Hasan 1976: 55) In example (2), he and us can be interpreted correctly if they refer to people who are present when the utterance is made. By contrast, in (3) the interpretations of He and it become clear since He refers back to John and it to a new house (cf. Halliday/Hasan 1976: 32, 54f.). Example (3) thus 1

In examples (2) and (3), the word-forms that are most important for the discussion have been marked by broken underlining. The same will be done in many of the following examples in the present study.

10

Chapter 2

illustrates that linguistic items can refer to other linguistic items within the same text. When using the term ‘text’, it should be noted that there exist many different definitions of ‘text’ in linguistics (cf. e.g. Halliday/Hasan 1976: 1; Vater 2001: 21; Schubert 2012: 27f.; Esser 2009: 9). For the purpose of the present study, ‘text’ is understood as a prototype category which has more and less typical features (cf. Vater 2001: 21; Esser 2009: 9). Typically, a text is assumed to be longer than a sentence; however, one-word utterances may also count as texts. Both instances of spoken and written language are accepted as texts (cf. Esser 2009: 9, 23; Schubert 2012: 27). Returning to the topic of reference, the present study uses a concept of reference which includes aspects of both Lyons’ (1977: 174) and Halliday/Hasan’s (1976: 31) definitions. ‘Reference’ in the present study is understood as a superordinate term for ‘endophoric’ and ‘exophoric’ reference. These terms have been suggested by Halliday/Hasan (1976: 33) and have been elaborated, for example, by Halliday (2014: 624-626). We will now discuss endophoric and exophoric reference and then suggest a definition of ‘reference’. In the present study, ‘exophoric reference’ is defined as the relation between a linguistic item and whatever it refers to in the extralinguistic world. This definition of exophoric reference is thus very similar to Lyons’ (1977: 174) concept of reference (cf. also Esser 2009: 35; Halliday 2014: 624f.). The term ‘endophoric reference’ is used in the present study to describe a relation between two or more linguistic items in a text that can be explained as follows: one or more items refer backwards or forwards to another item in the text. The referring items cannot be correctly interpreted on their own but only due to the linguistic item to which they refer (cf. Halliday 2014: 625). This concept of endophoric reference has been illustrated in example (3) above, where He referred to John and it to a new house. The definition of endophoric reference in the present study thus draws on aspects of Halliday/Hasan’s (1976: 31) definition of reference, which has been explained above. The difference between endo-

11

The concept of coreference

phoric and exophoric reference can be shown with the help of the following example. (4) Wash and core six cooking apples. Put them into a fireproof dish. (Halliday/Hasan 1976: 2) In example (4), them refers back to six cooking apples. Thus, them and six cooking apples are in a relation of endophoric reference. At the same time, both them and six cooking apples refer exophorically to something in the extralinguistic world, namely to six cooking apples. Endophoric and exophoric reference in example (4) can be visualized as in Figure 2.1 below, which is taken from Esser (2009: 35) in a slightly adapted version.

Extralinguistic world Six cooking apples

Exophoric reference

Exophoric reference

… six cooking apples …

… them …

Endophoric reference

Figure 2.1: Endophoric and exophoric reference With regard to exophoric reference, previous studies have discussed which linguistic units can refer to something in the extralinguistic world (cf. e.g. Vater 2012: 64 for an overview). While it was sometimes assumed that only noun phrases refer exophorically, today many authors

12

Chapter 2

suggest that other types of phrases and clauses or clause complexes2 have referents in the extralinguistic world as well (cf. e.g. Jackendoff 1983: 52f.; Chur 1993: 8; Vater 2001: 90). In the present study, it is thus assumed that clauses, clause complexes and different types of phrases can refer exophorically. When discussing the referents of clauses or clause complexes, previous studies have suggested that the extralinguistic referent of a clause or clause complex is its content, i.e. for example the situation(s), event(s) or fact(s) that it describes (cf. Halliday/Hasan 1976: 52; Lambrecht 1994: 53, 74f.; Esser 2009: 40; Vater 2012: 65, 68). Different terms have been used for the referents of clauses or clause complexes (cf. e.g. Lambrecht 1994: 53, 74f.; Vater 2005: 76). In this study, the term ‘proposition’ will be used (cf. Lambrecht 1994: 53, 74f.; Esser 2009: 40 and cf. Searle 1969: 29-33 for the use of the term ‘proposition’ in speech act theory). It will thus be assumed that in cases of coreference between noun phrases and clauses or clause complexes, the shared referents are the propositions of the clauses or clause complexes. Based on the distinction between exophoric and endophoric reference, in the present study ‘reference’ is defined as a superordinate term for (i) the relation between a linguistic item and its referent in the extralinguistic world and (ii) the relation between a linguistic item and another linguistic item to which it refers. As has been explained above, the referent of a linguistic item can be, for example, an entity or a proposition. In previous discussions of reference, a further important topic has been the question where the referents of linguistic items are located. Many authors have suggested that these referents can be found in a ‘conceptual’ world and not in the real world (cf. Jackendoff 1983: 29; Linke/Nussbaumer 2000: 306; Vater 2001: 89). One reason for this suggestion is that it is possible to refer to entities that do not exist in reality, 2

In the present study, the term ‘clause complex’ is used to refer to a syntactic unit which consists of at least one independent clause and which may include further clauses which are linked to the independent clause by means of coordinating conjunctions or subordination (cf. Esser 2009: 25f.; Halliday 2014: 9, 436).

The concept of coreference

13

such as unicorns, or to abstract concepts or events in the future (cf. Linke/Nussbaumer 2000: 306; Vater 2001: 89; Kunz 2010: 31). As for entities that exist in the real world it has been assumed that linguistic items do not refer directly to these entities, but to the mental concepts that the text producer has of them (cf. Jackendoff 1983: 29; Linke/Nussbaumer 2000: 306). In the present study, the view that linguistic items refer to a conceptual world is accepted; however, the term ‘extralinguistic world’ is used instead of ‘conceptual world’.

2.2 Types of reference In section 2.1, two different types of reference have already been described: exophoric and endophoric reference. Exophoric reference was defined as the relation between a linguistic item and its referent in the extralinguistic world. Endophoric reference was defined as the relation between a linguistic item and another linguistic item in the same text to which it refers. Both exophoric reference and endophoric reference have further sub-types of reference. When discussing the different types of exophoric reference, the present study will focus on the exophoric reference of noun phrases. The reason for this is that the study analyzes nominal coreference and thus focuses on noun phrases (cf. section 2.4 below). In the present study, the following types of exophoric reference are distinguished: ‘specific reference’, ‘non-specific reference’ and ‘generic reference’. Specific reference is established when a linguistic item refers to a specific entity in the extralinguistic world (cf. e.g. Quirk et al. 1985: 265; Biber et al. 1999: 234, 260). Here are two examples. (5) The lambs were eating quietly. (Quirk et al. 1985: 247) (6) I’ve just bought a melon. (Quirk et al. 1985: 274) In example (5), the noun phrase The lambs refers to a specific group of lambs. In example (6), I refers to a specific person and a melon to a specific melon. The two examples show that specific reference can be estab-

14

Chapter 2

lished by noun phrases with a definite article, an indefinite article or ones without an article (cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 265, 274f.). In contrast to specific reference, non-specific reference is established when a linguistic item refers to a non-specific entity in the extralinguistic world (cf. e.g. Biber et al. 1999: 260; Radden/Dirven 2007: 94-96). The following two examples illustrate that. (7) Sorry, if I drink a milkshake now, it will upset my stomach. (Radden/Dirven 2007: 96) (8) I’m looking for a millionaire, she says, but I don’t see many around. (corpus example from Biber et al. 1999: 2603) In example (7) above, the noun phrase a milkshake does not refer to a specific milkshake in the extralinguistic world. Instead, it refers to any milkshake. Similarly, in example (8) the noun phrase a millionaire does not refer to a specific millionaire, but to any millionaire. Non-specific reference can be established by noun phrases which include an indefinite article (cf. Biber et al. 1999: 260). As Radden/Dirven (2007: 96) explain, non-specific reference usually occurs in constructions which contain negations, imperatives, conditionals or verbs of want, need or desire. A third type of exophoric reference to be discussed here is called ‘generic reference’. Generic reference is established when a linguistic item refers to a class of entities as a whole (cf. e.g. Lyons 1977: 194; Quirk et al. 1985: 281; Biber et al. 1999: 265). Three examples are provided below. (9) Bull terriers make excellent watchdogs. (Quirk et al. 1985: 281) (10) The tiger is becoming almost extinct. (Quirk et al. 1985: 282) (11) A lion is a friendly beast. (Lyons 1977: 194)

3

In the present study, all corpus examples cited from Biber et al. 1999 are examples taken from the Longman Spoken and Written English Corpus (cf. Biber et al. 1999: xxvi, 5).

The concept of coreference

15

In example (9), the noun phrase Bull terriers does not refer to specific bull terriers, but to the class of bull terriers as a whole. The noun phrase thus has generic reference. Similarly, in example (10) the noun phrase The tiger refers to the whole class of tigers and in example (11) the noun phrase A lion refers to the class of lions as a whole. Examples (9) to (11) show that generic reference can be established by noun phrases with the zero article, a definite article or an indefinite article (cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 281; Biber et al. 1999: 265f.). It should be noted that generic reference can also be established by noun phrases which have a non-count noun as their head and which do not include a determiner (cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 275, 282, 286f.; Biber et al. 1999: 265; Lyons 1999: 180f.). The following example illustrates this. (12) Hydrogen is lighter than oxygen. (Quirk et al. 1985: 282) In the above example, the two noun phrases Hydrogen and oxygen both have a non-count noun as head and do not contain a determiner. Both noun phrases can be interpreted as having generic reference (cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 282). The reason why the noun phrases can be assumed to have generic reference is that each of them refers to a gas – hydrogen or oxygen – in general and not to a specific instance of this gas. Lyons (1999: 181f.) explains such cases as follows: Just as we can make a statement about ostriches in general, that is, about the class of entities satisfying the description ostrich, so we can about the substance matching the description butter, or the quality matching the description sincerity – as opposed to specific quantities or instantiations. Thus, although strictly speaking noun phrases headed by non-count nouns do not refer to classes of entities, they can still be considered as having generic reference. The present study follows this approach and assumes that noun phrases headed by non-count nouns can have generic reference.

16

Chapter 2

Having discussed three different types of exophoric reference, we now turn to two types of endophoric reference: anaphoric and cataphoric reference. Anaphoric reference is established when a linguistic item refers backwards to another linguistic item in the text (cf. Halliday/Hasan 1976: 33; Esser 2009: 49; Brinker 2010: 31). An example of this type of reference is provided below. (13) Davis opened a door. ‘Here’s your room. I’m afraid it’s a bit untidy.’ (corpus example from Sinclair 1990: 384) In this example, the personal pronoun it refers back to the noun phrase your room. Since the direction of the reference within the text is backwards, example (13) illustrates anaphoric reference. ‘Cataphoric reference’ is used as a term for forward-pointing reference within a text (cf. Halliday/Hasan 1976: 33; Esser 2009: 49; Brinker 2010: 31). An example of cataphoric reference is given below. (14) I would never have believed it. They’ve accepted the whole scheme. (Halliday/Hasan 1976: 56) In this example, the pronoun it refers forwards to the second clause (They’ve accepted the whole scheme). The pronoun it and the second clause are thus in a relation of cataphoric reference. As has been shown in the present section, we can distinguish between different types of exophoric and endophoric reference. The distinctions made in the present study are summarized in Figure 2.2 on the next page.

4

In the present study, all corpus examples which are cited from Sinclair 1990 are examples taken from the Birmingham corpora of texts (cf. Sinclair 1990: x).

17

The concept of coreference

Reference

Exophoric reference

Specific reference

Non-specific reference

Generic reference

Endophoric reference

Anaphoric reference

Cataphoric reference

Figure 2.2: Types of reference It should be noted that some authors make more detailed distinctions between different types of exophoric reference (cf. e.g. Lyons 1977: 178197; Radden/Dirven 2007: 89-112). However, the distinctions as shown in Figure 2.2 are sufficient for the purpose of the present study.

2.3 A definition of coreference While there exist several different definitions of reference (cf. section 2.1 above), many authors agree on a definition of ‘coreference’ (cf. e.g. Halliday/Hasan 1976: 3; Esser 2009: 34f.; Brinker 2010: 26). Following the approaches of Halliday/Hasan (1976: 3), Esser (2009: 34f.) and Brinker (2010: 26), in the present study coreference is defined as the relation between two or more linguistic items in a text that have the same referent in the extralinguistic world. The following example of coreference is taken from a short story by Hemingway and is provided by Schubert (2012: 34). (15) Nick was hungry. He did not believe he had ever been hungrier. (Hemingway 1980: 459; repeated from chapter 1) In example (15), the noun phrases Nick, He and he exophorically refer to the same person, i.e. they have the same referent. We can thus say that Nick, He and he are ‘coreferential’ linguistic items (cf. e.g. Halliday/Hasan 1976: 3; Quirk et al. 1985: 347; Swanson 2003: 28). Furthermore, if coreference exists between two or more linguistic items in a text, these items are considered to form a ‘coreference chain’ in the present

18

Chapter 2

study (cf. Halliday/Hasan 1989: 84, who use the term ‘identity chain’, and Biber et al. 1999: 234; Azzam et al. 2000: 77; Kunz 2010: 1, 10). The linguistic items which form coreference chains are called ‘coreference chain elements’. In example (15) above, Nick, He and he are considered as elements of a coreference chain. Establishing coreference in a text serves an important function: it contributes to connecting different clauses or clause complexes in a text with one another (cf. Halliday/Hasan 1976: 3). Thus, the concept of coreference is closely related to the concepts of ‘cohesion’ and ‘coherence’. The term ‘cohesion’ refers to the overt grammatical and lexical relations between the linguistic items in a text, both within a clause or clause complex and across the boundaries of clauses or clause complexes (cf. de Beaugrande/Dressler 1981: 3, 48-50; Bußmann 2002: 352; Esser 2009: 14; Schubert 2012: 31f.). Cohesion is thus concerned with the actual wordforms in a text (cf. Esser 2009: 14). It can be established, for example, by a pronoun which refers back to a previous noun phrase in the same text (cf. de Beaugrande/Dressler 1981: 49; Bußmann 2002: 352; Esser 2009: 14). Cohesion can thus be found in example (15) above since the pronouns He and he refer to the previous noun phrase Nick. The term ‘coherence’ has been used to describe the semantic relations between the linguistic items in a text. These semantic relations do not have to be overtly marked (cf. de Beaugrande/Dressler 1981: 4; Bußmann 2002: 351; Esser 2009: 15; Schubert 2012: 20). Coherence is based, for example, on temporal relations and relations of causality (cf. de Beaugrande/Dressler 1981: 4f.; Esser 2009: 15). Example (16) illustrates the concept of coherence. (16) The policeman held up his hand. The car stopped. (Quirk et al. 1985: 1428) The two clauses in (16) are not explicitly connected by the use of pronouns or other linguistic devices of cohesion. However, because of his or her world knowledge the text receiver understands that the behaviour of

The concept of coreference

19

the policeman (holding up his hand) probably was the reason why the car stopped (cf. Esser 2009: 11). Since the two clauses in (16) are linked by a causal relation, we say that there is coherence in example (16). When discussing cohesion and coherence, it should be noted that some authors have defined these concepts in a different way than it has been suggested here (cf. e.g. Halliday/Hasan 1976: vii, 4-7, 23; Brinker 2010: 17). While cohesion and coreference are closely linked, it is important to point out that cohesion does not always imply coreference (cf. Esser 2009: 45; Schubert 2012: 37). An example of cohesion without coreference is given below. (17) These biscuits are stale. – Get some fresh ones. (Halliday/Hasan 1976: 92) In example (17), there is a cohesive relation between the two clauses because some fresh ones refers back to These biscuits. As has been explained in section 2.2, this type of backwards reference within the text is called endophoric or, more specifically, anaphoric reference. However, in (17) there is no coreference between the noun phrases These biscuits and some fresh ones. The semantic relation between the two noun phrases can be called ‘co-classification’ (cf. Halliday/Hasan 1989: 74). ‘Coclassification’ has been defined as follows: In this type of meaning relation, the things, processes, or circumstances to which A and B refer belong to an identical class, but each end of the cohesive tie refers to a distinct member of this class. (Halliday/Hasan 1989: 74) In example (17) above, both These biscuits and some fresh ones refer to a class that could be called ‘biscuits’. However, each of the noun phrases refers to different biscuits and thus to different members of the class. Another example of cohesion without coreference is provided by Schubert (2012: 49). The example is taken from a novel by David Lodge.

20

Chapter 2

(18) Morris went down to the sixth floor, crossed the landing and travelled up to the ninth, […]. (Lodge 1978: 226) In example (18), there is a cohesive relation between down and up since the two adverbs are antonyms and the use of antonyms is considered as one of the many devices that can establish cohesion in a text (cf. Esser 2009: 43; Schubert 2012: 49). However, the two adverb phrases are not related by coreference but instead by ‘co-extension’. ‘Co-extension’ is used as a term for the relation between linguistic elements that refer to something within the same “general field of meaning” (Halliday/Hasan 1989: 74). It can be argued that in example (18) down and up both refer to something within the general field of meaning called ‘directions of movement’.

2.4 Types of coreference The present study focuses on a type of coreference in English and German that is called ‘nominal coreference’ (cf. Kunz 2010: 1). ‘Nominal coreference’ is here used as a term for coreference between two or more linguistic items of which at least one is a noun phrase. The other items in a nominal coreference chain do not have to be noun phrases, however. If two or more linguistic items in a text are in a relation of coreference and if at least one of them is a noun phrase, the items are considered as elements of a ‘nominal coreference chain’ in the present study. For the sake of brevity, we will speak of ‘coreference’ instead of ‘nominal coreference’ in most cases in the following sections and chapters of the present study, except for in cases where this might lead to ambiguities. We can distinguish three different types of nominal coreference: ‘anaphoric’, ‘cataphoric’ and ‘non-directional’ coreference. The concepts of anaphoric and cataphoric coreference are well established in linguistic research (cf. e.g. Halliday/Hasan 1976: 14, 17; Biber et al. 1999: 234, 348; Esser 2009: 35, 49f.; Kunz 2010: 11). In addition to these two types of coreference, the present study suggests the third type of non-directional

The concept of coreference

21

coreference (for brief remarks on concepts related to this type of coreference cf. Martin 1992: 145f.; van Deemter/Kibble 2000: 629f.). In the present study, the concept of anaphoric coreference is defined as follows. Anaphoric coreference is established if a linguistic item refers backwards to a previous linguistic item in the same text and both of the linguistic items have the same referent (cf. Halliday/Hasan 1976: 14; Biber et al. 1999: 234; Esser 2009: 35). The second linguistic item thus depends on the first linguistic item for its interpretation. That is, the text receiver can only correctly interpret the second item if he or she has heard or read the first item. An example of anaphoric coreference is provided below. (19) Students can opt for a specialized learning track focused on hospitality, engineering, health or other sectors. They connect with employers through internships. (Foroohar 2014: 32) In this example, Students and They both refer to the same referent in the extralinguistic world. Since They refers backwards to Students, example (19) contains an instance of anaphoric coreference. Examples (3), (4), (13) and (15) in sections 2.1 to 2.3 above also contain anaphoric coreference. As for anaphoric coreference chains, one point that has been discussed in the literature is to which elements of the coreference chain an anaphoric chain element refers back if the coreference chain consists of more than two chain elements (cf. e.g. Halliday/Hasan 1976: 15; Emmott 1989: 64-75; Hoey 1991: 72; Martin 1992: 141). The following example serves as an illustration. It is repeated from section 2.3. (20) Nick was hungry. He did not believe he had ever been hungrier. (Hemingway 1980: 459; example provided by Schubert 2012: 34) In the above example, Nick, He and he are elements of the same coreference chain. The second chain element, the pronoun He, refers anaphorically to Nick. For the third chain element, the pronoun he, it seems more difficult to determine to which of the other two chain elements it refers: it

22

Chapter 2

might be argued that the pronoun he refers back only to the first chain element, Nick. By contrast, it might also be assumed that the pronoun he refers back only to the previous chain element, He, or that he refers back both to Nick and He (cf. Halliday/Hasan 1976: 15; Emmott 1989: 64-75; Hoey 1991: 72; Martin 1992: 141). The present study assumes that each anaphoric coreference chain element refers back to all the previous elements of the same coreference chain since it is in a relation of coreference with all of them. Thus, it is suggested that in example (20) he refers back to both He and Nick (cf. Hoey 1991: 72). In contrast to anaphoric coreference, cataphoric coreference is established if a linguistic item refers forwards to a linguistic item in the same text and both of the linguistic items have the same referent (cf. Halliday/Hasan 1976: 17; Biber et al. 1999: 348; Esser 2009: 49f.). Here is an example. (21) This should interest you, if you’re still keen on boxing. The world heavyweight championship is going to be held in Chicago next June, so you should be able to watch it live. (Quirk et al. 1985: 1462) In example (21), the demonstrative pronoun This and the second clause complex both refer to the same proposition and thus have the same referent. Since the pronoun This refers forwards to the second clause complex, example (21) contains an instance of cataphoric coreference. In the present study, the element of a coreference chain which follows a cataphoric element of the same coreference chain is called the ‘postcedent’ of the coreference chain (cf. e.g. Bache 2000: 174; Schwarz 2000: 52; Vater 2012: 92). Usually, cataphoric coreference occurs less frequently in a text than anaphoric coreference (cf. de Beaugrande/Dressler 1981: 60f.; Quirk et al. 1985: 347, 351). In section 2.2 above, the concepts of anaphoric and cataphoric reference have been described. It should be noted that anaphoric reference does not always imply anaphoric coreference and that cataphoric reference does not always imply cataphoric coreference. The following exam-

The concept of coreference

23

ple contains an instance of anaphoric reference, but anaphoric coreference is not established in the example. (22) They didn’t stop at the nearest building, but drove on to a bigger one with many more vehicles outside. (British National Corpus CEU 3012; example provided by Esser 2009: 41) In this example, a bigger one refers back to the nearest building, which means that there is anaphoric reference within the text. However, coreference is not established in example (22) because the two noun phrases the nearest building and a bigger one each refer to a different building. The two noun phrases therefore refer to two different members of the class of buildings. Instead of coreference, example (22) thus illustrates ‘coclassification’, i.e. two linguistic items which refer to two different members of the same class (cf. section 2.3 above). Cataphoric reference without cataphoric coreference can be found in cases in which cataphoric reference is established only by the definite article the. Some authors have suggested that the definite article the can be used to refer forwards to a noun phrase postmodification (cf. Halliday/Hasan 1976: 72; Quirk et al. 1985: 268; Biber 1999: 264; Esser 2009: 49; Halliday 2014: 625). This type of cataphoric reference has been called ‘structural’ cataphoric reference (cf. Halliday 2014: 625). Here is an example. (23) The patterns of industrial development in the United States are too varied to be categorized easily. (corpus example from Biber 1999: 264) Biber et al. (1999: 264) suggest that in the above example the definite article The refers forwards to the postmodifying prepositional phrase of industrial development in the United States. Thus, example (23) contains cataphoric reference, but it does not contain cataphoric coreference. As a further remark on anaphoric and cataphoric coreference, it should be noted that both anaphoric and cataphoric coreference are based

24

Chapter 2

on endophoric reference since anaphoric and cataphoric coreference chain elements refer forwards or backwards within in the text. In addition, anaphoric and cataphoric coreference are also based on exophoric reference because the elements of an anaphoric or cataphoric coreference chain refer exophorically to the same referent in the extralinguistic world. Having discussed anaphoric and cataphoric coreference, we will now turn to non-directional coreference. By contrast to anaphoric and cataphoric coreference, non-directional coreference is not based on endophoric reference, i.e. it does not include linguistic items which refer forwards or backwards within the text. Instead, non-directional coreference is only based on exophoric reference. Non-directional coreference is established if two or more linguistic items share the same referent but the linguistic items do not refer forwards or backwards to each other (for brief remarks on related concepts cf. Martin 1992: 145f.; van Deemter/Kibble 2000: 629f.). Since the linguistic items do not refer in any direction within the text, this type of coreference is called ‘non-directional’ in the present study. Linguistic items that are in a relation of nondirectional coreference can be successfully interpreted without taking into account other linguistic items in the same text. An example of nondirectional coreference is provided below. (24) One big disadvantage is that turtles do not have gills and so cannot survive underwater indefinitely, like fish, but must come up for air regularly. However, turtles can remain submerged for much longer than, say, people can. (Browder 2004b: 1370) In example (24), coreference is established between the two instances of the noun phrase turtles since the two noun phrases have the same referent in the extralinguistic world: both noun phrases refer to the class of turtles as a whole. The first instance of turtles does not refer forwards or backwards in the text. The second instance of turtles also does not refer anaphorically or cataphorically. Thus, the two instances of turtles are not in a

The concept of coreference

25

relation of anaphoric or cataphoric coreference, but in a relation of nondirectional coreference. In the present study, a linguistic item which is the first element of a coreference chain and which is followed by an anaphoric or a nondirectional element of the same coreference chain is called the ‘antecedent’ of the coreference chain (cf. e.g. Bache 2000: 174; Vater 2012: 90f.). Thus, in example (24) above the antecedent of the coreference chain is the first instance of the noun phrase turtles. It should be pointed out that the two coreference chain elements in example (24) each have generic reference: instead of referring to specific turtles, the two instances of turtles refer to the class of turtles as a whole (cf. section 2.2 above for a definition of generic reference). Like example (24) above, example (25) below also includes noun phrases with generic reference which establish non-directional coreference. Since example (25) contains two different chains of non-directional coreference, indices are used to distinguish between the two chains (cf. e.g. Stede 2007: 56 for a similar use of indices). (25) Over time all rock types1 can convert into other forms and this has often been termed the rock cycle. Igneous and sedimentary rocks2 can become metamorphic rocks under pressure and heat. All rock types1 can erode to form the layers of sediment that can eventually become sedimentary rocks2, […]. (Krom 2008: 36) Example (25) contains the two noun phrases all rock types and All rock types. These noun phrases are in a relation of non-directional coreference since they have the same referent and do not refer forwards or backwards to each other. The two noun phrases have generic reference because they do not refer to specific rock types, but to the class of rock types as a whole. Furthermore, example (25) contains two instances of the noun phrase sedimentary rocks. These two noun phrases also form a chain of non-directional coreference. The two instances of sedimentary rocks have

26

Chapter 2

generic reference since they refer to the class of sedimentary rocks in general. When searching for examples of non-directional coreference, it was found that this type of coreference is often established by noun phrases with generic reference. However, the present study assumes that nondirectional coreference can also be created by noun phrases with nonspecific or specific reference. This will be shown in examples (26) and (27). Example (26) contains two noun phrases with non-specific reference which form a non-directional coreference chain. In example (26), the capital letters A and B, which indicate that there are two different speakers, have been added by the author of the present study. (26) A: B: A: B:

Would you like a cup of tea? No, thank you. I don’t fancy tea so early in the morning. So do have something else. Have a milkshake instead. Sorry, if I drink a milkshake now, it will upset my stomach. (Radden/Dirven 2007: 96)

In the above example, a relation of non-directional coreference is created between the two instances of the noun phrase a milkshake. The two instances of a milkshake in example (26) do not refer to a specific milkshake, but instead to any milkshake. Therefore, they have non-specific reference. The present study assumes that noun phrases with specific reference can also establish non-directional coreference, for example noun phrases which refer to specific dates, lengths, weights or amounts of money and which do not refer forwards or backwards. Example (27) illustrates this. (27) With reference to the letter of 5 May 1992 and in accordance with Article 15 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, I have the honour to inform you that under legislative decree no. 225 of 9 March 1993, the state of emergency was lifted from the town of Elazig and its district; however, under the legislative decree no. 226 of 9 March 1993 the state of

27

The concept of coreference

emergency was declared on the town of Bitlis and its district. (Murdoch 2002: 118) In example (27), coreference is created by the two instances of the noun phrase 9 March 1993 because both noun phrases refer to the same date. Since the two noun phrases do not refer forwards or backwards in the text, the relation between them is interpreted here as a relation of nondirectional coreference. The above discussion of example (27) furthermore shows that the present study assumes that coreference can also be established by noun phrases which occur as postmodifications of other noun phrases since both instances of 9 March 1993 are noun phrase postmodifications. The three different types of coreference which are distinguished in the present study are summarized in Figure 2.3 below. As has been explained above, anaphoric and cataphoric coreference are based on endophoric and exophoric reference. By contrast, non-directional coreference is only based on exophoric reference.

Coreference

Anaphoric coreference

Cataphoric coreference

Based on endophoric and exophoric reference

Non-directional coreference

Based on exophoric reference

Figure 2.3: Types of coreference In some cases, coreference is established by the use of proper names, such as John. In these cases, it seems slightly difficult to determine whether the proper names establish anaphoric or non-directional coreference. The following example illustrates this.

28

Chapter 2

(28) Presently the Rabbit came up to the door, and tried to open it; but, as the door opened inwards, and Alice’s elbow was pressed hard against it, that attempt proved a failure. Alice heard it say to itself “Then I’ll go round and get in at the window.” (Carroll 1998 [1865]: 34) In this example, coreference is established between the two noun phrases Alice’s and Alice. The noun phrase Alice does not refer backwards as clearly as, for example, a personal pronoun such as she. Nonetheless, the present study suggests that the noun phrase Alice in example (28) establishes anaphoric coreference with the noun phrase Alice’s. The reason for this suggestion is that the name Alice can be used to refer to many different people in the extralinguistic world. Thus, when the text receiver hears or reads example (28), he or she must keep in mind that the noun phrase Alice in (28) refers backwards to the noun phrase Alice’s and that the two noun phrases refer to the same person. Therefore, the present study assumes that proper names establish anaphoric coreference (cf. Halliday/Hasan 1976: 19; Martin 1992: 99). As a further point, it should be noted that anaphoric and nondirectional coreference can occur within the same coreference chain. This is shown in the next example. (29) Catfish are not built for speed; they have no reason to swim fast. Most of the animals that catfish eat are slow moving, […]. (Browder 2004a: 300) In this example, coreference is established between the following noun phrases: Catfish, they and catfish. The pronoun they establishes anaphoric coreference because it refers backwards to the noun phrase Catfish. By contrast, the noun phrase catfish in the second orthographic sentence establishes non-directional coreference since it does not refer forwards or backwards in the text. In addition to distinguishing between anaphoric, cataphoric and nondirectional coreference, a distinction can also be made between corefer-

The concept of coreference

29

ence within a clause complex 5 and coreference across clause complex boundaries (cf. e.g. Halliday/Hasan 1976: 7f.; Schubert 2012: 31, 33f.). Two examples are shown below. Example (31) has already been quoted as example (19) above and is repeated here for convenience. (30) David Cameron said he is working hard to achieve ‘massive structural reforms’. (Wintour 20126) (31) Students can opt for a specialized learning track focused on hospitality, engineering, health or other sectors. They connect with employers through internships. (Foroohar 2014: 32) In example (30) above, David Cameron and he are elements of the same coreference chain. In this example, coreference is established within a clause complex. By contrast, in example (31) coreference is created across clause complex boundaries. The three types of coreference (anaphoric, cataphoric and non-directional) can each be established within a clause complex or across clause complex boundaries. For anaphoric coreference, this has been shown in examples (30) and (31) above. For examples of cataphoric and non-directional coreference within a clause complex and across clause complexes cf. sections 3.2 and 3.3 below.

2.5 Syntactic categories in nominal coreference chains As has been noted in section 2.1, many authors assume that not only noun phrases can refer to something in the extralinguistic world, but also other phrases and clauses or clause complexes (cf. e.g. Vater 2001: 90). As a consequence, coreference can be found not only between noun phrases, but also between other phrases, clauses or clause complexes (cf. e.g. Halliday/Hasan 1976: 52f., 74f.; Esser 2009: 40f., 45f.). As has been explained in section 2.4, the present study focuses on a type of coreference in English and German that is called ‘nominal 5

For a definition of the term ‘clause complex’ cf. section 2.1 above. The article by Wintour (2012) is an online source which does not provide page numbers.

6

30

Chapter 2

coreference’, i.e. coreference between two or more linguistic items of which at least one is a noun phrase. A nominal coreference chain thus always includes at least one noun phrase, but it can also include chain elements which belong to different syntactic categories. We will now take a closer look at the different syntactic categories of the elements of nominal coreference chains in English and German. Firstly, a nominal coreference chain can be formed by two or more noun phrases. This has been illustrated in example (15) in section 2.3 above, which is repeated below as example (32) for convenience. (32) Nick was hungry. He did not believe he had ever been hungrier. (Hemingway 1980: 459; example provided by Schubert 2012: 34) In example (32), the coreference chain consists of three noun phrases (Nick, He and he). A German example of two coreferential noun phrases is provided below. (33) Hallo, sagte Frau Brücker, als sei ich erst gestern dagewesen. Einmal wie immer? Sie hantierte an einer großen gußeisernen Pfanne. (Timm 2000: 7) In addition to noun phrases, nominal coreference chains can also include determiners. In the present study, ‘determiner’ is understood as a term for closed-class items which precede the head of a noun phrase (cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 253). If an item such as these occurs as a noun phrase head, for example in Pick these up! (cf. Halliday/Hasan 1976: 58), it is classified as a pronoun and not as a determiner in the present study (cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 372). It should also be noted that items such as our or unser are considered here as possessive determiners and not as pronouns (cf. e.g. Jackson 1982: 64). Furthermore, it is assumed that determiners, as closed-class items, do not belong to the premodification of a noun phrase (cf. e.g. Quirk et al. 1985: 1238f.). As has been mentioned above, the present study holds that clauses, clause complexes and different types of phrases have referents in the ex-

The concept of coreference

31

tralinguistic world (cf. e.g. Jackendoff 1983: 52f.; Chur 1993: 8; Vater 2001: 90). Furthermore, the present study assumes that determiners cannot form phrases by themselves but that they occur as part of noun phrases (cf. e.g. Quirk et al. 1985: 253, 1238f.). Since determiners do not form phrases by themselves, it might be argued that they do not have referents in the extralinguistic world (cf. Vater 2001: 90). However, in several textlinguistic studies possessive determiners have been marked as elements of coreference chains (cf. e.g. Halliday/Hasan 1976: 54f.; Stede 2007: 56; Brinker 2010: 32). Therefore, possessive determiners are accepted as parts of coreference chains in the present study and it is assumed that they can have extralinguistic referents. Two examples of coreference chains that include determiners are given below. (34) ‘Thanks,’ said Brody. He hung up, turned out the light in his office, and walked out to his car. (corpus example from Sinclair 2005: 3867) (35) Die Musiker ziehen amüsiert ihre Augenbrauen hoch, die Frauen halten sich vor Staunen die Hände vor den Mund. (Lerchenmüller 2009: 1) In example (34), coreference is established between the noun phrase Brody, the pronoun He and the two instances of the possessive determiner his. In example (35), the noun phrase Die Musiker and the possessive determiner ihre are elements of the same coreference chain. In addition to noun phrases and determiners, clauses or clause complexes can also be part of a coreference chain (cf. Halliday/Hasan 1976: 52f., 66-70; Quirk et al. 1985: 1461-1463; Esser 2009: 40, Brinker 2010: 31). Example (36) illustrates this. (36) We went to the opera last night. That was our first outing for months. (Halliday/Hasan 1976: 60)

7

In the present study, all corpus examples which are cited from Sinclair 2005 are examples taken from the Bank of English Corpus (cf. Sinclair 2005: xii).

32

Chapter 2

In the above example, the demonstrative pronoun That refers back to, and is coreferential with, the clause We went to the opera last night. The following example is taken from a German newspaper article and is provided by Brinker (2010: 31). (37) Als die Kinder die Macht ergriffen, gingen die Eltern in Deckung. Luftballons flogen über eingezogene Köpfe. Mobiliar polterte über das Parkett. Der Fußboden bebte unter stampfendem Toben. Im Souterrain rieselte Kalk. Triumphgeschrei aus heiseren Kehlen hallte hinaus in den Grunewald. 33 Kinder (zwischen zwei und zwölf Jahren) hatten die Freiheit entdeckt. Das war gegen 18 Uhr am ersten Tag einer außergewöhnlichen Woche. (Siebenschön 1972: 39) In example (37), the demonstrative pronoun Das is in a relation of coreference with all the clauses that precede it. The pronoun thus refers back to relatively long passage of text (cf. Brinker 2010: 31). It should be noted that Halliday/Hasan (1976: 52f., 66-70) use the term ‘extended reference’ to describe examples such as (36) and (37) since a linguistic item refers back to an extended passage of text. In addition to noun phrases, determiners and clauses or clause complexes, adjective phrases can also be part of nominal coreference chains (cf. Ross 1969: 356f.; Quirk et al. 1985: 349). This is shown by the following two examples. (38) Jack is clever, but he doesn’t look it. (James 1980: 7; the example is an adapted version of an example from Ross 1969: 357) (39) Hans ist klug, aber seine Söhne sind es nicht. (James 1980: 7; the example is an adapted version of an example from Ross 1969: 356) The present study assumes that in example (38) the pronoun it is in a relation of coreference with the adjective phrase clever. Similarly, it is held that in example (39) coreference is established between the adjective phrase klug and the pronoun es.

3 Coreference chain elements in English and German: devices and functions 3.1 Devices for anaphoric coreference 3.1.1 Main devices for anaphoric coreference 3.1.1.1 Pronouns Both in English and in German, there exist various linguistic devices that can establish nominal coreference, for example personal pronouns. The present study calls them ‘devices for coreference’ or ‘coreferential devices’. In this study, linguistic items are analyzed as devices for coreference if they establish coreference in a text. This does not mean that these linguistic items can only be used to establish coreference. For example, as has been shown in section 2.5, demonstrative pronouns can create coreference. However, they can also be used to refer only exophorically (cf. e.g. Halliday/Hasan 1976: 58). For instance, in an utterance such as Pick these up! the speaker may use the demonstrative pronoun these to refer to something that is present in the situational context. In the above utterance, the demonstrative pronoun thus refers only exophorically, does not create coreference and cannot be analyzed as a device for coreference (cf. Halliday/Hasan 1976: 58). The present study assumes that, with the exception of antecedents and postcedents, each element of a coreference chain can be analyzed as a device for coreference. Furthermore, the present study makes a distinction between ‘main devices’ and ‘supplementing devices’ for nominal coreference in English and German. While main devices can establish coreference without being combined with another device, supplementing devices can only establish coreference if they are combined with a main device. The present study assumes that, with the exception of antecedents and postcedents, each coreference chain element can be analyzed as one main device and one supplementing device. Moreover, the present study distinguishes between devices for anaphoric, cataphoric and non-directional

34

Chapter 3

coreference. We will first have a look at the main devices for anaphoric coreference. Different types of pronouns can be used as main devices for anaphoric coreference in English and German: personal, demonstrative, reflexive and indefinite pronouns (cf. Halliday/Hasan 1976: 37f.; Quirk et al. 1985: 865; Brinker 2010: 30). In addition, relative pronouns can also be considered as coreferential devices (cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 365). However, relative pronouns can only establish coreference within a clause complex and not across clause complex boundaries (cf. Kunz 2010: 6). The present study only takes into account those devices for coreference which can establish coreference both within a clause complex and across clause complex boundaries. Thus, relative pronouns will not be further discussed in the present study and will not be included in the list of main anaphoric devices which is presented in Table 3.1 in section 3.1.1.3 below. Within the class of personal pronouns, it is third person pronouns that are used most often to create coreference (cf. Halliday/Hasan 1976: 48). Two examples of coreferential third person pronouns are provided below. (1) Students can opt for a specialized learning track focused on hospitality, engineering, health or other sectors. They connect with employers through internships. (Foroohar 2014: 32; repeated from section 2.4) (2) Hallo, sagte Frau Brücker, als sei ich erst gestern dagewesen. Einmal wie immer? Sie hantierte an einer großen gußeisernen Pfanne. (Timm 2000: 7; repeated from section 2.5) In the above examples, the personal pronouns are in a relation of coreference with previously mentioned noun phrases, which have been marked by broken underlining. In addition to creating coreference with noun phrases, the third person personal pronouns it and es can also be used to establish coreference with one or more clauses or clause complexes, as

Coreference chain elements in English and German

35

the following two examples show. Example (3) from a play by John Osborne is provided by Schubert (2012: 62). (3) ALISON.

Oh, Cliff looks after himself, more or less. In fact, he helps me quite a lot. HELENA. Can’t say I’d noticed it. (Osborne 1960: 40)

(4) Der Enkel ist gar keine hundert Meter gelaufen, sondern vielleicht nur siebzig, und der Opa hat es nicht bemerkt. (Rießinger 2007: 53) In examples (3) and (4), a third person pronoun establishes anaphoric reference with one or more clauses, which have been marked by broken underlining. As has been mentioned in section 2.5, Halliday/Hasan (1976: 52f., 66-70) use the term ‘extended reference’ to describe examples such as (3) and (4) in which a linguistic item refers back to an extended passage of text. In addition to third person personal pronouns, first and second person personal pronouns can also be used to establish anaphoric coreference (cf. Vater 2012: 92). It should be noted that first and second person personal pronouns are often used not to create coreference but to refer only exophorically. For example, in conversations these pronouns often refer exophorically to the speaker and hearer and do not have an antecedent in the previous text (cf. Schubert 2012: 33; Vater 2012: 92). However, first and second person personal pronouns can also be used to create anaphoric coreference. The following example contains a first person personal pronoun which establishes anaphoric coreference. The example is taken from the British National Corpus (BNC). (5) ‘The roof has leaked for a year,’ John said, ‘and I had to cover over the electrics to protect them from the rain.’ (BNC A14 788) In the above example, coreference is established between John and the first person personal pronoun I. If a text receiver reads or hears example (5), he or she can only correctly interpret the meaning of the pronoun I if

36

Chapter 3

he or she understands that the pronoun refers back to the noun phrase John. The next example shows the use of an anaphoric first person personal pronoun and an anaphoric second person personal pronoun in a German text. Indices are used to distinguish between the two coreference chains. (6) Paul1 sagte zu Anna2: „Ich1 bitte dich2 hierzubleiben“. (Vater 2012: 92) The first person personal pronoun Ich in example (6) is in a relation of anaphoric coreference with the noun phrase Paul. Furthermore, the second person personal pronoun dich establishes anaphoric coreference with the noun phrase Anna. Coreferential links to noun phrases, clauses or clause complexes can also be achieved by demonstrative pronouns. In English, the demonstrative pronouns that can be used for anaphoric coreference are this, that, these and those; in German, they include dieser/diese/dieses/dies (singular), diese (plural), jener/jene/jenes (singular), jene (plural) and der/die/das (cf. Kunz 2010: 140f.). It should be noted that the demonstrative pronouns jener/jene/jenes are used relatively infrequently in German and that the pronouns der, die and das occur more often in spoken than in written language (cf. Weinrich 2007: 385, 446; Kunz/Steiner 2010: 243). The following three examples illustrate the use of demonstrative pronouns which are in a relation of coreference with previously mentioned noun phrases. These noun phrases and the demonstrative pronouns are marked by broken underlining. In examples (8) and (9), the capital letter at the beginning and the full stop at the end have been added by the author of the present study. In example (8), indices are used to distinguish between two coreference chains. (7) Only small pines are left. Many of these have twisted and stunted shapes. (corpus example from Sinclair 2005: 387)

Coreference chain elements in English and German

37

(8) Meine Eltern1 wohnen in Italien, meine Schwiegereltern2 hier, und so sehe ich diese2 viel öfter als jene1. (Weinrich 2007: 447) (9) Wissen Sie auch, wo die Pfaueninsel liegt? – Na klar, die liegt in der Havel. (Weinrich 2007: 381) The English demonstrative pronouns this and that and the German demonstrative pronouns dies and das can be used for anaphoric coreferential links to clauses or clause complexes (cf. e.g. Halliday/Hasan 1976: 66; Kunz 2010: 137). As has been mentioned in the discussion of examples (3) and (4), this is called ‘extended reference’ by Halliday/Hasan (1976: 66-70). Two examples of this use of demonstrative pronouns have already been given in section 2.5; two further examples are provided below. (10) Students want to be shown connections between facts instead of spending their time memorizing dates and formulas. Reflecting this, the university is moving away from large survey courses and breaking down academic fences in order to show subjects relating to one another. (Quirk et al. 1985: 1462) (11) Mehrere kleine Anteilseigner gaben aber Widerspruch zu Protokoll und kündigten Anfechtungsklagen an. Dies könnte die Eintragung in das Handelsregister verzögern. (corpus example from Consten et al. 2007: 88) As has been mentioned above, anaphoric coreference can also be established by reflexive pronouns. When reflexive pronouns are used as a device for anaphoric coreference, they often create coreference within a clause complex. However, they can also establish coreference across clause complex boundaries, as the following two examples show. Example (12) is taken from the British National Corpus. (12) […] and in 1860 John Prior began building the street of houses that still bear his name. For himself he built a hotel on the corner of the

38

Chapter 3 ancient Coal Road West Auckland Road and called it the Alma. (BNC K4T 1296-K4T 1297)

(13) Obgleich nach seiner Ernennung 2002 vielfach daran gezweifelt wurde, dass Stolpe sich aus reinem Pflichtgefühl für das Amt zur Verfügung gestellt hatte, […] hält Stolpe an dieser Version fest. Für sich habe er diese „drei Jahre Frondienst als Minister für Verkehr, Maut und sonstige Späßchen“ nicht gebraucht. (Schuler 2006: 1) In example (12), coreference is established between John Prior, his, himself and he. Since the reflexive pronoun himself in example (12) refers backwards to his and to John Prior, the pronoun creates anaphoric coreference across a clause complex boundary. In example (13) above, we find a relation of coreference between the possessive determiner seiner, the two instances of the noun phrase Stolpe, the two instances of the reflexive pronoun sich and the personal pronoun er. The second instance of the reflexive pronoun sich refers back to the previous elements of the same coreference chain and establishes anaphoric coreference across a clause complex boundary. In addition to personal, demonstrative and reflexive pronouns, a small number of indefinite pronouns can also be used as coreferential devices, for example the pronouns both and such in English and beide/beides and solche/solches in German (cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 865; Consten et al. 2007: 84). This is illustrated by examples (14) to (17). (14) There are two families of side-necked turtles. Both live only in the southern hemisphere. (Browder 2004b: 1364) (15) Den Spaziergang dahin am Fluss entlang würde ich gern unterbrechen. Kleine Landzungen aus Kieselsteinen ragen in die Granta 1 , ausladende Äste beugen sich darüber – auf beiden könnte man sich einfach hinlegen und verweilen. (Rietz 2011: 2)

1

The Granta is a river in eastern England.

Coreference chain elements in English and German

39

(16) If officialdom makes mistakes, officialdom deserves to suffer. Such, at least, was Mr Boyd’s opinion. (Quirk et al. 1985: 376) (17) Nun, in diesem vorindustriellen Übergang, wurde Armut zum ersten Mal als säkularisiertes, vorindustrielles Massenphänomen erkannt. Als solches war sie durch die traditionelle Almosentätigkeit nicht mehr erreichbar […]. (Böhnisch et al. 1999: 21) Example (14) above contains the indefinite pronoun Both which establishes anaphoric coreference with the noun phrase two families of sidenecked turtles. In example (15), the indefinite pronoun beiden is in a relation of coreference with two noun phrases: Kleine Landzungen aus Kieselsteinen and ausladende Äste. These two noun phrases form the antecedent of a coreference chain and the pronoun beiden refers back to them. Example (15) thus shows that a coreference chain element can consist of more than one noun phrase. In example (16) above, the indefinite pronoun such refers back to the first clause complex in the example. Example (17) also includes an indefinite pronoun: the pronoun solches establishes anaphoric coreference with the noun phrase säkularisiertes, vorindustrielles Massenphänomen. 3.1.1.2 Determiners Another main device to establish anaphoric coreference in English and German is the use of possessive determiners, such as his/her/its and sein/ihr (cf. e.g. Halliday/Hasan 1976: 54f.; Esser 2009: 37f.). As has been explained in section 2.5, in the present study ‘determiner’ is understood as a term for closed-class items which precede the head of a noun phrase (cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 253). If a linguistic item such as these occurs as a noun phrase head, it is classified as a pronoun and not as a determiner in the present study (cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 372). Items such as our or unser are classified as possessive determiners and not as pronouns (cf. e.g. Jackson 1982: 64). Section 2.5 has already shown two examples

40

Chapter 3

of possessive determiners which establish coreference. The two examples are repeated below. (18) ‘Thanks,’ said Brody. He hung up, turned out the light in his office, and walked out to his car. (corpus example from Sinclair 2005: 386) (19) Die Musiker ziehen amüsiert ihre Augenbrauen hoch, die Frauen halten sich vor Staunen die Hände vor den Mund. (Lerchenmüller 2009: 1) In example (18), the two instances of the possessive determiner his establish anaphoric coreference with Brody. In addition, the personal pronoun He in example (18) also is part of the same coreference chain. In example (19), the noun phrase Die Musiker and the possessive determiner ihre are elements of the same coreference chain. It is important to point out that by contrast to other types of determiners, possessive determiners can establish coreference without being combined with another device for coreference. Thus, while possessive determiners function as main devices for anaphoric coreference, other determiners, such as the definite article, can function as supplementing devices for anaphoric or non-directional coreference and will be discussed in sections 3.1.2 and 3.3.2 below. 3.1.1.3 Full noun phrases Anaphoric coreference can also be established by the use of full noun phrases, i.e. noun phrases which are not realized as a pronoun. The present study distinguishes between several different main devices for anaphoric coreference which belong to the group of full noun phrases. All devices for anaphoric coreference which are part of the group ‘full noun phrases’ share the following feature: in order to correctly identify these anaphoric devices, it is important to compare a coreference chain element to the previous element of the same coreference chain. One type of full noun phrases that can create anaphoric coreference is called ‘simple repetition’ in the present study. The term ‘simple repeti-

Coreference chain elements in English and German

41

tion’ refers to a full noun phrase which repeats the previous element of the same coreference chain without further alterations than a change of the determiner or of the inflectional form (for related concepts cf. Halliday/Hasan 1976: 278; de Beaugrande/Dressler 1981: 54-56; Hoey 1991: 53; Vater 2001: 32-34). The following two examples illustrate the use of simple repetitions in English and German. (20) A man and a woman were struggling up the dune. The man wore shorts, a T-shirt, and basketball sneakers. (corpus example from Sinclair 2005: 386) (21) In einem Fall war ein Haus umgebaut worden. In der ältesten Schicht dieses Hauses lag ein Reitersporn der röm[ischen] Zeit. (Nylén 1999: 92) In example (20), there is coreference between the two noun phrases A man and The man. The noun phrase A man is repeated with a different determiner. Otherwise, the noun phrase is left unchanged. Thus, the noun phrase The man in example (20) is classified here as a simple repetition. In example (21), the noun phrase ein Haus is repeated with a different determiner and in a different inflectional form. Since there are no further differences between the two coreferential noun phrases in (21), dieses Hauses is also considered as an example of a simple repetition. A further main device for anaphoric coreference is called ‘partial repetition’ in the present study. The term ‘partial repetition’ refers to a full noun phrase which partially repeats the previous element of the same coreference chain: the head of the previous chain element is repeated but the pre- and/or postmodifications are changed (for a similar concept cf. Kunz 2010: 94). The inflectional form of the head which is repeated can be changed. In addition, a partial repetition can also include a change of

42

Chapter 3

the determiner, e.g. from the indefinite article to the definite article.2 An example of a partial repetition is given below. (22) [S]he found herself in a long, low hall, which was lit up by a row of lamps hanging from the roof. There were doors all round the hall, but they were all locked; […]. (Carroll 1998 [1865]: 12; example provided by Halliday/Hasan 1976: 72) In example (22), the first element of the coreference chain to be discussed is the noun phrase a long, low hall, which was lit up by a row of lamps hanging from the roof. This noun phrase contains two premodifying adjectives and a postmodifying relative clause. The second element of the coreference chain in example (22) is the anaphoric noun phrase the hall. This noun phrase contains the same head (hall) as the first chain element, but it does not contain the same pre- and postmodification as the first chain element. Therefore, the noun phrase the hall in example (22) is analyzed as a partial repetition. The following example shows the use of a partial repetition in a German text. (23) Und dann zeigt sie dem Zappergeck den fertigen Pyjama. Sieh da! Es hilft! Der Zappergeck guckt etwas gerader, so, daß er den Pyjama sehen kann. (Ruge/Ruge 1980: 160) In example (23), anaphoric coreference is established between the two noun phrases den fertigen Pyjama and den Pyjama. The noun phrase den Pyjama contains the same head as the first chain element, but it does not contain the same premodification. Thus, den Pyjama is considered as a partial repetition.

2

As has been explained in section 2.5, the present study assumes that determiners, as closed-class items, do not belong to the premodification of a noun phrase (cf. e.g. Quirk et al. 1985: 1238f.).

