Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Journal of Pragmatics 45 (2013) 119--130 www.elsevier.com/locate/pragma

Never mind the text types, heres textual force: Towards a pragmatic reconceptualization of text type
Stavroula Tsiplakou a,1, Georgios Floros b,*
a

Open University of Cyprus, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, 13-15 Digeni Akrita Ave., 1055 Nicosia, Cyprus b University of Cyprus, Department of English Studies, P.O. Box 20537, 1678 Nicosia, Cyprus Received 21 May 2012; received in revised form 6 November 2012; accepted 8 November 2012

Abstract This paper discusses aspects of the theoretical and methodological confusion around the notions of language function, text type and genre, and proposes a restructuring of the purported relationship among them. Taxonomical biases regarding genre have led to the postulation of superordinate classes, variously labeled prototypical text categories, text prototypes, deep structure genres, or text types, which are typically defined on the basis of linguistic criteria; however, in practice, classifications of text types involve a strong functional component. The result of such mixing is a disparate set of analytical categories labeling text types. Rather than doing away with the problematic construct of text type, we propose a different approach whereby text type is reconceptualized as what we term the overall force of a text. Borrowing insights from speech act theory and Relevance theory we define force as an overarching textual function and argue that force is arrived at by processes of inference deploying contextual knowledge. Such an inferential approach allows for preserving the dynamism of this intuitively necessary superordinate construct. 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Genre; Text type; Relevance theory; Speech act theory; Textual function; Textual force

1. Introduction When attempting to understand a textual occurrence in terms of its overall function, an aspect of understanding texts which is of central importance to educators or translators, among other specialists, function-oriented taxonomical approaches provide a solid theoretical basis for analysis and application. However, there seems to be much confusion as to the categories forming the basis of such taxonomies. Tracing the reasons behind the theoretical and methodological confusion among constructs such as genre, text type and language function is a relatively straightforward matter, despite the by now vast literature on these topics. The obvious answer is that such confusion largely arises because theorists argue from different perspectives (text-linguistic -- very broadly construed --, discourse analytic, rhetorical, pedagogical, translation studies, etc.) and with different aims. Another reason is theoretical unclarity as to the ways in which these analytical primes may meaningfully form a theoretically relevant constellation. The aim of this paper is to re-establish the necessity of a category partly akin to text type, not as yet another taxonomical move, but as a pragmatically driven attempt to describe the overall textual function as textual force, while preserving the notion of genre as a distinct category necessary for inferring said force. This would respond to the particular problem that genre alone is not a sufficient category for explaining the function of a text, since texts belonging to

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +357 22 89 21 24/99 31 13 59; fax: +357 22 89 53 10. E-mail addresses: stavroula.tsiplakou@ouc.ac.cy (S. Tsiplakou), gfloros@ucy.ac.cy (G. Floros). 1 Tel.: +357 22 41 19 22/99 37 68 04; fax: +357 22 41 16 01. 0378-2166/$ -- see front matter 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.11.004

120

S. Tsiplakou, G. Floros / Journal of Pragmatics 45 (2013) 119--130

the same genre may prove functionally different and texts from different genres sometimes prove functionally similar, as will be shown with examples below. The paper is structured as follows: a brief overview of the notions of genre and text type in their historical dimension is attempted with the aim of showing that the confusion between the two constructs arises as a result not only of the tension between more socially-oriented versus more linguistically/cognitively oriented approaches, but also of the circularity inherent in functional approaches to linguistic features as determinants of text types. We propose reconceptualizing text type as what we term the overall force of a text, borrowing insights from classic speech act theory and, crucially, recasting the notion of (illocutionary) force in Relevance-theoretic terms. It is hoped that such a reconceptualization will provide an analytical tool which, beyond genre analysis, will benefit specialists in areas where text is of central importance. 2. Whats in a genre? The genealogical dimension The minimal point of consensus among varying approaches to date is the conceptualization of genres as sociocognitive constructs (Berkenkotter and Huckin, 1995:4), i.e. as templates or frameworks institutionalized to varying degrees for the purposes of regulating and facilitating types of social interaction. If genre is a byproduct or, rather, a kind of metapragmatic index (cf. Gumperz, 1982, 1992) of types of social interaction, this entails that both stability and flux are inherent properties of genre; flux is regulated by changes in the social/cultural/interactional context, while at the same time some kind of linguistic, textual or even functional stability of generic schemes is required for the purposes of felicitous indexing of the corresponding type of social interaction. 2.1. Varying traditions, varying foci In what follows we argue that, while 20th century traditions largely subscribe to the conceptualization of genre as a socio-cognitive category, differences emerge as a result of differential emphasis on the linguistic/textual dimension versus the social dimension of genre. Thus, North American genre theory, as articulated within New Rhetoric, views genre as a dynamic product of the complex interplay between language and context, with the emphasis on social context and social action rather than on linguistic/textual structures carrying meaning or semiotic import independently of their context of occurrence (see Knapp, 1997; Freedman and Medway, 1994). In this view, genre is typified rhetorical action based on recurrent situations (Miller, 1984:31); in other words, genres are viewed as functions from social contexts to linguistic forms. This grants genre a form of recursivity, which, according to Miller, allows it some kind of independent status as a construct somewhere in the middle ground between the macro-level of culture and the micro-level of language (Miller, 1994:68; see also Bazerman, 1988, 1994, 2004 and Matsagouras and Tsiplakou, 2008 for extensive discussion). Differential emphasis on context and on linguistic/textual properties of genre appears to be a distinguishing feature of related approaches to genre analysis, such as English for Specific Purposes (ESP) (Swales, 1990; Bhatia, 1993, 2004; see also Hyon, 1996). Thus, while Swales describes genre as a fuzzy concept (Swales, 1990:33) and views genres as functions of social action,2 he nonetheless acknowledges that there is pedagogical value in sensitizing students to rhetorical effects and to the rhetorical structures that tend to recur in the genre-specific texts (Swales, 1990:213; Bhatia, 1993:18 and Yunick, 1997:323--325 for a succinct discussion). Since both these approaches ultimately view genre as contextually situated, no attempt is made to deploy more generalizing analytical primes such as text type. 2.2. Australian educational linguistics in the wake of Halliday Australian educational linguistics claims its roots in Hallidayan systemic-functional linguistics (see Halliday, 1994; Halliday and Hasan, 1991); in the Australian tradition (Cope and Kalantzis, 1993; Christie, 1989; Halliday and Martin, 1993; Kalantzis and Cope, 2012; Martin, 1989, among others), the concern is language and literacy learning and theoretical takes on genre are largely informed by pedagogical concerns. The Australian school also lays particular emphasis on the role of context in determining and delimiting genre. Reliance on, and varying implementations of, Hallidays systemic-functional grammar, and of his approach to register in particular, underlie the Australian schools approaches to genre, and it is worth noting that quite significant ambiguities regarding genre as an analytical construct arise from the Hallidayan conceptualization of register as an aggregate of tenor, field, and mode. Interestingly, genre and text type do not have any clear theoretical status in this configuration. Halliday notes that:

2 Swales (1990:58) defines genre as a class of communicative events, the members of which share some set of communicative purposes which are recognized by the expert members of the parent discourse community.

