Subject-oriented Texts [1 ed.] 3110125684, 9783110125689

Citation preview

Subject-oriented Texts

Research in Text Theory Untersuchungen zur Texttheorie Editor Janos S. Petöfi, Macer ata Advisory Board Irena Bellert, Montreal Antonio Garcia-Berrio, Madrid Maria-Elisabeth Conte, Pavia Teun A. van Dijk, Amsterdam Wolfgang U. Dressler, Wien Nils Erik Enkvist, Abo Robert E. Longacre, Dallas Roland Posner, Berlin Hannes Rieser, Bielefeld Dieter Viehweger, Berlin Volume 16

w DE

G Walter de Gruyter · Berlin · New York 1991

Sub j ect-oriented Texts Languages for Special Purposes and Text Theory Edited by Hartmut Schröder

w DE

G Walter de Gruyter · Berlin · New York 1991

© Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines of the ANSI to ensure permanence and durability.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication

Data

Subject-oriented texts : languages for special purposes and text theory / edited by Hartmut Schröder. p. cm. - (Research in text theory. ISSN 0179-4167 ; v. 16) Includes bibliographical references and indexes. ISBN 3-11-012568-4 (Germany : acid-free paper). ISBN 0-89925-712-7 (USA : acid-free paper) I. Sublanguage. 2. Discourse analysis. I. Schröder, Hartmut. II. Series. P120.S9S89 1991 91-2584 410—dc20 CIP

Deutsche Bibliothek Cataloguing in Publication

Data

Subject oriented texts : languages for special purposes and text theory / ed. by Hartmut Schroder. — Berlin ; New York : de Gruyter, 1991 (Research in text theory ; Vol. 16) ISBN 3-11-012568-4 NE: Schroder, Hartmut [Hrsg.]; GT

ISSN 0179-4167 © Copyright 1991 by Walter de Gruyter & Co., D-1000 Berlin 30. All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Printed in Germany Typesetting and Printing: Arthur Collignon GmbH, Berlin Binding: Lüderitz & Bauer, Berlin

Acknowledgements The present volume of recent studies in the text-centered research on languages for special purposes (LSP) originated from the increasing interest of many linguists in both text theory and LSP research. At present, it seems that both of these disciplines act as a stimulus to the formation of new research fields. The articles of the book should serve as a step towards understanding the complex process of textualization in several fields of communication for special purposes. I am very grateful to the authors of this volume for their contributions and co-operation as well as the advice and support throughout the preparation of this volume. Special thanks are due to Professor Janos S. Petöfi for his encouragement and for including this book in his series "Research in Text Theory". Furthermore, I would like to extend my thanks to the invaluable contributions of Brett Dellinger, Andrew Lightfoot and Andrew Young for correcting the English texts of the volume. I wish also to acknowledge the excellent secretarial assistance of Virpi Nerg, Tuija Pakkala, Susanne Patriika and, last but not least, Jari Perkiömäki of the University of Vaasa. Without the diligent effort of all these fine people the book would not have appeared. Hartmut Schröder

Contents

Acknowledgements

V

Hartmut Schröder Linguistic and Text-theoretical Research on Languages for Special Purposes. A thematic and bibliographical guide

1

Michael Clyne The Sociocultural Dimension: The Dilemma of the German-speaking Scholar

49

Peter Glas The Symbolic Mode and Secondary Constitution of Meaning. Cultural Semiotic Comments on an Advertisement of the German WWF . . . .

68

Rosemarie Gläser Communication in Literary Studies as LSP

85

Claus Gnutzmann and Hermann Oldenburg Contrastive Text Linguistics in LSP-Research: Theoretical Considerations and some Preliminary Findings 103 Karlheinz Hengst Functional Macro-Analysis of Specialist Text Forms — A Researchmethod Derived from Foreign Language Teaching 137 Lothar Hoffmann Texts and Text Types in LSP

158

Marja-Liisa Kakkuri-Knuuttila and Martin Kusch LSP-Research, Philosophy of Science, and the Question-Theoretical Approach — some Tentative Suggestions 167 Robert Kaplan and William Grabe The Fiction in Science Writing

199

Christer Lauren and Marianne Nordman Corpus Selection in LSP Research

218

Lita Lundquist Some Considerations on the Relations between Text Linguistics and the Study of Texts for Specific Purposes 231

VIII

Contents

Juan C. Sager A Theory of Text Production, Modification, Reception

244

Dieter Viehweger Lexical Knowledge and Text Interpretation

254

Siegfried Weber Communicative Acts and the Constitution of Scientific and Technical Texts 267

Summaries

305

List of Contributors

315

Subject Index

317

Name Index

320

HARTMUT SCHRÖDER

Linguistic and Text-theoretical Research on Languages for Special Purposes A thematic and bibliographical guide "Die Wissenschaften zerstören sich auf doppelte Weise selbst: durch die Breite, in die sie gehen, und durch die Tiefe, in die sie sich versenken". (Johann Wolfgang von Goethe)

0.

Introduction

Since the sixties, the process of increasing specialisation and differentiation into several disciplines and research fields in modern linguistics has gone hand in hand with a tendency towards multidisciplinary research and integration. Examples of this are the domain of discourse analysis and text linguistics as well as modern LSP research (Language for Special Purposes), which are relatively new autonomous branches of applied linguistics, and both involved in the change of paradigm in linguistics in the early 1970s. At present, it seems that both of these disciplines in their turn act again as a stimulus to the formation of new research fields. And, at the same time, we can observe an increasing influence of pragmalinguistic, psycholinguistic, sociolinguistic and, especially, textlinguistic approaches upon the research of special texts; a phenomenon that has, since the early 1980s, been expressed by new slogans such as "Hinwendung zum Text" (taking into account the text level) and "Erweiterung des Blickwinkels" (broadening the perspective). As a result of this new orientation of LSP research, we have recently been able to witness the avoidance of the use of concepts like Fachspräche (language for special purposes) and Fachsprachen//«^»«//^ (LSP linguistics), often substituted by such concepts as Fachkommunikation (communication for special purposes) and Fachkommunikationsforschung (research in special communication) or Fachtextlinguistik (LSP text linguistics). As to the present state of the art in this new branch of linguistic research, von Hahn, for instance, is, however, still very sceptical, "Über wenig Gebiete in der Fachsprachenforschung ist so viel formal Aufmunterndes (...) und gleichzeitig so wenig substantiell Inhaltliches geschrieben worden, wie über die fachliche Textstruktur. Andererseits ist die auffallige Strukturiertheit von Fachtexten auf mehreren Ebenen eine schon vorwissenschaftliche Einsicht." (1983, 1 1 9 — 120)

2

Η. Schröder

Nevertheless, a brief survey of current trends in LSP research reveals that some interesting results have been achieved in analysing special communication from a text-oriented point of view. However, it would be a misunderstanding to think that text linguistics plays the only and most important role in the new orientation of LSP research. The relationship between LSP research and text linguistics is multi-dimensional with considerable give and take on both sides. The present text-centred LSP research demonstrates that textlinguistic approaches have yet to adapt to specific purposes in analysing special texts. At the same time, I am convinced that text linguistics, too, can profit from the cooperation with LSP research. I think that a real broadening of the perspective in LSP research means going beyond the framework of traditional text linguistics and towards semiotic textology. 1 As Petöfi states, it is necessary to develop a semiotic textology because neither text grammar, nor text linguistics, nor rhetoric, nor the theory of interpretation "is capable of investigating all of the (tightly interconnected) aspects of textuality, and none of them has been conceived so as to integrate the specific results of the particular branches of text-centred research. As to its integrative character, it is comparable to traditional philology, although their methods diverge." (1986, 545—46) In this survey I am pointing out some developments in the discussion concerning the relationship between LSP research and text linguistics. Firstly, I look at the present state of LSP research. Then I give some comments on textlinguistic research and the text-centred approach of analysing special texts. In doing so I also intend to discuss the relationship between LSP research, text linguistics and pragmatics as well as other disciplines dealing with special communication. In the third chapter of my paper I outline the main concepts and paradigms in the analysis of LSP texts. In the fourth chapter, I report on the main research topics, trying to classify the present results of textcentred LSP research and to point out some trends and gaps in this research field. Because of lack of space, it is not possible to discuss and evaluate different approaches in the present text-centred LSP research; my main purpose here is to guide the reader into a new branch of applied linguistics. The reason I am concentrating mainly on German literature is that text linguistics and LSP research — as I understand them — are branches of research of European origin par excellence and, therefore, bound to the traditions of philology in the German-speaking countries. The first monographs in this branch were published in 1900 in Germany. Also, the first international journal ( F a c h s p r a c h e ) was founded in Austria (in 1979) containing mainly articles written in German; even after its renaming to Special Language — Fachsprache, the dominance of the German language can clearly be seen. Finally, the designation {European Symposium on LSP) and the venues 1

Cf. the report on research in semiotic textology by Petöfi 1986 and, furthermore, Petöfi 1987 and 1989.

Linguistic and Text-theoretical Research on LSP

3

(Vienna 1977, Bielefeld 1979, Copenhagen 1981, Bordeaux 1983, Leuven 1985, Yaasa 1987 and Budapest 1989) of the first international conferences on LSP research emphasize the European origin of this field of research. 2 Consequently Sager et al. in their book English Special Languages, which is the only large monograph published in English, have to admit that the German, Czech and Russian languages are "most fully explored, and those in which most studies of special languages have appeared" (1980, xxii). Refering to the literature that has appeared in English, Sager et al. write: "Nor is there a book in English dealing with the phenomenon of special languages as such, though there are three German publications of recent date which contain to varying degree elements of such a general theory." 3 1.

Research on Languages for Special

1.1. The concept of Language for Special

Purposes Purposes

The Longman's Dictionary of Applied Linguistics (1985) defines the concept of languages for special or for specific purposes as meaning "languages used for particular and restricted types of communication (...) and which contain lexical, grammatical, and other linguistic features which are different from ordinary language" (p. 159). Furthermore — according to the same dictionary — the concept special languages is defined as "a term used for the varieties of language used by specialists in writing about their subject matter, such as the language used in botany, law, nuclear physics or linguistics. The study of special languages includes the study of terminology (...) and register (...)" (p. 264). 4 The register is defined as a "speech variety used by a particular group of people, usually sharing the same occupation (...) or the same interests (...)" (p. 242). At first glance over the subject field special languages one could be inclined to assume that LSP is the opposite of the so-called common language or the language for general purposes (LGP). However, determining the relation between LSP and LGP is more complicated than that; this has constituted the focus of LSP research for many years (cf., for example, the joint publications of Petöfi, Podlech & Savigny 1975 and Mentrup 1978; and, furthermore, the research paper of Krischel-Heinzer 1987). As for the relationship between common and special language, I agree with Hoffmann (1987 a, 298) that it is "practically impossible to demarcate the size of the so-called common vocabu2 3

4

Note that the next LSP symposium will be held in 1991 in Jerusalem. However, there are several monographs in English dealing with various aspects of learning and teaching English as LSP. Cf., for example, Beier (1980), Gerbert (1986), Robinson (1980), Trimble (1985), Swales (1985), Hutchinson & Waters (1987). Note Opitz' observation that "the concept of special purpose (...) is fused and confused with that of special language." (1980, 72). About the concept register cf. also Zwicky & Zwicky 1982.

4

Η. Schröder

lary, to give a complete list of its elements or to classify every word of a language as belonging or not belonging to it." This is why Hoffmann replaced the concept common language by "total language in the sense of the language system or langueand introduced the concept of sublanguages meaning "subsystems of the total language system, actualized in the texts of specific spheres of communication" (298). In this way it is possible to understand common language or LGP simply as the "Language for the Specific Purpose of General Communication" (Strevens 1977,146). Common language and special languages are both subsystems of our total language system. They use the same elements and structures of a certain language system. They use these elements and structures, however, in specific ways and with specific frequencies of occurrence, depending on the intention, purpose and the content of the text or discourse. 5 Any language system includes an open-ended sequence of sublanguages. Most sublanguages are special languages, which belong to a definite subject field. Any special language "represents the totality of linguistic means used in a limited sphere of communication on a restricted subject in order to enable cognitive work to be done and mutual information to be conveyed by those acting in the said domain" (Hoffmann 1987 a, 298). Within this framework of so-called horizontal disposition (Hoffmann 1987 a, 298), it is possible to differentiate languages for special purposes, depending on the subject field they belong to. This means that any subject field has its own special language, always taking into account the purpose and the content of a certain subject field. Because we can not estimate the number of various subject fields, the horizontal disposition of special languages "takes the shape of an open-ended sequence" (Hoffmann 1987 a, 298). According to Balboni (1986, 3), "from simple LSP to the most formal LSP there is a continuum." This means that most languages for special purposes "are characterized by a vertical stratification, i. e. they are used on different levels" (Hoffmann 1987 a, 2 9 8 - 2 9 9 ; cf., furthermore, Hafner 1987). We can discuss the same subject matter from different points of view and on different levels. Criteria for these levels are, for example, the degree of abstraction and specification, orality vs. literality, the whole sphere of communication, the media and the purpose of the text (cf. also the article of Nordman 1985 b on the concept of minilects). But there is no "razor's edge" which could clearly distinguish common language from special languages and special languages from each other. Although there are some specific phonological, morpho-syntactic, lexical, textual, functional and extralinguistic features for each special language, they 5

Cf. about the concept of sublanguage, furthermore, the monograph of Naomi Sager et al. (1987; especially the definition on page 4), the reprint of Harris monograph from 1909 (1988; especially pages 33—56), the joint publication of Kittredge & Lehrberger (1982; especially the article of Moskovich), and the research paper of Krause (1988).

Linguistic and Text-theoretical Research on LSP

5

are "not enough to make a razor to cut the continuum" (Balboni 1986, 4). What we need to do is to consider the whole situational context and the function of language within the framework of communication. I will return to this question in connection with the discussion of special text types. When considering the horizontal disposition and the vertical stratification of LSP we can say that special languages have little in common with sociolects, which are defined as sublanguages of social and/or professional groups "determined by the specific use they make of languages means" (Hoffmann 1987 a, 299). Special languages are always functional languages and belong to a certain subject field (cf. Otto 1981, 48). Sociolects, on the other hand, do not belong to a subject field but to a certain group. Special languages mainly strive for precision, clarity and economy of language means inside (and also partly outside) the communication of a certain subject field. Sociolects, however, aim at separation, and they use language means to exclude other people not belonging to the group. I agree with Gnutzmann (1980, 54) that the focus of special languages is in the subject field itself, whereas for sociolects the group is most important. On the basis of this distinction, Gnutzmann distinguishes, for example, the special language of physics from the sublanguage of physicists (— socio lee t).6 In practice, however, it is difficult, and often even impossible, to make a razor to cut the continuum of LSP and sociolects. In order to avoid such difficulties by defining the concept LSP I will use this concept here only in a heuristic manner and dispense with a discussion of the definitions given by some linguists (cf. Drozd/Seibicke 1973, 81; Hoffmann 1976, 170; Möhn 1975, 175-176; Beier 1980, 13; Littmann 1980, 2 3 - 2 4 and 2 9 - 3 0 ) . Following Möhn/Pelka (1984, 23) and von Hahn (1983, 64) I assume that a linguistic definition of the concept of LSP is indeed not possible; nevertheless, one can summarize the most important results of our current knowledge of the most important features of LSP. They are: — LSPs are not defined as the opposite of common language; languages for special purposes are sublanguages belonging to a certain field of subjectoriented communication; they use the linguistic and other communication means of a certain language and culture system in a specific way and with a specific frequency of occurrence depending on the content, the purpose and the whole communication situation of a text or discourse. — LSPs are differentiated through the horizontal disposition in an openended sequence of subject-oriented sublanguages, and through the vertical stratification in different levels of communication within the framework of one subject field. 6

Cf. about the concept of sociolect, 1981.

furthermore, Möhn 1980, von Polenz 1981 and Steinig

6

Η. Schröder

— LSPs are functional languages whose main purpose is to make subjectoriented communication as effective as possible; they have nothing to do with sociolects. — LSPs are variables in a historical perspective, too; thus we always have to relate the concept of LSP to a certain date/timing in the historical development of the respective subject field (Hornung 1983, 196). — LSPs are neither only stylistic variants, nor only terminological subsystems (Hoffmann 1982 a, 18). What we need to do is to consider all essential features of special texts in their entirety. — LSPs include also the use of non-verbal features in textualisation. Thus, the concept of special communication (Fachkommunikation by von Hahn 1983) would be more precise than the concept of Language for special purposes {Fachsprache). However, last but not least, one must ask, "How does special purpose in communication result in special language?" (the title of Opitz's article 1980). I agree with Opitz's answer that "it is not the language that is specialized, but the purpose to which it will be applied." This leads us to a further question, "What happens to language when communication focuses on a special purpose?" (Opitz 1980, 79), and, thus, to a text-oriented perspective of LSP research. 1.2. The place, object and aims of LSP

research

According to Hoffmann (1987 b, 653), LSP research "has been defined as a branch of applied linguistics (...), but is nevertheless linked with nearly all other branches" of linguistics. Furthermore, LSP research "is an interdisciplinary domain, which investigates the use made of language(s) in specialized spheres of social or professional activity, particularly in science, technology and production" (Hoffmann 1985, 9). Thus, the objects of LSP research are sublanguages, which are, as Hoffmann points out, "the object of sociolinguistics, too, but from another point of view, because languages for specific purposes are in sociolinguistics not primarily characterized by the whats and hows of communication, but by who communicates with whom" (Hoffmann 1987 b, 654). The subject of LSP research includes the linguistic manifestations of special languages, i. e. various text types within a certain field of subjectoriented communication. The main purpose of LSP research is "to give an exact description of these texts, of their constituents on all relevant levels, of the network of relations between the constituents and of suprasegmental phenomena" (Hoffmann 1985, 9). LSP research makes use of methods and research techniques from different disciplines and research traditions, but, according to Hoffmann (1984, 28), the following seven methodological currents are characteristic of LSP analysis and description:

Linguistic and Text-theoretical Research on LSP

7

(1) Lexicological or terminological work which is concentrated on the level of words, and deals especially with the subject-oriented meaning of special words, with the structure of terms and the defining of concepts. (2) Functional speech analysis in the tradition of the Prague School of Linguistics, which "is concentrated on the different uses of all language elements and configurations in texts according to the various functions of the latter" (Hoffmann 1984, 30). (3) Functional stylistics "as a relatively independent component of functional speech analysis", which "examines functional styles as complexes of stylistic features at various levels" (Hoffmann 1984, 31). This direction of LSP research is currently mostly represented by the Moscow School and their concept of functional style. (4) The study of the language of commerce "as an unusual combination of subject-matter and language (...) which was carried out by some commercial colleges in the Netherlands, Switzerland, Germany and above all Czechoslovakia, mainly during the 1920s and 1930s" (Hoffmann 1984, 32). (5) The philosophical and the scientific view, meaning the reflections of philosophers and researchers from the individual sciences on the cognitive and communicative function of the language they use in their fields (cf. the joint publications "Sprache und Wissenschaft" 1960, the monograph of Wagenschein 1986 and the article of Habermas 1981). (6) The improvement of scientific and technical translation dealing with certain characteristics of special languages and with universals and problems in translation. (7) The theory of sublanguages which "aims at a synthesis of all positive components of the foregoing approaches to LSP" (Hoffmann 1984, 34 — 35) and which is represented, for example, by Hoffmann & Piotrowski (1979). The present state of the art is briefly summarised by Hoffmann as follows, "LSP research has emancipated itself f r o m one-sided views, either lexicological or stylistic, paradigmatic or functional. It strives for a synthesis of competence and performance, of language system and communication. The future path is already indicated by slogans like 'language-in-function', which is easily replaced by 'sublanguage-in-function', and 'text linguistics', which reads in our case 'the linguistic analysis of special texts in their respective communicational frames'." (1984, 36)

1.3. Attempts

to classify the domain of LSP

research

Beginning in the early 1970s several monographs, readers and textbooks on LSP were published in German. The first extensive surveys of LSP were written by Drozd & Seibicke (1973), Fluck (1976, 3. edition 1985) and Hoffmann (1976, 3. edition 1987). Additionally, Hoffmann & Piotrowski (1979) published an introduction to LSP research within the framework of quantitative linguistics. The following books deal with LSP by concentrating

8

Η. Schröder

mainly on a specific individual language: Beier (1980) and Sager et al. (1980) on English special languages (cf. also the joint publication of Gläser 1987), von Hahn (1983), Möhn & Pelka (1984) and Oksaar (1988) on German special languages (cf. also the joint publications of von Hahn 1981 and Weber 1989), Kocourek (1982) on French special languages (cf. also the joint publications of Dahmen et al. 1989 and Kalverkämper 1988), and, Lauren & Nordman (1987) on Swedish special languages (cf. also the joint publication of Gunnarsson 1987). Most of the LSP joint publications only focus on certain aspects of special language. They deal, for example, with the problem of "special language vs. general language" (cf. Petöfi, Podlech & von Savigny 1975, Mentrup 1979) with analyses of lexical and syntactical features of special texts (cf. Hoffmann 1975, Hoffmann 1978), as well as the phenomenon of language in science and technology (cf. Bungarten 1981, Bungarten 1986 and Knobloch 1986) including questions of LSP research applications (cf. Gnutzmann & Turner 1980, Gnutzmann 1988, Richart, Thome & Wilss 1982, Kelz 1983) and (recently) with textual features of special languages (cf. Gläser 1985, 1987, 1988; Hoffmann 1987, Kalverkämper 1988, Arntz 1988). There are also joint publications on LSP containing the papers of the European Symposiums on LSP which take place every two years at various locations around Europe (cf. Fachsprache 1979, Hoedt, Lundquist, Picht & Qvistgaard 1982, Perrin 1985; Cornu, Vanparijs, Delahaye & Baten 1986, Lauren & Nordman 1989 a, 1989 b). Furthermore, let me mention the joint pulications of Hoedt & Turner (1981), Retard & Wyler (1987), Sprissler (1987) and Nuopponen & Palmberg (1989) which deal with general aspects of LSP research including questions of LSP research applications. Since 1979 an international journal on LSP research called Special Language — Fachsprache has also been in publication. The LSP Centre of the Copenhagen School of Economics has, since 1977, published the UNESCO ALS ED LSP Network and Newsletter. With regard to English special languages, we have to mention the ESP-Newsletter and THE ESP JOURNAL (cf. also section A in my bibliography). The most extensive bibliography on LSP research, containing 10,000 titles and beginning with the year 1965, was made by Leube (1976 — 78), Lehmann & Leube (1979 — 85) and Lehmann & Puchta (1986). This bibliography divided the complete field of LSP into the following categories: — — — — — — —

Bibliographies Readers Special languages in general Terminology Translation studies and LSP Language learning and language teaching LSP Frequency dictionaries in certain subject fields.

Another extensive bibliography was published in 1989 by Kromann & Mikkelsen in book form (1,170 titles) and by Mikkelsen & Kromann in the

Linguistic and Text-theoretical Research on LSP

9

form of a data disc (more than 10,000 titles) in Danish. Mikkelsen and Kromann classify LSP research more distinctly than Lehmann et al.: — — — — — — — — —

Bibliographies, journals and readers Theory of LSP and research designs Diachronic LSP research Special communication (general language and special languages; functional styles; external special communication; internal special communication) Textual and morpho-syntactical features of LSP texts (text types, micro structures: connection and coherence; grammar: morpho-syntactical features, valence, nominalisation, modality) Terminology and subject-oriented lexicography Interlingual special communication (translation studies and cross-cultural communication, a culture and ideology bounded dictionary, translation problems on the level of grammar and discourse) Learning and teaching LSP Corpora in LSP research.

However, there is not yet any distinguished bibliography of text-centred LSP research. 1.4. The history of LSP

research

As regards the general situation of LSP research, the 1970s were, according to Max Gorosch, the "decade of LSP" (quoted by Drozd 1984, 43). In the 1970s LSP research established itself as a relatively independent discipline within the framework of applied linguistics. Present state-of-the-art research, recent tendencies and shortcomings are best mentioned in a retrospective view. Roughly speaking the history of LSP research can be classified in the following way, 1. The lexical stage: LSP research is mainly reduced to terminology studies; special language is often identified with the special dictionary. 2. The morpho-syntactical stage: The object of LSP research is extended to the level of the sentence; typical features of LSP are identified on the level of the syntax (cf. especially the monographs of Scheie 1975 and Littmann 1981; furthermore, the articles of Benes 1981, Schwanzer 1981, Spillner 1981 a and Hoffmann 1987 d). 3. The text-oriented stage: the special text itself becomes the starting point. At this stage LSP research intends to deal completely with all levels of textualisation, including the pragmatic and extra-linguistic levels. A more fine-grained classification was presented by von Hahn (1981, 3 — 5), according to whom we have to distinguish between several stages concerning the content of research:

10

Η. Schröder

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

The external characterisation of LSP The referential characterisation of LSP The lexical-oriented approach The syntactical description of LSP Additional textlinguistic descriptions of LSP (which became a part of stages 7 and 8) 6. The communicative establishment of LSP 7. Pragmatic analyses: explanations within the framework of the theories of action 8. Pragmatic analyses: problem-solving strategies. The above classifications are of course to be understood only as generalisations of certain tendencies, disregarding the real complexity in the development of this branch of science. However, another problem of these classifications has to be seen in the fact that the early beginnings of LSP research have been overlooked. The earliest research dates back to the turn of the last century. As early as the 1920s and 1930s, LSP research had culminated in the formation of terminological studies and the study of the language of commerce. But if we do not take into consideration this early episode of LSP which ended with the beginning of the Second World War, we have to admit that the simplification of its development into three stages takes place indeed in a certain way. Of course it does not hold true when applied to each individual researcher. One important exception, for example, is the area of LSP research which is involved with the tradition of functional stylistics. Functional approaches have dealt with textual features of LSP since the 1930s. Considering the functional approach in the history of LSP, we have to distinguish between the following two mainstreams of research which were developed in the past for the most part along two separate lines but, to some extent, overlaping. These two lines were the more terminology-oriented approach and the more functional approach. Both existed in relative isolation, one from the other, and are now becoming integrated in a text-centred approach. As for the 1980s, we have to admit that a new orientation to LSP research has developed which consists, according to Weber, of the following, "The recent trend in the field of LSP research seems to be characterized by a reaction against the traditional approaches which have concentrated on the analysis of the formal lexical and syntaxtical features of special languages. It is now widely argued that LSP research must primarily be concerned with the classification and analysis of special-purpose text types."

(1982, 219)

However, it seems that the new orientation, that is the broadening of the research object to take into account the level of the text and the involvment of text linguistics, is not yet competent to include all the complexities of special communication. Hoffmann, for example, pointed out that the framework of text linguistics is not yet able to give answers to the most important questions of recent LSP research.

Linguistic and Text-theoretical Research on LSP

11

"Zu kurz kommt bei fast allen Untersuchungen dieser A r t das Kriterium des Inhalts. Die Kategorie der Subsprache wird übersprungen. A m Ende steht gewöhnlich wieder eine sehr allgemeine Charakterisierung des wissenschaftlichen Stils insgesamt." (1982 b, 32)

Hoffmann required a change from "quantitativen Parametern zur qualitativen Wesensbestimmung, von der Analyse der Form zur Analyse der Bedeutung, von der Betrachtung isolierter sprachlicher Elemente zu ihrer Erfassung in komplexen Einheiten, von der Syntagmatik zur Paradigmatik, von der Linearität zur Struktur, von den innersprachlichen Gesetzmäßigkeiten zu den außersprachlichen Faktoren." (1982 b, 25)

2.