Coreference chain elements in English and German

43

In examples (22) and (23) above, the first chain element is longer than the partial repetition which refers back to it. However, it should be noted that in a sequence of coreference chain elements such as a bird – the small bird (cf. von Heusinger 2007: 127), the second chain element would also be interpreted as a partial repetition in the present study: it contains the same noun phrase head as the previous chain element but differs in its modification. Anaphoric coreference can also be established by the use of ‘synonymous noun phrases’, ‘hyperonymous noun phrases’ or ‘hyponymous noun phrases’ (cf. e.g. Halliday/Hasan 1976: 278; Hoey 1991: 70; Esser 2009: 43; Brinker 2010: 26-29, 39; Vater 2012: 90f.). These terms are based on the semantic relations of synonymy, hyperonymy and hyponymy. These semantic relations can hold between lexemes or between other types of linguistic items (cf. e.g. Lyons 1981: 148, 155f.). Instead of using the terms ‘synonym’, ‘hyperonym’ or ‘hyponym’, the present study employs the terms ‘synonymous noun phrase’, ‘hyperonymous noun phrase’ and ‘hyponymous noun phrase’ in order to emphasize that we are dealing with semantic relations between noun phrases. In the present study, the device ‘synonymous noun phrase’ is defined as a full noun phrase which fulfils the following two criteria: first, the noun phrase does not have the same noun phrase head as the previous element of the same coreference chain. Second, the noun phrase and the previous coreference chain element provide very similar information about their common referent. An example is provided below. (24) “What do you know about ginseng?” asked the man. The guy was in his fifties and seemed like a normal business type, […]. (Baldacci 2004: 70) In example (24), coreference is established between the two noun phrases the man and The guy and the possessive determiner his. The second chain element, The guy, does not have the same noun phrase head as the previous chain element, the man. Furthermore, the two noun phrases provide

44

Chapter 3

very similar information about their common referent since the lexical meanings of man and guy are very similar. The following example shows the use of an anaphoric synonymous noun phrase in a German text. (25) Ein Mann kam herein. Der Kerl sah müde aus. (Vater 2012: 91) As has been mentioned above, a further main anaphoric device is the use of a ‘hyperonymous noun phrase’. In the present study, the device ‘hyperonymous noun phrase’ is defined as a full noun phrase which does not contain the same noun phrase head as the previous chain element and which provides less information about its referent than the previous element of the same coreference chain. The following example illustrates this. (26) Turtles’ nostrils are at the top of the snout, so the reptiles can catch a breath while staying mostly underwater. (Browder 2004b: 1370) In this example, anaphoric coreference is established between the two noun phrases Turtles’ and the reptiles. The second coreference chain element, the reptiles, does not repeat the head of the first coreference chain element. Furthermore, the second chain element provides less information about its referent than the first chain element: the noun phrase the reptiles only informs the text receiver that the referent is a type of reptile. By contrast, the noun phrase Turtles’ tells the text receiver that the referent is a specific type of reptiles, namely turtles. Therefore, the noun phrase the reptiles is considered as a hyperonymous noun phrase. A similar example taken from a German text is shown below. (27) Das Taxi fuhr ihm zu langsam. Der Wagen fuhr keine 80. (Schwarz 2000: 29) In example (27), the two noun phrases Das Taxi and Der Wagen form a coreference chain. The second chain element, Der Wagen, provides less information about its referent than the first chain element, which provides more specific information. Furthermore, the two chain elements do not

Coreference chain elements in English and German

45

share the same head. The noun phrase Der Wagen is thus interpreted as a hyperonymous noun phrase. Some hyperonymous noun phrases have ‘general nouns’ as their heads. General nouns have been defined as nouns such as people, thing or stuff which have very general meanings and can be used to establish anaphoric coreference (cf. Halliday/Hasan 1976: 274-277). The following example shows the use of a hyperonymous noun phrase with the general noun stuff as its head. (28) What shall I do with all this crockery? – Leave the stuff there; someone’ll come and put it away. (Halliday/Hasan 1976: 275) In addition, anaphoric coreference can also be established by ‘hyponymous noun phrases’. Hyponymous noun phrases are defined as follows in the present study: they are full noun phrases which do not have the same head as the previous chain element and they provide more information about their referent than the previous element of the same coreference chain, which is also a full noun phrase. While hyperonymous noun phrases are used relatively frequently to create coreferential links in a text, the use of hyponymous noun phrases is less common (cf. Brinker 2010: 29f.; Kunz 2010: 93, 325). However, it is possible to establish coreference by using hyponymous noun phrases. Hoey (1991: 70) provides the following example: […] the conductors of a scientific experiment may at one point be referred to as the scientists and at a later point, after the description of research patently biological in nature, be referred to as the biologists. (emphasis in the original) Anaphoric coreference can also be established by ‘nominal paraphrases’ (for related concepts cf. Linke/Nussbaumer 2000: 309, 312;

46

Chapter 3

Schwarz 2000: 29; von Polenz 2008: 143; Kunz 2010: 92f.).3 In the present study, the main anaphoric device ‘nominal paraphrase’ is defined as a full noun phrase which fulfils the following criteria: first, the noun phrase does not have the same noun phrase head as the previous element of the same coreference chain. Second, the noun phrase provides approximately the same amount of information about its referent as the previous chain element. Third, the noun phrase and the previous chain element each highlight a different aspect of their common referent (cf. Kunz 2010: 93). An example is provided below. (29) Loons nest close to the water’s edge because these excellent swimmers cannot stand up on land. (Browder 2004b: 1383) In the above example, the noun phrases loons and these excellent swimmers are in a relation of coreference. The two noun phrases do not share the same head. Furthermore, both noun phrases convey approximately the same amount of information about their common referent. This means that none of the two noun phrases is clearly more specific than the other: the noun phrase Loons describes a type of bird and the noun phrase these excellent swimmers describes a type of swimmers. By contrast, if the first chain element in example (29) was for instance Loons, which feed almost exclusively on aquatic animals, instead of Loons, then the first chain element and the second chain element (these excellent swimmers) would not convey the same amount of information since the first chain element would be more specific than the second one.

3

It should be noted that some authors use the term ‘paraphrase’ in a different way than it is used in the present study: in some approaches, the term ‘paraphrase’ refers to a clause or clause complex which is an alternative version of another clause or clauses complex. As an example of a paraphrase in this sense, Crystal (2008: 350) mentions the following two clauses: The dog is eating a bone and A bone is being eaten by the dog. Cf. also the related term ‘allo-sentence’ (cf. Daneš 1964: 233; Esser 2009: 27).

Coreference chain elements in English and German

47

In addition, the two noun phrases Loons and these excellent swimmers each highlight a different aspect of their common referent. The first noun phrase informs the text receiver about the type of bird that the text in example (29) describes. The second noun phrase then informs the text receiver that these birds are talented swimmers. The two coreference chain elements Loons and these excellent swimmers thus each provide different information about their common referent. The noun phrase these excellent swimmers in example (29) is therefore analyzed as a nominal paraphrase. A further example of a nominal paraphrase is provided below. (30) In ihrer Europapolitik ist Angela Merkel auf dem Boden der Tatsachen angekommen. Der Auftritt der Bundeskanzlerin beim Gipfel in Brüssel war pragmatisch und weitgehend unverbindlich. (Büchner 2006: 13; example provided by Kunz 2010: 92f.) In the above example, the two noun phrases Angela Merkel and der Bundeskanzlerin are part of the same coreference chain. The possessive determiner ihrer is also part of this coreference chain. The two noun phrases Angela Merkel and der Bundeskanzlerin convey approximately the same amount of information about their common referent. Furthermore, the two noun phrases each highlight a different aspect of their common referent, Angela Merkel. The first noun phrase provides the text receiver with the full name of Angela Merkel. By contrast, the second noun phrase provides information about the office that Angela Merkel holds. The noun phrase der Bundeskanzlerin is thus interpreted as a nominal paraphrase (cf. Kunz 2010: 92f. for a similar interpretation). In addition to nominal paraphrases, anaphoric coreference can also be established by ‘clausal paraphrases’. In the present study, clausal paraphrases are defined as full noun phrases which refer back to one or more clauses or clause complexes (for similar concepts cf. Halliday/Hasan 1976: 52f., 66-70; Francis 1994: 85; Linke/Nussbaumer 2000: 309; Schubert 2012: 51f.). Clausal paraphrases have been called ‘labelling’ by some authors (cf. e.g. Francis 1994: 85; Linke/Nussbaumer 2000: 309), and

48

Chapter 3

Halliday/Hasan (1976: 52f., 66-70) use the term ‘extended reference’ (cf. also section 3.1.1.1 above). The following two examples illustrate the use of clausal paraphrases in texts; example (31) is provided by Virtanen (1992: 301). (31) Consequently, he was accused of insulting Hideyoshi’s dignity and ordered to be handcuffed for 50 days. The experience crushed him and ended his career as an artist. (Goetz 1983: 840) (32) Emil reiste von Paris nach Köln. Die Reise dauerte 5 Stunden. (Vater 2012: 81) In example (31), the noun phrase The experience refers back to and is coreferential with the first clause complex in the example. Thus, The experience is classified here as a clausal paraphrase. As has been shown in section 3.1.1.1 above, it would also be possible to use a pronoun such as this instead of the noun phrase The experience. In example (32) above, we find a relation of coreference between the first clause and the noun phrase Die Reise (cf. Vater 2012: 81). Anaphoric coreference can furthermore be established by a device which is called ‘return to full noun phrase after pronoun’ in the present study. This device is defined as follows: a full noun phrase occurs as an element of a coreference chain and the previous chain element is a pronoun (cf. Swanson 2003: 97-102; Weinrich 2007: 377). An example of a ‘return to full noun phrase after pronoun’ is given below. (33) Alice waited till the eyes appeared, and then nodded. “It’s no use speaking to it,” she thought, “till its ears have come, or at least one of them.” In another minute the whole head appeared, and then Alice put down her flamingo, and began an account of the game, […]. (Carroll 1998 [1865]: 74f.) In the above example, coreference is established between the first instance of Alice, the pronoun she, the second instance of Alice and the possessive determiner her. The second instance of Alice is a full noun phrase

Coreference chain elements in English and German

49

and the previous element in the same coreference chain is the pronoun she. Therefore, the second instance of the noun phrase Alice in example (33) is interpreted as a ‘return to full noun phrase after pronoun’ in the present study. In example (33) above, the full noun phrase that occurs after the pronoun is the same noun phrase which occurred before the pronoun. The following example shows that a ‘return to full noun phrase after pronoun’ can also be found when the full noun phrase before the pronoun and the full noun phrase after the pronoun differ. (34) Die Sojabohne zählt zu den bekanntesten Nutzpflanzen der Erde. Kaum eine andere Pflanze ist so reich an Wirkstoffen wie sie. Die Pflanze gehört als Hülsenfrucht zur Familie der Schmetterlingsblütler und stammt ursprünglich aus dem nordöstlichen Asien. (corpus example from Kunz 2007: 281f.) In example (34), the first element of the coreference chain is the noun phrase Die Sojabohne. The second chain element is the personal pronoun sie, which is followed by the third chain element Die Pflanze. Since the noun phrase Die Pflanze is a full noun phrase and the previous element of the same coreference chain is a pronoun, the noun phrase Die Pflanze is interpreted as a ‘return to full noun phrase after pronoun’. It should be noted that if in example (34) the first chain element was Die Sojabohne and the second chain element was Die Pflanze, then Die Pflanze would be analyzed as a ‘hyperonymous noun phrase’ (cf. the discussions of examples (26) to (28) above). However, due to the pronoun sie which occurs in between Die Sojabohne and Die Pflanze, the noun phrase Die Pflanze is considered as a ‘return to full noun phrase after pronoun’. A similar device for anaphoric coreference is called ‘return to full noun phrase after possessive determiner’ in the present study. As the name suggests, this device is defined here as a full noun phrase which is an element of a coreference chain and the previous chain element is a

50

Chapter 3

possessive determiner (cf. Swanson 2003: 97-102). An example is given below. (35) On the eleventh floor Morris, thinking to trick his pursuer, jumped out of the elevator and boarded a downward-moving compartment, but not before Masters glimpsed the manoeuvre. Morris heard a heavy thump […]. (Lodge 1979: 225f.) In example (35), coreference is established between the two instances of the noun phrase Morris and the possessive determiner his. Since the second instance of Morris is a full noun phrase and the previous chain element is a possessive determiner, the second instance of Morris is considered as a ‘return to full noun phrase after possessive determiner’. Sections 3.1.1.1 and 3.1.1.2 above and the present section have introduced many different main devices for anaphoric coreference. Table 3.1 on the next page summarizes these devices. The examples which are provided in Table 3.1 are abridged or unabridged versions of examples that have been previously cited in the present study, or they are translations of these versions of the examples. Furthermore, the rightmost column of Table 3.1 provides the numbers of the examples which have been used in the previous text to illustrate the different main devices for anaphoric coreference.

51

Coreference chain elements in English and German Main devices for anaphoric coreference Device

Examples

Pronouns Personal pronoun

Nick – he

Nick – er

(1) – (6), 2.3: (15)

Demonstrative pronoun

small pines – these

Reflexive pronoun

John Prior – himself

John Prior – sich

(12), (13)

Indefinite pronoun

two families of sidenecked turtles – both

zwei Familien der HalswenderSchildkröten – beide

(14) – (17)

Brody – his office

Brody – sein Büro

(18), (19)

kleine Kiefern – diese (7) – (11)

Determiners Possessive determiner Full noun phrases Simple repetition

a man – the man

ein Mann – der Mann (20), (21)

Partial repetition

a long, low hall – the hall

ein langer, niedriger Flur – der Flur

(22), (23)

Synonymous noun phrase

a man – the guy

ein Mann – der Kerl

(24), (25)

Hyperonymous noun phrase

the taxi – the car

das Taxi – der Wagen

(26) – (28)

Hyponymous noun phrase

the scientists – the biologists

die WissenHoey schaftler/innen – die 1991: 70 Biologinnen/Biologen

Nominal paraphrase

loons – these excellent swimmers

Seetaucher – diese exzellenten Schwim- (29), (30) mer

Clausal paraphrase

Emil travelled from Paris Emil reiste von Paris (31), (32) to Cologne. – the journey nach Köln. – die Reise

Return to full noun phrase after pronoun

Alice – she – Alice

Alice – sie – Alice

(33), (34)

Return to full noun phrase after possessive determiner

Morris – his pursuer – Morris

Morris – sein Verfolger – Morris

(35)

Table 3.1: Main devices for anaphoric coreference

52

Chapter 3

Table 3.1 illustrates that there is a great variety of main devices for anaphoric coreference. Some of these main devices can be combined with supplementing devices, as will be shown in the following section 3.1.2. 3.1.2 Supplementing devices for anaphoric coreference As has been explained in section 3.1.1.1, supplementing devices can only establish coreference if they are combined with main devices. Different types of determiners can function as supplementing devices for anaphoric coreference: the definite article, demonstrative determiners (this, that, these, those and, for example, dieser/diese/dieses, jener/jene/jenes), and a small group of other determiners (e.g. both and beide) (cf. Halliday/Hasan 1976: 37; Esser 2009: 37f.; Brinker 2010: 40). These supplementing devices can be combined with main devices for anaphoric coreference, such as simple repetitions or partial repetitions. The use of the definite article as a supplementing device is illustrated in the example below. (36) We have a house, and the house has a guest room, if you can call it that. (Hendricks/Perkins 2008: 474) In this example, there is a coreference chain consisting of the two noun phrases a house and the house. The noun phrase the house is a simple repetition of the noun phrase a house since the noun phrase head is repeated and since the two noun phrases do not differ in their pre- or postmodification as they both have none. In addition, the noun phrase the house contains the definite article the, which indicates that the noun phrase refers back to a previously mentioned noun phrase. The supplementing device ‘definite article’ is thus combined with the main device ‘simple repetition’. The following example shows the use of the supplementing device ‘definite article’ in a German text. (37) Im Flur stand ein Hund. Der Hund sah mich an. (Tausch 2010: 95)

Coreference chain elements in English and German

53

In example (37), anaphoric coreference is established between the two noun phrases ein Hund and Der Hund. The noun phrase Der Hund is analyzed here as a combination of the supplementing device ‘definite article’ and the main device ‘simple repetition’. In addition to simple repetitions, the supplementing device ‘definite article’ can also be combined with other main devices for anaphoric coreference. For example, if the chain element ein Mann is followed by the chain element der Kerl (cf. Vater 2012: 91), the supplementing device ‘definite article’ is combined with the main device ‘synonymous noun phrase’. A further supplementing device for anaphoric coreference is the use of the demonstrative determiner. The following example shows how the supplementing device ‘demonstrative determiner’ can be combined with the main device ‘partial repetition’. (38) The rooms are inhabited by boys from twelve to sixteen years of age. The majority of those boys have reached the stage of caring for comfort and decorations. (corpus example from Sinclair 2005: 387) In the above example, we find anaphoric coreference between the two noun phrases boys from twelve to sixteen years of age and those boys. The noun phrase those boys contains the same head as the previous element of the same coreference chain, but differs from the previous chain element in its modification. While the noun phrase boys from twelve to sixteen years of age contains the prepositional phrase from twelve to sixteen years of age as a postmodification, the noun phrase those boy does not contain this postmodification. Therefore, the noun phrase those boys is analyzed as a partial repetition. Furthermore, the noun phrase those boys contains the demonstrative determiner those, which indicates that the noun phrase refers anaphorically. The supplementing device ‘demonstrative determiner’ is thus combined with the main device ‘partial repetition’. The next example shows how the supplementing device ‘demonstrative determiner’ can establish anaphoric coreference in a German text.

54

Chapter 3

Here, the supplementing device is combined with the main device ‘hyperonymous noun phrase’. (39) Die Amsel lebte ursprünglich nur in den Wäldern, wanderte aber in Laufe der Zeit ab und fand in den Grünanlagen der Städte einen neuen Lebensraum. Heute ist dieser Singvogel aus unseren Gärten nicht mehr wegzudenken. (Kanbay 2009: 10) Example (39) contains a coreference chain with the following two elements: the noun phrase Die Amsel and the noun phrase dieser Singvogel. The noun phrase dieser Singvogel does not have the same head as the previous chain element Die Amsel. Furthermore, the noun phrase dieser Singvogel provides less information about its referent than the noun phrase Die Amsel. Thus, dieser Singvogel in example (39) is considered as a hyperonymous noun phrase. In addition, the noun phrase contains the demonstrative determiner dieser. The supplementing device ‘demonstrative determiner’ is thus combined with the main device ‘hyperonymous noun phrase’. It should be noted that the two noun phrases Die Amsel and dieser Singvogel in example (39) both have generic reference since they refer to the class of blackbirds as a whole and not to a specific blackbird. As has been explained in section 2.4, generic noun phrases are often used to establish non-directional coreference. However, as example (39) shows, noun phrases with generic reference can also establish anaphoric coreference. The last supplementing device for anaphoric coreference to be discussed is a small group of ‘other determiners’, such as both or such in English and beide or solche/r/s in German. The following example illustrates the use of the determiner both as a supplementing device for anaphoric coreference. The example is taken from the British National Corpus (BNC). (40) Yemen abstained on 5 votes and Cuba opposed 2 and abstained on 3. Both countries were among the non-permanent membership of the

Coreference chain elements in English and German

55

Council, which sits for two years, the others for that particular twoyear period being Canada, Colombia, the Ivory Coast, Ethiopia, Finland, Malaysia, Romania and Zaire. (BNC HRE 1525-HRE 1526) In this example, the noun phrase Both countries establishes a relation of anaphoric coreference with two noun phrases Yemen and Cuba. Example (40) therefore contains a coreference chain in which the first chain element consists of the two noun phrases Yemen and Cuba and the second chain element is the noun phrase Both countries. The example thus shows that a coreference chain element may consist of more than one noun phrase (cf. also example (15) in section 3.1.1.1 above). The anaphoric noun phrase Both countries does not contain the same noun phrase head as the previous chain element. Furthermore, the noun phrase Both countries conveys less information about its referent than the two noun phrases Yemen and Cuba. The noun phrase Both countries is thus interpreted as an instance of the main device ‘hyperonymous noun phrase’. In addition, the noun phrase contains the determiner both. The determiner indicates that the noun phrase refers back to something that has been previously mentioned. Thus, the determiner both in example (40) is used as a supplementing device for anaphoric coreference. Example (40) therefore contains a combination of the supplementing device ‘other determiner’ and the main device ‘hyperonymous noun phrase’. The following example shows the use of the determiner beide as a supplementing device for anaphoric coreference. (41) Hingegen hat Hamburg viele Gemeinsamkeiten mit Bonn: Die Zentralität, Bevölkerungsstruktur und Bevölkerungsprognose sind in beiden Städten relativ positiv, […]. (Köller 2012: 139) In the above example, the noun phrase beiden Städten is in a relation of anaphoric coreference with the two noun phrases Hamburg and Bonn. The noun phrase beiden Städten is analyzed as a combination of the supplementing device ‘other determiner’ and the main device ‘hyperonymous noun phrase’.

56

Chapter 3

As has been noted above, the determiners such and solche/r/s can also be used as a supplementing device for anaphoric coreference. The use of the determiner such is illustrated below. (42) Some 60% of the state’s electricity comes from burning imported oil, the highest use of such fuel in the country. (corpus example from Sinclair 2005: 392) The present study assumes that in the above example coreference is established between the two noun phrases imported oil and such fuel. The noun phrase such fuel is considered as a hyperonymous noun phrase since it does not have the same head as the previous chain element and since it provides less information about its referent than the noun phrase imported oil. In addition, the noun phrase such fuel contains the determiner such, which indicates that the noun phrase refers backwards to something that has been previously mentioned. Example (42) thus contains a combination of the supplementing device ‘other determiner’ and the main device ‘hyperonymous noun phrase’. It might be argued that the relation between the two noun phrases imported oil and such fuel in example (42) is a relation of comparison or similarity and not a relation of coreference (cf. Sinclair 2005: 392; Becher 2010: 123). However, the present study assumes that the two noun phrases are in a relation of coreference since it would be possible to replace the determiner such with a demonstrative determiner. This is shown in the example below, which is an adapted version of example (42) above. (43) Some 60% of the state’s electricity comes from burning imported oil, the highest use of this fuel in the country. Example (43) shows that it is possible to replace the determiner such with the determiner this without a great change in meaning (cf. Becher 2010: 123 for a similar example). In example (43), the relation of coreference between imported oil and this fuel is easy to recognize. Due to the similarity of example (42) and example (43), the present study assumes that

Coreference chain elements in English and German

57

the noun phrases imported oil and such fuel in example (42) are in a relation of coreference. The next example shows the use of the determiner solches as a supplementing anaphoric device in a German text. (44) Im Senatsbericht heißt es, Frankreich habe sein Nuklearpotenzial seit dem Ende des Kalten Krieges halbiert, und namentlich die Gefechtsköpfe seiner Boden-Boden-Raketen vollständig verschrottet. Komplett abgebaut habe es ebenso seine Fabriken zur Herstellung militärisch nutzbaren Spaltmaterials, und es sei dem FMCT beigetreten, dem Vertrag über den Produktionsstopp solchen Materials. (von Randow 2010: 1) The present study assumes that in the above example there is a relation of coreference between the two noun phrases militärisch nutzbaren Spaltmaterials and solchen Materials. The noun phrase solchen Materials is analyzed as a combination of the supplementing device ‘other determiner’ and the main device ‘partial repetition’ since the noun phrase solchen Materials has the same noun phrase head as the previous chain element, but differs from the previous chain element with regard to its modification. The supplementing devices for anaphoric coreference are summarized in Table 3.2 on the next page. The examples provided in the table are abridged versions of previously cited examples and their translations. Furthermore, the last column of Table 3.2 provides the numbers of the examples which have been used to illustrate the different supplementing devices in the present section.

58

Chapter 3 Supplementing devices for anaphoric coreference Device

Examples

Definite article

a house – the house

Demonstrative determiner

boys from 12 to 16 years of age – those boys

Other determiner

Hamburg, Bonn – both cities

ein Haus – das Haus

(36), (37)

Jungen im Alter von 12 bis 16 Jahren – diese (38), (39) Jungen Hamburg, Bonn – beide Städte

(40) – (44)

Table 3.2: Supplementing devices for anaphoric coreference Table 3.2 shows that the list of supplementing devices for anaphoric coreference is relatively short compared to the list of main devices for anaphoric coreference (cf. Table 3.1 in section 3.1.1.3 above). However, as has been demonstrated in the present section, each of the supplementing devices for anaphoric coreference can be combined with several different main devices, for example with a simple repetition or a partial repetition.

3.2 Main devices for cataphoric coreference 3.2.1 Pronouns As has been explained in section 3.1.1.1, the present study suggests that anaphoric coreference can be established by main devices and supplementing devices. By contrast, the present study assumes that cataphoric, i.e. forward-pointing, coreference is established only by main devices and not by supplementing devices. The first main device for cataphoric coreference to be discussed is the use of pronouns. Pronouns cannot only be used to establish anaphoric coreference, but also to create cataphoric coreference in English and German. Cataphoric coreference can be established by personal pronouns, demonstrative pronouns and reflexive pronouns (for cataphoric personal pronouns cf. Halliday/Hasan 1976: 56f.; Quirk et al. 1985: 351f.; Esser 2009: 49f.; Brinker 2010: 31-33; Vater 2012: 92 and for cataphoric de-

Coreference chain elements in English and German

59

monstrative pronouns cf. Halliday/Hasan 1976: 17, 68-70; Quirk et al. 1985: 375f.; Esser 2009: 49f.). When personal pronouns are used to establish cataphoric coreference, they refer forwards either to noun phrases or to clauses or clause complexes (cf. Halliday/Hasan 1976: 56; Esser 2009: 49f.). The two examples below illustrate the use of personal pronouns which refer cataphorically to noun phrases. In example (46), the capital letter at the beginning and the full stop at the end have been added by the author of the present study. (45) Recognizing the growing strains on energy systems as he took office, President Bush sought to develop a comprehensive and balanced energy policy […]. (Abraham 2004: 6; example provided by Kunz 2010: 20) (46) Wenn er will, kann der Bundespräsident die ihm vorgeschlagene Ernennung eines Ministers verweigern. (Weinrich 2007: 386) In example (45), the personal pronoun he refers forwards to the noun phrase President Bush. Similarly, in example (46) the personal pronoun er refers forwards to the noun phrase der Bundespräsident. In addition, the pronoun ihm in example (46) is part of the same coreference chain and establishes anaphoric coreference. In both of the examples (45) and (46), cataphoric coreference is established between a pronoun and a noun phrase which occur in the same clause complex. The following example shows that personal pronouns can also create cataphoric coreference across clause complex boundaries. The example is the beginning of a novel by Hans Bender and is provided by Brinker (2010: 32). (47) Warum hat sie kein Anderer gefunden? Warum gerade ich, der ihren Wert weiß, der sich von diesen Dingen so weit entfernt hat? Ich konnte nicht ahnen, was die Kapsel enthielt. (Bender 1953: 5) In this example, cataphoric coreference across clause complex boundaries is created by the personal pronoun sie and the noun phrase die Kapsel. In addition, it should be noted that the possessive determiner ihren, which is

60

Chapter 3

part of the noun phrase ihren Wert, belongs to the same coreference chain (cf. Brinker 2010: 32). The use of determiners for cataphoric coreference will be described in section 3.2.2 below. Examples (45) to (47) have illustrated cataphoric coreference between a personal pronoun and a full noun phrase. In addition, cataphoric coreference can also be created between personal pronouns and one or more clauses or clause complexes (cf. Halliday/Hasan 1976: 17, 56; Esser 2009: 49f.). The following two examples illustrate cataphoric coreference between a personal pronoun and a clause or clause complex. Example (48) is repeated from section 2.2. (48) I would never have believed it. They’ve accepted the whole scheme. (Halliday/Hasan 1976: 56) (49) „Otto,“ sagte ich ziemlich aufgeregt zu Köster, „ich hätte es nie erwartet, aber ich glaube, unser Cadillac kehrt zurück!“ (Remarque 1938: 202) In example (48), the third person pronoun it establishes cataphoric coreference with the clause They’ve accepted the whole scheme. Similarly, in example (49) there is a relation of cataphoric coreference between es and unser Cadillac kehrt zurück. Like personal pronouns, demonstrative pronouns can also refer cataphorically to noun phrases, clauses or clause complexes. Here is an example of a demonstrative pronoun which refers forwards to a sequence of noun phrases. The example is an adapted version of a corpus example from Sinclair (2005: 395). (50) … a box containing this: a packet of tissues, two small sponges, two old handkerchiefs, and a clothes brush. In the above example, the demonstrative pronoun this refers forwards to the sequence of noun phrases which has been marked by broken underlining. While demonstrative pronouns can refer forwards to noun phrases,

Coreference chain elements in English and German

61

they seem to refer forwards to clauses or clause complexes more often. Here are two examples. (51) Well, you might not believe this but I don’t drink very much. (corpus example from Sinclair 2005: 395) (52) Du wirst das nicht glauben, aber ich habe Angst, fortzugehen, obwohl ich es wünsche. (Otten 1989: 138) Examples (51) and (52) illustrate cataphoric coreference between a demonstrative pronoun and a clause or a clause complex. In example (51), the demonstrative pronoun this refers forwards to the clause I don’t drink very much. In example (52), the demonstrative pronoun das refers cataphorically to the clause complex ich habe Angst, fortzugehen, obwohl ich es wünsche. As has been mentioned above, cataphoric reference can also be created by the use of reflexive pronouns. The following example illustrates this. (53) To prepare herself, Mary ran eight miles a day and boned up on whatever literature she could find about the shuttle. (Wright 1981: 176) In this example, the reflexive pronoun herself refers forwards to the noun phrase Mary. In addition, the anaphoric pronoun she is also part of the same coreference chain. The following example illustrates how cataphoric coreference can be created by a reflexive pronoun in a German text. (54) Um sich zu schützen, nahm Dürer in die Buchausgaben der „Apokalypse“, des „Marienlebens“ und der beiden Holzschnittpassionen eine etwas dramatisch ausgefallene Warnung an die Räuber und Diebe fremder Arbeit und fremden Geistes auf. (Strieder 1978: 10)

62

Chapter 3

In example (54), the reflexive pronoun sich refers forwards to the noun phrase Dürer. The reflexive pronoun is thus used to establish cataphoric coreference. 3.2.2 Possessive determiners Another means to create cataphoric coreference is the use of possessive determiners (cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 351f.; Brinker 2010: 32). These determiners can be used to establish coreference with a following noun phrase, as is shown below. Example (56) is repeated from section 3.2.1 for ease of reference. (55) Failure of his latest attempt on the world record has caused heavy financial loss to the backers of daredevil balloonist Felix Champ. (Quirk et al. 1985: 352) (56) Warum hat sie kein Anderer gefunden? Warum gerade ich, der ihren Wert weiß, der sich von diesen Dingen so weit entfernt hat? Ich konnte nicht ahnen, was die Kapsel enthielt. (Bender 1953: 5) In example (55), we find cataphoric coreference between the possessive determiner his and the noun phrase daredevil balloonist Felix Champ. Similarly, in (56) there is a relation of coreference between the possessive determiner ihren and die Kapsel. 3.2.3 Full noun phrases In addition to pronouns and possessive determiners, cataphoric coreference can also be created by full noun phrases (cf. e.g. Sinclair 2005: 395; Esser 2009: 50). This is illustrated by examples (57) and (58). (57) I draw the following conclusions: that natural childbirth and rooming in should be available for all who want them. (corpus example from Sinclair 1990: 395)

Coreference chain elements in English and German

63

(58) Wir können nun aus diesen Erkenntnissen die folgende Schlussfolgerung ableiten: Eine Häufigkeitsverteilung ist immer durch ihre Lage und ihre Streuung charakterisiert. Zu jedem Lagemaß muss auch immer ein Streuungsmaß angegeben werden. (Schäfer 2010: 76) In example (57), coreference is established between the noun phrase the following conclusions and the that-clause. In example (58), the noun phrase die folgende Schlussfolgerung is in a relation of coreference with the second and the third clause. Examples (57) and (58) above can be considered as relatively clear cases of cataphoric coreference: the noun phrases the following conclusions and die folgende Schlussfolgerung indicate that certain concluding remarks will follow in the text. The noun phrases thus are clearly forward-pointing to other parts of the text. However, there are also cases in which it seems to be more difficult to decide whether a full noun phrase establishes cataphoric coreference. Example (59) illustrates this; it is a corpus example taken from Francis (1994: 84). (59) […] In reply to that question a golfing colleague of mine offered two reasons. The first was that beginners usually start with handed-down clubs, which are usually right-handed. The second was that, for technical reasons, left-handed individuals make good right-handed golfers. It could be suggested that the noun phrase two reasons in example (59) does not clearly indicate that the two reasons will be explained later in the text. The noun phrase two reasons is thus not as strongly forwardpointing as the cataphoric noun phrases in (57) and (58) above. Still, it can be argued that two reasons is in a relation of coreference with the second and third clause complex. Since there seems to be a relation of coreference between two reasons and the following clause complexes,

64

Chapter 3

cases like (59) will be accepted as cataphoric coreference in the present study (cf. e.g. Linke/Nussbaumer 2000: 309 for a similar example). As has been shown in sections 3.2.1, 3.2.2 and the present section, cataphoric coreference can be established by a number of different main devices. These main devices are summarized in Table 3.3 on the next page. The examples provided in the table are based on the examples that have been cited in sections 3.2.1, 3.2.2 and the present section. Some of the examples in Table 3.3 have been abridged. The last column in the table lists the numbers of the examples which illustrate a particular device for cataphoric coreference in sections 3.2.1, 3.2.2 and the present section.

65

Coreference chain elements in English and German Main devices for cataphoric coreference Device

Examples

Personal pronoun

If he wants, the president may refuse the proposed appointment of a minister.

Wenn er will, kann der Bundespräsident die ihm vorgeschlagene Ernennung eines Ministers verweigern.

(45) – (49)

Demonstrative pronoun

Well, you might not believe this but I don’t drink very much.

Also, du wirst das vielleicht nicht glauben, aber ich trinke nicht sehr viel.

(50) – (52)

Reflexive pronoun

To prepare herself, Mary ran eight miles a day.

Um sich vorzubereiten, lief Mary acht Meilen am Tag.

(53), (54)

Possessive determiner

Why didn’t someone else find it? Why me, who knows its value? I could not guess what the small container contained.

Warum hat sie kein Anderer gefunden? Warum gerade ich, der ihren (55), (56) Wert weiß? Ich konnte nicht ahnen, was die Kapsel enthielt.

Full noun phrase

I draw the following conclusions: that natural childbirth and rooming in should be available for all who want them.

Ich ziehe die folgenden Schlussfolgerungen: dass eine natürliche Geburt und „Rooming-in“ für alle zur Verfügung stehen sollten, die dies wollen.

(57) – (59)

Table 3.3: Main devices for cataphoric coreference Table 3.3 shows that there are some similarities between the main devices for cataphoric and for anaphoric coreference. Although the list of main anaphoric devices is longer than the list of main cataphoric devices (cf. Table 3.1 in section 3.1.1.3 above), possessive determiners and different types of pronouns and full noun phrases can be used both as devices for anaphoric and cataphoric coreference.

66

Chapter 3

3.3 Devices for non-directional coreference 3.3.1 Main devices 3.3.1.1 Pronouns The present study assumes that non-directional coreference can be established by main devices and supplementing devices. The first main device to be discussed is the use of pronouns. Non-directional coreference can be created by using the generic indefinite pronoun one in English and the generic indefinite pronoun man in German. The following example illustrates the use of the pronoun one. (60) One cannot be sidetracked unless one is first on track. (Kraft 2009: 5) In example (60), the pronouns One and one have generic reference because they refer to people in general (cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 387 for a discussion of one with generic reference). Since One and one in example (60) have the same referent and do not refer forwards or backwards in the text, the two items are in a relation of non-directional coreference. A similar example is provided below. In the example, the capital letter at the beginning and the full stop at the end have been added by the author of the present study. (61) Wenn man nicht mehr weiter kann, fängt man wieder von vorne an. (Weinrich 2007: 100) In the above example, coreference is established between the two instances of the indefinite pronoun man. Both instances of man have the same referent in the extralinguistic world and they do not refer forwards or backwards to each other. Thus, in example (61) the second instance of the indefinite pronoun man creates non-directional coreference. 3.3.1.2 Full noun phrases In addition to pronouns, non-directional coreference can also be created by the use of full noun phrases. The present study distinguishes between several different types of main devices which belong to the group of full

Coreference chain elements in English and German

67

noun phrases. It should be noted that all devices for non-directional coreference which are part of the group ‘full noun phrases’ share the following feature: in order to correctly identify these non-directional devices it is important to compare a coreference chain element to the previous element of the same coreference chain. A common way to establish non-directional coreference is the use of a simple repetition. As has been explained in section 3.1.1.3, in the present study a ‘simple repetition’ is defined as a full noun phrase which repeats the previous element of the same coreference chain without further alterations than a change of the determiner or of the inflectional form. Here is an example of a noun phrase which is a simple repetition and establishes non-directional coreference. (62) Most of the animals that catfish eat are slow moving, and many likely enemies are discouraged by catfish’s defensive spines. (Browder 2004a: 300) In the above example, the two noun phrases catfish and catfish’s have the same referent and do not refer backwards or forwards to each other. They are thus in a relation of non-directional coreference. The noun phrase catfish’s repeats the previous chain element catfish in a different inflectional form but without further alterations. Thus, the noun phrase catfish’s is interpreted as a simple repetition which establishes non-directional coreference. An example of a simple repetition which creates nondirectional coreference in a German text is shown below. (63) Der Hecht ist am Rücken meist grünlich blau, zum Bauch hin heller. Die Rücken- und Afterflosse stehen weit hinten am Körper, wodurch der Hecht blitzartige Wendemanöver ausführen kann. (Kanbay 2009: 98) Furthermore, non-directional coreference can also be established by partial repetitions, i.e. by full noun phrases which have the same head as the previous coreference chain element but have a different pre- and/or

68

Chapter 3

postmodification than the previous chain element. This is illustrated by the next example. (64) North American blue catfish live in swifter, clearer waters than most catfish. Blue catfish hunt other fish and crayfish among rapids and waterfalls. (Browder 2004a: 302) Example (64) above contains the two noun phrases North American blue catfish and Blue catfish. These two noun phrases are in a relation of coreference because blue catfish only occur in North America (cf. Sutton 1998: 18). Since the two noun phrases do not refer forwards or backwards, they are related by non-directional coreference. The noun phrase Blue catfish in example (64) repeats the head of the previous chain element North American blue catfish. However, the two chain elements differ in their premodification. Therefore, the noun phrase Blue catfish in example (64) is interpreted as a partial repetition which creates non-directional coreference. An example of a non-directional partial repetition in a German text is shown below. (65) Stillgewässer In stehenden Gewässern (Gräben, Teichen und Seen) gibt es einige ansehnliche Blütenpflanzen. (Herrmann/Zeugner 2004: 34) In this example, non-directional coreference is established between Stillgewässer and stehenden Gewässern (Gräben, Teichen und Seen). The present study assumes that Stillgewässer is a compound and that its head is Gewässer (cf. e.g. Donalies 2005: 54f., 67; Plag 2003: 135-137; Kessel 2012: 104). The first and second chain element in example (65) thus share the same head, Gewässer. However, they differ in their modifications. The first chain element only contains the modification Still. The second chain element contains the premodification stehenden and the postmodifying apposition (Gräben, Teichen und Seen). Since the two coreference chain elements share the same head but differ in their modifications, the noun phrase stehenden Gewässern (Gräben, Teichen und

Coreference chain elements in English and German

69

Seen) is considered as a partial repetition which establishes nondirectional coreference. In addition, non-directional coreference can also be created by using ‘synonymous noun phrases’. These are full noun phrases which do not contain the same head as the previous chain element but provide similar information about their referent as the previous chain element does (cf. section 3.1.1.3 above). The following example illustrates the use of a synonymous noun phrase which establishes non-directional coreference. (66) Floods are natural hazards and should be expected to occur on any river. Each year flooding causes hundreds of deaths around the world. (Holden 2008: 377) In example (66), there is a relation of non-directional coreference between the noun phrases Floods and flooding. The two noun phrases do not share the same head. However, they provide very similar information about their common referent since the lexical meaning of floods and flooding is similar. The noun phrase flooding is thus analyzed as a synonymous noun phrase in the present study. Here is a further example of a non-directional synonymous noun phrase. (67) In stehenden Gewässern (Gräben, Teichen und Seen) gibt es einige ansehnliche Blütenpflanzen. Sie alle zeigen besondere Anpassungen an das feuchte Element. Direkt auf dem Wasser zu schwimmen scheinen die Blüten der Weißen Seerose, während die Gelbe Teichrose ihre Blüten meist über der Oberfläche trägt. (Herrmann/Zeugner 2004: 34) In this example, we find non-directional coreference between the noun phrase das feuchte Element and the noun phrase dem Wasser. The two noun phrases do not share the same noun phrase head but they provide similar information about their referent. The noun phrase dem Wasser is thus assumed to be a synonymous noun phrase which creates non-

70

Chapter 3

directional coreference (cf. also Wermke et al. 2010: 1065 who mention das feuchte Element as a synonym of Wasser). Non-directional coreference can furthermore be established by the use of ‘hyperonymous’ and ‘hyponymous’ noun phrases. Hyperonymous noun phrases are here defined as full noun phrases which do not have the same head as the previous chain element and which convey less information about their referent than the previous chain element (cf. section 3.1.1.3 above). By contrast, hyponymous noun phrases are defined as full noun phrases which do not have the same head as the previous chain element and which convey more information about their referent than the previous chain element, which is also a full noun phrase. The following example illustrates the use of a hyponymous noun phrase and a hyperonymous noun phrase to establish non-directional coreference. The example is an adapted version of a part of a text by Holden (2008: 377). The original version of a part of this text has been used in example (66) above in order to illustrate the use of non-directional synonymous noun phrases. (68) Floods are natural hazards. Each year flooding, which should be expected to occur on any river, causes hundreds of deaths around the world. Floods damage buildings and infrastructure, […]. In example (68), the following noun phrases are in a relation of coreference: Floods (first instance), flooding, which should be expected to occur on any river, and Floods (second instance). The first instance of Floods is the antecedent of the coreference chain.4 Since the present study does not analyze antecedents and postcedents as coreferential devices, the first instance of Floods in example (68) is not analyzed as a device. The noun phrase flooding, which should be expected to occur on any river, is considered here as a non-directional hyponymous noun phrase: it does not

4

As has been explained in section 2.4, the present study defines ‘antecedent’ as the first element of a coreference chain which is followed by an anaphoric chain element or a non-directional chain element.

Coreference chain elements in English and German

71

contain the same head as the previous chain element and due to its postmodification it provides more information about its referent than the previous chain element. The second instance of Floods is interpreted here as a non-directional hyperonymous noun phrase since it does not contain the same head as the previous chain element and since it conveys less information about its referent than the previous chain element. The following example illustrates the use of a non-directional hyponymous noun phrase in a German text. (69) Das Rotkehlchen ist vor allem an seinem roten Gefieder an Stirn, Kehle und Brust zu erkennen. Der Unterbauch ist grau-weiß, das Deckgefieder olivbraun. Seine Knopfaugen lassen diesen Vogel sehr niedlich aussehen. Das Rotkehlchen singt besonders schön, sein Warnruf ist ein schnelles „Tick-Tick“. (Steenbock 2010: 19) In the above example, coreference is established between the following linguistic items: Das Rotkehlchen (first instance), seinem, Seine, diesen Vogel, Das Rotkehlchen (second instance) and sein. The present discussion will focus on the following two chain elements: diesen Vogel and the second instance of Das Rotkehlchen. The second instance of Das Rotkehlchen has generic reference since it refers to the class of robins as a whole and not to a specific robin. Furthermore, the second instance of Das Rotkehlchen establishes non-directional coreference as it does not refer forwards or backwards in the text. The noun phrase does not contain the same head as the previous chain element, which is diesen Vogel. Furthermore, the second instance of Das Rotkehlchen conveys more information about its referent than the noun phrase diesen Vogel. Therefore, the second instance of Das Rotkehlchen in example (69) is analyzed as a hyponymous noun phrase which establishes non-directional coreference. A further main device to create non-directional coreference is the nominal paraphrase. As has been explained in section 3.1.1.3, the present study defines a nominal paraphrase as a full noun phrase which fulfils the following conditions: the noun phrase does not contain the same head as

72

Chapter 3

the previous chain element and it provides roughly the same amount of information as the previous chain element. Furthermore, the two chain elements each highlight a different aspect of their common referent. Here is an example of a nominal paraphrase which establishes non-directional coreference. (70) Loons nest close to the water’s edge because these excellent swimmers cannot stand up on land. […] Loons build nests and lay their eggs on land less than 3.3 feet (1 m) from the shore of a freshwater lake or river. (Browder 2004b: 1383f.) In example (70), coreference is established between the following linguistic items: Loons (first instance), these excellent swimmers, Loons (second instance) and their. As has been explained in the discussion of example (29) in section 3.1.1.3 above, the noun phrase these excellent swimmers is a nominal paraphrase which creates anaphoric coreference because its refers backwards. By contrast, the second instance of Loons in example (70) is a nominal paraphrase which creates non-directional coreference: the second instance of Loons does not refer forwards or backwards in the text. Furthermore, it does not contain the same head as the previous chain element (these excellent swimmers) and the two noun phrases Loons and these excellent swimmers provide roughly the same amount of information about their common referent. In addition, the second instance of Loons and these excellent swimmers each highlight a different aspect of their common referent (cf. the discussion of example (29) in section 3.1.1.3 above). A German example of a nominal paraphrase creating nondirectional coreference is shown below. (71) Zaunkönige mögen Büsche, Hecken und Dickicht – am besten in der Nähe kleiner Bäche oder Auen. Ihr Lieblingsfutter sind Insekten, Spinnen und anderes kleines Getier. Die quirligen Kerlchen hüpfen meist versteckt durch dichtes Gebüsch. […]

Coreference chain elements in English and German

73

Zaunkönige sind geschickte Kletterer und können aufgrund ihrer kräftigen Zehen und Krallen Baumstämme ganz einfach hinauflaufen – aber nicht hinunter! (Steenbock 2010: 12) In this example, the following linguistic items are elements of the same coreference chain: Zaunkönige (first instance), Ihr, Die quirligen Kerlchen, Zaunkönige (second instance) and ihrer. The first instance of Zaunkönige is the antecedent of the coreference chain. Ihr and ihrer are possessive determiners which establish anaphoric coreference. The noun phrase Die quirligen Kerlchen is a ‘return to full noun phrase after possessive determiner’ which also establishes anaphoric coreference (cf. section 3.1.1.3 above). By contrast, the second instance of Zaunkönige establishes non-directional coreference since it does not refer forwards or backwards in the text. The second instance of Zaunkönige does not have the same head as the previous chain element, which is the noun phrase Die quirligen Kerlchen. Furthermore, the two chain elements Zaunkönige and Die quirligen Kerlchen provide roughly the same amount of information about their common referent. In addition, the two coreference chain elements each highlight a different aspect of their shared referent: the noun phrase Die quirligen Kerlchen provides information about the behaviour of wrens, and also about their size since a diminutive (Kerlchen) is used. By contrast, the noun phrase Zaunkönige informs the text receiver about the type of bird to which the text producer refers. Therefore, the second instance of Zaunkönige in example (71) above is analyzed here as a nominal paraphrase. Non-directional coreference can also be established by a ‘return to full noun phrase after pronoun’, i.e. by a full noun phrase which is part of a coreference chain and which is preceded by a coreference chain element which is a pronoun. Example (72) illustrates this. (72) No bird lacks feathers, and no other animal possesses them. Feathers are light yet strong and are important even for the small minority of birds that cannot fly. (Browder 2004b: 1383)

74

Chapter 3

In example (72), we find a coreference chain which consists of the following elements: feathers, them and Feathers. The noun phrase Feathers establishes non-directional coreference: it has the same referent as them and feathers and it does not refer forwards or backwards in the text. The noun phrase Feathers in example (72) is a full noun phrase and it is preceded by a chain element which is a pronoun (them). Therefore, Feathers in example (72) is considered as a ‘return to full noun phrase after pronoun’ in the present study. The last main device for non-directional coreference to be discussed is called ‘return to full noun phrase after possessive determiner’. As has been explained in section 3.1.1.3, this device is defined as an element of a coreference chain which is a full noun phrase and which follows an element of the same coreference chain which is a possessive determiner. The following example illustrates how non-directional coreference can be created by a ‘return to full noun phrase after possessive determiner’. (73) Der Kleiber wirkt aufgrund seines kurzes Schwanzes und Halses eher gedrungen. Sein Schnabel ist lang und spitz, seine Kehle weiß, die Oberseite dunkelgrau gefärbt. Brust und Bauch sind rötlich. An den Augen trägt der Kleiber einen schwarzen Streifen. (Steenbock 2010: 21) Example (73) contains a coreference chain which consists of the following elements: the noun phrase Der Kleiber, the possessive determiners seines, Sein, and seine and the noun phrase der Kleiber. The three possessive determiners establish anaphoric coreference (cf. section 3.1.1.2 above). Example (73) is a general description of the bird which is called Kleiber in German and nuthatch in English. The elements of the coreference chain thus refer to the class of nuthatches in general and not to a specific nuthatch. The noun phrase der Kleiber in example (73) establishes non-directional coreference: it has the same referent as the previous elements of the same coreference chain and it does not refer forwards or backwards in the text. Since the noun phrase der Kleiber is a full noun

Coreference chain elements in English and German

75

phrase and the previous element of the same coreference chain is a possessive determiner, the noun phrase der Kleiber in example (73) is analyzed as a ‘return to full noun phrase after possessive determiner’. The main devices for non-directional coreference which have been described in section 3.3.1.1 and in the present section are summarized in the next table. The examples provided in the table are either abridged versions of examples that have been cited before or they are translations of the abridged versions of these examples.

76

Chapter 3 Main devices for non-directional coreference Device

Examples

Pronouns one – one

man – man

(60), (61)

Simple repetition

turtles – turtles

Schildkröten – Schildkröten

(62), (63), section 2.4: (24)

Partial repetition

standing waters – lentic waters

Stillgewässer – stehende Gewässer

(64), (65)

Synonymous noun phrase

floods – flooding

Überschwemmungen – Überflutungen

(66), (67)

Indefinite pronoun Full noun phrases

Hyperonymous noun phrase

Hyponymous noun phrase Nominal paraphrase Return to full noun phrase after pronoun Return to full noun phrase after possessive determiner

Überflutungen, von flooding, which denen man erwarten should be expected sollte, dass sie an to occur on any river, jedem Fluss auftreten, – – floods Überschwemmungen

(68)

this bird – the robin

dieser Vogel – das Rotkehlchen

(69)

these excellent swimmers – loons

diese ausgezeichneten Schwimmer – Seetaucher

(70), (71)

feathers – them – feathers

Federn – sie – Federn

(72)

the nuthatch – its beak – the nuthatch

der Kleiber – sein Schnabel – der Kleiber

(73)

Table 3.4: Main devices for non-directional coreference Table 3.4 shows that there are several different main devices which can create non-directional coreference. It should be noted that in Table 3.4 noun phrases with a definite article, such as the robin, have generic reference. Thus, for example the noun phrase the robin in Table 3.4 does not refer to a specific robin but to the class of robins in general.

Coreference chain elements in English and German

77

3.3.2 Supplementing devices In addition to the main devices for non-directional coreference, there also exist supplementing devices for non-directional coreference: definite articles, indefinite articles and the zero article. They are considered as supplementing devices in the present study since noun phrases which establish non-directional coreference either include definite articles or indefinite articles or the zero article. They do not, for example, include demonstrative determiners. As has been explained in section 3.1.1.1, supplementing devices cannot establish coreference on their own. Instead, they must be combined with a main device. The supplementing devices for non-directional coreference must thus be combined with one of the main devices for non-directional coreference, for example, with a simple repetition. The first supplementing device for non-directional coreference that will be discussed is the definite article. If the definite article is used to establish non-directional coreference, the noun phrase with the definite article usually has generic reference (cf. section 2.2 above for a definition of generic reference). The following example illustrates this. (74) A third theoretical view of first language acquisition focuses on the role of the linguistic environment in interaction with the child’s innate capacities in determining language development. The interactionists’ position is that language develops as a result of the complex interplay between the uniquely human characteristics of the child and the environment in which the child develops. (Lightbown/Spada 1999: 22) In example (74), the three noun phrases which are marked by broken underlining are in a relation of coreference. Since they do not refer forwards or backwards in the text, the three noun phrases are elements of a nondirectional coreference chain. Furthermore, the three noun phrases have generic reference since they do not refer to a specific child but to children in general.

78

Chapter 3

The two instances of the noun phrase the child in example (74) are analyzed here as ‘simple repetitions’ because they repeat the head of the previous chain element and there is no change in the pre- or postmodification. In addition, the two instances of the noun phrase the child also contain the definite article which functions as a supplementing device for non-directional coreference. The supplementing device ‘definite article’ is thus combined with the main device ‘simple repetition’. It should be noted that the noun phrase the child’s in example (74) is interpreted here as the antecedent of the coreference chain. Since the present study does not analyze antecedents and postcedents of coreference chains as coreferential devices, the noun phrase the child’s in example (74) is not analyzed as a main or supplementing device. An example of the supplementing device ‘definite article’ in a German text is shown below. (75) Der Kleiber klebt nämlich gern die Nester größerer Vögel bis auf einen kleinen Eingang zu. Die alten Bewohner passen dann nicht mehr hindurch und der Kleiber kann dort einziehen! (Steenbock 2010: 21) In example (75), coreference is established between the two noun phrases Der Kleiber and der Kleiber. The example is taken from a book which describes different types of birds. The two noun phrases Der Kleiber and der Kleiber both refer to the class of nuthatches as a whole and not to a specific nuthatch. In example (75), the supplementing device ‘definite article’ is combined with the main device ‘simple repetition’. Furthermore, non-directional coreference can also be established by the use of the indefinite article. The following example illustrates this; it is repeated from section 2.4 above for convenience. (76) A: B: A: B:

Would you like a cup of tea? No, thank you. I don’t fancy tea so early in the morning. So do have something else. Have a milkshake instead. Sorry, if I drink a milkshake now, it will upset my stomach. (Radden/Dirven 2007: 96)

Coreference chain elements in English and German

79

The present study assumes that in the above example, coreference is established between the two instances of the noun phrase a milkshake. The two instances of a milkshake do not refer to a specific milkshake. Instead, each of them refers to any milkshake in the extralinguistic world (cf. section 2.4 above). The present study assumes that the two instances of a milkshake have the same referent and that they do not refer backwards or forwards in the text. Thus, they are considered to be in a relation of nondirectional coreference. The second instance of a milkshake in example (76) is a simple repetition of the first instance. Furthermore, the second instance contains the indefinite article a. The second instance of a milkshake is thus considered as a combination of the supplementing device ‘indefinite article’ and the main device ‘simple repetition’. An example of the use of the supplementing device ‘indefinite article’ in a German text is provided below. (77) Ein Auto ist inzwischen in der Mehrzahl der Haushalte der Bundesrepublik vorhanden. Bei den jüngeren und mittleren Jahrgängen sind auch zwei oder mehr PKW’s [sic] schon relativ häufig zu finden. Ebenso wird die technische Kompetenz, ein Auto fahren zu können, in diesen Altersgruppen immer selbstverständlicher. (Mollenkopf/Weber 1990: 176) In example (77), non-directional coreference is established between Ein Auto and ein Auto. The noun phrase ein Auto is a simple repetition of the noun phrase Ein Auto. Furthermore, the noun phrase ein Auto contains the supplementing device ‘indefinite article’. A further supplementing device for non-directional coreference is the use of the zero article. This is shown in the next example. (78) There are more than 200 species of freshwater turtles; there are just seven or eight species of sea turtles. Freshwater turtles live on every continent except Antarctica. (Browder 2004b: 1362)

80

Chapter 3

In example (78), non-directional coreference is established between the two noun phrases freshwater turtles and Freshwater turtles. The noun phrase Freshwater turtles is analyzed here as a combination of the supplementing device ‘zero article’ and the main device ‘simple repetition’. While example (78) contains a non-directional plural noun phrase with the zero article, non-directional coreference can also be established by noun phrases with the zero article which have a non-count noun as their head. The following example illustrates this. (79) Softshells5 are also the most efficient at aquatic respiration. This is the alternative method of obtaining oxygen that all turtles use to some extent. Aquatic respiration involves oxygen passing into the animal through the skin. (Browder 2004b: 1370) In example (79), non-directional coreference is established by the two instances of the noun phrase oxygen. The second instance of oxygen is interpreted here as a combination of the supplementing device ‘zero article’ and the main device ‘simple repetition’. The following example illustrates the use of the supplementing device ‘zero article’ in a German text. (80) Kohlmeisen kann man überall in Bäumen und am Boden entdecken. Da sie so quirlig und bunt sind, fallen sie leicht auf. Außerdem hängen sie oft kopfüber an Zweigen. Lebensraum Kohlmeisen sind sehr vielseitig und anpassungsfähig. (Steenbock 2010: 20) In this example, we find a coreference chain consisting of the following elements: the first instance of Kohlmeisen, three instances of the pronoun sie and the second instance of Kohlmeisen. The second instance of Kohl-

5

In example (79), Softshells refers to softshell turtles, a type of turtles with a soft carapace.