S. Tsiplakou, G. Floros / Journal of Pragmatics 45 (2013) 119--130

121

[genre] is an aspect of what we here call the mode. The various genres of discourse, including literary genres, are the specific semiotic functions of text that have social value in the culture. A genre may have implications for other components of meaning: there are often associations between a particular genre and particular semantic features of an ideational or interpersonal kind [. . .] Hence labels for generic categories are often functionally complex. (1978:145) This formulation is rather unclear: on the one hand, genre is seen as an aspect of mode, presumably on a par with other components of mode such as channel, rhetorical means, etc., but on the other hand it is treated as a kind of composite superordinate category of mode, as it affects/indexes choices relating to the ideational and interpersonal component, i.e. aspects of field and tenor as well as their linguistic correlates (see also Yunick, 1997:327--328). Nevertheless, we find the insight that genre is a category mediating between context and language especially useful for the proposal that will be articulated in this paper. Postulating genre as a distinct analytical category in Hallidayan linguistics has stemmed from the pedagogical concern that register analysis was felt to privilege lexico-grammatical and phonological patterns and their relation to context over the social-semiotic role of broader textual-discursive structures (cf. also Couture, 1986; Ferguson, 1994; Finegan and Biber, 1994; Lee, 2001). Placing genre at a level over and above register variables (e.g. in Eggins and Martin, 1997; Hasan, 1994; Martin, 1992; Martin, 1997 and Matthiessen and Martin, 1991) was seen as necessary because overarching generic schemata reflect socio-cultural categories and processes and their discursive mapping out in families of texts. The postulation of an additional level of generic structure in the terms described above has, paradoxically, led to rather rigid taxonomies of genres within the Australian tradition (cf., e.g., the taxonomy into description, recount, report, procedure, exposition, explanation, discussion and exploration proposed in Martin, 1989, 1992 and the elaborate (sub) categorizations in Martin and Rose, 2008). It is surprising that initially dynamic conceptions of genre as part of social action should end up as taxonomical devices. We suggest that this is partly a result of the pedagogical bias inherent in educational linguistics (see also Kress, 1999, 2003; Paltridge, 1995, 1996; Thwaite, 2006), and partly a result of residual theoretical unclarity in the conceptualization of genres as textual/discourse schemata (see also Hyon, 1996). Ultimately, and despite the fact that the notion of text type does not figure at all in these approaches, such categorizations are strongly reminiscent of classifications into text types in more text linguistically oriented approaches, as will be discussed in the next section. 3. Never mind the text types? Text types are a construct that is usually viewed as superordinate to genre, in the sense that they are typically treated as as a principle of abstraction and classification, an analytical category that aims at capturing structural, functional, and other conventionalized patterns occurring in particular genres (Georgakopoulou, 2005:594). Such superordinate classes have variously been labeled prototypical text categories, text prototypes, deep structure genres, or, more commonly, text types (see Moessner, 2001:133--135 for an overview). Postulating a higher-order category over and above genre seems to stem both from the need to formalize the intuition that seemingly disparate genres may share linguistic/structural features and aspects of function and from the taxonomical bias inherent in corpus studies, ESP and other pedagogicallyoriented approaches (see section 2.2 above), although there is significant disparity in the typologies proposed.3 3.1. Internal definitions In corpus studies text types are treated as aggregates of internal, i.e. linguistic/structural features (Biber, 1988, 1989). Thus, Biber (1989:6) notes that linguistically similar texts from different genres represent a single text type; linguistic similarity is purportedly established through statistical methods, which yield different text types cutting across genres, on the basis of rates of linguistic similarity and/or disparity (see also Biber and Finegan, 1986, where eight text types are suggested; for a review see Lee, 2001; Moessner, 2001; Paltridge, 1996; Taavitsainen, 2001). It is important to note, however, that the text types emerging from such statistical analysis are usually functionally rather than linguistically labeled (cf., e.g., the labels involved production, informational production, narrative concern, explicit reference, situationdependent reference, overt expression of persuasion, abstract information and online informational elaboration in Biber, 1988:102--103).

3 Werlich (1975) analyses five text types (narration, description, exposition, argumentation and instruction), Beaugrande and Dressler (1981) propose seven text types (descriptive, narrative, argumentative, scientific, didactic, literary and poetic) and Adam (1992) suggests five text types (rcit, description, argumentation, explication and dialogue). Longrace (1976, 1983) proposes four types of texts (narrative, procedural, expository and hortatory), which he terms deep structure genres.

122

S. Tsiplakou, G. Floros / Journal of Pragmatics 45 (2013) 119--130

As we have argued elsewhere (Matsagouras and Tsiplakou, 2008), the nature of such classifications points to the fact that aggregates of surface linguistic/textual features are viewed as realizations of language functions, differentially conceived depending on author and project. The result is a rather disparate set of analytical categories labeling text types, in fact categorial medleys consisting of genres, functions and textual, rhetorical or presentational strategies, as is evidenced by the varying proposals in the literature.4 We would like to argue that the reason for such disparity is in fact the circularity inherent in corpus-based approaches, which by admission start off with external criteria such as selecting a range of texts that are generically and situationally representative (cf. Biber, 1993:245) and then determining the linguistic/structural features that are relevant for classifications into text types, via cross-checking between the quantitatively emergent linguistic and the pre-established external classifications of the genres selected for corpus analysis. This, however, means that there is no autonomous, internal way of determining text-types,5 as the linguistic categories employed for classification in fact end up being defined on the basis of external, contextual, generic or functional criteria.6 3.2. External definitions The question that naturally arises is whether there is any theoretically meaningful way of salvaging the construct of text type and distinguishing it from genre. If text types cannot be defined on the basis of internal, linguistic criteria, then the other obvious way of reaching an independent definition is to look for external parameters as a basis for definition.7 There have been several such attempts to date, the common thread running through them being a functionally-oriented definition of text types. Fludernik (2000) aptly points out that in earlier approaches such as those in Kinneavy (1971), and Werlich (1975, 1983), text types are aligned with (quasi-) Jakobsonian language functions. In a similar vein, Adam (1985, 1992) attempts to deploy insights from speech act theory (Austin, 1962) and to define eight text types based on the speech act they are taken to correspond to; this approach however leads to a rather mixed bag of analytical categories. For example, the narrative, descriptive and explanatory text types are all taken to correspond to the speech act of assertion, while the argumentative text type corresponds to the speech act of convincing, the injunctive text type corresponds to the speech act of directing, the predictive text type corresponds to the speech act of prophesying, the conversational [sic] text type corresponds to an array of speech acts, such as questioning excusing, promising, etc. Rolf (1993:65ff.), based on Brinkers (1983) analysis, proposes a very interesting functional classification of genres (Textsorten, see German text linguistic tradition below) according to the five illocutionary points described by Searle (1969), the core idea being the alignment of types of speech acts with the textual functions of genres. However, speech act theory is deployed by Rolf in a way that favors a fixed set of textual functions, thus not allowing for finer distinctions and further possibilities in the functional behavior of discourse types. While the attempt at aligning text types with speech acts is intuitively an attractive proposition, leading, as it does, to a functional, rather than linguistic/structural definition of text types, the proposed taxonomy is both fairly rigid and descriptively/explanatorily inadequate, relying, as it does, on a rather narrow conception of speech acts and confounding speech acts with rhetorical strategies and modes of text organization (see also the critique in Fludernik, 2000). Virtanen and Wrvik (1987), Virtanen (1992) and Fludernik (1996, 2000) attempt to preserve the basic intuition that text types serve some kind of communicative function (i.e. they also opt for an external definition of text type), and they also attempt to do justice to the complexity of the relationship between text type, genre and mode of discourse (i.e. strategies of text organization) by introducing more multi-layered models. Thus, Virtanen and Wrvik (1987) and Virtanen (1992) suggest that narrative, description, instruction, exposition and argument are discourse types relating to functions of discourse,

