(English Corpus Linguistics 17) Vera Benninghoven - The Functions of Gener

n
english corpus linguistics
ecl 17
V o l u m e 17
Thomas Kohnen · Joybrato Mukherjee (eds.)
he compilation of a corpus that is able to capture th
The author critically discusses the concept of ‘general nouns’, which Halliday/
studies, diachronic corpus linguistics is a very prom
Hasan introduced in their approach to lexical cohesion (1976), and she provides to have access to a corpus as a representative sample
a comprehensive overview of these nouns from a micro- and a macro-linguistic advances in English corpus linguistics include the fo
perspective. For the empirical analysis, the author compiled a corpus, which h between a monitor corpus for lexicographical descri
allows statements about a medium- and genre-specific use of ‘general nouns’. was observed in the corpus of Old English texts on th
For this purpose, she developed an analytical tool, which takes into account itative analysis of corpus data may yield interesting
formal and semantic features. The major outcome of the corpus analysis is e kind of reference corpus is represented by the Brit
that ‘general nouns’ are much more flexible in form and function than Halliday/
Hasan assumed and, most importantly, that they fulfil genre-specific functions Vera Benninghoven
st it out on a test corpus of 50,000 words of spontan
he influence of the corpus revolution on applied ling
some of which have not systematically been associated with lexical cohesion. composition of this corpus shows its representativene
Vera Benninghoven · The Functions of ‘General Nouns’

The Functions
to have access to a corpus as a representative sample
of ‘General Nouns’
advances in English corpus linguistics include the fo
h between a monitor corpus for lexicographical descri
was observed in the corpus of Old English texts on th
itative analysis of corpus data may yield interesting
Theory and Corpus Analysis
e kind of reference corpus is represented by the Brit
composition of this corpus shows its representativene
Vera Benninghoven has taught linguistics at the English department of the h between a monitor corpus for lexicographical descri
University of Bonn and the University of Cologne. Her research interests include was observed in the corpus of Old English texts on th
morphology, lexicology, text-linguistics and corpus-linguistics. itative analysis of corpus data may yield interesting
ISBN 978-3-631-74758-2 www.peterlang.com
ECL_017_274758_Benninghoven_MP_A5HC 151x214 globalL.indd 1 13.08.18 03:42
The Functions of ‘General Nouns’
ENGLISH CORPUS LINGUISTICS
Thomas Kohnen / Joybrato Mukherjee (eds.)
VOLUME 17
Vera Benninghoven
The Functions of ‘General Nouns’

Bibliographic Information published by the Deutsche
Nationalbibliothek
The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the
Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data is
available in the internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for
at the Library of Congress.
Zugl.: Bonn, Univ., Diss., 2015
D5
ISSN 1610-868X
ISBN 978-3-631-74758-2 (Print)
E-ISBN 978-3-631-76018-5 (E-PDF)
E-ISBN 978-3-631-76019-2 (EPUB)
E-ISBN 978-3-631-76020-8 (MOBI)
DOI 10.3726/b14310
© Peter Lang GmbH
Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften
Berlin 2018
Alle Rechte vorbehalten.
All rights reserved.
Peter Lang – Berlin · Bern · Bruxelles · New York ·