81

Coreference chain elements in English and German

meisen establishes non-directional coreference since it does not refer forwards or backwards in the text. Furthermore, the second instance of Kohlmeisen is a combination of the supplementing device ‘zero article’ and the main device ‘return to full noun phrase after pronoun’. The supplementing devices for non-directional coreference are summarized in Table 3.5 below. The examples in Table 3.5 are abridged versions of the examples which have been cited in the present section and the translations of these abridged versions. Supplementing devices for non-directional coreference Device Definite article Indefinite article Zero article

Examples the nuthatch – the nuthatch

der Kleiber – der Kleiber

(74), (75)

a car – a car

ein Auto – ein Auto

(76), (77)

freshwater turtles – freshwater turtles

Süßwasserschildkröten – (78) – (80) Süßwasserschildkröten

Table 3.5: Supplementing devices for non-directional coreference It should be noted that the English and German example of the definite article in Table 3.5 are shown here as examples of noun phrases with generic reference. Thus, the noun phrases the nuthatch and der Kleiber in Table 3.5 both refer to the class of nuthatches in general and not to a specific nuthatch.

3.4 Functions of coreference chain elements in English and German 3.4.1 Functions of anaphoric and non-directional chain elements 3.4.1.1 Level 1: creation of coreference Both in English and German, elements of coreference chains can fulfil a number of different functions (cf. e.g. de Beaugrande/Dressler 1981: 60f.; Linke/Nussbaumer 2000: 312-314; Esser 2009: 50, 123f.; Schubert 2012: 32f.). The present study distinguishes between the functions of anaphoric

82

Chapter 3

and non-directional chain elements on the one hand and the functions of cataphoric chain elements on the other hand. It is assumed here that antecedents and postcedents of coreference chains do not fulfil functions. The present study suggests that the functions of coreference chain elements are located at different ‘levels’. A distinction is made between three levels of the functions of coreference chain elements. While level 1 is the most basic level of functions, level 3 is the least basic level. The function which is located at level 1 is called ‘creation of coreference’ in the present study. It is an obligatory function for all elements of coreference chains, except for antecedents and postcedents. Functions which belong to levels 2 or 3 are optional functions. The difference between levels 2 and 3 is that level 3 functions can only be fulfilled if in addition a level 2 function is fulfilled. By contrast, level 2 functions can be fulfilled without the requirement that a level 3 function must be fulfilled as well. The first function of anaphoric and non-directional chain elements to be discussed is the level 1 function ‘creation of coreference’. All anaphoric and non-directional chain elements fulfil this function since they establish a relation of coreference with another element of the same coreference chain. In most cases, the function ‘creation of coreference’ is combined with further functions. This will be shown in sections 3.4.1.2 and 3.4.1.3 below. However, in some cases anaphoric chain elements only fulfil the function ‘creation of coreference’. This happens if a coreference chain element is used which cannot be replaced by a different linguistic item which also creates coreference. The following example illustrates this. (81) David Cameron said he is working hard to achieve ‘massive structural reforms’. (Wintour 20126; repeated from section 2.4)

6

The article by Wintour (2012) is an online source which does not provide page numbers.

Coreference chain elements in English and German

83

In the above example, the personal pronoun he establishes a relation of coreference with the noun phrase David Cameron. The pronoun he thus fulfils the function ‘creating coreference’. It is important to note that in example (81) it does not seem possible to replace the pronoun he with a different linguistic item which also creates coreference. Replacing he with a different linguistic item, for example with a simple repetition of David Cameron, leads to a clause complex that does not seem fully acceptable. This is shown in the example below. (82) David Cameron said David Cameron is working hard to achieve ‘massive structural reforms’. Since it does not seem possible to replace the pronoun he in example (81) above with another linguistic item, the present study assumes that the text producer did not have a choice between the pronoun he and a different linguistic item. In cases like example (81), where the text producer does not have a choice between different linguistic items, the present study assumes that the chain element which cannot be replaced only fulfils the function ‘creation of coreference’ and no further function. Thus, in example (81) he only has the function ‘creation of coreference’. Here is another example of a coreference chain element which only fulfils this function. (83) Barack Obama erklärte, er wünsche sich ein „starkes, stabiles, vereintes Großbritannien“. (Luyken 2014: 1) In the above example, er establishes anaphoric coreference. It does not seem possible to replace er with a different linguistic item which also creates coreference with Barack Obama, as the following example illustrates. (84) Barack Obama erklärte, Barack Obama wünsche sich ein „starkes, stabiles, vereintes Großbritannien“. Example (84) shows that when the pronoun he in example (83) is replaced by a different linguistic item which establishes coreference with Barack Obama, this leads to a clause complex which does not seem fully

84

Chapter 3

acceptable. Therefore, in example (83) the text producer did not have a choice between er and a different linguistic item and er only fulfils the function ‘creation of coreference’. 3.4.1.2 Level 2: reduction, clarity of reference and specification As has been explained in section 3.4.1.1, all anaphoric and nondirectional chain elements fulfil the basic function ‘creation of coreference’. In some cases, coreference chain elements fulfil only the level 1 function ‘creation of coreference’ and no further function, as has been shown in the previous section. However, most anaphoric and nondirectional coreference chain elements additionally fulfil a function of the level 2 and some furthermore fulfil functions of the level 3. The first level 2 function to be discussed is called ‘reduction’ in the present study. This function is fulfilled by coreference chain elements which provide only a small amount of information about their referent. A chain element which fulfils the reduction function is often relatively short and it can reduce the effort of text production for the speaker/writer and the effort of text processing for the hearer/reader (cf. de Beaugrande/ Dressler 1981: 60; Leech 1983: 67; Schubert 2012: 32). The reduction function can be accomplished in two different ways. First, it is fulfilled if a coreference chain element is a pronoun or possessive determiner which could be replaced by a full noun phrase. Here is an example from the British National Corpus. (85) But within six months John was spotted by a Luton talent scout while playing in a county schools match and moved south to Kenilworth Road. He played in the days when the maximum wage was in force for professional soccer players […]. (BNC K9C 797-K9C 798) In the above example, the pronoun He could be replaced by a full noun phrase, such as John. The following example illustrates this. (86) But within six months John was spotted by a Luton talent scout while playing in a county schools match and moved south to Kenil-

Coreference chain elements in English and German

85

worth Road. John played in the days when the maximum wage was in force for professional soccer players […]. Since the pronoun He in example (85) could be replaced by a full noun phrase, the pronoun fulfils the reduction function, in addition to the basic function ‘creation of coreference’ (cf. section 3.4.1.1 above). The pronoun conveys very little information about its referent and the text producer could have chosen a full noun phrase instead, which would provide more information about the referent. In addition to the use of pronouns or possessive determiners, the second way to accomplish the reduction function is to use a full noun phrase which provides less information about its referent than the previous chain element. An example is given below. (87) Und dann zeigt sie dem Zappergeck den fertigen Pyjama. Sieh da! Es hilft! Der Zappergeck guckt etwas gerader, so, daß er den Pyjama sehen kann. (Ruge/Ruge 1980: 160; repeated from section 3.1.1.3) In the above example, the chain element den Pyjama provides less information about its referent than the previous chain element den fertigen Pyjama. The noun phrase den Pyjama thus fulfils the reduction function, in addition to the creation of coreference function. The reduction function can be established by several different anaphoric and non-directional main devices for coreference, for example by pronouns (cf. example (85) above) or partial repetitions (cf. example (87) above). The reduction function of coreference chain elements can be seen as related to one of Leech’s ‘principles of textual rhetoric’ (cf. Leech 1983: 64-70). According to Leech (1983: 60), the aim of ‘textual rhetoric’ is to make it easier for the text receiver to understand a text (cf. also Esser 2009: 165). Based on work by Slobin (1975), Leech (1983: 64-70) suggests four principles of textual rhetoric: the ‘processibility principle’, the ‘clarity principle’, the ‘economy principle’ and the ‘expressivity princi-

86

Chapter 3

ple’. The economy principle is summarized by Leech (1983: 67) as “Be quick and easy”. As a further explanation, he writes: If one can shorten the text while keeping the message unimpaired, this reduces the amount of time and effort involved both in encoding and in decoding. (Leech 1983: 67) Leech’s economy principle thus favours the use of linguistic processes or devices which make a text shorter. At the phonological level, such processes include for example elision. Leech (1983: 67) also mentions the use of pronouns as a means to adhere to the economy principle. Therefore, the present study assumes that the reduction function of coreference chain elements is linked to Leech’s economy principle. As has been explained above, coreference chain elements which fulfil the reduction function can reduce the effort of text production for the speaker/writer and the effort of text processing for the hearer/reader (cf. de Beaugrande/Dressler 1981: 60; Leech 1983: 67; Schubert 2012: 32). However, it should be noted that in some cases, chain elements which have the reduction function can cause ambiguity of reference (cf. de Beaugrande/ Dressler 1981: 60, 64-66; Leech 1983: 66-68). The following example shows how a chain element with the reduction function can lead to ambiguity of reference. (88) John phoned Bill. The first thing he said was … (Field 2003: 133) In the above example, the pronoun he is used as a main device for anaphoric reference and has the reduction function. For the text receiver it is not clear whether he refers back to John or to Bill. This ambiguity of reference can be avoided by using, for example, the simple repetition John or Bill instead of he. Since coreference chain elements with the reduction function may lead to ambiguities, there is often a “trade-off between compactness and clarity” (de Beaugrande/Dressler 1981: 69), i.e. a trade-off between reducing the effort for text producer and text receiver and expressing the

Coreference chain elements in English and German

87

message in a clear way (cf. de Beaugrande/Dressler 1981: 60, 64-66, 69). As Leech (1983: 67) puts it, “a balance has to be struck between saving time and effort, and maintaining intelligibility”. Maintaining intelligibility and avoiding ambiguity of reference leads us to the next level 2 function, which is called ‘clarity of reference’. The function ‘clarity of reference’ can be explained like this: a coreference chain element which is a full noun phrase provides approximately the same amount of information about its referent as the previous chain element. A chain element which has the function ‘clarity of reference’ thus conveys more information about its referent than a chain element which fulfils the reduction function. Here is an example of the clarity of reference function. (89) One big disadvantage is that turtles do not have gills and so cannot survive underwater indefinitely, like fish, but must come up for air regularly. However, turtles can remain submerged for much longer than, say, people can. (Browder 2004b: 1370; repeated from section 2.4) In this example, the second instance of turtles is a simple repetition which establishes non-directional coreference. Both instances of turtles provide the same amount of information about their referent. Therefore, the second instance of turtles fulfils the clarity of reference function, in addition to the basic creation of coreference function. The clarity of reference function can be accomplished by using, for example, simple repetitions or synonymous noun phrases. Coreference chain elements which have the clarity of reference function can help to avoid ambiguity of reference. As has been shown in example (88) above, ambiguity of reference can occur, for example, if an anaphoric pronoun is used as coreference chain element and it is difficult for the text receiver to recognize to which full noun phrase the pronoun refers back. This ambiguity of reference can be avoided by using a chain

88

Chapter 3

element which fulfils the function ‘clarity of reference’, for example, by using a simple repetition. As its name suggests, the function ‘clarity of reference’ can be seen as linked to Leech’s ‘clarity principle’ of textual rhetoric (cf. Leech 1983: 64, 66f.). According to the clarity principle, the text producer should be clear in what he or she says or writes. The principle includes the ‘ambiguity maxim’ which states that the text producer should avoid ambiguity (cf. Leech 1983: 66). As has been shown above, a coreference chain element which has the clarity of reference function avoids ambiguity of reference. Thus, the present study assumes that the function ‘clarity of reference’ is related to Leech’s more general clarity principle. The third level 2 function of anaphoric and non-directional coreference chain elements is called ‘specification’. This function is fulfilled if a coreference chain element is a full noun phrase which provides more information about its referent than the previous chain element (cf. Schwarz 2000: 63f.; Kunz 2010: 20). Here is an example. (90) By skipping a meeting with Karzai while in Afghanistan, Obama is signaling that the White House already has discounted the Afghan president as a worthwhile partner. Karzai, the only president Afghans have known since the 2001 U.S.led invasion to topple the Taliban’s Islamic rule, was constitutionally barred from running for a third term this year. (Pace 20147) In example (90), coreference is established between the following three noun phrases: (i) Karzai, (ii) the Afghan president and (iii) Karzai, the only president Afghans have known since the 2001 US-led invasion to topple the Taliban. The discussion will focus here on the function of the third chain element. The third chain element (Karzai, the only president Afghans have known since the 2001 US-led invasion to topple the Taliban)

7

The article by Pace (2014) is an online source which does not provide page numbers.

Coreference chain elements in English and German

89

provides more information about its referent than the previous chain element (the Afghan president). Therefore, the third chain element fulfils the specification function, in addition to the creation of coreference function. The present study assumes that the noun phrase head of the third chain element in example (90) is Karzai and that this head is postmodified by the apposition the only president Afghans have known since the 2001 US-led invasion to topple the Taliban (cf. Biber et al. 1999: 638). The third chain element thus does not have the same head as the previous chain element and conveys more information than the previous chain element. Therefore, the third chain element in example (90) above is analyzed as a ‘hyponymous noun phrase’ in the present study (cf. section 3.1.1.3 above). A further example of a chain element which fulfils the specification function is shown below. (91) Kohlmeisen kann man überall in Bäumen und am Boden entdecken. Da sie so quirlig und bunt sind, fallen sie leicht auf. Außerdem hängen sie oft kopfüber an Zweigen. Lebensraum Kohlmeisen sind sehr vielseitig und anpassungsfähig. (Steenbock 2010: 20; repeated from section 3.3.2) In this example, the second instance of the noun phrase Kohlmeisen provides more information about its referent than the previous chain element, which is the personal pronoun sie. Therefore, in addition to the creation of coreference function the second instance of Kohlmeisen also fulfils the specification function. It should be noted that the second instance of Kohlmeisen in example (91) has generic reference and establishes nondirectional coreference. It is thus a non-directional chain element which fulfils the specification function. Since full noun phrases usually provide more information about their referent than pronouns, the specification function is usually accomplished if the device ‘return to full noun phrase after pronoun’ is used. Furthermore, the specification function can also be fulfilled by using a hypony-

90

Chapter 3

mous noun phrase (cf. example (90) above) or a return to full noun phrase after possessive determiner. In addition, this function can also be accomplished by a partial repetition. As has been explained in section 3.1.1.3, in a sequence of coreference chain elements such as a bird – the small bird (cf. von Heusinger 2007: 127), the second chain element would be interpreted as a partial repetition in the present study since it contains the same noun phrase head as the previous chain element but differs in its modification. Therefore, the chain element the small bird would be interpreted as a partial repetition which fulfils the specification function. 3.4.1.3 Level 3: stylistic variation, evaluation and emphasis Having discussed the level 1 and level 2 functions of anaphoric and nondirectional coreference chain elements, we will now turn to the functions which belong to level 3. These level 3 functions are optional functions of anaphoric and non-directional chain elements. As has been explained in section 3.3.1.1, level 3 functions always occur in combination with the basic function ‘creation of coreference’ and with one of the level 2 functions. By contrast, functions of the levels 1 and 2 can occur without being combined with a level 3 function. Therefore, functions of the level 3 are considered as less basic functions than the level 1 and 2 functions. The level 1 function ‘creation of coreference’ is the most basic function because it is fulfilled by all elements of a coreference chain, except for antecedents and postcedents. The first level 3 function to be described is called ‘stylistic variation’ in the present study. This function is fulfilled if a coreference chain element which is a noun phrase does not have the same head as the previous noun phrase which belongs to the same coreference chain (for similar concepts cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 1441; Esser 1993: 123f.; Linke/Nussbaumer 2000: 313; von Polenz 2008: 142f.). The following example illustrates this.

Coreference chain elements in English and German

91

(92) Turtles’ nostrils are at the top of the snout, so the reptiles can catch a breath while staying mostly underwater. (Browder 2004b: 1370; repeated from section 3.1.1.3) In the above example, the coreference chain element the reptiles does not have the same head as Turtles’, which is the previous noun phrase which belongs to the same coreference chain. Therefore, the chain element the reptiles fulfils the stylistic variation function. In addition, the chain element fulfils the level 1 function ‘creation of coreference’ and the level 2 function ‘reduction’. A further example of the function ‘stylistic variation’ is shown below. (93) Zaunkönige mögen Büsche, Hecken und Dickicht – am besten in der Nähe kleinerer Bäche oder Auen. Ihr Lieblingsfutter sind Insekten, Spinnen oder anderes kleines Getier. Die quirligen Kerlchen hüpfen meist versteckt durch dichtes Gebüsch. (Steenbock 2010: 12) In this example, there is a coreference chain consisting of Zaunkönige, Ihr and Die quirligen Kerlchen. The chain element Die quirligen Kerlchen creates stylistic variation: it is a noun phrase and the previous noun phrase which belongs to the same coreference chain is Zaunkönige, which has a different head than Die quirligen Kerlchen. As example (93) shows, the stylistic variation function can be accomplished by using the device ‘return to full noun phrase after possessive determiner’. In addition, the function can be fulfilled by using, for example, a synonymous, hyperonymous or hyponymous noun phrase, a nominal paraphrase or a return to full noun phrase after pronoun. It can also be fulfilled by using a pronoun if the previous chain element was a full noun phrase. In general, a text in which the coreference chain elements lack stylistic variation is considered as less well written and less interesting for the text receiver than a text which includes stylistic variation (cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 1441; Esser 1993: 124; Linke/Nussbaumer 2000: 313). However, in some cases text producers deliberately avoid stylistic variation in order to achieve clarity of reference. This way, ambiguity of reference is

92

Chapter 3

avoided and it becomes particularly clear that there is a relation of coreference in the text. In some genres, such as scientific or legal texts, it is usually seen as very important to avoid ambiguity. Therefore, in these genres simple repetitions can be found relatively often and stylistic variation is likely to occur less often than in other genres (cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 1441; Linke/Nussbaumer 2000: 313; von Polenz 2008: 142f.). The next level 3 function of anaphoric and non-directional chain elements to be discussed is called ‘evaluation’ in the present study. This function is fulfilled if a coreference chain element expresses an evaluation of its referent (cf. Halliday/Hasan 1976: 279f.; Linke/Nussbaumer 2000: 309; Schwarz 2000: 149; Consten et al. 2007: 82; Radden/Dirven 2007: 99; von Polenz 2008: 143; Kunz 2010: 92; Vater 2012: 93). An example is shown below. (94) My car never left me in the lurch. But I had to say good-bye to my sweetheart. (Radden/Dirven 2007: 99) In example (94), my sweetheart is used to refer back to My car. The coreference chain element my sweetheart shows that the text producer liked his or her car very much. The chain element my sweetheart thus expresses an evaluation of its referent, i.e. the car of the text producer, and fulfils the evaluation function. In addition, the chain element my sweetheart also has the function ‘creation of coreference’. Furthermore, it has the function ‘clarity of reference’ since the two chain elements in example (94) provide roughly the same amount of information about their referent. This means that none of the two noun phrases My car and my sweetheart is clearly more specific than the other. By contrast, if the first chain element in example (94) was for instance My car, which I bought in London ten years ago, then the first chain element would be more specific than the second chain element (my sweetheart). In addition to the functions ‘creation of coreference’ and ‘clarity of reference’, my sweetheart in example (94) fulfils the stylistic variation function. While example (94) contains a positive evaluation of a

Coreference chain elements in English and German

93

referent, the following example shows that the evaluation function can also be used to express a negative opinion about someone or something. (95) Hans hat das Experiment gestört. Der Ochse kam plötzlich in den Raum geplatzt. (Schwarz 2000: 149) In this example, Der Ochse is in a relation of coreference with Hans. By using the chain element Der Ochse, the text producer expresses his or her negative opinion about the referent, i.e. about Hans. The chain element Der Ochse thus fulfils the evaluation function. In addition, it also fulfils the functions ‘creation of coreference’ (level 1), ‘clarity of reference’ (level 2) and ‘stylistic variation’ (level 3). The last function which belongs to the level 3 is called ‘emphasis’. Elements of coreference chains can be used to emphasize certain linguistic items and their referents (cf. Leech 1983: 68f.; Quirk et al. 1985: 1441; Linke/Nussbaumer 2000: 313f.). The following example illustrates this. (96) John Brown was guilty of the crime, and John Brown would have to pay for it. (Leech 1983: 68) In example (96), coreference is created by the use of a simple repetition of John Brown. Due to this repetition, the text producer emphasizes that it was John Brown, and no one else, who would have to pay for the crime (cf. Leech 1983: 69). Instead of the simple repetition, the text producer might also have chosen the pronoun he, but then there would have been no emphasis of John Brown. The above example thus demonstrates that by using simple repetitions, the text producer can draw the attention of the text receiver to certain items in the text and to the referents of these items. In addition to the emphasis function, the second instance of John Brown in example (96) also fulfils the functions ‘creation of coreference’ and ‘clarity of reference’. The emphasis function of coreference chain elements is related to Leech’s ‘expressivity principle’, which is one of his ‘principles of textual rhetoric’. According to Leech (1983: 68), the expressivity principle deals

94

Chapter 3

with aesthetic aspects of texts. Leech furthermore explains that examples like (96) above can be classified as cases of ‘expressive repetition’, which means that “the emphasis of repetition has some rhetorical value such as surprising, impressing, or rousing the interest of the addressee” (Leech 1983: 68). In sections 3.4.1.1, 3.4.1.2 and in the present section, several functions of anaphoric and non-directional coreference chain elements have been described. The following table provides an overview of the different functions and the levels at which they are located. Level 3

Stylistic variation / Evaluation / Emphasis

Level 2

Reduction / Clarity of reference / Specification

Level 1

Creation of coreference

Table 3.6: Functions of anaphoric and non-directional chain elements As has been shown above, the functions of coreference chain elements can be combined. It should be noted, however, that the functions which belong to level 2 are mutually exclusive because a chain element either provides more information than the previous chain element (‘specification’) or less information than the previous chain element (‘reduction’) or it provides the same amount of information as the previous chain element (‘clarity of reference’). By contrast, the functions of level 3 can be combined, as has been illustrated in examples (94) and (95) above. 3.4.2 Functions of cataphoric chain elements 3.4.2.1 Level 1: creation of coreference Having discussed the functions of anaphoric and non-directional chain elements, we will now turn to the functions of cataphoric coreference chain elements. The basic function of all cataphoric chain elements is the same as the basic function of anaphoric and non-directional chain elements, i.e. ‘creation of coreference’. Usually, this function is combined with one of the level 2 functions of cataphoric coreference chain elements. This will be shown in section 3.4.2.2 below. However, in some cases,

Coreference chain elements in English and German

95

cataphoric chain elements only fulfil the creation of coreference function and no further function. This is the case if a cataphoric chain element cannot be replaced by a different linguistic item which also creates coreference. The following example serves as an illustration. (97) Recognizing the growing strains on energy systems as he took office, President Bush sought to develop a comprehensive and balanced energy policy […]. (Abraham 2004: 6; example provided by Kunz 2010: 20; repeated from section 3.2.1) In the above example, the pronoun he refers cataphorically to President Bush. Replacing the pronoun with a different linguistic item, such as a full noun phrase, would lead to a stylistically awkward clause complex, as is shown below. (98) Recognizing the growing strains on energy systems as President Bush took office, President Bush sought to develop a comprehensive and balanced energy policy […]. Since it does not seem possible for the text producer to replace the coreference chain element he in example (97) with a different linguistic item, he in example (97) only fulfils the function ‘creation of coreference’ and no additional function. A German example of a cataphoric chain element which only has the function ‘creation of coreference’ is given below. (99) Wenn er will, kann der Bundespräsident die ihm vorgeschlagene Ernennung eines Ministers verweigern. (Weinrich 2007: 386; repeated from section 3.2.1) The pronoun er in example (99) refers cataphorically to der Bundespräsident. Replacing er with a different linguistic item leads to a clause complex as the one which is shown below. (100) Wenn der Bundespräsident will, kann der Bundespräsident die ihm vorgeschlagene Ernennung eines Ministers verweigern.

96

Chapter 3

Example (100) does not seem fully acceptable. Therefore, the pronoun er in example (99) only has the function of creating coreference and no further function. 3.4.2.2 Level 2: textual organization and creation of suspense In addition to the obligatory level 1 function ‘creation of coreference’, many cataphoric chain elements also have one of the level 2 functions ‘textual organization’ and ‘creation of suspense’. The function ‘textual organization’ is fulfilled if a coreference chain element informs the text receiver of what will come next in the text (cf. Esser 2009: 50). As the following two examples show, textual organization can be achieved by the use of cataphoric full noun phrases. (101) […] In reply to that question a golfing colleague of mine offered two reasons. The first was that beginners usually start with handed-down clubs, which are usually right-handed. The second was that, for technical reasons, left-handed individuals make good right-handed golfers. (Francis 1994: 84; repeated from section 3.2.3) (102) Wir können nun aus diesen Erkenntnissen die folgende Schlussfolgerung ableiten: Eine Häufigkeitsverteilung ist immer durch ihre Lage und ihre Streuung charakterisiert. Zu jedem Lagemaß muss auch immer ein Streuungsmaß angegeben werden. (Schäfer 2010: 76; repeated from section 3.2.3) In example (101), there is coreference between the cataphoric noun phrase two reasons and the second and the third clause complex. The noun phrase two reasons informs the text receiver that these two reasons will probably be explained in the following. Thus, the cataphoric noun phrase is used for textual organization. In addition, the noun phrase also

Coreference chain elements in English and German

97

fulfils the basic function ‘creation of coreference’ (cf. section 3.4.2.1 above). Similarly, in example (102) above, the cataphoric noun phrase die folgende Schlussfolgerung informs the text receiver that a concluding statement will follow next in the text (cf. Esser 2009: 50 for a similar example). The chain element die folgende Schlussfolgerung thus fulfils the textual organization function, in addition to the basic creation of coreference function. It seems likely that the use of coreference chain elements which establish textual organization makes it easier for the text receiver to understand a text. The function of textual organization can thus be seen as related to Leech’s ‘processibility principle’. According to Leech (1983: 64), the ‘processibility principle’ of textual rhetoric states that the text producer should formulate his or her text in a way that can be easily understood by the text receiver. The last function of cataphoric coreference chain elements to be discussed is called ‘creation of suspense’. As the name of the function suggests, coreference chain elements can be used to create a feeling of suspense for the text receiver (cf. de Beaugrande/ Dressler 1980: 61; Swanson 2003: 35; Brinker 2010: 33; Schubert 2012: 33). This is illustrated by the following example; it is the beginning of a novel and is provided by Brinker (2010: 32). (103) Warum hat sie kein Anderer gefunden? Warum gerade ich, der ihren Wert weiß, der sich von diesen Dingen so weit entfernt hat? Ich konnte nicht ahnen, was die Kapsel enthielt. (Bender 1953: 5; repeated from section 3.2.2) In the above example, coreference is established between the cataphoric pronoun sie, the cataphoric determiner ihren, and the noun phrase die Kapsel. As mentioned above, the example is taken from the very beginning of a novel. Thus, while hearing or reading the first and the second clause complex, the text receiver will not be able to understand to which

98

Chapter 3

entity sie and ihren refer. The text receiver will only be able to correctly interpret sie and ihren when he or she hears or reads the third clause complex, which includes the noun phrase die Kapsel. It can thus be assumed that while decoding the first and second clause complex, the text receiver becomes curious about the referent of sie and ihren and a feeling of suspense is created (cf. Brinker 2010: 33; Schubert 2012: 33). A further example of a cataphoric chain element which creates suspense is shown below. It is the beginning of a poem and is provided by Schubert (2012: 33). (104) This I beheld, or dreamed it in a dream: There spread a cloud of dust along a plain: […]. (Sill 1960: 479) In this example, the two pronouns This and it refer forwards to the clause There spread a cloud of dust along a plain and to the following clauses, which are not shown here for reasons of space. When reading the first clause of example (104), the text receiver does not yet know to what This and it refer. Therefore, the cataphoric pronouns This and it both create suspense in example (104) (cf. Schubert 2012: 33). In addition, the pronouns also fulfil the creation of coreference function. As examples (103) and (104) have shown, the suspense function can be fulfilled by the use of cataphoric pronouns and cataphoric determiners. According to Brinker (2010: 32f.), coreference chain elements which create suspense are likely to be found in literary texts or newspaper articles. The different functions which cataphoric coreference chain elements can fulfil are summarized in the table below. The table also shows the levels at which the functions are located. Level 2

Textual organization / Creation of suspense

Level 1

Creation of coreference

Table 3.7: Functions of cataphoric chain elements As Table 3.7 indicates, there are only three functions of cataphoric chain elements. Sections 3.4.1.1 to 3.4.1.3 have shown that there exist more

Coreference chain elements in English and German

99

functions of anaphoric and non-directional chain elements. The low number of functions of cataphoric chain elements may be due to the fact that cataphoric coreference usually occurs less frequently in texts than anaphoric coreference (cf. de Beaugrande/Dressler 1981: 60f.; Quirk et al. 1985: 347, 351).

3.5 Factors influencing the choice of coreferential devices 3.5.1 Language-specific features As has been explained in sections 3.1 to 3.3, nominal coreference in English and German can be established by various devices, such as pronouns or simple repetitions. The choice of coreferential devices in a text is influenced by a number of factors. The first factor to be discussed will be called ‘language-specific features’. The term ‘language-specific features’ here refers to syntactic or lexical properties of a language. These properties can influence the way in which coreference is expressed in a text (cf. Kunz 2010: 19, 22). Since the present study compares coreference in English and German texts, the present section will look at some features of English and German that may have an impact on the use of devices for coreference. In section 3.3.1.1 above, it was explained that nominal coreference in English and German can be established by the use of pronouns, for example, by demonstrative pronouns. When comparing the sets of demonstrative pronouns available in English and German, it should be noted that the sets differ from each other. In English, there are the demonstrative pronouns for ‘near’ reference (this and these) and for ‘distant’ reference (that and those) (cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 372). In German, there are also demonstrative pronouns for near reference (dieser/diese/dieses/dies (singular) and diese (plural)) and distant reference (jener/jene/jenes (singular) and jene (plural)). However, German has a further set of demonstrative pronouns: der/die/das (cf. e.g. Kunz 2010: 140f.). It is important to note that in German the demonstrative pronouns der/die (singular), die (plural), dieser/dieser (singular) and diese (plural)

100

Chapter 3

can be used as anaphoric coreference chain elements which refer to human referents or to non-human referents. By contrast, the English singular demonstrative pronouns this and that cannot be used as anaphoric coreference chain elements which refer to human referents, but only as anaphoric chain elements which refer to non-human referents (cf. Halliday/Hasan 1976: 63; Kunz/Steiner 2010: 234f.). The following two examples illustrate that singular anaphoric demonstrative pronouns can have a human referent in German, but not in English. (105) Paul wollte mit Peter laufen gehen. Aber der war erkältet. (Bosch et al. 2007: 146) (106) Paul wanted to go jogging with Peter. But Peter had caught a cold. (Kunz 2010: 141) In example (105), the demonstrative pronoun der is in a relation of anaphoric coreference with Peter. The demonstrative pronoun thus refers back to a noun phrase which has a person as its referent. By contrast, in example (106) it would not be possible to use a demonstrative pronoun, such as this or that, to refer back to Peter. Instead, a simple repetition of Peter is used to establish anaphoric coreference. As has been mentioned in section 3.1.1.1, the demonstrative pronouns der and die occur more often in spoken than in written language (cf. Weinrich 2007: 385; Kunz/Steiner 2010: 243). Since these demonstrative pronouns can be used as anaphoric coreference chain elements which have human referents, while this is not possible for English singular demonstrative pronouns, it can be assumed that anaphoric demonstrative pronouns occur more often in German texts than in English texts, particularly in genres of spoken language (cf. Kunz/Steiner 2010: 243). In a corpus study of German and English fictional texts and political essays, Kunz/Steiner (2010: 240) found that the German texts contained more anaphoric coreference chain elements which were demonstrative pronouns than the English texts. This seemed to be at least partly due to the above-mentioned language-specific difference between the English

Coreference chain elements in English and German

101

demonstrative pronouns this and that and the German demonstrative pronouns der and die (cf. Kunz/Steiner 2010: 141). A further language-specific feature to be discussed is the use of the definite article and the zero article in English and German. There exist several types of noun phrases which contain the zero article in English, but the definite article in German (cf. Kunz 2010: 125-127; 131-135). For example, noun phrases which refer to specific points in time usually contain a zero article in English (cf. Biber et al. 1999: 262), but a definite article in German (cf. Kunz 2010: 125). This may lead to differences in the use of the supplementing devices for coreference, as is shown in the two examples below. (107) With reference to the letter of 5 May 1992 and in accordance with Article 15 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, I have the honour to inform you that under legislative decree no. 225 of 9 March 1993, the state of emergency was lifted from the town of Elazig and its district; however, under the legislative decree no. 226 of 9 March 1993 the state of emergency was declared on the town of Bitlis and its district. (Murdoch 2002: 118; repeated from section 2.4) (108) Die vom Insolvenzgericht mit Beschluss vom 3. Dezember 2010 öffentlich bekanntgegebene Frist, Versagungsanträge bis zum 10. Januar 2011 zu stellen, hat zu laufen begonnen, nachdem zwei Tage seit dem Tag der Veröffentlichung im Internet verstrichen waren (§ 9 Abs. 1 Satz 3 InsO). […] Mängel der Veröffentlichung sind nach den vorstehenden Ausführungen entgegen der Entscheidung des Beschwerdegerichts nicht festzustellen, so dass die Gläubigerin mit Ablauf des 10. Januar 2011 gehindert war, Gründe geltend zu machen, die der Erteilung einer Restschuldbefreiung entgegenstehen könnten. (court decision IX ZB 229/11 of the German Bundesgerichtshof, paragraph 18)

102

Chapter 3

In example (107), coreference is established between the two instances of 9 March 1993. As has been explained in section 2.4, the present study assumes that the two instances of 9 March 1993 are in a relation of nondirectional coreference as they do not refer forwards or backwards to each other. Since noun phrases which refer to specific points in time usually contain the zero article in English, the second instance of 9 March 1993 uses the supplementing device ‘zero article’ to establish coreference, in combination with the main device ‘simple repetition’. In example (108) above, the prepositional phrase zum 10. Januar 2011 contains a contraction of zu and the definite article dem. The noun phrase [dem] 10. Januar 2011 and the noun phrase des 10. Januar 2011 are in a relation of non-directional coreference. Since noun phrases which refer to specific points in time usually include the definite article in German (cf. Kunz 2010: 125), the noun phrase des 10. Januar 2011 uses the supplementing device ‘definite article’. Examples (107) and (108) show that elements of coreference chains which have a specific date as their referent usually make use of the supplementing device ‘zero article’ in English but use the supplementing device ‘definite article’ in German. As has been explained above, this difference seems to be due to languagespecific differences between the use of the zero article and the definite article in English and German. Furthermore, some noun phrases with generic reference usually contain the zero article in English but can contain either the zero article or the definite article in German (cf. Kunz 2010: 131-135). The following two examples which are taken from Kunz (2010: 132) serve as an illustration. (109) He fights for justice. (110) Er kämpft für Gerechtigkeit. / Er kämpft für die Gerechtigkeit. In example (109), the noun phrase justice has generic reference since it refers to justice in general and not to a specific type of justice (cf. Kunz 2010: 132 and section 2.2 above). The generic noun phrase justice contains the zero article and it would not be possible to use the definite arti-

Coreference chain elements in English and German

103

cle instead in example (109). In example (110), Gerechtigkeit also has generic reference. Example (110) illustrates that in German it is possible to use either a zero article (Gerechtigkeit) or the definite article (die Gerechtigkeit). Examples (109) and (110) show that generic noun phrases with a non-count noun as their head usually contain the zero article in English (cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 282) but can either contain the zero article or the definite article in German (cf. Kunz 2010: 132-134). As has been illustrated by example (109) and (110), this difference in the use of determiners may also influence the use of supplementing devices ‘zero article’ and ‘definite article’ in English and German texts. In her corpus study of nominal coreference in English and German political essays, Kunz (2010: 285) found that coreference chain elements in the English texts contained the zero article more often than coreference chain elements in the German texts. By contrast, coreference chain elements in the German sub-corpus included the definite article more often than the ones in the English sub-corpus. According to Kunz (2010: 287f.), this difference seemed to be partly due to the above-mentioned difference between English and German regarding the use of the definite article in noun phrases with generic reference and non-count nouns as their heads. 3.5.2 Accessibility of the referent A further factor that influences the use of coreferential devices in a text is called the ‘accessibility’ of the referent (cf. e.g. Ariel 1988: 68; 1990: 16). It should be noted that in contrast to the other influencing factors, which are relevant for all three types of coreference, this factor is relevant specifically for anaphoric coreference chain elements. The use of devices for anaphoric coreference can be influenced by the cognitive status of an extralinguistic referent in the mind of the text receiver (cf. e.g. Ariel 1988: 69-72; Gundel et al. 1993: 274f.; Ariel 1996: 20; Kunz 2010: 36). It has been suggested that when speaking or writing, the text producer makes assumptions about the cognitive status that an extralinguistic referent has in the mind of the text receiver (cf. e.g. Gundel et al. 1993: 275). Based

104

Chapter 3

on these assumptions, the text producer then chooses certain linguistic devices in order to refer to the referent in a more explicit or less explicit way (cf. Ariel 1988: 83f.; Gundel et al. 1993: 274f., Ariel 1996: 20). In the present study, we will focus on Ariel’s (1988, 1990, 1996) approach to the cognitive states of referents in the mind of the text receiver (but cf. also e.g. Prince 1981; Gundel et al. 1993 and Grosz et al. 1995). Ariel (1988: 68; 1990: 16) uses the concept of ‘accessibility’ to describe the cognitive status of a referent. She suggests that different referents can be more or less ‘accessible’ for the text receiver. If a referent is highly accessible, the current attention of the text receiver is focused on this referent. If a referent is less accessible, the text receiver’s attention is less focused on it (cf. Ariel 1988: 80). Ariel furthermore explains that the degree of accessibility of a referent influences the text producer’s choice of the linguistic item which refers to this referent (cf. Ariel 1988: 68-72; Ariel 1990: 16). If a referent is likely to be highly accessible for the text receiver, the text producer can choose a linguistic item which provides relatively little information about the referent. Due to the referent’s high accessibility the text receiver will still be able to correctly identify the referent. Thus, personal pronouns are often used when a referent is highly accessible. However, if a referent is not very accessible, the text producer needs to provide more information about the referent so that the text receiver can correctly identify it. Therefore, full noun phrases are likely to be used to refer to referents with a lower degree of accessibility (cf. Ariel 1988: 84). The accessibility of a referent is assumed to be influenced by a number of different factors. The first factor to be mentioned here is the distance to a previous mention of the same referent in a text (cf. Ariel 1988: 65; Ariel 1996: 22). If a referent has already been mentioned very recently in a text, it is assumed to be highly accessible. This is illustrated by the following example.

Coreference chain elements in English and German

105

(111) Geraldine Ferraro has been an active Democrat for quite a few years. But she ran for Vice-Presidency only in 1984. (Ariel 1988: 69) In the above example, there is coreference between Geraldine Ferraro and she. After the text receiver has heard or read the first clause of example (111), the referent ‘Geraldine Ferraro’ is highly accessible for him since it has just been mentioned. This high degree of accessibility is reflected in the use of the pronoun she in the second clause of (111) (cf. Ariel 1988: 69). By contrast, it may also be the case that a referent has been mentioned in a text and is then mentioned again several clauses or clause complexes later. In this case, the referent is assumed to have a low degree of accessibility when it is mentioned for the second time (cf. Ariel 1988: 65; Ariel 1996: 22). The following example illustrates this. (112) Die gesamte Bundesregierung hat die Kommissionsempfehlungen als eine wichtige Grundlage für ihre Entscheidungen akzeptiert. Denn die Kommission war fachlich kompetent, gesellschaftlich und politisch repräsentativ und hochrangig besetzt. Die großen Wohlfahrtsverbände, zahlreiche andere und neue aktive Gruppen und die Wissenschaft waren neben Bund und Ländern vertreten; auch Parlamentarierinnen und Parlamentarier haben konstruktive wie sachverständige Hinweise für den Abschlussbericht gegeben. Dass die Kommissionsempfehlungen schließlich einstimmig ergangen sind, ist auch ein Beleg für das neue Verständnis zwischen zivilgesellschaftlichen und staatlichen Akteuren: […]. (corpus example from Kunz 2010: 80) In example (112), there is coreference between the two instances of die Kommissionsempfehlungen. The referent ‘die Kommissionsempfehlungen’ is mentioned in the first clause of the text and is then mentioned again several clauses later. Since there is a relatively long distance between the first and the second mention of the referent, the text producer in

106

Chapter 3

(112) chose the simple repetition die Kommissionsempfehlungen to establish coreference. As coreference is created by using a full noun phrase, the text receiver will be able to correctly identify the referent in spite of the long distance to the previous mention of this referent. In her study of coreference in English and German political essays, Kunz (2010: 388) found that when pronouns were used as anaphoric coreferential devices, the distance to the previous chain element was on average relatively short. By contrast, when full noun phrases, such as simple repetitions, were used as anaphoric coreferential devices, the distance to the previous element was on average relatively long. A further factor that influences the accessibility of a referent is the number of other referents that have been recently mentioned in a text (cf. Ariel 1988: 65). Since the present study deals with nominal coreference, we will restrict the present discussion to referents that can be referred to by the devices for anaphoric nominal coreference, such as pronouns or simple repetitions (cf. section 3.1 above). If only one referent has been recently mentioned in a text, it is usually highly accessible for the text receiver. This is illustrated by the next example. (113) Nick was hungry. He did not believe he had ever been hungrier. (Hemingway 1980: 459; example provided by Schubert 2012: 34 and repeated from chapter 2.5) In the above example, the first clause introduces only one referent, ‘Nick’. Since there are no other referents mentioned, the text receiver can focus his or her attention on this referent. Thus, when the text receiver has heard or read the first clause, the referent ‘Nick’ is likely to be highly accessible for him or her. Due to the high accessibility of ‘Nick’, the personal pronoun he can be used in the second clause of example (113). The example thus shows that both the short distance between the first and second mention of the referent ‘Nick’ and the lack of competing referents contribute to the referent’s high accessibility. If further referents had been introduced in the first clause, the referent ‘Nick’ would have been less

Coreference chain elements in English and German

107

accessible for the text receiver. In contrast with example (113), the first clause in example (114) below introduces more than one referent. (114) John phoned Bill. The first thing he said was … (Field 2003: 133; repeated from section 3.4.1.2) In the above example, the first clause (John phoned Bill) introduces two referents, ‘John’ and ‘Bill’. When the text receiver has heard or read the first clause complex, the referent ‘John’ is not likely to be highly accessible for him since it competes with the referent ‘Bill’, which has also been introduced in the first clause. Similarly, the referent ‘Bill’ is not likely to be highly accessible for the text receiver because it competes with the referent ‘John’. Since both ‘John’ and ‘Bill’ are unlikely to have a high degree of accessibility, the use of the personal pronoun he in the second clause complex of (114) leads to ambiguity of reference. In order to avoid this ambiguity, a more explicit coreferential device would have to be chosen, such as a simple repetition. In addition to the factors mentioned so far, the accessibility of a referent can also be influenced by the information status that a referent has in a particular clause or clause complex (cf. e.g. Ariel 1990: 23-25; Ariel 1996: 22). Many authors assume that within a clause or clause complex there is usually a piece of given, or known, information and a piece of new information (cf. e.g. Mathesius 1975: 81; Widdowson 1978: 25). The present study will use the terminology of Mathesius (1975: 81). He refers to the part of a clause or clause complex which provides given information as ‘theme’. The part of a clause or clause complex which provides new information is called the ‘rheme’ (cf. Mathesius 1975: 81). The following example illustrates the difference between theme and rheme in a clause. (115) A: What happened to the crops? B: They were destroyed by the rain. (Widdowson 1978: 25)

108

Chapter 3

In the above example, in B’s answer They is the theme of the clause and were destroyed by the rain is its rheme (cf. Widdowson 1978: 25). In general, the theme of a clause is likely to precede the rheme. However, in some cases, such as emotional utterances, the rheme may also precede the theme (cf. Mathesius 1975: 156). In the present paper, a referent belonging to the theme of a clause or clause complex will be called ‘thematic’ and a referent belonging to the rheme will be called ‘rhematic’. Thus, in example (115) above the referent of They is thematic and the referent of the rain is rhematic. It is assumed that thematic referents are usually more accessible than rhematic referents (cf. Ariel 1996: 22). Furthermore, it has been suggested that anaphoric demonstrative pronouns in German show a stronger preference for rhematic reference than anaphoric personal pronouns (cf. e.g. Bosch/Umbach 2007: 50). This is demonstrated in the two examples below; example (116) is repeated from section 3.5.1 for ease of reference. (116) Paul wollte mit Peter laufen gehen. Aber der war erkältet. (Bosch et al. 2007: 146) (117) Paul wollte mit Peter laufen gehen. Aber er war erkältet. (Bosch et al. 2007: 146) In the first clause of example (116), Paul is likely to be the theme and wollte mit Peter laufen gehen is likely to be the rheme. The demonstrative pronoun der is coreferential with Peter and thus refers to a rhematic referent. By contrast, in example (117) the personal pronoun er is ambiguous and could either refer to the thematic referent ‘Paul’ or to the rhematic referent ‘Peter’. Examples (116) and (117) thus show that compared to anaphoric personal pronouns, anaphoric demonstrative pronouns in German seem to have a stronger preference for rhematic referents (cf. Bosch/Umbach 2007: 50). Another factor which can influence the accessibility of a referent is the frequency of previous mentions of a referent. If a referent has already been mentioned several times in a text, it is likely to be more accessible

109

Coreference chain elements in English and German

for the text receiver than a referent which has only been mentioned once or which is mentioned for the first time (cf. Kunz 2010: 77). Figure 3.1 summarizes the factors which may influence a referent’s accessibility. As has been explained above, the degree of a referent’s accessibility may influence the choice of coreferential devices, such as the choice of a pronoun versus a full noun phrase.

Distance to the previous mention of the same referent Number of competing referents influence

Information status of the referent

Accessibility of the referent

influences

Choice of coreferential devices

Frequency of previous mentions of the referent

Figure 3.1: Accessibility and the choice of coreferential devices It should be noted that the different factors which influence a referent’s accessibility can correlate with each other (cf. Kunz 2010: 78). For example, if a referent is mentioned very frequently in a text, the distances between the mentions of this referent are likely to be relatively short. 3.5.3 Genre or sub-genre of the text Another factor which can have an impact on the use of coreferential devices is the genre or sub-genre of a text (cf. Biber et al. 1999: 237f.; Linke/Nussbaumer 2000: 313f.; Swanson 2003: 140-143, 151, 153-155, 179f.; von Polenz 2008: 142f.; Kunz 2010: 20). The term ‘genre’ is used in linguistics with a variety of meanings (cf. e.g. Swales 1990: 33; Esser 2009: 75). The present study chooses an approach that views genres as

110

Chapter 3

text categories which are based on text-external criteria (cf. Biber 1989: 5f.; Esser 2009: 75). Important criteria for the classification of texts into genres include ‘medium’, ‘participation’, ‘field of discourse’ and ‘communicative purposes’ (cf. Swales 1990: 58; Esser 2009: 75). The first criterion, ‘medium’, distinguishes between texts that originated in speech and those that have their origin in writing. The second criterion, ‘participation’, is used to classify texts as monologues, dialogues or polylogues. Thirdly, ‘field of discourse’ refers to the subject matter of a text (cf. Esser 2009: 75). Fourthly, ‘communicative purposes’ is a term for the functions that a text of a particular genre fulfils. For example, a cooking recipe has the communicative purpose of instructing the text receiver. While some texts have only one communicative purpose, others may have several ones (cf. Swales 1990: 46f.). Empirical studies have shown that the frequencies of the different coreferential devices in a text differ according to the genre of the text (cf. e.g. Biber et al. 1999: 237-239; Swanson 2003: 140-143, 151, 153-155, 179f.). Biber et al. analyzed the frequencies of anaphoric coreferential devices in a random sample of the Longman Spoken and Written English Corpus (LSWE Corpus) (cf. Biber et al. 1999: 237-239, 1134). The LSWE Corpus consists of approximately 40 million words. The texts for the corpus are taken from the four genres ‘conversation’, ‘fiction’, ‘news’ and ‘academic prose’. The corpus includes texts in British English and American English; most texts were produced after 1980. The analysis of the anaphoric coreferential devices was based on a LSWE Corpus sample of roughly 2400 coreferential noun phrases (cf. Biber et al. 1999: 25f., 1134). Among other things, Biber et al. (1999: 237) compared how often personal and demonstrative pronouns were used to establish coreference and how often full noun phrases were used. Their findings are shown in Table 3.8 on the next page. As can be seen in Table 3.8, the relative frequencies of the devices in the genre ‘academic prose’ in Biber et al.’s study do not add up to 100%, but only to 97%. This seems to be due to

111

Coreference chain elements in English and German

rounding. Biber et al. (1999: 237) do not present the frequencies as numbers but as diagrams (as squares of different sizes). This mode of presentation is good for a quick overview; however, it may lead to presenting the frequencies in a slightly less precise way than presenting the percentages as numbers. Genre Device

Conversation

Fiction

News

Academic prose

Personal and demonstrative pronouns

90%

77%

42%

27%

Full noun phrases

10%

23%

58%

70%

100%

100%

100%

97%

Sum

Table 3.8: Frequencies of coreferential devices in different genres (cf. Biber et al. 1999: 237) As can be seen in Table 3.8, Biber et al. (1999: 237) found that in conversations nominal coreference was most frequently established by pronouns. Full noun phrases, such as simple repetitions, partial repetitions or paraphrases, were used relatively infrequently to create coreference. According to Biber et al. (1999: 238), the frequent use of coreferential pronouns in conversation can be explained by the finding that conversations usually only include a small number of different referents. For example, they often only mention a relatively small number of different people or places. Since conversations usually include only few referents, pronouns are not likely to cause ambiguity of reference. Moreover, Biber et al. (1999: 238) point out that if the text receiver is not sure to which referent a pronoun refers, he or she can ask the text producer for clarification. Table 3.8 above furthermore shows that in texts of the genre ‘fiction’, Biber et al. (1999: 237) also found that pronouns were used more often than full noun phrases to establish coreference. They suggest that this may be partly due

112

Chapter 3

to the “colloquial nature of fictional dialogue” (Biber et al. 1999: 238; cf. also Swanson 2003: 184). Table 3.8 also shows that in texts of the genres ‘news’ and ‘academic prose’, Biber et al. (1999: 237) found that full noun phrases were used more frequently than pronouns to establish coreference. This can be explained by the high number of different referents in these genres. Due to this high number of referents, it is often necessary to use full noun phrases as coreferential devices so that the text receiver can correctly understand to which referent a coreference chain element refers (cf. Biber et al. 1999: 238). Furthermore, the frequent use of coreferential full noun phrases in news and academic prose can be explained by the communicative purposes of these genres. Both genres have the purposes of informing the reader about something and of presenting information in a clear manner (cf. Swanson 2003: 179, 185). This is likely to lead to a frequent use of explicit coreferential devices, such as simple repetitions. In academic writing, it is particularly important to present information in a precise and explicit way. Therefore, full noun phrases were found especially often in texts of the genre ‘academic prose’ (cf. Biber et al. 1999: 238). A further study of coreference in different genres was conducted by Swanson (2003), who compared texts from the genres ‘fictional narrative’, ‘news magazine articles’ and ‘academic journal articles’. The language of the texts was English. Swanson’s findings are in line with the results of Biber et al.’s (1999: 237f.) study which have been explained above. In the fictional texts, Swanson found that coreference was most frequently established by the use of closed-class items such as pronouns (cf. Swanson 2003: 143, 154). By contrast, in the academic journal articles coreference was created most often by full noun phrases. In the news magazine articles, closed-class items were used for coreference less often than in the fictional texts, but more often than in the academic journal articles (cf. Swanson 2003: 140-143, 154). It is important to note, however, that Swanson’s samples included only three relatively short texts per genre (cf.