4 Cf., for example, the Helsinki Historical Corpus of English Texts taxonomy of 33 text classes (see Moessner, 2001:135--137) or Hoeys (1983) classification into problem--solution, general--particular, matching contrast and hypothetical--real text types. Cf. also Hedges (1988) static descriptions, process descriptions, narratives, cause and effect, discussions, compare and contrast, classifications, definitions, and reviews, and Hammond et al.s (1992) procedure, anecdote, description, exposition, problem-solution, recount, procedure, report and review. 5 In Bibers words, there is no a priori way to identify linguistically defined types (1993:245). 6 The unwelcome circularity inherent in the process is in fact spelled out in the relevant literature: The internal linguistic criteria of the text [are] analyzed subsequent to the initial selection based on external criteria. The linguistic criteria are subsequently upheld as particular to the genre [. . .] Thus classification begins with external classification and subsequently focuses on linguistic criteria. If the linguistic criteria are then related back to the external classification and the categories adjusted accordingly, a sort of cyclical process ensues until a level of stability is established. (EAGLES, 1996:7, as quoted in Lee, 2001:41; see also Moessner, 2001, Virtanen, 2009 and Matsagouras and Tsiplakou, 2008 for extensive discussion). 7 Another line of approach, adopted, for example, by Chatman (1990) and Grlach (2004), treats genres as special subclasses or combinations of text-types. (Chatman, 1990:10, see also Taavitsainen, 2001). A different line of analysis is attempted by Herman (2008), who argues that text types can be compared to Bakhtins (1986[1953]:60) primary speech genres and treats text types as prototypes in the spirit of prototype theory (Rosch et al., 1976). While a full review must necessarily lie outside the scope of the present paper, a preliminary remark can be made in relation to our discussion, namely that it is unclear whether text types are treated as functional or as featural/linguistic/structural prototypes.

S. Tsiplakou, G. Floros / Journal of Pragmatics 45 (2013) 119--130

123

which in turn correspond to cognitive processes and intentions. They make the very interesting suggestion that a cognitive process [sic] or intention, e.g. argumentation, is not necessarily always served by choosing the argumentative discourse type, but may be served by a different discourse type, e.g. narration, description or evaluation. In a rather similar vein, Fludernik (2000) proposes a tripartite model with an overarching, very general level of macrogenres, i.e. of text types conceived of as broad communicative functions (akin to those in Jakobson, 1960), the level of genre and the level of discourse mode, where structural aspects of texts (e.g. description, narration, argumentation) acquire specific functions, depending on the properties of their containing genre. Leaving aside the details of the application of this model to the analysis of literary texts, it seems to us that we want to preserve the basic intuition, namely that text types relate to functions, but these are not language functions in their abstract sense but rather emergent ones, whose precise communicative import is somehow mediated or contextualized by genre (cf. also the proposal in Virtanen, 2010 for differentiating between text and discourse type in a way that allows for the dynamic nature of the interface between the two to emerge). Before proceeding with our attempt, it seems worth looking at the way in which the relationship between genre and text type is presented in Translation Studies. To this effect, it is important to see how the German text linguistic research tradition perceives these constructs at theoretical/terminological level, compared to the Anglophone tradition. According to Neumann (2008:10), the German tradition differentiates between Texttypen (text types) and Textsorten (kinds, sorts of texts) which refer to top-down8 and bottom-up9 text classifications respectively. According to Muntigl and Gruber (2005) and Lee (2001), genre, as used in the Anglophone text linguistic tradition, seems to be the closest correspondence to Textsorte, while Neumann (2008:10) concurs: Text type seems to be used in similar ways in both research traditions addressing top-down categories on a high level of abstraction. Schffner asserts that: [. . .] Texttyp (text type) is understood as a category for a more abstract, theoretical classification of texts, and Textsorte (or Textklasse, i.e. genre, text class, text variety) is a label used for an empirical classification of texts as they exist in a human society [. . .]. Textsorte corresponds to what is typically called genre in Anglo-Saxon studies on genre analysis. Members of a linguistic community therefore have specific genre knowledge, rather than texttype knowledge. (2002:4) In any case, the terms Texttyp and Textsorte seem to imply an opposition of classificatory approaches rather than any kind of interdependence or interrelation between the above concepts, an interrelation which would be situated within a wider text linguistic framework. The trend in the German tradition, however, goes towards Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) and Register theory, which Neumann (2008) favors as mediation between top-down and bottom-up extremes in text classificatory attempts. She argues (cf. Neumann, 2008:11--12) for the placement of text classification within the larger framework of a general language theory (SFL), as such placement would provide the necessary conceptual links to both language as system and language as concrete instances. Thus there seems to be a convergence of the two academic traditions, albeit not at terminological level. Issues concerning the contrastive understanding and mutual delimitation of the terms Texttyp and Textsorte, and equally between the terms text type and genre, as well as the possible relationship between them, remain largely unexplored, to the extent that in many cases the terms are used interchangeably. The classificatory concept enjoying wide acceptance in Translation Studies is provided by Rei (1976), who proposed a translation-oriented text classification based on Bhlers Organon-Modell (1934), while some other classificatory attempts based on functional criteria were also suggested (e.g. Newmark, 1981; Roberts, 1985). Rei distinguishes three basic text types (informative, expressive, operative), which she sees as essential in determining and applying the appropriate translation type and strategy. She then assigns to each text type a number of text varieties. In her model, text varieties (genres) can thus be understood as a text classificatory category further to text type. Again according to Schffner (cf. 2002:4), genres, rather than text types, have become relevant for Translation Studies, as they (genres) can be described as typical combinations of contextual and structural features. It is exactly this combination of communicative-functional and grammatical aspects which has moved the interest of translation scholars towards the investigation of genre. This is also evident in House (1997), who provides a scheme for analyzing and comparing original and translation texts. According to this scheme, linguistic features discovered in the text are correlated with the register categories FIELD, TENOR and MODE (1997:110, emphasis is the original). An individual textual function is then derived from the register analysis. Genre is introduced as a category in-between the register categorization and the textual function (cf. House, 1997:110). It thus becomes obvious that the individual textual function is derived also from genre (knowledge) without being explicitly understood in terms of text type. The trend today continues being mainly function-oriented, in line with the Hallidayan tradition, which has had a large impact on how genre and register are understood within the framework of translation-oriented text analysis (see Trosborg,