Oxford · Warszawa · Wien
All parts of this publication are protected by copyright. Any
utilisation outside the strict limits of the copyright law, without
the permission of the publisher, is forbidden and liable to
prosecution. This applies in particular to reproductions,
translations, microfilming, and storage and processing in
electronic retrieval systems.
This publication has been peer reviewed.
www.peterlang.com
Meinen Eltern gewidmet
Danksagung
Mein herzlicher Dank gilt meinem Doktorvater, Herrn Prof. Dr. Jürgen Esser, für
die Betreuung meiner Dissertation. Durch seine konstruktive Kritik und seinen
wertvollen fachlichen Rat gab er mir immer wieder hilfreiche Denkanstöße und
hat so maßgeblich zum Gelingen dieser Arbeit beigetragen. Ich danke auch Herrn
Prof. Dr. Klaus Peter Schneider für seine Zweitbegutachtung, Frau Prof. Dr. Marion
Gymnich für die Übernahme des Prüfungsvorsitzes und Herrn Prof. Dr. Tilman
Mayer für seine Funktion in der Prüfungskommission.
Ich bedanke mich bei meinen Kolleginnen und Kollegen des Forschungskol-
loquiums, Sanna Engell, Laura Göttmann, Sebastian Patt, Julia Sosnizka und
Sharmila Vaz, für die Lektüre dieser Arbeit und die daraus resultierenden anre-
genden Diskussionen.
Mein Dank geht auch an Herrn Prof. Dr. Joybrato Mukherjee und Herrn Prof.
Dr. Thomas Kohnen für ihre Hilfestellung bei der Veröffentlichung dieser Arbeit.
Ich möchte mich ganz herzlich bei den Menschen in meinem Leben bedanken,
ohne deren Unterstützung, Halt und Zuspruch diese Arbeit nicht hätte entste-
hen können. Mein besonderer Dank geht an Felix Sosnizka für seinen unein-
geschränkten Rückhalt. Außerdem gilt mein herzlicher Dank Annika Anderle,
die mich immer wieder in meinem Vorhaben bestärkt und mir stets neuen Mut
gemacht hat, wenn ich ihn gebraucht habe. Dies gilt auch für meine Schwester
Anne Benninghoven und meinen Bruder Axel Benninghoven, denen ich für den
festen (Zusammen-)Halt danke.
Mein ganz besonders tief empfundener Dank aber gilt meinen Eltern, Gisela und
Helmut Benninghoven. Ohne ihre bedingungslose Liebe und Unterstützung
hätte ich meinen Weg niemals gehen und schließlich auch mein Promotionsvor-
haben niemals umsetzen können. Ich widme ihnen diese Arbeit.
Köln, Januar 2018 Vera Benninghoven
7
Table of contents
List of tables and figures .................................................................................... 15
1. Introduction .................................................................................................... 21
1.1 Aim of the study .............................................................................................. 22
1.2 Structure of the study ..................................................................................... 23
2. A linguistic discussion of ‘general nouns’ ............................................ 25

2.1 Halliday/Hasan’s approach to ‘general nouns’ ............................................ 25
2.1.1 The concept of ‘cohesion’ ...................................................................... 25
2.1.2 The concept of ‘reference’ ..................................................................... 28
2.1.3 The concept of ‘reiteration’ ................................................................... 33
2.1.4 The concept of ‘general nouns’ ............................................................. 35
2.2 Previous studies of ‘general nouns’............................................................... 38
2.3 Critical evaluation of the status of ‘general nouns’ .................................... 41
3. Approaches to general noun phrases across

different linguistic disciplines.................................................................... 43
3.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 43
3.2 The grammatical approach to general noun phrases ................................ 44
3.2.1 Classification of nouns .......................................................................... 44
3.2.2 Modification ........................................................................................... 46
3.2.3 Classification of general noun phrase heads ...................................... 51
3.3 The text-linguistic approach to general noun phrases .............................. 54
3.3.1 Constitutive features of textual communication ............................... 54
3.3.2 Regulative features of textual communication .................................. 58
3.3.3 Restricted and elaborated style of referencing .................................... 60
3.4 The pragmatic approach to general noun phrases ..................................... 62
3.4.1 The Cooperative Principle .................................................................... 62
3.4.2 Vagueness in language .......................................................................... 66
9
3.4.2.1 Defining vagueness ................................................................. 67
3.4.2.2 Types of vagueness .................................................................. 69
3.5 The cognitive approach to general noun phrases ...................................... 73
3.5.1 Categorisation ........................................................................................ 73
3.5.2 Context-dependence of categories ...................................................... 76
3.5.3 Categorisation and general noun phrases .......................................... 77
3.5.3.1 Introduction ............................................................................. 77
3.5.3.2 General noun phrases as “empty containers”....................... 81
3.5.3.3 General noun phrases as “full containers” ........................... 82
3.6 Summary: A workable definition of general noun phrases ..................... 84
4. Framework for the analysis of general noun phrases ..................... 87