Coreference chain elements in English and German

113

Swanson 2003: 47). Thus, her samples are not representative of the genres that were analyzed. Other studies have stated that the coreferential device ‘nominal paraphrase’, for example Barack Obama – the U.S. President, is likely to be used in the genre of journalistic writing (cf. Linke/Nussbaumer 2000: 312; von Polenz 2008: 143). Furthermore, as has been noted in section 3.4.2.2, cataphoric full noun phrases with the function ‘creation of suspense’ are likely to be used in the genres of literary writing and journalistic writing (cf. Brinker 2010: 32f.). The empirical part of the present study analyzes texts which belong to the genre of ‘legal texts’ and, more specifically, to the sub-genre ‘court decisions’. It should be noted that in the present study the genre of legal texts includes both spoken and written texts (for a detailed definition of the term ‘legal texts’ cf. section 4.2.1 below). Several authors have pointed out that legal texts in general tend to use a high number of simple repetitions as coreferential devices (cf. e.g. Crystal/Davy 1969: 201f.; Quirk et al. 1985: 1441; Linke/Nussbaumer 2000: 313; von Polenz 2008: 142f.). The reason for this is that one of the communicative purposes of legal texts is to present information in a very precise way. Thus, in order to avoid ambiguities and misunderstandings, simple repetitions are used very frequently (cf. Crystal/Davy 1969: 193, 201f.; Quirk et al. 1985: 1441; von Polenz 2008: 142f.). However, it is important to point out that the frequent use of repetitions may not occur in all sub-genres of legal texts. For example, spoken legal genres such as ‘witness questioning’ are likely to include fewer repetitions (cf. Trosborg 1997: 14; Tiersma 2006: 553; Tiersma 2008: 22). When discussing the influence of genres on the coreferential devices in a text, it should be noted that genres are likely to be influenced by the particular culture in which they are used (cf. e.g. Spillner 1981: 246; Clyne 1987: 214, 238f.; Swanson 2003: 188). For example, several authors compared court decisions from a number of different countries, such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany or France. The

114

Chapter 3

authors found that the court decisions of the different countries differed in their stylistic features; for instance, they differed in having a ‘personal’ versus an ‘impersonal’ style of writing (cf. Wetter 1960: chapter 1.; Kötz 1973: 13, 17-19; Lashöfer 1992: 19, 66f., 93; Kischel 2009: 13f.). The term ‘personal style’ here refers, for example, to the frequent use of first person pronouns in a text, and to the expression of the text producer’s personal opinion. By contrast, in ‘impersonal’ texts first person pronouns are less often used and the text producer’s personal opinion is less likely to be expressed (cf. Kötz 1973: 18; Lashöfer 1992: 19, 86f., 100; Kischel 2009: 14). Many of the stylistic differences between the court decisions seemed to be related to the legal system or legal culture of the country to which a court decision belongs (cf. Wetter 1960: 32-35; Kötz: 12-14, 17f.; Lashöfer 1992: 2, 34-41, 73-80, 119-126). For example, court decisions with a personal style were found in countries in which court decisions are considered as a highly important source of law. By contrast, court decisions with an impersonal style occurred in countries with a legal system which focuses less strongly on court decisions and more on statutes (cf. Wetter 1960: 32-35; Kötz: 13, 17-19; Lashöfer 1992: 19, 66f., 93; Merryman/Pérez-Perdomo 2007: 1, 34-38; Glendon et al. 2008: 127, 174f.; Kischel 2009: 13f.; Slapper/Kelly 2012: 4f., 115). Previous studies of the different stylistic features of British and German court decisions will be discussed in more detail in section 4.2.2. As cultural factors can be assumed to have an influence on the stylistic features of genres, they are also likely to influence the choice of coreferential devices in a text (cf. Swanson 2003: 188). Since the empirical part of the present study analyzes coreference in British and German court decisions, it seems to be important to take into account the differences and similarities between the legal systems of the United Kingdom and Germany. Therefore, chapter 5 of the present study will provide an overview of the legal systems of the two countries.

Coreference chain elements in English and German

115

3.5.4 Stylistic preferences of the text producer In addition to the factors explained in the previous sections, the use of coreferential devices in a text can also be influenced by the individual stylistic preferences of the text producer (cf. Swanson 2003: 183f.; Kunz 2010: 22). For example, a text producer may favour a high amount of stylistic variation in his or her text, and he or she will thus choose devices for coreference which fulfil the function ‘stylistic variation’ (cf. section 3.4.1.3 above). Another text producer may choose less coreferential devices which fulfil the stylistic variation function, but, for example, he or she will choose many devices which fulfil the ‘evaluation function’. Furthermore, a text producer can choose how often he establishes coreference in a text, i.e. how many coreference chains the text contains and how long these coreference chains are. The influence of the stylistic preference of the text producer on the choice of coreferential devices seems to be stronger in certain genres of texts and weaker in others (cf. Swanson 2003: 183f.). As has been mentioned in the previous section, Swanson (2003) studied coreference in English texts which belonged to the genres ‘fictional narrative’, ‘news magazine articles’ and ‘academic journal articles’. One aspect that Swanson analyzed was the overall number of coreference chain elements in the text. Swanson (2003: 126) found that in the genre of fictional texts, the individual texts different strongly with regard to the overall number of coreference chain elements. By contrast, the texts of the genre ‘news magazine articles’ were relatively similar with regard to the number of chain elements and the texts of the genre ‘academic journal articles’ also did not differ strongly in the frequency of chain elements (cf. Swanson 2003: 126). According to Swanson, the stronger differences in the overall number of coreference chain elements in the fictional texts seem to be due to preferences of the text producer. This might indicate that in fictional texts the influence of the text producer on the use of devices for coreference is stronger than it is in texts which belong to the genres ‘news magazine ar-

116

Chapter 3

ticles’ and ‘academic journal articles’ (cf. Swanson 2003: 183f.). However, as has been mentioned in section 3.5.3 above, it should be noted that Swanson’s samples included only three texts per genre (cf. Swanson 2003: 47) and are therefore not representative of the genres that were analyzed.

4 Related fields of research The present study is related to several fields of research: studies of coreference, contrastive linguistics and a field of research called ‘language and law’. Chapters 2 and 3 have already discussed different aspects and studies of coreference. Sections 4.1.1 and 4.2.1 below will provide an overview of the research fields of contrastive linguistics and language and law. Sections 4.1.2 and 4.2.2 will discuss empirical studies in these fields which are related to the present study.

4.1 Contrastive linguistics 4.1.1 Overview The research field of contrastive linguistics was established in the 1960s and 1970s. Instead of the term ‘contrastive linguistics’, some authors have chosen alternative terms such as ‘contrastive analysis’ or ‘contrastive grammar’ (cf. Rein 1983: 1; König/Gast 2012: 1). Studies in contrastive linguistics focus on synchronic aspects and usually compare a pair of languages. In some cases, more than two languages are compared (cf. Hellinger 1977: 1; Esser 1980: 182; Rein 1983: 1). It is important to distinguish contrastive linguistics from other linguistic approaches to the comparison of languages, such as ‘historical comparative linguistics’ or ‘language typology’ (cf. Hellinger 1977: 1f.; Krzeszowski 1990: 9f.; König 2012: 4). Historical comparative linguistics studies the historical development of languages and their genetic relationships (cf. König 2012: 5). By contrast, as has been mentioned above, contrastive linguistics has a synchronic orientation. Furthermore, contrastive linguistics compares genetically related as well as genetically unrelated languages (cf. König 2012: 5). Studies in language typology usually analyze a representative sample of the world’s languages to find out more about the similarities or differences between these languages. As has been explained above, studies in contrastive linguistics compare a small number of languages, typically only two. Language typology and contrastive

118

Chapter 4

linguistics thus clearly differ in their scope of analysis (cf. Krzeszowski 1990: 9f.; König 2012: 10). For more details about the distinction between contrastive linguistics and other comparative linguistic approaches cf. Hellinger (1977: 2); Krzeszowski (1990: 9f.) and König (2012). Since the present study compares texts from two languages (English and German) and focuses on synchronic aspects, it belongs to the field of contrastive linguistics. When comparing two or more languages, studies in contrastive linguistics analyze differences as well as similarities between these languages (cf. Hellinger 1977: 3; Rein 1983: 1; Krzeszowski 1990: 9). Some authors have suggested that contrastive linguistics is only concerned with differences between languages (cf. e.g. Zabrocki 1970: 33). However, this view will not be adopted in the present study. The research field of contrastive linguistics was established with the aim of improving foreign language teaching (cf. Rein 1983: 5; Krzeszowski 1990: 10; König/Gast 2012: 1). It was assumed that the process of learning a foreign language is influenced by the differences and similarities between a person’s first or native language (L1) and the language to be learned (L2). More specifically, it was suggested that the mistakes made by learners of a foreign language can often be explained by differences between the learner’s L1 and L2 (cf. e.g. James 1980: 23). Shortly after the establishment of contrastive linguistics, its approach was criticized (cf. James 1980: 166; König/Gast 2012: 1). It was pointed out, for example, that the mistakes made by a learner of a foreign language can have other reasons than differences between the learner’s L1 and L2 (cf. Lee 1968: 187; Esser 1980: 182f.; Krzeszowski 1990: 33). However, in spite of the criticism of contrastive linguistics, many authors assume that its insights may be useful for foreign language teaching (cf. e.g. Esser 1980: 183; Rein 1983: 33). In addition, the findings of contrastive linguistics can be important for the description of particular languages or for the research field of translation studies (cf. Candlin 1980: iv).

Related fields of research

119

One of the central concepts in contrastive linguistics is called ‘tertium comparationis’. Krzeszowski (1990: 15) explains the concept as follows: All comparisons involve the basic assumption that the objects to be compared share something in common, against which differences can be stated. This common platform of reference is called tertium comparationis. In contrastive linguistics, the term ‘tertium comparationis’ thus refers to a feature or category that the languages under comparison have in common (cf. James 1980: 169; Krzeszowski 1990: 15). Different contrastive linguistic studies make use of different tertia comparationis. For example, phonological studies may use the inventory of consonants as a tertium comparationis. The inventories of consonants of two or more languages can be compared and similarities and differences can be analyzed. Contrastive studies in the field of syntax may choose, for example, the inflection of nouns as a tertium comparationis. Semantic categories, such as ‘possession’ or ‘coreference’, can also be used as tertia comparationis (cf. König/Gast 2012: 5, 56-65). Most studies in contrastive linguistics have been conducted in the fields of phonology, morphology, lexicology, syntax or semantics (cf. Rein 1983: 4; Nikula 2000: 843). However, there are also contrastive studies in other fields, such as textlinguistics (cf. Nikula 2000: 843). The branch of contrastive linguistics dealing with textlinguistic topics has been called ‘contrastive textlinguistics’ (cf. Gnutzmann/Lange 1990: 86, who use the German term ‘kontrastive Textlinguistik’, and Nikula 2000: 844). Since the present study belongs to the research field of contrastive textlinguistics, section 4.1.2 below will discuss related studies in this field. 4.1.2 Particularly relevant studies Within the field of contrastive textlinguistics, two important approaches can be distinguished. On the one hand, there are studies which compare a certain genre, for example academic journal articles, in two or more dif-

120

Chapter 4

ferent languages. On the other hand, there are studies which compare one or more textlinguistic features, such as the establishment of cohesion, in different languages (cf. Spillner 1981: 240-243). The present study belongs to the second approach since it deals with a comparison of nominal coreference in English and German. Although the present study chooses a particular sub-genre, namely court decisions, for the analysis, its focus is not on the description of this sub-genre but on the description of nominal coreference in English and German. Studies which compare a genre in different languages have often dealt with ‘specialized’ genres, i.e. genres which belong to a field of specialized knowledge, such as science, medicine or law (cf. Nikula 2000: 844). It has been pointed out that when genres are compared, it is not sufficient to use only one linguistic feature as tertium comparationis since usually a genre cannot be described by a single feature (cf. Gläser 1992: 79f.). Instead, a combination of different linguistic features should be used as tertium comparationis (cf. Gläser 1992: 80). While there are several studies which compare genres in different languages (cf. e.g. Trumpp 1998; Eckkrammer et al. 1999; Fix et al. 2001), there are relatively few studies which compare a particular textlinguistic feature in different languages. One notable exception is the study by Kunz (2010), which has already been mentioned in section 3.5.1 above. Kunz compared the textlinguistic feature of nominal coreference in English and German political essays. She analyzed ten original English political essays, ten original German political essays and the German translations of the original English essays (cf. Kunz 2010: 265). Since the present study deals with original English and original German texts and does not focus on translations, only Kunz’ results for the original English and original German political essays will be discussed in the present study. The results for the translations will not be considered. One of Kunz’ main findings was that both in the original English and in the original German political essays, full noun phrases were used more often than pronouns as devices for coreference (cf. Kunz 2010: 397). For

Related fields of research

121

greater textual distances, full noun phrases were preferred, while pronominal expressions were preferred for short distances to the previous mention of the referent (cf. Kunz 2010: 397). Furthermore, Kunz (2010: 399) found that the original English texts included more elements of coreference chains than the original German texts. In addition to the study by Kunz (2010), there are also studies in contrastive textlinguistics which compare the textlinguistic features of legal texts in different languages. These studies will be discussed in section 4.2.2 below, which deals with related studies in the field of language and law.

4.2 Language and law 4.2.1 Overview In addition to studies of coreference and studies in contrastive linguistics, the present study is also related to a field of research called ‘language and law’. As the name suggests, researchers in this discipline study the relations that exist between law and language (cf. e.g. Danet 1990: 537; Engberg/Kjaer 2011: 7). The field of research has also been referred to as ‘legal linguistics’. However, since ‘legal linguistics’ has not yet become an established term in the English-speaking countries, it will not be used the present study (cf. Mattila 2006: 8; Engberg/Kjaer 2011: 7). The research field of ‘language and law’ can be divided into several sub-fields. In the present study, the following three sub-fields are distinguished: (i) studies of legal language, (ii) forensic linguistics and (iii) law on language (cf. Engberg/Kjaer 2011: 8 for a similar approach). Studies in the first sub-field investigate the characteristics of legal varieties, such as British legal English, and legal texts, such as statutes or court decisions (cf. Kurzon 2006: 729; Mattila 2006: 10). For example, it can be analyzed how British legal English has developed historically or which syntactic features are typical of statutes in the United Kingdom. With regard to the second sub-discipline, forensic linguistics, it should be noted that the term ‘forensic linguistics’ is used in different

122

Chapter 4

ways by different authors. On the one hand, it can be used to refer to the entire research field of language and law (cf. Coulthard/Johnson 2007: 6; Gibbons/Turell 2008: 1). On the other hand, ‘forensic linguistics’ can also be understood as a sub-field of language and law which studies the use of linguistic techniques in a judicial process (cf. Kniffka 1996: 31). This is the view that will be taken in the present study. For example, linguistic techniques can be used in a judicial process to determine the authorship of an anonymous piece of writing (cf. Shuy 2001: 685f.). The third sub-field of research, law on language, focuses on legislation that regulates language-related topics. It can be studied, for example, how laws determine the official language(s) of a country (cf. Engberg/Kjaer 2011: 9). The research field ‘law on language’ belongs to the wider research field of ‘language planning’, which deals with the regulation of language-related issues in one or more countries. This regulation may take place in different ways: by legislation or in other, less official ways, for example by the suggestions of academies or committees (cf. Cooper 1996: 31; Clyne 2003: 411). The three sub-fields of ‘language and law’ are summarized in Table 4.1 below. Field of research Sub-fields of research Research topics

Language and law Studies of legal language

Forensic linguistics

Law on language

Characteristics of legal varieties and legal texts

The use of linguistic techniques in a judicial process

The regulation of language-related issues by legislation

Table 4.1: Sub-fields of research in ‘language and law’ The present study belongs to the sub-field of research called ‘studies of legal language’. For the purpose of the present study, ‘legal language’ is used as a superordinate term for legal varieties and legal texts. Furthermore, ‘legal variety’ is defined as a variety that is used to produce ‘legal texts’. In the present study, legal texts are understood as texts with the following characteristics. First, at least one of the text-producers

Related fields of research

123

works in the area of law, e.g. as a lawyer or a judge (cf. Peotta 1998: 9). Second, the texts deal with a legal topic and/or they are produced to fulfil a specific legal function (cf. Peotta 1998: 9; Cao 2010: 78). As has been mentioned above, examples of legal texts include statutes and court decisions. When referring to legal varieties, it should be noted that they are closely connected to the legal system in which they are used. In the present study, the term ‘legal system’ refers to a set of legal institutions, legal procedures and legal rules (cf. Merryman & Pérez-Perdomo 2007: 1 and cf. also section 5.1 below). Thus, it is important to distinguish, for example, between ‘British legal English’ and ‘American legal English’ or between ‘legal German used in Austria’ and ‘legal German used in Germany’ (cf. de Groot 1991: 282f.; Sandrini 1999: 12). Early studies of legal language from a linguistic point of view were conducted by members of the Prague School of linguistics, for example by Havránek (1964) (cf. Kurzon 2006: 728). Havránek (1964: 6-9) deals with legal Czech when explaining his concept of ‘intellectualization’. He uses the term ‘intellectualization’ to refer to the use of certain linguistic features in order to make precise statements and to deal with abstract topics, for example in scientific or legal texts (cf. Havránek 1964: 6). In the 1960s, two important studies of legal American English and legal British English were published: The Language of the Law by Mellinkoff (1963) and Investigating English Style by Crystal/Davy (1969), which includes a chapter on the linguistic features of legal texts. After the publication of these studies, interest in legal varieties and legal texts grew. At first, authors focused mainly on written legal texts, such as statutes. Much of this work dealt with the syntactic and lexical features of these texts. Later, interest in spoken legal texts, e.g. witness examination in court, became stronger. Also, more studies began to analyze pragmatic features of legal texts (cf. Kurzon 2006: 729). Textlinguistic aspects of legal texts have been studied as well (cf. e.g. Engberg 1997; Trosborg 1997). Currently, research in legal language focuses, for example, on the

124

Chapter 4

comparison of legal texts from different legal systems (cf. e.g. Engberg 1997; Peotta 1998; Bhatia et al. 2003), on the comprehensibility of legal texts (cf. e.g. Eagleson 1991; Dietrich/Kühn 2000; Anissimova 2007) and on the translation and interpretation of legal texts (cf. e.g. Šarčević 1997; Sandrini 1999; Cao 2010). 4.2.2 Particularly relevant studies Since the present study analyzes coreference in decisions of the British Appellate Committee of the House of Lords and the German Bundesgerichtshof, the present section will provide an overview of related studies which also deal with the linguistic features of the decisions of these two courts. For reasons of brevity, from now on the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords will be referred to as ‘House of Lords’ (cf. e.g. Cownie et al. 2010: 46). Only when it is important to avoid ambiguity between the court and the chamber of parliament called ‘House of Lords’, the full term ‘Appellate Committee of the House of Lords’ will be used. When discussing court decisions from the United Kingdom, it is important to note that the United Kingdom is a country with several legal systems. While England and Wales share a common legal system, Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own legal systems (cf. Glendon et al. 2008: 171f.; Cownie et al. 2010: 1). Previous studies which analyzed court decisions from the United Kingdom often used the term ‘English court decisions’ to refer to decisions of the House of Lords (cf. e.g. Wetter 1960: 13, 15; Lashöfer 1992: 9, 16f.). However, until 2009, the House of Lords was the final court of appeal for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. In 2009, the court was replaced by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (cf. Slapper/Kelly 2012: 177). Since the House of Lords could hear appeals from all parts of the United Kingdom, it will be referred to as a ‘British court’ in the present study. The same applies to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. In Germany, there also exist several legal systems: the sixteen states have their own legal systems. In addition, there is the federal legal system

Related fields of research

125

of Germany (cf. Merryman/Pérez-Perdomo 2007: 1; Degenhart 2013: 3, 8, 179). For reasons of brevity, the present study uses the term ‘legal system of Germany’ to refer to the country’s federal legal system. As has been mentioned above, the present section will summarize the findings of previous studies of House of Lords decisions and decisions of the Bundesgerichtshof. First, some of the general stylistic features of these decisions will be explained. Second, the findings of studies of coreference in these texts will be discussed. The stylistic features of decisions of the House of Lords and the Bundesgerichtshof have been analyzed by several authors (cf. e.g. Wetter 1960; Lashöfer 1992; Blom-Cooper 2009). In addition, general descriptions of court decisions from Germany and from the United Kingdom or from England can be found in the studies by Kötz (1973) or Kischel (2008), for example. As for House of Lords decisions, it has been pointed out that these texts are usually written in a ‘personal’ style (cf. Wetter 1960: 32f.; Lashöfer 1992: 15, 19). This personal style is marked, for example, by the use of the first person pronoun I. Furthermore, House of Lords judges and other British appellate judges sometimes express their personal opinions or even their feelings in their decisions (cf. Lashöfer 1992: 19). This is illustrated in examples (1) to (4). All examples are taken from House of Lords decisions. (1) In my opinion Lawrence Collins LJ1 was right in saying that the admission of the evidence infringed the exclusionary rule. (2009 UKHL 38, paragraph 45) (2) Nonetheless, it would, in my view, have been quite insufficient to overcome the Revenue’s arguments as to why the claimants cannot succeed on the second issue […]. (2007 UKHL 25, paragraph 51)

1

The abbreviation LJ here stands for Lord Justice. Lord Justice and Lady Justice are the titles of the judges of the Court of Appeal (cf. Nolan/Meredith 2012: 19).

126

Chapter 4

(3) Professor Sir Guenter Treitel QC2 read the Court of Appeal’s judgment as appearing to impair this quality of certainty (“Assessment of Damages for Wrongful Repudiation”, (2007) 123 LQR 9-18) and I respectfully share his concern. (2007 UKHL 12, paragraph 23) (4) As one of those people who do remember the sixties, I am glad that the author of that memorable organ part has at last achieved the recognition he deserves.3 (2009 UKHL 41, paragraph 20) In the United Kingdom, court decisions are considered as highly important sources of law (cf. Merryman/Pérez-Perdomo 2007: 34 and section 5.1 below). The personal style of House of Lords decisions seems to be related to this high importance of court decisions as a source of law. Judges in the United Kingdom are expected to create new law and this important task seems to be one of the reasons for the judges’ selfconfident presentation of their arguments in a personal style (for a similar explanation cf. Kötz 1973: 12-14, 17f.; Lashöfer 1992: 13-15, 107). According to Blom-Cooper (2009: 145), judges in the United Kingdom often develop a “distinctive individualism”. Moreover, it is important to note that each of the judges who are involved in a House of Lords decision writes his or her own decision. A House of Lords decision thus typically consists of five separate texts by the five judges (cf. House of Lords 2008: 5f.). However, Lashöfer (1992: 33) found a decline in personal stylistic features in some House of Lords decisions and other British appellate court decisions from the 1970s and 1980s when she compared these texts to earlier decisions. According to Lashöfer (1992: 16), this change can be attributed, among other factors, to the European integration process. Since the United Kingdom joined the European Communities in 1973, 2

The abbreviation QC here refers to Queen’s Counsel, which is a title given to particularly successful advocates in the United Kingdom (cf. Zweigert/Kötz 1998: 214). 3 Example (4) is taken from a decision which deals with a question of musical copyright. Organ part thus refers to a composition for organ.

Related fields of research

127

British judges have been in contact with decisions from continental Europe more often. These decisions tend to be written in a less personal style and this may have influenced the stylistic features of House of Lords decisions (cf. Lashöfer 1992: 16, 33). In addition, it has been noted that House of Lords judges sometimes use rhetorical devices, such as irony or metaphors. In some cases, their decisions also contain references to literary or biblical sources (cf. Lashöfer 1992: 22, 25). The following example illustrates this use of references. The example is taken from a passage of a House of Lords decision which deals with the meaning of the word dwelling. More specifically, it is discussed whether a dwelling must include cooking facilities. The example contains both a reference to a biblical source and a reference to a literary source. (5) According to the Book of Common Prayer, “the fir trees are a dwelling for the storks” (Psalm 104); while W. S. Gilbert condemned the billiard sharp “to dwell in a dungeon cell” (where it will be remembered he plays with a twisted cue on a cloth untrue with elliptical billiard balls): The Mikado Act II. It is hardly necessary to observe that Victorian prison cells did not possess cooking facilities. (2001 UKHL 43, paragraph 30) In contrast to House of Lords decisions, the style of decisions of the Bundesgerichtshof and of German court decisions in general has been described as ‘impersonal’ (cf. Kötz 1973: 19; Lashöfer 1992: 86; Kischel 2008: 13). Judges do not use first person pronouns and expressions of their personal opinions are very rare. One reason for this impersonal style seems to be that the judges try to avoid any hints of subjectivity in their decisions (cf. Lashöfer 1992: 87). Moreover, the five judges involved in a decision of the Bundesgerichtshof deliver only one judgment, i.e. a single text which is signed by all judges. Therefore, the judge who writes the text is likely to avoid features of a personal style (cf. Kötz 1973: 25). However, Lashöfer (1992: 99f.) reports a slight tendency towards a more

128

Chapter 4

personal style in Bundesgerichtshof decisions from the 1970s and 1980s compared with earlier decisions. Another finding by Lashöfer (1992: 97) is that rhetorical devices were used less frequently in decisions of the Bundesgerichtshof than in House of Lords decisions. It has been criticized that court decisions in Germany tend to be difficult to understand for people without a legal background, for example due to the syntactic complexity of the texts (cf. e.g. Lashöfer 1992: 96). An example of the use of a complex noun phrase in a decision of the Bundesgerichtshof from the year 1979 is provided below. (6) Ohne Erfolg wendet sich die Revision der Beklagten gegen die Auffassung des Berufungsgerichts, daß die von der Klägerin für die Entdeckung des Diebstahls und die Ergreifung der Beklagten zugesagte Prämie dem Grunde nach von dem Schadensersatzanspruch umfaßt wird […]. (VI ZR 254/77: 235f.) In example (6) above, the relatively long and complex noun phrase die von der Klägerin für die Entdeckung des Diebstahls und die Ergreifung der Beklagten zugesagte Prämie makes the text more difficult to understand. However, according to Lashöfer (1992: 96), a high syntactic complexity is not a general feature of German court decisions anymore. A few remarks about coreference in House of Lords decisions can be found in a small-scale study by Waters (1997). Waters (1997: 810, 816) analyzed a House of Lords decision and found that pronouns were used relatively frequently as devices for coreference. In general, it has been stated that in legal texts simple repetitions are preferred to coreferential pronouns since simple repetitions are likely to establish clarity of reference (cf. e.g. Crystal/Davy 1969: 201f.; Tiersma 2008: 21). The frequent use of pronouns is a typical feature of spoken language (cf. e.g. Biber et al. 1999: 235). Thus, Waters (1997: 810, 816) suggests that the high frequency of pronouns is related to the fact that House of Lords decisions were originally written to be spoken. The decisions of the House of Lords used to be read out by the judges. In 1963, this practice was abolished and

Related fields of research

129

since then the judges have only stated briefly whether they allow an appeal or not and have referred to their written decisions (cf. House of Lords 2008: 6). However, according to Waters (1997: 815) traces of spoken language can still be found in decisions of the House of Lords, for example, the relatively high frequency of pronouns (cf. also Charnock 2010: 131f.). A further study which mentions the use of coreferential devices in House of Lords decisions was conducted by Mazzi (2005). Mazzi (2005: 161, 168-171) found that in decisions of the House of Lords coreference was often established between a noun phrase and one or more clause complexes. This is illustrated in the example below which is taken from a House of Lords decision (cf. Mazzi 2005: 168). (7) 56. […] But this payment, however calculated, is in my opinion nothing more than part of the price which Edison4 were willing to pay PowerGen for the power stations. It is not, from Edison’s point of view, a payment of rates. 57. For these reasons I consider that the ESI Order was not ultra vires, either as a matter of construction of paragraph 3(2) or because, as Edison have submitted, the Secretary of State acted irrationally or contrary to Edison’s rights of property under Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights. (2003 UKHL 20, paragraphs 56f.) In example (7) above, the noun phrase these reasons is in a relation of coreference with a longer passage of previous text (cf. Mazzi 2005: 168). In cases like example (7), a coreference chain element can thus be used to summarize a previous section of a text (cf. Mazzi 2005: 164). In contrast to coreference in House of Lords decisions, coreference in German court decisions has, to the best of my knowledge, not been studied so far.

4

Edison here refers to the company Edison First Power Limited.

5 The Appellate Committee of the House of Lords and the Bundesgerichtshof in the legal systems of the United Kingdom and Germany As has been mentioned in previous chapters, the present study analyzes court decisions from the United Kingdom and Germany. In order to learn more about the texts to be analyzed, it seems useful to provide an overview of some important characteristics of the two countries’ legal systems1. Thus, section 5.1 will explain the two ‘legal traditions’ that the legal systems of the United Kingdom and Germany are based on. Furthermore, section 5.2 will provide information about the two courts whose decisions will be studied, i.e. the British Appellate Committee of the House of Lords and the German Bundesgerichtshof. As has been mentioned in section 4.2.2, in the present study the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords will be referred to as ‘House of Lords’ for reasons of brevity, except for in cases where it is important to avoid ambiguity between the court and the chamber of parliament called ‘House of Lords’.

5.1 Legal traditions: common law and civil law It has been suggested by various authors that legal systems can be classified into different groups. These groups have been referred to as ‘legal traditions’. Some authors use the term ‘legal families’ instead (cf. e.g. Zweigert/Kötz 1998: 63; Glendon et al. 2008: 14). The concept of legal traditions is explained by Glendon et al. (2008: 17) as follows: When we refer to some of the world’s legal systems with a common name, such as “Romanist”, “Romano-Germanic”, or “civil law” systems, we are calling attention to the fact that, despite their similarities to other legal systems and despite national differences among themselves, these systems share a distinctive heritage. 1

For a definition of the term ‘legal system’ cf. section 4.2.2 above.

132

Chapter 5

Two important legal traditions are called ‘common law’ and ‘civil law’ (cf. Zweigert/Kötz 1998: 63f.; Merryman/Pérez-Perdomo 2007: 1; Glendon et al. 2008: 14f.). As has been explained in section 4.2.2 above, the United Kingdom is a country with several legal systems. The legal systems of England, Wales and Northern Ireland are based on the common law tradition (cf. Dickson 2005: 2; Slapper/Kelly 2012: 80). The legal system of Scotland is based on the civil law tradition but also shows influences of the common law tradition (cf. White/Willock 2007: 162; Glendon et al. 2008: 171f.). The United Kingdom in general is thus more strongly influenced by the common law tradition than by the civil law tradition. By contrast, the legal system of Germany is a civil law system (cf. Merryman/Pérez-Perdomo 2007: ix; Glendon et al. 2008: 62). Further common law countries are, for example, the United States (except for Louisiana and Puerto Rico), Canada (except for Quebec) and Australia (cf. Glendon et al. 2008: 174f.). In addition to Germany, examples of civil law countries include France, Italy or Argentina (cf. Merryman/Pérez-Perdomo 2007: 1). There exist several differences between common law systems and civil law systems. The differences which will be discussed in the following also apply to the common law systems of England, Wales and Northern Ireland and the civil law system of Germany. The common law tradition has its origins in England after the Norman Conquest in 1066. Following the Norman Conquest, judicial powers were assumed by three central courts, the ‘royal courts’. This started a process of legal unification: based on the decisions of the royal courts, a body of law developed which was applicable in all parts of England. This body of law was called the ‘common law’ (cf. Zweigert/Kötz 1998: 183f.; Glendon et al. 2008: 157). From its beginning on, the common law tradition was thus strongly influenced by court decisions or, in other words, by ‘case law’ (cf. Merryman/Pérez-Perdomo 2007: 34; Slapper/Kelly 2012: 115). Common law systems usually follow the doctrine of the ‘binding precedent’. ‘Precedent’ here refers to a rule of law which

The House of Lords and the Bundesgerichtshof

133

was established in a previous court decision (cf. Glendon et al. 2008: 276f.; Slapper/Kelly 2012: 116, 138). The doctrine of the binding precedent means that a rule of law which was established in a decision of a higher court is binding for a lower court (cf. Slapper/Kelly 2012: 116). The civil law tradition, which is older than the common law tradition, was influenced by a number of different factors and legal sub-traditions: Roman law, canon law, commercial law, legal science and the break with feudalism. In this context, the term ‘Roman law’ refers to the laws that were collected and codified under the Byzantine emperor Justinian I in the sixth century A.D. The title of this collection of laws was Corpus Juris Civilis (cf. Merryman/Pérez-Perdomo 2007: 6f.; Glendon et al. 2008: 17-21). Due to the influences of Roman law, one important feature of civil law systems is that they are usually based on a body of codified law. Thus, traditionally in civil law countries statutes were a more important source of law than court decisions (cf. Glendon et al. 2008: 127; Slapper/Kelly 2012: 4f.). By contrast, as has been mentioned above, common law systems traditionally tended focus on case law. However, today the number of codified laws in common law systems such as England, Wales and Northern Ireland has strongly increased (cf. Glendon et al. 2008: 132; Mattei/Pes 2008: 273; Slapper/Kelly 2012: 4f., 80, 115). In their book about the legal system of England and Wales, Slapper and Kelly (2012: 80) describe this development as follows: Although we still refer to our legal system as a common law system, and although the courts still have an important role to play in the interpretation of statutes, it has to be recognised that legislation is the predominant method of law-making in contemporary times. Furthermore, many civil law countries have become more open to acknowledging that court decisions can also be a source of law (cf. Glendon et al. 2008: 55, 132-136; Mattei/Pes 2008: 273). However, according to Mattei and Pes (2008: 273) court decisions are still clearly more important in common law systems than in civil law ones. Thus,

134

Chapter 5

while the traditional distinction between case-centred common law and code-centred civil law systems should not be overemphasized (cf. Slapper/Kelly 2012: 5), there remain differences between the two legal traditions. Another difference between common law and civil law systems has to do with the procedure of trials. In trials in common law systems, it is usually not the task of the judge to investigate the facts of a case. Instead, the appellant’s lawyer and the respondent’s lawyer each present their own account of the facts of the case. By contrast, in trials in civil law systems, the judge usually takes a more active role in investigating the facts of a case (cf. Langbein 1985: 824; Glendon et al. 2008: 100). The common law approach to trials has been called ‘adversarial’ and the civil law approach ‘inquisitorial’ or ‘non-adversarial’ (cf. White/Willock 2007: 126; Glendon et al. 2008: 100f.). The use of these terms, has, however, been criticized, for example by Langbein (1985: 824). For the present study, the distinction between adversarial trials in common law systems and non-adversarial trials in civil law systems is not of great importance. This is due to the fact that final courts of appeal both in the United Kingdom and in Germany usually do not investigate the facts of a case. Instead, they accept the accounts of facts which are provided by the lower court which appealed to the final court of appeal. The final courts of appeal then only deal with the legal questions of a case (cf. Glendon et al. 2008: 104; Bundesgerichtshof 2014: 4, 24). The present study analyzes the decisions of two final courts of appeal, i.e. the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords and the Bundesgerichtshof. Thus, it can be assumed that the decisions which are analyzed in the present study will not be strongly influenced by differences between adversarial and non-adversarial trials. A further difference between common law systems and civil law systems is related to the role of legal scholarship. Traditionally, legal scholars have been very influential in civil law systems. Still today, legal scholarship continues to play an important role for the civil law judges

The House of Lords and the Bundesgerichtshof

135

and lawyers (cf. Mattei/Pes 2008: 274). Glendon et al. (2008: 137) describe it like this: As we noted earlier in our discussion of the role of legal scholars in civil law systems, the importance of the academics’ function in presenting analyses of cases and statutes to judges or lawyers is hard to overestimate. By contrast, in common law systems traditionally the opinions of legal scholars have not been very influential (cf. Mattei/Pes 2008: 274). However, in recent times the position of legal academics in many common law systems has been strengthened. Thus, with regard to the role of legal scholarship there seem to be some signs of convergence between the two legal traditions, but differences still remain (cf. Glendon et al. 2008: 138f.; Mattei/Pes 2008: 274). In addition to ‘legal tradition’, another term which has been used for the description of legal systems is ‘legal culture’. ‘Legal culture’ can be defined as people’s attitudes to and beliefs about the legal system of their region or country (cf. e.g. Friedman 1975: 15, 193f.; Cotterrell 2006: 710). A distinction has been made between ‘internal’ and ‘external’ legal culture. ‘Internal legal culture’ has been defined as the lawrelated attitudes and beliefs of legal professionals, such as lawyers or judges. ‘External legal culture’ is a term for the general public’s opinion about the legal system (cf. Friedman 1975: 223). Friedman (1975: 193f.) provides the following examples to illustrate the concept of external legal culture: Do people feel and act as if courts are fair? When are they willing to use courts? […] What do they know about the law in general? In the United Kingdom, it is the very successful lawyers who are appointed as judges (cf. Dickson 2005: 35; White & Willock 2007: 99, 107; Glendon et al. 2008: 235f.). Therefore, the judges generally have a high social prestige (cf. Kötz 1973: 13; Merryman & Pérez-Perdomo 2007:

136

Chapter 5

34; Glendon et al. 2008: 88, 239). This high prestige can be considered as an example of external legal culture since the judges’ prestige is based on the general public’s opinion. Glendon et al. (2008: 239) explain that being appointed as a judge signifies “the culmination, rather than the beginning of a career”. By contrast, in other countries, such as Germany, becoming a judge is an initial career choice (cf. Glendon et al. 2008: 235). It may be added that common law judges in general enjoy a higher prestige than judges in civil law countries (cf. Merryman/Pérez-Perdomo 2007: 34-38; Glendon et al. 2008: 88; Mattei/Pes 2008: 273). Besides the different ways of selecting and appointing judges in the two legal traditions, there are also other reasons for the different public images of judges. One further reason is that, as has been explained in the present section, from its beginning on, the common law tradition has been strongly influenced by judges and their decisions (cf. Merryman/PérezPerdomo 2007: 34). By contrast, the civil law tradition has been influenced more by legal scholars than by judges (cf. Glendon et al. 2008: 91, 137; Mattei/Pes 2008: 274). Judges in civil law systems are traditionally viewed as having an important but relatively narrow and uncreative function (cf. Merryman/Pérez-Perdomo 2007: 37f.). However, it should be noted that there are also judges with a high prestige in civil law systems, for example, the judges of the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) of Germany (cf. Merryman/Pérez-Perdomo 2007: 37f.; Glendon et al. 2008: 88f.). Still, the prestige of the judges of the German Bundesgerichtshof can be assumed to be lower than that of the judges of the British House of Lords in the United Kingdom.

5.2 The Appellate Committee of the House of Lords and the Bundesgerichtshof As has been briefly mentioned in section 4.2.2, until 2009 the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords was the final court of appeal in the United Kingdom. The judges of the Appellate Committee of the House

The House of Lords and the Bundesgerichtshof

137

of Lords were also members of the chamber of parliament called ‘House of Lords’ and were allowed to take part in its legislative sessions. However, if the judges participated in the legislative sessions, they were not supposed to speak on topics which involved party politics (cf. Glendon et al. 2008: 206f.). In 2009, the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords was abolished and a new final court of appeal was established, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. The main reason why the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords was abolished was that the United Kingdom government wanted to create a final court of appeal which was clearly independent from the parliament (cf. Kavanagh 2011: 36; Slapper/Kelly 2012: 177). Until its abolishment, the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords was the final court of appeal for civil and criminal cases in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and for civil cases in Scotland (cf. House of Lords 2008: 1). For criminal cases in Scotland, the final court of appeal was, and still is, the High Court of Justiciary (cf. White/Willock 2007: 466). The decisions of the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords were binding for all lower courts (cf. Sims 2010: 40f.). The court consisted of twelve judges who were appointed by the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister, in most cases from the senior appeal court judges in the United Kingdom (cf. House of Lords 2008: 2). The Appellate Committee of the House of Lords usually sat in a group of five judges. Particularly important cases were sometimes heard by a panel of seven or nine judges (cf. Dickson 2005: 38). Figure 5.1 shows the position of the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords in the court system of the United Kingdom until 2009. For the sake of clarity, Figure 5.1 leaves out some of the specialized courts in the United Kingdom as well as European courts which also play a role in the legal system of the United Kingdom. Arrows are used to show which courts were allowed to appeal to the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords. Figure 5.1 is based on Dickson 2005: 19;

138

Chapter 5

European Judicial Network in Civil and Commercial Matters 2006; White/Willock 2007: 92-118, 465-473 and Slapper/Kelly 2012: 164-181.

Appellate Committee of the House of Lords

Court of Appeal

Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland

High Court

High Court in Northern Ireland

Crown Court Magistrates' Courts

Judicial Committee of the Privy Council

Court of Session

High Court of Justiciary

Sheriff Courts

Justice of the Peace Courts

Crown Court in Northern Ireland County Courts

England and Wales

Magistrates' Courts

County Courts

Northern Ireland

The House of Lords and the Bundesgerichtshof

Courts with United Kingdom-wide jurisdiction

Scotland

Figure 5.1: The Appellate Committee of the House of Lords in the court system of the United Kingdom until 2009 139

140

Chapter 5

As Figure 5.1 illustrates, there are three separate court systems in the United Kingdom: one for England and Wales, one for Northern Ireland and one for Scotland. The figure furthermore shows that until its abolishment in 2009 the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords heard appeals from the Court of Appeal, the High Court, the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland, the High Court in Northern Ireland and from the Scottish Court of Session (cf. White/Willock 2007: 465-473; Slapper/Kelly 2012: 177f.). Figure 5.1 also indicates that until 2009, there was another court with United Kingdom-wide jurisdiction in addition to the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords, namely the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. This court still exists. It hears appeals from several Commonwealth countries and from the Crown dependencies (Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man). Furthermore, until 2009 the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council had jurisdiction over matters related to the process of ‘devolution’ in the United Kingdom, i.e. matters related to the transfer of political powers from a higher level to a lower, regional level (cf. Bogdanor 2001: 2f.; White/Willock 2007: 86; Slapper/Kelly 2012: 177-180). Today, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council still has United Kingdom-wide jurisdiction, but only in relatively few cases, such as appeals from the Disciplinary Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (cf. Slapper/Kelly 2012: 180). The German Bundesgerichtshof was established in 1950 (cf. Bundesgerichtshof 2014: 48). It is the highest court of appeal in Germany for the field of law called ‘ordinary jurisdiction’, i.e. for most civil and most criminal cases (cf. Plöhn 2005: 313, 316; Bell 2006: 110). About 75% of all judges in Germany work in the field of the ordinary jurisdiction (cf. Bundesgerichtshof 2014: 6). In addition to the Bundesgerichtshof, there are also final courts of appeal for cases in the fields of administrative jurisdiction, financial jurisdiction, labour jurisdiction and social jurisdiction. The German legal system thus contains a number of different hierarchies of courts. The final courts of appeal are federal

The House of Lords and the Bundesgerichtshof

141

courts, while the trial courts and intermediate courts are state courts (cf. Bell 2006: 110; Glendon et al. 2008: 71f.). Furthermore, the legal system of Germany includes a federal constitutional court, the Bundesverfassungsgericht, and the constitutional courts of the states (cf. Plöhn 2005: 316; Bell 2006: 110). The position of the Bundesgerichtshof in the legal system of Germany is shown in Figure 5.2 on the next page. As in Figure 5.1 above, some specialized courts and European courts are left out for the sake of clarity. For reasons of space, only the English terms for the courts are mentioned in Figure 5.2, with the exception of the Bundesgerichtshof, whose English and German title are provided. Arrows are used to indicate which courts can appeal to the Bundesgerichtshof. Figure 5.2 is based on European Judicial Network in Civil and Commercial Matters 2004; Plöhn 2005: 316 and Bell 2006: 110.

Ordinary Jurisdiction

Administrative Jurisdiction

Fiscal Jurisdiction

Labour Jurisdiction

Social Jurisdiction

Federal Constitutional Court

Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice)

Federal Administrative Court

Federal Finance Court

Federal Labour Court

Federal Social Court

Higher Regional Courts

Higher Administrative Courts

Higher Labour Courts

Higher Social Courts

Labour Courts

Social Courts

Constitutional Courts of the States

Lower Regional Courts

Local Courts

142

Constitutional Jurisdiction

Finance Courts

Administrative Courts

Chapter 5

Figure 5.2: The Bundesgerichtshof in the court system of Germany

The House of Lords and the Bundesgerichtshof

143

As Figure 5.2 shows, the Bundesgerichtshof hears appeals from the Higher Regional Courts (Oberlandsgerichte) and the Lower Regional Courts (Landesgerichte). The broken arrow indicates that in very rare cases, the Bundesgerichtshof also hears appeals from the Local Courts (Amtsgerichte) (cf. Bundesgerichtshof 2014: 24). Decisions of the Bundesgerichtshof are not binding for other courts. However, it has been shown that when new legal concepts are developed by the higher courts, such as the Bundesgerichtshof, they are usually adapted by the lower courts (cf. Salger 1980: 5). The Bundesgerichtshof is divided into several chambers for different areas of law. These chambers, which are called ‘senates’, sit in groups of five judges (cf. Bundesgerichtshof 2014: 10). To sum up, until 2009 the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords was a final court of appeal for civil and criminal cases and the Bundesgerichtshof also is a final court of appeal for these areas of law. Therefore, the position of the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords in the court system of the United Kingdom was similar to the position of the Bundesgerichtshof in the court system of Germany.

6 Methodology of the study of coreference in the court decisions 6.1 Compilation of the corpus In the empirical part of the present study, nominal coreference was analyzed in decisions of the United Kingdom Appellate Committee of the House of Lords and the German Bundesgerichtshof. It was decided to focus on legal texts because, to the best of my knowledge, coreference in English and German legal texts has not yet been empirically studied in detail. Furthermore, as has been explained in section 3.5.3, the genre of a text has been shown to influence the choice of devices for coreference in the text (cf. e.g. Biber et al. 1999: 237). The sub-genre of court decisions seemed to be particularly interesting for an analysis of coreference since the linguistic features of court decisions have been shown to be relatively strongly influenced by the legal system(s) and the legal culture(s) of their country of origin (cf. section 3.5.3 above and cf. Wetter 1960: 32f.; Lashöfer 1992: 2, 34-41, 73-80, 119-126). It was assumed to be interesting to study how these genre-related factors may influence the choice of devices for coreference in court decisions. Thus, court decisions from two different countries with different legal systems were analyzed in the present study. It was chosen to analyze decisions of the House of Lords and the Bundesgerichtshof because the two courts had a similar position in the court systems of the United Kingdom and Germany (cf. section 5.2 above). In addition, both courts are final courts of appeal. Several previous studies of British and German court decisions have also focused on the linguistic features of final courts of appeal (cf. e.g. Wetter 1960; Lashöfer 1992; Waters 1997; Blom-Cooper 2009). Thus, the findings of the present study could be more easily compared with the results of these previous studies if decisions of final courts of appeal were chosen. It should be noted, however, that these previous studies of court decisions

146

Chapter 6

did not analyze coreference in detail, but only mentioned some aspects of coreference (cf. e.g. Waters 1997: 815f.). All decisions that were selected for the corpus belonged to the same field of law, namely to the field of landlord and tenant law. It was decided to focus on cases from one specific field of law in order to obtain a more homogeneous corpus. A further aim was to choose court decisions that had been published within a relatively short period of time since this also made the corpus more homogeneous. It should be noted that there exist fewer decisions of the House of Lords per year than decisions of the Bundesgerichtshof per year (cf. Bundesgerichtshof Decisions Online Archive; House of Lords Decisions Online Archive1). Thus, it was more difficult to find a sufficient number of House of Lords decisions from one field of law that had been published within a short period of time than it was to find such decisions from the Bundesgerichtshof. The field of landlord and tenant law was chosen for the present study because for this field a sufficient number of decisions from both courts could be found and these decisions had been published within a relatively short time frame, i.e. within the years 2000 until 2009. The decisions from the House of Lords were selected first because, as has been explained above, it was more difficult to find enough decisions from this court. Next, the Bundesgerichtshof decisions were chosen. Since the selected House of Lords decisions dated from the years 2000 until 2009, the Bundesgerichtshof decisions were also chosen from different years within this time frame. As has been explained in sections 4.2.2 and 5.2, the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords was abolished in 2009 and a new final court of appeal, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, was established. Thus, it would have been possible to analyze decisions of the Supreme 1

In the present study, online sources which do not provide the name of their author are quoted with the help of a title, such as House of Lords Decisions Online Archive, which is written in italics. Both online sources in English and in German are given English titles. The links to the online sources can be found in the bibliography by looking up these titles.

Methodology of the study of coreference in the court decisions

147

Court instead of House of Lords decisions in the present study. However, since the Supreme Court was established only in 2009, the overall number of its decisions is not yet very high, and it was difficult to find a sufficient number of decisions from a specific field of law. As a consequence, the present study analyzed decisions of the House of Lords and not of the Supreme Court. The size of the entire corpus was approximately 34,000 words.2 The corpus consisted of five decisions from the House of Lords and five decisions of the Bundesgerichtshof. The length of the decisions ranged from approximately 2,000 to approximately 7,000 words. Since the decisions differed in length, the quantitative results of the analysis were normalized (except for relative frequencies and the average coreference chain lengths), so that the results for the different decisions could be compared. The normalization of the results will be explained in detail in section 6.2.1 below. While it would have been interesting to examine an even greater number of court decisions, the length of the texts, the high frequency of elements of coreference chains and the detailed analysis of these chain elements would have made it difficult to use a larger corpus. The present study analyzed a total of 5,650 coreference chain elements. As has been mentioned in section 4.2.2, a decision of the House of Lords consists of several texts, usually five, each text written by one of the House of Lords judges who decided the case. In the present study, these texts will be referred to as the ‘sections’ of a decision. Often, a decision includes one long section and several short ones. In the long section, one of the judges explains his or her decision of the case in detail. In the short sections, the other judges state whether they agree with the decision of the judge who wrote the long section. Three examples of such short sections are provided on the next page. Each of the three examples 2

For reasons of brevity, when talking about the lengths of texts, the present study uses the term ‘word’ with the meaning of ‘orthographic word-form’. ‘Orthographic word-form’ is here defined as an uninterrupted sequence of characters that is bounded on each side by a space or by a punctuation mark and a space (cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 1610; Esser 2009: 95).

148

Chapter 6

contains an entire short section. Together with another short section and one long section, which are not provided below for reasons of space, examples (1) to (3) form a decision of the House of Lords. Note that 12., 13. and 14. in examples (1) to (3) are paragraph numbers. (1) LORD HOPE OF CRAIGHEAD My Lords, 12. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Hoffmann. I agree with it, and for the reasons he gives I too would dismiss the appeal. (2007 UKHL 22, paragraph 12) (2) LORD SCOTT OF FOSCOTE My Lords, 13. I have had the advantage of reading in advance the opinion of my noble and learned friend Lord Hoffmann and am in full agreement with the reasons he has given for dismissing this appeal. (2007 UKHL 22, paragraph 13) (3) LORD WALKER OF GESTINGTHORPE My Lords, 14. For the reasons given by my noble and learned friend Lord Hoffmann, whose opinion I have had the advantage of reading in draft, I too would dismiss this appeal. (2007 UKHL 22, paragraph 14) For the present study, only one of the five sections of each House of Lords decision was analyzed. If there was one long section and four short ones, the long section was chosen. If a decision contained several long sections, one of these long sections was selected. The sections were chosen in a way that each of the selected sections was written by a different judge. By doing so, it was aimed to avoid that the personal style of writing of a House of Lords judge would have a strong influence on the overall corpus.

Methodology of the study of coreference in the court decisions

149

One of the reasons for studying only one section per House of Lords decision was that the sections were each written by a different author. Therefore, it did not seem useful to analyze coreference chains across all the sections belonging to one decision. Furthermore, as examples (1) to (3) above show, some of the sections consisted only of a few clauses. In addition, these short sections were often phrased in a very similar way and included repetitive elements, such as I have had the advantage of reading in draft (cf. examples (1) to (3)). It did not seem useful to study coreference in these short texts since due to their brevity and similar wording the choice of coreferential devices in these texts was limited. In contrast with the House of Lords decisions, the Bundesgerichtshof decisions consisted of one text each, which was signed at the end by all five judges who had decided the case (cf. section 4.2.2 above). With regard to the paragraph numbers, it should be noted that most of the House of Lords decisions and the Bundesgerichtshof decisions contained a paragraph numbered as ‘1’ and a part of the text that preceded this paragraph. This part of the text had not been assigned a paragraph number, but for ease of reference it was given the paragraph number ‘0’ in the present study. Furthermore, the decisions BGH 2002 and HL 2000 did not include paragraph numbers. For ease of reference, paragraph numbers were added to these decisions. The texts that were analyzed in the present study were accessible online. The decisions of the House of Lords from the years 1996 until 2009 can be found at the online publications and records of the British Parliament (cf. House of Lords Decisions Online Archive). However, this website does not offer a search function by which the entire collection of decisions can be searched for certain word-forms. Since the present study only dealt with texts from the field of landlord and tenant law, a search function seemed useful to find decisions from this field of law. Therefore, the present study used the online databases of the British and Irish Legal Information Institute (BAILII) (cf. BAILII Databases) since these databases can be searched for word-forms. In order to find decisions belong-

150

Chapter 6

ing to the field of landlord and tenant law, the decisions of the House of Lords were searched for word-forms that are related to this field of law, such as landlord, rent, tenancy or tenant. Next, the decisions which appeared as search results were read closely to see whether they belonged in fact to the field of landlord and tenant law. The House of Lords decisions for the corpus of the present study were then chosen from the decisions that were part of the field of landlord and tenant law and dated from the years 2000 to 2009. As has been explained above, the present study analyzed one section of each of the selected decisions. The decisions and sections were chosen in a way that each section was written be a different judge. Due to the low overall number of House of Lords decisions, this selection criterion was sufficient for choosing the sections for the corpus of the present study from among the House of Lords decisions of the field of landlord and tenant law dating from the years 2000 to 2009. The decisions of the Bundesgerichtshof dating from 2000 to present are available at an online database of the Bundesgerichtshof (cf. Bundesgerichtshof Decisions Online Archive). The online database can be searched for dates, file reference numbers and other search terms. As has been explained in section 5.2, the Bundesgerichtshof is divided into several chambers, called ‘senates’, each dealing with specific fields of law. The field of landlord and tenant law is mainly dealt with by two senates, called ‘VIII. Zivilsenat’ and ‘XII. Zivilsenat’ (cf. Bundesgerichtshof 2014: 16). The online database was thus searched for decisions of these two senates from the years 2000 to 2009. The decisions were then read closely in order to make sure that they did in fact belong to the field of landlord and tenant law. Next, the Bundesgerichtshof decisions for the corpus were selected from the decisions belonging to the field of landlord and tenant law. The following selection criteria were applied: First, attention was paid that both of the two senates were represented in the texts chosen for the corpus. Second, the Bundesgerichtshof decisions were chosen in a way that they did not all date from the same year. This was done since the House of Lords decisions were also published in several

Methodology of the study of coreference in the court decisions

151

different years within the selected time frame (2000, 2001, 2007, 2008 and 2009). The Bundesgerichtshof decisions for the corpus were then randomly chosen from the decisions which fulfilled the above-mentioned selection criteria. The decisions that were selected for the corpus are listed in Table 6.1 on the next page. For the House of Lords decisions, it should be noted that the lengths provided in Table 6.1 are the lengths of the sections that were analyzed, not the lengths of the entire decisions. Table 6.1 furthermore shows the titles that the court decisions have been given in the present study since the official titles of the decisions were relatively long. The titles for the House of Lords decisions were formed by the abbreviation ‘HL’ and the year in which the decision was published. Similarly, the titles for the Bundesgerichtshof decisions consist of the abbreviation ‘BGH’ and the year in which the decision was published.