8 9

See Werlich (1975), Rei (1976), Isenberg (1983), Gpferich (1995), among others. Cf., e.g., Adamzik (2000), Neumann (2003).

124

S. Tsiplakou, G. Floros / Journal of Pragmatics 45 (2013) 119--130

1997, 2000; Schffner, 1997, 2000, 2002) and the fundamental question concerning translation is whether specific textual features of the source-text present translation problems and, subsequently, to what extent these features might influence translation decisions. Trosborg (2002) understands genre as the purpose of an interaction, combining the translationoriented investigation of genres with skopos-theory (i.e. the theory stating that the purpose a translation is set to fulfill determines the choices opted for). Furthermore, she sees genre as superordinate to register features, a view which is in accordance with discourse-analytic approaches following the Hallidayan tradition. If, however, genre is understood as the purpose of an interaction immediately deriving from the (subordinate) register, then this presents, in our view, a theoretical inadequacy. It would mean that genre subsumes and includes textual function and that register would help infer the purpose of the interaction. In reality, however, one can see texts with the same textual function being realized with different registers, e.g. instructions in case of fire and manuals, and, also, very similar registers used for texts displaying different textual functions or purposes, e.g. parables and novels. The above makes it clear that Translation Studies seem to be abandoning the theoretical preoccupation with text type, in line with the general trend in text linguistic research. 4. A reconceptualization of the notion of text type as force The preceding discussion makes it clear that a novel model is required that will bring together previous correct insights while at the same time providing a firm yet dynamic distinction between the problematic notions of genre, text type, language function(s) and textual function. We take on board the widely accepted understanding of genre as a socio-cognitive construct/category (see section 2 above). What is precisely meant by the term socio-cognitive, however, needs some further elaboration. Genres are ways of codifying types of social/linguistic activity, i.e. ways of linguistically structuring, or, to use a more ethnographic term, indexing types of social activity via linguistic/textual configurations. Genres are also cognitive constructs in that they codify, with linguistic means, varying types of cultural activity and such codifications are akin to mental representations in that they constitute mental maps of the activities in question. It goes without saying that such cognitive constructs are culture-specific and dependent on linguistic and literacy practices within specific communities of practice. In this sense genres are not tokens; rather, specific textual manifestations identified by a community as belonging to a genre, are tokens of that genre. This implies that genres change over time and across cultures/communities. However, because genres remain cognitive constructs, their conception may not always be totally in line with their actual linguistic manifestations, especially as genres mutate over time, across communities, etc. We take issue with the predominant view that genres are tokens of text types, for reasons discussed in detail above. This, however, does not void the need to maintain the notion of text type; rather, it raises the question of how the relation between the two may best be defined. The problems with linking core linguistic features with text types have already been discussed above. The problematic aspects of identifying text types with functions require further discussion. The key question is what is meant by function in this context. The problem is not of a quantitative nature, although objections to text types as functions have relied heavily on the absence of one-to-one correspondence between, for instance, the six Jakobsonian functions and the significantly larger number of text types as identified in the literature (see section 3). The reason why such purely typologically oriented approaches ultimately fail to draw a meaningful mapping between language function and text type is that the attempt is to define text types both top-down and bottom-up at the same time, i.e. to map a limited number of functions onto text types, which, however, also emerge bottom-up on the basis of linguistic or textual features. This makes the whole enterprise rather circular, as discussed above. Another reason why top-down and bottom-up approaches cannot happily coincide in retrieving a fixed set of text types is because the dynamic nature of genre gets in the way. The dynamicity of genre as a socio-cognitive construct lies in the fact that it indexes functions which may be relevant and specific to very situated contexts and communities of practice; as such, these functions may mutate across time, communities and cultures. Moreover, very similar linguistic and textual means may be used to encode very different functions (for example, the historical present functions differently in football match relays and in book blurbs or film descriptions and in jokes --- in all of these cases the narrative function is arguably dominant, but narrative is functionally very different in each case). Furthermore, actual genres display blends of functions -- text types, as has been extensively discussed in literary narratology with regard to the mixing of narration and description in literary genres (Chatman, 1990; Fludernik, 1996, 2000; Herman, 2008). More importantly, it is very often the case that a text may have an overall recognizable function, or it may belong to a recognizable text type, but on another, simultaneous level of reception, the same text may be assigned a radically different function or text type, e.g. an advertisement may be structured as pure description, yet the function of the description is not identified as referential, but as conative. Similarly, parables are narratives, but recipients recognize their ultimate function as exhortatory. Two issues emerge here: a) there seems to be a duality to the notion of function, in that what is identifiable as function x on one level may be identifiable as function y on another level---the question that immediately emerges is the epistemological