Text linguistics and LSP

2.1. Text

research

linguistics

Typical of text linguistics for many years was the confinement to the study of narrative texts as the most important research object. LSP texts, often containing argumentative and explicative structures, have only very seldom become an explicit object of textual research. Consequently, most of the introductions into text linguistics deal with literary texts (cf., for example, the monographs of Dressier 1973, Schmidt 1976, Klein 1977 and Plett 1979). As an example, one could mention the (German) standard textbook Linguistische Textmodelle by Gülich & Raible (1977, 12 — 13) which is confined to the "Darstellung von Erzähltextmodellen" (explanation of narrative text models). The bibliography of semiotic textology made by Petöfi (1986) confirms this observation/supposition and demonstrates that textological research mainly includes analyses of literary texts and analyses of impromptu speech, whereas research on textual aspects of scientific and technical communication has as yet not come into the focus of textological research. There are, however, some exceptions. Van Dijk (1980), for example, deals in his book Textwissenschaften, in the chapter on super structures, not only with narrative structures but with argumentative structures as well. As an example, let me quote the basic scheme for argumentation: Van Dijk supposed that the argumentative scheme consists in general of the sequence "premise — consequence", by which, in scientific and technical communication, this sequence is extended by stating the problem for analysis and other intermediate stages (1980, 144). Suggestions for analysing LSP texts within the tradition of text linguistics are made in principle by Petöfi (1981) and Lundquist (1989 a, 1989 b and her article in the present volume; see also the contribution of the Tekstlingvistikgruppen 1983). The latter, for example, suggested a complex model of LSP text analysis by taking into account pragmatic, thematic, semantic and cognitive aspects of LSP texts. Viehweger (1987) pointed out the relevance of procedural models for LSP analysis; he supposed

12

Η. Schröder "daß ein solches Modell für die Beschreibung und Erklärung von Fachtexten einen bedeutenden Beitrag leisten kann, zumindest aber demonstriert sie, daß Texte dieser Art durchaus mit Instrumentarien beschreibbar sind, die bisher für Texte der sogenannten Alltagskommunikation entwickelt wurden." (Viehweger 1987, 21)

However, a systematic involvement of LSP texts in text theory as well as in text analysis has still not yet occurred. Although text linguistics has received numerous impulses from LSP research, expecially through learning and teaching LSP (cf. the articles of Andrä 1982 and Wildegans 1977, for example) the study of translation (cf. the joint publication of Arntz 1988) and the research into artificial intelligence (cf. the joint publication of Goodman 1989 and the monograph of Stillings et al. 1987), a specialised branch of text linguistics, specifically dealing with special communication, has not yet been realised. 2.2. The concept of

"Fachtextlinguistik"

We have to admit, on the one hand, that text linguistics has not yet answered the challenge posed by modern LSP research. But, on the other hand, we have also to admit that LSP research has not yet satisfactorily benefitted from the methodology offered by text linguistics. At the moment, we can not speak of a successful adaptation of textlinguistic methods to LSP research. A mutual replenishment/cooperation of text research and LSP research has only begun and has to be continued. However, the question of a relatively autonomous specific branch of LSPoriented text linguistics has recently been discussed in the German literature on LSP research under the concepts fachsprachliche Textlinguistik or Fachtextlinguistik. According to Hoffmann (1987 e, 7), the reasons and motives for this development can be seen, on the one hand, in the orientation of linguistics toward text linguistics in general, and, on the other hand, within the discipline of LSP research itself. The concept offachsprachliche Textlinguistik was first introduced by Hoffmann (1976, 382) who assumed that the attempts to explain the characteristics of special languages beyond the level of the sentence would lead to text linguistics (p. 378). As an example Hoffmann mentioned the transfer of the thematic progression from the level of the sentence to that of the paragraph. Furthermore, Hoffmann states that one task is to check if there is a correspondence between the composition of the content (innere Gedankenführung;) and the formal structure (äußere Aufteilung;) in special texts (p. 382). Besides Hoffmann (1987 c, 1987 e), the pioneers of Fachtextlinguistik include Gläser (1985) and Kalverkämper (1987). In Gläser's (1985, 15) opinion, functional stylistics is a certain type of discipline which belongs to the predecessors of Fachtextlinguistik. Kalverkämper (1983) deals with the question of Fachtextlinguistik from a more theoretical point of view. He differentiates

Linguistic and Text-theoretical Research on LSP

13

"between two focal scopes of the textlinguistic research into LSP, which are termed 'textual linguistics of specialicity' ('textual linguistics related to specialicity'; 'Fach-Textlinguistik') and 'linguistics of special texts' ('linguistics of texts for special purposes'; 'Fachtext-Linguistik'). Textual linguistics of specialicity ('Fach-Textlinguistik') primarily explores whether and how the quality of being special is signalled for objects, facts, or procedures: As this is only possible by means of texts and their essential coordinates (i. e. the communicators and the referent), the present paper advances the view that specialicity should be regarded as a relational quality rather than a static, absolute, and fixed category — a view which has frequently been held in the linguistic literature. The postulated relativity of specialicity as a quality of objects, facts, and procedures, which is accessible only by means of language, is related to the communicators (producer, receiver), to the referent (objects, facts, procedures), and to the text between the communicators about the referent. The specific characteristics of these texts are analysed by the branch called linguistics of special texts ('Fachtext-Linguistik'). Its primary task is the study of special texts on all levels of linguistic description, which must always use the textual entirety as a methodological background: Thus it has to consider the pragmatic circumstances, the textual constitution and macrostructure, the means of coherence, the characteristic features of special syntax, the terms, which should be regarded as condensates of memorized texts fulfilling the function of definition, and, further, the problem of comprehensibility of terms and of special texts. The two main fields of textual linguistics of LSP — textual linguistics of specialicity and linguistics of special texts — cooperate in extending the spectrum of research into LSP and thus give it an interdisciplinary perspective." (1983, 165 — 166)

According to Lundquist (1989 a), Fachtextlinguistik has to check if there are any specific characteristics of textuality and coherence in special texts which are different from those not being special texts. Hoffmann (1987 e, 61) assumes that Fachtextlinguistik has to result in an explanation of the relationship between the text structure, the function and the content of special texts. According to Gläser, the main contents of Fachtextlinguistik consist of the following: "(...) mit empirischen Untersuchungsmethoden die Struktur und die kommunikative Funktion von Texten eines bestimmten Bereichs der gesellschaftlichen Tätigkeit zu beschreiben, aus konkreten Textexemplaren fachübergreifende Merkmale von Fachtextsorten abzuleiten und eine Typologie von Fachtextsorten zu entwickeln." (1985, 3 — 4)

Additionally, Gläser (1985, 16—17) points out that further research has to deal with the correlation of the mutual exchange between the verbal and the visual code in special texts with stylistical conventions for various text types and with the oral (special) communication as well. Last but not least, the aim of Fachtextlinguistik is to be seen in contrastive studies of certain text types. Gnutzmann & Lange (forthcoming), for example, who emphasize an intercultural point of view, set out to investigate the occurrences of universal and culture-/language-specific discourse patterns. At present, it is not possible to determine the state of the art in Fachtextlinguistik because the development in this new branch of linguistics is not a homogeneous one. Hoffmann (1987 e, 8), for example, writes in the preface to his reader Fachsprachen, Instrument und Objekt that even if the authors of the reader (who are, at the same time, members of Hoffmann's research

14

Η. Schröder

collective) share the same opinion on some basic questions concerning textcentred LSP research, it is impossible to draw a uniform picture. Furthermore, Hoffmann (1987 c, 94) remarks that an archetypal text type which could be classified as the special text does not exist. Rather, there exists a vast array of various text types in the complex world of LSP. Stimuli to the formation of Fachtextlinguistik originated actually from the field of learning and teaching of LSP (cf., for example, the articles of Beier 1980 and Beier & Möhn 1984), from translation studies and from computational linguistics (cf., for example, the article of von Hahn 1989). These branches of applied linguistics, especially, demand from Fachtextlinguistik more information about typologies of texts and about typical features of various sorts of texts. 2.3. The concept of special text and the relationship between form and content The concept special text (Fachtext)

is defined by Hoffmann as follows:

"A special text is an instrument and, at the same time, the result of a communicative act carried out in connection with or with respect to a specialized social or individual activity. It constitutes a structural and functional unit (whole) and consists of a finite, ordered set of pragmatically, semantically, and syntactically coherent/cohesive sentences/utterances (textemes), which, being complex language signs, correspond to complex propositions in human thinking and to complex states of affairs in objective reality." (1987 a, 300)

Gläser (1982, 71) defines the concept LSP text almost in the same manner, but adds the following two features to her tentative definition: — an LSP text deals with a job-specific subject — for the textualisation in an LSP text, general and specific linguistic means are used, and, furthermore, there are optional non-linguistic visual elements included which convey further information (e. g. symbols, formulas, graphs, flow charts, and various kinds of illustration). 7 The latter point, i. e. the visual code, is of great importance in subjectoriented communication; I agree with Gläser (1985, 4) that non-verbal expressions are optional features in a special text: they are parts of the visual code. To quote Crystal, "A large part of scientific expression consists of representations that are wholly or partly nonlinguistic in character — such as physical models, charts, pictures, maps, graphs and diagrams. The immediacy and economy of presentation achieved by these methods is selfevident. It would be impossible to provide a coherent account in words of all the interrelationship found on a map, graph or tree diagram, for example, and verbal descriptions of formulae

7

For a more detailed explanation see Gläser (1985, 4). As determinants of the special text Gläser also put under consideration the subject-oriented competence of the producer and receiver.

Linguistic and Text-theoretical Research on LSP

15

and equations are often highly complex and ambiguous (...) On the other hand, linguistic and non-linguistic modes of expression are never totally independent of each other: verbal language is always needed in order to interpret and amplify the meaning or use on nonverbal representations." (1987, 381)

I will not discuss here these and other attempts at defining the concept of special text because, within the framework of text linguistics, there is not yet a mutual agreement even as to what the concept text actually means (sentence or speech act oriented, for example). Rather, I will deal with the issue of the presence of linguistic criteria determining the distance between special texts and those not being special texts. What makes a text special? The significance of these questions in principle was first recognized by Kalverkämper (1980 a, 53) who suggested that the absence of a distinguished definition of the concept of specialicity (Fachsprachlichkeit) constitutes the methodological dilemma of LSP research in general. This problem is also discussed in Kalverkämper 1980 b, but I dispense here with a discussion of Kalverkämper's statements. Rather, I concentrate, in the following, on the question of the relationship between form and content discussed, for example, by Nikula and by Syrkin. Syrkin (1965 in Russian, 1976 in German) argues that Geordnetheit in a special text is established first of all through the level of the content. On the other hand, Syrkin claims that Geordnetheit in a poetic text is established mainly through the form level. To quote Syrkin, "Die Ausdrucksmittel (obligatorische und fakultative) sind dem Gelehrten in der Regel gegeben, und ihre Organisation ist für ihn keine schöpferische Aufgabe. Entsprechend dem Hauptziel der wissenschaftlichen Beschreibung bringt er die Daten der Erfahrung in Übereinstimmung, stellt notwendige semantische Beziehungen zwischen diesen Daten her, mit anderen Worten — er regelt eindeutig die Inhaltsebene. Im Gegensatz dazu können Inhaltselemente, die schon in einem bestimmten Grad semantisch geordnet sind, oder das Sujet insgesamt dem Schriftsteller vorgegeben sein (und sind es gewöhnlich), so daß seine schöpferische Aufgabe darin besteht, diesen Inhalt künstlerisch zu organisieren. Strenge Geordnetheit der Ausdrucksmittel, die Herstellung einer (im Rahmen eines bestimmten Stils) einzig möglichen Verbindung zwischen den Einheiten der Ausdrucksebene, gerade das macht einen Text künstlerisch. Was wir wissenschaftliche oder künstlerische Intuition nennen, besteht offensichtlich vor allem in der Fähigkeit, eine solche Art von Verbindungen in den entsprechenden Ebenen zu finden." (1976, 35 — 36)

Nearly the same view is shared by Nikula (1984, 97 — 98) who argues that the distinction between the special text and the poetic text is not a structural but a functional one; the same text can function alternatively in special and/ or in poetic communication (p. 86). To quote Nikula, "Der grundsätzliche Unterschied zwischen FT und LT kann nicht als ein Unterschied bezüglich Eigenschaften wie Wortwahl, Komplexität, Nominalisierungstendenzen, Metaphorik, sprachliche Ökonomie, Stil, Schönheit, Emotivität, Formgebundenheit usw. definiert werden." (1984, 83)

In addition, Nikula defines the form of special texts as the servant of the content (Dienerin des Inhalts). Nikula stresses, "Geniales kann in einem Fachtext auch schlecht ausgedrückt werden, Geniales in einem literarischen Text schlecht auszudrücken ist nicht möglich." (1984, 86)

16

Η. Schröder

In my opinion, Nikula may be oversimplifying in stating the criteria in the way above. Remembering that special communication includes, besides the technical and natural sciences, also the humanities, we have to acknowledge that special communication is not restricted to descriptive and narrative text types but consists of argumentative and evaluative text types as well. In special texts within the humanities we can observe the very common use of persuasive means of textualisation. This suggests, for example, that various rhetorical and stylistic means are used and the way of speaking and arguing itself becomes more important than that in texts within the technologies and the sciences. 8 It can be claimed that there are certain (mostly unwritten) conventions about arguing and writing, even in the sciences and the humanities, which have to be taken into account by the participants for a successful communication within their subject field. Let me mention, for example, the presence of author's guides given by journals and publishers, as well as the large number of manuals for scientific writing and argumentation (cf., for example, Fogelin 1978 and Fisher 1988). Another indication of the correctness of the above claim can be seen in the presence of specific features on all linguistic levels of special texts which makes it possible to compose, for example, parodies of fairy-tales containing the same material as the original version and imitating the style of special communication. 9 At the same time, it is also possible to compose a parody of a special text by imitating the style of special communication but without putting content (and/or only nonsense) into the text. 10 In my opinion, a text becomes special through its content as well as its form. A dialectical mutual exchange can be supposed between them both. It is not possible, simply by linguistic means, to demarcate the limits of special texts and those not being special. The deciding factor in whether a text is special or not are non-linguistic and extra-linguistic criteria which constitute, according to Petöfi (1980, 124), the only way to distinguish between special and non-special texts. Therefore, the definition of the complex concept of special text has to start from the subject field itself (cf. Wildegans 1977, 616), and in cases of doubt we have to ask for the consensus of the specialists within the subject field (cf. Petöfi 1980). To sum up, the relationship between form and content in special texts can be described as follows, — on the one hand, in real communication the function not only determines the linguistic structure of the text, but also determines the what of the text, i. e. that which I choose from my possible items of information. What I have to say on my subject depends not only on the subject itself, 8 9 10

Cf., for example, Gauger (1988), on the meaning of Sprechweise in the humanities. Cf., for example, the parody of Rotkäppchen reprinted in Fluck 1985. Cf., for example, David Lodge's novel Small world.

Linguistic and Text-theoretical Research on L S P

17

but also on the situation and my intentions towards the receiver; content is also a function o f situation and intention; — on the other hand, the content determines not only the thematic structure of the text, but also determines the linguistic and rhetorical how and the possibilities with whom I communicate; it is, for example, not possible to communicate on any subject with any person. In conclusion, I would like to point out that "pure" scientific communication is more (but not only) content-oriented and that popularisation, for example, is more (but not only) function-oriented. Furthermore, other determinants o f the text structure include the culture, the society, the branch of science, and — last but not least — the time or the historical moment. 1 1 In my view, the scientific discourse seems to be the result o f a multi-dimensional effect o f the whole pragmatic context o f a text, concluding the subject field with its subject-oriented states of affairs, the paradigm and the methodology, the rhetoric and the way of arguing.

2.4. Different approaches to sorts of texts and to a typology of special texts In principle, I agree with Kalverkämper (1982) who assumes that sorts o f texts do not actually exist in real communication situations but that, rather, any sort o f text represents only an abstraction/idealisation o f concrete texts. However, let me cite the discussion o f text typologies given by Gläser. Gläser, who is one o f the recent representatives of functional stylistics, sums up the state of the art in the present research on L S P styles as follows, "1. T h e problem o f style classification in L S P consists in the discrepancy between the limitation o f functional styles to four or five types and the open-ended variety o f styles in L S P communication. 2. T h e functional styles cover only part o f special languages. (...) 3. As a consequence, it becomes evident, that a style classification in languages for special purposes is inseparably linked with a classification o f text types. As style only exists within a text, a classification o f text types is the precondition o f a classification o f styles, although the two systems do not coincide. 4. T h e system o f functional styles can only be regarded as a working hypothesis which calls for further specification." (1982, 70)

Gläser discusses, with regard to the phenomenon o f LSP, four different types o f recent text typologies which were suggested by various linguists (1982, 75 — 79). After criticizing these four types o f text typologies Gläser suggests a five-fold classification o f styles in LSP. T h e classificatory principle o f her typology o f styles is "the progression from the centre to the periphery o f job-specific communication based on the degree o f previous knowledge o f the

11

I have, for example, pointed out the role o f paradigms and scientific socialisation in my discourse-oriented approach in the special field o f social sciences (cf. the monograph o f Schroder 1987, pp. 3 - 3 8 ) .

18

Η. Schröder

communication partners (...), the degree of abstractness of the presentation of a topic in a text and the linguistic structure of the text" (p. 79). However, in her conclusion Gläser admits that texts "in the last resort do not allow for an absolute, unchallengeable typology" (p. 80). Furthermore, let me also cite Gläser's definition of the concept of sort of texts, "Wir definieren die Textsorte als ein historisch entstandenes, gesellschaftlich akzeptiertes, produktives und in der Regel empirisch beherrschtes Textbildungsmuster zur geistig-sprachlichen Verarbeitung eines komplexen Sachverhalts." (1985, 5)

The concept sort of special texts (Fachtextsorte) following way,

is defined by Gläser in the

"Wir definieren die Fachtextsorte als ein Textbildungsmuster für die geistig-sprachliche Verarbeitung eines fachspezifischen Sachverhalts, das von einzelsprachlichen kommunikativen Normen bestimmt ist." (1985, 5)

Concerning a typology of sorts of special texts (cf. especially the monographs of Gläser 1979 and Sager et al. 1980; the joint publication of Kallmeyer 1986 with the extensive bibliography of Schmitt; the articles of Gläser 1982, Isenberg 1983, Ickler 1987 b, Satzger 1987, Satzger 1989, Wiegand 1988, Sager 1989 and the articles of Hoffmann and Sager in the present volume), Gläser comes to the following conclusion, "Eine Typologie der Fachtextsorten kann letztlich nur von kommunikativ-pragmatischen Erwägungen bei der Beantwortung der Frage ausgehen: Welche Textsorten sind notwendig zur Sicherung der fachbezogenen Kommunikation in einer bestimmten Sphäre der gesellschaftlichen Tätigkeit und — davon abgeleitet — inwieweit sind sie Gegenstand der Kommunikationsbefahigung des Angehörigen einer speziellen Kommunikationsgemeinschaft?" (1985, 1 3 - 1 4 )

Let me finally, and briefly, express my own opinion on the question of sorts of texts and on the typology of texts in special communication. In my view, in the humanities and social sciences we have to start, for example, from the following variables which determine the conventions for certain sorts of texts. These variables, in their turn, are affected by the respective culture and language they belong to: — The horizontal disposition: The subject field itself, the degree of specialisation (differentiation into several research fields within the discipline)... — The scientific paradigm: The typical states of affairs, the methodology ... — The destination: Theoretical, applied, and empirical research... — The vertical stratification: the degree of abstractisation ... — The communication situation as a whole: Participants, locations, moment, purpose, and intention of the communication ... — The dominant "text type": Narrative, descriptive or argumentative "text types" (cf. Werlich 1975)...

Linguistic and Text-theoretical Research on LSP

19

— The manifestation of the text: Literal vs. verbal communication, and other forms of communication (for example, e-mail)... These variables which I have briefly listed here have their influence upon the use of rhetorical, stylistic and linguistic means in the process of textualisation. Thus, they determine the formation of sorts of texts in special communication. However, we have to take into account that besides the above mentioned variables there are also yet other factors (among others, for example, the individual style of the author; cf. the monograph of Gauger 1988) having an influence on the text structure. 2.5. The extralinguistic

and pragmatic

levels of special

texts

Undoubtedly, the new concept of Fachtextlinguistik represents a more adequate approach to analysing the complex phenomenon of LSP than the word- or sentence-oriented approach of the early 1970s. But, nevertheless, I am convinced that a simple (text) linguistic approach is not in itself adequate to deal with all the aspects of special communication. Refering to Selinker, Opitz (1980, 23), for example, points out "that the real problem of LSP lies on the level of non-linguistic information, and can only be solved — if at all — in a contextual frame." LSP is, according to Opitz, "a pragmatic concept, and must be handled in a pragmatic way." In the same fashion, Weinrich emphasizes, "Viele Fachsprachen sind in ihren Charakteren nur dann erklärbar, wenn man den Arbeitsprozessen Rechnung trägt, in denen Objekte und Produkte hergestellt werden." (1980, 37)

From my point of view, we have to broaden the perspective within the framework of LSP research once again. What we need is, once again, a new orientation of LSP research which takes into consideration, besides the text level, the level of content and the whole communicative situation as well. As a goal for further research I see the formation of a specialized pragmatics of LSP texts and the taking into account of the subject field itself, including the problem of the scientific paradigms (cf. the monographs of Kuhn 1970, Bayertz 1981; and the articles of Böhme 1975 and Galtung 1979, 1983) and the cultural input to science and technology (cf. the mongraphs of Kim 1988, Toren 1988; and the joint publication of Cocking & Mestre 1988).12 Thus, text-centred LSP research will really be transformed into a multi-dimensional discipline.

12

Cf., furthermore, on the social input of science and technology the monograph of Abel 1975 and the joint publications of Bungarten 1981 and 1986, of Kalverkämper & Weinrich 1986 and the articles of Bungarten 1981 and 1986 a, Habermas 1981 and Hoffmann 1986. The articles of Zima 1977, Kristeva 1977 and Kutschmann 1986 deal with ideology critical aspects of science and technology.

20

Η. Schröder

3. The main conceptions of LSP text analysis In this section I will briefly characterise the most important conceptions of LSP text analysis. As I already mentioned in section 1.2. of the present survey, there are, according to Hoffmann, 'seven roads to LSP', that means seven characteristic methodological currents to analysing LSP. Among these currents, from a text-oriented point of view, and this is the only view from which I am starting here, the traditions of functional speech analysis and functional stylistics seemed to be most interesting. Text analysis within the framework of functional speech analysis and functional stylistics: The general theory and methodology of these approaches were worked out by the Prague School of Linguistics and the Moscow School of functional stylistics. With regard to the latter, let me mention here, for example, the survey of Hermes (1988) dealing with the recent trends of LSP research in the USSR. The fundamental principles of functional speech analysis were introduced in the 1920s. "Important in comparison with terminology work is the fact that functional speech analysis confines itself neither to the word level nor to the paradigmatic aspect. Its particular interest is concentrated on the different uses of all language elements and configurations in texts according to the various function of the latter." (Hoffmann 1981, 30) The main concepts of the functional approaches are functional languages and their classification, the typology of functional styles and linguistic means by which the characteristic features of various functional languages and/or styles can be described. With regard to the state of the art in research on LSP styles I have already cited Gläser (in section 2.4.) who is one of the recent representatives of functional stylistics (cf. also the monograph of Gläser 1979). Among the other representatives of functional approaches, let me also mention the British school of linguists with its concept of registers, the Washington school with its concept of LSP rhetoric (cf. the monograph of Trimble 1985 and, as a short overview, the article of Gläser 1987), and the functional communicative approach with its concept of the communicative acts (cf. the monograph of Schmidt 1981 and the joint publication of Boeck 1981). The latter is represented only within the framework of the theory of learning and teaching languages in various research centres in the GDR. At the present time, this approach has often been critisized (cf., for example, the monograph of Pätzold 1986 and the articles of Mötsch 1986, Harnisch 1986, and Schröder 1989d) because it does not in a satisfactory fashion consider the methodology of modern text linguistics and of the speech act theory. Furthermore, the level of the content is not taken into serious consideration. Nevertheless, many explanations of LSP texts are produced within this framework (cf., for example, the joint publication of Boeck 1981 and the articles of Pötschke 1985 and Weise 1984; furthermore, the article of Weber in the present volume). The Leipzig-School of LSP text analysis: The Leipzig-School is, first of all, represented by Hoffmann (cf. especially his joint publication 1987 and

Linguistic and Text-theoretical Research on LSP

21

his articles 1987 c, 1987 e) and, furthermore, by Gläser (cf. her joint publications) and Baumann (cf. his articles 1986, 1987 a, 1987 b). In the 1980's, Hoffmann has formed a model of text analysis which is called the cumulative and integrative approach. Cumulative and integrative because the intention of this approach is to analyse the process of textualisation on the whole (that means on the level of the word, the sentence, the text and the pragmatic background as well). However, Hoffmann's approach does not represent a closed model, rather it can be characterised as an open-ended model in the form of a matrix. The leading idea consists of the integration of structural and functional aspects of texts (cf., furthermore, Satzger & Weese 1987). From a methodological point of view, this approach seems to be an empiricalinductive one. The lack of a general text theory is one of the desiderata of this approach. Furthermore, a more serious consideration of textlinguistic, psycholinguistic, rhetorical and hermeneutical aspects of texts is needed. For example, the means of argumentation and the level of non-verbal communication means are not taken into account. As a serious problem let me mention also shortcomings by determining the relationship between the level of the content and the structural and formal level of special texts. Nevertheless, many explanations of special texts are also produced within the framework (cf. especially the joint publications of Hoffmann 1987 and Gläser 1987, 1988). LSP text analysis in the Nordic countries: At the present time the Nordic countries are amongst the most important research centres in the area of LSP. Besides the meritorious terminological work in the Nordic countries we have to mention also their relatively long tradition in analysing LSP from a textlinguistic point of view (cf. the survey of Gläser 1988 b). For example, let me mention the following approaches in Sweden, Danmark and in Finland which date back to the 1970's: — The ΡΛΚ-project (project on special communication) at the University of Lund in Sweden which deals, mainly, with German commercial correspondence. This approach is influenced by the speech act theory (cf. the monographs of Koch et al. 1980 and Brand et al. 1981; the article of Koch et al. 1981; furthermore, the series "Fachsprachliche Kommunikation" and "Sprache und Pragmatik" of the German Department at the University of Lund). — The Tekstlingvistikgruppen at The Copenhagen School of Economics which deals, mainly, with Danish and French special texts (cf. the monographs of Tekstlingvistikgruppen 1983 and the articles of Lundquist). — The Uppsala-school of LSP text analysis which deals, mainly, with English and Swedish special texts. This approach emphasizes the socio-linguistical (cf. the joint publication of Gunnarsson 1987) and diachronic dimensions of LSP texts (cf. the articles of Gunnarsson 1988, 1989). Furthermore, the strategies of pupularisation are stressed (cf. the joint publication of Gunnarsson 1987).