152

Chapter 6 House of Lords decisions

Title in the present study

Official title and selected section

Year

Length (in words)

HL 2000

Burton (Respondent) v. Mayor etc. of The London Borough of Camden (Appellants), 2000 UKHL 8; section by Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead

2000

2,868

HL 2001

Uratemp Ventures Limited (Respondents) v. Collins (AP) (Appellant), 2001 UKHL 43; section by Lord Millett

2001

7,295

HL 2007

Birmingham City Council (Appellants) v. Walker (FC) (Respondent), 2007 UKHL 22; section by Lord Hoffmann

2007

2,060

HL 2008

R (on the application of Heffernan) (FC) (Appellant) v. The Rent Service (Respondents), 2008 UKHL 58; section by Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury

2008

7,236

HL 2009

Hanoman (FC) (Respondent) v. London Borough of Southwark (Appellants), 2009 UKHL 29; section by Lord Scott of Foscote

2009

3,590

Total number of words of the House of Lords decisions

23,049

Bundesgerichtshof decisions Title in the present study

Official title

Year

Length (in words)

BGH 2002

XII ZR 323/00

2002

2,078

BGH 2006

VIII ZR 109/05

2006

2,154

BGH 2007a

VIII ZR 285/06

2007

1,813

BGH 2007b

XII ZR 36/05

2007

3,054

BGH 2008

VIII ZR 307/07

2008

1,880

Total number of words of the Bundesgerichtshof decisions

10,979

Total number of words of the corpus

34,028

Table 6.1: Overview of the court decisions chosen for the present study In addition to the information shown in Table 6.1, the following table provides a brief summary of the content of each decision. The content has

Methodology of the study of coreference in the court decisions

153

been summarized as the central question with which each decision is concerned. Title

Summary of the content

HL 2000

Can a joint tenancy be transferred to a sole tenancy by using a deed of release?

HL 2001

Can a part of a house be a ‘dwelling’ in the sense of the Rent Acts if it does not include cooking facilities or cooking is not allowed by the tenancy agreement?

HL 2007

Does the expression “has become a sole tenant” in the Housing Act 1985 refer to any time in the past or only to the time after the Housing Act 1980 came into effect?

HL 2008

What are the details of determining the ‘local reference rent’ for a flat in Sheffield?

HL 2009

Which payments count as a ‘payment of rent’ in the sense of the Housing Act 1985?

BGH 2002

What is the period of notice for the termination of a specific type of commercial property tenancy?

BGH 2006

Can a landlord oblige a tenant to remove all wallpapers in the flat when the tenant moves out of the flat?

BGH 2007a

What is the period of notice for a specific type of rent increase which is due to the modernization of the flat?

BGH 2007b

What is the correct procedure for a landlord to end a commercial property tenancy if the tenant has not paid the deposit?

BGH 2008

What is the correct procedure for a landlord to end a tenancy if landlord and tenant live in the same building and the building includes only two flats plus other rooms which could be used as another flat?

Table 6.2: The content of the decisions chosen for the present study As Table 6.2 shows, the decisions dealt with different topics of landlord and tenant law. Among the most frequent topics were questions about the termination of a tenancy and about the amount of rent to be paid.

154

Chapter 6

6.2 Steps in the analysis of the court decisions 6.2.1 Identifying coreference chains As has been explained in section 4.1.1, the present study belongs to the field of contrastive linguistics. Furthermore, it was mentioned in section 4.1.1 that studies in contrastive linguistics usually make use of a ‘tertium comparationis’, i.e. a feature or category which the languages that are compared have in common. The present study analyzed nominal coreference in British and German court decisions. Therefore, in the present study the tertium comparationis was the category of nominal coreference (cf. e.g. König/Gast 2012: 5 who mention the use of coreference as a tertium comparationis). As a first step in the analysis, each court decision was read closely and searched manually and exhaustively for elements of nominal coreference chains. As has been explained in section 2.4, if two or more linguistic items in a text are in a relation of coreference and if at least one of them is a noun phrase, the items are considered as a ‘nominal coreference chain’ in the present study and each of the items is referred to as a ‘coreference chain element’. As has been shown in section 2.5, the elements of nominal coreference chains in English and German can belong to different syntactic categories: noun phrases, clauses or clause complexes, possessive determiners and adjective phrases. All of these syntactic categories were taken into account for the analysis. It should be noted that a small number of linguistic items were not accepted as coreference chain elements because they belonged to a fixed expression. For example, each of the House of Lords decisions contained the form of address my Lords. In this fixed expression, the possessive determiner my was not accepted as part of a coreference chain since the form of address is a fixed expression and it was assumed that the author of the text did not choose the possessive determiner my on purpose to refer to himself, but that the determiner was an obligatory part of the form of address. A further example was the noun example in the fixed expression for example, which was also not accepted as a coreference chain

Methodology of the study of coreference in the court decisions

155

element. In order to check whether an expression was to be considered as a fixed expression, it was looked up in the Oxford English Dictionary Online (for the English texts) or in Duden: Deutsches Universalwörterbuch Online (for the German texts). If an expression, such as for example, was listed as an entry or sub-entry in the dictionary, it was considered as a fixed expression. The manual search for elements of coreference chains was supplemented by using the search function of the word processing software: sequences of characters were looked up in the texts with the search function in order to avoid that elements of coreference chains might be accidentally disregarded. The sequences of characters that were looked up had either already been identified as (parts of) coreference chain elements or they were assumed to be likely (parts of) chain elements. For example, the noun phrase Mr Hanoman had been identified as an element of a coreference chain in one of the House of Lords decisions. A part of the noun phrase, Hanoman, was then looked up with the search function in order to make sure that no instance of the noun phrase had been missed. The sequences of characters that were looked up were chosen in a way that they were most likely to contribute to finding further elements of a coreference chain. Thus, for example by searching for Hanoman, the search function would also find instances of Mr Hanoman or of inflectional variants such as Mr Hanoman’s. Although the search function proved helpful, it was more useful for open-class word-forms and less so for closed-class items, such as pronouns or determiners. For example, when looking up the pronoun he in a text, it is likely that many occurrences of the pronoun will be found. However, each occurrence of the pronoun would have to be checked manually in order to find out to which coreference chain it belongs. Thus, the search function could not replace the manual search but could only be used as a supplement. All decisions of the House of Lords and of the Bundesgerichtshof included one or more quotations from different texts, for example from a

156

Chapter 6

statute or another court decision. Although these quotations had not been written by the judges who wrote the decisions, they were not excluded from the analysis since they had been added to the texts by the judges. The quotations were included in the word-count for the corpus of the present study. However, if coreference existed only between linguistic items that belonged to one or more quotations, these linguistic items were not analyzed. The reason for excluding these items was that the coreference relation between them was not established by the judge(s) who wrote the decision. By contrast, if there was coreference between a linguistic item in a quotation and an item in a part written by the judges themselves, these coreferential items were analyzed. Example (4) illustrates coreference that is established only between items within a quotation. (4) Sir Thomas Bingham MR3 said, in relation to predecessor regulations, in R v Housing Benefit Review Board for East Devon District Council, ex p Gibson & Gibson (1993) 25 HLR 487, 493: “[…] But it is fair, I think, to infer that the procedure is not designed to produce homelessness, which would be the result if a beneficiary’s rent were restricted, so that he could not afford to stay where he was but was unable to find any other accommodation to which he could be expected to move at the level of rent payable.” (HL 2008, paragraph 42) As example (4) shows, the House of Lords decision HL 2008 includes a quotation from a decision by the judge Sir Thomas Bingham MR. Within this quotation, coreference is established between the noun phrase a beneficiary’s and several instances of the pronoun he. Since this relation of coreference exists only within the quotation, the item beneficiary’s and the pronouns referring back to it were not analyzed in the present study.

3

The abbreviation ‘MR’ here refers to ‘Master of the Rolls’. The holder of this office is the second highest judge in England and Wales, after the Lord Chief Justice. (cf. Nolan/Meredith 2012: 19f.; Slapper/Kelly 2012: 411).

Methodology of the study of coreference in the court decisions

157

By contrast, example (5) shows coreference between items from a quotation and items from the text written by the judge himself. (5) Section 130 (1) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 entitles a person to receive housing benefit, if “he is liable to make payments in respect of a dwelling in Great Britain which he occupies as his home”, and either he has no income, or his income is below a specified level. (HL 2008, paragraph 32) In this example, the House of Lords decision includes a quotation from a statute, namely from the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992. Coreference is here established between the noun phrase a person and several instances of the pronoun he and the determiner his. Some of these coreference chain elements belong to the quotation while others belong to the text written by the judge himself. Therefore, all of these coreference chain elements were included in the analysis of the present study. One thing that should be noted about the examples in the present chapter and in chapter 7 below is that for ease of reading usually relatively short examples of coreference were chosen. In most of these examples, the distance between the coreferential items is relatively small. However, the present study also analyzed coreference chains with larger distances between the elements. As has been explained in section 3.1.1.1, some linguistic devices, such as relative pronouns, can only be used to establish coreference within a clause complex but not across clause complex boundaries. In the present study, these devices were not taken into account. Furthermore, it should be mentioned that in some cases, coreferential noun phrases were embedded into another noun phrase. These embedded noun phrases were accepted as coreference chain elements in the present study. This is illustrated by the following example. (6) Das Amtsgericht hat die Aufrechnung der Beklagten lediglich hinsichtlich der Kosten für die Malerarbeiten an den Türzargen für be-

158

Chapter 6 gründet gehalten und deshalb der Klage – unter Abweisung im Übrigen – in Höhe von 373,50 € nebst Zinsen stattgegeben. Die hiergegen gerichtete, vom Amtsgericht zugelassene Berufung der Beklagten hat das Landgericht zurückgewiesen. (BGH 2006, paragraph 6)

In example (6), there is coreference between the two instances of the noun phrase der Beklagten. Each of the two noun phrases is embedded in another noun phrase. The first instance of der Beklagten is embedded in the noun phrase die Aufrechnung der Beklagten and the second instance is embedded in the noun phrase Die hiergegen gerichtete, vom Amtsgericht zugelassene Berufung der Beklagten. The two instances of der Beklagten were accepted as coreference chain elements in the present study. In some of the court decisions, items that belonged to a coreference chain contained spelling mistakes. In all of these cases, it was relatively easy to recognize that there was a spelling mistake in the text and all the items could be identified as coreference chain elements. The next example shows a mistake in one of the House of Lords decisions. (7) In Hayward v Marshall [1952] 2 QB 89 the tenant took a letting of three unfurnished rooms together with a right to draw water in the kitchen and once a week to use the gas stove in the kitchen to boil washing. […] In Haywood v Marshall [1952] 2 QB 89 counsel had suggested that there might be a distinction between a concurrent sharing and a consecutive sharing, only the former being sufficient to take the tenancy out of the protection of the Rent Acts. (HL 2001, paragraphs 49-52) Example (7) contains the two noun phrases Hayward v Marshall [1952] 2 QB 89 and Haywood v Marshall [1952] 2 QB 89. Due to the similarity of these two noun phrases, it was examined whether both decisions existed and it was found that only the decision Hayward v Marshall [1952] 2 QB 89 exists. It was thus assumed that the phrase Haywood v Marshall [1952] 2 QB 89 contained a spelling mistake and the two noun phrases were considered as elements of the same coreference chain.

Methodology of the study of coreference in the court decisions

159

After the elements of coreference chains had been identified in all court decisions, the next step was to determine the number of coreference chains per text. Furthermore, the average length of the coreference chains was determined for each court decision. The lengths of the coreference chains were measured in chain elements. The following example illustrates how the lengths of the coreference chains were determined. (8) A second re-determination was made on 25 May 2005, by which time the contractual rent had been reduced to £695 per month, because the parking space had been consensually removed from the tenancy. This re-determination was made by Mr Spedding, […]. (HL 2008, paragraph 46) In example (8), the following two noun phrases form a coreference chain: A second re-determination and This re-determination. Since this coreference chain consists of two chain elements, its length was measured as two. In addition to determining their lengths, the coreference chains were analyzed qualitatively. For example, it was studied to which referents in the extralinguistic world the elements of particularly long coreference chains referred. It was examined, for instance, whether there were particularly long coreference chains which referred to the appellant or to the respondent or to other people involved in the legal case. As has been mentioned in section 6.1, the texts of the corpus differed in length. Thus, in order to compare, for example, the number of coreference chains in the texts, the results were normalized for a text with a length of 3,000 words. The length of 3,000 words was chosen because it was approximately the average length of all texts. For each text a ‘normalization factor’ was determined, which equalled the length of the text in words divided by 3,000. Next, the results of the analysis for each text were multiplied by the normalization factor. For example, the number of coreference chains in a text was multiplied by normalization factor of the text in order to obtain the normalized number of coreference chains in the

160

Chapter 6

text. The normalized numbers of coreference chains in the texts were then compared. In cases where the results of the analysis could be presented as relative frequencies, normalization was not necessary. Table 6.3 below lists the normalization factors for the court decisions. Decision

Length in words

Normalization factor for a length of 3,000 words

HL 2000

2,868

1.05

HL 2001

7,295

0.41

HL 2007

2,060

1.46

HL 2008

7,236

0.41

HL 2009

3,590

0.84

BGH 2002

2,078

1.44

BGH 2006

2,154

1.39

BGH 2007a

1,813

1.65

BGH 2007b

3,054

0.98

BGH 2008

1,880

1.60

Table 6.3: Normalization factors for the court decisions As Table 6.3 shows, the normalization factors ranged from 0.41 to 1.65. According to the table, if there were, for example, 200 coreference chains in the decision HL 2000, the normalized number of coreference chains for this decision would be 200 multiplied by 1.05, which is 210. Regarding the number of coreference chains in the court decisions, it was hypothesized that the normalized average number of coreference chains would be similar in the English and German texts. This hypothesis was based on the results by Kunz (2010: 356) who found that in her corpus of political essays the average number of coreference chains was similar in the English and the German essays. Furthermore, the hypothesis was tested that the average length of the coreference chains would be higher in the English than in the German texts since the English texts were on average longer than the German texts. The average numbers and lengths of the coreference chains are presented in section 7.1 below.

Methodology of the study of coreference in the court decisions

161

6.2.2 Types of coreference As has been explained in section 2.4, the present study distinguishes between the following types of coreference: anaphoric, cataphoric and nondirectional coreference. The definitions of these three types will be briefly repeated in this section for the sake of clarity. The present study assumes that anaphoric coreference is established if a linguistic item refers backwards to a previous linguistic item in the same text and both of the linguistic items have the same referent (cf. Halliday/Hasan 1976: 14; Biber et al. 1999: 234; Esser 2009: 35). Cataphoric coreference has been defined as a type of coreference that is established when two linguistic items share the same referent and the first item refers forwards to the second item. The first item thus depends on the second item for its interpretation (cf. cf. Halliday/Hasan 1976: 17; Biber et al. 1999: 348; Esser 2009: 49f.). By contrast, non-directional coreference can be defined as follows: two or more linguistic items share the same referent but the items do not refer forwards or backwards to each other (for brief remarks on concepts related to this type of coreference cf. Martin 1992: 145f.; van Deemter/Kibble 2000: 629f.). All three types of coreference were analyzed in the corpus of the present study. The following two examples illustrate anaphoric coreference in the court decisions. (9) Miss Burton did not wish to move. She wished to continue living at 49 Aborfield, but as the sole tenant. (HL 2000, paragraph 5) (10) Die Kündigung ist mit Schreiben vom 30. Oktober 1998 ausgesprochen worden. Nach der vor Einführung des § 565 Abs. 1 a und der Änderung des § 565 Abs. 1 Nr. 3 BGB a.F. geltenden Rechtslage wäre sie zum Ende des nächsten Kalendervierteljahres, also zum 31. März 1999 wirksam geworden. (BGH 2002, paragraph 16) Examples (9) and (10) show the use of third person pronouns to establish anaphoric coreference in the court decisions. Cataphoric coreference can be found in examples (11) and (12).

162

Chapter 6

(11) I must refer to a few further relevant facts of this case before returning to that issue. 13. The Council, on 2 July 2004, following their failure in the High Court proceedings and Peter Smith J’s declaration of 22 June 2004, served a section 124 counter notice on Mr Hanoman admitting his right-to-buy. […] (HL 2009, paragraphs 12f.) (12) Über die Erhaltung der Mieträume enthält der Mietvertrag in § 8 Nr. 2 folgende vorgedruckte Klausel: „Der Mieter ist verpflichtet, die während der Dauer des Mietverhältnisses entsprechend nachstehenden Fristen fällig werdenden Schönheitsreparaturen fachgerecht auszuführen (Küchen/Bäder/Duschen/ Toiletten: alle 3 Jahre, Wohn- und Schlafräume/Flure/Dielen: alle 5 Jahre, übrige Räume/Fenster/Türen/Heizkörper: alle 6 Jahre). […]“ (BGH 2006, paragraph 2) Both in (11) and in (12), cataphoric coreference is created by a noun phrase which refers forwards to a following part of the text. Next, nondirectional coreference is illustrated by examples (13) and (14). (13) The room contained a bed and had a separate lavatory and a shower and wash basin. Breakfast was available in the restaurant and was included in the rent. 24. Mr Collins has changed rooms three times, first to Room 501, paying the same rent, and later to Room 403, which he was still occupying when the Court of Appeal gave judgment. He has since moved again. Breakfast ceased to be provided when the restaurant closed in 1988. (HL 2001, paragraphs 23f.) (14) Es ergeben sich aus den Materialien keinerlei Anhaltspunkte dafür, daß dies nur für die ordentliche Kündigung, nicht aber für die Kündigung nach einem Konkurs gelten sollte. Aufgrund dieser Intention des Gesetzgebers kann man ausschließen, daß er durch die Neufassung des § 565 BGB a.F. für den Fall eines Konkurses die bisherige

Methodology of the study of coreference in the court decisions

163

Kündigungsmöglichkeit nicht nur beibehalten, sondern sogar erleichtern wollte. (BGH 2002, paragraph 17) .

Example (13) contains two instances of the noun phrase Breakfast. The two noun phrases are interpreted as forming a coreference chain since they both refer to the same entity in the extralinguistic world, i.e. to the general concept of ‘breakfast’. The second instance of Breakfast does not refer forwards or backwards to another linguistic item in the text. Instead, it can be correctly interpreted on its own. Thus, the second instance of Breakfast was analyzed as an example of non-directional coreference. In example (14) above, non-directional coreference is established by the two noun phrases einem Konkurs and eines Konkurses. In addition to distinguishing between anaphoric, cataphoric and nondirectional coreference, a distinction can also be made between coreference within a clause complex and coreference across clause complex boundaries (cf. section 2.4 above). The present study took into account both coreference within clause complexes and coreference extending over two or more clause complexes. However, as has been mentioned in section 6.2.1, the present study analyzed only coreferential devices which can establish coreference both within a clause complex and across clause complex boundaries. Devices such as relative pronouns which can establish coreference only with a clause complex were not examined in the present study. When analyzing the texts, it was noted that in some cases one clause complex was written as two orthographic sentences. Nevertheless, in these cases only the syntactic boundaries of the clause complex were taken into account for the analysis and the boundaries of the orthographic sentences were not considered as relevant. The following example contains a clause complex written in two orthographic sentences. (15) The 1980 Act was introduced by a newly elected Conservative government and its policy was to allow transmissions of secure tenancies only once. But this policy could not be given effect, as in the

164

Chapter 6 case of the Rent Act, simply by providing that the transmission mechanism could operate only once. (HL 2007, paragraph 6)

In other cases, one orthographic sentence included two clause complexes. Also in these cases, only the syntactic boundaries of the clause complexes were considered as relevant. Example (16) provides an illustration. (16) Er hätte dann die bisherige „gesetzliche“ Kündigungsfrist auch nicht etwa beibehalten, er hätte sie vielmehr verkürzt, weil die Kündigung nun zwar mit der bisher geltenden Frist, aber nicht mehr nur zum Ende eines Kalendervierteljahres, sondern zum Ende jeden Monats zulässig geworden wäre. (BGH 2002, paragraph 15) In example (16), two clause complexes are connected with a comma. In cases like examples (15) and (16), attention was paid not to confuse the boundaries of clause complexes and orthographic sentences. When all cases of anaphoric, cataphoric and non-directional coreference in the court decisions were identified, the frequencies of the three types of coreference were determined for each of the texts. In addition, the occurrences of the three types were analyzed qualitatively. Since cataphoric coreference usually occurs less frequently than anaphoric coreference (cf. e.g. de Beaugrande/Dressler 1981: 60f.; Quirk et al. 1985: 347, 351), the hypothesis was tested that anaphoric coreference would be the most frequent type of coreference in both the House of Lords decisions and the Bundesgerichtshof decisions. Furthermore, the frequencies of coreference within a clause complex and coreference across clause complex boundaries were calculated for each text. The frequencies were then compared. It was hypothesized that coreference across clause complex boundaries would be more frequent than coreference within clause complexes. This hypothesis was based on the results of the study by Kunz (2010: 386-388), who found that the majority of the coreference chain elements in her corpus established coreference across the boundaries of orthographic sentences. Since the texts cho-

Methodology of the study of coreference in the court decisions

165

sen for the present study differed in length, the relative frequencies and not the absolute frequencies of the coreference types were compared. 6.2.3 Syntactic categories of the chain elements As a further step, the syntactic category of each coreference chain element in the court decisions was determined. As has been explained in section 2.5, elements of nominal coreference chains in English and German can belong to the following syntactic categories: ‘noun phrase’, ‘clause(s) or clause complex(es)’, ‘possessive determiner’ and ‘adjective phrase’. All of these syntactic categories were taken into account. It was hypothesized that ‘noun phrase’ would be the most frequent syntactic category of the chain elements. This hypothesis was based on a survey of the examples of coreference which have been provided in chapters 2 and 3 of the present study. In these examples of coreference, which included anaphoric, cataphoric and non-directional coreference, noun phrases occurred more often as coreference chain elements than the other syntactic categories (clauses or clause complexes, possessive determiners and adjective phrases). 6.2.4 Devices for coreference The devices for coreference that were analyzed in the court decisions correspond to the devices for coreference that have been presented and explained in sections 3.1 to 3.3. For ease of reference, the lists of the devices are repeated below as Tables 6.4 to 6.8. As has been explained in sections 3.1 to 3.3, the examples in the tables below are abridged or unabridged versions of examples that have been cited in sections 3.1 to 3.3 and section 2.4. Examples which were originally in English are provided together with their German translation, and vice versa.

166

Chapter 6 Main devices for anaphoric coreference Device

Examples

Pronouns Personal pronoun

Nick – he

Nick – er

(1) – (6), 2.3: (15)

Demonstrative pronoun

small pines – these

Reflexive pronoun

John Prior – himself

John Prior – sich

(12), (13)

Indefinite pronoun

two families of sidenecked turtles – both

zwei Familien der HalswenderSchildkröten – beide

(14) – (17)

Brody – his office

Brody – sein Büro

(18), (19)

kleine Kiefern – diese (7) – (11)

Determiners Possessive determiner Full noun phrases Simple repetition

a man – the man

ein Mann – der Mann (20), (21)

Partial repetition

a long, low hall – the hall

ein langer, niedriger Flur – der Flur

(22), (23)

Synonymous noun phrase

a man – the guy

ein Mann – der Kerl

(24), (25)

Hyperonymous noun phrase

the taxi – the car

das Taxi – der Wagen

(26) – (28)

Hyponymous noun phrase

the scientists – the biologists

die WissenHoey schaftler/innen – die 1991: 70 Biologinnen/Biologen

Nominal paraphrase

loons – these excellent swimmers

Seetaucher – diese exzellenten Schwim- (29), (30) mer

Clausal paraphrase

Emil travelled from Paris Emil reiste von Paris (31), (32) to Cologne. – the journey nach Köln. – die Reise

Return to full noun phrase after pronoun

Alice – she – Alice

Alice – sie – Alice

(33), (34)

Return to full noun phrase after possessive determiner

Morris – his pursuer – Morris

Morris – sein Verfolger – Morris

(35)

Table 6.4: Main devices for anaphoric coreference

Methodology of the study of coreference in the court decisions

167

Supplementing devices for anaphoric coreference Device

Examples

Definite article

a house – the house

Demonstrative determiner

boys from 12 to 16 years of age – those boys

Other determiner

Hamburg, Bonn – both cities

ein Haus – das Haus

(36), (37)

Jungen im Alter von 12 bis 16 Jahren – diese (38), (39) Jungen Hamburg, Bonn – beide Städte

(40) – (44)

Table 6.5: Supplementing devices for anaphoric coreference Main devices for cataphoric coreference Device

Examples Wenn er will, kann der Bundespräsident die ihm vorgeschlagene Ernennung eines Ministers verweigern. Also, du wirst das vielleicht nicht glauben, aber ich trinke nicht sehr viel.

Personal pronoun

If he wants, the president may refuse the proposed appointment of a minister.

Demonstrative pronoun

Well, you might not believe this but I don’t drink very much.

Reflexive pronoun

To prepare herself, Mary ran eight miles a day.

Possessive determiner

Why didn’t someone else find it? Why me, who knows its value? I could not guess what the small container contained.

Warum hat sie kein Anderer gefunden? Warum gerade ich, der ihren (55), (56) Wert weiß? Ich konnte nicht ahnen, was die Kapsel enthielt.

Full noun phrase

I draw the following conclusions: that natural childbirth and rooming in should be available for all who want them.

Ich ziehe die folgenden Schlussfolgerungen: dass eine natürliche Geburt und „Rooming-in“ für alle zur Verfügung stehen sollten, die dies wollen.

Um sich vorzubereiten, lief Mary acht Meilen am Tag.

Table 6.6: Main devices for cataphoric coreference

(45) – (49) (50) – (52) (53), (54)

(57) – (59)

168

Chapter 6 Main devices for non-directional coreference Device

Examples

Pronouns one – one

man – man

(60), (61)

Simple repetition

turtles – turtles

Schildkröten – Schildkröten

(62), (63), section 2.4: (24)

Partial repetition

standing waters – lentic waters

Stillgewässer – stehende Gewässer

(64), (65)

Synonymous noun phrase

floods – flooding

Überschwemmungen – Überflutungen

(66), (67)

Indefinite pronoun Full noun phrases

Hyperonymous noun phrase

Hyponymous noun phrase Nominal paraphrase Return to full noun phrase after pronoun Return to full noun phrase after possessive determiner

Überflutungen, von flooding, which denen man erwarten should be expected sollte, dass sie an to occur on any river, jedem Fluss auftreten, – – floods Überschwemmungen

(68)

this bird – the robin

dieser Vogel – das Rotkehlchen

(69)

these excellent swimmers – loons

diese ausgezeichneten Schwimmer – Seetaucher

(70), (71)

feathers – them – feathers

Federn – sie – Federn

(72)

the nuthatch – its beak – the nuthatch

der Kleiber – sein Schnabel – der Kleiber

(73)

Table 6.7: Main devices for non-directional coreference

169

Methodology of the study of coreference in the court decisions Supplementing devices for non-directional coreference Device Definite article Indefinite article Zero article

Examples the nuthatch – the nuthatch a car – a car freshwater turtles – freshwater turtles

der Kleiber – der Kleiber

(74), (75)

ein Auto – ein Auto

(76), (77)

Süßwasserschildkröten – (78) – (80) Süßwasserschildkröten

Table 6.8: Supplementing devices for non-directional coreference As has been mentioned in section 3.1.1.1, a distinction can be made between ‘main devices’ and ‘supplementing devices’ for anaphoric or non-directional coreference. The supplementing devices can only be used in combination with the main devices. In the present study, a combination of, for example, a simple repetition and a definite article was labelled as ‘simple repetition + definite article’. It should be noted that the supplementing devices were analyzed irrespective of whether the previous element in the same coreference chain included the same supplementing device or not. This is illustrated by example (17). (17) Miss Burton feared that her housing benefit would still be assessed at one-half of the rent for the flat after Miss Hannawin had left because, as one of the joint tenants, Miss Hannawin would remain liable to pay rent. In practice, however, Miss Hannawin would make no further payments of rent after she left the flat. (HL 2000, paragraph 3) In example (17), the two instances of the flat are two elements of the same coreference chain. The previous elements of this coreference chain are not shown in example (17) for reasons of space. Both instances of the flat contain the definite article the. The second instance of the flat was analyzed as ‘simple repetition + definite article’ although the previous chain element also included a definite article. In the same way, the supplementing devices ‘demonstrative determiner’, ‘other determiner’, ‘indefinite article’ and ‘zero article’ (cf. Tables 6.5 and 6.8 above) were ana-

170

Chapter 6

lyzed irrespective of whether the previous chain element had already included the same supplementing device or not. When the coreferential devices were examined in the court decisions, some cases were found which deserved special attention. For instance, when analyzing the German court decisions, it was noticed that some coreference chain elements included contractions of a preposition and a definite article, such as zum, am or vom. An example is provided below. (18) Das Amtsgericht hat die Aufrechnung der Beklagten lediglich hinsichtlich der Kosten für die Malerarbeiten an den Türzargen für begründet gehalten und deshalb der Klage – unter Abweisung im Übrigen – in Höhe von 373,50 € nebst Zinsen stattgegeben. Die hiergegen gerichtete, vom Amtsgericht zugelassene Berufung der Beklagten hat das Landgericht zurückgewiesen. (BGH 2006, paragraph 6) In this example, the noun phrase vom Amtsgericht contains a contraction of the preposition von and the definite article dem. The noun phrase was thus analyzed as ‘simple repetition + definite article’. In other cases, it was found that coreferential noun phrases included more than one determiner, such as the noun phrase all those amenities, which referred back to the noun phrase the amenities specified in subpara (b) (cf. HL 2008, paragraph 67). In such cases, it was checked whether the determiners included a supplementing device for coreference and the noun phrase was then labelled accordingly. Thus, the noun phrase all those amenities was considered as ‘partial repetition + demonstrative determiner’ since it included the determiner those. With the exception of antecedents and postcedents, each coreference chain element in the court decisions was analyzed as a device for coreference. After the analysis of the coreferential devices, the relative frequencies of the devices in the texts were compared. The devices were also analyzed qualitatively.

Methodology of the study of coreference in the court decisions

171

As has been explained in section 4.2.2, previous studies have found that House of Lords decisions often use first person pronouns, while Bundesgerichtshof decisions are characterized by a less personal style (cf. Wetter 1960: 32f.; Kötz 1973: 19; Lashöfer 1992: 15, 19, 86; Kischel 2008: 13). In the present study, it was thus hypothesized that the House of Lords decisions would contain more first person personal pronouns as coreferential devices than the Bundesgerichtshof decisions. 6.2.5 Functions of the coreference chain elements The next step was to determine the functions of the coreference chain elements. Tables 6.9 and 6.10 below show the different functions that were analyzed. The two tables are repeated here for ease of reference from sections 3.4.1.3 and 3.4.2.2. As has been explained in section 3.4.1.1, the present study assumes that antecedents and postcedents do not fulfil functions. For all other coreference chain elements, the level 1 function ‘creation of coreference’ was an obligatory function while the level 2 and 3 functions were optional. Level 3

Stylistic variation / Evaluation / Emphasis

Level 2

Reduction / Clarity of reference / Specification

Level 1

Creation of coreference

Table 6.9: Functions of anaphoric and non-directional chain elements Level 2

Textual organization / Creation of suspense

Level 1

Creation of coreference

Table 6.10: Functions of cataphoric chain elements For all coreference chain elements in the court decisions, except for antecedents and postcedents, it was determined which functions or combinations of functions they fulfilled. After the functions had been analyzed, the frequencies of the functions and the combinations of functions were calculated for each text. The relative frequencies of the functions in

172

Chapter 6

the English and German texts were then compared. It was hypothesized that the function ‘clarity of reference’ would be the most frequent level 2 function of the anaphoric and non-directional chain elements. This hypothesis was based on the finding that legal texts in general tend to use many simple repetitions as coreferential devices (cf. section 3.5.3 above and cf. e.g. Crystal/Davy 1969: 201f.; Tiersma 2008: 21). By using simple repetitions, the authors of legal texts, such as court decisions, aim to avoid ambiguity and to establish clarity of reference. 6.2.6 Factors influencing the choice of coreferential devices Finally, it was examined which factors had an influence on the choice of coreferential devices in the court decisions. Section 3.5 has mentioned the following factors that can influence the choice of devices for coreference in a text: language-specific features, the accessibility of the referent, the genre or sub-genre of the text and the stylistic preferences of the text producer. All of these factors were taken into account in the present study. With regard to language-specific features, it has been explained in section 3.5.1 that Kunz/Steiner (2010: 240) found that the German texts of their corpus contained more demonstrative pronouns as anaphoric coreference chain elements than the English texts. According to the authors, this seemed to be at least partly due to syntactic differences between English and German (cf. Kunz/Steiner 2010: 141). The present study therefore examined whether the German court decisions contained more anaphoric demonstrative pronouns as coreference chain elements than the English texts and if so, whether this seemed to be due to language-specific features. Furthermore, Kunz (2010: 285) noted that in the German texts of her corpus of political essays there were more coreference chain elements with a definite article than in the English texts of her corpus. In addition, she found that the English texts contained more coreference chain elements with a zero article than the German texts. Kunz assumed that this was partly due to syntactic differences between the two languages (cf.

Methodology of the study of coreference in the court decisions

173

section 3.5.1 above and cf. Kunz 2010: 287f.). In the present study, it was thus examined whether the number of coreference chain elements with definite articles or with the zero article differed in the English and German texts and whether this seemed to be based on language-specific syntactic features. In addition, it was investigated whether there might be further language-specific influences on the choice of coreferential devices. As has been explained in section 3.5.2, one of the factors that influence the accessibility of an anaphoric coreference chain element’s referent is the distance between the chain element and the previous element of the same coreference chain. To find out more about the accessibility of referents, the present study measured the distances between the anaphoric coreference chain elements and the previous chain elements. The method of measuring the distances will be explained at the end of the present section. It was hypothesized that when pronouns were used as devices for anaphoric coreference, the distance to the previous chain element would be shorter than when full noun phrases were used as anaphoric coreferential devices. This hypothesis was based on the findings by Biber et al. (1999: 239) and Kunz (2010: 388); cf. also section 3.5.2 above. As for the factor ‘genre or sub-genre of the texts’, it was studied how the genre and sub-genres of the court decisions influenced the use of the devices for coreference. As has been mentioned in section 3.5.3, the linguistic features of texts that belong to the sub-genre of court decisions seem to be relatively strongly influenced by the legal system and legal culture of the country of origin of the texts. Thus, it was analyzed whether the legal systems and legal cultures of the United Kingdom and Germany had an influence on the choice of coreferential devices in the texts. For example, as has been mentioned in section 4.2.2, House of Lords decisions used to be read out in the past and still today they include traces of oral language, such as the relatively frequent use of pronouns (cf. Waters 1997: 810, 816; Charnock 2010: 131f.). It was thus examined whether pronouns were frequently used as a device for coreference in the

174

Chapter 6

House of Lords decisions and whether this seemed to be due to the former tradition of reading out the court decisions. As has been mentioned in section 3.5.4, the stylistic preferences of the text producer can also have an impact on the choice of coreferential devices. In the present study it was thus examined whether the stylistic preferences of the judges who wrote the decisions seemed to influence the devices for coreference that were used. It was studied how the choice of coreferential devices differed among the House of Lords decisions and how it differed among the Bundesgerichtshof decisions. It was assumed that if there were large differences among the House of Lords decisions or among the Bundesgerichtshof decisions, this might hint at an influence of the stylistic preferences of the judges who wrote the decisions. As has been explained above, the distances between the anaphoric chain elements and the elements preceding them were measured in order to find out more about the accessibility of the referents. For each anaphoric coreference chain element, the distance to the previous element of the same chain was determined. The distances between the elements were measured in orthographic word-forms. It was chosen to measure the distances in orthographic word-forms since this was easily feasible and since measuring the length of a text or a part of a text in orthographic wordforms is common in linguistics, particularly in corpus linguistics (cf. e.g. Kennedy 1998: 13). In addition, as has been mentioned in section 6.2.2, it was determined for each chain element except for the first element in the chain whether the element occurred in the same clause complex as the preceding chain element. Some previous studies have measured the distances between elements of coreference chains in categories such as ‘same orthographic sentence’, ‘next orthographic sentence’ or ‘several orthographic sentences’ (cf. e.g. Ariel 1990: 18; Kunz 2010: 213, 386). It was assumed that the method used in the present study for measuring the distances would lead to more detailed results than using categories such as ‘next orthographic sentence’.

Methodology of the study of coreference in the court decisions

175

When analyzing the distances between coreference chain elements, it was noted that some chain elements occurred within another element of the same coreference chain. The following example illustrates this. (19) Part V of the Housing Act 1985 introduced a significant benefit for, among others, local authority tenants who had occupied their dwellings for at least three years. (HL 2009, paragraph 3) In this example, the noun phrase local authority tenants who had occupied their dwellings for at least three years is an element of a coreference chain. Within this noun phrase, there is the possessive determiner their, which was analyzed as an element of the same coreference chain. Since the possessive determiner occurs within an element of the same coreference chain, the distance between the noun phrase local authority tenants who had occupied their dwellings for at least three years and the determiner their was measured as zero orthographic word-forms. As has been mentioned in section 6.2.1, relative pronouns were not taken into account in the present study. Therefore, the relative pronoun who in example (19) was not analyzed as a chain element.

7 Results and discussion 7.1 Frequencies and lengths of coreference chains After all coreference chain elements had been identified in the court decisions, the frequencies of coreference chains in the texts were determined. The results are shown in Tables 7.1 and 7.2 below. Since the overall number of texts examined in the present study was not very high, the results of the present study should not be considered as representative of decisions of the House of Lords and the Bundesgerichtshof in general. However, it is expected that the results will provide interesting insights in the ways in which nominal coreference can be established. Decision

Number of chains Non-normalized

Normalized

HL 2000

125

131.3

HL 2001

255

104.6

HL 2007

111

162.1

HL 2008

255

104.6

HL 2009

124

104.2

Average

174.0

121.3

Table 7.1: Number of chains in the House of Lords decisions Decision

Number of chains Non-normalized

Normalized

BGH 2002

74

106.6

BGH 2006

92

127.9

BGH 2007a

80

132.0

BGH 2007b

110

107.8

BGH 2008

73

116.8

Average

85.8

118.2

Table 7.2: Number of chains in the Bundesgerichtshof decisions

178

Chapter 7

As Tables 7.1 and 7.2 show, the normalized average number of coreference chains in the House of Lords decisions was 121.3 and the normalized average number of chains in the Bundesgerichtshof decisions was 118.2.1 These results confirm the hypothesis that the normalized average numbers of chains in the English and German texts would be similar. It seemed interesting to compare these average numbers of coreference chains with the results of the study of nominal coreference by Kunz (2010). As has been mentioned in section 3.5.1, Kunz analyzed nominal coreference in English and German political essays.2 Her approach and in particular her selection of coreference chain elements differed in some respects from the approach of the present study (for the definition of ‘coreference chain element’ in the present study cf. section 2.3 above). Kunz included only noun phrases in her analysis of the texts, i.e. she did not consider non-nominal items such as determiners or clause complexes as coreference chain elements (cf. Kunz 2010: 5). By contrast, the present study took into account both noun phrases and non-nominal items as chain elements. However, as will be explained in more detail in section 7.3, the majority (approximately 90%) of all coreference chain elements in the present study were noun phrases. Thus, although the approach by Kunz differed in some respects from the approach of the present study, it still seemed interesting to compare some of the results of the present study with some of the results of the study by Kunz. The following table compares the average numbers of coreference chains in the present study with the average numbers of chains in Kunz’ study. The non-normalized average numbers of chains for the political essays have been provided by Kunz (2010: 356). The normalized average 1

For further information about normalization in the present study cf. section 6.2.1 above. 2 Kunz analyzed ten original English political essays, ten original German political essays and the German translations of the original English essays (cf. Kunz 2010: 265). Since the present study deals with original English and original German texts and does not focus on translations, only Kunz’ results for the original English and original German political essays are discussed in the present study.

179

Results and discussion

chain numbers for the political essays have been calculated by the author of the present study, based on the average length of the essays. Study

Present study

Kunz’ study

House of Lords decisions

Bundesgerichtshof decisions

English political essays

German political essays

Non-normalized average number of chains

174.0

85.8

31.9

31.7

Normalized average number of chains

121.3

118.2

72.1

69.4

Average length of the texts (in words)

4,610

2,196

1,330

1,368

Number of chains/words

Table 7.3: Comparison of the average numbers of chains with the results by Kunz (2010) Table 7.3 shows that the normalized average numbers of chains in Kunz’ study were lower than the ones in the present study. As has been mentioned above, Kunz studied only nominal chain elements. It seemed likely that the lower average frequencies of chains in her texts can partly be attributed to this restriction. Furthermore, it might be assumed that the genres or sub-genres of the texts, i.e. legal texts versus essays, or court decisions versus political essays, may have influenced the frequencies of coreference chains. However, further studies of the two genres and subgenres would be necessary in order to shed more light on this issue. As a next step, the average lengths of the coreference chains were calculated. The lengths of the coreference chains were measured in chain elements (cf. section 6.2.1 above). The following example illustrates this; it is repeated from section 6.2.1 for ease of reference. (1) A second re-determination was made on 25 May 2005, by which time the contractual rent had been reduced to £695 per month, because the parking space had been consensually removed from the

180

Chapter 7 tenancy. This re-determination was made by Mr Spedding, […]. (HL 2008, paragraph 46)

In the above example, the two noun phrases A second re-determination and This re-determination form a coreference chain. Since this coreference chain consists of two chain elements, its length was measured as two. The average lengths of the coreference chains were determined by dividing the number of all chain elements in a text by the number of chains in that text. The results are provided in the following two tables. Decision

Length of decision (in words)

Average length of chains (in chain elements)

HL 2000

2,868

4.4

HL 2001

7,295

4.5

HL 2007

2,060

3.4

HL 2008

7,236

4.6

HL 2009

3,590

4.5

Average

4,610

4.3

Table 7.4: Average length of chains in the House of Lords decisions Decision

Length of decision (in words)

Average length of chains (in chain elements)

BGH 2002

2,078

4.0

BGH 2006

2,154

3.9

BGH 2007a

1,813

3.8

BGH 2007b

3,054

5.3

BGH 2008

1,880

4.4

Average

2,196

4.3

Table 7.5: Average length of chains in the Bundesgerichtshof decisions As can be seen in Tables 7.4 and 7.5, the average length of chains in the English and in the German texts was 4.3 elements. In section 6.2.1, the following hypothesis has been suggested regarding the average lengths of chains: it was assumed that the average chain length would be higher in

181

Results and discussion

the English texts than in the German ones since the English texts were on average longer than the German ones. This hypothesis was not confirmed. Instead, the results seemed to suggest that the average lengths of the chains were not influenced by the lengths of the texts: although the average length of the English texts was roughly twice the average length of the German texts, the average length of the coreference chains was the same in both sub-corpora. It seemed interesting to compare the average chain lengths that were found in the present study with the average chain lengths in the study by Kunz (2010). Table 7.6 below shows the chain lengths in the corpus of the present study and in the political essays that were analyzed by Kunz. Study

Present study

Kunz’ study

House of Lords decisions

Bundesgerichtshof decisions

English political essays

German political essays

Average length of the chains (in chain elements)

4.3

4.3

4.1

4.0

Average length of the texts (in words)

4,610

2,196

1,330

1,368

Length of chain/text

Table 7.6: Comparison of the average chain lengths with the results by Kunz (2010) Table 7.6 shows that the average chain lengths in the political essays in Kunz’ study were similar to the average chain lengths in the texts of the present study. This finding is interesting because the average lengths of the texts differed: the political essays were on average shorter than the Bundesgerichtshof decisions and the Bundesgerichtshof decisions had a smaller average length than the House of Lords decisions. The comparison with the results by Kunz (2010) thus seemed to suggest that the length of a text does not have a strong influence on the average length of the coreference chains in the text.

182

Chapter 7

Next, it seemed interesting to have a look at the coreference chains in the corpus of the present study that were clearly longer or shorter than the average chain length of approximately four chain elements. In both subcorpora there were long coreference chains which referred to the appellant or respondent of the case. For example, in the Bundesgerichtshof decision BGH 2007b a coreference chain referring to the appellant of the case had a length of 69 chain elements. The decision HL 2000 contained a chain which referred to the respondent and had a length of 65 chain elements. It was noted that in the Bundesgerichtshof decisions, the respondents and appellants were referred to as der Beklagter/die Beklagte/die Beklagten or der Kläger/die Klägerin/die Klägerinnen, while in the House of Lords decisions the respondents and appellants were mostly referred to by proper names, such as Miss Burton. The following two examples illustrate this. (2) The respondent to the appeal, Mr Hanoman, was the tenant of a flat at 83 Northfield House, Peckham Park Road, London SE15. His landlord was the appellant Council, the London Borough of Southwark. It is not in dispute that Mr Hanoman was entitled under section 118 of the 1985 Act to the statutory right-to-buy in respect of his flat. (HL 2009, paragraph 6) (3) Das Amtsgericht hat die auf Zustimmung zur Mieterhöhung gerichtete Klage abgewiesen, das Landgericht hat die Berufung der Klägerin zurückgewiesen. Mit der vom Berufungsgericht zugelassenen Revision verfolgt die Klägerin ihr Begehren weiter. (HL 2007a, paragraph 5) As has been mentioned in section 4.2.2, several authors have noted the relatively personal style of House of Lords decisions and the impersonal style of Bundesgerichtshof decisions (cf. Wetter 1960: 32f.; Kötz 1973: 19; Lashöfer 1992: 15, 19, 86; Kischel 2008: 13). The use of proper names to refer to the respondents and appellants in the House of Lords decisions contributed to a personal style of writing, while the common

Results and discussion

183

nouns Beklagter/Beklagte and Kläger/Klägerin in the Bundesgerichtshof decisions contributed to a less personal style. Furthermore, it was found that the House of Lords decisions often contained long coreference chains with chain elements which had generic reference. For example, the decision HL 2001 contained a coreference chain which referred to cooking facilities in general and which had a length of 34 chain elements. Three elements of this coreference chain are shown in the following example. (4) The Court of Appeal considered that the Judge had made inadequate findings in relation to the question whether Mr Collins’ occupation was under a licence or a tenancy, and would if necessary have remitted the case to the County Court for retrial of that issue. In the event they did not do so because, in the view of the majority, the absence of cooking facilities precluded a finding that Room 403 was a dwelling. The room had been let furnished but without cooking facilities, and (it was said) a room did not have the necessary facilities for cooking merely because it had a power point. (HL 2001, paragraph 29) In the Bundesgerichtshof decisions, there were only few long coreference chains which referred to generic entities. One of these chains referred to a landlord in general. Two elements of this chain are shown in example (5) below. (5) […] [I]nsoweit habe der Gesetzgeber im Rahmen des Mietrechtsreformgesetzes die Befugnis des Vermieters zur einseitigen Mieterhöhung sprachlich klargestellt. Der Gesetzgeber habe mithin die einvernehmliche Regelung bei Vergleichsmietenerhöhungen durch die Formulierung des § 558 BGB unter voller Beachtung der Schutzwürdigkeit des Vermieters befördern wollen, während er eine solche Vorgehensweise bei Mieterhöhungen nach § 559 BGB nicht für angebracht erachtet habe. (BGH 2007a, paragraph 8)

184

Chapter 7

In addition, it was noted that both sub-corpora contained long chains which referred to specific statutes or to paragraphs, sub-paragraphs or sections of statutes. The following two examples show elements of such coreference chains. In example (7) below, section 153b refers to a section of the Housing Act 1985. (6) Erforderlich ist lediglich, dass der Vermieter die wegen der Modernisierung vereinbarte Mieterhöhung in dieser Höhe auch einseitig nach § 559 BGB hätte durchsetzen können. Das ist nach dem revisionsrechtlich zugrunde zu legenden Sachvortrag der Klägerin hier der Fall. Dass die einvernehmliche Anhebung der Miete wegen der vom Vermieter zuvor durchgeführten Modernisierungsmaßnahmen erfolgt ist, wird im Übrigen regelmäßig anzunehmen sein, wenn sich die Parteien – wie hier – im Anschluss an ein Mieterhöhungsbegehren nach § 559 BGB auf einen Teilbetrag der zunächst vom Vermieter verlangten Mietsteigerung geeinigt haben. (BGH 2007a, paragraph 17) (7) On 15 September 2004, subject to the effect of section 153B, £17,000 was agreed as the price payable by Mr Hanoman. The market value of the flat on 12 November 1999 was £55,000, the statutory discount available under section 129 of the Act was £38,000. So the price was £17,000. The issue regarding section 153B remained outstanding. (HL 2009, paragraph 14) In section 5.1, it has been explained that traditionally in civil law countries, such as Germany, statutes were a more important source of law than they were in common law countries, such as the United Kingdom. However, in the past the number of codified laws in common law countries has increased (cf. section 5.1 and cf. Glendon et al. 2008: 132; Mattei/Pes 2008: 273; Slapper/Kelly 2012: 4f., 80, 115). As has been mentioned above, the House of Lords decisions contained long coreference chains which referred to statutes. This seemed likely to be due to the increased number of codified laws in the United Kingdom.

Results and discussion

185

When analyzing the coreference chains that were shorter than the average length of 4.3 elements, it was noted that all court decisions contained many chains that consisted only of two chain elements. In the present study, such coreference chains are called ‘minimal chains’. The minimal chains tended to occur in the middle and at the end of the court decisions. Furthermore, it was found that minimal chains frequently had one or more clause complexes as the antecedent and a full noun phrase or a demonstrative pronoun as the second chain element. An example of such a minimal chain is provided below. (8) The present case is different because the transaction under consideration did not involve the introduction of a new tenant. The present case concerned a transfer of the legal estate from A and B to A alone. What was involved was that one of the existing tenants should cease to be a tenant. This difference is not material. (HL 2000, paragraph 17) In the above example, the antecedent of the coreference chain consists of the clauses and clause complexes which have been marked by broken underlining. The second element of the coreference chain is the noun phrase This difference. As the example shows, minimal chains can sometimes include a relatively high number of words, but they are still considered as ‘minimal’ in the present study because they consist of only two chain elements. The second coreference chain element in example (8), i.e. the noun phrase This difference, sums up a large portion of text in a very compact form. The chain element This difference in example (8) thus clearly fulfils the function ‘reduction’ (for a detailed discussion of the functions of the coreference chain elements cf. section 7.5 below). 7.2 Types of coreference As the next step in the analysis, it was examined how often anaphoric, cataphoric and non-directional coreference occurred in the court decisions (for the definitions of the three types of coreference cf. sections 2.4 and

186

Chapter 7

6.2.2 above). The results are provided in Table 7.7 and Table 7.8 below. The numbers in brackets indicate the absolute frequencies. Decision

Anaphoric

Cataphoric

Non-directional

Sum

HL 2000

87.6% (369)

1.0%

(4)

11.4%

(48)

100.0% (421)

HL 2001

66.4% (588)

0.9%

(8)

32.7% (289)

100.0% (885)

HL 2007

72.8% (195)

2.2%

(6)

25.0%

(67)

100.0% (268)

HL 2008

90.3% (819)

0.9%

(8)

8.8%

(80)

100.0% (907)

HL 2009

85.5% (372)

0.5%

(2)

14.0%

(61)

100.0% (435)

Average

80.5% (469)

1.1%

(6)

18.4% (109)

100.0% (583)

Table 7.7: Anaphoric, cataphoric and non-directional coreference in the House of Lords decisions Decision

Anaphoric

Cataphoric

Non-directional

Sum

BGH 2002

82.6% (181)

0.0%

(0)

17.4%

(38)

100.0% (219)

BGH 2006

86.6% (233)

1.9%

(5)

11.5%

(31)

100.0% (269)

BGH 2007a

83.7% (185)

0.0%

(0)

16.3%

(36)

100.0% (221)

BGH 2007b

87.9% (416)

0.0%

(0)

12.1%

(57)

100.0% (473)

BGH 2008

91.5% (227)

0.0%

(0)

8.5%

(21)

100.0% (248)

Average

86.5% (248)

0.4%

(1)

13.2%

(37)

100.0% (286)

Table 7.8: Anaphoric, cataphoric and non-directional coreference in the Bundesgerichtshof decisions As the above tables show, anaphoric coreference was clearly the most frequent type of coreference in both the English and the German texts. The hypothesis that anaphoric coreference would be more frequent than cataphoric or non-directional coreference was thus confirmed. In the sub-corpus of Bundesgerichtshof decisions, each of the decisions contained a relatively similar distribution of anaphoric, cataphoric and non-directional coreference. In the House of Lords sub-corpus, cataphoric coreference occurred with a similar frequency in all decisions, but the frequencies of anaphoric and non-directional coreference differed more strongly from decision to decision. For example, in the decision HL

Results and discussion

187

2008 the frequency of non-directional coreference was 8.8% while in the decision HL 2001 it was 32.7%. Furthermore, in the decision HL 2008 the frequency of anaphoric coreference was 90.3%, compared to 66.4% in the decision HL 2001. These variations in the frequencies seem to be influenced by the content of the court decisions (cf. section 6.1 above for a brief summary of the content of the decisions). It was noted that noun phrases with generic or non-specific reference often established non-directional coreference. Some of the House of Lords decisions contained many noun phrases with generic or non-specific reference. For instance, the decision HL 2001 dealt with the question whether a part of a house can be a ‘dwelling’ in the sense of the Rent Acts if the part of the house does not include cooking facilities or if the tenancy agreement does not allow cooking. Since the decision HL 2001 dealt with this question, it included the noun phrases a house, a dwelling and cooking facilities. Due to their importance for the content of the decision HL 2001, these noun phrases were often repeated and were part of long coreference chains. The noun phrases had generic or non-specific reference and they occurred as nondirectional chain elements. Similarly, in HL 2007 the noun phrase a secure tenancy, which had non-specific reference, was important for the content and contributed to a relatively high frequency of non-directional coreference. By contrast, due to their content other House of Lords decisions contained fewer noun phrases with generic or non-specific reference and thus fewer non-directional chain elements. In addition, the variations in the distribution of anaphoric and nondirectional coreference in the House of Lords decisions seemed to be influenced by the individual stylistic preferences of the judges who wrote the decisions. More precisely, the differences seemed to depend on the amount of the text that was concerned with the facts of the case or the facts of other, related cases. In the parts of the decisions which dealt with the facts of legal cases, non-directional coreference occurred infrequently since these parts of the texts were concerned with specific people and

188

Chapter 7

specific actions that had taken place. By contrast, the parts of the texts that contained discussions of legal questions were more likely to contain generic or non-specific noun phrases and thus non-directional coreference. The following two examples serve as an illustration. In example (9), indices are used to distinguish the different coreference chains. (9) 24. Mr Collins1 has changed rooms three times, first to Room 501, paying the same rent, and later to Room 403, which he1 was still occupying when the Court of Appeal gave judgment2. He1 has since moved again. Breakfast ceased to be provided when the restaurant closed in 1988. 25. Room 4032 measures some 72 square feet. It2 has a single bed, some furniture, a shower and a basin. (HL 2001, paragraphs 24f.) (10) According to the Book of Common Prayer, “the fir trees are a dwelling for the storks” (Psalm 104); while W. S. Gilbert condemned the billiard sharp “to dwell in a dungeon cell” (where it will be remembered he plays with a twisted cue on a cloth untrue with elliptical billiard balls): The Mikado Act II. It is hardly necessary to observe that Victorian prison cells did not possess cooking facilities. Of course, the word “dwell” may owe its presence to the exigencies of the rhyme, but it does not strike the listener as incongruous. If faintly humorous, it is because the occupation of a prison cell is involuntary, not because of the absence of cooking facilities. (HL 2001, paragraph 30) Example (9) above is taken from a part of a House of Lords decision that describes the facts of the case. In the example, we find two anaphoric coreference chains but no instance of non-directional coreference. By contrast, example (10) is taken from a part of a decision which deals with a legal question, i.e. with the question whether a part of a house can be a ‘dwelling’ in the sense of the Rent Acts if it does not include cooking facilities. Here, we find two instances of the noun phrase cooking facilities. The noun phrase cooking facilities had already occurred earlier in the text

Results and discussion

189

and the two instances in example (10) were analyzed as two nondirectional chain elements. In addition to the non-directional coreference chain elements, we also find instances of anaphoric coreference in example (10). It is not surprising that example (10) also contains instances of anaphoric coreference since, as has been mentioned earlier, in all court decisions anaphoric coreference was the most frequent type of coreference. Examples (9) and (10) above illustrate that non-directional coreference was more likely to occur in parts of the decisions dealing with legal questions. The frequency of non-directional coreference thus seemed to depend on the ratio between parts of the texts dealing with facts and parts of the texts dealing with legal questions. It was found that this ratio differed more strongly among the House of Lords decisions than among the Bundesgerichtshof decisions. This was assumed to be due to the greater stylistic freedom of the House of Lords judges compared to the Bundesgerichtshof judges. It seemed likely that the House of Lords judges had more individual freedom to decide how much of their decision they would like to devote to the facts and how much to legal questions (cf. Blom-Cooper 2009: 145). Next, it was studied how often coreference occurred within a clause complex and how often across clause complex boundaries. The results are provided in the two tables on the next page.