S. Tsiplakou, G. Floros / Journal of Pragmatics 45 (2013) 119--130

125

status of these levels, an issue to which we well return presently; b) what allows function x to be interpreted as function y is knowledge of genre, and especially of its contextual/social/cultural dimension. Genre seems to act as a mediator to the recognition and interpretation of function in a text. This is not surprising if we adopt the view outlined above that genre is a socio-cognitive construct, providing a mental map of context, participants, intended meanings, etc. Earlier we posed the question of what allows for the retrieval of function y and we showed that it cannot be linguistic features of the text or at least not linguistic features alone. It makes sense to argue that function y, the more indirect yet more dominant function or interpretation, is pragmatically retrieved via a process of inference. What allows for the inference is precisely genre knowledge or genre awareness, which aids the recipient to implement contextual features of the interaction (field, tenor) in order to recover intended, but not linguistically stated, functions. To bring the above strands of analysis together, let us consider the following potential scenarios: a) two texts usually taken to be generically similar on the grounds of language functions (e.g. narration) and linguistic features may prove to be distinct at a different level through genre knowledge, if genre knowledge is taken in its socio-cognitive dimension, e.g. joke and fable; b) two texts arguably taken to be generically dissimilar in terms of language function and textual organization may prove to be similar at a different level, again through genre knowledge in the above sense, e.g. advertisement and (auto)biography. We propose that this different level be identified as the level of text type, which, however, needs to be redefined, not in terms of linguistic features or language functions in the Jakobsonian sense. In what follows, we will attempt to define this level in terms of speech act theory. Before embarking on aspects of speech act theory which we take as relevant to our redefinition of text types and their relation with genre, we will make the following crucial assumption: What are typically taken to be text types, e.g. descriptive, narrative, argumentative, expository, etc., we will redefine as structural aspects of text organization. The reason for this should be obvious from the preceding discussion, but we will summarize our argumentation for the sake of clarity. Narration, exposition, argumentation, etc. are structuring patterns occurring across a large array of texts but not necessarily univocally linked to function. Thus, narration, for example, does not necessarily index a specific function (e.g. referring to or making assertions about a state of affairs in the world: cf. joke, parable, etc.). It is therefore preferable to treat narration, exposition, argumentation, etc. as patterns of textual organization, which relate to functions only through an inferential process such as the one described above, with genre knowledge mediating to achieve the intended inference. The parallels to speech act theory immediately become apparent. We maintain Austins classic tripartite distinction between locution, illocutionary force and perlocutionary effects (cf. Austin, 1962; Searle, 1969; Searle and Vanderveken, 1985).10 We further assume, following classic speech act theory, that the speech act/the (illocutionary) force of an utterance is not necessarily part of the utterance content,11 but can be inferred on the basis of both structural and contextual factors (e.g. verb mood, relationships between participants). It becomes very tempting to assume that text type qua function is the texts (illocutionary) force. Genre acts as context, or, if we adopt a radical pragmatic perspective (e.g. Relevance theory), genre properties, crucially its indexing of particular fields and tenors, are mentally represented as contextual assumptions leading to particular inferences.12 This approach explains, for example, why the ultimate force of a joke is entertainment and not informing, or why the ultimate force of an advertisement is persuasive and not descriptive/ informative. To return to the above potential scenarios, the approach just outlined can account for two different genres relating to the same text type/function-as-force (cf. (a) above), or for two texts belonging to the same genre relating to different text types/functions-as-forces, e.g. instructions in case of fire and instructions for playing a game (the decisive difference in force being warning vs. the absence thereof). Speech act theory has long been concerned with types and numbers of illocutionary forces and the extent to which these are directly encoded by performative verbs, verb mood, etc. As is to be expected, there is no consensus in the semantic/pragmatic literature with regard to this issue (cf. Austin, 1962; Searle and Vanderveken, 1985; Levinson, 1983; Wilson and Sperber, 1993). Given that illocutionary force is to a large extent culturally and contextually dependent and, moreover, because apparently identical illocutionary forces may take on subtle nuances, again depending on context, interlocutors and cultural conventions (e.g. the use of the imperative mood in languages such as Greek may not necessarily perform a speech act of ordering; cf. Sifianou (1992) for Greek, as well as the vast literature on politeness). Relevance theory accounts for the dynamic nature of illocutionary force precisely by assuming that illocutionary forces are not lexicalized or conventional implicatures but they arise in context and take on their particular value as a result of a

10 This parallel is deployed in Bazerman (2004), where genres are seen as typifications of speech acts qua types of social action; the approach however implicitly collapses genre and text type. 11 Even when there is a performative verb, the illocutionary force/speech act may be different than what the verb denotes, e.g. Quiet, please! said with a commanding intonation. 12 There is by now a significant body of work within a Relevance-theoretic framework which opts for a cognitive-pragmatic treatment of genre knowledge as accessible representations or contextual assumptions (aka encyclopedic knowledge) entering the inferential procedure of pragmatic interpretation and aiding the achievement of optimal relevance through generating or constraining expectations of relevance (see, egarac and Clark, 1999). e.g., Goatly, 1994; Sperber, 1996; Sperber and Wilson, 1998; Unger, 2001, 2006; Vega-Moreno, 2007; Z

126

S. Tsiplakou, G. Floros / Journal of Pragmatics 45 (2013) 119--130

dynamic process of inference in which different types of contextual assumptions may be involved (see, e.g., Carston, 2003; Ifantidou, 2001; Lenci, 1995; Recanati, 1987; Sperber and Wilson, 1995; Wilson and Sperber, 1993). We would like to argue that it would be very fruitful to draw a parallel (with the usual caveats that may apply when generalizing from utterances to texts) to the retrieval of text type or, following our reconceptualization, text force. Texts are not tokens of a fixed number of text types in the same way that utterances are not tokens of a fixed number of illocutionary forces. Rather, text types or forces are dynamic shifting, changing entities, dependent as they are on socio-cognitive factors discussed extensively above.13 To wrap up the argument, let us repeat that many of the patterns traditionally considered to be text types or functions we treat as modes of textual organization,14 (part of the texts locution, if we want to maintain the parallel to speech act theory). These, together with register, assist in the retrieval of a texts force (see Fig. 1). Fig. 1 shows the conceptual difference between micro-functions that may be present in a text (which we previously termed function x) and the ultimate textual force (function y), which is our reconceptualization of text type. Crucially, textual force emerges as the result of a process of inference, for which relevant contextual assumptions include socio-cultural and linguistic knowledge, namely knowledge of register (in the Hallidayan sense; cf. Unger, 2006) and awareness of genre as a mental map thereof. Prior knowledge of genre and contextual exposure constrain the processing effort of having to choose among a vast range of possibilities and lead to inferences which may optimally cover the particular constellation of interacting factors in a given textual situation. In this analysis it is therefore crucial that genre be treated as part of context (cf. note 11). Genres are not viewed as pre-existing, static entities; rather, they are seen as dynamic mental codifications of situational parameters which aid in the retrieval of a texts ultimate force. In Fig. 1 we also tentatively placed perlocutionary effects as additional interpretations on the part of the texts recipients: We may assume that, since the analysis focuses on whole texts rather than utterances, perlocutionary effects of texts may be quite rich and varied. It is tempting to model such perlocutionary effects of texts as weak implicatures in the sense of Sperber and Wilson (1995). This analysis must, however, fall outside the scope of the present paper. To provide a concrete example, we briefly discuss two texts with significant similarities as regards content and text organization. The first one is Aesops fable The ant and the grasshopper and the second one is one of a series of wellknown jokes with the same topic, which stands in a parodic, subversive relationship to the original fable (see Appendix A). The two texts clearly belong to different, well-established and easily identifiable genres, but, according to approaches to text type discussed above, they also belong to the same text type (narrative). A large array of linguistic and textual features in both texts point to narrative (e.g., the use of past tenses, the sequential organization of events, causal relations, narrative closure, etc.). This much is also assumed by more mainstream approaches to text types. In the model proposed here modes of text organization such as narrative only correspond to the apparent function of texts (function x). Genre is also indexed through linguistic and textual features: For example, generic or indefinite noun phrases referring to the protagonists as well as the indeterminate temporal anchoring of events indicate imaginary narrative and thus narrow down the possibilities for genre retrieval. Textual features such as the moral in the fable and the punch-line in the joke are almost univocal indexicals of the respective genres. In more traditional analyses, two very different genres such as the above are treated as tokens of the same text type, precisely because of the identification of text type with our function x. We argue, however, that, while this unifying feature of both texts is available, a further step of analysis is needed in order to capture fully the pragmatic properties and the interpretive potential inherent in the two particular configurations of textual and generic features. We argue, then, that genre knowledge acts as a contextual premise allowing for a further step of inference, that of the texts forces (our function y), i.e. admonition for edification purposes in the case of the fable and entertainment in the case of the joke, just as illocutionary forces are retrieved on the basis of linguistic and contextual information in speech act theory through steps of pragmatic inference as modeled in Relevance theory. Other facets of textual force pertaining to particular configurations of socio-cultural contexts, recipients perceptions, etc. may be treated as perlocutionary effects or as weak implicatures in Relevance-theoretic terms.15 5. Conclusion In this paper an attempt was made to show that the notion of text type, recast here as force, i.e. as a pragmatically inferred overarching textual function, is an analytical category which fruitfully complements genre in investigating the function of a text as a whole. To this end, we implemented a radical pragmatic approach, which crucially also entails a