22

Η. Schröder

— The Vaasa-school which deals with Swedish special texts from various subject fields. This approach is an integrated one and is influenced as much by the Leipzig-School as by the functional approaches of LSP research (cf. the monograph of Lauren & Nordman 1987, the articles of Lauren 1985, Nordman 1985 a, Lauren & Nordman 1985, and the series "LSP and Theory of Translation" of the Research Group for LSP and Theory of Translation at the University of Vaasa). Recently, within this approach, the question of rhythm and balance in LSP texts has been emphasized (cf., for example, Nordman 1986, 1989). Cross-cultural approaches to LSP text analysis: The approaches mentioned above do not consider the fact that communication in the sciences, the humanities and in technology is also bound to its cultural background. The discussion on the discourse level of LSP was determined, for a long time, by a (silent) consensus on the correctness of the assumption that "the concepts and procedures of scientific inquiry constitute a secondary cultural system which is independent of primary cultural systems associated with different societies." (Widdowson 1979, 51) Furthermore, it was suggested that "scientific discourse is a universal mode of communicating, or universal rhetoric, which is realized by scientific text in different languages by the process of textualisation" (Widdowson 1979, 51). The dominance of this paradigm was one of the reasons that the discourse analysis of LSP confined itself to individual languages, without subjecting different languages and their conventions of writing special texts to a contrastive study. However, the importance of culturally bound differences in the verbal communication among university students was, for example, pointed out by Byrnes (1986, 190). Byrnes suggested that the communication between American and German students becomes complicated not so much by reason of the content of conversations but by reasons of the "sequences of topics which evolved in a conversation and the manner in which topics were treated." I am convinced that this observation concerns not only verbal communication, but written texts, too (cf., in general, about cross-cultural communication the joint publications of Knapp et al. 1987, Neuner 1986, Smith 1987; and the articles of Knapp & Knapp-Potthoff 1987, Knapp 1987, Knapp-Potthoff 1987, Schmitt 1987 and Zeuner 1988). Thus, contrastive text analyses pointed out that the cultural background of the author of a special text determines, for example, her/his way of arguing and, at the same time, the whole process of textualisation too. First observations in this direction were made by Kaplan (1972), one of the pioneers of contrastive rhetoric (cf. also the research papers of Canagarajah 1987 and Kachru 1987). Kaplan (cf. also the special issue of the Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, Vol 3/1982, on contrastive rhetorics; furthermore, the joint publication of Connor & Kaplan 1987 and the article of Kaplan & Grabe in the present volume) also suggested methods for explaining the culture-bound communication differences in written texts. Another pioneer of contrastive rhetoric is Clyne (cf. his monograph 1984 and his articles 1981,

Linguistic and Text-theoretical Research on LSP

23

1987 a, 1987 b, [in the present volume]; furthermore, Clyne et al. 1988), who deals, mainly, with German and English academic texts in contrast. Besides Clyne and Kaplan, we have to mention the studies of the Norwegian sociologist Galtung (1979, 1983), who pointed out that there are different intellectual styles with regard to their respective cultural background. However, Galtungs's approach is more theoretical and Galtung does not demonstrate his observations by concrete discourse analyses (cf. the article of Kusch & Schröder 1989 a). Within the framework of LSP research, mainly, Spillner (1981 b, 1983), Schröder (1987 a; cf., furthermore, the monograph of Forschungsprojekt 1989) and Gnutzmann (1988; cf. also Gnutzmann & Lange forthcoming) dealt with the question of how the level of the culture can be taken into account in LSP text analysis (cf., furthermore, the articles and research papers of Blanke 1987, Choe 1987, Karcher 1986, Müller 1986, Thomas 1988, TirkkonenCondit 1988, Ylönen et al. 1989). Actually, on the small empirical basis of the current explorations and the orientation only to very small texts or only to several sequences of longer texts, I see general shortcomings of recent cross-cultural approaches of LSP text analysis. Furthermore, a serious problem is to be seen in the fact that the current models consider mainly the (linguistic) structure of texts, regardless of the content of the texts and the scientific paradigms behind them. Besides these above-mentioned approaches, there are very many other models and suggestions for analysing LSP from a text-oriented point of view (cf., for example, the articles of Korhonen-Kusch 1986, Thürmer, U. 1985, Thürmer, R. 1985 and Thürmer & Thürmer 1983). Let me mention, especially, the question-theoretical approach (cf. the article of Kusch & Schröder 1989 b); furthermore, the monograph of Tirkkonen-Condit 1985 and the articles of Gläser 1986, Koiranen 1989) and the argumentations studies of LSP texts (cf., for example, the joint publication of Kusch & Schröder 1989). 4. The main research

topics

In this chapter I want to outline some directions of present text-oriented LSP research. According to Lehmann (1988), in recent years, the trend to complex analyses of LSP texts is obvious. In her survey on the Kleine Bibliographie fachsprachlicher Untersuchungen, Lehmann classified 10,152 articles and monographs dealing with LSP and published between 1965 — 1986 as follows: Linguistic level lexical syntactical textual

1965-1969 44% 9% 4%

1975-1979 32% 13% 35%

1980-1986 30% 14% 43%

According to this survey, almost half of LSP research papers in the 1980s are concerned with the text level, so that the situation in general seems to

24

Η. Schröder

be satisfactory. However, there is not yet any distinguished bibliography of text-centred LSP research. In my present attempt to produce such a bibliography I must confine myself to a consideration of only 350 articles and monographs which are mostly published in the 1980s. As criteria for a further classification of this complex research area I regard the following points: 1. The single/individual languages (Russian, German, English...) 2. The range of research: single/individual language-oriented vs. contrastive analysis (two or more languages in contrast, cross-cultural studies) 3. The levels of analysis: — pragmatic and extra-linguistic levels (coherence, communication situation) — thematic level (macrostructure, meta discourse, functional sentence perspective, theme and rheme progression) — semantic level (cohesio, connectivity, isotopes) — rhetoric-stylistic level (means of argumentation, forms of addressing, citation) — cognitive level (frames, schemes) — non-linguistic level (pictures...) 4. The horizontal disposition: various subject fields (for example, the science and technology, the humanities) 5. The vertical stratification: internal vs. external communication 6. The medium of communication: literal vs. verbal 7.' The text sort (monographs, articles, research papers, book reviews, abstracts ...) 8. The goal of research and applications Concerning single/individual languages we have to admit that Russian, German, French, English and Swedish special languages are most fully explored, also on the level of the text. However, the lack of contrastive analysis is still one of the serious desiderata in text-centred LSP research. The most explored language pairs are Russian/German and English/German. In general there is a lack of contrastive studies and of the consideration of the problems caused by cross-cultural (special) communication, that means communication across different cultures. Furthermore, the stress in current research has been put on semantic and thematic analysis: — macrostructure (cf. the articles of Hoffmann 1988 b, Baumann 1987 a, Krämer 1987, Würstle 1988, Hengst in the present volume); — coherence (cf. the joint publication of Heydrich et al. 1989, the monographs of Lundquist 1980 and Velde 1981; the articles of Dressier 1983, Nestmann 1985, Hoffmann 1988 b, Karich 1987, Karich 1988, Rust 1987, Lundquist 1989 b, Stojanova-Jovceva 1988);

Linguistic and Text-theoretical Research on LSP

25

— theme and rheme progression (cf. the monograph of Gerzymisch-Arbogast 1987 and the articles of Gerzymisch-Arbogast 1985, Hoffmann 1983/84, Roth 1988, Weese 1987, Wiegand 1988); — isotopes (cf. the articles of Gerzymisch-Arbogast 1987, Thiel & Thome 1988, Wiegand 1987). However, recently, more attention has been paid to the level of pragmatics as well as the level of rhetorical and stylistic features of special texts: — citation analysis (cf. the monograph of Cronin 1984 and the articles of Cronin 1981, Swales 1986, Henschelmann 1987, Hübler 1989, Kusch & Schroder 1989 a); — hedging (cf. the monographs of Hübler 1983 and Fogelin 1978; furthermore, the articles of von Polenz 1981, Panther 1981, Lachowicz 1981, Bungarten 1986 b, Bungarten 1989, Myers 1988, Zuck & Zuck 1987, Markkanen & Schröder 1987, Markkanen & Schröder 1989, Clyne in the present volume); — argumentation studies (cf. the monographs of Fogelin 1978, Fisher 1988, Tirkkonen-Condit 1985; furthermore, the articles of Sökelund 1981, Hempfer 1981, Lüdtke 1981, Rudolph 1983 a, Rudolph 1983 b, TirkkonenCondit 1988); — rhetorical and stylistic features (cf. the monographs of Trimble 1985 and Gauger 1988; furthermore, the articles of Korhonen 1986, Thompson & Mann 1987, Gusfield 1986, Kaehlbrandt 1988, Nordman 1986, Nordman 1989, Kaplan 1972, Canagarajah 1987, Blanke 1987, Choe 1987, Korhonen & Kusch 1989, Schröder 1989 b, Seguinot 1989, Spillner 1986, Spillner 1989). Desiderata are especially cognitive aspects of text processing (cf., for example the monograph of Fuller 1985 and the articles of Kintsch & van Dijk 1978, de Beaugrande 1987 a, Gläser 1988 a) and the level of non-linguistic means of textualisation (cf., for example, Korn 1987). LSP research focuses, mainly, on technology and the sciences (cf., for example, the monographs of Wiese 1984, Fuller 1985, Pörksen 1986, Wagenschein 1986). However, the humanities (cf., for example, the monograph of Chatterjee 1981 on the language of philosophy; the articles of Hempfer 1981, Fricke 1986, Gläser in the present volume on the language of literary studies; the articles of Harweg 1981, Adrados 1986 on the language of linguistics) as well as the social sciences (cf., for example, the monograph of Schröder 1987 and the articles of Sökland 1981, Greimas 1977; furthermore, the monograph of Feer 1987 on the language of psychiatry) are receiving more and more attention. In the past, LSP research stressed internal special communication. The research object, for example, was often confined to communication between specialists. However, recently, external special communication has also been emphasized. As an example, I mention here only

26

Η. Schröder

the problem of popularisation (cf., for example, the joint publication of Gunnarsson 1987 and the articles of Gläser 1986, Serra Borneto 1986). The stress is, as traditionally in LSP research in general, on literal communication, i. e. research objects are mainly written texts. Satisfactory attention has not yet been paid to verbal (special) communication (however, cf. the research paper of Lenz 1987). Furthermore, I am surprised to see that there is a lack of analyses on the current electronic media. However, we can predict that, in the near future, most scientific and technological communication will be performed, for example, by electronic mail within the international networks. For understandable reasons, the focus of the current inquiry is mostly on texts of a certain length. As an example, book reviews (cf., for example, the monograph of Pätzold 1986 and the article of Krämer 1987), scientific articles, abstracts (cf., for example, the articles of Fluck 1988, Fluck 1989, Preiß 1983, Fritsche 1988) or even still shorter texts, for example, introductions and conclusions (cf. Gnutzmann & Lange forthcoming), headings, titles (Gnutzmann 1988) and so on. There is an absence of analyses of monographs, for example. Furthermore, the stress of current research is mainly on explicative, descriptive and instructive text types. Analysis of argumentative and evaluative text types is in short supply. Applications concern in the majority of cases the field of language learning and teaching (native and foreign languages as LSP), 13 as well as the domain of (LSP) text processing including translations (cf. the joint publication of Arntz 1988 and the articles of Kohn 1987, Kohn 1988, Schröder 1989 c), production and comprehension of special texts (cf. the monographs of Antos 1982, Krashen 1984; the joint publication of Connor & Kaplan 1987; the articles of Spillner 1982, Gläser 1988 a, Hoffmann 1988 a, Petöfi 1990). Finally, we have to admit that, in general, focus on the levels of the content, as well as the context is wanting.

5. Concluding

remarks

In my view, it is impossible to draw a uniform picture on the state of the art in text-centred LSP research. The process of increasing specialisation and differentiation in this relatively new research area goes hand in hand with a tendency toward multidisciplinary research and integration. This makes a survey very complicated. Therefore, let me finally confine myself to stressing some tendencies and shortcomings in recent publications on text-centred LSP 13

Cf., for example, the joint publications of Gnutzmann & Turner 1980, Gnutzmann 1988, Richart et al. 1982; the monographs of Gerbert 1986, Schröder 1988; the articles of Beier & Möhn 1984, Beier & Möhn 1988, Weller 1988, Schröder 1989 a, Schröder 1988 b.

Linguistic and Text-theoretical Research on LSP

27

research. In doing so, we have to mention, among other things, the following points: — After permanently broadening the perspective in LSP research from the level of the word to the sentence level and, in recent times, to the text level, it seems that within text-centred LSP research there has emerged a broadening of the perspective again. To substantiate, I mention here only the involvement of pragmatics and the stress on the content of the special text itself. A visual expression of this new orientation is, for example, the growing number of research papers on the phenomenon of special communication from a philosophical (cf., for example, the article of Habermas 1981) and sociological (cf., for example, the monographs of Dechmann 1977, Gilbert & Mulkay 1984 and Latour 1987; furthermore, the articles of Böhme 1975 and Galtung 1979, 1983) point of view. Furthermore, in recent times also, researchers in the individual sciences seem to be more interested in questions concerning their respective special languages. 14 — Hitherto, satisfactory attention has not been paid to special communication within the humanities and economics. Furthermore, only recently, research activities have focused not only on literal communication but also on verbal communication. However, the research done on external special communication (for example, the strategies of popularizing science and technology) is relatively satisfactory. Shortcomings can still be seen in analysing the whole area of non-verbal communication means. In the same way the area of contrastive analysis and taking into account the problem of cross-cultural communication can be seen as a challenge for further research. As my short review above suggests, in further research we have to take into more serious consideration the level of the content and the communication situation of special texts. This requires that text-centred LSP research deals with subject-specific states of affairs and with the methodologies of individual sciences as well. In doing so, we have, among other things, to take into account the complex problem of scientific paradigms, the process of socialisation in the scientific community, and the effect of culture, language and paradigm on the formation of scientific discourse. The philosophy of science and the sociology of science should become important adjacent disciplines of text-centred LSP research. Furthermore, we have to analyse the whole complexity of (LSP) text processing, that means the production and the reception of special texts within one culture and between various cultures. In doing so, we have to take into consideration also certain questions and 14

Cf., for example, the discussion Sachwissenschaftler Language — Fachsprache, 3 — 4/1987.

über ihre Sprache

in the journal

Special

28

Η. Schröder

methods of hermeneutics (cf. the monograph of Winograd & Flores 1986, the joint publication of Nassen 1979, and the articles of Kurz 1977, Kalverkämper 1988 c and Kusch & Schröder 1989 b), cognitive science (cf. the monograph of Stillings et al. 1987), and information retrieval (cf. the monographs of Capurro 1986 and Sager et al. 1987; furthermore the article of Hoffmann 1988 a). Last but not least, we have to consider, more seriously, the problem of (subject-oriented) cross-cultural communication, i. e. stress contrastive analysis as a leading idea in doing research. I agree with Hartmann "that discourse analysis without comparison is as incomplete as contrastive analysis without a text base." (1980, 31) Research in the above fashion is a great challenge for multi-disciplinary and international cooperation in the future. With regard to the role of text linguistic within this cooperation I am convinced that only semiotic textology can become the general methodological framework for the required research because semiotic textology represents an integrative theoretical perspective. As Petöfi puts it, "texts fulfil their functions as organic units in the given communication situation, thus, they must be analysed and described as organic units, and this necessarily requires an integrated view of the various aspects." (1986, 557) Finally, I would like briefly to deal with the possible applications of this new research field. The most important fields of text-centred LSP research are language learning and language teaching (native and foreign), translation theory and practice, information retrieval, and technical writing. Especially the need in teaching and learning foreign languages for special purposes, as well as in the translation of technical and scientific texts will grow during the process of European integration. In the latter, text-centred LSP research has to deal with the problems in the field of computer-aided translation (cf., for example, the joint publication of Goodman 1989; and the articles and research reports of Hauenschild 1987, 1988, Weber 1987, Figge 1989 and Sager 1989) and to cooperate with research in artificial intelligence (cf., for example, the monographs of Carter 1987, Stillings et al. 1987; and the articles and research papers of Haenelt 1987, Rösner 1987; Spitzbardt 1988, Seelbach 1988, 1989 and von Hahn 1989). Text-centred LSP research supports intralingual and intercultural communication in subject fields and can make communication more effective. Λ Bibliographical

Survey

A. Bibliographies,

Periodicals,

Series

English for Science and Technolog) (1977—79), Corvallis (Or). English for Specific Purposes. An International Journal of English for Specific Purposes (1980—), New York: Pergamon Press. Fachsprachliche Kommunikation (1978 — ), Lund: Department of German Language at the University of Lund.

Linguistic and Text-theoretical Research on LSP

29

Forum für Fachsprachen-Forschung (1986—). Edited by Kalverkämper, Hartwig. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. Kromann, Hans-Peder & Mikkelsen, Hans-Kristian 1989 Fagsprog ogfagsproglig kommunikation. En selektiv systematisk bibliografi ca. 1980 — 1988 ( = ARK 45, Sproginstitutternes Arbejdspapirer). Copenhagen: The Copenhagen School of Economics. Lehmann, Μ.; Leube, Κ. 1979 — 85 Kleine Bibliographie fachsprachlicher Untersuchungen. 4.— 10. Fortsetzung. Leipzig: Foreign Language Centre at the University of Leipzig. Lehmann, Marianne; Puchta, Christine 1986 Kleine Bibliographie fachsprachlicher Untersuchungen. 11. Fortsetzung. Leipzig: Foreign Language Centre at the University of Leipzig. Leube, K. 1976 — 78 Kleine Bibliographie fachsprachlicher Untersuchungen. 1.—3. Fortsetzung. Leipzig: Foreign Language Centre at the University of Leipzig. Linguistic Agency University of Duisburg. Series C. Duisburg: University of Duisburg. LSP and Theory of Translation (1981—). Research Group for LSP and Theory of Translation. Vaasa: School of Modern Languages at the University of Vaasa. Mikkelsen, Hans-Kristian & Kromann, Hans-Peder 1989 Fagsprog ogfagsproglig kommunikation ca. 1970—1988. En udfolig systematisk bibliografi pa database ( = Floppy-Disc 3 1/2" til installering pa hard disk. Macintoshprogram: Reflex Plus). Copenhagen: Det Erhvervssproglige Fakultet, Handelshojskolen in Kobenhavn. Nordisk tidsskrift for fagsprog og terminologi. Nordic Journal of L.S.P. and Terminology (1983—), Frederiksberg etc. Special Language — Fachsprache. International Journal of LSP, Research, Didactics, Terminology (1980—), Wien: Wilhelm Braumüller. Studien \u Sprache und Technik (1988 — ). Edited by Arntz, Reiner and Wegner, Norbert. Hildesheim, Zürich, New York: Georg Olms. Textlinguistik. Beiträge zur Theorie und Praxis der Textgestaltung (1970—), Dresden: Pädagogische Hochschule. Unesco-ALSED-LS P-Newsletter (1978 — ), Copenhagen: The Copenhagen School of Economics. Cf., furthermore, the extensive bibliographies in the monographs of Fluck 1985, Koucurek 1980, Sager et al. 1980, and Hoffmann 1985.

B. Joint

Publications

Albrecht, J.; Drescher, Η. W.; Göhring, Η.: Salnikow, Ν. (eds.) 1987 Translation und inter kulturelle Kommunikation. 40 Jahre Fachbereich Angewandte Sprachwissenschaft der Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz in Germersheim. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Arntz, Reiner (ed.) 1988 Textlinguistik und Fachsprache. Akten des Internationalen übersetzungswissenschaftlichen AILA-Symposiums Hildesheim, 13. —16. April 1987. Hildesheim, Zürich, New York: Georg Olms. Boeck, Wolfgang (ed.) 1981 Kommunikativ-funktionale Sprachbetrachtung als theoretische Grundlage für den Fremdsprachenunterricht. Ein Sammelband. Leipzig: Enzyklopädie. Bungarten, Theo (ed.) 1981 Wissenschaftssprache. Beiträge zur Methodologie, theoretische Fundierung und Deskription, München: Wilhelm Fink. 1986 Wissenschaftssprache und Gesellschaft, Aspekte der wissenschaftlichen Kommunikation und des Wissenstransfers in der heutigen Zeit, Hamburg: Edition Akademion.

30

Η. Schröder

Cocking, Rodney R. & Jose P. Mestre (eds.) 1988 Linguistic and Cultural Influences on Learning Mathematics. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum. Connor, U. and Kaplan, R. B. (eds.) 1987 Writing across languages. Analysis of L2 text. Reading, Massachusetts: AddisonWesley. Cornu, A-m; Vanparijs, J.; Delahaye, M. and Baten, L. (eds.) 1986 Beads or Bracelet? How do we approach LSP. Selected papers from the Fifth European Symposium on LSP. Leuven: OUP. Dahmen, Wolfgang; Holtus, Günter; Kramer, Johannes & Metzeltin, Michael (eds.) 1989 Technische Sprache und Technolekte in der Romania. Romanisches Kolloquium II. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. Gläser, Rosemarie (ed.) 1985 Fachsprachliche Textlinguistik. Vorträge der sprachwissenschaftlichen Arbeitstagung an der Sektion Fremdsprachen der Karl-Marx-Universität Leipzig am 11. und 12. Dezember 1984 ( = Linguistische Studien, Reihe A, Arbeitsberichte 133). Berlin: Zentralinstitut für Sprachwissenschaft. 1987 Beiträge %ur anglistischen Fachsprachenforschung ( = Berichte der Sektion der Fremdsprachen 2). Leipzig: Karl-Marx-Universität. 1988 Fachtext als Instrument und Resultat kommunikativer Tätigkeit ( = Beiträge der Sektion Fremdsprachen 3). Leipzig: Karl-Marx-Universität. Gnutzmann, Claus (ed.) 1988 Fachbezogener Fremdsprachenunterricht ( = Forum für Fachsprachen-Forschung 6). Tübingen: Gunter Narr. Gnutzmann, Claus and Turner, John (eds.) 1980 Fachsprachen und ihre Anwendung. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. Goodman, Kenneth (ed.) 1989 On knowledge-based machine translation I. ( = Special issue of Machine Translation, Volume 4, Number 1). Gunnarsson, Britt Louise (ed.) 1987 Facktext. Uppsala: Liber. Hahn, Walther von (ed.) 1981 Fachsprachen. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Heydrich, Wolfgang; Neubauer, Fritz; Petöfi, Jänos S. & Sözer Emel (eds.) 1989 Connexity and Coherence. Analysis of Text and Discourse. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter. Hoedt, Jorgen; Lundquist, Lita; Picht, Heribert and Qvistgaard, Jacques (eds.) 1982 Pragmatics and LSP. Proceedings of the 3rd European Symposium on LSP. Copenhagen, August 1981. Copenhagen: The Copenhagen School of Economics. Hoedt, J. & Turner, R. (eds.) 1981 New Bearings in LSP. A Selection of Articles Covering Main Areas of Contemporary LSP. Copenhagen: The Copenhagen School of Economics. Hoffmann, Lothar (ed.) 1975 Fachsprachen und Sprachstatistik. Beiträge zur angewandten Sprachwissenschaft. Berlin: Akademie. 1978 Sprache in Wissenschaft und Technik. Ein Sammelband. Leipzig: Enzyklopädie. 1987 Fachsprachen, Instrument und Objekt. Leipzig: Enzyklopädie. Jelitte, Herbert (ed.) 1976 Sowjetrussische Textlinguistik. Teil 2: übersetzte Originalbeiträge. Frankfurt/Main, Bern: Peter Lang. Kallmeyer, Werner (ed.) 1986 Kommunikationstypologie, Handlungsmuster, Textsorten, Situationstypen. ( = Jahrbuch 1985 des Instituts für Deutsche Sprache). Düsseldorf: Schwann-Bagel.

Linguistic and Text-theoretical Research on LSP

31

Kalverkämper, Hartwig (ed.) 1988 a Fachsprachen in der Romania ( = Forum für Fachsprachen-Forschung, 8). Tübingen: Gunter Narr. Kalverkämper, Hartwig and Weinrich, Harald (eds.) 1986 Deutsch als Wissenschaftssprache. 24. Konstanzer Literaturgespräch des Buchhandels, 1985 ( = Forum für Fachsprachen-Forschung, 3), Tübingen: Narr. Kaplan, Robert B. et al. (eds.) 1983 Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 1982. New York: Cambridge. Kelz, Heinrich P. (ed.) 1983 Fachsprache. 1: Sprachanalyse und Vermittlungsmethoden. Bonn: F. Dümmler. Kittredge, R. and Lehrberger, J. (eds.) 1982 Sublanguage: studies of language in restricted semantic domains. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter. Klein, Wolfgang (ed.) 1977 Methoden der Textanalyse. Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer. Knapp, Karlfried; Enninger, Werner; Knapp-Potthoff, Annelie (eds.) 1987 Analysing Intercultural Communication. ( = Studies in Anthropological Linguistics 1). Berlin, New York, Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter. Knobloch, Clemens (ed.) 1987 Fachsprache und Wissenschaftssprache (= Siegener Studien, Band 42), Essen: Die Blaue Eule. Kusch, Martin & Schröder, Hartmut (eds.) 1989 Text, Interpretation, Argumentation ( = Papers in Text Linguistics, Vol. 64), Hamburg: Helmut Buske. Lauren, Christer & Nordman, Marianne (eds.) 1989 a Special Language. From Human Thinking to Thinking Machines. Clevedon & Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters LTD. 1989 b From O f f i c e to School. Special Language and Internationalisation. Clevedon & Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters LTD. Mentrup, W. (ed.) 1978 Fachsprachen und Gemeinsprache ( = Jahrbuch 1978 des Instituts für deutsche Sprache). Düsseldorf: Schwann-Bagel. Nassen, U. (ed.) 1979 Texthermeneutik. Aktualität, Geschichte, Kritik. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schönigh. Neuner, Gerhard (ed.) 1986 Kulturkontraste im DaF-Unterricht. ( = Studium Deutsch als Fremdsprache — Sprachdidaktik, 5). München: iudicium. Nuopponen, Anita & Palmberg, Rolf (eds.) 1989 Special Languages and Second Languages·. Methodology and Research. ( = AFinLA Yearbook 1989, Publications de l'association Finlandaise de linguistique applicquee, No. 47), Vaasa: AFinLA. Perrin, Michel P. (ed.) 1985 Pratiques d'aujourd'hui et besoins de demain. Actes du 4 eme symposium Europeen sur les langues de specialite. Bordeaux: Universite de Bordeaux II. Petöfi, Janos S.; Podlech, Adalbert and Savigny, Eike von (eds.) 1975 Fachsprache — Umgangssprache. Wissenschaftstheoretische und linguistische Aspekte der Problematik, sprachliche Aspekte der Jurisprudenz und der Theologie, maschinelle Textverarbeitung. Kronberg/Ts.: Scriptor. Retard, F. and Wyler, S. (eds.) 1987 Fachsprache als System, Fachsprache als Gebrauchstext ( = Bulletin CIL A 45). Neuchatel: Institut de linguistique de l'Universite de Neuchatel. Richart, Jose Rodriguez; Thome, Gisela; Wilss, Wolfram (eds.) 1982 Fachsprachenforschung und -lehre·. Schwerpunkt Spanisch. Tübingen: G. Narr.

32

Η. Schröder

Rosengren, Inger (ed.) 1981 Sprache und Pragmatik. Lunder Symposium 1980. ( = Lunder germanistische Forschungen 50). Lund: LiberLäromedel. Smith, Larry E. (ed.) 1987 Discourse Across Cultures. Strategies in World Englishes. New York, London, Sydney, Tokyo: Prentice Hall. Sprache und Wissenschaft. Vorträge gehalten auf der Tagung der Joachim-Jungius-Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften. Göttingen 1960. Sprissler, Manfred (ed.) 1987 Standpunkte der Fachsprachenforschung. Tübingen: G. Narr. Weber, Siegfried (ed.) 1989 Fachkommunikation in deutscher Sprache. Ergebnisse, Probleme und Methoden der Fachsprachenforschung. Leipzig: Enzyklopädie Wissenschaftliche Beiträge der Ernst-Moritz-Arndt-Universität Greifswald 1988 Grundfragen der Textsynthese. Orientierungshilfen und Optimierungsmöglichkeiten bei der Produktion von Texten. ( = Greifswalder Germanistische Forschungen

9)· Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Karl-Marx-Universität Leipzig 1988 Informationsverdichtung und Standardisierung in wissenschaftlichen Veröffentlichungen. Gesellschaftswissenschaftliche Reihe, 37, 1988, 6). Zima, Peter V. (ed.) 1977 Textsemiotik als Ideologiekritik. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp.

C.

(=

Monographs

Antos, Gerd 1982 Abel, Gerd 1975

Grundlagen einer Theorie des Formulierens. Textherstellung in geschriebener und gesprochener Sprache. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. Wissenschaftssprache und Gesellschaft. Westdeutscher Verlag.

Zur Kritik der Sozialwissenschaften. Opladen:

Bayertz, Kurt 1981 Wissenschaftstheorie und Paradigmahegriff. Stuttgart: Metzler. Beier, Rudolf 1980 Englische Fachsprache. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer. Brandt, Margareta; Koch, Wolfgang; Rosengren, Inger 1981 Die Analysekategorien im Projekt "Fachsprachliche Kommunikation". Lund: Department of German Language at the University of Lund. Capurro, Rafael 1986 Hermeneutik der Fachinformation. Freiburg/München: Karl Alber. Carter, David 1987 Interpreting Anaphors in Natural Language Texts. New York, Chichester, Brisbane and Toronto: Ellis Horwood, John Wiley & Sons. Chatterjee, Margaret 1981 The Language of Philosophy. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. Clyne, Michael 1984 Language and society in the German-speaking countries. Cambridge: University Press. Cronin, Blaise 1984 The Citation Process. The role and significance of citations in scientific communication. London: Taylor Graham. Crystal, David 1987 The Cambridge Entyclopedia of Language. Cambridge: University Press. Dechmann, Manfred 1977 Sprache — Denken — Wissenschaft. Grundlagen einer Theorie soziologischen Handelns. Bern. Frankfurt/Main, Las Vegas: Peter Lang.