4.1 Combination of structural and semantic parameters
of general noun phrases ................................................................................. 87
4.1.1 Structural parameters of general noun
phrases: +/- Modification ..................................................................... 88
4.1.1.1 Non-modified general noun phrase
heads: - Modification .............................................................. 88
4.1.1.2 Modified general noun phrase heads: + Modification........ 89
4.1.2 Semantic parameters of general noun phrases: +/- Linkage............ 91
4.1.2.1 Non-linked general noun phrases: - Linkage....................... 92
4.1.2.2 Linked general noun phrases: + Linkage.............................. 93
4.2 Functional matrix for the analysis of general noun phrases .................... 94
4.3 The scale of specification ........................................................................... 97
4.4 General assumptions for the analysis of general noun phrases .............. 99
5. Corpus compilation .................................................................................... 105

5.1 The corpus-linguistic approach of the present study ............................. 105
5.2 Medium-, domain- and genre-specific features
of the corpus data .................................................................................... 107
5.2.1 Some features of spoken and written language ............................. 107
5.2.2 Some features of legal language ......................................................... 109
10
5.2.3 Some features of political language ................................................... 111
5.2.4 Some features of conversation ........................................................... 113
5.3 The corpus of the present study ................................................................ 114
5.3.1 Written corpus ..................................................................................... 114
5.3.1.1 Supreme Court judgments ................................................. 114
5.3.1.2 Political manifestos ............................................................. 116
5.3.2 Spoken corpus ...................................................................................... 117
5.3.2.1 Parliamentary debates ........................................................ 117
5.3.2.2 General conversations ........................................................ 120
5.3.3 Summary: Overview of corpus data.................................................. 122
6. Methodology .................................................................................................. 127

6.1 Methods for the quantitative analysis ...................................................... 127
6.1.1 From raw to relevant data................................................................... 127
6.1.2 Determining the frequency of relevant general
noun phrase heads ............................................................................... 131
6.2 Methods for the qualitative analysis ......................................................... 132
6.2.1 The coding system used in the present study................................... 132
6.2.2 The parameter modification................................................................ 136
6.2.2.1 Types of premodification ................................................... 136
6.2.2.2 Types of postmodification ................................................. 138
6.2.3 The parameter linkage ......................................................................... 141
6.2.3.1 Types of endophoric reference .......................................... 141
6.2.3.1.1 Halliday/Hasan’s endophoric reference ............................ 141
6.2.3.1.2 Encapsulation ...................................................................... 142
6.2.3.1.3 Reference between appositive units .................................. 144
6.2.3.1.4 Reference between subject and complement................... 145
6.2.3.1.5 Remote reference................................................................. 147
6.2.3.2 Generic reference ................................................................ 148
7. Corpus analysis ............................................................................................. 151

7.1 Quantitative analysis: Frequencies and distribution of relevant
general noun phrase heads in the corpora .............................................. 151
11
7.1.1 Quantitative results from the judgment corpus .............................. 151
7.1.2 Quantitative results from the manifesto corpus .............................. 155
7.1.3 Quantitative results from the debate corpus .................................... 159
7.1.4 Conversation corpus ........................................................................... 161
7.1.5 Summary and comparison of results ................................................ 165
7.2 Qualitative analysis: The degree of specification of relevant
general noun phrases in the corpora ......................................................... 173
7.2.1 Qualitative results from the judgment corpus ................................. 173
7.2.1.1 ‘Most specific’ general noun phrases in
the judgment corpus ............................................................. 179
7.2.1.2 ‘Rather specific’ general noun phrases in
7.2.1.3 ‘Less specific’ general noun phrases in
7.2.1.4 ‘Least specific’ general noun phrases in
7.2.2 Qualitative results from the manifesto corpus................................. 191
the manifesto corpus ............................................................. 194
7.2.3 Qualitative results from the debate corpus ...................................... 201
the debate corpus ................................................................... 205
12
7.2.4 Qualitative results from the conversation corpus ........................... 213
7.2.4.1 ‘Most specific’ general noun phrases in the
conversation corpus .............................................................. 218
7.2.4.2 ‘Rather specific’ general noun phrases in the
7.2.4.3 ‘Less specific’ general noun phrases in the
7.2.4.4 ‘Least specific’ general noun phrases in the
7.2.5 Summary and comparison of results ................................................ 226
8. Summary and conclusions ....................................................................... 237
References ............................................................................................................. 249
13
List of tables and figures
Figure 2.1: The concept of ‘cohesion’...................................................................... 27