13 The figure below does not imply a linear parsing model where a full genre and register analysis is required prior to the retrieval of force. Such cognitive processes may well work in parallel; initial assumptions as to force may be reconsidered as further processing of the text and its context takes place (see also the analysis of the texts below). 14 There is some similarity here to Georgakopoulou and Goutsos (1997, 2000), where narrative and non narrative are treated as modes. 15 For example, the telling or reading of fables for entertainment purposes may have been an additional aspect beyond the fables main force. A similar perlocutionary effect of the joke is the potential parodic subversion of dominant cultural values encoded in the original fable.

S. Tsiplakou, G. Floros / Journal of Pragmatics 45 (2013) 119--130

127

Fig. 1. Modeling the relationship between genre and text type.

partial reconceptualization of genre as a cognitive construct, a set of contextual assumptions feeding into the inferential process of force retrieval. The approach laid out in this paper may have potential added value for applied text sciences such as (second/foreign) language teaching and Translation Studies (including interpreting). As to language teaching, the tendency towards enhancing critical literacy may best be served by an approach which allows not only for the recognition of genre, but also for the recognition of textual force, which can then be correlated to the cultural and linguistic features making the forcerelated inferences possible in the first place. As to Translation (and interpreting), the awareness of an actual textual force beyond the apparent textual function may prove very fruitful in terms of a tertium comparationis, in the sense that what is translated is, ultimately, the force of a text, above and beyond its structural features as inference-inducing mechanisms. A further potential outcome of the proposed model is the awareness that a) the articulation of a force may vary crossculturally, in the sense that different contexts may require different linguistic and other means to achieve the same force, and b) force is not tied to genre. Thus texts of the same genre may display different forces, and, vice versa, texts with the same force may belong to different genres. Furthermore, the reconceptualization of text type as force is arguably a pragmatically meaningful move which allows us not to throw the construct of text type out with the bathwater. Appendix A The fable Source: sop, 2001. Fables, retold by Joseph Jacobs. Vol. XVII, Part 1. The Harvard Classics. P.F. Collier & Son, New York; 1909--14. Bartleby.com, 2001. www.bartleby.com/17/1/. The ant and the grasshopper In a field one summers day a Grasshopper was hopping about, chirping and singing to its hearts content. An Ant passed by, bearing along with great toil an ear of corn he was taking to the nest. Why not come and chat with me, said the Grasshopper, instead of toiling and moiling in that way? I am helping to lay up food for the winter, said the Ant, and recommend you to do the same. Why bother about winter? said the Grasshopper; we have got plenty of food at present. But the Ant went on its way and continued its toil. When the winter came the Grasshopper had no food, and found itself dying of hunger, while it saw

128

S. Tsiplakou, G. Floros / Journal of Pragmatics 45 (2013) 119--130

the ants distributing every day corn and grain from the stores they had collected in the summer. Then the Grasshopper knew: IT IS BEST TO PREPARE FOR THE DAYS OF NECESSITY. The joke Source: Thisismyindia.com, 2011. www.thisismyindia.com/entertainment/jokes/ant-grasshopper.html. The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks hes a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others are cold and starving. BBC, CNN, NDTV show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food. The World is stunned by the sharp contrast. How can this be that this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so? Amnesty International and Koffi Annan criticize the Government for not upholding the fundamental rights of the grasshopper. The Internet is flooded with online petitions seeking support to the grasshopper. Finally, the Judicial Committee drafts the Prevention of Terrorism Against Grasshoppers Act [POTAGA], with effect from the beginning of the winter. The ant is fined for failing to comply with POTAGA and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the government and handed over to the grasshopper in a ceremony covered by BBC, CNN and NDTV. Bush calls it A Triumph of justice. . . . References
Adam, Jean-Michel, 1985. Quels types de textes? Le Franais dans le Monde 192, 39--43. Adam, Jean-Michel, 1992. Les Textes: Types et Prototypes. Nathan, Paris. Adamzik, Kirsten (Ed.), 2000. Textsorten. Reflexionen und Analysen. Stauffenburg, Tbingen. Austin, John L., 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Bakhtin, Mikhail, 1986 [1953]. Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. University of Texas Press, Austin. Bazerman, Charles, 1988. Shaping Written Knowledge: The Genre and Activity of the Experimental Article in Science. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison. Bazerman, Charles, 1994. Systems of genres and the enactment of social intentions. In: Freedman, Aviva, Medway, Peter (Eds.), Genre and the New Rhetoric. Taylor and Francis, London, pp. 79--101. Bazerman, Charles, 2004. Speech acts, genres and activity systems: how texts organize activity and people. In: Bazerman, Charles, Prior, Paul (Eds.), What Writing Does and How it Does it: An Introduction to Analyzing Texts and Textual Practices. Erlbaum, Mahwah (NJ), pp. 309-339. Beaugrande, Robert-Alain de, Dressler, Wolfgang U., 1981. Einfhrung in die Textlinguistik. Konzepte der Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft. Niemeyer, Tbingen. Berkenkotter, Carol, Huckin, Thomas N., 1995. Genre Knowledge in Disciplinary Communication: Cognition/Culture/Power. Erlbaum, Hillsdale (NJ). Bhatia, Vijay K., 1993. Analysing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. Longman, London. Bhatia, Vijay K., 2004. Words of Written Discourse: A Genre-based View. Continuum, London. Biber, Douglas, 1988. Variation Across Speech and Writing. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Biber, Douglas, 1989. A typology of English texts. Linguistics 27, 3--43. Biber, Douglas, 1993. The multidimensional approach to linguistic analyses of genre variation: an overview of methodology and findings. Computers and the Humanities 26, 333--345. Biber, Douglas, Finegan, Edward, 1986. Style of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text 9 (1), 93--119. Brinker, Klaus, 1983. Textfunktionen: Anstze zur ihrer Beschreibung. Zeitschrift fr Germanistische Linguistik 11 (2), 127--148. Bhler, Karl, 1934. Sprachtheorie. Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. Fischer, Jena. Carston, Robyn, 2003. Thoughts and Utterances. Blackwell, Oxford. Chatman, Seymour, 1990. Coming to Terms: The Rhetoric of Narrative in Fiction and Film. Cornell University Press, Ithaca (NY). Christie, Frances, 1989. Language Education. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Cope, Bill, Kalantzis, Mary, 1993. The power of literacy and the literacy of power. In: Cope, Bill, Kalantzis, Mary (Eds.), The Powers of Literacy: A Genre Approach to Teaching Writing. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, pp. 63--89. Couture, Barbara (Ed.), 1986. Functional Approaches to Writing: Research Perspectives. Ablex, Norwood (NJ). EAGLES (Expert Advisory Group on Language Engineering Standards), 1996. Preliminary Recommendations on Text Typology (EAGLES Document EAG-TCWG-TTYP/P). http://www.ilc.cnr.it/EAGLES96/texttyp/texttyp.html (accessed 16 March 2011). Eggins, Suzanne, Martin, James R., 1997. Genres and registers of discourse. In: van Dijk, Teun (Ed.), Discourse as Structure and Process. Sage, London, pp. 230--256.