Linguistic and Text-theoretical Research on LSP

33

Dijk, Teun van 1980 Textwissenschaft. Eine interdisziplinäre Einführung. Tübingen: Μ. Niemeyer. Dressler, Wolfgang 1973 Einführung in die Textlinguistik. Zweite durchgesehene Auflage. Tübingen: M. Niemeyer. Drozd, Lubomir; Seibicke, W. 1973 Deutsche Fach- und Wissenschaftssprache. Bestandsaufnahme — Theorie — Geschichte. Wiesbaden: Brandstetter. Feer, Hans 1987 Die Sprache der Psychatrie. Eine linguistische Untersuchung. Berlin: Springer. Fisher, Alec 1988 The logic of real arguments. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fluck, Hans-Rüdiger 1985 Fachsprachen. Einführung und Bibliographie. Tübingen: Francke. Fogelin, Robert J. 1978 Understanding arguments. An introduction to informal logic. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Forschungsprojekt 1989 Deutsch-finnische Kulturunterschiede in der Wirtschaftskommunikation. Zwischenbericht ( = Heisingin kauppakorkeakoulun julkaisuja D-120). Helsinki: The Helsinki School of Economics. Fuller, Sherrilynne Shirley 1985 Schema theory in the representation and analysis of text. Los Angeles. (Ph.D. 1984). University of Southern California. Gauger, Martin 1988 Der Autor und sein Stil: Zwölf Essays. Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt. Gerbert, Manfred 1986 Fachsprachenlinguistik und Englischmethodik. ( = Fachsprache, Fremdsprache, Muttersprache, Heft 3). Dresden: Technische Universität Dresden. Gerzymisch-Arbogast, Heidrun 1987 Zur Thema-Rhema-Gliederung in amerikanischen Wirtschaftstexten. Eine exemplarische Analyse. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. Gilbert, G. Nigel and Mulkay, Michael 1984 Opening Pandora's Box. A sociological analysis of scientists' discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gläser, Rosemarie 1979 Fachstile des Englischen. Leipzig: Enzyklopädie. Gopnik, Myrna 1972 Linguistic structures in scientific texts. The Hague: Mouton. Gülich, Elisabeth & Raible, Wolfgang 1977 Linguistische Textmodelle, Grundlagen und Möglichkeiten. München: W. Fink. Hahn, Walther von 1983 Fachkommunikation. Entwicklung — Linguistische Konzepte — Betriebliche Beispiele. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter. Harris, Zellig 1988 Language and Information. New York: Columbia University Press. Hartmann, R. R. K. 1980 Contrastive Textology. Comparative Discourse Analysis in Applied Linguistics. Heidelberg: J. Groos. Hoffmann, Lothar 1985 Kommunikationsmittel Fachsprache. Eine Einführung. Second Edition. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. Hoffmann, Lothar and Piotrowski, R. G. 1979 Beiträge %ur Sprachstatistik. Leipzig: Enzyklopädie.

34

Η. Schröder

Hübler, Α. 1983

Understatements and Hedges in English. ( = Pragmatics and Beyond, IV: 6). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hutchinson, T. and Waters, A. 1987 English for special purposes. New York: Cambridge University Press. Kim, Young Yun 1988 Communication and Cross-cultural Adaptation·. An Integrative Theory. Clevedon and Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters. Koch, Wolfgang; Rosengren, Inger and Schonebohm, Manfred 1980 Die Textanalyse im Projekt "Fachsprachliche Kommunikation". Lund: Department of German Language at the University of Lund. Kocourek, Rostislav 1982 La langue francaise de la technique et de la science. Wiesbaden: Oscar Brandstetter. Krashen, Stephen D. 1984 Writing, Research, Theory, and Applications. Oxford: Pergamon Institute of English. Kuhn, Thomas S. 1970 The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago. Lauren, Christer & Nordman, Marianne 1987 Fran kunskapens frukt till Babels torn. En bok om fackspräk. Stockholm: Liber. Latour, Bruno 1987 Science in Action. How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Littmann, Günter 1981 Fachsprachliche Syntax. Zur Theorie und Praxis syntaxbezogener Sprachvariantenforschung. Hamburg: Helmut Buske. Lundquist, Lita 1980 La Coherence textuelle. Copenhagen: Nyt Nordisk Forlag. Möhn, Dieter and Pelka, Roland 1984 Fachsprachen. Eine Einführung. Tübingen: M. Niemeyer. Oksaar, Eis 1988 Fachsprachliche Dimensionen ( = Forum für Fachsprachen-Forschung, 4). Tübingen: Gunter Narr. Pätzold, Jörg 1986 Beschreibung und Erwerb von Handlungsmustern. Beispiel: Rezensionen wissenschaftlicher Publikationen ( = Linguistische Studien, Reihe A, Arbeitsberichte 138). Berlin: Akademie der Wissenschaften der DDR. Plett, Heinrich F. 1979 Textwissenschaft und Textanalyse. Semiotik, Linguistik, Rhetorik. Second edition. Hamburg: Quelle & Meyer. Polenz, Peter von 1985 Deutsche Satzsemantik. Grundbegriffe des Zwischen-den-Zeilen-Lesens. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter. Pörksen, Uwe 1986 Deutsche Naturwissenschaftssprachen. Historische und kritische Studien ( = Forum für Fachsprachen-Forschung, 2), Tübingen: Narr. Richards, Jack; Platt, John; Weber, Heidi 1985 Longman Dictionary of Applied Linguistics. Essex: Longman. Robinson, P. 1980 ESP (English for Specific Purposes). Oxford: Pergamon. Sager, J. C. & Dungworth, D. & McDonald, P. F. 1980 English Special Languages. Principles and Practise in Science and Technology. Wiesbaden: Brandstetter. Sager, Naomi et al. 1987 Medical Language Processing. Computer Management of Narrative Data. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

Linguistic and Text-theoretical Research on LSP

35

Savory, Theodore H. 1967 The language of science. London: Deutsch. Scheie, Peter 1975 Statistische und syntaktische Analyse von Fachsprachen mit Hilfe elektronischer Rechenanlagen am Beispiel der medizinischen, betriebswirtschaftlichen und literaturwissenschaftlichen Fachsprache im Deutschen ( = Göppinger Arbeiten zur Germanistik, 165). Göppingen. Schmidt, Siegfried J. 1976 Texttheorie. Probleme einer Linguistik der sprachlichen Kommunikation. Zweite verbesserte und ergänzte Auflage. München: W. Fink. Schmidt, Wilhelm 1981 Funktional-kommunikative Sprachbeschreibung. Leipzig: Bibliographisches Institut. Schröder, Hartmut 1987 Aspekte sozialwissenschaftlicher Fachtexte — Ein Beitrag zur Fachtextlinguistik. Hamburg: Helmut Buske. 1988 Aspekte einer Didaktik/Methodik des fachbezogenen Fremdsprachenunterrichts (Deutsch ah Fremdsprache). Unter besonderer Berücksichtigung sozialwissenschaftlicher Fachtexte. Bern, Frankfurt am Main, New York: Peter Lang. Stillings, Neil A. et al. 1987 Cognitive Science. An Introduction. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London: The MIT Press. Swales, John 1985 Episodes in ESP. London: Pergamon Press. Tekstlingvistikgruppen 1983 Tekstlingvistik. Volume I: Teorier. Volume II: Analyser ( = Sproginstitutternes Arbejdspapir Handelshojskolen i Kobenhavn, ARK 16. Copenhagen: The Copenhagen School of Economics. Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja 1985 Argumentative Text Structure and Translation ( = Studia philologica Jyväskyläensia, 18). Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä. Toren, Nina 1988 Science and Cultural Context. Soviet Scientists in Comparative Perspective. New York: Peter Lang. Trimble, Louis 1985 English for Science and Technology: A discourse approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Velde, R. G. van de 1981 Interpretation, Kohärenζ und Referenz ( = Papers in textlinguistics, 33). Hamburg: Helmut Buske. Wagenschein, Martin 1986 Die Sprache ^wischen Natur und Naturwissenschaft ( = Henning-Kaufmann-Stiftung zur Pflege der Reinheit der deutschen Sprache. Jahrbuch 1985). Marburg: Jonas. Werlich, Egon 1979 Typologie der Texte. Entwurf eines textlinguistischen Modells zur Grundlegung einer Textgrammatik. Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer. Widdowson, H. G. 1979 Explorations in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: University Press. Wiese, Ingrid 1984 Fachsprache der Medizin. Eine linguistische Analyse. Leipzig: Enzyklopädie. Winograd, Terry & Flores, Fernando 1986 Understanding Computers and Cognition. Α New Foundation for Design. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

36

Η. Schröder

D. Articles, Research

Papers

Adrados, Francisco R. 1986 "Wissenschaftssprache — Instrument und Hindernis. Beispiele aus dem Bereich der Linguistik", in Bungarten, Theo (ed.): Wissenschaftssprache und Gesellschaft. Andrä, Helgard 1982 "Zur Notwendigkeit und zum Inhalt einer Textanalyse für fremdsprachenmethodische Zwecke", Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Karl-Marx-Universität Leipzig, Gesellschafts- und sprachwissenschaftliche Reihe, 31, 1, pp. 79 — 90. Arntz, Rainer 1988 "Einleitung: Zum Verhältnis von Textlinguistik und Fachsprache", in Arntz, Rainer (ed.): Textlinguistik und Fachsprache. Balboni, Paolo 1986 "LGP versus LSP", in: Unesco ALSED-LSP Newsletter. Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 2 - 8 . Baumann, Klaus-Dieter 1986 "Der Versuch einer integrativen Betrachtung des linguistischen Phänomens 'Fachtext"', Deutsch als Fremdsprache 23, pp. 96 — 102. 1987 a "Die Makrostruktur von Fachtexten — ein Untersuchungsansatz", Special Language — Fachsprache 1—2, 2 — 18. 1987 b "Ein Versuch der ganzheitlichen Betrachtung von Fachtexten", in Hoffmann, Lothar (ed.): Fachsprachen. Instrument und Objekt. Beaugrande, Robert de 1987 a "Translation as text processing", Unesco ALSED-LSP-Newsletter, Vol. 10, No. 1 (24), pp. 2 - 2 2 . 1987 b "Special purpose language and linguistic theory", Unesco ALSED-LSP-Newsletter, Vol. 10, No. 2 (25), S. 2 - 1 0 . 1989 "Special Purpose Language as a Complex System: The Case of Linguistics", in: Lauren, Christer and Nordman, Marianne (eds.): Special Language. Becker, Norbert 1986 "Die grammatisch-logischen Beziehungen als didaktischer Ansatz für den fachsprachlichen Unterricht", Special Language — Fachsprache 3 — 4, 123 — 140. Beier, Rudolf 1982 "Zur Untersuchung der Fachsprache aus text- und pragmalinguistischer Sicht", in: Richart; Rodriguez; Thome, Gisela; Wilss, Wolfram (eds.): Fachsprachenforschung und -lehre. Beier, Rudolf and Möhn, Dieter 1984 "Fachtexte in fachsprachlichen Lehr- und Lernmaterialien für den Fremdsprachenunterricht. Überlegungen zu ihrer Beschreibung und Bewertung", Special Language — Fachsprache, 3 — 4, pp. 89—115. 1988 "Fachsprachlicher Fremdsprachenunterricht. Voraussetzungen und Entscheidungen", Die Neueren Sprachen, 1/2, 19—75. Benes, Eduard 1981 "Die formale Struktur der wissenschaftlichen Fachsprachen in syntaktischer Sicht", in: Bungarten, Theodor (ed.): Wissenschaftssprache. Blanke, Gustav H. 1987 "An American Rhetorical Tradition and Its Intercultural Implications", in: Albrecht, J.; Drescher, H. W.; Göhring, H.; Salnikow, N. (eds.): Translation and interkulturelle Kommunikation. Böhme, Gernot 1975 "Die Ausdifferenzierung wissenschaftlicher Diskurse", Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und So^ialpsychologie, Sonderheft 18. Bungarten, Theo 1981 "Wissenschaft, Sprache und Gesellschaft", in: Bungarten, Theo (ed.): Wissenschaftssprache.

Linguistic and Text-theoretical Research on LSP 1986 a 1986 b 1989

37

"Gedanken zum Verhältnis von Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft, zugleich eine Einleitung", in: Bungarten, Theo (ed.): Wissenschaftssprache und Gesellschaft. "Sprachliche Entfremdung in der Wissenschaft", in: Bungarten, Theo (ed.): Wissenschaftssprache und Gesellschaft. "Die Obsession des wissenschaftlichen Diskurses und die Entfremdung des Objekts", in: Lauren, Christer & Nordmann, Marianne (eds.): Special Language.

Byrnes, Heidi 1986 "Interactional style in German and American conversations", Text 6, pp. 189 — 206. Canagarajah, Suresh 1987 Contrastive Rhetoric: A Critique and a Proposal. ( = Linguistic Agency University of Duisburg, Series B, Paper No. 171). Duisburg: University of Duisburg. Chargoff, Erwin 1986 "How Scientific Papers Are Written", Special Language — Fachsprache, Vol. 8, Heft 3 - 4 , 106-110. Choe, Chungho 1987 "Rhetoric: A Comparison of Its Evaluation in East and West", in: Albrecht, J.; Drescher, Η. W.; Göhring, Η.; Salnikow, Ν. (eds.): Translation and interkulturelle Kommunikation. Clyne, Michael 1981 "Culture and Discourse Structure", fournal of Pragmatics, Vol. 5, pp. 61—66. 1987 a "Cultural differences in the organization of academic texts", Journal of Pragmatics 11, pp. 2 0 1 - 2 3 8 . 1987 b "Discourse Structures and Discourse Expectations: Implications for Anglo-German Academic Communication in English", in: Smith, Larry E. (ed.): Discourse Across Cultures. Clyne, Michael; Hoeks, Jimmy; Kreutz, Heinz-Josef 1988 "Cross-cultural responses to academic discourse patterns", Folia Linguistica 22, 3 - 4 , pp. 4 5 7 - 4 7 5 . Cronin, B. 1981 "The Need for a Theory of Citing", Journal of Documentation, Vol. 37. Dressier, Wolfgang 1983 "Textuelle Kohäsionsverfahren in der Wissenschaftssprache — Eine funktionale Ableitung", Fachsprache, 2. Drozd, Lubomir 1984 "Zum Gegenstand 'Deutsche Fachsprache' im Bildungssystem der CSSR", in: Barten, Herbert (ed.): Beiträge %ur germanistischen Forschung und Lehre ( = Jahrbuch DDR - CSSR 1983/84). Prag. Figge, Udo L. 1989 "Fachsprache und maschinelle Übersetzung", in: Dahmen, Wolfgang et al. (eds.): Technische Sprache und Technolekte in der Romania. Fluck, Hans-R. 1988 "Analyse und Vermittlung der Textsorte 'Abstract'", in: Gnutzmann, Claus (ed.): Fachbezogener Fremdsprachenunterricht. 1989 "Vergleichende Analyse deutschsprachiger Abstracts in wissenschaftlichen Zeitschriften", in: Lauren, Christer & Nordman, Marianne (eds.): Special Language. Fricke, Harald 1986 "Zur gesellschaftlichen Funktion humanwissenschaftlicher Fachsprachen", in: Bungarten, Theo (ed.): Wissenschaftssprache und Gesellschaft. Friese, Erhard 1988 "Probleme der Textsynthese beim Fachtext", in: Wissenschaftliche Beiträge der Ernst-Moritz-Arndt-Universität Greifswald: Grundfragen der Textsynthese. Orientierungshilfen und Optimierungsmöglichkeiten bei der Produktion von Texten. ( = Greifswalder Germanistische Forschungen, 9), pp. 169 — 177.

38

Η. Schröder

Fritsch, Barbara 1988 "Zur Themenstruktur und Textstrategie in der Annotation", in: Wissenschaftliche Beiträge der Ernst-Moritz-Arndt-Universität Greifswald: Grundfragen der Textsynthese. Orientierungshilfen und Optimierungsmöglichkeiten bei der Produktion von Texten. ( = Greifwalder Germanistische Forschungen, 9), pp. 154—168. Galtung, Johan 1979 "Deductiv Thinking and Political Practise. An Essay on Teutonic Intellectual Style", in: Galtung, Johann: Papers on Methodolog). Essays on Methodology. Vol. II, Copenhagen: Ejlers. 1983 "Struktur, Kultur und intellektueller Stil. Ein vergleichender Essay über sachsonische, teutonische, gallische und nipponische Wissenschaft", Leviathan, 2, pp. 303-338. Gerisch, Peter 1986 "Anmerkung zum Passivgebrauch in Fachsprachen", Special Language — Fachsprache 3 - 4 , pp. 169-171. 1988 "Fachbedingte sprachliche Charakteristika mathematischer Texte", Special Language — Fachsprache, Vol. 10, 1—2, pp. 50 — 65. Gerzymisch-Arbogast, Heidrun 1985 "Zur Thema-Rhema-Gliederung im Sachbuchtext", Special Language — Fachspache 1 - 2 , pp. 1 8 - 3 2 . Gerzymisch-Arbogast, Heidrun 1987 "Leksemantische Isotopien als Invarianten im Übersetzungsprozeß", in: Albrecht, J.; Drescher, H. W.; Göhring, H.; Salnikow, N. (eds.): Translation und interkulturelle Kommunikation. Gläser, Rosemarie 1978 "Die funktionalstilistische Komponente in der fachsprachlichen Forschung und Lehre", in: Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Humboldt-Universität Gesellschafts- und Sprachwissenschaftliche Reihe, XXVII, 4, pp. 463—465. 1982 "The problem of style classification in LSP (ESP)", in: Hoedt, Jorgen et al. (eds.): Pragmatics and LSP. 1985 "Standortbestimmung einer Fachtextlinguistik", in: Gläser, Rosemarie (ed.): Fachsprachliche Textlinguistik. 1986 '^Wissenschaftssprache in der Erwachsenenbildung — dargestellt an Lehrbriefen der 'Open University' in Großbritannien", in: Bungarten, Theo (ed.): Wissenschaftssprache und Gesellschaft. 1987 "The concept of LSP rhetoric in the framework of modern text linguistics", Phtlologica pragensia 3, pp. 113—119. 1988 a "Textproduktion als Stufenprogramm", Wissenschaftliche Beiträge der ErnstMoritz-Universität Greifswald: Grundfragen der Textsynthese. Orientierangshilfen und Optimierungsmöglichkeiten bei der Produktion von Texten. ( = Greifswalder Germanistische Forschungen, 9), pp. 102—116. 1988 b "LSP research in the Nordic countries", Special Language — Fachsprache, 1 —2, pp. 2-21. Gnutzmann, Claus 1980 "Fachsprachen und Jargon", in: Gnutzmann, Claus & Turner, John (eds.): Fachsprachen und ihre Anwendung. 1988 "Aufsatztitel in englischsprachigen Fachzeitschriften. Linguistische Strukturen und kommunikative Funktionen", in: Gnutzmann, Claus (ed.): Fachbezogener Fremdsprachenunterricht. Gnutzmann, Claus & Lange, Regina forth"Kontrastive Textlinguistik und Fachsprachenanalyse", in: Gnutzmann, Claus coming (ed.): Kontrastive Linguistik ( = forum für angewandte Linguistik, 19). Tübingen: Gunter Narr. Greimas, Algirdas J. 1977 "Der wissenschaftliche Diskurs in den Sozialwissenschaften", in: Zima, Peter V. (ed.): Textsemiotik als Ideologiekritik.

Linguistic and Text-theoretical Research on LSP

39

Grosz, B. 1982 "Discourse Analysis", in: Kittredge, R. and Lehrberger, J. (eds.): Sublanguage. Gunnarsson, Britt Louise 1987 "Facktexten och den sociala kontexten. En analysmodell, in: Gunnarsson, Britt Louise (ed.): Facktext. 1988 "Svenska facktekster i synkron och diakron belysning", Nordiska tidskrift 1, pp. 1-5. 1989 "LSP Texts in a Diachronic Perspective", in: Lauren, Christer and Nordman, Marianne: Special Language. Gusfield, Joseph R. 1986 "Science as a Form of Bureaucratic Discourse: Rhetoric and Style in Formal Organizations", in: Bungarten, Theo (ed.): Wissenschaftssprache und Gesellschaft. Habermas, Jürgen 1981 "Umgangssprache, Bildungssprache, Wissenschaftssprache", in: Habermas, Jürgen: Kleine philosophische Schriften I —IV. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. Haenelt, Karin 1987 "Ein Beschreibungsmodell geisteswissenschaftlicher Texterschließungsverfahren auf der Grundlage einer Software-Entwicklung", in: Klenk, Ursula; Scherber, Peter; Thaller, Manfred (eds.): Computerlinguistik und philologische Datenverarbeitung. Hildesheim, Zürich, New York: Olms. Hafner, Dieter 1987 "Der Text in der vertikalen Schichtung der Fachsprachen", in: Hoffmann, Lothar (ed.): Fachsprachen. Instrument und Objekt. Hahn, Walther von 1980 "Fachsprachen", in: Althaus, Η. P. et al. (eds.): Lexikon der Germanistischen Linguistik. Tübingen: Niemeyer, pp. 390 — 395. 1981 "Einleitung", in: von Hahn, Walther (ed.): Fachsprachen. 1989 "LSP and Computer Application: New Fields of Activity for LSP — Research and Development", in: Lauren, Christer & Nordman, Marianne (eds.): Special Language. Harnisch, Hanna and Michel, Georg 1986 "Textanalyse aus funktional-kommunikativer Sicht", Zeitschrift für Germanistik, Heft 4. Harweg, Roland 1981 "Strukturen und Probleme linguistischer Rede. Zeichen- und abbildungstheoretische Bemerkungen zur Sprache der Linguistik", in: Bungarten, Theo (ed.): Wissenschaftssprache. Hauenschild, Christa 1987 "Textlinguistische Probleme der maschinellen Übersetzung", LS Ρ-Newsletter, Vol. 10, 2 (25), pp. 1 1 - 2 5 . 1988 "Discourse structure — Some implications for machine translation", KIT-Report 62. Berlin: Technische Universität. Heeschen, Volker 1981 "Theorie des sprachlichen Handelns", in: Lexikon der Germanistischen Linguistik. Tübingen: Niemeyer, pp. 259—267. Helfrich, H.; Wallbott, H. G. 1981 "Theorie der nonverbalen Kommunikation", in: Lexikon der Germanistischen Linguistik. Tübingen: Niemeyer, pp. 267 — 275. Hempfer, Klaus W. 1981 "Präsuppositionen, Implikaturen und die Struktur wissenschaftlicher Argumentation", in: Bungarten, Theo (ed.): Wissenschaftssprache. Henschelmann, Käthe 1987 "Das Zitat in der Wissenschaftskommunikation aus übersetzungsrelevanter Sicht", Special Language — Fachsprache 3—4, 133—149.

40 Hiz, Η. 1982

Η. Schröder

"Specialized Languages of Biology, Medicine and Science and Connections between Them", in: Kittredge, R. and Lehrberger, J. (eds.): Sublanguage. Hoffmann, Lothar 1982 a "Linguistische Analyse, didaktische Aufbereitung und effektive Vermittlung von Fachsprachen", in: Pfeiffer, Waldemar (ed.): Deutsch als Fachsprache. Poznan. 1982 b "Probleme und Methoden der Fachsprachenforschung", in: Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Karl-Marx-Universität Leipzig. Gesellschafts- und Sprachwissenschaftliche Reihe 31. 1983/84 "Syntactic structures and functional sentence perspective in languages for specific purposes (LSP), Annali deIIa Facoltä die lottere e Filosofia delPUniversitä degli Studi di Perugia, nuova serie VII, pp. 143—153. 1984 "Seven Roads to LSP", Special Language — Fachsprache 1—2, pp. 28 — 37. 1985 "On the Place of LSP Research in Applied Linguistics", Special Language — Fachsprache 1—2, pp. 2—11. 1986 "Wissenschaftssprache als gesellschaftliches Phänomen", in: Bungarten, Theodor (ed.): Wissenschaftssprache und Gesellschaft. 1987 a "Language for Special/Specific Purposes", in: Amnion, U., Dittmar, N. and Mattheier, Κ. J. (eds.): Sociolinguistics. An International Handbook of the Science of Language and Society. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter, pp. 298—302. 1987 b "Research on Languages for Special/Specific Purposes", in: Ammon, U., Dittmar, N. and Mattheier, Κ. J. (eds.): Sociolinguistics. An International Handbook of the Science of Language and Society. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter, pp. 653 — 660. 1987 c "Ein textlinguistischer Ansatz in der Fachsprachenforschung", in: Sprissler, Manfred (ed.): Standpunkte der Fachsprachenforschung. 1987 d "Syntactic Aspects of LSP", Special Language — Fachsprache 3—4, 98—106. 1987 e "Der Fachtext als strukturierte und funktionale Ganzheit", in: Hoffmann, Lothar (ed.): Fachsprachen. Instrument und Objekt. 1988 a "Von der linguistischen Beschreibung zur bewußten Gestaltung wissenschaftlicher Texte", in: Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Karl-Marx-Universität Leipzig. Informationsverdichtung und Standardisierung in wissenschaftlichen Veröffentlichungen. ( = Gesellschaftswissenschaftliche Reihe, 37, 1988, 6). 1988 b "Makrostruktur und Kohärenz als Fachtextsortenmerkmale" in: Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Karl-Marx-Universität Leipzig. Informationsverdichtung und Standardisierung in wissenschaftlichen Veröffentlichungen. ( = Gesellschaftswissenschaftliche Reihe, 37, 1988, 6). Hornung, Wolfgang 1983 "Zu den Fachsprachen der Mathematik und der Physik: Beschreibung von Parallelitäten und Unterschieden im Hinblick auf einen fertigkeitsorientierten Fachsprachenunterricht", in: Kelz, Heinrich (ed.): Fachsprache. Hübler, A. 1989 Citations in Academic Writing. A Text Linguistic Approach ( = Linguistic Agency University of Duisburg, Series C, Paper No. 21). Duisburg: University of Duisburg. Ickler, Theodor 1987 a "Zur Theorie der Fachsprache", in: Kühlwein, W. (ed.): Perspektiven der Angewandten Linguistik. Kongreßbeiträge zur 16. Jahrestagung der Gesellschaft für Angewandte Linguistik ( = forum angewandte linguistik 13). Tübingen: Narr. 1987 b "Zur Differenzierung von Fachtextsorten", in: Retard F. and Wyler, S. (eds.): Fachsprache als System. Fachsprache als Gebrauchstext. 1987 c "Objektivierung der Sprache im Fach — Möglichkeiten und Grenzen", in: Sprissler, Manfred (ed.): Standpunkte der Fachsprachenforschung. Isenberg, Horst 1983 "Grundfragen der Texttypologie", in: Danes, Frantisek and Viehweger, Dieter (eds.): Ebenen der Textstruktur. Berlin: Akademie.