190

Decision

Chapter 7

Coreference within a clause complex

Coreference across clause complex boundaries

Sum

HL 2000

16.8%

(71)

83.2%

(351)

100.0%

(422)

HL 2001

21.4% (189)

78.6%

(696)

100.0%

(885)

HL 2007

17.5%

(47)

82.5%

(222)

100.0%

(269)

HL 2008

17.2% (156)

82.8%

(752)

100.0%

(908)

HL 2009

20.7%

(90)

79.3%

(345)

100.0%

(435)

Average

18.7% (111)

81.3%

(473)

100.0%

(584)

Table 7.9: Coreference within and across clause complexes in the House of Lords decisions

Decision

Coreference within a clause complex

Coreference across clause complex boundaries

Sum

BGH 2002

5.5%

(12)

94.5%

(207)

100.0% (219)

BGH 2006

15.1%

(41)

84.9%

(230)

100.0% (271)

BGH 2007a

8.1%

(18)

91.9%

(203)

100.0% (221)

BGH 2007b

15.2%

(72)

84.8%

(401)

100.0% (473)

BGH 2008

16.1%

(40)

83.9%

(208)

100.0% (248)

Average

12.0%

(37)

88.0%

(250)

100.0% (286)

Table 7.10: Coreference within and across clause complexes in the Bundesgerichtshof decisions As can be seen in Tables 7.9 and 7.10, coreference across clause complex boundaries was clearly more frequent in both sub-corpora than coreference within clause complexes. This result is in line with a finding of Kunz (2010: 386-388), who noted that the majority of the coreferential items in her corpus established coreference across the boundaries of orthographic sentences. The hypothesis that coreference across clause complex boundaries would be more frequent than coreference within a clause complex was confirmed. Both in the House of Lords decisions and in the Bundesgerichtshof decisions, coreference within a clause complex was most often estab-

Results and discussion

191

lished by third person personal pronouns, possessive determiners and simple repetitions. The following example shows coreference within a clause complex in a Bundesgerichtshof decision. (11) Mit Schreiben vom 25. Mai 2004 teilte die Klägerin den Beklagten mit, dass die von ihnen gezahlte Miete unter der ortsüblichen Vergleichsmiete von 5,13 € je qm liege und forderte sie gemäß § 558 BGB auf, einer Erhöhung der Nettomiete um 25,47 € auf nunmehr 302,52 € zuzustimmen. (BGH 2007a, paragraph 4) In the above example, coreference within a clause complex is established by the personal pronouns ihnen and sie. Interestingly, in the example three elements of the same coreference chain occur within one clause complex. In most cases in both sub-corpora, if coreference was established within a clause complex, only two elements of the same chain were found in the clause complex. 7.3 Syntactic categories of the chain elements As a further step, it was examined to which syntactic categories the elements of the coreference chains in the court decisions belonged. The following syntactic categories were analyzed: ‘noun phrase’, ‘clause(s) or clause complex(es)’, ‘possessive determiner’ and ‘adjective phrase’. The frequencies of the syntactic categories of the chain elements in the court decisions can be found in Table 7.11 on the next page. In one column of the table, the relative frequencies do not add up to exactly 100.0%. This is due to rounding.

192

Chapter 7

Syntactic category Noun phrase

House of Lords decisions 90.2% (3416)

Bundesgerichtshof decisions 93.2% (1734)

Clause(s) or clause complex(es)

4.7%

(178)

3.9%

(72)

Possessive determiner

5.1%

(195)

3.0%

(55)

Adjective phrase

0.0%

(0)

0.0%

(0)

Sum

100.0% (3789)

100.1% (1861)

Table 7.11: Syntactic categories of the chain elements in the court decisions The above table shows that the relative frequencies of the syntactic categories of the coreference chain elements were similar in both sub-corpora. In both the English and the German texts, the majority of chain elements were noun phrases. The frequency of noun phrases was similar in both sub-corpora (roughly 90% in the House of Lords decisions and roughly 93% in the Bundesgerichtshof decisions). In the House of Lords decisions, the two categories ‘possessive determiners’ and ‘clauses or clause complexes’ occurred with a similar frequency of approximately 5% each. In the Bundesgerichtshof decisions, the frequencies of possessive determiners and clauses or clause complexes were also similar (3.0% and 3.9%). The syntactic category ‘adjective phrase’ did not occur as a coreference chain element in the House of Lords decisions or in the Bundesgerichtshof decisions. As has been explained in section 6.2.3, the present study tested the hypothesis that noun phrases would be the most frequent syntactic category of the chain elements. This hypothesis was confirmed. In addition to determining the frequencies of the syntactic categories, the present study also analyzed which of the syntactic categories occurred as antecedent, postcedent or as a combination of antecedent and postcedent3, and which syntactic categories occurred as anaphoric, cataphoric or non-directional coreference chain elements. Since the syntactic category 3

For an example of a combination of an antecedent and a postcedent cf. example (19) in section 7.4.2.

193

Results and discussion

‘adjective phrase’ did not occur at all as a coreference chain element in the court decisions, this category was not included in this analysis. Tables 7.12 and 7.13 show the results. House of Lords decisions Syntactic category of chain element Type of chain element

Noun phrases

Clause(s) or clause complex(es)

Antecedent

20.1%

(685)

90.4% (161)

Postcedent

0.1%

(5)

4.5%

Combined antecedent/ postcedent

0.1%

(5)

63.1% (2154)

Anaphoric element

Possessive determiners

All syntactic categories

0.0%

(0)

22.3%

(846)

(8)

0.0%

(0)

0.3%

(13)

5.1%

(9)

0.0%

(0)

0.4%

(14)

0.0%

(0)

96.9% (189)

61.8% (2343)

Cataphoric element

0.6%

(22)

0.0%

(0)

3.1%

(6)

0.7%

(28)

Nondirectional element

16.0%

(545)

0.0%

(0)

0.0%

(0)

14.4%

(545)

Sum

100.0% (3416)

100.0% (178)

100.0% (195)

99.9% (3789)

Table 7.12: Types of chain elements and syntactic categories in the House of Lords decisions

194

Chapter 7 Bundesgerichtshof decisions Syntactic category of chain element

Type of chain element

Noun phrases

Clause(s) or clause complex(es)

Antecedent

20.6%

(357)

95.8%

(69)

0.0%

(0)

22.9%

(426)

Postcedent

0.1%

(2)

1.4%

(1)

0.0%

(0)

0.2%

(3)

Combined antecedent/ postcedent

0.0%

(0)

2.8%

(2)

0.0%

(0)

0.1%

(2)

68.8% (1189)

0.0%

(0)

Anaphoric element

Possessive determiners

96.4% (53)

All syntactic categories

66.7% (1242)

Cataphoric element

0.2%

(3)

0.0%

(0)

3.6%

(2)

0.3%

(5)

Nondirectional element

10.6%

(183)

0.0%

(0)

0.0%

(0)

9.8%

(183)

100.1% (1734)

100.0%

(72)

Sum

100.0% (55)

100.0% (1861)

Table 7.13: Types of chain elements and syntactic categories in the Bundesgerichtshof decisions As Tables 7.12 and 7.13 show, the distribution of the syntactic categories across the types of chain elements was very similar in the House of Lords decisions and the Bundesgerichtshof decisions. In both sub-corpora, the majority of the chain elements which were noun phrases occurred as anaphoric chain elements. Furthermore, in both sub-corpora the second most frequent type of chain element for noun phrases was ‘antecedent’ and the third most frequent type was ‘non-directional element’. In both the English and the German texts, the vast majority of all clauses and clause complexes occurred as the antecedent of a coreference chain. Moreover, in both sub-corpora the remaining clauses and clause complexes which were part of a coreference chain occurred as postcedents or combined antecedents/postcedents. The relative frequencies of the types of chain elements for the syntactic category ‘possessive determiners’ were very similar in the English and

Results and discussion

195

the German texts. The vast majority of the possessive determiners (about 97% in the English texts and about 96% in the German texts) occurred as anaphoric chain elements. The remaining possessive determiners occurred as cataphoric chain elements in both sub-corpora. The following example contains the most frequent types of chain elements for the syntactic categories ‘noun phrase’, ‘clause(s) or clause complex(es)’ and ‘possessive determiner’. Indices are used to distinguish between two different coreference chains. (12) 2. Miss Susan Burton1 lives at 49 Aborfield, Peckwater Street, London N.W.5. This is a three-bedroom flat, belonging to Camden London Borough Council. In February 1994 she1 became a weekly tenant jointly with Miss Jan Hannawin. […] Two years later, on 26 July 1996, Miss Hannawin bought a property elsewhere and moved out.2 3. This2 gave rise to a financial difficulty for Miss Burton1. She1 was in receipt of income support, and her1 housing benefit was assessed at one-half of the rent payable for the flat. Miss Hannawin was responsible for the other half of the rent. (HL 2000, paragraphs 2f.) In example (12), we find several different coreference chains. Two of them have been marked by broken underlining. The first coreference chain has the noun phrase Miss Susan Burton as its antecedent. This antecedent is followed by three anaphoric noun phrases: she, Miss Burton and She. The first coreference chain thus illustrates the use of noun phrases as anaphoric chain elements, which was very frequent in the court decisions (cf. Tables 7.12 and 7.13 above). Furthermore, the coreference chain contains the possessive determiner her. The coreference chain thus also illustrates the most frequent use of possessive determiners in the court decisions, i.e. the use as an anaphoric chain element. The second coreference chain which has been marked by underlining in example (12) consists of a clause as the antecedent and the anaphoric noun phrase This. The second chain therefore illustrates the most frequent use of the syntactic category ‘clause(s) or clause complex(es)’, which was the use as an antece-

196

Chapter 7

dent, and it also provides a further example of the use of a noun phrase as an anaphoric chain element.

7.4 Devices for coreference 7.4.1 Devices for anaphoric coreference 7.4.1.1 Main anaphoric devices Next, it was examined how the devices for anaphoric, cataphoric and non-directional coreference were used in the court decisions. First, the absolute and relative frequencies of the main devices for anaphoric coreference were determined. The results are shown in the table on the next page. The numbers in brackets indicate the absolute frequencies.

197

Results and discussion Main devices for anaphoric coreference Device Personal pronoun

House of Lords decisions

Bundesgerichtshof decisions

18.4%

(431)

6.7%

(83)

First person personal pronoun

3.7%

(87)

0.0%

(0)

Second person personal pronoun

0.0%

(0)

0.0%

(0)

14.7%

(344)

6.7%

(83)

Demonstrative pronoun

2.4%

(57)

3.0%

(37)

Reflexive pronoun

0.3%

(8)

0.2%

(3)

Indefinite pronoun

0.6%

(15)

0.0%

(0)

Sum of pronouns

21.7%

(511)

9.9%

(123)

Possessive determiner

8.1%

(189)

4.3%

(53)

Sum of determiners

8.1%

(189)

4.3%

(53)

Simple repetition

30.2%

(707)

42.1%

(523)

Partial repetition

20.2%

(473)

22.2%

(276)

Synonymous noun phrase

0.7%

(17)

1.0%

(12)

Hyperonymous noun phrase

3.9%

(91)

6.0%

(74)

Hyponymous noun phrase

2.3%

(53)

3.1%

(39)

Nominal paraphrase

0.6%

(13)

1.1%

(14)

Clausal paraphrase

5.2%

(121)

3.9%

(49)

Return after pronoun

4.9%

(115)

3.9%

(49)

Return after determiner

2.3%

(53)

2.4%

(30)

Third person personal pronoun

Sum of full noun phrases Overall sum

70.3% (1643) 100.1%

(2343)

85.7% (1066) 99.9% (1242)

Table 7.14: Frequencies of the main devices for anaphoric coreference in the court decisions4 As can be seen in Table 7.14, there were both similarities and differences between the frequencies of the main anaphoric devices in the two sub4

Although the table contains only one type of determiners, namely possessive determiners, a row named ‘sum of determiners’ was included in order to indicate a visual boundary between the possessive determiners and the group of devices called ‘full noun phrases’.

198

Chapter 7

corpora. For example, in both the English and the German court decisions, the most frequently used main anaphoric device was simple repetition. Taken together, in the English texts roughly 50% of all main anaphoric devices were simple or partial repetitions and in the German texts approximately 64% were repetitions. These high frequencies of repetitions, i.e. devices which repeat an entire noun phrase or at least the head of the noun phrase, indicate that in both sub-corpora the authors of the texts seemed to be eager to establish clarity of reference. This will be discussed in more detail in section 7.5, which deals with the functions of the coreferential devices in the court decisions. A further similarity between the two sub-corpora was that in both the House of Lords decisions and the Bundesgerichtshof decisions, second person personal pronouns did not occur as anaphoric devices. This can be explained by the fact that court decisions are monologues and not dialogues or polylogues. Therefore, second person personal pronouns are not likely to occur in the sub-genre of court decisions. Furthermore, Table 7.14 above shows that both in the English and in the German court decisions, third person personal pronouns were used more often as anaphoric devices than the other types of pronouns. The table also demonstrates that anaphoric reflexive pronouns rarely occurred in the two sub-corpora. Anaphoric indefinite pronouns were infrequently found in the English texts and not at all in the German texts. Among the anaphoric indefinite pronouns, or noun phrases headed by indefinite pronouns, in the English texts were all, this much and the other (for a description of these indefinite pronouns cf. e.g. Quirk et al 1985: 381f.; 384386; 388f.). An example of the use of the anaphoric indefinite pronoun much in a House of Lords decision is provided below. (13) The Victorian bedroom possessed an open grate; the modern one has a power point. What more is required? And why should even this much be necessary to attract security of tenure? (HL 2001, paragraph 57)

Results and discussion

199

In the above example, this much establishes a relation of anaphoric coreference with the noun phrases an open grate and a power point. Together, the two noun phrases an open grate and a power point form the antecedent of the coreference chain. When comparing the frequencies of synonymous, hyperonymous and hyponymous noun phrases in the English and German texts, it was found that hyperonymous noun phrases occurred most frequently in both subcorpora. The relative frequencies of hyperonymous noun phrases were 3.9% in the House of Lords decisions and 6.0% in the Bundesgerichtshof decisions (cf. Table 7.14 above). The higher frequencies of hyperonymous noun phrases, compared to synonymous and hyponymous noun phrases, may be explained by the reduction function, i.e. the use of coreferential devices to reduce the effort that is needed to process and to produce a text (cf. section 3.4.1.2 above). Since hyperonymous noun phrases contain less information than the previous chain element and are usually shorter than the preceding chain element, they can be used to reduce the processing effort for the text receiver and the production effort for the text producer. Here is an example of an anaphoric hyperonymous noun phrase in a Bundesgerichtshof decision. (14) Die Vertreter der Gegenmeinung übersehen oder berücksichtigen nicht hinreichend, daß der Gesetzgeber gleichzeitig mit der Einführung des neuen § 565 Abs. 1 a BGB a.F. zum 1. Januar 1994 auch den § 565 Abs. 1 Nr. 3 BGB a.F. geändert hat. In dieser Vorschrift ist zunächst allgemein geregelt, daß Mietverträge (u.a.) über Räume, wenn der Mietzins nach Monaten oder längeren Zeitabschnitten bemessen ist, spätestens am dritten Werktag eines Monats zum Ablauf des übernächsten Monats – also mit einer Kündigungsfrist von drei Monaten – gekündigt werden können. (BGH 2002, paragraph 15) Having discussed the similarities between the two sub-corpora, we will now turn to the differences between them. In the House of Lords decisions, first person personal pronouns occurred with a relative frequency

200

Chapter 7

of approximately 4%, while they did not occur in the Bundesgerichtshof decisions at all. The hypothesis that the English texts would contain more first person personal pronouns than the German texts (cf. section 6.2.4 above) was thus confirmed. Previous studies have found that House of Lords decisions tend to be written in a personal style, which is marked, for example, by the use of first person personal pronouns. By contrast, decisions of the Bundesgerichtshof have been found to be written in an impersonal style (cf. sections 4.2.2 and 7.1 above and cf. Wetter 1960: 32f.; Kötz 1973: 19; Lashöfer 1992: 15, 19, 86; Kischel 2008: 13). These findings of previous studies seem to be supported by the frequencies of first person personal pronouns in the court decisions of the present study. All first person personal pronouns in the House of Lords decisions were singular pronouns. Most of these pronouns referred to the judge who wrote the section of the decision that was analyzed in the present study. The coreference chains which referred to the authors of the section were relatively long in all House of Lords decisions; their length ranged from 12 to 37 chain elements. An excerpt of such a chain is provided in the example below. (15) LORD SCOTT OF FOSCOTE […] The strength, and, if I may respectfully say so, I think the only strength, of the Council’s case is that the housing benefit could never have been paid as a rent allowance to Mr Hanoman. Section 134(1A) stands in the way. (HL 2009, paragraph 23) In the above example, the two instances of the first person personal pronoun I refer to the author of the section, Lord Scott of Foscote. As has been mentioned in section 3.1.1.1, first person pronouns are often not used to create anaphoric coreference but to refer only exophorically, for example in conversations. However, the House of Lords decisions are written texts and, as has been explained in section 4.2.2, since 1963 the House of Lords decisions have not been read out anymore. A reader of

Results and discussion

201

the House of Lords decision HL 2009 can only correctly understand to whom the instances of the pronoun I refer if the reader understands that these instances of I refer anaphorically to the noun phrase LORD SCOTT OF FOSCOTE, which is the heading of the section written by Lord Scott of Foscote. Therefore, the two instances of the first person pronoun I in example (15) above were interpreted as anaphoric coreference chain elements in the present study (cf. also Waters 1997: 815f.). The noun phrase LORD SCOTT OF FOSCOTE was considered as the antecedent of the coreference chain to which the two instances of I belong. While most first person personal pronouns referred to the judge who wrote the section, in few cases first person personal pronouns referred to other persons, for example, to other judges. In these cases, the pronouns occurred as part of direct quotations, as is shown in the following example. (16) Morton LJ5 did not even use the word “essential”. He said, at p 485: “I think that the true test, where the tenant has the exclusive use of some rooms and shares certain accommodation with others, is as follows: […].” (HL 2001, paragraph 47) In example (16), the first person personal pronoun I refers back to the noun phrase Morton LJ. In addition, the third person personal pronoun He also belongs to the same coreference chain. The pronoun I is part of a direct quotation from a decision of the Court of Appeal. In section 6.2.1, it has been explained that if coreference was established between an item in a quotation and an item that was not part of a citation, these coreferential items were analyzed in the present study. Thus, the pronoun I in example (16) was accepted as a chain element. By contrast, coreference that existed only between items within a quotation was not analyzed in the present study.

5

The abbreviation LJ stands for Lord Justice. Lord Justice and Lady Justice are the titles of the judges of the Court of Appeal (cf. Nolan/Meredith 2012: 19).

202

Chapter 7

A further difference between the two sub-corpora was that in the House of Lords decisions, third person personal pronouns occurred roughly twice as often as in the Bundesgerichtshof decisions (14.7% compared to 6.7%). Taken together, about 22% of all main anaphoric devices in the English texts were pronouns, compared to about 10% in the German texts. Furthermore, possessive determiners, such as his or sein/e, were approximately twice as frequent in the House of Lords decisions as in the Bundesgerichtshof decisions (8.1% compared to 4.3%). The higher frequencies of pronouns and possessive determiners in the English texts might be due to the fact that in the past, decisions of the House of Lords used to be read out. Since 1963, the decisions have not been read out anymore. Instead, the judges have only stated briefly whether they allow the appeal or not (cf. section 4.2.2 above and cf. House of Lords 2008: 6). According to Waters (1997: 810, 816) and Charnock (2010: 131f.), the relatively frequent use of pronouns as coreferential devices in House of Lords decisions may be due to the former tradition of reading out the decisions since the frequent occurrence of pronouns is a typical feature of spoken language (cf. section 4.2.2 above and cf. e.g. Biber et al. 1999: 235). By contrast, for Bundesgerichtshof decisions of civil cases, such as cases in landlord and tenant law, there is no tradition of reading out the complete decisions. Instead, only a brief summary of the decision is read out. In addition, the reasons for the decision may be read out or they may be explained orally without reading aloud the written decision (cf. §§ 311, 555 Zivilprozessordnung). 6 Although anaphoric pronouns were more frequent in the House of Lords decisions than in the Bundesgerichtshof decisions, the following comparison with a study by Biber et al. (1999: 237-239) will show that the frequencies of anaphoric pronouns in both sub-corpora were low compared to the frequencies in other genres. 6

For Bundesgerichtshof decisions of criminal cases it is required that the reasons for the decision are read out or explained orally (cf. §§ 268, 356 Strafprozessordnung). Since the present study analyzed Bundesgerichtshof decisions of civil cases, this is of minor importance here and mentioned only for the sake of completeness.

Results and discussion

203

It seemed interesting to compare the frequencies of the main anaphoric devices in the present study with the findings of a study by Biber et al. (1999: 237-239). The findings by Biber et al. have already been briefly described in section 3.5.3 above. As has been mentioned in section 3.5.3, Biber et al. studied the frequencies of anaphoric coreferential devices in a sample of the Longman Spoken and Written English Corpus (LSWE Corpus). The analysis of the coreferential devices was based on a LSWE Corpus sample which consisted of approximately 2,400 coreferential noun phrases (cf. Biber et al. 1999: 237, 1134). When comparing the findings of Biber et al. (1999: 237) with the results of the present study, it should be noted that Biber et al. analyzed fewer main anaphoric devices than the present study did. For example, they did not include reflexive pronouns or possessive determiners in their analysis. In order to compare the frequencies of devices in Biber et al.’s study with the frequencies found in the present study, the relative frequencies of the main anaphoric devices in the present study were recalculated, taking into account only anaphoric devices that were also included in Biber et al.’s study: (i) personal pronouns, (ii) demonstrative pronouns and (iii) the category ‘full noun phrases’, which includes all anaphoric devices that are full noun phrases, such as simple repetitions and hyperonymous noun phrases. Since the frequencies in Biber et al.’s study were provided without decimal places, the frequencies of the present study were rounded accordingly. The results are shown in Table 7.15 on the next page. As can be seen in the table, the relative frequencies of the devices in the genre ‘academic prose’ in Biber et al.’s study do not add up to 100%, but only to 97%. As has been already discussed in section 3.5.3, this is most likely due to rounding. In Biber et al.’s presentation of the results, the frequencies are shown not as numbers but as diagrams (as squares of different sizes). While this mode of presentation is useful for a quick overview, it may lead to presenting the frequencies in a slightly less precise way than presenting the percentages as numbers.

204

Chapter 7 Biber et al.’s study

(Sub-) genre Device

Conversation

Present study

Fiction

News

Academic prose

House of Lords decisions

Bundesgerichtshof decisions

Personal and demonstrative pronouns

90%

77%

42%

27%

23%

10%

Full noun phrases

10%

23%

58%

70%

77%

90%

100%

100%

100%

97%

100%

100%

Sum

Table 7.15: Comparison of the frequencies of anaphoric devices with the results by Biber et al. (1999) Table 7.15 indicates that in Biber et al.’s study the frequency of anaphoric personal and demonstrative pronouns was highest in the genre of conversation and lowest in academic prose (cf. also section 3.5.3 above for a discussion of the results of Biber et al.’s study). The distribution of anaphoric pronouns and anaphoric full noun phrases in the House of Lords decisions was relatively similar to the distribution in the genre of academic prose in Biber et al.’s study. This is likely to be due to the fact that in both (sub-)genres, academic prose and court decisions, it is considered as important to avoid ambiguity and to make it clear to which coreference chain an anaphoric item belongs (cf. e.g. Crystal/Davy 1969: 201f.; Biber et al. 1999: 237; Tiersma 2008: 21). In the Bundesgerichtshof decisions, the frequency of anaphoric personal and demonstrative pronouns was lower than in the House of Lords decisions and in Biber et al.’s subcorpus of academic prose. This may be interpreted to indicate that the authors of these Bundesgerichtshof decisions paid even more attention to achieving clarity of reference than the authors of the texts of the genre ‘academic prose’ and the authors of the House of Lords decisions.

205

Results and discussion 7.4.1.2 Supplementing anaphoric devices

Next, the relative frequencies of the supplementing anaphoric devices (such as definite articles or demonstrative determiners) in the court decisions were calculated. For each anaphoric coreference chain element which could be combined with a supplementing anaphoric device, it was determined whether one of the supplementing devices was chosen or whether no supplementing device was added. The following main anaphoric devices were assumed to be able to be combined with a supplementing device: (i) all devices that belonged to the group ‘full noun phrases’ (cf. Table 6.4 in section 6.2.4 above) and (ii) indefinite pronouns (for example the other or der andere). The frequencies are presented in the table below. The numbers in brackets indicate the absolute frequencies. Supplementing devices for anaphoric coreference Device Definite article

House of Lords decisions

Bundesgerichtshof decisions

52.7%

(874)

74.8%

(797)

Demonstrative determiner

8.1%

(135)

5.2%

(55)

‘Other determiner’

1.7%

(29)

0.8%

(9)

No supplementing device

37.4%

(620)

19.2%

(205)

Sum

99.9%

(1658)

100.0%

(1066)

Table 7.16: Frequencies of the supplementing devices for anaphoric coreference in the court decisions According to Table 7.16, in both sub-corpora the definite article was the most frequently used supplementing anaphoric device. Demonstrative determiners and ‘other determiners’ (such as the determiners both or beide) did not occur very frequently in the court decisions. These findings are in line with the results of a study by Biber et al. (1999: 237-239), a study which has already been mentioned in sections 3.5.3 and 7.4.1.1. In their analysis of a sample of the Longman Spoken and Written English Corpus, Biber et al. (1999: 237) also found that definite articles were used more

206

Chapter 7

often as supplementing anaphoric devices than demonstrative determiners. Other determiners were not taken into account by Biber et al. The higher frequency of anaphoric noun phrases with definite articles compared to ones with demonstrative determiners has been related by Biber et al. (1999: 238f.) to differences in the positions in which the two types of noun phrases occur. The authors noted that anaphoric noun phrases with a demonstrative determiner usually have a shorter distance to the preceding chain element than anaphoric noun phrases with a definite article (cf. Biber et al. 1999: 238f.). This has also been found in other empirical studies (cf. e.g. Ariel 1988: 70; Kunz 2010: 387). Thus, anaphoric noun phrases with a demonstrative determiner are used preferably for establishing coreference across short distances and anaphoric noun phrases with a definite article more often for coreference across longer distances. Since anaphoric noun phrases with demonstrative determiners are mostly restricted to coreference across short distances, anaphoric noun phrases with a definite article can be used in a greater variety of positions in a text. This may explain their higher frequency (cf. Biber et al. 1999: 238). It should be noted that previous studies have also shown that anaphoric pronouns are usually restricted to coreference across short distances (cf. e.g. Ariel 1988: 70; Biber et al. 1999: 239; Kunz 2010: 388). Nonetheless, as has been mentioned in sections 3.5.3 and 7.4.1.1, in some genres pronouns occur very frequently as anaphoric coreferential devices. This is likely to be due to the fact that anaphoric pronouns can be used particularly well to fulfil the reduction function of coreference. This advantage of anaphoric pronouns may explain why they are used frequently in some genres, despite their restriction to creating coreference across short distances. It may be added that, as has been explained in section 3.5.3, anaphoric pronouns are likely to occur in genres which usually contain only few referents, such as conversation. Since conversations often only refer to few different entities, anaphoric pronouns are not likely to cause ambiguity of reference in conversations (cf. Biber et al. 1999: 238).

Results and discussion

207

The low frequencies of anaphoric noun phrases with ‘other determiners’, such as both or such, can be explained as follows. The use of this type of noun phrases is more strongly restricted than, for example, the use of noun phrases with a definite article. Usually, many anaphoric noun phrases in a text cannot contain an ‘other determiner’. For example, the determiner both can only occur in plural noun phrases or coordinated noun phrases. In the House of Lords decisions, the following ‘other determiners’ were found: such, both and all. In some cases, the determiner such was combined with the indefinite article, for instance in such a transfer (HL 2000, paragraph 5). The Bundesgerichtshof decisions included a very similar range of ‘other determiners’: derartige, solche, beide and alle. The determiner solche was sometimes combined with the indefinite article eine. Table 7.16 above has shown that in the House of Lords decisions, 37.4% of the anaphoric coreference chain elements which could contain a supplementing device occurred without one. By contrast, in the Bundesgerichtshof decisions only 19.2% of such chain elements occurred without a supplementing device. The main reason for this seemed to be that the two sub-corpora differed in the way of referring to the people involved in the legal cases. In line with Quirk et al. (1985: 288), the present study distinguishes between ‘names’, which can consist of more than one word, and ‘proper nouns’, which consist of only one word. The term ‘names’ refers to the names of people, places, days, months, etc. (cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 288). The House of Lords decisions contained many coreference chain elements which were the names of the appellants, the respondents or other people involved in the cases, e.g. Miss Burton or Mr Hanoman. The names of statutes or parts of statutes, for example para 4(6), also occurred relatively often. In the Bundesgerichtshof decisions, the anaphoric noun phrases which occurred without a supplementing device were mainly the names of statutes or parts of statutes, such as § 559 BGB. In contrast to the House of

208

Chapter 7

Lords decisions, the Bundesgerichtshof decisions did not contain the names of the appellants, respondents or other people involved in the cases. As has been mentioned in section 7.1, the appellant and the respondent were referred to as der Kläger/die Klägerin/die Klägerinnen and der Beklagte/die Beklagte/die Beklagten in the Bundesgerichtshof decisions. Therefore, in the Bundesgerichtshof decisions the full noun phrases referring to the appellants or respondents contained a definite article and thus a supplementing device. By contrast, in the House of Lords decisions, the full noun phrases referring to the appellants or respondents usually did not contain a supplementing device since they were mostly personal names. As has been mentioned in section 7.1, in both sub-corpora the coreference chains referring to the appellants and respondents were relatively long; some of them had a length of more than 60 chain elements. Therefore, it can be assumed that the higher frequency of anaphoric noun phrases without supplementing devices in the House of Lords decisions was mainly due to the use of names to refer to the appellants and respondents. The lower frequency of such noun phrases in the Bundesgerichtshof decisions was likely to be due to the use of common nouns to refer to the appellants and respondents since these common nouns were combined with definite articles. 7.4.2 Main devices for cataphoric coreference As a further step, the frequencies of the main devices for cataphoric coreference were determined. As has been shown in section 7.2, in all of the court decisions cataphoric coreference occurred clearly less frequently than anaphoric or non-directional coreference. Therefore, the absolute frequencies of the cataphoric devices were low in all of the court decisions. In the Bundesgerichtshof decisions, they were particularly low. The following table provides an overview of the absolute and relative frequencies of the devices for cataphoric coreference.

209

Results and discussion Main devices for cataphoric coreference Device Personal pronoun

House of Lords decisions

Bundesgerichtshof decisions

7.1%

(2)

0.0%

(0)

First person personal pronoun

0.0%

(0)

0.0%

(0)

Second person personal pronoun

0.0%

(0)

0.0%

(0)

Third person personal pronoun

7.1%

(2)

0.0%

(0)

Demonstrative pronoun

3.6%

(1)

0.0%

(0)

Reflexive pronoun

0.0%

(0)

0.0%

(0)

Possessive determiner

21.4%

(6)

40.0%

(2)

Full noun phrase

67.9%

(19)

60.0%

(3)

100.0%

(28)

100.0%

(5)

Sum

Table 7.17: Frequencies of the main devices for cataphoric coreference in the court decisions Table 7.17 shows that in both sub-corpora full noun phrases were the most frequently used device for cataphoric coreference. Possessive determiners were the second most frequent cataphoric device in both the English and the German texts. The cataphoric devices in the House of Lords decisions furthermore included cataphoric third person personal pronouns and cataphoric demonstrative pronouns. In the Bundesgerichtshof decisions, only full noun phrases and possessive determiners occurred as cataphoric devices. When the cataphoric full noun phrases in the House of Lords decisions were examined in more detail, it was found that almost all of them referred forwards to a sequence of several clause complexes. Furthermore, it was noted that the cataphoric noun phrases often contained quantifying determiners, such as cardinal numerals. The following example illustrates this. (17) Once the rent officer has assembled enough neighbourhoods to satisfy, in his judgment, the requirements of sub-para (c), the language of para 4(6) appears to be open to three possible interpretations. The

210

Chapter 7 first is that the rent officer is at that point required to stop looking for, or including, any further neighbourhoods: he has identified the locality. The second possibility is that […].The third possibility is that […]. (HL 2008, paragraph 55)

In the above example, the cataphoric full noun phrase three possible interpretations refers forwards to a sequence of three clause complexes which describe the possible interpretations of paragraph 4(6) of Part I of Schedule 1 to the Rent Officers (Housing Benefit Functions) Order 1997. The cataphoric noun phrase in example (17) has a text-organizing function because it informs the text receiver about what will follow in the text. All of the cataphoric full noun phrases in the House of Lords decisions and in the Bundesgerichtshof decisions fulfilled the function of ‘textual organization’ (for a detailed discussion of the functions of the coreferential devices cf. section 7.5 below). As Table 7.17 above has shown, only three cataphoric full noun phrases occurred in the Bundesgerichtshof decisions. All three noun phrases referred forwards to a sequence of one or more clause complexes. Two of the cataphoric noun phrases contained the determiner folgende, which clearly indicates that the noun phrases referred forwards to the following text. An example is provided below. (18) § 13 des Mietvertrages („Beendigung des Mietverhältnisses“) enthält unter anderem folgende formularmäßige Regelungen: „1. Bei Mietende hat der Mieter dem Vermieter sämtliche Schlüssel auszuhändigen und die Mieträume in vertragsgemäßem Zustand (vgl. § 8) zurückzugeben. Eine nach Ablauf der in § 8 Nr. 2 genannten Fristen entstandene, aber nicht erfüllte Verpflichtung zur Durchführung der Schönheitsreparaturen hat der Mieter bis zur Beendigung des Mietverhältnisses nachzuholen. […]“ (BGH 2006, paragraph 3)

Results and discussion

211

As has been mentioned above, the Bundesgerichtshof decisions contained only three cataphoric full noun phrases. By contrast, the House of Lords decisions included 19 cataphoric full noun phrases. One explanation for this was the different average length of the decisions. On average, the House of Lords decisions were about twice as long as the Bundesgerichtshof decisions. Due to their greater length, the House of Lords decisions were likely to include more coreference chain elements, and thus also more cataphoric chain elements, than the Bundesgerichtshof decisions. A further reason for the higher frequency of cataphoric coreference in the House of Lords decisions seemed to be related to the function of the cataphoric full noun phrases, which, as has been mentioned above, was textual organization. When analyzing the court decisions it was found that all of the Bundesgerichtshof decisions had the same basic structure. First, the legal case was identified, which means that the name of the court, the file reference number of the decision, the date of the decision and other similar pieces of information were provided. Second, the decision of the judges of the Bundesgerichtshof was briefly stated. Third, the facts of the case were provided and fourth, the reasons for the decision of the court were explained. At the very end, the decision was signed by the judges. The reason why all of the Bundesgerichtshof decisions in the present study had the same basic structure is that this structure is prescribed by the German Code of Civil Procedure and the German Code of Criminal Procedure7 (cf. §§ 313, 315, 555 Zivilprozessordnung; §§ 260 IV, 260 V, 267, 268, 275 II, 275 III Strafprozessordnung). By contrast, it was found that the House of Lords decisions were not structured in a homogeneous way (cf. also Lashöfer 1992: 30-33). For example, in one of the House of Lords decisions the facts of the case pre7

While the decisions analyzed in the present study do not belong to the field of criminal law, the relevant paragraphs of the Code of Criminal Procedure are listed here for the sake of completeness. In decisions which belong to the field of criminal law, the facts of the case must be mentioned as a part of the reasons for the decision of the court (cf. § 267 Strafprozessordnung).

212

Chapter 7

ceded a discussion of legal questions related to the case. In the other House of Lords decisions, the facts of the case occurred in between two or more parts of the texts which contained discussions of legal questions. Furthermore, it was noted that all of the Bundesgerichtshof decisions used headings to indicate which parts of the text dealt with the facts of the case and which ones dealt with the reasons for the decision. By contrast, only some of the House of Lords decisions used headings to indicate the topics of parts of the texts. As a consequence, it can be assumed that in the House of Lords decisions, which did not have a homogeneous structure and used fewer headings, cataphoric noun phrases were important to guide the text receiver through the text. By contrast, it seems that due to their homogeneous structure and the use of headings, the Bundesgerichtshof decisions depended less on the use of cataphoric noun phrases with a text-organizing function. In addition, it can be assumed that text receivers need more guidance for a longer than for a shorter text. Thus, the greater length of the House of Lords decisions seemed to have contributed to the frequent use of cataphoric noun phrases in two ways. First, as has been mentioned above, longer texts are likely to include more coreference chain elements than shorter texts. Second, longer texts are more likely than shorter text to include linguistic items which guide the reader through the text, such as cataphoric noun phrases with a text-organizing function. In both sub-corpora, the majority of the cataphoric devices occurred at the very beginning of a coreference chain. However, in some cases cataphoric devices did not occur at the beginning of a coreference chain but instead within a coreference chain which consisted mainly of anaphoric chain elements. Here is an example from a House of Lords decision. (19) 8. […] Miss Burton appealed. The Court of Appeal (Butler-Sloss L.J. 8 and Sir John Vinelott) reached the opposite conclusion, and 8

The abbreviation L.J. stands for Lord Justice (cf. section 7.3.1.1 above).

Results and discussion

213

made a declaration that Miss Burton was the sole tenant. The council has now appealed to your Lordships’ House against that decision. 9. In order to succeed in her objective Miss Burton must surmount two hurdles. First, the deed of release must be effective in law to vest the tenancy in her alone. (HL 2000, paragraphs 8f.) This example contains five elements of the same coreference chain: three instances of the noun phrase Miss Burton and in addition the possessive determiner her and the pronoun her, which is postmodified by alone. The first two instances of the noun phrase Miss Burton establish anaphoric coreference. The second instance of Miss Burton refers back to the first instance of the noun phrase in the example. The first instance is not the antecedent of the chain. Instead, it refers back to a preceding element of the same coreference chain, which occurs in paragraph 7 of the decision. For reasons of space, this preceding chain element is not shown in example (19). In example (19), the distance between the second instance of the noun phrase Miss Burton and the possessive determiner her is relatively long (22 words). Furthermore, the determiner her occurs at the beginning of paragraph 9, while the second instance of the noun phrase Miss Burton occurs in paragraph 8. By contrast, the distance between her and the third instance of Miss Burton is very small (one word) and the two chain elements occur within the same clause complex. As a consequence, it seems likely that the text receiver will only be able to interpret the determiner her correctly after reading or hearing the third instance of the noun phrase Miss Burton, which occurs very shortly after the determiner. Therefore, it can be assumed that her refers forwards to the noun phrase Miss Burton and that it is thus a cataphoric determiner. It should be noted that the distance between the third instance of Miss Burton and her alone in example (19) above is relatively long, almost as long as the distance between the second instance of Miss Burton and the cataphoric determiner her. Nevertheless, the pronoun-headed noun phrase

214

Chapter 7

her alone was analyzed as an anaphoric chain element because it seemed relatively easy for a text receiver to interpret her alone as referring backwards to Miss Burton. The third instance of Miss Burton, which followed the cataphoric determiner her, functions as the postcedent of her. Furthermore, this third instance of Miss Burton also seems to function as the antecedent of the following anaphoric chain element her alone. The third instance of Miss Burton in example (19) was thus interpreted as a ‘combined postcedent/antecedent’. The following example from a Bundesgerichtshof decision is similar to the previous example (19). As in example (19), example (20) shows how cataphoric coreference can occur within a coreference chain consisting of mostly anaphoric elements. (20) 5 Nach Beendigung des Mietverhältnisses haben die Klägerinnen von der Beklagten die Rückzahlung der verzinsten Kaution verlangt. Die Beklagte hat mit Gegenforderungen wegen der Kosten für die Entfernung der Tapeten in Höhe von 1.210,50 € und für Malerarbeiten an den Türzargen in Höhe von 287,80 € die Aufrechnung erklärt. 6 Mit ihrer Klage haben die Klägerinnen die Rückzahlung der geleisteten Kaution – nach Abzug einer Nebenkostennachzahlung noch 661,30 € – nebst Zinsen begehrt. (BGH 2006, paragraphs 5f.) The above example includes three elements of the same coreference chain: two instances of the noun phrase die Klägerinnen and in addition the possessive determiner ihrer. The first instance of die Klägerinnen is not the antecedent of the coreference chain. Instead, it refers anaphorically to a previous element of the same chain, which is not shown in example (20) for reasons of space. The distance between the first instance of die Klägerinnen and the possessive determiner ihrer is relatively long (43 words). Furthermore, the first instance of the noun phrase occurs in paragraph 5 and the possessive determiner in paragraph 6. The distance between ihrer and the second instance of die Klägerinnen, however, is very

Results and discussion

215

short (two words). Therefore, the present study assumes that ihrer refers cataphorically to the second instance of die Klägerinnen. In both the House of Lords decisions and the Bundesgerichtshof decisions, cataphoric coreference that occurred within a chain of mostly anaphoric chain elements was always established by the coreferential device of a possessive determiner. 7.4.3 Devices for non-directional coreference 7.4.3.1 Main non-directional devices In addition to analyzing the anaphoric and cataphoric devices, the present study examined the non-directional devices in the court decisions. First, the frequencies of the main devices for non-directional coreference were determined. Table 7.18 on the next page presents the absolute and relative frequencies.

216

Chapter 7 Main devices for non-directional coreference Device

Personal pronoun

House of Lords decisions

Bundesgerichtshof decisions

0.0%

(0)

0.0%

(0)

First person personal pronoun

0.0%

(0)

0.0%

(0)

Second person personal pronoun

0.0%

(0)

0.0%

(0)

Third person personal pronoun

0.0%

(0)

0.0%

(0)

Demonstrative pronoun

0.0%

(0)

0.0%

(0)

Indefinite pronoun

1.1%

(6)

0.0%

(0)

Sum of pronouns

1.1%

(6)

0.0%

(0)

Simple repetition

80.6%

(439)

82.0%

(150)

Partial repetition

5.9%

(32)

10.9%

(20)

Synonymous noun phrase

1.1%

(6)

1.1%

(2)

Hyperonymous noun phrase

1.1%

(6)

0.0%

(0)

Hyponymous noun phrase

1.7%

(9)

1.6%

(3)

Nominal paraphrase

0.2%

(1)

1.1%

(2)

Clausal paraphrase

0.0%

(0)

0.0%

(0)

Return after pronoun

5.7%

(31)

2.2%

(4)

Return after determiner

2.8%

(15)

1.1%

(2)

99.1%

(539)

100.0%

(183)

100.2%

(545)

100.0%

(183)

Sum of full noun phrases Overall sum

Table 7.18: Frequencies of the main devices for non-directional coreference in the court decisions Table 7.18 indicates that the internal relations between the frequencies of the main non-directional devices were very similar in the House of Lords decisions and the Bundesgerichtshof decisions. In both of the two subcorpora, simple repetition was clearly the most frequently used device for non-directional coreference. In the House of Lords decisions, 80.6% of all main non-directional devices were simple repetitions and in the Bundesgerichtshof decisions 82.0% were simple repetitions. Moreover, in both sub-corpora the second most frequent main non-directional device

Results and discussion

217

was partial repetition. Here is an example of the use of a simple repetition to establish non-directional coreference in a House of Lords decision. (21) It was argued that a room without a cooker could not be described as a dwelling. […] I have no doubt that the case was rightly decided […] but the decision of the majority of the Court of Appeal in the present case cannot stand with it. If the room was the landlord’s residence, it was his dwelling. The decision was explained by Moore-Bick J9 on the basis that the landlord was in the same position as a tenant of an unfurnished room who has the right to install a cooker if he wishes to do so: the fact that he chooses not to do so cannot affect the nature of the premises themselves. (HL 2001, paragraph 44) In this example we find two instances of the noun phrase a cooker. These two noun phrases do not refer to a specific cooker. Instead, they have non-specific reference and it can be assumed that both noun phrases refer to the same non-specific entity. Since both noun phrases refer to the same entity and they do not refer forwards or backwards to each other, nondirectional coreference is established between them. The following example illustrates the use of simple repetitions to create non-directional coreference in one of the Bundesgerichtshof decisions. Indices are used to distinguish between two different non-directional coreference chains. (22) Gemäß § 535 Abs. 1 Satz 2 BGB hat der Vermieter1 die Mietsache dem Mieter2 in einem zum vertragsgemäßen Gebrauch geeigneten Zustand zu überlassen und sie während der Mietzeit in diesem Zustand zu erhalten. Hierzu gehört auch die Ausführung der Schönheitsreparaturen. Zwar kann der Vermieter1 diese Pflicht durch Vereinbarung – auch in Allgemeinen Geschäftsbedingungen – auf den Mieter2 übertragen (st.Rspr., BGHZ 92, 363; 101, 253). Jedoch ist 9

The abbreviation J here stands for Justice, which is the title of the judges of the High Court (cf. Nolan/Meredith 2012: 19).

218

Chapter 7 eine formularvertragliche Bestimmung, die den Mieter2 mit Renovierungspflichten belastet, die über den tatsächlichen Renovierungsbedarf hinausgehen, mit wesentlichen Grundgedanken der gesetzlichen Regelung nicht vereinbar […]. (BGH 2006, paragraph 11)

In example (22), non-directional coreference is established between the two instances of the noun phrase der Vermieter. The two noun phrases do not refer to a specific landlord, but instead to the class of landlords in general and thus have generic reference (cf. e.g. Quirk et al. 1985: 281283 for the use of the definite article with a generic meaning). Furthermore, there is non-directional coreference between the noun phrase dem Mieter and the two instances of the noun phrase den Mieter. These three noun phrases do not refer to a specific tenant, but to the class of tenants and therefore have generic reference as well. As has been explained in section 2.4, the present study assumes that non-directional coreference can be established not only by noun phrases with generic or non-specific reference, but also by certain noun phrases with specific reference, for example noun phrases which refer to concrete lengths, weights, dates or amounts of money. In both sub-corpora, nondirectional coreference was most often established by noun phrases with generic or non-specific reference. Non-directional coreference which was established by noun phrases with specific reference occurred less frequently. Here is an example from a House of Lords decision. (23) Take, for example, a case in which, say in 1969, someone bought the unexpired residue of a 20 year lease of a house granted in 1966. […] Why should it make a difference to rights of succession in 2004 to ask whether the tenant took an assignment of an existing lease in 1969 or was the original grantee of a new lease? Why does it matter how someone acquired the lease in 1969? (HL 2007, paragraphs 9f.) In this example, non-directional coreference is established between the three instances of the noun phrase 1969. The three noun phrases refer to a specific year, and thus have specific reference. Since the noun phrases

Results and discussion

219

refer to the same year and do not refer forwards or backwards to each other, they are in a relation of non-directional coreference. The following example shows how non-directional coreference was established between noun phrases with specific reference in a Bundesgerichtshof decision. (24) Mit Schreiben vom 25. März 2003 machte die Klägerin wegen im Einzelnen dargelegter Modernisierungsmaßnahmen eine auf § 559 BGB gestützte Mieterhöhung um monatlich 51,30 € mit Wirkung ab 1. Juni 2003 geltend. […] Die Auslegung des Berufungsgerichts, in den Teilzahlungen der Beklagten im Anschluss an das Mieterhöhungsschreiben der Klägerin vom 25. März 2003 liege ein Angebot auf Anhebung der Miete um diesen Betrag, das die Klägerin durch ihr Schreiben vom 25. Mai 2004 angenommen habe, ist als tatrichterliche Würdigung einer Individualvereinbarung in der Revisionsinstanz nur beschränkt überprüfbar. (BGH 2007a, paragraphs 3-10) In the above example, vom is a contraction of the preposition von and the definite article dem. Since vom contains the article belonging to 25. März 2003, it is marked as part of the chain elements in example (24). The two chain elements, i.e. the two instances of vom 25. März 2003, both refer to the same specific date. As they do not refer forwards or backwards, the chain elements are interpreted here as non-directional chain elements. While non-directional pronouns did not occur in the Bundesgerichtshof decisions, the House of Lords decisions contained a small number of non-directional indefinite pronouns. An example is given below. (25) The words “dwell” and “dwelling” are not terms of art with a specialised legal meaning. They are ordinary English words, even if they are perhaps no longer in common use. They mean the same as “inhabit” and “habitation” or more precisely “abide” and “abode”, and refer to the place where one lives and makes one’s home. (HL 2001, paragraph 30)

220

Chapter 7

In the above example, coreference is established by one and one’s. The indefinite pronoun one here has generic reference and means ‘people in general’ (cf. also Quirk et al. 1985: 387). Since the two instances of the pronoun refer to the same entity and do not refer forwards or backwards in the text, they establish non-directional coreference. 7.4.3.2 Supplementing non-directional devices In addition to the main non-directional devices, the present study also analyzed the supplementing non-directional devices, such as definite articles and indefinite articles. The relative and absolute frequencies of the supplementing devices are shown in Table 7.19 below. Supplementing devices for non-directional coreference Device

House of Lords decisions

Bundesgerichtshof decisions

Definite article

18.4%

(100)

60.6%

(111)

Indefinite article

37.6%

(205)

8.7%

(16)

Zero article

44.0%

(240)

30.6%

(56)

100.0%

(545)

99.9%

(183)

Sum

Table 7.19: Frequencies of the supplementing devices for non-directional coreference in the court decisions The above table indicates that the relative frequencies of the supplementing non-directional devices in the House of Lords decisions differed from the relative frequencies in the Bundesgerichtshof decisions. In the House of Lords decisions, the most frequent supplementing device was the zero article. The second most frequent supplementing device in the House of Lords decisions was the indefinite article, followed by the definite article. By contrast, in the Bundesgerichtshof decisions the most frequent supplementing device for non-directional coreference was the definite article. The second most frequent device was the zero article, followed by the indefinite article.

Results and discussion

221

In both sub-corpora, the group of non-directional coreference chain elements with definite articles included both singular and plural noun phrases. The majority of these chain elements were singular noun phrases. Furthermore, the group of non-directional chain elements with definite articles contained both noun phrases with generic and specific reference. Here is an example from a House of Lords decision which includes two non-directional chain elements with a definite article and with generic reference. (26) In Westminster City Council v Clarke [1992] 2 AC 288 Lord Templeman observed, at pp 298H-299A: “Under the Rent Acts, in order to create a letting of part of a house as a separate dwelling there must be an agreement by which the occupier has exclusive possession of essential living rooms of a separate dwelling house. […]” Following the guidance seemingly offered by this passage, the Court of Appeal in the present case (Peter Gibson LJ and Moore-Bick J, Mance LJ dissenting) felt constrained to hold that the presence of cooking facilities was an essential characteristic of a dwelling. The question for your Lordships is whether the absence of such facilities prevents a person’s home from being a “dwelling” within the meaning of the statutory formula and so precludes the occupier from enjoying security of tenure. (HL 2001, paragraph 22) In example (26), non-directional coreference is established between the two instances of the noun phrase the occupier. The present study assumed that both noun phrases do not refer to a specific occupier, but to the class of occupiers as a whole, and that they thus have generic reference. A similar example which is taken from a Bundesgerichtshof decision is provided next. It has already been presented as example (5) in section 7.1 and is repeated for convenience as example (27).