Figure 2.2: Different concepts of ‘reference’ .......................................................... 30
Figure 3.1: The classification of nouns ................................................................... 45
Figure 3.2: A complex noun phrase ....................................................................... 47
Table 3.1: The classification of general noun phrase heads ............................... 51
Figure 3.3: The classification of general noun phrase heads in
terms of specification ............................................................................ 53
Figure 3.4: The concepts of ‘ambiguity’, ‘polysemy’ and ‘vagueness’ .................. 68
Table 3.2: Tzeltal plant classification according to Berlin et al. (1973) ............ 75
Figure 3.5: Horizontal dimension of categorisation illustrated by the
example ‘dog’.......................................................................................... 79
Figure 3.6: Vertical dimension of categorisation illustrated
by the example ‘dog’ .............................................................................. 79
Figure 3.7: Extension of a general noun phrase category dependent
on co-text and context .......................................................................... 80
Figure 3.8: Extension of the general noun phrase category ‘people’
dependent on co-text and context of example (39) .......................... 82
Figure 3.9: Extension of the general noun phrase category ‘people’
dependent on co-text and context of example (40) .......................... 83
Figure 4.1: The functional matrix for the analysis of
general noun phrases ............................................................................ 95
Figure 4.2: Generalisation and specification illustrated with the
functional matrix for the analysis of general noun phrases ............ 96
Figure 4.3: The scale of specification ...................................................................... 98
Figure 4.4: The assumed arrangement of the four sub-corpora
on the scale of specification (depending on frequency) ................ 101
Figure 4.5: The assumed arrangement of the sub-corpora on the scale
of specification (depending on modification and linkage) ............ 103
Table 5.1: The corpus of the present study ........................................................ 106
Figure 5.1: The structure of the parliamentary government in the UK ........... 118
Table 5.2: The judgment corpus .......................................................................... 122
15
Table 5.3: The manifesto corpus ....................................................................... 123
Table 5.4: The debate corpus ............................................................................... 124
Table 5.5: The conversation corpus .................................................................... 125
Figure 6.1: Distinguishing relevant from irrelevant
general noun phrases .......................................................................... 130
Table 6.1: Numbering of general noun phrase heads ..................................... 132
Table 6.2: Labelling of corpus texts .................................................................... 133
Figure 6.2: Example of the coding of a general noun phrase head
in the judgment corpus ...................................................................... 134
Figure 6.3: Highlighting of general noun phrase heads in
the corpus texts ................................................................................. 134
Figure 6.4: Coding of general noun phrase heads in the corpus texts ............ 135
Figure 6.5: Searching for single occurrences of general noun phrase
heads within a pdf document .......................................................... 135
Table 7.1: Frequencies of general noun phrase heads in
the judgment corpus ........................................................................... 152
Figure 7.1: General noun phrase head types and tokens in
the judgment corpus ......................................................................... 153
the manifesto corpus ........................................................................ 155
the manifesto corpus ........................................................................ 157
the debate corpus ................................................................................ 159
the conversation corpus ..................................................................... 162
Figure 7.4: General noun phrase head types and tokens in the
conversation corpus ....................................................................... 163
Figure 7.5: Comparison of the normalised overall frequencies of
general noun phrase heads in the four sub-corpora ...................... 166
Figure 7.6: The four sub-corpora on the scale of specification ........................ 167
Figure 7.7: Comparison of the distribution of general noun
phrase heads in the four sub-corpora ............................................. 169
16
Figure 7.8: Comparison of the frequencies of the general
noun phrase heads ‘people’ and ‘child’ ............................................. 172
Figure 7.9: Comparison of the frequencies of the general
noun phrase heads ‘matter’ and ‘question’ ....................................... 172
Table 7.5: Modified and non-modified general noun phrase
heads in the judgment corpus ........................................................... 174
Table 7.6: Linked and non-linked general noun phrases in
the judgment corpus ...................................................................... 174
Figure 7.10: Correlation of modification and linkage of general
noun phrases in the judgment corpus .............................................. 175
Figure 7.11: Distribution of general noun phrase heads across the
four categories of specification in the judgment corpus ................ 176
Table 7.7: Most frequent types of modification in ‘most specific’
general noun phrases in the judgment corpus ................................ 180
Table 7.8: Most frequent types of linkage of ‘most specific’ general
noun phrases in the judgment corpus .............................................. 180
Table 7.9: Most frequent combinations of modification and linkage of
‘most specific’ general noun phrases in the judgment corpus ...... 181
Table 7.10: Most frequent types of linkage of ‘rather specific’ general
noun phrases in the judgment corpus ............................................ 184
Table 7.11: Most frequent types of modification in ‘less specific’
general noun phrases in the judgment corpus ................................ 187
Table 7.12: Most frequent combinations of modification and - linkage in
‘less specific’ general noun phrases in the judgment corpus ......... 188
Table 7.13: Modified and non-modified general noun phrase heads
in the manifesto corpus .................................................................... 191
Table 7.14: Linked and non-linked general noun phrases in the
manifesto corpus ................................................................................. 191
Figure 7.12: Correlation of modification and linkage of general noun
phrases in the manifesto corpus .................................................... 192
Figure 7.13: Distribution of general noun phrase heads across the four
categories of specification in the manifesto corpus ........................ 193
general noun phrases in the manifesto corpus ............................. 195
noun phrases in the manifesto corpus ............................................. 195
17
general noun phrases in the manifesto corpus ............................. 198
Table 7.18: Most frequent combinations of modification and - linkage of
‘less specific’ general noun phrases in the manifesto corpus ........ 199
Table 7.19: Modified and non-modified general noun phrase
heads in the debate corpus ................................................................. 202
Table 7.20: Linked and non-linked general noun phrases in
Figure 7.14: Correlation of modification and linkage of general
noun phrases in the debate corpus ................................................... 203
categories of specification in the debate corpus .............................. 204
general noun phrases in the debate corpus ..................................... 206
Table 7.23: Most frequent combinations of modification and linkage in
‘most specific’ general noun phrases in the debate corpus ........... 207
Table 7.25: Most frequent types of modification in ‘less specific’ general
Table 7.26: Most frequent combinations of modification and - linkage of
‘less specific’ general noun phrases in the debate corpus .............. 211
Table 7.27: Modified and non-modified general noun phrase heads in
the conversation corpus ..................................................................... 214
Table 7.28: Linked and non-linked general noun phrases in the
conversation corpus ............................................................................ 214
Figure 7.16: Correlation of modification and linkage of general noun
phrases in the conversation corpus................................................... 215
categories of specification in the conversation corpus ................... 216
general noun phrases in the conversation corpus........................... 218
noun phrases in the conversation corpus ........................................ 219
18
noun phrases in the conversation corpus ........................................ 220
general noun phrases in the conversation corpus ......................... 222
Table 7.33: Most frequent combinations of modification and -
linkage in ‘less specific’ general noun phrases in the
conversation corpus ............................................................................ 222
Table 7.34: Comparison of modified and non-modified general noun
phrase heads and linked and non-linked general noun
phrases in the four sub-corpora (in percentage) ............................ 227
Table 7.35: Comparison of general noun phrases across the four
categories of specification in the four sub-corpora
(in percentage) ..................................................................................... 228
Figure 7.18: Positioning of the four sub-corpora along the scale
of specification .................................................................................. 230
Table 7.36: Comparison of the most frequent general noun phrase
heads in the four categories of specification across the
four sub-corpora ................................................................................. 232
Table 7.37: Comparison of most frequent realisations of general
noun phrases in the four categories of specification
across the four sub-corpora ............................................................... 233
Figure 8.1: The functional matrix illustrating the generalisation
and specification of general noun phrases ....................................... 240
Table 8.1: Compilation of the corpus data ..................................................... 242
Figure 8.2: The four sub-corpora on the scale of specification
(depending on frequency) ................................................................. 243
Figure 8.3: The categories of specification which were
most frequent in the four sub-corpora ........................................... 244
Figure 8.4: The categories of specification which were
least frequent in the four sub-corpora ............................................ 244
(depending on modification and linkage) ....................................... 245
19
1. Introduction
Abstract: Halliday/Hasan’s approach to cohesion in English (1976), which treats ‘general