Linguistic and Text-theoretical Research on LSP

41

Karcher, Günther L. 1986 "Der fremdsprachliche Text — Interaktionsfeld von eigen- und fremdkulturellen Kenntnissen", in: Neuner, Gerhard (ed.): Kulturkontraste im DaF-Unterricht. Kachru, Yamuna 1987 "Cross-cultural Texts, Discourse Strategies and Discourse Interpretation", in: Smith, Larry E. (ed.): Discourse Across Cultures. Kaehlbrandt, Roland 1988 "Condillacs 'Art d'Ecrire' und 'Le commerce et le gouvernement'. Sensualistische Stiltheorie und sensualistischer Fachtext", in: Kalverkämper, Hartwig (ed.): Fachsprachen in der Romania. Kallmeyer, Werner 1986 "Und nun? Versuch eines Resümees", in: Kallmeyer, Werner (ed.): Kommunikationstypologie, Handlungsmuster, Textsorten, Situationstypen. Kalverkämper, Hartwig 1980 a "Der Begriff der Fachlichkeit in der Fachsprachen-Linguistik — Tradition, Kritik und Methoden-Ausblick", Fachsprache, Sonderheft 1, pp. 53—71. 1980 b "Die Axiomatik der Fachsprachenforschung", in: Fachsprache, Heft 1. 1981 "Fachsprachen und Textsorten", in: Hoedt, J. et al. (eds.): Proceedings of the 3rd European Symposium on LSP. Pragmatics and LSP. 1983 "Textuelle Fachsprachen-Linguistik als Aufgabe", Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik, 51/52, pp. 124—166. 1987 "Vom Terminus zum Text", in: Sprissler, Manfred (ed.): Standpunkte der Fachsprachenforschung. 1988 b "Zwischen Anspruch und Wirklichkeit: Signale einer romanistischen Fachsprachen-Forschung. Zur Einführung", in: Kalverkämper, Hartwig (ed.): Fachsprachen in der Romania. 1988 c "Fachexterne Kommunikation als Maßstab einer Fachsprachen-Hermeneutik: Verständlichkeit kernphysikalischer Fakten in spanischen Zeitungstexten", in: Kalverkämper, Hartwig (ed.): Fachsprachen in der Romania. Kaplan, Robert B. 1972 "Cultural Thought Patterns in Inter-Cultural Education", in: Croft, Kenneth (ed.): Readings on English as a Second Language. Cambridge, MA: Winthrop. Karcher, Günther L. 1986 "Der fremdsprachliche Text — Interaktionsfeld von eigen- und fremdkulturellen Kenntnissen", in: Neuner, Gerhard (ed.): Kulturkontraste im DaF-Unterricht. Karich, Anja 1987 "Zur Kohäsion in russischen Fachtexten", in: Hoffmann, Lothar (ed.): Fachsprachen. Instrument und Objekt. 1988 "Kohäsion in russischen Fachtexten der Stomatologie", in: Gläser, Rosemarie (ed.): Fachtext als Instrument und Resultat kommunikativer Tätigkeit. Kintsch, Walter; Dijk, Teun A. van 1978 "Toward a Model of Text Comprehension and Production", Psychological Review Vol. 85, No. 5, pp. 363-394. Knapp, Karlfried 1987 "Kommunikativer Stil im interkulturellen Kontrast", in: Albrecht, J.; Drescher, H. W.; Göhring, H.; Salnikow, N. (eds.): Translation und interkulturelle Kommunikation. Knapp, Karlfried & Knapp-Potthoff, Annelie 1987 "Instead of an introduction: Conceptual issues in analyzing intercultural communication", in: Knapp, Karlfried; Enninger, Werner; Knapp-Potthoff, Annelie (eds.): Analysing Intercultural Communication. Knapp-Potthoff, Annelie 1987 "Strategien interkultureller Kommunikation", in: Albrecht, J.; Drescher, Η. W.; Göhring, Η.; Salnikow, Ν. (eds.): Translation und interkulturelle Kommunikation.

42

Η. Schröder

Koch, Wolfgang; Rosengren, Inger; Schonebohm, Manfred 1981 "Ein pragmatisch orientiertes Textanalyseprogramm", in: Rosengren, Inger (ed.): Sprache und Pragmatik. Lunder Symposium 1980. Lund: Liber Läromedel. Kohn, K. 1987 "Fachsprache, Fachtext, Fachwissen. Theoretische Grundlagen einer übersetzungsorientierten Fachsprachenforschung", in: Retard, F. and Wyler, S. (eds.): Fachsprache als System. Fachsprache als Gebrauchstext. 1988 "Fachsprachen und Fachübersetzen. Psycholinguistische Dimensionen der Fachsprachenanalyse", in: Gnutzmann, Claus (ed.): Fachbezogener Fremdsprachenunterricht. Koiranen, Sirpa 1989 "Thoughts on LSP as Language Games", Special Language — Fachsprache, 1—2, pp. 4 2 - 4 8 . Korhonen-Kusch, Riitta 1986 "'Feldmäßige' Analyse der Werbungssprache", FINLANCE — The Finnisch Journal of Language Learning and Language Teaching. Vol. V, pp. 44—61. Korhonen, Riitta & Kusch, Martin 1989 "The Rhetorical Function of the First Person in Philosophical Texts — The Influence of Intellectual Style, Paradigm and Language", in: Kusch, Martin & Schröder, Hartmut (eds.): Text, Interpretation, Argumentation. Korn, Monika 1987 "Graphische Darstellungen in wissenschaftlichen Fachtexten. Ein Weg zur besseren Verständlichkeit", Jahrbuch Deutsch als Fremdsprache 12 (1986), pp. 151—172. Krämer, Maria 1987 "Zur Makrostruktur russischsprachiger Rezensionen in wissenschaftlichen Zeitschriften", in: Hoffmann, Lothar (ed.): Fachsprachen, Instrument und Objekt. Krause, Jürgen 1988 The Concepts of sublanguage and language register in natural language processing (= Linguistic Agency University of Duisburg, Series A, Paper No. 215). Duisburg: University of Duisburg. Krischel-Heinzer, H. 1987 "Gemeinsprachliche versus fachsprachliche Texte", in: Retard, F. and Wyler, S. (eds.): Fachsprache als System. Fachsprache als Gebrauchstext. Kristeva, Julia 1977 "Semiologie — kritische Wissenschaft und/oder Wissenschaftskritik", in: Zima, Peter V. (ed.): Textsemiotik als Ideologiekritik. Kurz, G. 1977 "Hermeneutische Aspekte der Textlinguistik", Archiv für das Studium der neueren Sprachen und Literaturen, Band 214, pp. 262—280. Kusch, Martin & Schröder, Hartmut 1989 a "Contrastive Discourse Analysis — The Case of Davidson vs. Habermas", in: Kusch, Martin & Schröder, Hartmut (eds.): Text, Interpretation, Argumentation. 1989 b "The Question-Theoretical Approach in Hermeneutics and LSP-Research", in: Lauren, Christer and Nordman, Marianne (eds.): Special Language. Kutschmann, Werner 1986 "Von der Natursprache zur Warensprache. Die Sprache der Naturwissenschaften zwischen Objektivität und sinnlicher Verlockung", in: Bungarten, Theo (ed.): Wissenschaftssprache und Gesellschaft. Lachowicz, D. 1981 "On the use of the passive voice for objectivity, author responsibility and hedging in EST", Science for Science, No. 2, Vol. 2, pp. 105 — 115. Lauren, Christer 1985 "Continuous and Discontinuous Processes in LSP Texts: Terminological and TextLinguistic Aspects", in: Perrin, Michel P. (ed.): Pratiques d'aujourd'hui et besoins de demain.

Linguistic and Text-theoretical Research on LSP

43

Lauren, Christer and Nordman, Marianne 1985 Projektet svenskt fackspräk. Bakgrund, mal och korpus. Vaasa: University of Vaasa. Lehmann, Μ. 1988 "Quantitative und qualitative Analyse der 'Kleinen Bibliographie fachsprachlicher Untersuchungen'", in: Gläser, Rosemarie (ed.): Fachtext ah Instrument und Resultat kommunikativer Tätigkeit. Lenz, Friedrich 1987 Fachsprachenforschung — Methodologische Vorüberlegungen zur Analyse mündlicher Fachkommunikation ( = Linguistic Agency University of Duisburg, Series C, Paper No. 10). Duisburg: University of Duisburg. Lüdtke, Jens 1981 "Klassifikatoren und wissenschaftliche Argumentation", in: Bungarten, Theo (ed.): Wissenschaftssprache. Lundquist, Lita 1989a "Fagsprok, tekstlingvistik og 'realistisk Semantik'", in: Nuopponen, Anita & Palmberg, Rolf (eds.): Special Languages and Second Languages. 1989 b "Coherence in Scientific Texts", in: Heydrich, Wolfgang et al. (eds.): Connexity and Coherence. Markkanen, Raija & Schröder, Hartmut 1987 "Hedging and its linguistic realizations in German, English and Finnish philosophical texts: A case study", Erikoiskielet ja Käännösteroia, VAKKI-seminaari VII, 47-57. 1989 "Hedging as a Translation Problem in Scientific Texts", in: Lauren, Christer & Nordman, Marianne (eds.): Special Language. Mikkelsen, Hans-Kristian 1988 "Fagsprogsforskning i Sovjetunionen", HERMES, Tidsskrift for sprogforskning, 1 - 1 9 8 8 , pp. 197-208. Möhn, Dieter 1975 "Sprachliche Sozialisation und Kommunikation in der Industriegesellschaft. Objekte der fachsprachlichen Linguistik", Muttersprache, No. 85. 1980 "Sondersprachen", in: Althaus, Η. P. et al. (eds.): Lexikon der Germanistischen Linguistik. Tübingen: Niemeyer, pp. 384—390. Moskovich, W. 1982 "What is a sublanguage? The notion of sublanguage in modern Soviet linguistics", in: Kittredge, R. and Lehrberger, J. (eds.): Sublanguage. Mötsch, W. 1986 "Anforderungen an eine handlungsorientierte Textanalyse", Zeitschrift für Germanistik, No. 3. Müller, Bernd-Dietrich 1986 "Interkulturelle Verstehensstrategien — Vergleich und Empathie", in: Neuner, Gerhard (ed.): Kulturkontraste im DaF-Unterricht. Myers, Greg 1988 The Pragmatics of Politeness in Scientific Articles ( = Linguistic Agency University of Duisburg, Series A, Paper No. 203). Duisburg: University of Duisburg. Nestmann, R. 1985 "Kohäsive Relationen des Typs 'conjunction' in englischen Fachtexten der Medizin, in: Gläser, Rosemarie (ed.): Fachsprachliche Textlinguistik. Nikula, Henrik 1984 "Gibt es einen grundsätzlichen Unterschied zwischen der Übersetzung von Fachtexten und literarischen Texten?", Erikoiskielet ja käännösteoria, VAKKI-Seminaari IV. Vaasa: University of Vaasa. Nirenburg, Sergei & Lori Levin 1989 "Knowledge Representation Support", in: Goodman, Kenneth (ed.): On knowledgebased machine translation I.

44

Η. Schröder

Nordman, Marianne 1985 a "Continuous and Discontinuous Processes of LSP Texts: Syntactic and Semantic Aspects", in: Perrin, Michel P. (ed.): Pratiques d'aujourd'hui et besoins de demain. 1985 b "Miniteknolekter", Erikoiskieletja käännösteoria, VAKKI-seminaari V., Vaasa: University of Vaasa. 1986 "Rytm i Facktext", Nordisk tidsskrift for fagsprog og terminologi 2/1986, 18—22. 1989 "Rhythm and Balance in LSP Texts", Special Language — Fachsprache, 1—2, pp. 24-36. Opitz, Kurt 1980 "How does special purpose in communication result in special language?", Fachsprache, Sonderheft 1, pp. 72 — 80. Otto, Walter 1981 "Die Paradoxic einer Fachsprache", in: Deutsche Akademie für Sprache und Dichtung: Der öffentliche Sprachgebrauch, Band II: Die Sprache des Rechts und der Verwaltung. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta. Panther, Klaus-Uwe 1981 "Einige typische indirekte sprachliche Handlungen im wissenschaftlichen Diskurs", in: Bungarten, Theo (ed.): Wissenschaftssprache. Petöfi, Jänos S. 1980 "Explikationen in umgangssprachlichen und fachsprachlichen Wörterbüchern", in: Eikmeyer, Hans-Jürgen; Jansen, Louise (eds.): Objektargumente. Grundelemente der semantischen Struktur von Texten III. Hamburg: Helmut Buske. 1981 "Einige allgemeine Aspekte der Analyse und Beschreibung wissenschaftssprachlicher Texte", in: Bungarten, Theo (ed.): Wissenschaftssprache. 1986 "Report: European research in semiotic textology. A historical, thematic, and bibliographical guide", Folia Linguistica Tomus XX/3 —4, 545 — 571. 1987 "Von der Satzgrammatik zur semiotischen Textologie. Einige methodologische Fragen der Textinterpretation", Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung, 40, 1, pp. 3 — 18. 1989 "Aspekte der Textinterpretation. Was kann die semiotische Textologie für den Kommunikationsunterricht leisten?", in: Ehnert, Rolf & Schröder, Hartmut (eds.): Zur Entwicklung des Faches Deutsch als Fremdsprache in den deutschsprachigen Ländern. Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang. 1990 "Language as a written Medium: Text", in: An Encyclopedia of Language. Ed. by Ν. E. Collinge. Routledge: London & New York. Polenz, Peter von 1981 "Über die Jargonisierung von Wissenschaftssprache und wider die Deagentivierung", in: Bungarten, Theo (ed.): Wissenschaftssprache. Pötschke, Hansjürgen 1985 "Erfahrungen und Probleme bei der Analyse von Kommunikations verfahren in Fachtexten", Linguistische Studien, Reihe A, Arbeitsberichte 133, Leipzig. Preiß, Sabine 1983 "Textlinguistische Aspekte des Abstracts", Linguistische Arbeitsberichte 41, pp. 82 — 91. Roth, G. 1988 "Zur aktuellen Satzgliederung und thematischen Progression in russischsprachigen Fachtexten", in: Gläser, Rosemarie (ed.): Fachtext als Instrument und Resultat kommunikativer Tätigkeit. Rösner, Dietmar 1987 Von Titeln zu Texten. Zur Entwicklung des Textgenerators Semtex", in: Klenk, Ursula; Scherber, Peter; Thaller, Manfred (eds.): Computerlinguistik und philologische Datenverarbeitung. Hildesheim, Zürich, New York: Olms, pp. 130 — 145.

Linguistic and Text-theoretical Research on LSP

45

Rudolph, Elisabeth 1983 a "Argumentative Strukturen in der Wissenschaftssprache", in: Petöfi, Jänos S. (ed.): Texte und Sachverhalte. Aspekte der Wort- und Textbedeutung ( = Papers in Textlinguistics, 42). Hamburg: Helmut Buske. 1983 b "Argumentationsfiguren in der Wissenschaftssprache", in: Jongen, Rene et al. (eds.): Sprache, Diskurs und Text. Akten des 17. Linguistischen Kolloquiums Brüssel 1982, Band 1. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Rust, Angelika 1987 "Zu Kohäsionsbeziehungen in russischsprachigen Fachtexten der Pädagogik", Special Language — Fachsprache 3—4, pp. 119 — 132. Sager, Juan C. 1989 "Machine Translation and A Typlogy of Texts", in: Lauren, Christer & Nordman, Marianne (eds.): Special Language. Satzger, Axel 1987 "Fachsprachen und Textlinguistik", in: Hoffmann, Lothar (ed.): Fachsprachen. Instrument und Objekt. Satzger, Axel and Weese, Christine 1987 "Überlegungen zu einem Verfahren der komplexen Fachtextanalyse", Special Language — Fachsprache 3—4, pp. 106 — 119. Schmitt, Christian 1987 "Translation als interkulturelle Kommunikation. Zum Problem der Übersetzung frankoafrikanischer Literatur ins Deutsche", in: Albrecht, J.; Drescher, H. W.; Göhring, H.; Salnikow, N. (eds.): Translation und interkulturelle Kommunikation. Schmitt, Reinhold 1986 "Auswahlbibliographie zur Kommunikationstypologie aus sprachwissenschaftlicher Perspektive", in: Kallmeyer, Werner (ed.): Kommunikationstypologie, Handlungsmuster, Textsorten, Situationstypen. Schröder, Hartmut 1987 a "Kontrastive Textanalysen — Ein Projekt zur Erforschung des Zusammenhangs von Diskurs, Kultur, Paradigma und Sprache in argumentativen Fachtexten der Gesellschaftswissenschaften", FINLANCE, Vol. 6, pp. 145-173. 1988 a "Fachtext, interkulturelle Kommunikation und Aufgagen einer spezialisierten Didaktik/Methodik des fachbezogenen Fremdsprachenunterrichts", in: Gnutzmann, Claus (ed.): Fachbezogener Fremdsprachenunterricht. 1988 b "Interkulturelle Fachkommunikation und Landeskundeunterricht in Nordeuropa: Aufgaben für den fachbezogenen Fremdsprachenunterricht und die Ausbildung von Fachübersetzern", Finlance, Vol. VII, pp. 135 — 153. 1989 a "Gesellschaftswissenschaftliche Fachtexte und interkulturelle Fachkommunikation: Probleme für den Fremdsprachenlerner und Übersetzer", Neuphilologische Mitteilungen, Vol. 89, 4, pp. 559-566. 1989 b "Rhetorisch-stilistische Aspekte von Fachtexten im interkulturellen Vergleich — Ein Beitrag zur Fachtextlinguistik", in: Buschinger, Danielle (ed.): Sammlung — Deutung — Wertung. Ergebnisse, Probleme, Tendenzen und Perspektiven philologischer Arbeit, Amiens 1989. 1989 c "Fachtext und interkulturelle Autor-Leser-Kommunikation: Überlegungen zum Übersetzen wissenschaftlicher Fachtexte aus dem Bereich der Gesellschaftswissenschaften", in: Lauren, Christer & Nordmann, Marianne (eds.): From O f f i c e to School. 1989d "Zur Arbeit mit Kommunikationsverfahren bei der Analyse gesellschaftswissenschaftlicher Fachtexte. Eine kritische Sicht", in: Weber, Siegfried (ed.): Fachkommunikation in deutscher Sprache. Schwanzer, Viliam 1981 "Syntaktisch-stilistische Universalia in den wissenschaftlichen Fachsprachen", in: Bungarten, Theo (ed.): Wissenschaftssprache.

46

Η. Schröder

Seelbach, Dieter 1988 "Erkennung von Relationen bei der maschinellen Fachtextanalyse, gezeigt an französischen Wetterberichten und englischen Abstracts", in: Kalverkämper, Hartwig (ed.): Fachsprachen in der Romania. 1989 "Zum Fachtextverstehen mit Hilfe des Computers. Voruntersuchungen zur maschinellen Analyse französischer Wetterberichte", in: Dahmen, Wolfgang et al. (eds.): Technische Sprache und Technolekte in der Romania. Seguinot, Candace forth"Some Rhetorical Principles in Technical and Scientific Writing in English and coming in French", in: Technostyle. Selinker, L. 1979 "On the use of informants in discourse analysis and 'Language for Specialized Purposes'", IRAL, Vol. 17, pp. 189-215. Serra Borneto, Carlo 1986 "Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Strategies of Vulgarisation from Comics to NonFiction Books", in: Bungarten, Theo (ed.): Wissenschaftssprache und Gesellschaft. Sobotta, Kirsten 1988 "Zur Existenz einer handlungstypischen Textstruktur in Naturschilderungen", in: Wissenschaftliche Beiträge der Ernst-Moritz-Arndt-Universität Greifswald: Grundfragen der Textsynthese. Orientierungshilfen und Optimierungsmöglichkeiten bei der Produktion von Texten. ( = Greifswalder Germanistische Forschungen, 9), pp. 177-182. Sökeland, Werner 1981 "Erklärungen und Argumentationen in wissenschaftlicher Kommunikation", in: Bungarten, Theo (ed.): Wissenschaftssprache. Spillner, Bernd 1981 a "Probleme der Syntax von Fachsprachen — an französischen Beispielen", in: Kühlwein, W. and Raasch, A. (eds.): Sprache: Lehren — Lernen. Kongreßberichte der 11. fahrestagung für Angewandte Linguistik (Darmstadt 1980). Tübingen: Gunter Narr. 1981 b "Textsorten im Sprachvergleich. Ansätze zu einer Kontrastiven Textologie"', in: Kühlwein, Wolfgang; Thome, Gisela & Wilss, Wolfram (eds.): Kontrastive Linguistik und Übersetzungswissenschaft. Akten des Internationalen Kolloquiums Trier/Saarbrücken, 25.-30. 9. 1978. München. 1982 "Formen und Funktionen wissenschaftlichen Sprechens und Schreibens", in: Loccumer Protokolle 6/1982: Wissenschaft — Sprache — Gesellschaft. Über Kommunikationsprobleme zwischen Wissenschaft und Öffentlichkeit und Wege zu deren Überwindung. Rehburg-Loccum: Evangelische Akademie Loccum. 1983 "Zur kontrastiven Analyse von Fachtexten — am Beispiel der Syntax von Wetterberichten", Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik 51/52, pp. 110 — 123. 1985 "Zur Herausbildung einer Wissenschaftssprache der Fremdsprachenmethodik in der ersten Hälfte des 19. Jahrhunderts", in: Strauss, Wolfgang H. (ed.): 150 fahre Methodik des Englischunterrichts als Wissenschaft und akademisches Lehrfach. Probleme und Entwicklungstendenzen in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart. ( = Augsburger I & I-Schriften, Band 34). Augsburg: University of Augsburg. 1986 "Fachtext und Fachstil", fahrbuch Deutsch als Fremdsprache, Band 12. 1989 "Stilelemente im fachsprachlichen Diskurs", in: Dahmen, Wolfgang et al. (eds.): Technische Sprache und Technolekte in der Romania. Spitzbardt, Brigitte 1988 "Zur computergestützten Bestimmung von Textsorten aus dem gesellschafts- und naturwissenschaftlichen Bereich", in: Wissenschaftliche Beiträge der Ernst-MoritzArndt-Universität Greifswald: Grundfragen der Textsynthese. Orientierungshilfen und Optimierungsmöglichkeiten bei der Produktion von Texten. ( = Greifswalder Germanistische Forschungen 9), pp. 75—91.

Linguistic and Text-theoretical Research on LSP

47

Steinig, Wolfgang 1981 "Psychologische Fachsprache und Alltagskommunikation", in: Bungarten, Theo (ed.): Wissenschaftssprache. Stojanova-Jovceva, Stanka 1988 "Textlinguistische Probleme der Translationsprozesse bei Fachsprachentexten", in: Arntz, Rainer (ed.): Textlinguistik und Fachsprache. Strevens, Peter 1977 "Special-Purpose Language Learning: Α Perspective", Language Learning and Linguistics. Abstracts 10, pp. 145 — 163. 1987 "Cultural Barriers to Language Learning", in: Smith, Larry E. (ed.): Discourse Across Cultures. Swales, John 1986 "Citation analysis and discourse analysis, Applied Linguistics, Vol. 7 (1986), pp. 39-56. Syrkin, A. J . 1976 "Einige besondere Merkmale des wissenschaftlichen und des künstlerischen Textes", in: Jelitte, Herbert (ed.): Sowjetrussische Textlinguistik. Thiel, Gisela and Thome, Gisela 1988 "Isotopiekonzept, Informationsstruktur und Fachsprache. Untersuchung an wissenschaftsjournalistischen Texten", in: Arntz, Rainer (ed.): Textlinguistik und Fachsprache. Thomas, Patricia 1988 "Analysis of an english and french LSP: some comparisons with english general text corpora", LS Ρ-Newsletter 1, pp. 2 — 10. Thompson, Sandra A. & Mann, William C. 1987 "Rhetorical Structure Theory: A Framework for the Analysis of Texts", Papers in Pragmatics, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 79 — 105. Thürmer, R. 1985 "Sachverhalt — Mikroproposition — Textelement", in: Gläser, Rosemarie (ed.): Fachsprachliche Textlinguistik. Thürmer, U. 1985 "Textorganisation — Strukturschema — Textbauplan", in: Gläser, Rosemarie (ed.): Fachsprachliche Textlinguistik. Thürmer, Uta & Thürmer, Robert 1983 "Mathematisch gestützte Analyse zum Aufdecken von Organisation und Struktur englischer Texte", Linguistische Arbeitsberichte 41, pp. 63 — 81. Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja 1988 "Editorials as argumentative dialogues: explicit vs. implicit expression of disagreement in Finnish, English and American newspaper editorials", in: Erikoiskielet ja käännösteoria, VAKKI-seminaari VIII, Vaasa: University of Vaasa. Viehweger, Dieter 1988 "Prinzipien einer prozeduralen Fachtextlinguistik", Der Ginkgo-Baum. Germanistisches Jahrbuch für Nordeuropa 7, Helsinki and Stockholm: DDR-Kulturzentrum. Weber, Hartmut 1982 Language for specific purposes, text typology, and text analysis: Aspects of a pragmatic-functional approach", in: Hoedt, Jorgen et al. (eds.): Pragmatics and LSP. Weber, Heinz J. 1987 Converging Approaches in Machine Translation: Domain Knowledge and Discourse Knowledge ( = Linguistic Agency University of Duisburg, Series B, Paper No. 164). Duisburg: University of Duisburg. Weese, Christine 1987 "Die funktionale Perspektive in Satz und Text", in: Hoffmann, Lothar (ed.): Fachsprachen. Instrument und Objekt.

48

Η. Schröder

Weinrich, Harald 1980 "Forschungsaufgaben des Faches Deutsch als Fremdsprache", in: Wierlacher, Alois (ed.): Fremdsprache Deutsch. Grundlagen und Verfahren der Germanistik als Fremdsprachenphilologie. Band I. München: Francke. Weise, G. 1984 "Ansätze zu einer kommunikativen Textlinguistik" ( = Arbeitsberichte und wissenschaftliche Studien Nr. 100: Sektion Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft, Forschungskollektiv Kommunikativ-funktionale Sprachbetrachtung und Fremdsprachenunterricht). Halle: Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg, pp. 1-57. Weller, Franz-Rudolf 1988 "Fremdsprachlicher Fachsprachenunterricht — Fachsprachlicher Fremdsprachenunterricht. Vorbemerkungen zu einem Themenheft", Die Neueren Sprachen, 1/2, pp. 3 - 1 9 . Wiegand, Ines 1987 "Isotopieketten in Fachtexten", in: Hoffmann, Lothar (ed.): Fachsprachen. Instrument und Objekt. 1988 "Die thematische Progression als Kriterium zur Textsortendifferenzierung", in: Gläser, Rosemarie (ed.): Fachtext als Instrument und Resultat kommunikativer Tätigkeit. Wildegans, Gotthard 1977 "Probleme der semantischen Analyse wissenschaftlicher Texte", Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschmg, No. 6. Würstle, Regine 1988 "Textlinguistik und Fachsprache: Darstellung und Analyse der konstitutiven Elemente einer juristischen Textsorte des Neufranzösischen", in: Kalverkämper, Hartwig (ed.): Fachsprachen in der Romania. Wyler, Siegfried 1987 "On definitions in LSP", in: Sprissler, Manfred (ed.): Standpunkte der Fachsprachenforschung. Ylönen, Sabine; Neuendorff, Dagmar; Effe, Gottfried 1989 "Zur kontrastiven Analyse von medizinischen Fachtexten. Eine diachrone Studie", in: Lauren, Christer and Nordman, Marianne (eds.): Special Language. Zeuner, Ulrich 1988 "Denkstile — Einflußgrößen für Sprachstile? Ein Diskussionsbeitrag zum Problem des Übereinzelsprachlichen", Finlance, Vol. VII, pp. 155 — 166. Zima, Peter V. 1977 "Diskurs als Ideologie", in: Zima, Peter V. (ed.): Textsemiotik als Ideologiekritik. Zuck, J . G. and Zuck, L. V. 1987 "Hedging in newswriting", in: Cornu, Α.; Vanparijs, J.; Delahaye, M. and Baten, L. (eds.): Selected Papers from the Fifth European Symposiums on LSP. Zwicky, A. M . and Zwicky, A. D. 1982 "Register as a Dimension of Linguistic Variation", in: Kittredge, R. and Lehrberger J. (eds.): Sublanguage.

MICHAEL CLYNE

The Sociocultural Dimension: The Dilemma of the German-speaking Scholar 1 0.

Introduction

In this paper, I shall argue that the discourse patterns employed in academic texts are culturally determined and that the broad organization of, as well as some of the ways of presenting arguments in, texts produced by Englishand German-speaking scholars is different. I shall contend that because German-speaking scholars have to function within their own national and cultural contexts (which employ German rules) but require international networks employing English-based discourse rules to obtain recognition in a world context, they are constantly in a dilemma. 'Biculturalism' is a necessary goal, but one that is not easy to achieve. German scholars are intended here as a case study of a general problem of academics from outside the 'native' English-speaking countries. The paper is based on a corpus of 52 texts — 26 by (East and West German scholars (17 in German, 9 in English) and 26 by English, American and Australian scholars. The disciplines examined are Linguistics and Sociology, and the texts by English- and German-speaking scholars2 are matched according to author's sex, topic, length, discipline, type of discourse (article, working paper, conference paper), purpose (e. g. to publicize a new theory, new direction in the discipline, data analysis, political/ social application), and likely audience (people who know the field, general readers, specialist readers from the same discipline but a different field). It is my observation that the natural and behavioural sciences have reached a consensus (based on English discourse rules) on international conventions for academic texts. The discourse structure indices on which I shall focus are — degree of linearity (disgressiveness), symmetry, hierarchy of the text, continuity of text, presence and position of definition, functional sentence types, data integration, and the relation between these indices. These phenomena have been dealt 1

2

I thank Heinz Kreutz for research assistance and the Australian Research Grants Commission for financial assistance. Native speakers of the language w h o were educated in an English- or German-speaking country, respectively. Our present German corpus comprises texts by East and West Germans, but we are currently analyzing some texts by Austrians and Swiss.