222

Chapter 7

(27) […] [I]nsoweit habe der Gesetzgeber im Rahmen des Mietrechtsreformgesetzes die Befugnis des Vermieters zur einseitigen Mieterhöhung sprachlich klargestellt. Der Gesetzgeber habe mithin die einvernehmliche Regelung bei Vergleichsmietenerhöhungen durch die Formulierung des § 558 BGB unter voller Beachtung der Schutzwürdigkeit des Vermieters befördern wollen, während er eine solche Vorgehensweise bei Mieterhöhungen nach § 559 BGB nicht für angebracht erachtet habe. (BGH 2007a, paragraph 8) In the above example, the two instances of the noun phrase des Vermieters are in a relation of non-directional coreference. The present study assumed that the two noun phrases do not refer to a specific landlord, but instead to the class of landlords as a whole, and that they thus have generic reference. As has been mentioned above, some of the non-directional noun phrases with definite articles did not have generic, but specific reference. In the Bundesgerichtshof decisions, the non-directional noun phrases with definite articles and specific reference were mostly noun phrases which referred to concrete dates. Example (28) serves as an illustration. (28) Die fristlose Kündigung vom 21. August 2003 sei jedoch unwirksam, da die Rückstände nicht erheblich genug gewesen seien, um eine fristlose Kündigung nach § 543 Abs. 2 Nr. 3 a oder 3 b BGB zu begründen. […] Die erforderliche Abmahnung sei durch das Schreiben vom 21. August 2003 erfolgt. (BGH 2007b, paragraph 3) In this example, non-directional coreference is established between the two instances of vom 21. August 2003. The definite article dem has here been contracted with the preposition von. In the Bundesgerichtshof decisions, non-directional noun phrases with the definite article and specific reference were more frequent than in the House of Lords decisions. This seemed to be partly due to a languagespecific difference between English and German. As has been mentioned in section 3.5.1, there are several types of noun phrases which contain the

Results and discussion

223

zero article in English, but the definite article in German (cf. Kunz 2010: 125-127, 131-135). For instance, noun phrases which refer to specific dates usually contain a zero article in English (cf. Biber et al. 1999: 262), but a definite article in German (cf. Kunz 2010: 125). In the corpus of the present study it was found that concrete dates occurred without a determiner in the House of Lords decisions, while they usually included a definite article in the Bundesgerichtshof decisions. This can be illustrated by the following chain elements: 25 May 2005 and vom 25. März 2003 (cf. HL 2008, paragraph 84 and BGH 2007a, paragraph 10). In the noun phrase vom 25. März 2003 the definite article dem has been contracted with the preposition von. The difference in the use of determiners in concrete dates can be assumed to be due to language-specific differences since, as has been explained above, concrete dates in German usually include the definite article while in written British English they usually do not include a determiner (cf. Biber et al. 1999: 262; Kunz 2010: 125). As has been shown in Table 7.19 above, in both sub-corpora nondirectional coreference was also established by the use of noun phrases with indefinite articles. The following two examples illustrate this. (29) The word “locality” would not normally convey, as a matter of ordinary English, an area as large as a city, but it is such an imprecise word that I do not think it could be said that the attribution of such a meaning is excluded as a matter of ordinary language. […] Accordingly, at least as at present advised, it seems to me that it cannot have been envisaged that, at least in a city or town, a neighbourhood would normally be very large or sprawling. (HL 2008, paragraphs 74-76) (30) Soweit der Kläger unmittelbar nach dem Kündigungsschreiben vom 21. August 2003 angeblich mit dem Center-Manager T. in Kontakt getreten sei und diesem die Leistung einer Bankbürgschaft angeboten habe, fehle es an einem ausreichenden Angebot im Sinne von § 295 BGB. Denn der Kläger sei zur unmittelbaren Übergabe einer

224

Chapter 7 Bankbürgschaft in diesem Moment nicht in der Lage gewesen. (BGH 2007b, paragraph 7)

In examples (29) and (30), the non-directional noun phrases have nonspecific reference. In example (29), the two instances of a city do not refer to a specific city, but to a non-specific city. Similarly, in example (30), the two instances of the noun phrase einer Bankbürgschaft refer to a nonspecific bank guarantee. As Table 7.19 has shown, non-directional noun phrases with the zero article occurred with a frequency of 44.0% in the House of Lords decisions and with a frequency of 30.6% in the Bundesgerichtshof decisions. Among these noun phrases were both noun phrases with count nouns as their heads and ones with non-count nouns as their heads. The following example illustrates the use of non-directional noun phrases with the zero article in a House of Lords decision. (31) Much had to be left to the assessment and opinion of the particular rent officer carrying out the exercise, but consistency and predictability were obviously desirable. […] The notion that the identification involves less subjectivity than the rent officers in these two redeterminations seem to have assumed is consistent with the need for consistency and certainty. (HL 2008, paragraphs 52-59) In example (31), non-directional coreference is established between the two instances of the noun phrase consistency which has the non-count noun consistency as its head. As has been explained in section 2.2, the present study assumes that noun phrases with a zero article and with a non-count noun as their head can have generic reference (cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 275, 282, 286f.; Biber et al. 1999: 265; Lyons 1999: 180f.). Thus, the two instances of the noun phrase consistency were interpreted as having generic reference. The next example is taken from a Bundesgerichtshof decision and illustrates how non-directional coreference was established by noun phrases with the zero article and a count noun as their head.

Results and discussion

225

(32) Der Mieter wird durch die in § 13 Nr. 2 des Mietvertrags enthaltene Rückgabeklausel – wie im Falle der vorgenannten Endrenovierungsklausel (oben a) – in einem übermäßigen, gemäß § 307 BGB unzulässigen Umfang mit Renovierungsverpflichtungen belastet, weil ihm unabhängig von der Dauer des Mietverhältnisses und vom Zeitpunkt der letzten Schönheitsreparaturen die Beseitigung aller in der Wohnung vorhandenen Tapeten auferlegt wird. […] Entgegen der Auffassung der Revision ist es ohne Bedeutung, dass die Klausel den Mieter nur zur Entfernung, nicht dagegen zur Wiederanbringung von Tapeten verpflichtet. Denn dem Mieter wird auch hierdurch ein Übermaß an Renovierungspflichten auferlegt, wenn es in Anbetracht des Erhaltungszustandes der Tapeten einer Entfernung noch nicht bedarf. (BGH 2006, paragraph 13) In example (32), we find non-directional coreference between the noun phrases Renovierungsverpflichtungen and Renovierungspflichten. Interestingly, this is one of the few cases in which non-directional coreference was not established by a simple or partial repetition (cf. also section 7.3.3.1 above). Since the two noun phrases Renovierungsverpflichtungen and Renovierungspflichten do not share the same head, but are very similar in meaning, the noun phrase Renovierungspflichten was interpreted as a ‘synonymous noun phrase’ in the present study.

7.5 Functions of the coreference chain elements 7.5.1 Functions of the anaphoric chain elements The next step in the analysis was to analyze the frequencies of the functions of the coreference chain elements. As has been shown in section 3.4, anaphoric and non-directional chain elements can fulfil the same functions, while cataphoric chain elements fulfil different functions. For an overview of the functions of anaphoric and non-directional chain elements, Table 6.7 from section 6.2.5 is repeated here as Table 7.20.

226

Chapter 7

Level 3

Stylistic variation / Evaluation / Emphasis

Level 2

Reduction / Clarity of reference / Specification

Level 1

Creation of coreference

Table 7.20: Functions of anaphoric and non-directional chain elements As has been explained in section 3.4.1.1, the most basic function of anaphoric and non-directional chain elements is ‘creation of coreference’. This function is fulfilled by all anaphoric and non-directional chain elements, which means that it is an obligatory function. The function ‘creation of coreference’ can be combined with one of the level 2 functions and, in addition, with one or more of the level 3 functions. Table 7.21 on the next page shows the frequencies of the functions of anaphoric chain elements in the court decisions. It should be noted that the row in Table 7.21 which is labelled as ‘only creation of coreference’ contains the frequencies of anaphoric chain elements which established coreference but did not fulfil any further function. The label ‘establishing coreference + reduction’ in Table 7.21 refers to those chain elements which established coreference and fulfilled the reduction function, but did not have any further function. The row which is labelled ‘sum of reduction’ contains the frequencies of all chain elements which fulfilled the reduction function, irrespective of whether the reduction function was combined with other functions or not. In the same way, the frequencies in the rows labelled ‘sum of clarity of reference’ and ‘sum of specification’ were calculated.

227

Results and discussion Functions of the anaphoric chain elements Function

House of Lords decisions

Bundesgerichtshof decisions

Only creation of coreference

10.3%

(242)

3.0%

(37)

Creation of coreference + reduction

26.8%

(629)

20.7%

(257)

Creation of coreference + reduction + stylistic variation

13.7%

(320)

12.6%

(156)

Creation of coreference + reduction + evaluation

0.1%

(3)

0.0%

(0)

Creation of coreference + reduction + emphasis

0.0%

(0)

0.0%

(0)

Sum of reduction

40.6%

(952)

33.3%

(413)

Creation of coreference + clarity of reference

31.7%

(743)

45.2%

(562)

Creation of coreference + clarity of reference + stylistic variation

1.2%

(28)

1.9%

(23)

Creation of coreference + clarity of reference + evaluation

0.0%

(0)

0.0%

(0)

Creation of coreference + clarity of reference + emphasis

0.0%

(0)

0.0%

(0)

32.9%

(771)

47.1%

(585)

Creation of coreference + specification

8.4%

(197)

8.8%

(109)

Creation of coreference + specification + stylistic variation

7.7%

(180)

7.9%

(98)

Creation of coreference + specification + evaluation

0.0%

(1)

0.0%

(0)

Creation of coreference + specification + emphasis

0.0%

(0)

0.0%

(0)

Sum of specification

16.1%

(378)

16.7%

(207)

Overall sum

99.9% (2343)

Sum of clarity of reference

100.1% (1242)

Table 7.21: Functions of the anaphoric chain elements in the court decisions Table 7.21 shows that in the House of Lords decisions, the most frequent level 2 function of anaphoric chain elements was the reduction function

228

Chapter 7

(40.6%), followed by the clarity of reference function (32.9%). By contrast, in the Bundesgerichtshof decisions the most frequent level 2 function was clarity of reference (47.1%) and the second most frequent level 2 function was reduction (33.3%). The hypothesis that the clarity of reference function would be the most frequent level 2 function of the anaphoric chain elements (cf. section 6.2.5 above) was thus only confirmed for the Bundesgerichtshof decisions, but not for the House of Lords decisions. The higher frequency of the clarity of reference function in the Bundesgerichtshof decisions indicates that when establishing anaphoric coreference, the authors of the Bundesgerichtshof decisions paid more attention to avoiding ambiguity and creating clarity of reference than the authors of the House of Lords decisions. This finding is related to the use of personal pronouns as anaphoric chain elements: as has been shown in section 7.4.1.1 above, in the House of Lords decisions the main anaphoric device ‘personal pronoun’ occurred with a frequency of 18.4%, compared with a lower frequency of 6.7% in the Bundesgerichtshof decisions. Since anaphoric chain elements which are personal pronouns fulfil the reduction function, the higher number of anaphoric personal pronouns in the House of Lords decisions contributed to the higher frequency of the reduction function in these decisions. Table 7.21 above has furthermore shown that the frequencies of the specification function were very similar in the English and the German texts (16.1% and 16.7%). The specification function was accomplished by the use of the devices ‘partial repetition’, ‘hyponymous noun phrase’, ‘return to full noun phrase after pronoun’ and ‘return to full noun phrase after possessive determiner’. Here is an example of a partial repetition which fulfils the specification function. (33) Die Eltern der Beklagten, die Beklagten zu 2 und zu 3, halten sich über weite Teile des Jahres ebenfalls in der Wohnung auf; zumindest ein Schlaf- und ein Badezimmer der knapp 180 Quadratmeter

Results and discussion

229

großen Wohnung stehen ihnen weitgehend zur alleinigen Nutzung zur Verfügung. (BGH 2008, paragraph 2) In the above example, the two noun phrases der Wohnung and der knapp 180 Quadratmeter großen Wohnung are elements of the same coreference chain. The noun phrase der knapp 180 Quadratmeter großen Wohnung is a partial repetition since it has the same head as the previous chain element, but differs from the previous chain element in its premodification. Furthermore, the chain element der knapp 180 Quadratmeter großen Wohnung fulfils the specification function because it provides more information about its referent than the previous chain element, which is der Wohnung. Table 7.21 above has also shown that coreference chain elements which only fulfilled the function ‘creation of coreference’ and no further function were more frequent in the House of Lords decisions (10.3%) than in the Bundesgerichtshof decisions (3.0%). It was found that all anaphoric chain elements which only fulfilled the function ‘creation of coreference’ were pronouns or possessive determiners. As has been noted in section 7.4.1.1, the House of Lords decisions contained more anaphoric pronouns and anaphoric possessive determiners as chain elements than the Bundesgerichtshof decisions. Since anaphoric pronouns and possessive determiners often only fulfilled the creation of coreference function, this explains why chain elements which only had the function of creating coreference were more frequent in House of Lords decisions than in the Bundesgerichtshof decisions. An example of a chain element which only has the function ‘creation of coreference’ is shown below. (34) On 25 September 2000 the respondents notified the judicial office that they did not intend to take any part in Mr Collins’ appeal to the House […]. (HL 2001, paragraph 60) In the above example, coreference is created between the respondents and they. Replacing the pronoun they with another coreferential device, such

230

Chapter 7

as a simple repetition, leads to a clause complex which does not seem fully acceptable. Example (35) illustrates this. (35) On 25 September 2000 the respondents notified the judicial office that the respondents did not intend to take any part in Mr Collins’ appeal to the House […]. The Bundesgerichtshof decisions also contained coreference chain elements which only fulfilled the creation of coreference function. Here is an example. (36) Zum Teil wird in der unterbliebenen Einfügung des neu geschaffenen § 565 Abs. 1 a BGB a.F. in den bestehenden Absatz 5 ein Redaktionsversehen des Gesetzgebers gesehen. Die Vertreter dieser Ansicht wollen die nach ihrer Meinung entstandene Gesetzeslücke im Wege der ergänzenden Gesetzesauslegung durch Anwendung des Absatzes 1 a auch auf Sonderkündigungsrechte von Geschäftsraummiete schließen (vgl. OLG Düsseldorf aaO, 817 m.w.N.). (BGH 2002, paragraph 12) In this example, replacing the possessive determiner ihrer with a different coreferential device leads to a clause which does not seem entirely acceptable. The following example serves as an illustration. (37) Zum Teil wird in der unterbliebenen Einfügung des neu geschaffenen § 565 Abs. 1 a BGB a.F. in den bestehenden Absatz 5 ein Redaktionsversehen des Gesetzgebers gesehen. Die Vertreter dieser Ansicht wollen die nach der Meinung der Vertreter dieser Ansicht entstandene Gesetzeslücke im Wege der ergänzenden Gesetzesauslegung durch Anwendung des Absatzes 1 a auch auf Sonderkündigungsrechte von Geschäftsraummiete schließen (vgl. OLG Düsseldorf aaO, 817 m.w.N.). The level 3 function ‘evaluation’ occurred four times in the House of Lords decisions. In the Bundesgerichtshof decisions it did not occur at all (cf. Table 7.21 above). As has been explained in section 3.4.1.3, chain

Results and discussion

231

elements with the evaluation function usually express the personal opinion of the text producer. Since decisions of the Bundesgerichtshof tend to be written in an impersonal style (cf. section 4.2.2 above), it did not seem surprising that there were no chain elements with the evaluation function in the Bundesgerichtshof decisions. By contrast, House of Lords decisions are usually written in a personal style. The number of three occurrences of the evaluation function in the House of Lords decisions thus seemed relatively low; a greater number of chain elements with the evaluation function might have been expected in the House of Lords decisions. Here is an example of a chain element which fulfilled the evaluation function. (38) Much more significantly, Mr Spedding made a detailed witness statement, in which he sought to justify his choice of the Sheffield area as the “locality”. Having “considered the nature and characteristics of the area”, he said that he had concluded that “Sheffield and its rural hinterland [i.e. the Sheffield area]10 formed the suitable locality for the purposes of the LRR re-determination”. […] He then said this (with sentence numbering added): “(i) Likewise, I did not consider it correct in my professional judgment merely to include neighbourhoods immediately adjoining Sheffield Central in order to include an area which would afford the variety of property types and tenures that para 4(6) (c) […] required. (ii) […]” […] [T]he two rent officers simply took the Sheffield area as the locality, effectively for the reasons given by Mr Spedding (or so I assume in the case of Mr Shaw). The rather ambiguous sentence (i) in the quoted passage suggests to me that Mr Spedding did not regard sat10

This insertion was added by the author of the court decision, not by the author of the present study. The other insertions in square brackets were added by the author of the present study.

232

Chapter 7 isfying sub-para (c) as the end, or limit, of his quest for the locality. (HL 2008, paragraphs 49-78)

In this example, the first coreference chain element to be discussed is the clause complex which is marked by broken underlining. This clause complex is part of a detailed witness statement by a rent officer, Mr Spedding. The second coreference chain element is the noun phrase The rather ambiguous sentence (i) in the quoted passage. This noun phrase refers anaphorically to the first chain element. Due to the adjective phrase rather ambiguous, the second chain element in example (38) expresses an evaluation of the judge who wrote the text. The judge evaluates the first orthographic sentence of the statement by Mr Spedding. The level 3 function ‘emphasis’ was not found in any of the court decisions (cf. Table 7.21 above). In section 3.4.1.3 it has been explained that the emphasis function is usually used as a rhetorical device in order to surprise or impress the text-receiver (cf. Leech 1983: 68). As has been mentioned in section 4.2.2, Lashöfer (1992: 97) found that rhetorical devices are used infrequently in Bundesgerichtshof decisions. As a consequence, it does not seem surprising that the emphasis function did not occur in the Bundesgerichtshof decisions. By contrast, previous studies have found that House of Lords decisions sometimes contain rhetorical devices, such as metaphors or irony (cf. Lashöfer 1992: 22, 25 and cf. section 4.2.2 above). However, in the present study the rhetorical device of the emphasis function was not found in the House of Lords decisions. 7.5.2 Functions of the cataphoric chain elements In addition to analyzing the functions of the anaphoric and nondirectional chain elements, the present study also examined the functions of the cataphoric chain elements. In order to provide an overview of the functions that cataphoric chain elements can fulfil, Table 6.8 from section 6.2.5 is repeated as Table 7.22.

233

Results and discussion Level 2

Textual organization / Creation of suspense

Level 1

Creation of coreference

Table 7.22: Functions of cataphoric chain elements As the above table shows, the cataphoric function ‘creation of coreference’ can be combined with one of the level 2 functions ‘textual organization’ and ‘creation of suspense’. The frequencies of the cataphoric functions and combinations of functions are shown in the table below. Functions of the cataphoric chain elements Function

House of Lords decisions

Bundesgerichtshof decisions

Only creation of coreference

28.6%

(8)

40.0%

(2)

Creation of coreference + textual organization

71.4%

(20)

60.0%

(3)

0.0%

(0)

0.0%

(0)

100.0%

(28)

100.0%

(5)

Creation of coreference + creation of suspense Sum

Table 7.23: Functions of the cataphoric chain elements in the court decisions The above table shows that both in the English and in the German texts, the most frequent combination of the functions of cataphoric items was ‘creation of coreference + textual organization’. The second most frequent group of cataphoric chain elements contained elements which had only the function of creating coreference. The function ‘creation of suspense’ did not occur at all in the court decisions. The reason for this seemed to be that the function ‘creation of suspense’ is most likely to be found in literary texts or newspaper articles (cf. Brinker 2010: 32f. and cf. section 3.4.2.2 above). To illustrate this, example (103) from section 3.4.2.2 is repeated below as example (39). The example is taken from the beginning of a novel and is provided by Brinker (2010: 32).

234

Chapter 7

(39) Warum hat sie kein Anderer gefunden? Warum gerade ich, der ihren Wert weiß, der sich von diesen Dingen so weit entfernt hat? Ich konnte nicht ahnen, was die Kapsel enthielt. (Bender 1953: 5) In the above example, the personal pronouns sie and the possessive determiner ihren both refer cataphorically to the noun phrase die Kapsel. Since the example occurs at the very beginning of a novel, the text receiver cannot identify the referent of sie and ihren until he or she reads or hears the third clause complex of example (39). Therefore, the cataphoric chain elements sie and ihren are likely to create a feeling of suspense for the text receiver. As Table 7.23 above has shown, a small number of coreference chain elements of the court decisions fulfilled only the function ‘creation of coreference’. Here is an example. (40) The Court of Appeal (Butler-Sloss L.J. 11 and Sir John Vinelott) reached the opposite conclusion, and made a declaration that Miss Burton was the sole tenant. The council has now appealed to your Lordships’ House against that decision. 9. In order to succeed in her objective Miss Burton must surmount two hurdles. (HL 2000, paragraphs 8f.) The cataphoric possessive determiner her in example (40) refers forwards to the noun phrase Miss Burton. Replacing the possessive determiner with a different coreferential device leads to a clause complex which does not seem fully acceptable. This is shown in the example below. (41) In order to succeed in Miss Burton’s objective, Miss Burton must surmount two hurdles. Since it does not seem possible to replace the possessive determiner her in example (40) with a different coreferential device, it was assumed that

11

The abbreviation L.J. stands for Lord Justice (cf. section 7.3.1.1 above).

Results and discussion

235

the possessive determiner only fulfilled the function ‘creation of coreference’. A similar example from a Bundesgerichtshof decision is given next. (42) 2 In der Zeit vom 6. November 2000 bis 31. März 2003 hatten die Klägerinnen von der Beklagten eine Wohnung in dem Anwesen F.straße in Sch. gemietet. Über die Erhaltung der Mieträume enthält der Mietvertrag in § 8 Nr. 2 folgende vorgedruckte Klausel: […] 4 Bei ihrem Einzug hatten die Klägerinnen die Wohnung in tapeziertem Zustand von der Vormieterin übernommen. (BGH 2006, paragraphs 2-4) In this example, coreference is established between the two instances of die Klägerinnen and the possessive determiner ihrem. The possessive determiner refers cataphorically to the second instance of die Klägerinnen. Replacing the possessive determiner ihrem in example (42) with a different coreferential device would lead to a clause such as the one in example (43) below. (43) Bei Einzug der Klägerinnen hatten die Klägerinnen die Wohnung in tapeziertem Zustand von der Vormieterin übernommen. In example (43), the possessive determiner has been replaced with the simple repetition der Klägerinnen. Example (43) does not seem entirely acceptable. It therefore does not seem possible to replace the possessive determiner ihrem in example (42) above with a different coreferential device. As a consequence, it can be assumed that ihrem has only the function of creating coreference and no further function. As has been mentioned above, the most frequent combination of functions of all cataphoric chain elements was ‘creation of coreference + textual organization’. Examples of cataphoric chain elements which fulfilled this combination of functions have already been provided in section 7.3.2. Here is a further example.

236

Chapter 7

(44) In my opinion, therefore, the events to which section 88(1) refers are events in relation to tenancies which have become secure tenancies and not to events which happened earlier. In support of this construction, I would rely on three indications. First, the general presumption against retrospectivity. One does not expect rights conferred by the statute to be destroyed by events which took place before it was passed. Secondly, the word “successor” most naturally means successor to a secure tenancy. […] Thirdly, as I have said, there is the absence of any rational purpose in giving the definitions a retrospective effect. […] (HL 2007, paragraph 11) In the above example, the cataphoric noun phrase refers forwards to a sequence of several clause complexes. The noun phrase three indications informs the reader about what will come next in the text and thus fulfils the function of textual organization. 7.5.3 Functions of the non-directional chain elements The present study also examined the functions of the chain elements which established non-directional coreference. Table 7.24 on the next page presents the results.

237

Results and discussion Functions of the non-directional chain elements Function

House of Lords decisions

Bundesgerichtshof decisions

Only creation of coreference

0.6%

(3)

0.0%

(0)

Creation of coreference + reduction

2.2%

(12)

2.7%

(5)

Creation of coreference + reduction + stylistic variation

1.3%

(7)

0.0%

(0)

Creation of coreference + reduction + evaluation

0.0%

(0)

0.0%

(0)

Creation of coreference + reduction + emphasis

0.0%

(0)

0.0%

(0)

Sum of reduction

3.5%

(19)

2.7%

(5)

Creation of coreference + clarity of reference

81.5%

(444)

87.4%

(160)

Creation of coreference + clarity of reference + stylistic variation

1.3%

(7)

2.2%

(4)

Creation of coreference + clarity of reference + evaluation

0.0%

(0)

0.0%

(0)

Creation of coreference + clarity of reference + emphasis

0.0%

(0)

0.0%

(0)

82.8%

(451)

89.6%

(164)

Creation of coreference + specification

4.8%

(26)

3.8%

(7)

Creation of coreference + specification + stylistic variation

8.4%

(46)

3.8%

(7)

Creation of coreference + specification + evaluation

0.0%

(0)

0.0%

(0)

Creation of coreference + specification + emphasis

0.0%

(0)

0.0%

(0)

13.2%

(72)

7.6%

(14)

100.1%

(545)

99.9%

(183)

Sum of clarity of reference

Sum of specification Overall sum

Table 7.24: Functions of the non-directional chain elements in the court decisions

238

Chapter 7

Table 7.24 above shows that in both sub-corpora the clearly most frequent level 2 function of the non-directional coreference chain elements was ‘clarity of reference’. The hypothesis that ‘clarity of reference’ would be the most frequent level 2 function of the non-directional chain elements (cf. section 6.2.5 above) was thus confirmed. As has been explained in section 7.4.3.1, the majority of all non-directional chain elements in the two sub-corpora were ‘simple repetitions’. Since simple repetitions always have the clarity of reference function, the high frequency of simple repetitions led to the high frequency of the clarity of reference function in the court decisions. The following example illustrates the use of a non-directional chain element which is a simple repetition and has the clarity of reference function. (45) The room contained a bed and had a separate lavatory and a shower and wash basin. Breakfast was available in the restaurant and was included in the rent. 24. Mr Collins has changed rooms three times, first to Room 501, paying the same rent, and later to Room 403, which he was still occupying when the Court of Appeal gave judgment. He has since moved again. Breakfast ceased to be provided when the restaurant closed in 1988. (HL 2001, paragraphs 23f.; repeated from section 6.2.2) In example (45), the two instances of Breakfast are in a relation of nondirectional coreference. The second instance of Breakfast is a simple repetition since it is a full noun phrase which repeats the previous element of the same coreference chain. Therefore, it matches the present study’s definition of a simple repetition, i.e. a full noun phrase which repeats the previous element of the same coreference chain without further alterations than a change of the determiner or of the inflectional form (cf. section 3.1.1.3 above). Since the second instance of Breakfast in example (45) provides the same amount of information about its referent as the previous chain element, it has the clarity of reference function. In addi-

Results and discussion

239

tion, the second instance of Breakfast also fulfils the basic function of creating coreference. The level 2 functions ‘reduction’ and ‘specification’ occurred clearly less frequently among the non-directional chain elements than the level 2 function ‘clarity of reference’ (cf. Table 7.24 above). An example of a non-directional chain element which has the specification function is shown below. (46) Denn die Klägerin habe erst durch das Mieterhöhungsverlangen vom 25. Mai 2004 das in der Zahlung einer um 24,77 € erhöhten Miete liegende Angebot der Beklagten auf Erhöhung der Grundmiete um diesen Betrag angenommen; dadurch sei eine übereinstimmende Änderung der Miethöhe im Sinne von § 557 Abs. 1 BGB eingetreten. […] Ohne Erfolg wendet sich die Revision allerdings gegen die Annahme des Berufungsgerichts, die Parteien hätten eine Mieterhöhung um 24,77 € durch schlüssiges Verhalten vertraglich vereinbart. (BGH 2007a, paragraphs 7-11) In example (46), the following three noun phrases are part of the same coreference chain: 24,77 € (first instance), diesen Betrag and 24,77 € (second instance). The present discussion will focus on the third chain element, i.e. the second instance of 24,77 €. As has been explained in section 2.4, the present study assumes that noun phrases which refer to specific dates, lengths, weights or amounts of money and do not refer forwards or backwards establish non-directional coreference. Therefore, the second instance of 24,77 € in example (46) establishes non-directional coreference. By contrast, the chain element diesen Betrag establishes anaphoric coreference since it refers backwards to the previous chain element. The second instance of 24,77 € in example (46) above is a full noun phrase which provides more information about its referent than the previ-

240

Chapter 7

ous chain element (diesen Betrag). Therefore, the second instance of 24,77 € fulfils the specification function. In addition, it has the functions ‘creation of coreference’ and ‘stylistic variation’. The level 3 functions ‘evaluation’ and ‘emphasis’ were not found at all among the non-directional coreference chain elements. The level 3 function ‘stylistic variation’ occurred with a frequency of 11.0% in the House of Lords decisions and a frequency of 6.0% in the Bundesgerichtshof decisions. 12 Example (46) above has already included a non-directional chain element which created stylistic variation. Here is a further example. (47) Der Mieter wird durch die in § 13 Nr. 2 des Mietvertrags enthaltene Rückgabeklausel – wie im Falle der vorgenannten Endrenovierungsklausel (oben a) – in einem übermäßigen, gemäß § 307 BGB unzulässigen Umfang mit Renovierungsverpflichtungen belastet, weil ihm unabhängig von der Dauer des Mietverhältnisses und vom Zeitpunkt der letzten Schönheitsreparaturen die Beseitigung aller in der Wohnung vorhandenen Tapeten auferlegt wird. […] Entgegen der Auffassung der Revision ist es ohne Bedeutung, dass die Klausel den Mieter nur zur Entfernung, nicht dagegen zur Wiederanbringung von Tapeten verpflichtet. Denn dem Mieter wird auch hierdurch ein Übermaß an Renovierungspflichten auferlegt, wenn es in Anbetracht des Erhaltungszustandes der Tapeten einer Entfernung noch nicht bedarf. (BGH 2006, paragraph 13; repeated from section 7.4.3.2) In the above example, the two noun phrases Renovierungsverpflichtungen and Renovierungspflichten are in a relation of non-directional coreference. The chain element Renovierungspflichten is a full noun phrase and does not have the same noun phrase head as the previous noun phrase which 12

The frequencies of the function ‘stylistic variation’ in the two sub-corpora were calculated by adding the frequencies provided in the following rows of Table 7.24 above: ‘creation of coreference + reduction + stylistic variation’, ‘creation of coreference + clarity of reference + stylistic variation’ and ‘creation of coreference + specification + stylistic variation’.

Results and discussion

241

belongs to the same coreference chain. Therefore, Renovierungspflichten fulfils the stylistic variation function. In addition, the chain element also has the functions ‘creation of coreference’ and ‘clarity of reference’.

7.6 Factors influencing the choice of coreferential devices 7.6.1 Language-specific features As has been explained in section 3.5.1, the choice of coreferential devices in a text can be influenced by language-specific features. In section 3.5.1, it was shown that in German the demonstrative pronouns der/die (singular), die (plural), dieser/dieser (singular) and diese (plural) can be used as anaphoric coreference chain elements which refer to human referents or to non-human referents. By contrast, the English singular demonstrative pronouns this and that cannot be used as anaphoric coreference chain elements which refer to human referents, but only as anaphoric chain elements which refer to non-human referents (cf. Halliday/Hasan 1976: 63; Kunz/Steiner 2010: 234f.). The two examples below illustrate that singular anaphoric demonstrative pronouns can have a human referent in German, but not in English. The two examples are repeated from section 3.5.1. (48) Paul wollte mit Peter laufen gehen. Aber der war erkältet. (Bosch et al. 2007: 146) (49) Paul wanted to go jogging with Peter. But Peter had caught a cold. (Kunz 2010: 141) In example (48), the anaphoric demonstrative pronoun der establishes coreference with the noun phrase Peter. The demonstrative pronoun der thus refers to a human referent. In example (49), it does not seem possible to use a demonstrative pronoun to refer back to Peter. Instead, a different coreferential device, such as a simple repetition, must be used to establish coreference. Examples (48) and (49) demonstrate that there is a greater

242

Chapter 7

flexibility in the use of anaphoric demonstrative pronouns in German than there is in English. Due to this difference between the use of anaphoric demonstrative pronouns in English and German, it was assumed that the Bundesgerichtshof decisions would contain more anaphoric demonstrative pronouns as coreferential devices than the House of Lords decisions. Table 7.14 in section 7.4.1.1 has shown that in the House of Lords decisions the relative frequency of anaphoric demonstrative pronouns was 2.4%, while it was 3.0% in the Bundesgerichtshof decisions. The Bundesgerichtshof decisions thus contained more demonstrative pronouns; however, the difference between the frequencies was very small. In order to find out whether language-specific features influenced the frequencies of anaphoric demonstrative pronouns in the two sub-corpora, the anaphoric demonstrative pronouns were analyzed in more detail. It was found that in three cases, the Bundesgerichtshof decisions contained anaphoric demonstrative pronouns which could not be used if the clause or clause complex was translated into English. The following example serves as an illustration. (50) Jedenfalls habe der Kläger kein Verhalten der Beklagten dargelegt, aus dem er hätte schließen können, diese werde ihr Kündigungsrecht auch künftig nicht ausüben. (BGH 2007b, paragraph 10) In this example, the demonstrative pronoun diese refers back to der Beklagten. Example (51) below shows that diese in example (50) could not be translated into English as a demonstrative pronoun. An asterisk is used to mark an option which is ungrammatical. (51) In any case, the appellant had not referred to a behaviour of the respondent from which he could have concluded that the respondent/she/*this would continue to not exercise her right of termination in the future.

Results and discussion

243

Example (51) shows that in an English translation of example (50) it is possible to use, for example, the simple repetition the respondent or the personal pronoun she in order to refer back to the noun phrase the respondent. However, it is not possible to use a demonstrative pronoun, such as this, to refer back to the respondent. As has been mentioned above, the Bundesgerichtshof decisions contained three cases of anaphoric demonstrative pronouns which could not be translated as demonstrative pronouns in an English version of the clause or clause complex. In all three cases, the referent of the demonstrative pronoun was a person. Furthermore, as has been stated above, the relative frequency of anaphoric demonstrative pronouns in the Bundesgerichtshof decisions was slightly higher than the one in the House of Lords decisions. These findings seemed to indicate that the difference between the use of anaphoric demonstrative pronouns in English and in German may have had a small influence on the use of anaphoric demonstrative pronouns in the court decisions: the higher flexibility in the use of anaphoric demonstrative pronouns in German may have contributed to the slightly higher frequency of such pronouns in the German texts. However, since there were only three cases in which anaphoric demonstrative pronouns in the German texts could not be translated as demonstrative pronouns into English, the difference between the use of anaphoric demonstrative pronouns in English and in German did not have a strong influence on the choice of coreferential devices in the court decisions. In sections 3.5.1 and 7.4.3.2, it has been explained that in some cases German uses the definite article while English uses the zero article. The present study assumed that this difference between the two languages might influence the use of the definite article and the zero article as supplementing devices for coreference. As has been mentioned in section 3.5.1, Kunz (2010: 303) found that in her German sub-corpus there were more coreference chain elements with a definite article than in her English sub-corpus. She assumed that this was partly due to differences between the use of the definite article

244

Chapter 7

and the zero article in the two languages (cf. Kunz 2010: 303). In the present study, it was found that the anaphoric and the non-directional chain elements in the Bundesgerichtshof decisions contained more definite articles than the anaphoric and non-directional chain elements in the House of Lords decisions (cf. sections 7.4.1.2 and 7.4.3.2 above). A close analysis of the anaphoric chain elements revealed that the higher frequency of definite articles in anaphoric noun phrases in the Bundesgerichtshof decisions seemed to be mainly due to the way in which the judges referred to the appellants and respondents (cf. section 7.4.1.2 above). In the Bundesgerichtshof decisions the appellant and the respondent were referred to as der Kläger/die Klägerin/die Klägerinnen and der Beklagte/die Beklagte/die Beklagten. Thus, in the Bundesgerichtshof decisions the full noun phrases referring to the appellants or respondents contained a definite article. By contrast, in the House of Lords decisions, the full noun phrases referring to the appellants or respondents were mostly names and therefore these noun phrases usually did not contain a definite article. In both subcorpora, the coreference chains which referred to the appellants and respondents were relatively long; some of them contained more than 60 chain elements. Therefore, the present study assumed that the higher frequency of anaphoric noun phrases with a definite article in the Bundesgerichtshof decisions was not due to language-specific features, but mainly to the way in which the judges referred to the respondents and appellants. When the non-directional supplementing chain elements were studied in detail, it was noted that a language-specific feature influenced the frequencies of definite articles in the Bundesgerichtshof decisions and the House of Lords decisions. As has been explained in section 7.4.3.2, it was found that concrete dates occurred without a determiner in the House of Lords decisions, while they usually included a definite article in the Bundesgerichtshof decisions. In section 7.4.3.2, this was illustrated by the following chain elements: 25 May 2005, and vom 25. März 2003 (HL

Results and discussion

245

2008, paragraph 84 and BGH 2007a, paragraph 10). In the noun phrase vom 25. März 2003 the definite article dem has been contracted with the preposition von. In German, concrete dates usually include the definite article, while in written British English they usually do not include an article (cf. Biber et al. 1999: 262; Kunz 2010: 125). Thus, the present study assumed that the difference in the use of the article in concrete dates in the court decisions was due to a language-specific feature of English and German. The higher frequency of non-directional chain elements with a definite article in the German texts seemed to be partly due to the language-specific feature of German to use the definite article in most concrete dates and the language-specific feature of British English to use the zero article in most concrete dates. To sum up, the present study found that language-specific features of English and German seemed to influence the higher frequency of nondirectional noun phrases with a definite article in the German texts. Overall, the influence of language-specific features on the choice of the coreferential devices in the court decisions did not seem very strong. 7.6.2 Accessibility of the referent As has been explained in section 3.5.2, the choice of the devices for anaphoric coreference can be influenced by the accessibility of a chain element’s referent. One of the factors that have an impact on the accessibility of a chain element’s referent is the distance between the chain element and the previous element of the same coreference chain. The present study thus analyzed the distances between the anaphoric chain elements and their immediately preceding chain elements in the court decisions. A distinction was made between anaphoric full noun phrases and anaphoric pronouns since previous studies have shown that these two groups of anaphoric coreference chain elements tend to differ from each other with regard to the distances to their preceding chain elements (cf. Biber et al. 2007: 239 and Kunz 2010: 388).

246

Chapter 7

When the distances between anaphoric pronouns and their immediately preceding chain elements were analyzed, it was found that the distances between first person personal pronouns and their preceding chain elements were on average much longer than the distances between the other types of anaphoric pronouns and their preceding chain elements. The following two examples illustrate this. (52) In the meantime the statutory provisions for dealing with delay had been invoked. I must describe those provisions and the steps taken thereunder by Mr Hanoman and the Council respectively. […] The issue in this appeal is what constitutes a “payment of rent” for the purposes of section 153B, or, more particularly, whether the crediting to a tenant’s rent account of housing benefit constitutes a “payment of rent” for those purposes. I must refer to a few further relevant facts of this case before returning to that issue. (HL 2009, paragraphs 7-12) (53) Mr Collins has changed rooms three times, first to Room 501, paying the same rent, and later to Room 403, which he was still occupying when the Court of Appeal gave judgment. (HL 2001, paragraph 24) In example (52) above, coreference is established between the two instances of the first person personal pronoun I. Both instances refer to the judge who wrote the section of the court decision. The distance between the two instances of I is 711 words. In example (53), we find the use of a third person personal pronoun, he, to establish coreference. The distance between he and the previous element of the coreference chain, Mr Collins, is 19 words. It seems difficult to imagine a case in which an anaphoric third person personal pronoun would occur several hundred words after the previous element of its coreference chain. Despite the long distance between the two chain elements in example (52) above, it can be assumed that the text receiver will easily understand that both instances of the first person personal pronoun I refer to the au-

Results and discussion

247

thor of that section of the court decision. The reason for this seems to be that anaphoric first person personal pronouns are less dependent on the other elements of their coreference chain than anaphoric third person personal pronouns, demonstrative pronouns, reflexive or indefinite pronouns. Therefore, first person personal pronouns can usually be easily interpreted by the text receiver, even if the distance between the pronoun and the previous chain element is very long. As has been mentioned in section 7.4.1.1, first person personal pronouns occurred in the House of Lords decisions but not in the Bundesgerichtshof decisions. Since the distances between first person personal pronouns and their immediately preceding chain elements were on average much longer than the distances between the other types of anaphoric pronouns and their preceding elements, it seemed useful to distinguish between (i) first person personal pronouns and (ii) other types of anaphoric pronouns, i.e. third person personal pronouns, demonstrative pronouns, reflexive pronouns and indefinite pronouns. Since second person personal pronouns were not used as coreferential devices in the court decisions, they were not taken into account. By making the distinction between first person personal pronouns and the other types of pronouns, the distances of the other types of pronouns to their preceding chain elements in the House of Lords decisions could be compared to the distances of the other types of pronouns to their preceding elements in the Bundesgerichtshof decisions. The distances between the chain elements were measured in orthographic word-forms. Since the lengths of the House of Lords decisions and the Bundesgerichtshof decisions differed, the distances between the chain elements were normalized (cf. section 6.2.1 above for further information about normalization in the present study). The results are shown in the table on the next page.

248

Chapter 7

Distance Device for coreference First person personal pronouns Other types of pronouns Full noun phrases

House of Lords decisions

Bundesgerichtshof decisions

Nonnormalized average distance

Normalized average distance

Nonnormalized average distance

255.6

210.3

–

–

23.6

17.9

9.8

14.1

373.1

256.3

211.6

296.9

Normalized average distance

Table 7.25: Average distances (in orthographic words-forms) between anaphoric chain elements and their preceding chain elements in the court decisions The above table shows that in both sub-corpora, the average distance between an anaphoric full noun phrase and its preceding chain element was longer than the average distance between a pronoun and its preceding chain element. This finding is in line with the findings of previous studies by Biber et al. (1999: 239) and Kunz (2010: 388). The present study tested the hypothesis that when anaphoric pronouns were used as coreferential devices, the average distance to the previous chain element would be shorter than when anaphoric full noun phrases were used (cf. section 6.2.6 above). This hypothesis was confirmed for both sub-corpora. As has been explained in section 3.5.2, if the distance between a chain element and its preceding element is long, the referent of the chain element usually has a low accessibility. If the distance between a chain element and the preceding chain element is short, the referent of the chain element usually has a high accessibility. Table 7.25 above thus indicates that in the two sub-corpora, full noun phrases were preferred as coreferential devices if the accessibility of the referent was relatively low. Furthermore, the table shows that in the court decisions pronouns were preferred if the accessibility of the referent was relatively high. Therefore, the accessibility of the referent seemed to have influenced the choice be-

249

Results and discussion

tween anaphoric full noun phrases and anaphoric pronouns in both the House of Lords decisions and the Bundesgerichtshof decisions. In addition, Table 7.25 above illustrates that the normalized average distances between the anaphoric chain elements and their preceding elements were relatively similar in the English and the German texts. In the House of Lords decisions, the normalized average distance of full noun phrases was 256.3 orthographic word-forms. In the Bundesgerichtshof decisions, it was 296.9 orthographic word-forms. Furthermore, in the House of Lords decisions the average normalized distance of the other types of pronouns to their preceding chain elements was 17.9 orthographic word-forms, which is similar to the normalized average distance of the other types of pronouns in the Bundesgerichtshof decisions (14.1 orthographic word-forms). 7.6.3 Genre or sub-genre of the texts A further factor that might influence the choice of coreferential devices is the genre or sub-genre of a text. The present study assumed that the court decisions which were analyzed belonged to the genre of ‘legal texts’ and to a number of sub-genres. Table 7.26 below illustrates this. Genre

Legal texts Court decisions

Subgenres

British court decisions / German court decisions Decisions of the House of Lords / decisions of the Bundesgerichtshof

Table 7.26: Genre and sub-genres of the court decisions Table 7.26 shows that the House of Lords decisions were assumed to belong to the sub-genres ‘court decisions’, ‘British court decisions’ and ‘decisions of the House of Lords’. The Bundesgerichtshof decisions were considered to belong to the sub-genres ‘court decisions’, ‘British court decisions’ and ‘decisions of the Bundesgerichtshof’. While it would have

250

Chapter 7

been possible to make finer distinctions between different sub-genres, these sub-genres were considered as sufficient for the purpose of the present study. In section 7.4.1.1 it has been shown that the most frequently used main anaphoric device in both the House of Lords decisions and the Bundesgerichtshof decisions was ‘simple repetition’. In addition, ‘simple repetition’ was also the most frequently used main device to establish non-directional coreference in the two sub-corpora (cf. section 7.4.3.1 above). These findings seemed to be due, at least partly, to the fact that the texts of the corpus of the present study belong to the genre of ‘legal texts’. Previous studies have mentioned that legal texts usually include a high number of simple repetitions as coreferential devices (cf. e.g. Crystal/Davy 1969: 201f.; Quirk et al. 1985: 1441 and cf. section 3.5.3 above). This is due to the communicative purpose of legal texts, which usually aim to provide information in a precise and unambiguous way. Furthermore, when the functions of the coreference chain elements in the court decisions were studied, it was found that the function ‘creation of suspense’ did not occur in any of the texts (cf. section 7.5.2 above). This seemed to be due to the genre of the texts: the function ‘creation of suspense’ is most likely to occur in literary texts or newspaper articles, but not in legal texts (cf. Brinker 2010: 32f. and cf. section 7.5.2 above). Having discussed the influences of the genre ‘legal texts’, we will now turn to the influences of the sub-genres ‘decisions of the House of Lords’ and ‘decisions of the Bundesgerichtshof’. As has been mentioned, for example, in section 4.2.2, House of Lords decisions are characterized by a personal style of writing. Decisions of the Bundesgerichtshof, by contrast, tend to be written in an impersonal style (cf. Kötz 1973: 19; Lashöfer 1992: 86; Kischel 2008: 13). In the corpus of the present study, it was found that the House of Lords decisions included first person personal pronouns as coreferential devices, while the Bundesgerichtshof decisions did not include any first person personal pronouns (cf. section 7.4.1.1 above). Furthermore, it was noted that some of the House of

Results and discussion

251

Lords decisions contained coreference chain elements which included a comment of the judge who wrote the text (cf. section 7.5.1 above). These findings seemed to be related to the personal style of House of Lords decisions and the less personal style of the Bundesgerichtshof decision. The findings thus can be considered as related to characteristic features of the sub-genres ‘decisions of the House of Lords’ and ‘decisions of the Bundesgerichtshof’. In addition, the present study found that in the House of Lords decisions coreference chain elements which referred to the respondents or appellants of the cases were usually personal names, such as Mr Hanoman. By contrast, in the Bundesgerichtshof decisions the chain elements referring to the respondents or appellants were noun phrases headed by common nouns, such as die Klägerin or der Beklagte (cf. sections 7.1 and 7.4.1.2 above). This also seemed to be connected with the personal style of House of Lords decisions and the less personal style of Bundesgerichtshof decisions. As has been explained in section 5.1, the United Kingdom is based on the common law tradition which considers court decisions as a highly important source of law (cf. Merryman/Pérez-Perdomo 2007: 34; Glendon et al. 2008: 171f.; Slapper/Kelly 2012: 80, 115). As has been mentioned in section 4.2.2, the personal style of House of Lords decisions is likely to be related to this high importance of court decisions as a source of law. Judges in the United Kingdom are expected to create new law and this important task seems to be one of the reasons for the judges’ self-confident presentation of their decisions in a personal style (for a similar explanation cf. Kötz 1973: 12-14, 17f.; Lashöfer 1992: 13-15, 107). By contrast, the legal system of Germany is based on the civil law tradition (cf. section 5.1 above and cf. Merryman/Pérez-Perdomo 2007: ix; Glendon et al. 2008: 62). In civil law countries, court decisions are generally considered as a less important source of law than in common law countries (cf. section 5.1 above and cf. Glendon et al. 2008: 127; Mattei/Pes 2008: 273; Slapper/Kelly 2012: 4f.).

252

Chapter 7

Moreover, in section 7.4.2 it has been mentioned that the House of Lords decisions contained more cataphoric noun phrases with a textorganizing function than the Bundesgerichtshof decisions. This was assumed to be due to characteristics of the two sub-genres ‘decisions of the House of Lords’ and ‘decisions of the Bundesgerichtshof’. As has been explained in section 7.4.2, the House of Lords decisions were on average twice as long as the decisions of the Bundesgerichtshof. Thus, the decisions of the House of Lords were likely to include more coreference chain elements than the shorter Bundesgerichtshof decisions, and thus also more cataphoric noun phrases. Furthermore, text receivers are likely to need more guidance from the text producer if the text is long, which may also lead to a higher number of text-organizing cataphoric noun phrases in a longer text. In addition, the Bundesgerichtshof decisions had a more homogeneous structure than the House of Lords decisions, which probably also influenced the higher number of text-organizing noun phrases in the House of Lords decisions. As has been explained in section 7.4.2, the homogeneous structure of the Bundesgerichtshof decisions is due to regulations of the German Code of Civil Procedure and the German Code of Criminal Procedure, and thus to the legal system of Germany. A further point to be mentioned is that the House of Lords decisions contained more anaphoric pronouns as coreference chain elements than the Bundesgerichtshof decisions (cf. section 7.4.1.1 above). This seemed to be related to the fact that until 1963 House of Lords decisions used to be read out (cf. sections 4.2.2 and 7.4.1.1 above and cf. House of Lords 2008: 6). Therefore, even House of Lords decisions published after 1963 still show some signs of spoken language, such as the relatively frequent use of pronouns (cf. Waters 1997: 810, 816; Charnock 2010: 131f.). By contrast, Bundesgerichtshof decisions of civil cases, such as cases in landlord and tenant law, are not read out today and have not been read out in the past. Instead, only a brief summary of the decision and, in some cases, the reasons for the decision are read out (cf. §§ 311, 555 Zivilpro-

Results and discussion

253

zessordnung).13 This difference in presenting the court decisions is based on the different legal systems of the United Kingdom and Germany, which either provide for reading out court decisions or not. To sum up the present section, the influence of the factor ‘genre or sub-genre of the texts’ was found to be relatively strong. Both the genre and the sub-genres of the texts had an influence of the choice of the devices for coreference. 7.6.4 Stylistic preferences of the text producer The choice of coreferential devices in a text can also be influenced by the stylistic preferences of the text producer. In the present study, the individual stylistic preferences of the House of Lords judges seemed to influence the amount of text that dealt with the facts of a case and the amount of text that dealt with legal topics (cf. section 7.2 above). This, in turn, influenced the number of non-directional coreference chain elements which the texts contained: the parts of a court decision which dealt with the facts of a case were less likely to include many non-directional chain elements than the parts of a court decision which discussed legal questions. Apart from this influence of the stylistic preferences of the text producers, the present study did not find further indications of the influence of this factor. It was found that the frequencies of the devices for anaphoric, cataphoric and non-directional coreference were relatively similar in all of the House of Lords decisions. Furthermore, the frequencies of the devices for coreference were also relatively similar in all of the Bundesgerichtshof decisions. It can be assumed that if the stylistic preferences of the text producers had a strong influence on the choice of coreferential devices, the frequencies of coreferential devices in the different House of 13

As has been mentioned in section 7.4.1.1, for Bundesgerichtshof decisions of criminal cases it is required that the reasons for the decision are read out or explained orally (cf. §§ 268, 356 Strafprozessordnung). Since the present study analyzed Bundesgerichtshof decisions of civil cases, this is of minor importance here and mentioned only for the sake of completeness.

254

Chapter 7

Lords decisions would have differed more strongly since each decision was written by a different judge. Similarly, it can be assumed that if the stylistic preference of the text producers had a strong impact on the choice of coreferential devices, the frequencies in the different Bundesgerichtshof decisions would have differed more strongly since the decisions were written by different judges. The overall influence of the stylistic preferences of the judges on the choice of the coreferential devices in the court decisions thus seemed to be relatively weak.

8 Summary and conclusions The present study has investigated how coreference can be established in English and German texts in general and in British and German court decisions in particular. In chapter 1, coreference was defined as the relation between two or more linguistic items in a text that have the same referent in the extralinguistic world (cf. Halliday/Hasan 1976: 3; Esser 2009: 34f. and Brinker 2010: 26). Two types of coreference have already been established in the linguistic literature: ‘anaphoric’, i.e. backwardspointing, and ‘cataphoric’, i.e. forwards-pointing reference (cf. e.g. Halliday/Hasan 1976: 14, 17; Biber et al. 1999: 234, 348; Esser 2009: 35, 49f.). In addition to these two types of reference, the present study has suggested that there exists a third type of coreference called ‘nondirectional coreference’ (cf. section 2.4). This type of coreference is established if two or more linguistic items share the same referent but the linguistic items do not refer forwards or backwards to each other (for brief remarks on related concepts cf. Martin 1992: 145f.; van Deemter/Kibble 2000: 629f.). The following example illustrates this. (1) One big disadvantage is that turtles do not have gills and so cannot survive underwater indefinitely, like fish, but must come up for air regularly. However, turtles can remain submerged for much longer than, say, people can. (Browder 2004b: 1370; repeated from section 2.4) In the above example, the two instances of the noun phrase turtles share the same referent: they both refer to the class of turtles as a whole. Since the two instances of turtles do not refer forwards or backwards to each other, they are in a relation of non-directional coreference. Sections 3.1 to 3.3 provided answers to the research question of which linguistic devices can be used to create coreference in English and German. The framework of coreferential devices which was developed in these sections was later tested in the empirical study of coreference in court decisions (cf. section 7.4). In sections 3.1 to 3.3, a distinction was

256

Chapter 8

made between devices for anaphoric, cataphoric and non-directional devices. Furthermore, the present study distinguished between ‘main devices’ and ‘supplementing devices’ for coreference. While main devices can establish coreference on their own, supplementing devices, such as the definite article or demonstrative determiners, must be combined with a main device in order to create coreference. One of the interesting findings of sections 3.1 to 3.3 was that the two languages English and German make use of the same set of linguistic devices for establishing coreference. Furthermore, it was noted that the number of devices for anaphoric coreference was higher than the number of devices for non-directional coreference, which in turn was higher than the number of devices for cataphoric coreference. This seems to be related to the finding that anaphoric coreference occurs usually more frequently in texts than cataphoric coreference (cf. de Beaugrande/Dressler 1981: 60f.; Quirk et al. 1985: 347, 351). In addition, the results of the analysis of the court decisions in the present study showed that anaphoric coreference was more frequent than non-directional coreference, which in turn was more frequent than cataphoric coreference (cf. section 7.2). The number of devices for a type of coreference thus seems to depend on how frequently the type of coreference occurs. Tables 8.1 to 8.5 below summarize the new framework of devices for anaphoric, cataphoric and non-directional coreference that has been developed in the present study based on previous research (cf. e.g. Halliday/Hasan 1976: 37f., 278; Hoey 1991: 53, 70; Brinker 2010: 26-29, 39). The present study assumed that there exist both main and supplementing devices for anaphoric and non-directional coreference, but only main devices for cataphoric coreference. The examples in Tables 8.1 to 8.5 are abridged or unabridged versions of examples that have been cited in section 2.4 and in sections 3.1 to 3.3. Examples which were originally in English are provided together with their German translation and vice versa.