nouns’ as a device of lexical cohesion, is a purely theoretical approach based on carefully
compiled textbook examples. This shortcoming points to the relevance of the present study,
which provides a comprehensive corpus-based account of ‘general nouns’.
Halliday/Hasan (1976) introduce the class of ‘general noun’ within their text-
linguistic approach to cohesion and define it as “a small set of nouns having
generalized reference within the major noun classes, […]” (1976: 274). Based on
perfect textbook examples, Halliday/Hasan show that ‘general nouns’ are lexically
superordinate terms which anaphorically refer to a preceding item in the text and
which are therefore an important means to create cohesion. See the following
examples (1976: 275):
(1) What shall I do with all this crockery? – Leave the stuff here; someone’ll
come and put it away.1
(2) Can you tell me where to stay in Geneva? I’ve never been to the place.
According to Halliday/Hasan (cf. 1976: 275), a ‘general noun’ in cohesive func-
tion is usually accompanied by the reference item the, which is anaphoric and
has the effect that the whole complex ‘the + ‘general noun’’ functions like an ana-
phoric reference item. In the above example (1), the superordinate item the stuff,
consisting of the definite article and a ‘general noun’, anaphorically refers to the
subordinate item all this crockery. Similarly, in example (2), the superordinate
item the place anaphorically refers to the subordinate item Geneva.
As already indicated, Halliday/Hasan support their classification of ‘general
nouns’ with carefully compiled textbook examples which do not tell us anything
about actual language use. This shortcoming is the point at which my study be-
comes relevant: it tries to provide a comprehensive corpus-based account of the
use of ‘general nouns’ in different spoken and written genres.
1 If not marked otherwise, emphasis in this and all other examples is added by the author
of the present study: all linguistic items (e.g. noun phrases) with endophoric and exo-
phoric reference considered in the examples are printed in italics. If noun phrases con-
tain a ‘general noun’, it is printed in bold (this also accounts for ‘general noun phrases’
which only consist of a head). Broken underlining marks items or passages of text which
are referred to. See Section 2.3 for a discussion of the notion ‘general noun phrase’.
21
1.1 Aim of the study
While there are several studies of cohesion, there exist only very few studies of
‘general nouns’. Often, these items are neglected in descriptions of English, and
even Halliday/Hasan (1976) only dedicate a short extract to them. To the best
of my knowledge, Mahlberg (2005) was the first to conduct a corpus-linguistic
study of ‘general nouns’. Based on the British National Corpus and the British
English component of the Bank of English, Mahlberg (cf. 2005: 173) described
‘general nouns’ as highly frequent nouns which are characterised by local textual
functions.2
The present study takes up the corpus-linguistic approach and investigates
‘general nouns’ in naturally occurring language data, more specifically in a cor-
pus of over 300,000 words including spoken and written texts from different
genres. The aim is to investigate whether those ‘general nouns’ introduced by
Halliday/Hasan (1976: 274) actually occur in natural language data, and whether
their frequencies differ across the media and genres represented by the corpus of
the present study. This is done in a quantitative analysis.
A second major aim of the present study is to investigate in a qualitative
analysis how ‘general nouns’ are used in the corpus texts, in how far this use
corresponds to the cohesive function described by Halliday/Hasan (1976: 274),
and whether patterns not yet described by the authors can be revealed. In fact,
it is assumed that ‘general nouns’, when used in naturally occurring language
data, are much more flexible in form and function. Concerning form, the start-
ing point for the present study is the assumption that ‘general nouns’, as any other
kinds of concrete and abstract common nouns, occur in natural language data
as heads of noun phrases with pre- and postmodifiers or a combination of both.
This challenges Halliday/Hasan’s (1976: 274) classification of ‘general nouns’ as
nouns with very general inherent meaning because pre- and postmodification,
as we will see, affects the degree of explicitness of ‘general nouns’. Concerning
function, it is assumed that ‘general nouns’ are not only used to establish ana-
phoric reference, but that the use of ‘general nouns’ fulfils many other functions,
for example that of discourse markers which are neutral shells to encapsulate
complex information or that of completely unspecific items without any kind of
reference which are used intentionally as empty phrases.
Apart from a detailed quantitative and qualitative analysis, the present study
wants to show that a purely text-linguistic approach does not do justice to the
variety of uses of ‘general nouns’ in naturally occurring language data. Therefore,
2 See Section 2.2 for a more detailed description of Mahlberg’s study.
22
also grammatical, pragmatic and cognitive aspects are taken into account in a
comprehensive approach to ‘general nouns’.
1.2 Structure of the study

