Micro-level units as incomplete discourse units; centers of attention

2.6.2 Micro-level units as incomplete discourse units; centers of attention

In the present treatment, MICRO - LEVEL UNITS constitute a particular level in the discourse hierarchy, the level of steps in a paragraph schema. 64 As mentioned above, a paragraph’s schema, which determines the arrangement and roles of its micro-level units, generally depends heavily on genre. Hinds 1979:141f. cites typical paragraph schemas: “in procedural discourse, steps are related to each other as discrete steps to be followed”; in expository discourse “the initial segment is always introductory,” and “subsequent segments offer a motivation, highlight, or unexpected twist.” How much information goes into a single micro-level unit? It may correspond to the information that is made available in what Langacker 2001:151 describes as a “viewing frame”: “A discourse comprises a succession of frames each representing the scene being ‘viewed’ and acted on by the speaker and hearer at a given instant.” Micro-level units commonly have internal structure, but there are apparently only a small number of quite general structural schemas Hinds 1979:150. With the possible exception of dialog, no steps in a paragraph schema seem to be specific to a genre and it is possible that dialog is not a true genre. Schemas for paragraph steps include the following, several of which are exemplified by Hinds: • a tight sequence of statements that make up a composite affirmation; • before and after; • ENABLING condition and enabled result; 65 • expectation and fulfilment, such as Joseph of Arimathea’s petition and Pilate’s nonverbal fulfillment; • an asserted fact and a reason why its state of affairs takes place; • an asserted fact and grounds for believing the assertion; • an asserted fact and a consequence; • two assertions contrasted along a particular dimension: negative-positive, what two participants did, etc.; • an asserted fact and specifics. Hinds 1977:83 claims that, “in the case of monologue, the essential structural feature of the segment is that it contains one functionally determined and often syntactically marked sentence termed the peak. Often, sentences within a segment are semantically subordinate to the peak.” The above kinds of conceptual relations, including the notion of “peak,” are familiar to those who are acquainted with Rhetorical Structure Theory or similar treatments of semantic relations between propositions Mann and Thompson 1988; Larson 1984, ch. 24; Dooley and Levinsohn 2001, ch. 13. According to Hinds, then, a sentence typically realizes at most one step in the schema, so that from the discourse standpoint one might be able to define a sentence in many languages as the minimal grammatical realization, in unmarked discourse organization, of a step in a paragraph schema; in all languages, the sentence seems more more generally to be the the minimal grammatical realization of a discourse unit. 66 In the paragraph about the 64 In linguistic literature, the term “micro-level” has different meanings. In van Dijk’s work, “micro-level” is not a hierarchical level at all: “the micro level of analysis” has to do with “coherence relations [or perhaps other connections; RAD] for sentences that immediately follow each other” independent of hierarchical that they belong to van Dijk 1997:9. His term “microstructure” is similar, referring to “all those structures that are processed, or described, at the local or short-term level viz., words, phrases, sentences, and connections between sentences.… We use the term, however, mainly as a practical collective term and not as a theoretical term” van Dijk 1980:29; see also Kintsch and van Dijk 1978. Grosz and associates use the term “discourse segment” in a way that sometimes appears to correspond to micro-level Grosz and Sidner 1986, Grosz et al. 1995, Grosz n.d.. For other applications of the micro-macro- distinction, see Dooley 2005. 65 Schank 1975:241, 243 defines enablement as a “necessary condition”: “A state allows for an action the potential of taking place.” 66 Longacre 1985:283f. mentions Australian aboriginal languages in which the sentence could be a minimal realization of the paragraph. This appears to be a marked option in languages like English; see Example text 17. Thus, it appears that the sentence is a conjunction of conceptual units from Halliday’s 1973 three macrofunctions of language: in the ideational or representational function, the sentence is, in traditional terms, “an expression of a burial of Jesus by Joseph of Arimathea Matthew 27:57–61, Example text 6, step 2 has two sentences: “This one going to Pilate asked for the body of Jesus. Then Pilate ordered it to be given over,” which are paraphrased as one sentence in Figure 5: “Joseph gets permission to bury Jesus’s body.” Whether a step in a paragraph schema is worded as one or more sentences depends in part on how much new information the language and the discourse mode casual conversation, academic prose, etc. normally package as a sentence. Internal micro-level structure, hence sentences, even though they do not persist into consolidated mental representation, can still be considered as provisional discourse structure §2.2.7. In the Interview with a barber Appendix F, the schema of the first paragraph is argumentational and has two steps. Both of these have the same topic, announced in line 02: Take these barber colleges. The first step lines 03–05 says that the barber colleges have fewer students than before; the second step lines 06–08 says that they have higher tuition than before. The internal structure of these two steps is the same: a comparative generalization with specifics, which is a three-way blend: generalization and specifics, contrast of one thing with another, before and after. • In lines 03–05, the comparative generalization is that the barber colleges have many fewer students than before. This generalization is presented in reduced form in line 04, which occurs between the specifics of “before” in line 03 and “after” in line 05. • For the second step, the