50

Μ. Clyne

with in two recent papers (Clyne 1987. Clyne & Kreutz 1987) which report on the Anglo-German comparisons, and they will be summarized in Section 2. In addition, tendency towards hedging will be examined in Section 3.

1. English as an academic lingua franca, e.g. in German-speaking

countries

Since (and as a result of) of the 2nd World War, German has lost much of its importance as an international language in Western Europe although it still enjoys more prestige in Eastern Europe. Much of the lost ground in the west has been gained by English. This means that some of the countries which previously communicated internationally in German (e. g. Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden) are now using English. But even German speakers — especially West Germans — are finding it necessary to use English at international conferences and to publish books and articles in English rather than in German. Many West German journals have become bilingual. (In the two disciplines we have chosen, this applies less to Linguistics than to Sociology because of the impact of German studies (Germanistik). GDR scholars use German more, because it suffices for communication within the Eastern Bloc, but English is required when communicating in international networks embracing east and west. Academic communication within Western Europe, excluding France, is now increasingly taking place in English — in English as an International Language rather than English as a first or ethnic language. English is taking the function of the language of a united Western Europe of scholars.

2. Differences

in discourse

structures

In a previous study (Clyne 1980, 1981) comparing discourse norms in English and German essay writing textbooks and marking procedures in non-language subjects at the upper secondary level in West Germany and Australia, the following expectations of discourse were found to apply to English but not to German: (i) Linear progression, including the avoidance of repetition and the exclusion of material not relevant to the topic, (ii) linear development from the end of one paragraph to the beginning of the text, (iii) definition of key topics, (iv) (in the U.S. only) — topic sentences. This does not mean that some or all of these features may not be valued in German-speaking countries, but they are not considered necessary. These

The Sociocultural Dimension

51

differences, together with others (see below, 2.2, 2.3, 2.5, 2.7) that have been observed were subjected to analysis in our project. 2.1. Linearity/ Digressiveness In view of our above comparison, 'digressiveness' can be seen as not culturally value-free. In the analysis of the texts, digressiveness was assessed in three ways: Qualitatively in terms of propositions that are not dependent on an overarching proposition and/or text segments inserted inside another segment on a different topic, and quantitatively in terms of the distance between propositions and the macropropositions on which they depend.3 While our corpus contains texts by both English and German speakers that are more or less linear, more texts by German speakers than by English speakers have shown major 'digressions'.

Linear Slightly digressive Very digressive

ENGLISH

GERMAN

SPEAKERS

SPEAKERS

57% 43%

23% 54% 23%

—

English German texts texts by Germans 25% 67% 62% 33% 13%

English as well as German texts by Germans tend to be digressive, although the most digressive ones are generally in English. (This may be because it is more difficult to write in a foreign language). While digressiveness in texts by English speakers can be attributed to careless planning and is regarded as an infringement of the norm, digressive texts by German speakers are generally planned as such. Digressions fulfil specific functions, such as providing theory, introducing the ideological framework, entering into polemic with other scholars or schools or giving the historical background. 2.2. Symmetry This concerns the balance of the text. Textual symmetry refers to various sections of the text being of fairly equal length, while propositional symmetry refers to a text in which related propositions branching from the same macroproposition are of fairly equal length. Our comparison indicates a tendency for texts by Germans to be more asymmetrical. Here paradoxically, texts in English by Germans are more asymmetrical than ones in German, again perhaps because it is more difficult to write in a foreign language. 3

Macroproposition — superordinated proposition which summarizes the arguments of a number of (other) propositions in the text. It represents the intended meaning of that part of the text. (See Van Dijk 1980: 192, 206).

52

Μ. Clyne

Rather symmetrical Slightly symmetrical Very asymmetrical

Rather symmetrical Slightly symmetrical Very asymmetrical 2.3.

ENGLISH-SPEAKING

GERMAN-SPEAKING

Textual

Propositional

54% 23% 23%

42% 42% 16%

Textual 15% 27% 58%

Propositional 8% 31% 61%

English texts by Germans Textual Propositional

German texts Textual Propositional

11% 22% 67%

6% 35% 59%

11% 33% 56%

18% 23% 59%

Hierarchy

We are here distinguishing between more subordinative texts, in which there are more propositions dependent on other propositions, and more coordinative ones, where there are less dependent propositions. The texts written by Germans exhibit more subordination at the discourse level in the hierarchy of propositions than do those written by English speakers. In this case, English texts by German speakers tend to follow the English pattern. Mainly subordinative Mainly co-ordinative Both

ENGLISH-SPEAKING

GERMAN-SPEAKING

19% 31% 50%

38% 27% 35%

English texts

German texts by Germans

Mainly subordinative Mainly co-ordinative Both 2.4.

22% 33% 45%

44% 31% 25%

Continuity

This concerns the continuation of an argument to the point where it leads to another, rather than being left in mid-air and replaced by a different one. Texts by Germans are more likely to be characterized by discontinuity and are less likely to end with a summary statement 'tying up loose ends' (Cf. Clyne and Kreutz 1987). Continuity Slight discontinuity Marked discontinuity

ENGLISH-SPEAKING

GERMAN-SPEAKING

80% 12% 8%

50% 12% 38%

The Sociocultural Dimension

English texts

53

German texts by Germans

Continuity Slight discontinuity Marked discontinuity 2.5. Data

33.3% 33.3% 33.3%

55% — 41%

integration

By this I mean the integration of examples, statistics and quotations in the text rather than their placement in unintegrated fashion, e. g. at the end, in unexplained chunks or in footnotes. Such integration is less likely to take place in texts by Germans. Data integration entirely partly not at all

ENGLISH-SPEAKING

GERMAN-SPEAKING

69% 23% 8%

7% 64% 29%

English texts Data integration entirely partly not at all

German texts by Germans

13% 50% 37%

10% 42% 42%

The cultural determinancy of data integration is suggested by the similarity in tendencies in German and English texts by Germans. 2.6.

Definitions

Where a key term is explained — something that happens more in texts by English speakers — this is far more likely to occur at or near the start of the text if the author is English-speaking. The definition process in some German papers is seen as developing throughout the text. At start Later Not at all

ENGLISH-SPEAKING

GERMAN-SPEAKING

73% 4% 23%

12% 19% 69%

English texts

German texts by Germans

At start Later Not at all

11%

12%

22%

18%

67%

71%

54

Μ. Clyne

From the above, it can be seen that German-speaking authors transfer their German practices into their English writings. 2.7. Advance

organisers

These include both brief content previews, e. g. In the discussion of 'linguagem dos mussques', apart from the description of the special features the question of the origins and position in the general process of the social and regional differences in Portuguese is to be discussed.

and indicators of the path and organization of the text, e. g. The paper begins with a brief review of the series of fertility surveys conducted in the U.S. ... The second part of the paper discusses the nature and relative importance of the demographic components that constituted the baby boom. The third section assess explanations of the baby boom, and the fourth sets forth a new interpretation of one of the components — the rise in average family size ...

Texts by English speakers are far more likely to have advance organizers than those by Germans. Advance organizers in texts by English speakers tend more to be at or near the start of the text. ENGLISH-SPEAKING

GERMAN-SPEAKING

Yes No

65% 35%

15% 89%

At or near start Later in text

59% 41%

42% 58%

English texts

German texts by Germans

Yes No

56% 44%

19% 81%

At or near start Later in text

60% 40%

67% 33%

The presence or absence of advance organizers tends to vary according to the language in which the text is produced while their location in the text is much the same regardless of the language used. The advance organizers tend strongly to indicate path and organization in the texts by English scholars whereas texts .by German scholars are slightly more likely to employ advance organizers as content previews. 2.8. Sentence types

The occurrence of topic and other sentences at the beginning of a paragraph depends partly on the function of the text. However, English-speaking scholars (especially Americans) seem more likely to use topic sentences and

The Sociocultural Dimension

55

enumerating sentences (e. g. 'There are a number o f . . . ' ) than do the Germanspeaking, who are far more inclinded to begin with 'bridge sentences' which link the paragraph to the previous one.

Topic sentences Enumerating sentences Bridge sentences

ENGLISH-SPEAKING

GERMAN-SPEAKING

62% 38%

48% 23% 29%

English texts

German texts by Germans

Topic sentences Enumerating sentences Bridge sentences

30% 40% 30%

57% 14% 29%

Here again the texts in English follow the English pattern. The exceptions are the enumerating sentences. 2.9. Britishj Australian

American discourse patterns

Non-native speakers of English writing the language may encounter some difficulty in deciding which English standard to conform to. In fact, there is virtually no difference in linearity and symmetry between texts written by British or Australian scholars and American ones. Linearity

British/Australian

U.S.

Linear Slightly digressive Very digressive

69% 23% 8%

71% 29%

Symmetry

British / Australian

U.S.

Symmetrical Slightly asymmetrical Asymmetrical

54% 38% 8%

57% 43%

However, differences may be found at the lower, more mechanical level — advance organizers (more British/Australian), data integration (more British/ Australian), and location of definitions (earlier in British/Australian) — as well as in sentence types (topic sentences more in U.S. texts). (The normative nature of topic sentences in American essay writing has already been referred to.) Advance organisers

British/Australian

U.S.

Yes No

69% 31%

60% 40%

56

Μ. Clyne British/Australian

U.S.

Entirely integrated Partly integrated

77% 23%

57% 43%

Definitions

British/ Australian

U.S.

At start of text Later Not at all

69% 31%

57% 14% 29%

Sentence types

British/Australian

U.S.

Topic sentences Other types

53% 47%

80% 20%

Data

integration

2.9. Relative differences in discourse

patterns

The data discussed above indicate that the two broad categories of textual organization, linearity and symmetry, are governed by cultural factors. Not only are there clear differences between the tendencies in English and German texts, but the German tendencies are to be found also in the English texts by German authors. In other words, the German-speaking academics are unable to adapt their writing patterns where the rules are not very easy to grasp and intricately linked with the sociocultural system (see below, 4). The English rules for other aspects of textual organization, such as hierarchy, continuity, data integration, sentence types, and the location of advance organizers are easier to master, and the German-speaking authors included in our corpus have tended to follow the English rules in their English texts. In the case of definitions, the practice of defining as you go along is related to the idealization of content and knowledge (see below, 4) and therefore too culturally determined to be easily disposed of. 2.10. Relationship between indices A correlation analysis of the properties of the 26 texts by English speakers and the 26 texts by German speakers (Clyne and Kreutz 1987) shows a further major difference. In English, there is a bundle of features correlating significantly with linear organization, which may be seen as the properties of a 'well-organized' academic text: Early advance organizers, data integration, propositional and textual symmetry (though not continuity which, however, does correlate significantly with textual symmetry and correlates with propositional symmetry). Conversely, the correlation test indicates that in badly organized English texts, digressiveness correlates significantly with asymmetry, discontinuity, lack of data integration and late appearance (or absence) of advance organizers.

The Sociocultural Dimension

57

However, texts by Germans do not show many correlations of any significance, and there is no complex set of formulae characterizing discourse organization. Individual features of German texts can be identified mainly in terms of the absence of English norms. Linearity is significantly correlated only with advance organizers and especially those indicating cognitive structuring (path and organization). As advance organizers act as a guide to the structure of the text to the author as well as the reader, authors employing them may be more likely to adopt other 'English' norms as well (whether they are writing English or German). Two other properties correlate with linearity (though not significantly) in texts by German speakers — (subordinative) hierarchy of the text and data integration. The latter encourages a local concentration of related propositions, promoting linearity. Subordinative texts facilitate progression from one part to the next. In German, linearity and symmetry are independent of each other, as German authors produce assymetrical segments even when part of a linear progression. (This may be responsible for the 'Anglo-Saxon' criticism that German writers 'ramble', cf. Clyne 1987 b). Moreover, linearity and symmetry are, in German, not part of a 'normative' package.

3. Hedging and the German academic

register

There is a general belief, and some research evidence (e.g. Kasper 1981, House and Kasper 1981), that speech acts are realized in a more direct way in German than in English — or that Germans tend to 'overstate' while English speakers understate. While this appears to apply to everyday speech, it does not hold for written academic discourse. Various papers in Bungarten (1981) describe the indices of German academic register: (a) Agentless passives (Panther, Polenz), (b) impersonal and reflexive constructions (Panther, Polenz), (c) hedged performatives, using modals kann, muß and darf, and passive infinitives (Panther), (d) nominalizations and compound nouns, and (e) syntactic complexity. Of these, the first three (Examples below) form the basis of major cultural differences between English and German academic discourse. The functions of the phenomena under consideration are to reduce the weight or certainty of the propositions and to relieve authors of some of the responsibility for statements they are making. Hübler (1983: 156) describes hedges as "modifying devices to reduce the risk of negation". (Except where otherwise stated, the following examples are from English texts by Germans.)

58

Μ. Clyne

(i) Modals (e. g. can, may) and parenthetical verbs (e. g. seem, appear, guess). 4 According to Kress and Hodge (1979: 122), "modality in general establishes the degree of authority of an utterance ... The modal auxiliaries ... perform this function, but they contain a systematic ambiguity about the nature of authority —, whether it is based primarily on knowledge or on power". Examples from our corpus: Thus it seems unnecessary to discuss a new model here. (Can in the English texts by our German authors is usually combined with an impersonal construction.) Summarizing these figures, it can be stated that ... (ii) Impersonal constructions reduce the responsibility of the author. They include: (a) impersonal pronouns (e. g. man (one), there, anybody), e. g. Nevertheless, one can assume that there was competition for the better jobs as well as for better housing and access to social services. First, there would appear to be an inherent inertia in societies. (b) impersonal intransitive verbs, e. g. überraschen (to surprise), befriedigen (to satisfy), e. g. Auch die Tatsache, daß nur etwa jeder Zehnte der Befragten bei der Kommunikation mit Angehörigen anderer Ethnien von der Muttersprache Gebrauch macht, kann in Anbetracht der geringen Verbreitung von vernakulären Sprachen als zweite Sprache kaum überraschen. (The fact that only about every tenth of the interviewees uses his/her mother tongue with members of other ethnic groups can, in view of the restricted distribution of vernacular languages, hardly surprise) (Ger. überraschen can be intransitive.) (c) impersonal phrases (e. g. there can be no doubt, it is clear, it is interesting, it is obvious), e. g. It is remarkable that his main works in this area have not been reedited ... There it is obvious that returnees are underprivileged. (d) reflexive constructions, e. g. Hier zeigt sich die Schwäche der neuen Klassenkämpfe. (Here may be seen (literally 'shows itself) the weakness of the new class struggle). Aus den spezifischen Entwicklungsbedingungen des Kapitalismus lassen sich auch Schlußfolgerungen für die Ausprägung des Nationalismus der kapitalistischen und prokapitalistischen Klassenkräfte ableiten. (From the specific conditions of development of Capitalism, conclusions can be derived for the expression of the Nationalism of Capitalist and pre-Capitalist class forces.) (Sich lassen is a typically German construction with no eqiuvalent in English). 4

Hübler (1983: 14) defines these as "verbs where a clear distinction must be made between modal and non-verbal readings".

The Sociocultural Dimension

59

(iii) Agentlesspassives (Passives without a by) also reduce the author's responsibility while steering the reader to a particular opinion, e. g. Where word exchange is a defect relative to the syntactic organization of the sentence, selection error must be regarded as a defect relative to the lexical organization of the language. The same may be said for passive infinitives (e. g. It is to be hoped ..., es ist zu hoffen ...) which, since they are semantically similar to muß or soli constructions, also share some of the hedging functions of modal verbs (see

(0)·

12 matching pairs of texts were randomly selected from our corpus and matched according to length, discipline and type of text. Of the 12 texts by German speakers, seven were in German and five in English. 3.1. Differences

in total incidence of hedging

The range of total instances of hedging phenomena varied from 1 to 14 in the texts by English speakers, from 7 to 54 in German texts by German speakers and 19 to 44 in English texts by German speakers. The text with seven examples was exceptional in that it was the only one by a German speaker containing fewer hedging instances than the text by an English speaker with the largest incidence of the phenomena. The average number of hedging instances were as follows: (English) texts by English speakers German texts by German speakers English texts by German speakers

6.25 24.0 28.5

As in the case of discourse organization, the slight discrepancy between German and English texts by Germans may be attributed to uncertainty when writing a foreign language. A higher incidence of hedging in Sociology texts than in Linguistics texts is found where the author is German, but not where the author is an English speaker. ENGLISH-SPEAKING

GERMAN-SPEAKING

Linguistics 6.83

Linguistics 18.83

Sociology 6.00

Sociology 23.00

Texts by Germans showed far more instances of more than one type of hedging in the same proposition (hereafter referred to as 'double hedging'), e. g. Whilst strong links between Marx and Weber cannot be ignored ... (Agentless passive + modal). It is clear that blends can only be analyzed in the framework of ... (Impersonal + modal) Three texts by Germans contain an instance with three types of hedging in the same proposition, and one text contains two such instances. Such multiple instances are absent from the texts by English speakers.

60

Μ. Clyne

Texts by English speakers showed a range from 0 to 4 instances of 'double hedging, and both German and English texts by Germans a range from 2 to 14 instances. The average number of instances in texts by the English speakers was 1.7, in English speakers by Germans 7.8, and in German texts by Germans 6.14. 3.2. Relative differences in hedging The predominant hedging device, accounting for at least half the total number of instances in most of the texts, regardless of author, is the use of the modal auxiliary. This does not apply to three texts by English speakers, in all of which the total incidence of hedging is very low, but also to six texts by German speakers, most of which record a high incidence of agentless passives. Nevertheless, reducing the proposition rather than concealing the person is of greater significance in the English texts, and to a lesser extent, the German ones. This is underlined by the fact that modal auxiliaries are combined with other forms of hedging more in texts by Germans than in texts by English speakers. Impersonal constructions are represented somewhat more in the German texts than in the English ones. In this respect there is no marked difference between English texts by English and German speakers, the contrasts in the English and German grammatical systems evidently being the determining factors. Agentless passives and passive infinitive constructions are found recorded more frequently in the texts by Germans, whether they are written in English or German, and are relatively absent from the texts by English speakers. The use of these constructions, like that of modal auxiliaries by German speakers, is conditioned to some considerable extent by interference. Type of hedging

Texts by Eng. speakers

Eng. texts Ger. texts by Germans.

Modals Impersonal Passive

43 15 15

84 26 43

72 21 60

3.2.1. Modality The main area of difference in the use of modals for hedging in English texts by English and German speakers may be attributed to contrasts between the languages. They lie in the field of 'epistemic' possibility and necessity (Palmer 1979: 3). {He may be there, undecided; he must be there, "From what I know, the only conclusion I can draw is ...'). However, these modes are used here periphrastically in place of simple statements. German authors tend to use can and could, where English-speaking authors accentuate the use of may and, to a lesser extent, might, e. g. Incidentally, this representational relationship

The Sociocultural Dimension

61

between text type and its instantations can at best be described by the methodological tools of prototype theory. For changes in occupational composition of the total urban population, it has to be considered that such a fundamental impact can be assumed only when considerable numbers of references come back into a specific community. Twaddell (1965) contrasts absolute or unrestricted can with contingent or inconclusive may. On the other hand, English-speaking authors make extensive use of 'noncommittal' would e. g. I think that two related tasks will sustain a line of work to be considered distinctively sociolinguistic (or distinctively that of the sociology of language, though it would not differ much from what ought to be recognized as the 'anthropology of language' which is much less frequently found in the texts by Germans. One modal verb employed exclusively by the German speakers is (will) have to. There is also a slightly greater incidence of should in their texts. The German texts by German hold part of the key to the problem of explaining the differences. Kann and, to a lesser degree, kannte correspond in their use to can and could in the Germans' English texts. (Mag, though mentioned by Bouma (1975: 316) as functionally equal to may — more certain or less precarious than kann — is rarely employed in this context. All the instances are from GDR scholars.) Dürfte corresponds to might in the Germans' texts. Have to is evidently motivated by muß, although the too is used less than have to in the English texts by Germans. Modal can could shall should must

Eng. texts by Eng. 4

Eng. texts by Ger.

2 4

19 3 1 4 3

6

3

may

16

3

would want seem appear have to will have to

11 1 2 1

— —

might

— —

Ger. texts by kann könnte soll sollte muß müßte (cf. have to) darf dürfte mag (cf. kann)

Ger. 12 3 5 6 5 2 3 6 2

4 —

2 2 2 7

wollte scheinen erscheinen

C O M P A R I S O N OF U S E OF M O D A L A U X I L I A R I E S .

1 6 3

62

Μ. Clyne

3.2.2. Impersonal

constructions

The English-speaking authors' impersonal constructions are about equally distributed between impersonal phrases (e. g. it is evident) and expressions employing impersonal pronouns (e. g. it appears, one assumes). The German texts by German speakers show a preference for the latter. In addition, some use reflexive verbs (e. g. sich zeigen, to show itself) where the reflexive pronoun refers to an inanimate object (see under 3.1). In addition, there are the German impersonal verbs (see 3.1) which can be used intransitively, thus concealing the person on whom the speech act is performed. The impersonal and reflexive verb categories are not matched in the English texts by Germans in view of the grammatical contrast between the two languages, whose instances of 'impersonal' hedging are (in numerical order) impersonal phrases and impersonal pronouns. The higher incidence of these phenomena may, as in other cases, be attributed to insecurity in writing in a second language. Category Impers. Pronoun Impers. Phrase Impers. Verb Reflexive Verb 3.2.3.

Eng. texts by Eng. Eng. texts by Ger. Ger. texts by Ger. Speakers 8 11 2 7 15 9 — — 3 — — 7

Passive

Of the ways of concealing or shredding responsibility within the syntactic and/or semantic passivization process, the most common in the German texts and the sole one in the English texts is the agentless passive (Examples, 3.1). This phenomenon is far less common in the texts by English speakers than in those by Germans. Another common occurrence in the German texts is the passive infinitive (ist zu ...), whose English equivalent (is to be ...) is absent from all the texts in our corpus. The passive infinitive, too, shows a high level of depersonalization. There is, in German, a 'periphrastic passive' with lassen (to let), e. g. Das läßt erkennen, daß ... (Thus it can be seen that ...); literally 'This lets recognize that ...') There is also the reflexive equivalent sich lassen mentioned under 3.1. No attempt is made by the German speakers to transfer these constructions into their German texts. Passive lassen sich lassen agentless passive passive infinitive

Eng. texts by Eng. Eng. texts by Ger. — — — — 15 43 — —

Ger. texts by Ger. 8 3 37 21

The Sociocultutal Dimension

3.2.4. Understatement

63

in general

In addition to the above, there are a few instances of understatement, e. g. Auch ist es wenig nützlich, von einer ... Ideologie auszugehen. (Also it is 'little useful' to use an ... ideology as a starting-point). Es ist kaum etwas zu entdecken. (There is hardly anything to discover). Such instances do not occur in the English texts in our corpus by either English- oder Germanspeaking authors. 3.2.5. Summary of 'hedged'

phenomena

Our analysis accentuates the greater use of hedging in academic texts by Germans than in those by English speakers. This is irrespective of the language. Double (and even triple) hedging occurs in texts by Germans (especially modal + agentless passive or impersonal construction). Modal auxiliaries provide the main device for hedging in both cases, i. e. there is a hedged performative. The choice of modals in English texts by Germans is subject to some German interference, e. g. can!could for kannjkonnte, have to for muß. Agentless passives are to be found far more in texts by German scholars, irrespective of the language, while no attempt is made to render passive infinitives as well as the lassen, impersonal and reflexive constructions without equivalents in English. Constructions with impersonal pronouns and phrases seem overrepresented in the English texts by Germans. 3.3. The problem The English discourse structures are, relatively speaking, absent from the German texts. This applies also to the Germans' English texts, for bilinguals are not necessarily bicultural, especially in areas so strongly determined by education and cultural value systems (see below). The German grammaticalsemantic-pragmatic phenomena discussed diverge in part from those used in English — partly because of linguistic contrasts and partly because of cultural ones. Those due to cultural factors are generally transferred into the English texts by German speakers. I have mentioned in another paper (Clyne 1981) that English-speaking reviewers tend to react unfavourably to German discourse structures in the books they are reviewing. A questionnaire sent to editors requested information on conventions for articles, reasons for requiring revisions and relative frequency according to author's and referee's national origins. Those that commented at all found texts by German speakers either more complex or more compressed and therefore more formal or less 'to the point' than the more loosely constructed texts by English speakers. A contrastive study of essay writing norms, based on textbooks from English- and German-speaking countries, of actual upper secondary school essays from Australia and West Germany, complete with marks and teachers'

64

Μ. Clyne

comments, and Australian Matriculation Examination reports demonstrate three tendencies (Clyne 1980): The much greater emphasis placed on essaywriting norms and techniques in non-language subjects in English-speaking countries; the relatively greater significance of content in German-speaking countries; and the belief, among English speakers, that essays not written in accordance with their own (cultural) norms reflect paucity of logic or intellectual faculties and/or unclarity of thought. Texts by German speakers are often dismissed as pretentious, longwinded, badly organized, theoretical mystification, and this is popularly attributed to unreflected scholarship when it is actually a reaction to German academic register and the non-adherence to English discourse structures. German-speaking scholars tend to be far more aware than their English-speaking counterparts of the cultural roots of the differences between English and German academic discourse. The main criticisms of English academic texts by German speakers are that they are 'laymanlike', superficial and 'say' very little, being written from a narrow perspective. It can be seen how this interpretation has arisen from the less marked use of English academic register and the constraints of linearity and symmetry in English. Spillner (1982) comments from a German point of view, that "für Laien verständliche ... Darstellungen wissenschaftlicher Zusammenhänge im allgemeinen weder karrierefördernd (sind) noch verstärken sie das Ansehen bei Fachkollegen". 5 The remark that an academic text is 'very easy to follow' is interpreted as a compliment in an Anglo-Saxon academic context but could possibly be intended as an insult among German academics. 6 However, when I interviewed a number of West German scholars who regularly publish in both languages, I found a general respect for the English norms of academic discourse but also received testimonies of great difficulties encountered in observing them. Some natural and behavioural scientists regarded the German norms as "unsuitable" for their disciplines. But social scientists and linguistists found themselves "caught between two worlds". They tended to take more trouble over their style in English than in German and were able to define differences, e. g. "My German style is richer and more complicated and much more difficult to read; my English style is more trivial." (My translation). Some indicated an increasing influence of English on their German writing, e. g. "I never used to employ advance organizers in German and always gave historical overviews. Now I write German more like English — sure, with puns and side remarks, but there is no digression from the main thoughts." (My translation). Some colleagues related experiences of not being understood by English-speaking scholars, for instance where their ideological statements were thought to be 'irrelevant'. 5

6

"Representations of scholarly matters which are comprehensible to lay people on the whole, neither promote careers nor do they strengthen one's esteem among colleagues". Personal communication, Gisela Harras.

The Sociocultural Dimension

4. Cultural

65

determinancy

As I have mentioned, the English discourse rules are transmitted through essay writing in the education (and examination) systems. German academic register, on the other hand, is something acquired by example in upper secondary school and especially university through reading and, to a lesser extent, the hearing of lectures. It should be mentioned that a similar register is employed by high-quality newspapers and periodicals. (Clyne 1984: 79 — 83). In this connection, some of Galtung's (1979,1985) observations concerning 'Teutonic' (German-based) intellectual style in comparison with 'Saxonic' (Anglo-American-based) and other intellectual styles, offer some explanations of the above descriptions. For instance, when Galtung depicts 'Teutonic' intellectual style as more monologue-oriented, involving a text of strength, he provides us with a reason why, in the Germans' texts, propositions are hedged more than in those by English speakers, and why authors might hide cautiously behind impersonal (and reflexive) constructions and agentless passives. They are face-saving devices. (Brown and Levinson 1978, Hübler 1983: 159). In 'Saxonic' style, which, according to Galtung, promotes dialogue and debate leading to rapprochement between viewpoints, a statement may be seen as an interim one and does not require the same degree of caution. Galtung's comparison has been substantiated by Kusch and Schröder (1987) in an analysis of citation and quotation and of rhetoric in texts by Davidson & Habermas. Galtung also concludes that 'Teutonic' arguments have to be derived from theoretical principles, with empirical reality existing only in relation to a system; 'Teutonic' style is strong in paradigm analysis and theory in contrast to the emphasis on data analysis, e. g. in the 'Saxonic' tradition. This explains the theoretical 'digressions' in German academic texts and the greater similarity of English ones to non-academic texts as well as the lower degree of data integration in German texts. Knowledge is idealized in the German tradition. Thus, texts are written to transmit knowledge, and the onus is on the reader to make the effort to understand them in order to benefit from this knowledge. German texts can afford to be less easy to read. In English-speaking countries, most of the responsibility falls on writers to make their texts readable. The German tradition, in which German-speaking scholars have been educated, leaves its imprint on their writing. It is the tradition upheld by the institutions to which they belong and by most of the German colleagues with whom they interact. It provides the framework for the national discourse patterns. The Federal Republic is very much part of the western international academic network dominated by the English-speaking countries and the English language. West German scholars participate in international conferences and seminars, write for international journals or for journals appearing in English-speaking, and are expected to, in order to make the grade academically in their own country. But in this context they have to conform to

66

Μ. Clyne

' A n g l o - S a x o n ' cultural n o r m s in a situation that m a y be seen as 'cultural imperialism'; the E n g l i s h - s p e a k i n g scholars h o l d the p o w e r since they master the n o r m s and can generally e v a l u a t e t h e m ; p e o p l e f r o m o t h e r b a c k g r o u n d s usually d o n o t h a v e f u l l c o m m a n d o f them. Publication in this context m a y be an e n h a n c e m e n t o f t h e academic status o f the G e r m a n scholar. It m a y also detract f r o m t h e appreciation o f his/her w o r k because inadequate adherence t o t h e E n g l i s h f o r m a l n o r m s is considered indicative o f f a u l t y research. Herein lies the d i l e m m a o f t h e G e r m a n - s p e a k i n g scholar, a challenge f o r t h e teaching o f E n g l i s h as an International L a n g u a g e and f o r t h o s e w h o c o u l d instil tolerance in f u t u r e g e n e r a t i o n s o f English-speaking graduates.