The present study combines a theoretical and an empirical part. The theoretical
part starts with a description of different concepts which form the basis for a study
of ‘general nouns’. Section 2.1, which mainly relies on Halliday/Hasan (1976), de-
scribes the concepts of ‘cohesion’, ‘reference’, ‘reiteration’ and ‘general nouns’. Sec-
tion 2.2 gives an overview of previous studies of ‘general nouns’ and comparable
phenomena. Section 2.3 critically evaluates the status of ‘general nouns’.
Section 2.3 marks the transition to Chapter 3, which takes into account gram-
matical, text-linguistic, pragmatic and cognitive aspects in order to provide a
comprehensive description of ‘general nouns’. After a grammatical classification
of these items in Section 3.2, Sections 3.3 and 3.4 show that ‘general nouns’ fulfil
different communicative functions and can be used by the encoder to pursue
certain communicative aims. Section 3.5 offers a cognitive approach to ‘general
nouns’ and explains that these items represent broad cognitive categories and
that these categories, according to whether the ‘general nouns’ are specified or
not through the co-text and context, move at different levels of abstraction.
Chapter 4 presents the framework for the quantitative and qualitative analy-
sis of ‘general nouns’, which has been developed for the present study. It shows
that the parameters modification and linkage have an influence on whether ‘gen-
eral nouns’ are superordinate or whether they are subordinate, in other words,
whether they are general or specific in meaning. This framework serves as a basic
tool for the description of different uses of ‘general nouns’ across different media
and genres.
Chapter 5 presents the corpus of the present study, which includes over
300,000 words and consists of a written and a spoken part with each two genres:
Supreme Court judgments and election manifestos for the written component,
and parliamentary debates and face-to-face conversations for the spoken com-
ponent. It describes according to which criteria which texts were compiled for
the corpus and it discusses media- and genre-specific features concerning these
corpus texts.
Chapter 6 marks the beginning of the empirical part of the present study and
describes the methodology for the analysis of ‘general nouns’. It explains which
‘general nouns’ are taken into account in the analysis, which are not, and on the
basis of which factors this decision is made. Then it describes the methodol-
ogy for the quantitative and the qualitative analysis of ‘general nouns’. As to the
23
qualitative analysis, Chapter 6 gives an overview of the different types of modifi-
cation and different types of linkage, which are taken into account in the analysis
of ‘general nouns’ in the present study.
Chapter 7 presents the results of the corpus analysis. Starting with a quanti-
tative analysis, Section 7.1 presents the frequencies and the distribution of the
‘general nouns’ under investigation and discusses media- and genre-specific dif-
ferences and similarities across the corpus texts. Section 7.2 presents the qualita-
tive analysis and determines the degree of specification and the different uses of
‘general nouns’ across the media and genres of the corpus.
The present study concludes with a summary of the most important findings
concerning ‘general nouns’ and in particular with a summary of the results of the
quantitative and qualitative analysis (Chapter 8). Furthermore, the conclusion
offers concrete suggestions for further research on ‘general nouns’ and gener-
ally discusses whether the findings of the present study have implications for
further assumptions that go beyond the area of text-linguistics and the concept
of ‘general nouns’.
24
2. A linguistic discussion of ‘general nouns’
Abstract: Chapter 2 defines cohesion and reference with a focus on the use of ‘general
nouns’. Halliday/Hasan (1976) describe these items as endophoric devices with an inher-
ently general meaning. A discussion of previous studies on ‘general nouns’ and comparable
phenomena leads to a critical evaluation of these items, now called ‘general noun phrases’.
2.1 Halliday/Hasan’s approach to ‘general nouns’