S. Tsiplakou, G. Floros / Journal of Pragmatics 45 (2013) 119--130

129

Ferguson, Charles A., 1994. Dialect, register and genre: working assumptions about conventionalization. In: Biber, Douglas, Finegan, Edward (Eds.), Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Register. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 15--30. Finegan, Edward, Biber, Douglas, 1994. Register and social dialect variation: an integrated approach. In: Biber, Douglas, Finegan, Edward (Eds.), Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Register. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 315--347. Fludernik, Monika, 1996. Towards a Natural Narratology. Routledge, London. Fludernik, Monika, 2000. Genres, text types, or discourse modes? Style 34 (2), 274--292. Freedman, Aviva, Medway, Peter (Eds.), 1994. Genre and the New Rhetoric. Taylor and Francis, London. Georgakopoulou, Alexandra, 2005. Text-type approach to narrative. In: Herman, David, Jahn, Manfred, Ryan, Marie-Laure (Eds.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Narrative Theory. Routledge, London, pp. 594--596. Georgakopoulou, Alexandra, Goutsos, Dionysis, 1997. Discourse Analysis: An Introduction. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh. Georgakopoulou, Alexandra, Goutsos, Dionysis, 2000. Mapping the world of discourse: the narrative vs. non-narrative distinction. Semiotica 131 (1--2), 113--141. Goatly, Andrew, 1994. Register and the redemption of relevance theory. Pragmatics 4 (2), 139--182. Gpferich, Susanne, 1995. Textsorten in Naturwissenschaften und Technik. Pragmatische Typologie -- Kontrastierung -- Translation. Narr, Tbingen. Grlach, Manfred, 2004. Text Types and the History of English. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin. Gumperz, John J., 1982. Conversational code-switching. In: Gumperz, John J. (Ed.), Discourse Strategies. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 59--99. Gumperz, John J., 1992. Contextualization and understanding. In: Duranti, Alan, Goodwin, Charles (Eds.), Rethinking Context. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 229--252. Halliday, Michael A.K., 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. Arnold, London. Halliday, Michael A.K., Hasan, Ruqaiya, 1991. Language Context and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-semiotic Perspective. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Halliday, Michael A.K., Martin, James R. (Eds.), 1993. Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power. Falmer Press, London/Washington, D.C.. Hammond, Jennifer, Burns, Anne, Joyce, Helen, Brosnan, Daphne, Gerot, Linda, 1992. English for Social Purposes: A Handbook for Teachers of Adult Literacy. National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research, Macquarie University, Sydney. Hasan, Ruqaiya, 1994. Situation and the definition of genres. In: Grimshaw, Allen D., Burke, Peter J., Cicourel, Aaron V. (Eds.), Whats Going on Here? Complementary Studies of Professional Talk. Ablex, Norwood (NJ), pp. 127--167. Hedge, Tricia, 1988. Writing. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Herman, David, 2008. Description, narrative, and explanation: text-type categories and the cognitive foundations of discourse competence. Poetics Today 29 (3), 437--472. Hoey, Michael, 1983. On the Surface of Discourse. Allen and Unwin, London. House, Juliane, 1997. Translation Quality Assessment: A Model Revisited. Narr, Tbingen. Hyon, Sunny, 1996. Genre in three traditions: implications for ESL. TESOL Quarterly 30 (4), 693--722. Ifantidou, Elly, 2001. Evidentials and Relevance. Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia. , Frantisek, Viehweger, Dieter (Eds.), Ebenen der Textstruktur. Akademie Verlag, Isenberg, Horst, 1983. Grundfragen der Texttypologie. In: Danes Berlin, pp. 303--342. Jakobson, Roman, 1960. Closing statements: linguistics and poetics. In: Sebeok, Thomas A. (Ed.), Style in Language. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 350--377. Kalantzis, Mary, Cope, Bill, 2012. Literacies. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Kinneavy, James L., 1971. A Theory of Discourse: The Aims of Discourse. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (NJ). Knapp, Peter, 1997. Virtual Grammar: Writing as Affect/Effect. Sydney University of Technology PhD thesis, Sydney. Kress, Gnther, 1999. Genre and the changing contexts for English language arts. Language Arts 76, 461--469. Kress, Gnther, 2003. Literacy in the New Media Age. Routledge, London. Lee, David Y.W., 2001. Genres, registers, text types, domains, and styles: clarifying the concepts. Language Learning and Technology 5 (3), 37--72. Lenci, Alessandro, 1995. A relevance-based approach to speech acts. In: Fava, Elisabetta (Ed.), Speech Acts and Linguistic Research. Nemo, Padova, pp. 37--53. Levinson, Stephen C., 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Longrace, Robert E., 1976. An Anatomy of Speech Notions. Peter de Ridder Press, Lisse. Longrace, Robert E., 1983. The Grammar of Discourse. Plenum Press, New York. Martin, James R., 1989. Factual Writing: Exploring and Challenging Social Reality. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Martin, James R., 1992. English Text: System and Structure. Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia. Martin, James R., 1997. Analysing genre: functional parameters. In: Christie, Frances, Martin, James R. (Eds.), Genre and Institutions. Social Processes in the Workplace and School. Cassell, London, pp. 3--39. Martin, James R., Rose, David, 2008. Genre Relations: Mapping Culture. Equinox, London. Matsagouras, Elias G., Tsiplakou, Stavroula, 2008. Whos afraid of genre? Genres, functions, text types and their implications for a pedagogy of critical literacy. Scientia Paedagogica Experimentalis -- International Journal of Experimental Research in Education XLV (1), 71--90. Matthiessen, Christian, Martin, James R., 1991. A response to Huddlestons review of Hallidays Introduction to Functional Grammar. Occasional Papers in Systemic Linguistics 5, 5--74. Miller, Carolyn R., 1984. Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech 70, 151--167. Miller, Carolyn R., 1994. Rhetorical community: the cultural basis of genre. In: Freedman, Aviva, Medway, Peter (Eds.), Genre and the New Rhetoric. Taylor and Francis, London, pp. 67--78. Moessner, Lilo, 2001. Genre, text type, style, register: a terminological maze? European Journal of English Studies 5, 131--138. Muntigl, Peter, Gruber, Helmut, 2005. Introduction: approaches to genre. Folia Linguistica 39 (1--2), 1--18. Neumann, Stella, 2003. Textsorten und bersetzen. Eine Korpusanalyse englischer und deutscher Reisefhrer. Lang, Frankfurt.