257

Summary and conclusions Main devices for anaphoric coreference Device

Examples

Pronouns Personal pronoun

Nick – he

Nick – er

(1) – (6), 2.3: (15)

Demonstrative pronoun

small pines – these

Reflexive pronoun

John Prior – himself

John Prior – sich

(12), (13)

Indefinite pronoun

two families of sidenecked turtles – both

zwei Familien der HalswenderSchildkröten – beide

(14) – (17)

Brody – his office

Brody – sein Büro

(18), (19)

kleine Kiefern – diese (7) – (11)

Determiners Possessive determiner Full noun phrases Simple repetition

a man – the man

ein Mann – der Mann (20), (21)

Partial repetition

a long, low hall – the hall

ein langer, niedriger Flur – der Flur

(22), (23)

Synonymous noun phrase

a man – the guy

ein Mann – der Kerl

(24), (25)

Hyperonymous noun phrase

the taxi – the car

das Taxi – der Wagen

(26) – (28)

Hyponymous noun phrase

the scientists – the biologists

die WissenHoey schaftler/innen – die 1991: 70 Biologinnen/Biologen

Nominal paraphrase

loons – these excellent swimmers

Seetaucher – diese exzellenten Schwim- (29), (30) mer

Clausal paraphrase

Emil travelled from Paris Emil reiste von Paris (31), (32) to Cologne. – the journey nach Köln. – die Reise

Return to full noun phrase after pronoun

Alice – she – Alice

Alice – sie – Alice

(33), (34)

Return to full noun phrase after possessive determiner

Morris – his pursuer – Morris

Morris – sein Verfolger – Morris

(35)

Table 8.1: Main devices for anaphoric coreference

258

Chapter 8

Supplementing devices for anaphoric coreference Device

Examples

Definite article

a house – the house

Demonstrative determiner

boys from 12 to 16 years of age – those boys

Other determiner

Hamburg, Bonn – both cities

ein Haus – das Haus

(36), (37)

Jungen im Alter von 12 bis 16 Jahren – diese (38), (39) Jungen Hamburg, Bonn – beide Städte

(40) – (44)

Table 8.2: Supplementing devices for anaphoric coreference Main devices for cataphoric coreference Device

Examples

Personal pronoun

If he wants, the president may refuse the proposed appointment of a minister.

Wenn er will, kann der Bundespräsident die ihm vorgeschlagene Ernennung eines Ministers verweigern.

Demonstrative pronoun

Well, you might not believe this but I don’t drink very much.

Also, du wirst das vielleicht nicht glauben, aber ich trinke nicht sehr viel.

(50) – (52)

Reflexive pronoun

To prepare herself, Mary ran eight miles a day.

Um sich vorzubereiten, lief Mary acht Meilen am Tag.

(53), (54)

Possessive determiner

Why didn’t someone else find it? Why me, who knows its value? I could not guess what the small container contained.

Warum hat sie kein Anderer gefunden? Warum gerade ich, der ihren (55), (56) Wert weiß? Ich konnte nicht ahnen, was die Kapsel enthielt.

Full noun phrase

I draw the following conclusions: that natural childbirth and rooming in should be available for all who want them.

Ich ziehe die folgenden Schlussfolgerungen: dass eine natürliche Geburt und „Rooming-in“ für alle zur Verfügung stehen sollten, die dies wollen.

Table 8.3: Main devices for cataphoric coreference

(45) – (49)

(57) – (59)

259

Summary and conclusions Main devices for non-directional coreference Device

Examples

Pronouns one – one

man – man

(60), (61)

Simple repetition

turtles – turtles

Schildkröten – Schildkröten

(62), (63), section 2.4: (24)

Partial repetition

standing waters – lentic waters

Stillgewässer – stehende Gewässer

(64), (65)

Synonymous noun phrase

floods – flooding

Überschwemmungen – Überflutungen

(66), (67)

Indefinite pronoun Full noun phrases

Hyperonymous noun phrase

Hyponymous noun phrase Nominal paraphrase Return to full noun phrase after pronoun Return to full noun phrase after possessive determiner

Überflutungen, von flooding, which denen man erwarten should be expected sollte, dass sie an to occur on any river, jedem Fluss auftreten, – – floods Überschwemmungen

(68)

this bird – the robin

dieser Vogel – das Rotkehlchen

(69)

these excellent swimmers – loons

diese ausgezeichneten Schwimmer – Seetaucher

(70), (71)

feathers – them – feathers

Federn – sie – Federn

(72)

the nuthatch – its beak – the nuthatch

der Kleiber – sein Schnabel – der Kleiber

(73)

Table 8.4: Main devices for non-directional coreference

260

Chapter 8 Supplementing devices for non-directional coreference Device

Definite article Indefinite article Zero article

Examples the nuthatch – the nuthatch

der Kleiber – der Kleiber

(74), (75)

a car – a car

ein Auto – ein Auto

(76), (77)

freshwater turtles – freshwater turtles

Süßwasserschildkröten – (78) – (80) Süßwasserschildkröten

Table 8.5: Supplementing devices for non-directional coreference After the discussion of devices for coreference in sections 3.1 to 3.3, section 3.4 provided answers to the research question of which functions the elements of coreference chains in English and German can fulfil. The framework of functions developed in section 3.4 was later tested in the corpus study of British and German court decisions (cf. section 7.5). In the present study, a distinction was made between three different ‘levels’ of the functions of elements of coreference chains. Level 1 is the most basic level of functions while level 3 is the least basic level. The function located at the most basic level 1 was called ‘creation of coreference’. This function is an obligatory function for all elements of coreference chains in English and German, except for antecedents and postcedents, since the present study assumes that antecedents and postcedents do not fulfil functions. The functions which belong to levels 2 or 3 are optional functions. The difference between levels 2 and 3 is that level 3 functions can only be fulfilled if in addition a level 2 function is fulfilled. By contrast, level 2 functions can be fulfilled without a level 3 function being fulfilled as well. Since anaphoric and non-directional coreference chain elements can have the same range of functions, their functions were discussed together in section 3.4.1. The functions of cataphoric chain elements were described in section 3.4.2. The framework of functions is summarized in Tables 8.6 and 8.7 on the next page.

261

Summary and conclusions Level 3

Stylistic variation / Evaluation / Emphasis

Level 2

Reduction / Clarity of reference / Specification

Level 1

Creation of coreference

Table 8.6: Functions of anaphoric and non-directional chain elements Level 2

Textual organization / Creation of suspense

Level 1

Creation of coreference

Table 8.7: Functions of cataphoric chain elements Tables 8.6 and 8.7 show that anaphoric and non-directional coreference chain elements can fulfil a larger range of functions than cataphoric chain elements. This is likely to be due to the fact that cataphoric coreference usually occurs less frequently in texts than anaphoric coreference or nondirectional coreference (cf. de Beaugrande/Dressler 1981: 60f.; Quirk et al. 1985: 347, 351 and cf. section 7.2). Section 3.5 then presented answers to the research question of which factors can influence the choice of devices for coreference in English and German. The first factor that was identified was called ‘language-specific features’. There exist language-specific syntactic or lexical features which can influence the way coreference is expressed in a text (cf. Kunz 2010: 19, 22). For example, demonstrative singular pronouns in German can be used as anaphoric coreference chain elements which refer to sentient or to non-sentient referents. By contrast, English singular demonstrative pronouns cannot be used as anaphoric coreference chain elements which have sentient referents, but only as anaphoric chain elements referring to non-sentient referents (cf. Halliday/Hasan 1976: 63; Kunz/Steiner 2010: 234f.). This has been shown to influence the frequency of occurrence of the use of demonstrative pronouns as a device of anaphoric coreference in English and German: they occurred more often in German than in English texts (cf. Kunz/Steiner 2010: 240f.). A further factor which can influence the choice of coreferential devices in English and German is the ‘accessibility’ of the referent (cf. Ariel

262

Chapter 8

1988: 69-72; Ariel 1996: 20f.; for similar approaches cf. also e.g. Prince 1981; Gundel et al. 1993 and Grosz et al. 1995). If a referent is likely to be highly accessible for the text receiver, the text producer can choose a linguistic item which provides relatively little information about the referent, for example, a personal pronoun. However, if a referent is not very accessible, the text producer needs to provide more information about the referent, for example, by using a full noun phrase (cf. Ariel 1988: 69-72). The accessibility of a referent is influenced, among other factors, by the distance to the previous mention of the referent. If a referent has been mentioned very recently in a text, it is assumed to be highly accessible (cf. Ariel 1988: 65). In addition, the genre or sub-genre of a text has also been shown to influence the choice of devices for coreference (cf. e.g. Biber et al. 1999: 237f.; Swanson 2003: 140-143, 151, 153-155, 179f.). For example, Biber et al. (1999: 237) found that in conversations coreference was most often established by the devices ‘personal pronouns’ and ‘demonstrative pronouns’. Full noun phrases, such as the devices ‘simple repetitions’ or ‘partial repetitions’, were used relatively infrequently to create coreference. By contrast, in texts of the genres ‘news’ and ‘academic prose’ full noun phrases were used more frequently than pronouns to establish coreference (cf. Biber et al. 1999: 237). In addition to the factors ‘language-specific features’, ‘accessibility of the referent’ and ‘genre or subgenre of the text’, the choice of coreferential devices can also be influenced by the individual stylistic preferences of the text-producer (cf. Swanson 2003: 183f.; Kunz 2010: 22). In chapter 4, it was shown that in addition to the research field of textlinguistics the present study also belongs to the research fields of contrastive linguistics and ‘language and law’. Next, chapter 5 provided background information about the British and German legal system since the empirical part of the presents study analyzed court decisions from the United Kingdom and Germany. It was explained that the British and German legal system are based on two different ‘legal traditions’, namely

Summary and conclusions

263

‘common law’ and ‘civil law’. While there seem to be some signs of convergence between the two legal traditions, differences still remain (cf. Glendon et al. 2008: 138f.; Mattei/Pes 2008: 274). The theoretical framework of coreference in English and German which was developed in chapter 3 of the present study was put to the test in an empirical study of coreference in British and German court decisions. One important reason for choosing the two sub-genres of British court decisions and German court decisions was that it seemed particularly interesting to study how genre-related factors, such as the legal system and the legal culture of the court decisions’ countries of origin, might influence the choice of coreferential devices in the texts. The present study investigated how coreference was established in a 34,000 word corpus of court decisions from the British Appellate Committee of the House of Lords and the German Bundesgerichtshof. A total of 5,650 coreference chain elements were analyzed. Having explained the methodology of the study of the court decisions in chapter 6, chapter 7 presented the results and discussed them. With regard to the average lengths of the coreference chains in the House of Lords decisions and the Bundesgerichtshof decisions it was found that the length of a text did not seem to have a strong influence on the average length of the coreference chains in it: although the average length of the House of Lords decisions was roughly twice the average length of the Bundesgerichtshof decisions, the average length of the coreference chains in both sub-corpora was 4.3 chain elements. A comparison with the results of a corpus study of coreference by Kunz (2010: 356) supported the finding that the length of a text did not seem to strongly influence the average length of its coreference chains (cf. section 7.1). Next, the analysis of the three different types of coreference (anaphoric, cataphoric and non-directional) showed that in both sub-corpora anaphoric coreference was clearly the most frequent type, while cataphoric reference occurred least frequently (cf. section 7.2). Furthermore,

264

Chapter 8

it was noted that both in the House of Lords decisions and in the Bundesgerichtshof decisions coreference was established clearly more often across clause complex boundaries than within a clause complex. When the syntactic categories of the chain elements in the court decisions were examined, it was found that in both sub-corpora noun phrases were by far the most frequent syntactic category of chain elements. Adjective phrases did not occur at all as chain elements in both sub-corpora (cf. section 7.3). The analysis of the devices for coreference in the court decisions showed that the descriptive framework of devices developed in the present study proved useful: all of the anaphoric, cataphoric and nondirectional chain elements in the court decisions could be successfully analyzed as devices for coreference (cf. section 7.4). When comparing the House of Lords decisions and the Bundesgerichtshof decisions, it was noted that there were more similarities than differences between the frequencies of coreferential devices in the two sub-corpora. Interestingly, the distribution of the frequencies of the main coreferential devices was similar in both sub-corpora. For example, ‘simple repetition’ was the most frequent main anaphoric device in both the English and the German texts. Among the main cataphoric devices, the device ‘full noun phrase’ was most frequent in both sub-corpora. The study of the main nondirectional devices showed that the device ‘simple repetition’ was clearly the most frequent one in both the House of Lords decisions and the Bundesgerichtshof decisions. The theoretical framework developed in chapter 3 of the present study was also successfully applied in the analysis of the functions of the coreference chain elements in the court decisions. All anaphoric, cataphoric and non-directional chain elements in the court decisions were found to fulfil one or more functions (cf. section 7.5). As for the anaphoric chain elements in the House of Lords decisions, it was noted that

Summary and conclusions

265

the reduction function was the most frequent optional1 function (40.6%), followed by the clarity of reference function (32.9%). Among the optional functions of the anaphoric chain elements in the Bundesgerichtshof decisions, the clarity of reference function was the most frequent one (47.1%), followed by the reduction function (33.3%). This shows that when establishing anaphoric coreference, the authors of the Bundesgerichtshof decisions paid more attention to avoiding ambiguity and establishing clarity of reference than the authors of the House of Lords decisions. For example, the authors of the Bundesgerichtshof decisions used fewer pronouns as coreferential devices than the authors of the House of Lords decisions. This will be discussed in more detail below when summarizing the results of the analysis of the factors which influenced the choice of coreferential devices. As for the functions of cataphoric chain elements, it was found that in both sub-corpora most cataphoric elements fulfilled the function of ‘textual organization’. For the non-directional chain elements, it was noted that in both corpora the vast majority (more than 80%) of the chain elements fulfilled the clarity of reference function. The analysis of the factors which influenced the choice of coreferential devices in the court decisions showed that the factor ‘genre or subgenre of the text’ had the strongest influence (cf. section 7.6). For example, the House of Lords decisions contained more anaphoric pronouns as chain elements than the Bundesgerichtshof decisions. This seemed to be related to the fact that until 1963 House of Lords decisions used to be read out. Previous studies have found that House of Lords decisions, even if they were published after 1963, still show some signs of spoken language, such as the relatively frequent use of pronouns (cf. Waters 1997: 810, 816; Charnock 2010: 131f.). By contrast, Bundesgerichtshof decisions of civil cases are not read out today and have not been read out in 1

As has been explained above, the present study assumes that all elements of coreference chains fulfil the obligatory level 1 function ‘creation of coreference’. In addition, coreference chain elements can fulfil one or more optional functions, such as ‘reduction’, ‘clarity of reference’ or ‘evaluation’.

266

Chapter 8

the past (cf. §§ 311, 555 Zivilprozessordnung).2 This difference in presenting the court decisions is based on the different legal systems of the United Kingdom and Germany, which either provide for reading out court decisions or not. Therefore, there exists a difference between the two sub-genres ‘decisions of the House of Lords’ and ‘decisions of the Bundesgerichtshof’ which seemed to influence the frequency of anaphoric pronouns in the court decisions which were analyzed in the present study. In addition, it was found that the House of Lords decisions contained first person pronouns as coreference chain elements while the Bundesgerichtshof decisions did not. Again, this seemed to be based on a difference between the two sub-genres ‘decisions of the House of Lords’ and ‘decisions of the Bundesgerichtshof’. Previous studies have pointed out that House of Lords decisions tend to be written in a personal style, which is marked, for example, by the use of first person personal pronouns (cf. Wetter 1960: 32f.; Lashöfer 1992: 15, 19). By contrast, decisions of the Bundesgerichtshof are usually written in an impersonal style (cf. Kötz 1973: 19; Lashöfer 1992: 86; Kischel 2008: 13). As has been explained in sections 4.2.2 and 7.6.3, the personal style of House of Lords decisions can be assumed to be related to the high importance of court decisions as a source of law in the United Kingdom, a country which is based on the common law tradition. The high importance of court decisions seems to be one of the reasons for the judges’ self-confident presentation of their arguments in a personal style (for a similar explanation cf. Kötz 1973: 12-14, 17f.; Lashöfer 1992: 13-15, 107). By contrast, the legal system of Germany is based on the civil law tradition and in civil law countries, court decisions are generally considered as a less important source of law than in common law countries (cf. 2

For Bundesgerichtshof decisions of criminal cases it is required that the reasons for the decision are read out or explained orally (cf. §§ 268, 356 Strafprozessordnung). Since the present study analyzed Bundesgerichtshof decisions of civil cases, this is of minor importance here and mentioned only for the sake of completeness.

Summary and conclusions

267

section 5.1 above and cf. Merryman/Pérez-Perdomo 2007: ix; Glendon et al. 2008: 62, 127; Mattei/Pes 2008: 273; Slapper/Kelly 2012: 4f.). Moreover, it was noted that among the cataphoric chain elements in the court decisions, chain elements with the function ‘creation of suspense’ did not occur at all. This seemed to be related to the genre of court decisions since chain elements with the function ‘creation of suspense’ have been found to occur typically in the genres of literary texts or newspaper articles, but not in legal texts (cf. Brinker 2010: 32f.). In addition to the factor ‘genre or sub-genre of the text’, it was found that the factor ‘accessibility of the referent’ also influenced the choice of coreferential devices in the court decisions: among the anaphoric chain elements, the average distance between an anaphoric full noun phrase and its preceding chain element was clearly longer than the average distance between an anaphoric pronoun and its preceding chain element. This confirmed the findings of previous studies (cf. Biber et al. 1999: 239; Kunz 2010: 388). The factor ‘language-specific differences’ was shown to influence the choice of the supplementing devices for non-directional coreference. The factor ‘stylistic preferences of the text producer’ was found to influence the number of non-directional chain elements in the House of Lords decisions. Overall, the factor ‘stylistic preferences of the text producer’ had a relatively weak effect on the choice of the devices for coreference. The present study has presented a comprehensive descriptive framework of coreference in English and German and has successfully applied this framework in a study of British and German court decisions. Since the genre or sub-genre of a text was found to be an important influencing factor for the choice of coreferential devices, it would be interesting for further research to apply the framework of coreference of the present study in studies of a variety of different genres. By this, the influence of a genre of a text on the way of establishing coreference could be understood even better. Moreover, it would be interesting to examine if the framework of coreference of the present study is also suitable for describ-

268

Chapter 8

ing coreference in other languages than English and German, and how the framework might be adapted for other languages.

References 1 Court decisions and statutes [BGH 2002]1 XII ZR 323/00, BGH, Urteil vom 8. Mai 2002. http://juris.bundesgerichtshof.de/cgibin/rechtsprechung/list.py?Gericht=bgh&Art=en. [BGH 2006] VIII ZR 109/05, BGH, Urteil vom 5. April 2006. http://juris.bundesgerichtshof.de/cgibin/rechtsprechung/list.py?Gericht=bgh&Art=en. [BGH 2007a] VIII ZR 285/06, BGH, Urteil vom 18. Juli 2007. http://juris.bundesgerichtshof.de/cgibin/rechtsprechung/list.py?Gericht=bgh&Art=en. [BGH 2007b] XII ZR 36/05, BGH, Urteil vom 21. März 2007. http://juris.bundesgerichtshof.de/cgibin/rechtsprechung/list.py?Gericht=bgh&Art=en. [BGH 2008] VIII ZR 307/07, BGH, Urteil vom 25. Juni 2008. http://juris.bundesgerichtshof.de/cgibin/rechtsprechung/list.py?Gericht=bgh&Art=en. [HL 2000] 2000 UKHL 8, Burton (Respondent) v. Mayor etc. of The London Borough of Camden (Appellants), 17 February 2000. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldjudgmt/jd0002 17/burton-1.htm. [HL 2001] 2001 UKHL 43, Uratemp Ventures Limited (Respondents) v. Collins (AP) (Appellant), 11 October 2001. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldjudgmt/jd0110 11/uratem-1.htm. [HL 2007] 2007 UKHL 22, Birmingham City Council (Appellants) v. Walker (FC) (Respondent), 16 May 2007.

1

The court decisions analyzed in the empirical part of the present study were given short titles, such as ‘BGH 2002’ (cf. section 6.1 above). These titles are provided in square brackets.

270

References

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldjudgmt/jd0705 16/birm-1.htm. [HL 2008] 2008 UKHL 58, R (on the Application of Heffernan) (FC) (Appellant) v. The Rent Service (Respondents), 30 July 2008. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldjudgmt/jd0807 30/heffer-1.htm. [HL 2009] 2009 UKHL 29, Hanoman (FC) (Respondent) v. London Borough of Southwark (Appellants), 10 June 2009. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldjudgmt/jd0906 10/hanoma-1.htm. 2003 UKHL 20, Regina v. Central Valuation Officer and another (Respondent) ex parte Edison First Power Limited (Appellants), 10 April 2003. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200203/ldjudgmt/jd0304 10/edison-1.htm. 2007 UKHL 12, Golden Strait Corporation (Appellants) v. Nippon Yusen Kubishka Kaisha (Respondents), 28 March 2007. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldjudgmt/jd0703 28/golden-1.htm. 2007 UKHL 25, Boake Allen Limited and others (Appellants) v. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Respondents), 23 May 2007. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldjudgmt/jd0705 23/boake-1.htm. 2009 UKHL 38, Chartbrook Limited (Respondents) v. Persimmon Homes Limited and others (Appellants) and another (Respondent), 1 July 2009. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldjudgmt/jd0907 01/chart-1.htm. 2009 UKHL 41, Fisher (Original Respondent and Cross-appellant) v. Brooker and others (Original Appellants and Cross-respondents), 30 July 2009.

References

271

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldjudgmt/jd0907 30/fisher-1.htm. BAILII Databases. http://www.bailii.org/databases.html. Bundesgerichtshof Decisions Online Archive. http://juris.bundesgerichtshof.de/cgibin/rechtsprechung/list.py?Gericht=bgh&Art=en. House of Lords Decisions Online Archive. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldjudgmt.htm. VI ZR 254/77, BGH, Urteil vom 6. November 1979, Entscheidungen des Bundesgerichtshofes in Zivilsachen, ed. Mitglieder des Bundesgerichtshof und der Bundesanwaltschaft, Vol. 75. Köln & Berlin: Carl Heymanns. 230-241. IX ZB 229/11, BGH, Beschluss vom 10. Oktober 2013. http://juris.bundesgerichtshof.de/cgibin/rechtsprechung/list.py?Gericht=bgh&Art=en. Strafprozessordnung. http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stpo.2 Zivilprozessordnung. http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/zpo.

2 Literature Abbott, Barbara (2010): Reference. Oxford et al.: Oxford University Press. Abraham, Spencer (2004): “U.S. national energy policy and global energy security”, Economic Perspectives: An Electronic Journal of the U.S. Department of State 9(2), 6-9. http://www.usembassy-mexico.gov/bbf/ej/0504_ChallengestoEnergy. pdf. Anissimova, Larissa (2007): Verständlichkeit in der Gesetzessprache: Linguistische Untersuchung anhand des deutschen Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuches und des russischen Zivilgesetzbuches. Berlin: Logos. 2

The German Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection publishes almost all German federal laws online at http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de.

272

References

Ariel, Mira (1988): “Referring and accessibility”, Journal of Linguistics 24, 65-87. Ariel, Mira (1990): Accessing Noun Phrase Antecedents. London & New York: Routledge. Ariel, Mira (1996): “Referring expressions and the +/- coreference distinction”, Reference and Referent Accessibility, eds. Thorstein Fretheim & Jeanette K. Gundel. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 13-35. Azzam, Saliha, Kevin Humphreys & Robert Gaizauskas (1999): “Using coreference chains for text summarization”, Coreference and its Applications: Proceedings of the Workshop, eds. Amit Bagga, Breck Baldwin & Sara Shelton. New Brunswick: Association for Computational Linguistics. 77-84. Bache, Carl (2000): Essentials of Mastering English: A Concise Grammar. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Baldacci, David (2004): The Christmas Train. London et al.: Pan Books. Beaugrande, Robert-Alain de & Wolfgang U. Dressler (1981): Introduction to Text Linguistics. London & New York: Longman. Becher, Viktor (2010): “Differences in the use of deictic expressions in English and German texts”, Linguistics 48(4), 1309-1342. Bell, John (2006): Judiciaries within Europe: A Comparative Review. Cambridge et al.: Cambridge University Press. Bender, Hans (1953): Die Hostie: Vier Stories. Frankfurt a.M.: EremitenPresse. Bhatia, Vijay, Christopher N. Candlin & Maurizio Gotti (eds.) (2003): Legal Discourse in Multilingual and Multicultural Contexts: Arbitration Texts in Europe. Bern et al.: Peter Lang. Biber, Douglas (1989): “A typology of English texts”, Linguistics 27(1), 3-43. Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan (1999): Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman.

References

273

Blom-Cooper, Louis (2009): “Style of judgments”, The Judicial House of Lords 1876-2009, eds. Louis Blom-Cooper, Brice Dickson & Gavin Drewry. Oxford et al.: Oxford University Press. 145-163. Bogdanor, Vernon (2001): Devolution in the United Kingdom, 2nd ed., Oxford et al.: Oxford University Press. Böhnisch, Lothar, Helmut Arnold & Wolfgang Schröer (1999): Sozialpolitik: Eine sozialwissenschaftliche Einführung. Weinheim & München: Juventa. Bosch, Peter & Carla Umbach (2007): “Reference determination for demonstrative pronouns”, ZAS Papers in Linguistics 48, 39-51. Bosch, Peter, Graham Katz & Carla Umbach (2007): “The non-subject bias of German demonstrative pronouns”, Anaphors in Text: Cognitive, Formal and Applied Approaches to Anaphoric Reference, eds. Monika Schwarz-Friesel, Manfred Konsten & Mareile Knees. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 145-164. Brinker, Klaus (2010): Linguistische Textanalyse: Eine Einführung in Grundbegriffe und Methoden, revised by Sandra Ausborn-Brinker, 7th ed. Berlin: Erich Schmidt. British National Corpus: http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/. Browder, Glen (ed.) (2004a): Encyclopedia of the Aquatic World: Volume 3: Catfish - Crab. Tarrytown: Marshall Cavendish. Browder, Glen (ed.) (2004b): Encyclopedia of the Aquatic World: Volume 10: Starfish – Worm. Tarrytown: Marshall Cavendish. Büchner, Gerold (2006): „Merkel, die Zaudernde“. Berliner Zeitung 25 March 2006, 13. http://www.berliner-zeitung.de/archiv/merkel--diezaudernde10810590,10373452.html. Bundesgerichtshof (2014): Der Bundesgerichtshof: The Federal Court of Justice. http://www.bundesgerichtshof.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Der BGH/broschuereAktuell.pdf. Bußmann, Hadumod (2002) (ed.): Lexikon der Sprachwissenschaft, 3rd ed. Stuttgart: Alfred Kröner.

274

References

Candlin, Christopher N. (1980): “Preface”, Contrastive Analysis, Carl James. Harlow: Longman. iii-v. Cao, Deborah (2010): “Legal translation: translating legal language”, The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics, ed. Malcolm Coulthard & Alison Johnson. Abingdon & New York: Routledge. 78-91. Carroll, Lewis (1998 [1865]) Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking-Glass and What Alice Found There, the Centenary Edition. London et al.: Penguin. Charnock, Ross (2010): “Traces of orality in common law judgments”, Researching Language and the Law: Textual Features and Translation Issues, eds. Davide Simone Giannoni & Celina Frade. Bern et al.: Peter Lang. 113-134. Chur, Jeannette (1993): Generische Nominalphrasen im Deutschen: Eine Untersuchung zu Referenz und Semantik. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. Clyne, Michael (1987): “Cultural differences in the organization of academic texts: English and German”, Journal of Pragmatics 11, 211247. Clyne, Michael (2003): “Language planning”, International Encyclopedia of Linguistics: Volume 3, ed. William J. Frawley, 2nd ed. Oxford et al.: Oxford University Press. 409-412. Consten, Manfred, Mareile Knees & Monika Schwarz-Friesel (2007): “The function of complex anaphors in text: evidence from corpus studies and ontological considerations”, Anaphors in Text: Cognitive, Formal and Applied Approaches to Anaphoric Reference, eds. Monika Schwarz-Friesel, Manfred Konsten & Mareile Knees. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 81-102. Cooper, Robert L. (1996): Language Planning and Social Change. Cambridge et al.: Cambridge University Press. Cotterrell, Roger (2006): “Comparative law and legal culture”, The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Law, eds. Mathias Reimann & Reinhard Zimmermann. Oxford et al.: Oxford University Press. 709-737.

References

275

Coulthard, Malcolm & Alison Johnson (2007): An Introduction to Forensic Linguistics: Language in Evidence. Abingdon & New York: Routledge. Cownie, Fiona, Anthony Bradney & Mandy Burton (2010): English Legal System in Context, 5th ed. Oxford et al.: Oxford University Press. Crystal, David & Derek Davy (1969): Investigating English Style. London & Harlow: Longmans. Crystal, David (2008): A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics, 6th ed. Malden et al.: Blackwell. Daneš, František (1964): “A three-level approach to syntax”, Travaux Linguistiques de Prague 1, 225-240. Danet, Brenda (1990): “Language and law: an overview of 15 years of research”, Handbook of Language and Social Psychology, eds. Howard Giles & W. Peter Robinson. Chichester et al.: John Wiley & Sons. 537-559. Deemter, Kees van & Kibble, Rodger (2000): “On coreferring: coreference in MUC and related annotation schemes”, Computational Linguistics 26(4), 629-637. Degenhart, Christoph (2013): Staatsrecht I: Staatsorganisationsrecht: Mit Bezügen zum Europarecht, 29th ed. Heidelberg et al.: C.F. Müller. Dickson, Brice (2005): The Legal System of Northern Ireland, 5th ed. Belfast: SLS Legal Publications. Dietrich, Rainer & Katja Kühn (2000): „Transparent oder verständlich oder wie was verstanden wird: eine empirische Untersuchung zum Verstehen eines juristischen Textes“, Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik 118. 67-95. Donalies, Elke (2005): Die Wortbildung des Deutschen: Ein Überblick, 2nd ed. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. Duden: Deutsches Universalwörterbuch Online. https://woerterbuch.langenscheidt.de.

276

References

Eagleson, Robert D. (1991): “The plain English movement in Australia and the United Kingdom”, Plain Language: Principles and Practice, ed. Erwin R. Steinberg. Detroit: Wayne State University Press. 30-42. Eckkrammer, Eva M., Nicola Hödl & Wolfgang Pöckl (1999): Kontrastive Textologie. Wien: Edition Praesens. Emmott, Catherine (1989): Reading between the Lines: Building a Comprehensive Model of Participant Reference in Real Narrative, Ph.D. thesis. Birmingham: University of Birmingham. Engberg, Jan (1997): Konventionen von Fachtextsorten: Kontrastive Analysen zu deutschen und dänischen Gerichtsurteilen. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. Engberg, Jan & Anne L. Kjaer (2011): “Approaches to language and the law: some introductory notes”, Hermes: Journal of Language and Communication Studies 46, 7-10. Esser, Jürgen (1980): “Contrastive analysis at the crossroads of linguistics and foreign language teaching”, IRAL 18, 181-191. Esser, Jürgen (1993): English Linguistic Stylistics. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. Esser, Jürgen (2009): Introduction to English Text-linguistics. Frankfurt am Main et al.: Peter Lang. European Judicial Network in Civil and Commercial Matters (2004): Organisation of Justice: Germany. http://ec.europa.eu/civiljustice/org_justice/org_justice_ger_en.htm. European Judicial Network in Civil and Commercial Matters (2006): Organisation of Justice: United Kingdom. http://ec.europa.eu/civiljustice/org_justice/org_justice_uni_en.htm. Field, John (2003): Psycholinguistics: A Resource Book for Students. London & New York: Routledge. Fix, Ulla, Stephan Habscheid & Josef Klein (eds.) (2001): Zur Kulturspezifik von Textsorten. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.

References

277

Foroohar, Rana (2014): “The school that will get you a job: a new kind of education shows why four years of high school isn’t enough”, Time Magazine 24 February 2014, 28-35. Francis, Gill (1994): “Labelling discourse: an aspect of nominal-group lexical cohesion”, Advances in Written Text Analysis, ed. Malcolm Coulthard. London & New York: Routledge. 83-101. Frege, Gottlob (1975 [1892]): Funktion, Begriff, Bedeutung: Fünf logische Studien, ed. Günther Patzig, 4th ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Friedman, Lawrence M. (1975): The Legal System: A Social Science Perspective. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Gibbons, John & M. Teresa Turell (2008): “Introduction”, Dimensions of Forensic Linguistics, eds. John Gibbons & M. Teresa Turell. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 1-4. Gläser, Rosemarie (1992): „Methodische Konzepte für das Tertium comparationis in der Fachsprachenforschung – dargestellt an anglistischen und nordistischen Arbeiten“, Kontrastive Fachsprachenforschung, eds. Klaus-Dieter Baumann & Hartwig Kalverkämper. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. 78-92. Glendon, Mary A., Paolo G. Carozza & Colin B. Picker (2008): Comparative Legal Traditions in a Nutshell, 3rd ed. St. Paul: Thomson West. Gnutzmann, Claus & Regina Lange (1990) „Kontrastive Textlinguistik und Fachsprachenanalyse“, Kontrastive Linguistik, ed. Claus Gnutzmann. Frankfurt am Main et al.: Peter Lang. 85-116. Goetz, Philip W. (ed.) (1983): The New Encyclopaedia Britannica: In 30 Volumes: Micropaedia: Ready Reference and Index: Volume 5, 15th ed. Chicago et al.: Encyclopaedia Britannica. Groot, Gérard-René de (1991): „Recht, Rechtssprache und Rechtssystem: Betrachtungen über die Problematik der Übersetzung juristischer Texte“. Terminologie et Traduction 3, 279-316.

278

References

Grosz, Barbara J., Aravind K. Joshi & Scott Weinstein (1995): “Centering: a framework for modeling the local coherence of discourse”, Computational Linguistics 21(2), 203-225. Gundel, Jeanette K., Nancy Hedberg & Ron Zacharski (1993): “Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse”, Language 69(2), 274-307. Halliday, Michael A.K. & Ruqaiya Hasan (1976): Cohesion in English. London: Longman. Halliday, Michael A.K. & Ruqaiya Hasan (1989): Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of Language in a Semiotic Perspective, reprint with corrections. Deakin University, VI: Deakin University Press. Halliday, Michael A.K. (2014): Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar, revised by Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen, 4th ed. Abingdon & New York: Routledge. Havránek, Bohuslav (1964): “The functional differentiation of the standard language”, A Prague School Reader on Esthetics, Literary Structure, and Style, selected and translated from the original Czech, ed. Paul L. Garvin. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. 316. Hellinger, Marlis (1977): Kontrastive Grammatik Deutsch/Englisch. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. Hemingway, Ernest (1980): “Big two-hearted river”, Major American Short Stories, ed. A. Walton Litz. New York et al.: Oxford University Press. 454-470. Hendricks, Randy & James A. Perkins (eds.) (2008): Selected Letters of Robert Penn Warren: Volume 4: New Beginnings and New Directions: 1953–1968. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press. Herrmann, Heike & Andreas Zeugner (2004): Wildblumen. Nürnberg: Tessloff. Heusinger, Klaus von (2007): “Accessibility and definite noun phrases”, Anaphors in Text: Cognitive, Formal and Applied Approaches to Anaphoric Reference, eds. Monika Schwarz-Friesel, Manfred Kon-

References

279

sten & Mareile Knees. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 123-144. Hoey, Michael (1991): Patterns of Lexis in Text. Oxford et al.: Oxford University Press. Holden, Joseph (2008) “Catchment hydrology”, An Introduction to Physical Geography and the Environment, ed. Joseph Holden, 2nd ed. Harlow et al.: Pearson Education. 351-380. House of Lords (2008): House of Lords Briefing: Judicial Work. http://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-informationoffice/hoflbpjudicial.pdf. Jackendoff, Ray (1983): Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge, Mass. & London: The MIT Press. Jackson, Howard (1982): Analyzing English: An Introduction to Descriptive Linguistics, 2nd ed. Oxford et al.: Pergamon. James, Carl (1980): Contrastive Analysis. Harlow: Longman. Kanbay, Feryal (2009): Neues großes Tierlexikon für Kinder, special pages co-authored by Isabel Liebers & Verena Liebers. München: Compact. Kavanagh, Aileen (2011): “From Appellate Committee to United Kingdom Supreme Court: independence, activism and transparency”, From House of Lords to Supreme Court: Judges, Jurists and the Process of Judging, ed. James Lee. Oxford & Portland: Hart. 35-55. Kennedy, Graeme (1998): An Introduction to Corpus Linguistics. London & New York: Longman. Kessel, Katja & Sandra Reimann (2012): Basiswissen Deutsche Gegenwartssprache, 4th ed. Tübingen & Basel: A. Francke. Kischel, Uwe (2009): “Legal cultures – legal languages”, Translation Issues in Language and Law, eds. Frances Olsen, Alexander Lorz & Dieter Stein. Basingstoke & New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 7-17. Kniffka, Hannes (1996): “Editor’s introduction”, Recent Developments in Forensic Linguistics, ed. Hannes Kniffka, in cooperation with Susan

280

References

Blackwell & Malcolm Coulthard. Frankfurt am Main et al.: Peter Lang. 21-50. Köller, Mareike (2012): „Übersicht der Fallstudienregionen und ihre allgemeine Position im Standortwettbewerb“, Städte und Regionen im Standortwettbewerb: Neue Tendenzen, Auswirkungen und Folgerungen für die Politik, eds. Albrecht Kauffmann & Martin T.W. Rosenfeld. Hannover: Verlag der Akademie für Raumforschung und Landesplanung. 124-141. König, Ekkehard (2012): “Contrastive linguistics and language comparison“, Languages in Contrast: International Journal for Contrastive Linguistics 12(1), 3-36. König, Ekkehard & Volker Gast (2012): Understanding English-German Contrasts, 3rd ed. Berlin: Erich Schmidt. Kötz, Hein (1973): Über den Stil höchstrichterlicher Entscheidungen. Konstanz: Universitätsverlag Konstanz. Kraft, Eric (2009): Flying. New York: Picador. Krom, Michael D. (2008): “Earth geology and tectonics”, An Introduction to Physical Geography and the Environment, ed. Joseph Holden, 2nd ed. Harlow et al.: Pearson Education. 31-55. Krzeszowski, Tomasz P. (1990): Contrasting Languages: The Scope of Contrastive Linguistics. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Kunz, Kerstin (2007): “A method for investigating coreference in translations and originals”, Languages in Contrast: International Journal for Contrastive Linguistics 7(2), 267-287. Kunz, Kerstin (2010): Variation in English and German Nominal Coreference: A Study of Political Essays. Frankfurt a.M. et al: Peter Lang. Kunz, Kerstin & Erich Steiner (2010): “Towards a comparison of cohesive reference in English and German: system and text”, Linguistics and the Human Sciences 6(3), 219-251. Kurzon, Dennis (2006): “Law and language: overview”, The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics: Volume 6: Inu-Lea, ed. Keith Brown, 2nd ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 728-731.

References

281

Lambrecht, Knud (1994): Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge et al.: Cambridge University Press. Langbein, John H. (1985): “The German advantage in civil procedure”, The University of Chicago Law Review 52(4), 823-866. Lashöfer, Jutta (1992): Zum Stilwandel in richterlichen Entscheidungen: Über stilistische Veränderungen in englischen, französischen und deutschen zivilrechtlichen Urteilen und in Entscheidungen des Gerichtshofs der Europäischen Gemeinschaften. Münster & New York: Waxmann. Leass, Herbert & Ulrike Schwall (1991): An Anaphora Resolution Procedure for Machine Translation. Stuttgart: IBM. Lee, William R. (1968): “Thoughts on contrastive linguistics in the context of language teaching”, Contrastive Linguistics and its Pedagogical Implications, ed. James E. Alatis. Washington: Georgetown University Press. 185-194. Leech, Geoffrey (1983): Principles of Pragmatics. London & New York: Longman. Lerchenmüller, Franz (2009): „Weltstars im Hinterhof“, Zeit Online 16 November 2009. http://www.zeit.de/2009/47/Romamusik. Lightbown, Patsy M. & Nina Spada (1999): How Languages Are Learned, 2nd ed. Oxford et al.: Oxford University Press. Linke, Angelika & Markus Nussbaumer (2000): „Rekurrenz“, Text- und Gesprächslinguistik: Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung / Linguistics of Text and Conversation: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research: Volume 1, eds. Klaus Brinker, Gerd Antos, Wolfgang Heinemann & Sven F. Sager. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter. 305-315. Lodge, David (1978): Changing Places: A Tale of Two Campuses. London et al.: Penguin.

282

References

Luyken, Reiner (2014): „Tschüs, Majestät!“, Zeit Online 27 July 2014. http://www.zeit.de/2014/31/schottland-unabhaengigkeitvolksabstimmung. Lyons, Christopher (1999): Definiteness. Cambridge et al.: Cambridge University Press. Lyons, John (1977): Semantics: Volume I. Cambridge et al.: Cambridge University Press. Lyons, John (1981): Language and Linguistics: An Introduction. Cambridge et al.: Cambridge University Press. Martin, James R. (1992): English Text: System and Structure. Philadelphia & Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Mathesius, Vilém (1975): A Functional Analysis of Present Day English on a General Linguistic Basis, ed. Josef Vachek, translated by Libuše Dušková. The Hague & Paris: Mouton. Mattei, Ugo & Luca G. Pes (2008): “Civil law and common law: toward convergence?”, The Oxford Handbook of Law and Politics, eds. Keith E. Whittington, R. Daniel Kelemen & Gregory A. Caldeira. Oxford et al.: Oxford University Press. 267-280. Mattila, Heikki E.S. (2006): Comparative Legal Linguistics, translated by Christopher Goddard. Aldershot & Burlington: Ashgate. Mazzi, Davide (2005): “Grounds and reasons: argumentative signals in judicial texts”, Linguistica e Filologia 20, 157-178. Mellinkoff, David (1963): The Language of the Law. Boston & Toronto: Little, Brown & Co. Merryman, John H. & Rogelio Pérez-Perdomo (2007): The Civil Law Tradition: An Introduction to the Legal Systems of Europe and Latin America, 3rd ed. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Mollenkopf, Heidrun & Ursula Weber (1990): „Zwischen familienspezifischer Rationalität und technikinduziertem Verhalten: die Bedeutung der Technik für familiale Beziehungen“, Die technische Konstruktion der gesellschaftlichen Wirklichkeit: Gestaltungsperspektiven der Techniksoziologie, ed. Robert Tschiedel. München: Profil. 171-190.

References

283

Murdoch, Jim (2002): Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights: The Protection of Liberty and Security of Person, 2nd ed. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing. Nikula, Henrik (2000): „Der Einfluss der Textlinguistik auf Kontrastive Linguistik und Übersetzungswissenschaft“, Text- und Gesprächslinguistik: Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung / Linguistics of Text and Conversation: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research: Volume 1, eds. Klaus Brinker, Gerd Antos, Wolfgang Heinemann & Sven F. Sager. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter. 843-847. Nolan, Donal & Sandra Meredith (ed.) (2012): OSCOLA: The Oxford University Standard for Citation of Legal Authorities, 4th ed. Oxford: Hart. Nylén, Erik (1999): „Havor“, Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde: Volume 14: Harfe und Leier – Hludana-Hlǫðyn, eds. Heinrich Beck, Dieter Geuenich, Heiko Steuer, 2nd ed. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter. 91-93. Osborne, John (1960): Look Back in Anger. London: Faber & Faber. Otten, Karl (1989): Die Reise durch Albanien und andere Prosa, eds. Ellen Otten & Hermann Ruch. Zürich: Arche. Oxford English Dictionary Online. http://www.oed.com. Pace, Julie (2014): “Obama surprises troops in Afghanistan”, The Huffington Post 25 May 2014. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/25/obama-surprisestroops_n_5389274.html. Peotta, Luana (1998): Kontrastive Fachtextpragmatik: Deutsche und italienische Gerichtsurteile im Vergleich. Frankfurt a.M. et al.: Peter Lang. Plag, Ingo (2003): Word-Formation in English. Cambridge et al.: Cambridge University Press.

284

References

Plöhn, Jürgen (2005): „Die Gerichtsbarkeit“, Handbuch Politisches System der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, eds. Oscar W. Gabriel & Everhard Holtmann, 3rd ed. München & Wien: Oldenbourg. 309-332. Polenz, Peter von (2008): Deutsche Satzsemantik: Grundbegriffe des Zwischen-den-Zeilen-Lesens, 3rd ed. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter. Prince, Ellen F. (1981): “Toward a taxonomy of given – new information”, Radical Pragmatics, ed. Peter Cole. New York et al.: Academic Press. 223-255. Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik (1985): A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London & New York: Longman. Radden, Günter & René Dirven (2007): Cognitive English Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Randow, Gero von (2010): „Frankreich, die widerspenstige Atommacht“, Zeit Online 8 April 2010. http://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/201004/frankreich-atommacht. Rein, Kurt (1983): Einführung in die kontrastive Linguistik. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Remarque, Erich Maria (1938): Drei Kameraden. Amsterdam: Querido. Rießinger, Thomas (2007): Wetten, dass Sie Mathe können: Zahlenakrobatik für den Alltag. München: C.H. Beck. Rietz, Christina (2011): „Spielwiese der Schlauen“, Zeit Online 6 September 2011. http://www.zeit.de/2011/35/Grantchester-Meadows. Ross, John R. (1969): “Adjectives as noun phrases”, Modern Studies in English: Readings in Transformational Grammar, eds. David A. Reibel & Sanford A. Schane. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. 352-360. Ruge, Simon & Desi Ruge (1980): Katze mit Hut: Roman für Kinder in zehn Geschichten. Weinheim & Basel: Beltz & Gelberg. Salger, Hannskarl (1980): Der Bundesgerichtshof der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Hamburg & Augsburg: Arbeitsgemeinschaft für juristisches Bibliotheks- und Dokumentationswesen.

References

285

Sandrini, Peter (1999): „Translation zwischen Kultur und Kommunikation: der Sonderfall Recht“, Übersetzen von Rechtstexten: Fachkommunikation im Spannungsfeld zwischen Rechtsordnung und Sprache, ed. Peter Sandrini. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. 9-43. Šarčević, Susan (1997): New Approach to Legal Translation. The Hague et al.: Kluwer Law International. Schäfer, Thomas (2010): Statistik I: Deskriptive und Explorative Datenanalyse. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Schmitt, Bernadette M. (2003): “The comprehension of anaphoric pronouns”, Psycholinguistik: Ein internationales Handbuch / Psycholinguistics: An International Handbook, eds. Gert Rickheit, Theo Herrmann & Werner Deutsch. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter. 664-677. Schubert, Christoph (2012): Englische Textlinguistik: Eine Einführung, 2nd ed. Berlin: Erich Schmidt. Schuler, Katharina (2006): „Noch immer operativ“, Zeit Online 1 March 2006. http://www.zeit.de/online/2006/09/Stolpe. Schwarz, Monika (2000): Indirekte Anaphern in Texten: Studien zur domänengebundenen Referenz und Kohärenz im Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Searle, John R. (1969): Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press. Shuy, Roger W. (2001): “Forensic linguistics”, The Handbook of Linguistics, eds. Mark Aronoff & Janie Rees-Miller. Malden & Oxford: Blackwell. 683-691. Siebenschön, Leona (1972): „‚… deswegen habe ich nicht geheiratet‘: keine Kommunen, aber mehr Gemeinsamkeiten – der Alltagstrott frustriert die Eltern“, Die Zeit 1972(2), 39. Sill, Edward R. (1960): “Opportunity”, Collins Albatross Book of Verse: English and American Poetry from the Thirteenth Century to the Present Day, ed. Louis Untermeyer, revised and enlarged reprint. London & Glasgow: Collins. 479.

286

References

Sims, Vanessa (2010): English Law and Terminology, 3rd ed. BadenBaden: Nomos. Sinclair, John (ed.) (1990): Collins Cobuild English Grammar. London: Collins. Sinclair, John (ed.) (2005): Collins Cobuild English Grammar, 2nd ed. London: Collins. Slapper, Gary & David Kelly (2012): The English Legal System, 13th ed. Abingdon & New York: Routledge. Slobin, Dan I. (1975): “The more it changes… on understanding language by watching it move through time”, Papers and Reports on Child Language Development 10, 1-30. Spillner, Bernd (1981): „Textsorten im Sprachvergleich: Ansätze zu einer Kontrastiven Textologie“, Kontrastive Linguistik und Übersetzungswissenschaft: Akten des Internationalen Kolloquiums Trier/Saarbrücken 25.-30.9.1978, eds. Wolfgang Kühlwein, Gisela Thome & Wolfram Wilss. München: Wilhelm Fink. 239-250. Stede, Manfred (2007): Korpusgestützte Textanalyse. Grundzüge der Ebenen-orientierten Textlinguistik. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. Stede, Manfred (2012): Discourse Processing. San Rafael: Morgan & Claypool. Steenbock, Greta (2010): Vögel. München: Compact Via. Strieder, Peter (1978): „Einführung“, Vorbild Dürer: Kupferstiche und Holzschnitte Albrecht Dürers im Spiegel der europäischen Druckgraphik des 16. Jahrhunderts, eds. Leonie von Wilckens & Peter Strieder. München: Prestel. 7-11. Sutton, Keith B. (1998): Fishing for Catfish: The Complete Guide for Catching Big Channels, Blues and Flatheads. Chanhassen: Creative Publishing International. Swales, John M. (1990): Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge et al.: Cambridge University Press. Swanson, Wendy (2003): Modes of Co-reference as an Indicator of Genre. Bern et al.: Peter Lang.

References

287

Tausch, Florian (2010): Miss Saigon, der Hund, der Japaner und ich: Roman. München: Wilhelm Goldmann. Tiersma, Peter (2006): “Language of legal texts”, Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics: Volume 6: Inu-Lea, ed. Keith Brown, 2nd ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 549-556. Tiersma, Peter (2008): “The nature of legal language”, Dimensions of Forensic Linguistics, eds. John Gibbons & M. Teresa Turell. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 7-25. Timm, Uwe (2000): Die Entdeckung der Currywurst: Novelle. München: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag. Trosborg, Anna (1997): Rhetorical Strategies in Legal Language: Discourse Analysis of Statutes and Contracts. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. Trumpp, Eva C. (1998): Fachtextsorten kontrastiv: Englisch – Deutsch – Französisch. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. Vater, Heinz (2001): Einführung in die Textlinguistik: Struktur und Verstehen von Texten, 3rd ed. München: Fink. Vater, Heinz (2012): Referenz: Bezüge zwischen Sprache und Welt. Trier: WTV Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier. Virtanen, Tuija (1992): “Issues of text typology: narrative – a ‘basic’ type of text?”, Text 12, 293-310. Warren, Paul (2013): Introducing Psycholinguistics. Cambridge et al.: Cambridge University Press. Waters, Susan (1997): “Legal English: one register or several genres?”, Revue Belge de Philologie et d’Histoire 75(3), 805-820. Weinrich, Harald (2007): Textgrammatik der deutschen Sprache, 4th ed. Hildesheim: Georg Olms. Wermke, Matthias, Kathrin Kunkel-Razum & Werner ScholzeStubenrecht (2010): Duden: Das Synonymwörterbuch: Ein Wörterbuch sinnverwandter Wörter, 5th ed. Mannheim & Zürich: Dudenverlag. Wetter, J. Gillis (1960): The Styles of Appellate Judicial Opinions: A Case Study in Comparative Law. Leiden: A.W. Sythoff.

288

References

White, Robin M. & Ian D. Willock (2007): The Scottish Legal System, 4th ed. Haywards Heath & Edinburgh: Tottel. Widdowson, Henry G. (1978): Teaching Language as Communication. Oxford et al.: Oxford University Press. Wintour, Patrick (2012): “David Cameron says he is driven like Margaret Thatcher”, The Guardian Online Sunday 20 May 2012. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/may/20/david-camerondriven-like-margaret-thatcher. Wright, Lawrence (1981): “Space cadet”, Texas Monthly July 1981, 114119 & 174-195. Wunderlich, Dieter (1974): Grundlagen der Linguistik. Reinbek: Rowohlt. Zabrocki, Ludwik (1970): „Grundfragen der konfrontativen Grammatik“, Probleme der kontrastiven Grammatik, ed. Hugo Moser. Düsseldorf: Schwann. 31-51. Zweigert, Konrad & Hein Kötz (1998): Introduction to Comparative Law, translated by Tony Weir, 3rd ed. Oxford et al.: Clarendon.

Studying coreference is essential for investigating how texts are produced and understood. While several authors have analyzed coreference in English or in German, there exist so far only few contrastive studies of coreference in these two languages. This book contributes to closing this gap by providing an in-depth study of coreference in English and German in general and in English and German court decisions in particular. The first part of this book presents a new framework of the linguistic devices for coreference in English and German, their functions and the factors which influence their use. This framework is then put to the test in a corpus study of British and German court decisions. The linguistic features of court decisions have been shown to be relatively strongly influenced by the legal system(s) and the legal culture(s) of their country of origin. It was therefore particularly interesting to analyze how these genre-related extralinguistic factors may influence the choice of devices for coreference in court decisions.

Logos Verlag Berlin

ISBN 978-3-8325-4339-6