References Bouma, L. 1975

"On Contrasting the Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries of German and English." Lingua 37, 3 1 3 - 3 1 9 . Brown, P. and S. Levinson 1978 "Universale in language usage. Politeness phenomena." In Ε. N. Goody (ed.), Questions and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 56 — 89. Bungarten, T. (ed.) 1981 Wissenschaftssprache. Munich: Fink Clyne, M. G. 1980 "Writing, testing and culture." The Secondary Teacher 11. 13 — 16. 1981 "Culture and discourse." Journal of Pragmatics 5. 61—66. 1984 Language and Society in the German-speaking Countries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1987 a. "Cultural differences in the organization of academic texts: English and German." In Journal of Pragmatics 11. 217 — 247. 1987 b. "Discourse structures and cultural stereotypes." In W. Veit (ed.), Antipodische Aufklärungen. Festschrift for Leslie Bodi. Bern: Lang, 67 — 76. Clyne, M. G. and H. J. Kreutz 1987 "The Nature and Function of Disaggression and Other Discourse Structure Phenomena in Academic German." Working Papers in Migrant and Intercultural Studies 8. 1 - 2 2 . Galtung, J. 1979 Papers on Methodology. Copenhagen: Ejlers. 1985 "Struktur, Kultur und intellektueller Stil. In A. Wierlacher (ed.), Das Fremde und das Eigene. Munich: Judicium Verlag, 151 — 193. House, J. and G. Kasper 1981 "Politeness markers in English and German." In F. Coulmas (ed.), Conversation Routin. The Hague: Mouton, 157-185. Hübler, A. 1983 Understatements and Hedges in English. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Kaplan, R. B. "Cultural thought patterns in inter-cultural education." In Κ. Croft (ed.), Readings on English as a Second Language. Cambridge, Mass.: Winthrop, 246 — 262. Kaspar, G. 1981 Pragmatik in der Interimsprache. Tübingen: Narr. Kress, G. and R. Hodge 1979 Language as Ideology. London: Longman, 1979.

The Sociocultural Dimension

67

Kusch, Μ. and Η. Schröder 1989 "Contrastive Discourse Analysis." In M. Kusch & Η. Schröder (eds.), Text, Interpretation, Argumentation. Hamburg: Buske, 79 — 92. Palmer, F. 1979 Modality and the English Modals. London: Longman. Panther, K. U. 1981 "Einige typische indirekte sprachliche Handlungen im wissenschaftlichen Diskurs." In Βungarten, 2 3 1 - 2 6 0 . Polenz, P. v. 1981 "Über die Jargonisierung von Wissenschaftssprache und wider die Deagentivierung." In Bungarten, 85 — 110. Spillner, B. 1982 "Formen und Funktionen wissenschaftlichen Sprechens und Schreibens." Loccumer Protokolle 6, Loccum: Evangelische Akademie, 33 — 50. Twaddell, W. 1965 The English Verb Auxiliaries. Providence: Brown University Press. Van Dijk, T. 1980 Textwissenschaft. Munich: dtv.

Ohne I h r e Hilfe stirbt unser Wappentier bald ans.

Without your help our heraldic animal will soon be extinct.

P E T E R GLAS

The Symbolic Mode and Secondary Constitution of Meaning Cultural Semiotic Comments on an Advertisement of the German WWF 1

Nur noch ein Dutzend freilebende Seeadler in Deutschland.

There are only a dozen free sea eagles left in Germany.

U n s e r Wappenvogel, der Seeadler, ist von der Ausrottung b e d r o h t . In der ganzen Bundesrepublik gibt es n u r noch 5 Brutpaare. Ihre H o r s t e müssen scharf bewacht werden, u m sie vor N e s t r ä u b e r n und Störenfrieden zu schützen. Helfen Sie dem W W F , d a m i t es unsere Seeadler auch in Z u k u n f t n o c h gibt. Jede Spende wird ausschließlich für konkrete N a t u r s c h u t z a r b e i t eingesetzt.

Our heraldic animal, the sea eagle, is threatened with extinction. There are only 5 breeding pairs left in the whole of the Federal Republic. A close watch must be kept on their eyries to protect them from poachers and troublemakers. Please help the W W F to ensure a future for our sea eagles. Each contribution will be deposited exclusively for concrete conservation work.

J a , ich will helfen, d a ß die letzten n a t ü r l i c h e n Feuchtgebiete in D e u t s c h l a n d e r h a l t e n bleiben. Bitte geben Sie mir I n f o r m a t i o n e n , wie ich d e n W W F bei seiner Arbeit u n t e r s t ü t z e n k a n n .

Yes, I wish to contribute to the conservation of the last natural humid regions in Germany. Please send me information as to how I can support the W W F in its work.

PLZ/Ort

Umweltstiftung WWF-Deutschland Sophienstraße 44 6000 Frankfurt 90 Telefon 069/770677 Spendenkonto 2000 Commerzbank Ffm.

' The advertisement appeared in: D E R SPIEGEL, Nr. 51(85. (I wish to thank Stefan Malmberg, Abo Akademi, for the English translation of the article).

WWF

The Symbolic Mode and Secondary Constitution of Meaning

0. Preliminary

69

comments

This analysis will attempt to establish the advertisement's potential connections with latent symbolic semantic dimensions and to examine their function in the reception of the text, extensively on the basis of structuralist semiotic theories and methods. It is confronted with the interpretative aporia of "ambiguity" and "asynchrony", which Lacan has condensed in the formula of "the sliding of the meaning under the chain of expression" even when dealing with an apparently "simple" object. 2 This "sliding" must however be arrested at the moment of analysis, to enable intersubjective understanding. The structuralist semiotic interpretation therefore has the systematic character of the text (as a complex sign) as its point of departure and considers the synchronic meaning of its elements to be extensively ensured in analogy with Saussures conception of the language system. 3 This leads to the postulation of culturally determined semantic (semiotic) systems, which as value systems at the same time express the world view of a society. The signified of the sign is defined as a "cultural unit" (Eco) by virtue of its position in the axiologically structured paradigmatic field. 4 Sign complexes (texts) can be connected to primary (denotative) and secondary (connotative) 5 semantic (semiotic) systems. 6 The symbolic code of the advertisement is of further importance for the secondary constitution of meaning. The essence of the symbolic can be expressed in a definition of Goethe: it "embodies the general in the particular", however it remains "unattainable" in the final instance. 7 Two fundamental 2 3

4

5

6

7

Cf. Frank (1986: 25). Cf. ibid.; processes of "memorisation" counter those of "blurring" and "distinction" (ibid.); see also Saussure ( 2 1967: 86 f.) and (87) the note of the editors). "The content communicated by the signs is not hazy figment. It is a world which structures culture into subsystems, fields and axes" (Eco 5 1985: 88, 168); these systems should however in no way be conceived as invariable (cf. 89ff., 361 ff.). Eco defines connotation as "the sum of all cultural units, which the significans institutionally is capable of bringing to the mind of the receiver ... The sequence of the interpretants of a term shows that this term can be associated with all other signs, which are in any way related to it." (ibid.: 108). The problems of the demarcation of denotation and connotation cannot be discussed here. Cf. Titzmann (1977: 47, 81); Spinner 1980; in the aspect of cultural semiotics: Großklaus (1985: 397 f.); Schildberg-Schroth (1989) adopts a critical text theoretical position. Link (1985: 70, 168); Titzmann (1977: 81 ff.); Barthes (1974: 111 ff.); cf. the "plurilinear" structure of texts with "several isotopic plains": Greimas (1971: 87 ff.). "The symbolism transforms the experience into an idea, and the idea into an imago, so that the idea expressed by the imago remains always active and unattainable and, even though expressed in all languages, remains unexpressible." (Translation: Eco 1984: 142). ("Die Symbolik verwandelt die Erscheinung in Idee, die Idee in ein Bild, und so, daß die Idee im Bild immer unendlich wirksam und unerreichbar bleibt und, selbst in allen Sprachen ausgesprochen, doch unaussprechlich bliebe"). Goethe ( 4 1964: 470f.).

70

P. Glas

symbol concepts can be derived from Goethe's conception: firstly a representative symbolic view of the analogical "projection" of a secondary system onto a primary, secondly an "open" concept, which tends to free the connotative content of the symbol from semantic determination by the context and in the final analysis also provides space for idiosyncratic "associations". Link's reception of the "Goethe symbol" accounts for the former view 8 , while Eco's reception accounts for the latter, which maintains that the symbolic mode engenders a "content nebula" and that it can function like a "semiotic machine" in the sense of an eternal semiosis. 9 This symbolic mode of perception is also related to the mythical. 10

1. The signifying and symbolic character of the eagle icon If one isolates the eagle icon from its context first of all the global semiotic system of "nature/ornithological world" emerges into the focus of reception through a relatively secured 11 denotation of "natural eagle". The extract from the photographic reproduction of an overall figure however only presents one prototyp "core" of the visual code of eagle signifiers. This strengthens the tendency to conceive the picture not as an illustration of a certain natural eagle or of a certain species of eagle but to denotate it distributively as "eagle in general" (Goodman). 1 2 The "semantic vagueness" which prevails in spite Goethe defines also: "That is the genuine symbolism, in which the particular represents the general, not as a dream or a shadow, but as a living momental manifestation of the inscrutable." ("Das ist die wahre Symbolik, wo das Besondere das Allgemeinere repräsentiert, nicht als Traum oder Schatten, sondern als lebendig-augenblickliche Offenbarung des Unerforschlichen"). (ibid.: 471). 8

9

10

11

12

The "subscriptio" of a Goethe symbol can according to Link be more or less completely inferred. (1985: 168, 176 f.). If there is only vague evidence of an secondary text system (e. g. Trakl's lyrics) he defines it as a "cifer symbol" („Chiffren-Symbol"); (ibid.: 181). "The content of the symbol is a nebula of possible interpretations ... The symbol says that there is something that it could say, but this something cannot be definitely spellt out once and for all; otherwise the symbol would stop saying it. The symbol says clearly only that it is a semiotic machine divised to function according to the symbolic mode." (Eco: 1984: 161). "One must firmly stress this open character of the (mythical; P.G.) concept; it is not all an abstract, purified essence; it is a formless, unstable, nebulous condensation, whose unity and coherence are above all due to its function" Barthes (1974: 119). "The myth constrains a strong sensibility for the living fullness of the world which no thought renders to exhausting." Hübner (1985: 279). The unambiguity of the classification is dependant on the sophistication of the ornothological cognitive code: the "gryphon" or precisely the "sea eagle" are equally denotable. The photographic icon is not the "reality" as a "message sans code" (Barthes/Hupka 1984: 190): the denotation is realized through our culturally engendered code of cognition. Cf. Eco (51985: 208 ff.). It assumes a function similar to that of a dictionary photograph, which has to represent that which is "typical". Cf. Hupka (190 f.) in connection with N. Goodman.

The Symbolic Mode and Secondary Constitution of Meaning

71

of the denotation "of natural eagle" — which here, however, cannot only be ascribed to the denotative redundancy of the captionless pictures — may facilitate not only the most diverging supplements to figure or background 13 in a nature paradigm, but also preconceptional "associations", which channel further (non-biological) semiotic "eagle worlds" into the sphere of cognition. The stylizing qualities of the picture which refer over and above that which is "biological" also connect the mentioned prototype function with a generalising symbolic "pars pro toto" function. The primarily denotative iconic sign thus simultaneously engenders a "haze" of connotations — it can function like a "semiotic machine". The "open" eagle symbol is partly determined as a syntagmatic element of the complex textual sign, and furthermore on a representative symbolic level, where frequently recurring cultural connotations play an important part, dependent as they are on the collective symbolic status of the eagle signifiers. The connotations of the icon itself at the same time make an essential contribution to the secondary constitution of meaning of the entire text. 2. The denotative semiotic system of the text The entire denotative system of the fund appeal contains an account ("Geschichte")14 of the current situation of the "German sea eagle" as well as implicit and explicit instructions to take protective action. The "WWF" and the "German W W F " function as official senders of the message. The opposition "international vs national (— German 15 )" constitutes the highest ranking semantic axis of the text constitutive isotopy "conservation" on the iconic and on the lexematic level. The sememes "WWF" ("World Wildlife Fund") on the lexematic level and the panda icon on the visual level are components of the isomorphic isotopy "international"; the greatest part of the sign inventory of the text can be classified in the classematic isotopy "national (German)". The field of the "national" is thus integrated into the hierarchically higher classematic field of "international conservation" by the inclusiv relation "international C national". The inventory of sememes and icons congregates mainly around a further semantic axis "conservation (objects) vs threat to nature (objects)". "States of affairs/processes" and actants in the form of "forces" can furthermore be added to the opposite poles of this axis. The classematic structure of the semantic field "national German conservation" can be clarified in a matrix (1) as follows: 13 14 15

Marx & Hillix (1973: 213 f., 222 f.); cf. also Dörner (1977: 74 f.). For "Geschichten" — semantics see e.g. Kallmeyer et al. ( 4 1986: 142f.). Refers to the "Federal Republic of Germany". The Text suppresses the problematic discrepancy "The Federal Republic of Germany vs the German Democratic Republic" in the denotative sphere, but has a political connotation for the former in the seme "free" using the symbolic mode (see matrix 2).

72

P. Glas

Matrix (1): National conservation of nature Conservation (Stabilisation) 16

vs

(Destabilisation16) Threat

Forces

State of affairs/ Processes

Objects (Values)

State of affairs/ Processes

Forces

your/you/ yes, I IhrejSielja, ich

help Hilfe

free sea eagle(s) frei!ebender( r) Seeadler

without help ohne Hilfe

troublemakers Störenfriede

(WWF) (WWF)

in the future still will exist in Zukunft noch gibt

(heraldic animal) (Wappentier)

will soon be extinct stirbt bald aus

poacher Nesträuber

keep a close watch on scharf bewacht werden

(heraldic bird) (Wappenvogel)

threatened with extinction von Ausrottung bedroht

breeding pairs Brutpaare

only a dozen (only 5) left nur noch ein Dutzend (nur noch 5)

eyries Horse

last natural humid regions letzte Feuchtgebiete

German WWF WWFDeutschland

(anonymous forces)

conserve schütten environment foundation Umweltstiftung

Commerybank

concrete conservation work konkrete Natur Schularbeit support unterstützen

natural humid regions Feuchtgebiete fund account Spendenkonto (...) \

"V ("eternal return" 16 )

16

1

"Eternal return", like "stabilisation" and "destabilisation" is a classematic sem, which should be applied to the mythical magical code of reception which is further dealt with below.

The Symbolic Mode and Secondary Constitution of Meaning

73

The text addresses the problem of the threat to nature with the example of the "sea eagle" primarily using "personified" actants (troublemakers/poachers), general social causes remain to a large extent conspicuous by their absence, "anonymous". Its character is nevertheless exemplary. This can initially be confirmed on the iconic level by the axis "international conservation vs national": the panda icon collectively represents the "conservation of animals". The sea eagle also becames a representative part of the entire German fauna through metonymy. The isotopic field "territory"/"biosphere" of the sea eagle ("breeding pairs", "eyeries", "humid regions") may also be interpreted as a metonymy for the entire natural environment of the Federal Republic ("environment foundation"). The isotopy of the immediate threat ("soon", "extinction", "only a dozen left, only 5 left", "last humid regions") is indicative of an advanced process of destruction in the entire ecological system. Those isotopies also refer to other accounts of environmental problems which are present in the collectiv consciousness (the advertisement was a part of an "intertextual" campaign of the German WWF, which included similar appeals for the conservation of other "national" species on the envelopes of the German Federal Post) and may according to Eco be characterised by argumentative "Topoi". 17 The eagle symbolism, which is further explained below, is also of importance here for the "German" in general.

3. The connotative paradigm "state and society"

A connotation of a global semiotic system "German state/society" is induced on the iconic as well as on the lexematic textual level. In the first instance this is through the formulation of the extract of the eagle icon, which enables e. g. a formal "assimilation" of the state emblems and heraldry, respectively, (flags, insignia, coins), to which the code assimilation function of the panda emblem also contributes. The synchronic system "The Federal Republic" is primarily addressed by the connotation "The Federal Eagle", though the dimension of "German history" is implicated. 18 The lexematic level of the text clearly induces this connection with the connotators "our heraldic animal" and "heraldic bird" which have hitherto been implicitly treated as proforms of the text referent "sea eagle"; the paradigmatic "transfer" from the sphere of nature to the sphere of the "state" is also achieved by an extension of the second part of the presupposed opposition of "Panda/heraldic animal of an international institution (WWF) vs eagle/'heraldic animal' of an national institution (German WWF)" to "comprehensive national institution: state", as well as on the denotative axis of "natural sea eagle vs 'emblematic' eagle" 17 18

Cf. Eco (51985: 274 f.). See the commentary (SZ/"Streiflicht"/12. 8. 87) in the appendix.

74

P. Glas

through the reciprocal metonymy "our heraldic bird, the sea eagle" (in which the substituendum "sea eagle" is effectively placed in apposition). The amalgamation is supported by a semiotic chiasmus "eagle icon vs eagle 'emblem' vs heraldic animal vs sea eagle". Both semiotic systems are intratextually assimilated by the connotative function of the field "German state emblems", the national "pars pro toto" function and the collective symbolic status of the eagle can, however, lead to the release of more extensive semiotic processes. The national symbolism also simultaneously represents a sociological dimension: "German society" is also connotated in the sememes "our heraldic animal/bird", which has already been foreshowed on the iconic level by "andropomorphic" connotations. The figurative representation ("pose") of the eagle engenders homologous conceptions of "the picture". Analogies between animals and humans (cf. the andropomorphic symbolism of the panda bear) 19 are some of the most common elements of everyday life which constitute metaphors. The extensive field of bird and eagle metaphors in everyday speech can here only be touched in passing: "To feather one's nest" ("steh ein Nest bauen"), "runner-down" („Nestbeschmutzer") "rear/protect one's family" ("seine Brut aufziehen/schütten"), "not to escape unscathed" ("Federn lassen"), "aerodrome" ("Fliegerhorst"), "aquiline nose" ("Adlernase"), "to take under one's wing" punter seine Fittiche nehmen"), "on eagle wings" ("auf Adlersflügeln"), "to keep one's mouth shut" ("den Schnabel halten"), etc. The andropomorphic traits of the eagle symbolism can finally be traced to mythological 20 roots and occur in the most varying sources 21 , in journalistic texts 22 as well as in literary texts 23 ; instances of identification have been confirmed in day dreams. 24 A discussion of the andropomorphic sociological 19

20 21

22 23

Commentary "The alibi bear" in DIE ZEIT/29. 1. 88: " . . . a panda child dies, oh so often ('in the arms of its mother'), the world sheds bitter tears"; "... happy panda bear baby". New Larousse 1959; Gottschalk 1973; Cooper 1986. Eg the Christ/eagle similes of the NT (cf. Cooper 1986); the Final Judgement, at which the damned "were ejected from the nest" (ibid.); in Comics: the eagle "Rhawick" in the series "Bessy" (cf. Baur 1977); or in advertising. See appendix. Brecht (1967: 1011). "The Prussian eagle it pecks the feed into the mouths of the offspring."

("Der preußische Adler Den Jungen hackt er Das Futter in die Mäulchen.") "Historical" example: see e. g. Lessing's eagle fables. 24

"It would really like to be a bird, most of all an eagle". Quote from: Jugendwerk d. dt. Shell (1982: 589).

The Symbolic Mode and Secondary Constitution of Meaning

75

dimension of the eagle symbolism according to the above matrix reveals a whole sequence of sememes which can be situated both on the global classematic level "nature" as well on a corresponding one for "society". They constitute a complex isotopy: Federal Republic (Bundesrepublik) Germany (.Deutschland) free (freileb end) troublemakers ("disturbes of the peace") (Friedensstörer) nest (Nest) robbers (Räuber) offspring (Brut) pairs (Paare) eyeries (Horste) keep a close watch on (scharf bewachen) in the future there still exist (in Zukunft noch gibt) environment ( U m w e l t ) etc. If the sememes inherent in the semiotic system "nature" are replaced by analogical sociological ones ("sea eagle" by "person" or "citizen" respectively) by means of an experimental transformation test, and if the social "mode of reading" is allowed to predominate, a connotative symbolic system is engendered which may be projected onto the primary system. In this way processes of the hyperisation of signs 25 and of the conserving of meaning constancy 26 (psycholinguistically speaking) become effective in the cognitive sphere — not disregarding the "postulate of immanence" of structural semiotics. 27 If the primary denotative structure is regarded as a "scheme" (to use the terminology of text linguistics 28 and cognitive psychology 29 ), a semantic "maelstrom effect" is exposed, which supports the symbolic mode of perception. Sememes like "German WWF" may in this way contract to the semantic feature "(German) organisation"; 30 the actual meaning recedes: the secondary semantic system provides it with a new position in a field of "the conservation of society" — thus it is not only the iconic level which may be interpreted symbolically: the entire textual system correspondingly becomes a representative symbol. A connotative matrix (2) may be "projected" in the matrix (1): 25

26 27 28 29 30

Dörner (1977: 73) differentiates between "hyper signs of complex constitution" and those of "abstraction", whereby "most facts are hyper signs of complex constitution and abstraction". Cf. Hörmann (1981: 137). Cf. Hafner/Keller (1986: 18, 238 f.). Cf. de Beaugrande/Dressler (1981: 95). See: Ballstaedt ect (1981: 17). Cf. Marcuse ( 5 1972: 112 f.): abbreviations such as NATO, UDSSR, UN, AFL-CIO may also "abbreviate" the original denotation.

76

P. Glas

Matrix (2): National conservation of the state and society Conservation (Stabilisation)

vs

(Destabilisation) Threat

Forces

State of affairs/ Processes

Objects (Values)

State of affairs/ Processes

Forces

your/you/yes, I IhrefSielja, ich

help Hilfe

free people freieMenschen

without help ohne Hilfe

troublemakers Störenfriede

(WWF) ( Organisation )

in the future still will exist in Zukunft noch gibt

(heraldic animal) 3 ' (Wappentier)

will soon be extinct stirbt bald aus

robbers Räuber

keep a close watch on scharf bewacht werden

(heraldic bird)31 (Wappenvogel)

threatened with extinction von Ausrottung bedroht

pairs/couples (families) Paare

only a dozen (only 5) left nur noch ein Dutzend (nur noch 5)

Residences Wohnungen

last environment letzte Umwelt

German WWF Deutsche Organisation

(anonymous forces)

conserve schütten environment foundation Umweltstiftmg

Commer^bank

concrete protectionwork konkrete Schut\arbeit support unterstützen fund account Spendenkonto

environment Umwelt

(...)

("eternal return")

4. Mythical aspects of the complex symbol T h e eagle icon derives its complex "open" s y m b o l i s m not least f r o m its relation to culturally determined diachronic and synchronic mythical value 31

This may be received in the "andropomorphic sociological" mode of reading as well as in that of the "state".

The Symbolic M o d e and Secondary Constitution of Meaning

77

systems. 32 Its "natural" signified may e. g. also be associated with the "nature myth": the same applies to the denotative semantic field of the text surface ("sea eagle", "eyries", "pairs", "humid regions"). Nature is actually the mythical region of "eternal return" 3 3 par excellence, though mythical thinking is in no way restricted to it. It is especially characterised by an ability to "slide" between paradigms, there is a "mythical union" in the appearances and things. 34 The connections with the paradigms of German "state" and "society" which are above shown to be evoked by the picture of the eagle as "associations" and in a representative symbolic manner by the text — may also open mythical dimensions. In the first instance it is surely the myth of the "national" which is evoked. This myth is an intrinsic part of the mythical concept of the "nation", which is based on an "archetypal" historical concept i. e. that in a nation "a substantially present transcendental numinousness" identically "recurs" and "continues to live" even if it is "considerable diversified". 35 This "genuine" (Hübner) mythical conception which also includes the macro context of nation and sphere (but not linguistic or "racial" homogeneity), continues by analogy to be of effect in the rural micro context, which is paraphrased in the concept of the "home". 3 6 This essence is also ideally and materially (physically) represented by the human member of the 32

33

"Myth ... is a value: it is e n o u g h to modify its circumstances, the general (and precarious) system in which it occurs, in order to regulate its scope with great accuracy." Barthes (1974: 145); in contrast to Hübner, Barthes sees the modern myth in general as "false consciousnes", the myth's "very principle" is t o transform "history in nature" (129). Hübner differentiates between "genuine" myths (the "national" myth) and "ungenuine" pseudo myths (the "chauvinistic" myth) (352, 357). He ascribes a peculiar rationality to "genuine" mythical thought, which can complement the l o g o s determined scientic ontology. (Cf. e . g . 2 8 7 f f . , 360); in the view of Hübner Barthes has only prepared a theory which is limited to "political pseudo myths" (361). Link (1978: 45); complex "natural mythical" aspects of the eagle symbolism can e. g. be found in Hölderlin (quote in Link 3 1985: 207): "The G o d is close And difficult to crasp. But where there is danger, There also g r o w s the saviour. In the darkness reside The eagles, and the sons of the alps Fearlessly cross the abyss." ("Nah ist und schwer %u fassen der Gott. Wo aber Gefahr ist, mächst Das Rettende auch. Im Finstern wohnen Die Adler, und furchtlos gehn Die Söhne der Alpen über den Abgrund

34 35 36

Hübner (1985: 447). Ibid., 351. 349.

weg.")

78

P. Glas

nation as in a part whole relation. The national "lives", without a marked division between the internal and the external, the ideal and the material, the part and the whole ect in the landscapes, the historical monuments, the places of worship, though it is personified (ruler/sovereign figures). The "human" also "becomes peculiarly transcendental, transhistorical, as a primaeval imago and a model". 37 The widespread tendency to personify the nation (German Michel/French Jeanne), is mythical.38 The connotative semantic system "state/society" of the text symbol may thus on the whole be conceived as markedly mythical in its andropomorphic sociological expression. The lexical connotator "our heraldic animal" also refers to the point of departure of the national myth: it is the pre-mythic conception of the ark of the tribe, the strength of the race, which was associated with totem signs and animal symbols39 and which may still "appear" in the eagle emblem. The isotopy "free people", "pairs/couples (families)", "residences", "environment" may thus be interpreted as a mythical one in the sociological sphere of the "people", which e. g. can be connected with the associative "national" feelings. "Our heraldic animal" 40 may also engender mythical elements of the history of the German nation, apart from the transcendental legitimation41 e. g. Republican and National Romantic mythical sediments of "the German Fatherland" and its national sovereignty. It simultaneously, however, evokes the myth of the Reich, with which one associates concepts of feudalistic authoritarianism of an imperialistic charakter, which for the "Prussian Eagle" 42 became finally a symbol. This myth (which also lasted for the short democratic phase of the Weimar Republic 43 ) could then also be used by German fascism (in conjunction with racism), which very effectively exploited the eagle symbol for mass psychological purposes.44 Today the symbolism of the Federal Eagle rises in the first instance associations of "affluence" and of a "mature democracy" (see appendix), the "European idea" predominates. Reminiscences of "fatefull" myths have also for a long time been presented in

37 38 39 40

41

42 43 44

351. Cf. 352. Cf. 69 and 352. The eagle has been the German heraldic animal since the foundation of the empire of Charles the Great (800). E. g. the formulations of "the German nation of the Holy Roman Empire", the German Emperor "given by the grace of God", of the "providence" in the "1000 year Reich" up until the preamble of the constitution of the Federal Republic: "The German people have established this law in awareness of their responsibility to God and mankind", are indicative of the transcendental legitimation. Cf. e. g. H. Heine: "Deutschland. Ein Wintermärchen." Cf. Sontheimer (1968). E.g. in the publications; in "marching" and on buildings; cf. Zentner (1970).