2.1.1 The concept of ‘cohesion’
Halliday/Hasan (1976) introduce the term general noun in connection with the
concept of ‘cohesion’. The concept of ‘cohesion’ cannot be separated from the
concept of ‘text’. According to Halliday/Hasan (cf. 1976: 1), a text is defined as
a medium-independent unit of language in use. Medium-independency means
that a text does not depend on any medium, but can be realised in both spoken
and written form. Moreover, a text can be easily transferred from one medium
to the other as “[w]e can write down what we hear and we can pronounce what
we read; […]” (Esser 2009: 24). Halliday/Hasan (cf. 1976: 2) point out that the
defining criterion for the notion of ‘text’ is meaning; thus, they regard text as a
semantic unit of language in use, not a grammatical or structural unit of form.1
Accordingly, a text should not be defined in terms of formal criteria (such as text
length), but in terms of semantic criteria. The following statement by Halliday/
Hasan (1976: 1) supports this idea:
A text may be spoken or written, prose or verse, dialogue or monologue. It may be any-
thing from a single proverb to a whole play, from a momentary cry for help to an all-day
discussion on a committee.
Despite their distinct formal criteria (such as text length), the texts listed above
can all be defined as texts because they constitute meaningful units which are pro-
totypically devoted to one topic or a limited number of topics (cf. Esser 2009: 2).
Moreover, Halliday/Hasan (cf. 1976: 2) emphasise that the essential criteria for
the above listed texts to be defined as texts is the concept of ‘texture’. Texture can
1 When speaking of text as a unit of form, Halliday/Hasan (cf. 1976: 2) mean the entity
of finite structures such as phrases and clauses because, strictly speaking, there is no
structural unit above the clause. Thus, there is no structural unit of text. When speak-
ing of a text as a semantic unit, this does however not deny that a text contains formal
or structural references (e.g. through the use of pronouns).
25
be described as the property of being a text, in other words, the property of being
a unified whole in contrast to a collection of unrelated sentences (cf. Halliday/
Hasan 1989: 72). Texture is provided by cohesion and coherence. According to
Halliday/Hasan (1976: 4), cohesion can be described as follows:
Cohesion occurs where the INTERPRETATION of some element in the discourse is
dependent on that of another. The one PRESUPPOSES the other, in the sense that it
cannot be effectively decoded except by recourse to it. When this happens, a relation
of cohesion is set up, and the two elements, the presupposing and the presupposed, are
thereby at least potentially integrated into a text.
According to Halliday/Hasan, cohesion is a semantic concept, which describes