comparative generalization is specific, in line 06: the tuition has gone up so high. Here the generalization is initial, followed by the specifics of “before” in line 07 and “after” in line 08. • In the following paragraph of this text, there is a further step with the same structure: lines 10–12, the comparative generalization being that many apprentices give up because it now takes longer to become a barber. In all three steps, the generalization requires two propositions with specifics, in consequence of its being a comparison. The last of these three steps actually has an extra step, line 13: You work for a lot less—about thirty dollars less a week than a regular barber would get. This is a further blend of the schema, using a reason add-on: many apprentices give up because it now takes longer to become a barber, because during this time they get less pay. The initial discussion of this material is in §2.2.6; the overall structure is illustrated in §2.6.1. It appears that micro-level units can be a scope for “recent-reference centers of attention” §2.4.2, as the paragraph is the scope of paragraph topic. In both cases, the referent does not carry its status of center of attention across the boundary of the unit which is its scope. If it continues to be referred to in the next such unit, its first reference will use an expression that is heavier than the language’s minimal coding, such as one that indicates “active but not center of attention” if the language makes that distinction or “familiar but not center of attention” see the Givenness hierarchy, Figure 11. 67 There may also be other reasons for heavier coding to be used; see Dooley and Levinsohn 2001, ch. 16–18. The effect of micro-level boundaries on center of attention is clear in Example text 6 about Joseph of Arimathea Matthew 27:57–61. In Figure 12, which makes use of the paragraph schema from Figure 5, the symbol Ļ indicates coreference across a step boundary while ĺ indicates coreference within the same step: complete thought,” that is, the expression of an assertion with its periphery; in the interpersonal function, it is the minimal realization of a speech act in relation to the addressee relating, ordering, asking, etc.; in the textual or discourse-forming function, it is the unmarked minimal realization of a discourse schema or a step in a schema. 67 A paragraph topic in Japanese is not referred to by zero at a paragraph boundary Hinds 1984:467, 474. Step 1 introduction: ‘a disciple of Jesus’ Ļ Step 2 event: ‘the body of Jesus’ not ‘his body’ ĺ ‘it’ not ‘the body’ Ļ Step 3 event: ‘the body’ ĺ ‘it’, ‘it’ not ‘the body’ ‘his new tomb’ Ļ Step 4 event: ‘the entrance of the tomb’ not ‘its entrance’ Ļ Step 5 add-on: ‘opposite the tomb’ not ‘opposite it’ Figure 12: Referential expressions in Matthew 27:57–61 Judging by minimal coding zero in Greek, pronoun in English, the recent-reference centers of attention—Jesus, his body, the tomb—do not retain their status as center of attention across a step boundary. But the paragraph topic Joseph, following his introduction in step 1, retains his status as center of attention throughout the paragraph: although he is named in step 3 following a switch of subject, in step 4, across a step boundary, he is referred to by minimal coding. Similarly, in the Guarani bow text Example text 9, the paragraph topic bow retains its status as center of attention across step boundaries, having minimal coding: ‘its decoration’, ‘its string’, ‘its arrows’ in Guarani, minimal coding for possessors is a prefix. The referent ‘a palm tree’ is likewise referred to with minimal coding later on in the same step in which it is introduced. Hinds, from his study of Japanese and English texts, takes the strong position that “optional pronominalization at the discourse level does not exist; pronominalization is in fact controlled by paragraph level constraints” 1977:78. More generally, this claims that use of minimal coding is conditioned by the division of the text into paragraphs and the division of paragraphs into steps. The fact that the status of center of attention does not persist across the respective unit boundaries can be seen as a reflection of Gernsbachers 1985:344 analysis of processing shift: “information in a particular substructure is most available during the active processing of that substructure. Once a processing shift has occurred, information represented in the previous substructure becomes less available.” The division of the text into paragraphs and of paragraphs into steps is only partially determined by the content. Speakers and writers often use this hierarchical structure to construe texts in particular ways. For example, a speaker might divide his text into short paragraphs or use very short sentences, even resorting to sentence fragments, in order to convey the impression that what he is saying is quite informative. Advertisers often do this, as well as politicians. Conversely, packing extensive content into a single linguistic unit, such as a sentence or a paragraph, can achieve the effect of immediate perceptual access, which “has the quality of continuous, uninterrupted flow” in contrast to the “islandlike quality” of verbalization Chafe 1994:202. Further, subordination and other kinds of dependency among linguistic units are often used to give prominence to the information that is presented in an independent unit. Segmentation into linguistic units can thus be used to communicate a particular construal in regard to evaluation or prominence, without greatly affecting the content itself Grimes 1975:334. It remains for further research to determine how center of attention and paragraph structure are related in different languages. However, if something like the above holds in at least some languages, it provides a concrete application of discourse schemas and a direct link between conceptual structure and linguistic form see further in §3.3.5. In particular, it validates three kinds of conceptual objects: paragraph schemas with their steps, paragraph topics, and centers of attention.

2.6.3 Paragraphs as minimal complete discourse units