The Symbolic Mode and Secondary Constitution of Meaning

79

a satirical "demythologising" manner in popular light fiction.45 The outlined myths, however, constitute without doubt a part of the collective memory and consciousness, 46 ranging from the critically enlightened to the unreflecting, and are therefore evocative with different effects. The "open" symbolism of the icon of the advertisement could connotate a semantic sphere of "Power/Rule/Authority in Germany": corresponding social exponents could for example also unconsciously create supplements and "adaptions" with regard to the historical visual code. The conception of the eagle as a "ruler" in nature may also be connected with the iconic opposition of "panda vs eagle". The panda icon could connotate "prey" through an experimentally selective application of a nationalistic cognitive code. This would imply a visual analogy with the conception of the "biological chain" or of the "domain" of the eagle in the text. This could, however, also give rise to the Darwinian pseudo myth of society of "the survival of the fittest". As a remaining component of the imperialistic myth of "Germany's greatness" it could also be transferred to the society paradigm on the axis "international vs national". This would result in a "mythical inversion" of the relation of denotative superiority "panda emblem C eagle ('emblem')" in the "conservation of nature" paradigm. The function of the eagle as a ruler symbol could at the same time connotatively bring to mind "domestic" mythical sediments 47 of social orders which are authoritarian by "nature". This would in the current circumstances be an extreme example of mythical perception, so that only peripheral groups would come into question as social exponents. The textual structure, however, contributes to the assumption that an evocation of a modern everyday mythical cognitive code with stereotyped conceptions of order could be intended. A closer examination of the structure of the symbol's actants in particular will confirm that there is a tendency to a "mythical" enshrouding of genuine, in Barthes sense "historical", causal contexts. On the denotative level of the text the threat to nature is mainly attributed to personified actants: they are "troublemakers" and "poachers", who threaten the sea eagle. The general threat which is posed by growth orientated industrial society, can actually be recognised as a presupposition of the sememe "environment foundation" and vaguely of the syntagma "last humid regions" (in small type), although it in 45

"The war memorial was composed of cast iron with Germania, who held a dying hero in her voluminous lap and stroked a sick eagle with her left hand. 1914—1918 proclaimed the inscription. An extension for 39—45 was simpler, but provided with a considerably longer list of names. The swastika had been chiselled away...". ("Das Kriegerdenkmal war von der künstlerischen Gußeisensorte mit Germania, die einen sterbenden Helden im voluminösen Schoß hält und mit der Linken einen magenkranken Adler streichelt. 1914 — 1918, verkündete eine Inschrift. Ein Erweiterungsbau 39—45 war schlichter, aber dafür mit einer erheblich längeren Namensliste versehen. Das Hakenkreuz war weggemeißelt worden..."). Martin (1983: 79).

46

For a social psychological theory of "collective memory" see e.g. Halbwachs (1985). The myths of extreme nationalisms always contained a "Jason facedness": they could authorise internal and external political action. Cf. for the "Kaiserreich"·. Wehler (1973: 108 f.).

47

80

P. Glas

the end remains "anonymous". The same applies by analogy to the connotative "sociological" system of the actants the threat is personified in the (political) troublemakers and criminals ("poachers"): a potential feeling of insecurity48 in everyday life due to the disparities of industrial society does not work "historically" through stereotyped projections; it is conceived in an everyday mythical concept. Such models of reality contain a magical component: "Peace" (cf. "troublemakers"/"disturbers of the peace"/"Friedensstörer": the mythical "peace of nature" is correlated with "social peace") and "magic" stability is ensured by conceptions of order, in the context of which the forces of "good" can be supported by in the "eternal" antagonistic struggle with the "bad". 49 The symbol provides an antagonistic narrative deep structure with "stabilising" and "destabilising" actants. In the same way they form the basis of e. g. the folk tale. A "desirable object" (conservation of the sea eagle) becomes the target of the action. The "hero" in the figure of the German WWF acts (implicitly) on the orders of the higher authority "WWF" and provides the reader ("your", "our", "you") with the opportunity to assume an "assistant role" ("yes, I") in eliminating the "opponents" (troublemakers/poachers) in the overcoming of a "situation of deficiency" (extinction of the sea eagle). 50 (It would be analogous to consider the connotative projective level of the symbol). A variety of magic which has recently regained popularity could contribute an additional dimension to the text: the eagle symbol of the "earthly" sphere could be intricated in an "astrological" context51. In a cosmic sense it would thus be understood as a "magic symbol": a kind of collective "talisman" would be ensured through the conservation of the eagle, which represents the "totality" of the universe, specifically magic conceptions of order, which also render the transcendental numinousness attainable and controllable in everyday life. 52 The symbolic mode is "not only a mode of the production of a text" but also of "textual use" (Eco).53 5. Reception and symbolic action The eagle symbol assumes the function of a "universal quantifier". It has a tendency to extend its "antonomastic"54 rhetorical pretensions to everything Germanic through the associative (connotative) semiotic systems. In spite of 48

45 50 51

52 53 54

This "indecisive nature of the threatening should not be surprising, for order, as well as its jeopardising, is often experienced as an unspecific association, rather than a clear cognition." Boesch (1983: 98). Boesch (ibid.). Cf. Keller/Hafner (1986: 58, 86 f.). Sign of the zodiac "Aquila": in such a way the numerals of the text (a dozen/5) could also in turn acheive special significance. Cf. Hübner, 347. Eco (1984: 163). Cf. Eco ( 5 1985: 274 f.).

The Symbolic Mode and Secondary Constitution of Meaning

81

the diversified cognitive codes of the target groups, a comprehensive collective base of values should be assumed in the reception of the message. The highlighting of the threat to such a culturally central object of value should have the effect of engendering a strong cognitive "dissonance" 55 which correspondingly strengthens the impetus to act which has been aroused by the general function of the symbols as "vehicles of motivation". 56 The primary "denotative" appeal ("conserve the sea eagle") reaches without doubt extensively homogenous values held by the receivers, in the context of a general change in attitudes in ecological matters. The emotive effect of connections with the semantic system of "state and society in Germany" is certainly considerable — the eagle symbol is peculiarly capable of intensifying the reception through its evocation of "mythical" associations. In this case, however, it is likely that dissonances of attitudes deriving from German history will prevail. The arousing of the reader's willingness to act is immediately "used" by the advertisement: it enables direct personal action on a concrete level, e. g. one cuts out and then sends off the coupon or transfers his contribution. In the final analysis, however, these concrete actions serve complex symbolic purposes in that they are "overdetermined with meaning" 57 : "denotatively" 58 motivated local action (concrete conservation work/"konkrete Naturschut^arbeit") is replaced by representative partial actions, the "general" activity is delegated to "officials" or transfered into the mental region of the recepient. These partial actions can also however represent "connotative" intentions, in the sense of the symbolic and mythical paradigms which have been discussed above. The coupon's concrete incitement to action should additionally intensify the reception of the appeal, yet it uses an established "pattern", the ritual character of which is ensured by the suggestive formulation "Yes, I wish to contribute to the...".

Bibliography Ballstaedt, St.-P. et al. 1981 Barthes, R. 1974 Baur, Ε. K. 1977

55

56 57 58

Texte verstehen. berg. Mythologies.

Texte gestalten.

München, Wien, Baltimore: Urban & Schwarzen-

Thetford, Norfolk: Lowe & Brydone.

Der Comic. Strukturen

— Vermarktung

— Unterricht.

Düsseldorf: Schwann.

According to Festinger (Palm 1971: 15ff.) it originates from conflicts between e.g. ideal and real conditions, which affect "attitudes" relating to objects of value. Boesch (1980: 207). Cf. Boesch (1983: 124 f£). Cf. Boesch (1980: 210).

82

P. Glas

de Beaugrande, R.-A.; Dressler, W. U. 1981 Einführung in die Textlinguistik. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Boesch, Ε. E. 1980 Kultur und Handlung: Einführung in die Kulturpsychologie. Bern, Stuttgart, Wien: Huber. 1983 Das Magische und das Schöne: Zur Symbolik von Objekten und Handlungen. Stuttgart, Bad Cannstatt: Fromman-Holzboog. Brecht, B. 1967 Gesammelte Werke, Bd. 10. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp. Cooper, J. C. 1986 Illustriertes Lexikon der traditionellen Symbole. Leipzig, Wiesbaden: Drei Lilien. Dörner, D. 1977 Superzeichen und kognitive Prozesse, in Posner/Reinecke (eds.): Zeichenpro^esse. Semiotische Forschung in den Ein^elwissenschaften, 73 — 82, Wiesbaden: Athenaion. Eco, U. 1984 Semiotics and the Philosophy of Language. London: Macmillan Press. 5 1985 Einführung in die Semiotik. München: Fink. Frank, M. 1986 Vieldeutigkeit und Ungleichzeitigkeit. Hermeneutische Fragen an eine Theorie des literarischen Textes, in: Sprache und Literatur in Wissenschaft und Unterricht 57/ 17, 2 0 - 3 0 . Goethe, J. W. v. 4 1964 Maximen und Reflexionen. HA, Bd. 12. Hamburg: Wegner. Gottschalk, H. 1973 Lexikon der Mythologie der europäischen Völker. Berlin: Safari. Greimas, A. J. 1971 Strukturale Semantik. Braunschweig: Viehweg. Großklaus, G. 1985 Kultursemiotischer Versuch zum Fremdverstehen, in: Wierlacher (ed.): Das Fremde und das Eigene. Prolegomena \u einer interkulturellen Germanistik (= Publikationen der Gesellschaft für interkulturelle Germanistik 1), 391—412, München: Iudicium. Halbwachs, M. 1985 Das kollektive Gedächtnis. Frankfurt a. M.: Fischer. Hörmann, H. 1981 Einführung in die Psycholinguistik. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Hübner, K. 1985 Die Wahrheit des Mythos. München: Beck. Hupka, W. 1984 Wort und Bild. Die Illustration in einsprachigen französischen Wörterbüchern, in Goetz/Herbst (eds.): Theoretische und praktische Probleme der Lexikographie, 1. Augsburger Kolloquium, 166—207, München: Hueber. Jugendwerk d. Dt. Shell 1982 Jugend 81: Lebensentwürfe, Alltagskulturen, Zukunftsbilder. Opladen: Leske & Budrich. Kallmeyer, W. u.a. 4 1986 Lektürekolleg %ur Textlinguistik, Bd. 1. Frankfurt a. M.: Athenäum. Keller, O.; Hafner, H. 1986 Arbeitsbuch ^ur Textanalyse. München: Fink. Link, J. 1978 Die Struktur des Symbols in der Sprache des Journalismus. Zum Verhältnis literarischer und pragmatischer Symbole. München: Fink. 3 1985 Literaturwissenschaftliche Grundbegriffe. München: Fink.

The Symbolic Mode and Secondary Constitution of Meaning Marcuse, H. 5 1972

Der eindimensionale Mensch. Studien zur Ideologie der fortgeschrittenen Neuwied und Berlin: Luchterhand.

83

Industriegesellschaft.

Martin, H. 1983 Bilan^ m't Blutflecken (rororo thriller). Reinbek b. Hamburg: Rowohlt. Marx, M. & Hillix, H. 1973 Systems and Theories in Psycholog. New York: Press Roman by Creative Book Series. New Larousse 141979 Encyclopedia of Mythology. London, New York: Hamlyn. Palm, T. 1971 Festingers dissonansteori och Heiders balansteorie — en elementar presentation och jämfirelse utifrän attitydbegreppet. Uppsala (typoscript). de Saussure, F. 2 1967 Grundfragen der allgemeinen Sprachwissenschaft. Berlin: de Gruyter. Schildberg-Schroth, G. 1989 Wahrheit als regulative Idee — Marginalien zum Status der Textanalyse, in: M. Kusch/H. Schröder (eds.): Text — Interpretation — Argumentation (— Papiere %ur Textlinguistik Bd. 69), 125-141, Hamburg: Buske. Sontheimer, K. 1968 Antidemokratisches Denken in der Weimarer Republik. München: Nymphenburger. Spinner, Κ. H. 1980 Die Aporien des Konnotationsbegriffs in der Literatursemiotik, in: A. Eschenbach/W. Rader (eds.): Literatursemiotik I, Methoden — Analysen — Tendenzen, 65 — 84, Tübingen: Narr. Titzmann, M. 1977 Strukturale Textanalyse. München: Fink. Wehler, H.-U. 1973 Das deutsche Kaiserreich 1871 — 1918. Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Rupprecht. Zentner, Chr. 1970 Deutschland 1870 bis heute. Bilder und Dokumente. München: Südwest.

Appendix (Extract: Südd. Zeitung, "Streiflicht", 12. 8. 87). Wie über das ganze Land ist deutscher Sturm und Drang natürlich auch über das gefiederte Wappentier hinweggefaucht. Aus dem hakenschnabeligen Kühnauge wurde der züngelnde Doppelkopf, drachengleich, der im zweiten deutschen Reich zwar einen Kopf, nicht aber die kriegerische Symbolik verlor. Nach den Stahlgewittern verschlankte der Reichsadler in der kurzen Weimarer Republik zum entmilitarisierten Aarenpiktogramm, kam dann zwölf Jahre lang der Sonne zu nahe und fand sich schließlich, zunächst verbrannt aber bald wieder hochgepäppelt, zu Bonn am Rhein als wanstiger Wohlstandvogel wieder. Was der

"German 'Sturm und Drang has of course raged over the heraldic animal just as it has over the entire country. Out of the bold eye of the eagle set above the hooked beak became the double head with the flickering tongue, dragonlike, which admittedly lost one head in the second German Reich but not its military symbolism. After the storms of the war the eagle of the Reich contracted to a demilitarisied eagle pictogramme during the short Weimar Republic, but then came too close to the sun for twelve years and found itself eventually, burned at first but soon well-nourished again, at Bonn on the Rhine, as fat bird of prosperity. Our

84

P. Glas

ferne, echte Vetter dritten Grades mittlerweile zur Freude der Ökologen vereinzelt im Mittelund Hochgebirge wieder treibt, bleibt unserem Bonner Bundesadler wohl versagt. Der hat gelernt, Papier zu fressen und Höhenflüge zu meiden, weil er sonst die Lesebrille verlieren könnte.

Bonn Federal Eagle is surely denied what the distant, real third cousin sometimes does above the mountains, to the joy of the ecologists. It has learnt to eat paper and to avoid high altitudes, because it otherwise could lose its reading glasses." (Approximately)

ROSEMARIE GLÄSER

Communication in Literary Studies as LSP 1.

Introduction

Linguistic descriptions of texts in LSP communication, in particular from the angle of present-day linguistics, have shown a traditional preference for science and technology, for medicine and related fields, but have paid less attention to the humanities. This trend in text analysis has become obvious in recent standard publications, such as those by J. C. Sager/D. Dungworth/ P. F. McDonald (1980), D. Möhn/R. Pelka (1984), and L. Trimble (1985). Extensive studies of texts from social sciences such as law (B. L. Gunnarsson 1982, Ο. E. Pfeiffer/E. Strouhal/R. Wodak 1987), pedagogics (S. Fiedler 1986), pedagogical psychology (I.-A. Lauer 1986), literary theory (H. Fricke 1977, R. Gläser 1983 a, b, 1986, R. Klauser 1987, Ch. Timm 1987), and theatre studies (R. Gläser 1987) are still in the minority, but have widened the scope of research. Therefore H. Schröder in his recent monograph entitled Aspekte soi^ialwissenschaftlicher Fachtexte (1987) with some justification remarked that there is still an unbalanced 'state of the art' in LSP text linguistics. His own explorations of German texts, chosen from social policy, social psychology, economics and media research, were an essential contribution to changing the balance in favour of these hitherto neglected fields. Moreover, there are other promising endeavours along this line in the Nordic countries. In the Vasa project the corpus selection of Swedish LSP texts has been deliberately directed at an even distribution between technological disciplines, natural and social sciences, viz. electrical engineering, computer science, business studies and law (cf. Ch. Lauren/M. Nordman 1987). 1.1. The target of the present text analysis is English texts from the field of literary studies — a subject understood both as the theoretical analysis of the literary work of art and its dissemination in public by way of literary criticism. The principal questions arising from this social sphere of communication are: — What are the features of literary terminology? — Which is the internal structure and which are the sub-disciplines of academic literary studies ('Literaturwissenschaft') commonly associated and even identified with literary theory ('Literaturtheorie')?

86

R. Gläser

— Is there a justification for a language for special purposes in this communication area, and, if so, which are its features as LSP? — Which traditional text forms are typical of this communication area? — What are their textual and stylistic characteristics? 1.2. After a general discussion of these principal questions and a tentative answer to them, the subject of the following text analysis is British and American texts representing selected fields of literary studies. These comprise essays and book reviews as typical text forms of literary criticism; monographs as specimens from literary history (historiography) and correspondence texts ('Lehrbriefe') as examples of literary didactics. The results of these text analyses have been partly derived from the doctoral theses of R. Klauser (1987) and Ch. Timm (1987) which were supervised by the present author, and from her own previous findings published in scattered and sometimes remote sources (cf. R. Gläser 1983, 1986). 1.3. At the outset, the term text form calls for a working definition, the more so as there exist a number of competing synonymous expressions. In Nordic studies the terms text type and (text) genre are often used indiscriminately for a traditional and established text pattern. In the following discussion preference will be given to the term text form as explained by E. Werlich (1976, 46) and conceived by Sager/Dungworth/McDonald (1980, 87). These authors also refer to traditional forms in English Special Languages and illustrate them by a list of more than a hundred conventional text patterns (including complex communicative events). For the purpose of the following analysis a text form is defined as a historically grown, socially accepted, often institutionalised, productive pattern of text formation which reflects and communicates a complex state of affairs. A text form used in LSP communication shares all these principal features, but is determined by additional usage norms which may differ from language to language. 2. Characteristics

of literary

terminology

The vocabulary used in literary studies is neither homogeneous in origin nor in its range of application. A considerable part dates from ancient rhetoric and poetics, e. g. designations of metrical units (trochee, stanza), of figures of speech (metaphor, epithet) and the classical literary genres {epic, tragedy, comedy). Repeatedly attempts were made to subject this heritage of literary terms to clear-cut definitions, but so far these definitions have been more descriptive than stipulative. 2.1. Modern dictionaries of literary terms (cf. J. A. Cuddon 1982) show typical overlaps between the terminology of literary studies, linguistics,

Communication in Literary Studies as LSP

87

psychology, aesthetics, and theatre studies, which results in a constant give and take in the light of interdisciplinary relations. As a rule, literary terms are integrated in a three-dimensional frame of reference: in a conceptual (terminological) frame (e. g. alienation, close reading), in an ideological (interpretative) frame (e. g. committed poet, post-modernism) and in an aesthetic (evaluative) frame (e. g. kitchen-sink drama, proletkulf). In this respect literary terms may carry connotations and do not meet the requirements of a term in the strict and abstract sense. Synonymy and polysemy are by no means rare. They result from various, often conflicting, concepts (cf. alienation 'Entfremdung'; 'Verfremdung'). On the whole, literary terms cannot be neatly classified because they cut across different classificatory principles (e. g. novels) and may have a multiple reference (cf. R. Gläser 1984). It is also obvious that literary terms are unsuitable for international stipulation and standardisation. The problems arising from this state of affairs are familiar to authors of dictionaries of literary terms and have been discussed in prefaces to comprehensive dictionaries and reference books (cf. J. A. Cuddon 1982, C. Träger et al. 1986). 2.2. There is also evidence that literary scholars and critics are prone to coin new literary terms which are often a merely subjective ad-hoc decision and are unsubstantiated by a general concept and a precise definition. Instead of using established terms, some literary scholars tend to indulge in the vocabulary of the work of art which is the object of their interpretation ('Interpretationsvorlage'). Thus literary phenomena are often described in a vague and flowery style instead of clear-cut theoretical categories. This merger (or rather confusion) of object language, i. e. the language used in poetry and fiction, and metalanguage, i. e. the language used in academic literary studies which has to agree to theoretical concepts and consistent use of terminology, has often been criticised by linguists and literary scholars who were striving after clearcut categories in their own field (cf. K. Eimermacher 1973; Η. Fricke 1977; Β. Spillner 1981). The influence of fictional text on the text of literay theory or criticism is often reflected by an overuse of poetic elements, chiefly figures of speech (cf. H. Fricke 1977), which seems to hold for the representatives of hermeneutics. On closer inspection, however, it will turn out that figures of speech have a textual and communicative function and are not automatically an indicator of a merger between object language and metalanguage in a text in literary studies. 3. The subdivision of literary studies as a social science As has been stated in a number of publications over the past few years, the English language does not offer a satisfactory equivalent to the term 'Literaturwissenschaft'. As early as 1965 the American literary scholar, R. Wei-

88

R. Gläser

lek, discussed several concepts of literary theory and came to the conclusion that the terms literary science, literary scholarship and poetics, because of their different denotational and connotational meanings, were ill-suited as an umbrella term corresponding to the German equivalent 'Literaturwissenschaft'. The term literary theory is thought to be the appropriate expression, but is not regarded as the generic term which also covers the subdiscipline of literary criticism. The latter is considered as occupying the same rank of prominence. In contrast to Wellek's idea, the authors of the reference book Wörterbuch der Literaturwissenschaft (C. Träger et al., 1986) use the term 'Literaturwissenschaft' as an umbrella term for the subdisciplines of academic literary studies mentioned above. For the purpose of the present article the expression academic literary studies will be used as an overall operational term for 'Literaturwissenschaft' so that the term literary theory can be reserved for, and assigned to, its German counterpart. It is worth mentioning that even the latest German-English dictionaries offer strikingly different equivalents for the German word 'Literaturwissenschaft': Langenscheidts Enzyklopädisches Wörterbuch Deutsch-Englisch (19782) and Der Kleine Muret-SandersjLangenscheidts Großwörterbuch Deutsch-English (1988): "(systematic) study of literature"; Langenscheidts Handwörterbuch Englisch-Deutsch/Deutsch-Englisch (1977): "(science of) literature"; Collins German Dictionary German-English/English-German (1982 repr.): "literary studies". 3.1. Literary theory, as C. Träger (1986) sees it, is a conventional term denoting one of the main subdisciplines of literary studies, and in the system of theoretical abstraction occupies the same rank as do literary criticism, literary history, literary sociology, and literary didactics (or history, sociology and didactics of literature, respectively). None of these subdisciplines, however, is autonomous; all of them are closely interrelated. They share a common methodology in exploring general developmental trends in literature, and equally in investigating the categories, relations and functions of literature as creative activity, and its repercussions in social life. Special attention is focussed on the cognitive specificity of a literary work of art, i. e its specific reflection of factual reality as fiction or poetry, and the dependence of a literary work of art on a traditional genre. Thus the literary work of art is seen in the historical setting of a literary development, against the background of national and world literature, the socio-economic situation in time and space, and in connection with the influence of style conventions dominating it as a 'literary canon' (e. g. poetic diction). An equally important aspect is the ideological and cognitive position from which a literary work of art is analysed and assessed. 3.2. The term literary criticism is ambiguous in that it is not only an evaluation of a literary work of art expressed in a book review or extensive review

Communication in Literary Studies as LSP

89

article, but also an institution of the public literary scene. Thus literary criticism is not only the concern of journalists, but may also stimulate discussions in the leagues of writers ('Schriftstellerverbände') and at writers' congresses. The literary critic is expected to be a competent person who is experienced in the specific character of literary production and the individual creativity of a writer. The critic's assessment of a literary work published in a daily newspaper, a specialist journal, or broadcasted as a cultural contribution over TV or radio, should be objective, fair and substantiated by convincing arguments. In this respect, the critic has a considerable amount of moral and social responsibility for his/her assessment which may influence the potential reader's attitude to a new publication, raise interest, indifference or even bias, and eventually establish aesthetic value judgments in society as a whole. On the other hand, circumspect literary criticism will ultimately shape literary tastes, evoke permanent interest and be a reliable guide in the everchanging literary scene. 3.3. The term literary history also gives rise to ambiguities. It describes both the development of written works of art over the centuries and in various national literatures. It is also their chronological documentation in a historical, socio-economic and cultural setting. Thus the presentation of literary history may range from listing a writer's works and complementing them by additional biographical and historical data, to elaborated comparisons between the literary process in different countries, in different periods, or between literature and other fields of artistic creativity (e. g. art, architecture, music), seen as parallel developments of a style prevailing during a limited stretch of time. In this respect, the literary historian will have to choose a philosophical position which will have a bearing on his/her method of analysis. Repeatedly attempts were made to regard a literary work of art as an isolated historical document and to analyse it as a self-contained entity (so-called 'werkimmanente Interpretation'), which resulted in an eclectic view. There is also evidence that the interpretation of literary history was influenced by contradictory theoretical positions such as positivism, structuralism, existentialism, and historical materialism. 3.4. Literary sociology as a subdiscipline of literary studies is of comparatively recent origin. It integrates elements of literary theory, aesthetics, art theory, linguistics, and sociology. Its special target is the complex process of literary production and distribution of the literary work of art, its reception by the readers, and its long-term repercussions in the public (cf. also C. Träger et al. 1986). A general concern of literary sociology is the interrelation between literature and society and historical factors and institutions that determine the literary process as a whole and give rise to value judgments which are ultimately reflected in the attitude of the individual to a literary work of art. It is obvious that literary sociology has a mediating function.

90

R. Gläser

3.5. Literary didactics is an applied field and refers to the presentation of literature in institutions of public education for different age groups and proficiency levels. The presentation and reception of a literary work of art are thus part of the pedagogical process and largely depend on the curriculum of a school or of an institution of higher education. Also the selection of works from national and world literature is determined by specific targets. American high school readers intended for pupils between 14 and 18 years of age provide individual chapters from novels, alongside short-stories and poems and are profusely illustrated by colourful drawings referring to the literary subject or to the author. As a rule, such readers also contain assignments for the pupils and a glossary of literary and linguistic terms in the appendix. The didactic aspect is given still more emphasis in the teacher's guide, a separate publication, which suggests how to teach English and American literature effectively, to achieve lasting results in the classroom and to stimulate the pupil's future interest in contemporary and past literature. The interrelation of the different constitutive disciplines of literary studies was elaborated in a synopsis by R. Klauser (1987, 34). Her idea was their delimitation from the angle of literary criticism to which her textual study of essays and book reviews was devoted. For the purpose of this article the German terminology of her scheme was translated into English. (See opposite page.) 4. The status of communication

in literary studies as LSP

The synopsis of the subdisciplines of (academic) literary studies mentioned above may lead to the conclusion that the existence of an LSP in each of them is taken for granted. But in the light of general criteria for a language for special purposes this is still disputable. It is true that B. Spillner (1981), R. Klauser (1987) and Ch. Timm (1987) have postulated "eine Fachsprache der Literaturwissenschaft" and provided a number of plausible arguments for this, but there are still essential problems which question its status as LSP. The criteria for a language for special purposes, as a functional variety of the national standard language, are implicit in the definition suggested by L.Hoffmann (in: Fachsprache 1—2/1979, 16): "By LSP we understand a complete set of linguistic phenomena occurring within a definite sphere of communication and limited by specific subjects, intentions and conditions." Applied to the communication in the field of (academic) literary studies, the test questions derived from this definition, are: — Which is the delimited sphere of communication and subject area of this social activity? — Which people communicate in this area? — Which linguistic means are characteristic of this communication?

Communication in Literary Studies as LSP

91

CI d, CL, Ο

0 a, (Λ J

Μ 0 0 0(Λ

Pi

ο -O Μ