130

S. Tsiplakou, G. Floros / Journal of Pragmatics 45 (2013) 119--130

Neumann, Stella, 2008. Contrastive Register Variation: A Quantitative Approach to the Comparison of English and German. Saarland University habilitation thesis, Saarbrcken. Newmark, Peter, 1981. Approaches to Translation. Pergamon Press, Oxford. Paltridge, Brian, 1995. Working with genre: a pragmatic perspective. Journal of Pragmatics 24, 393--406. Paltridge, Brian, 1996. Genre, text type and the language learning classroom. ELT Journal 50, 237--243. Recanati, Franois, 1987. Meaning and Force: The Pragmatics of Performative Utterances. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Rei, Katharina, 1976. Texttyp und bersetzungsmethode. Der operative Text. Scriptor-Verlag, Kronberg/Ts. Roberts, Roda, 1985. Translation and communication. NUCLEO 1, 139--176. Rolf, Eckard, 1993. Die Funktionen der Gebrauchstextsorten. De Gruyter, Berlin. Rosch, Eleanor, Mervis, Carolyn, Gray, Wayne, Johnson, David, Boyes-Braem, Penny, 1976. Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology 8 (3), 382--439. Schffner, Christina, 1997. Strategies of translating political texts. In: Trosborg, Anna (Ed.), Text Typology and Translation. Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp. 119--143. Schffner, Christina, 2000. The role of genre for Translation. In: Trosborg, Anna (Ed.), Text Typology and Translation. Benjamins, Amsterdam/ Philadelphia, pp. 209--224. Schffner, Christina (Ed.), 2002. The Role of Discourse Analysis for Translation and in Translator Training. Multilingual Matters, Clevedon. Searle, John R., 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay of the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University Press, London. Searle, John R., Vanderveken, Daniel, 1985. Foundations of Illocutionary Acts. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Sifianou, Maria, 1992. Politeness Phenomena in England and Greece: A Cross-cultural Perspective. Clarendon Press, Oxford. Sperber, Dan, 1996. Explaining Culture. Blackwell, Oxford. Sperber, Dan, Wilson, Deirdre, 1995. Relevance. Communication and Cognition, 2nd edn. Blackwell, Oxford. Sperber, Dan, Wilson, Deirdre, 1998. The mapping between the mental and the public lexicon. In: Carruthers, Peter, Boucher, Jill (Eds.), Thought and Language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 184--200. Swales, John M., 1990. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Taavitsainen, Irma, 2001. Middle English recipes: genre characteristics, text type features and underlying traditions of writing. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 2 (1), 85--113. Thwaite, Anne, 2006. Genre writing in primary school: from theory to the classroom, via First Steps 1. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy 29, 95--114. Trosborg, Anna, 1997. Text typology: register genre and text type. In: Trosborg, Anna (Ed.), Text Typology and Translation. Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp. 3--23. Trosborg, Anna (Ed.), 2000. Analysing Professional Genres, Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia. Trosborg, Anna, 2002. Discourse analysis as part of translator training. In: Schffner, Christina (Ed.), The Role of Discourse Analysis for Translation and in Translator Training. Multilingual Matters, Clevedon, pp. 9--52. Unger, Christoph, 2001. On the cognitive role of genre: a relevance-theoretic perspective. University of London, PhD thesis. Unger, Christoph, 2006. Genre Relevance and Global Coherence. Palgrave, Basingstoke. Vega-Moreno, Rosa E., 2007. Creativity and Convention. Benjamins, Amsterdam. Virtanen, Tuija, 1992. Issues of text typology: Narrative -- A basic type of text? Text 12 (2), 293--310. Virtanen, Tuija, 2009. Corpora and discourse analysis. In: Ldeling, Anke, Kyt, Merja (Eds.), Corpus Linguistics: An International Handbook. De Gruyter, Berlin/New York, pp. 1043--1070. Virtanen, Tuija, 2010. Variation across texts and discourses: theoretical and methodological perspectives on text type and genre. In: Dorgeloh, Heidrun, Wanner, Anja (Eds.), Syntactic Variation and Genre. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin/New York, pp. 53--84. Virtanen, Tuija, Wrvik, Brita, 1987. Observations sur les types de texte. In: Hrm, Juhani, Mkinen-Schwanck, Iris (Eds.), Communications, 8ime Rencontre des Professeurs de Franais de lEnseignement suprieur. Publications du Dpartement des Langues Romanes 6, Helsinki, pp. 91--114. Werlich, Egon, 1975. Typologie der Texte: Entwurf eines textlinguistischen Modells zur Grundlegung einer Textgrammatik. Quelle and Meyer, Heidelberg. Werlich, Egon, 1983. A Text Grammar of English. Quelle and Meyer, Heidelberg. Wilson, Deirdre, Sperber, Dan, 1993. Linguistic form and relevance. Lingua 90, 1--25. Yunick, Stanley, 1997. Genres, registers and sociolinguistics. World Englishes 16 (3), 321--336. egarac, Vlad, Clark, Billy, 1999. Phatic interpretations and phatic communication. Journal of Linguistics 35, 321--346. Z