the dependencies (which can be of grammatical and of lexical nature) between
elements on the text surface. Cohesion is set up when the decoder2 is required to
look at the surrounding sentences for the interpretation of some textual element
(cf. Hoey 1991: 3–4). For a demonstration of a cohesive tie, a single instance of
a pair of cohesively related items (cf. Halliday/Hasan 1976: 3), see the following
often quoted example from Halliday/Hasan (1976: 2):
(1) Wash and core six cooking apples. Put them into a fireproof dish.
In the above example, the personal pronoun them in the second sentence refers
back to the noun phrase six cooking apples in the first sentence. The decoder es-
tablishes a link between these two items, interprets them in reference to another
and thus integrates the two sentences into a text (cf. Halliday/Hasan 1976: 2).
Cohesion is expressed partly through the grammar and partly through the
vocabulary. This is why Halliday/Hasan (cf. 1976: 6) distinguish grammatical
cohesion from lexical cohesion. See the following two examples to illustrate this
distinction (Halliday/Hasan 1976: 2–3):
(3) Wash and core six cooking apples. Put the apples into a fireproof dish.
In example (2), the cohesive relation is considered grammatical because a gram-

matical item, the pronoun them, is used to refer back to six cooking apples. In
example (3), the cohesive relation is established through repetition, which is ex-
pressed by a lexical item, the noun phrase the apples in the second sentence.
Note that Halliday/Hasan (cf. 1976: 6) themselves emphasise that the distinc-
tion between grammatical and lexical cohesion is not clear-cut but rather one of
degree. Grammatical and lexical cohesion influence each other in a twofold way,
2 The present study uses the term encoder as a synonym for ‘speaker’ or ‘writer’ and
decoder as a synonym for ‘hearer’ or ‘reader’.
26
as grammatical cohesion, in order to be effective, requires the support of lexical
cohesion and vice versa. In a text, therefore, both types of cohesion typically
move hand in hand (cf. Halliday/Hasan 1989: 82–83).
For grammatical and lexical cohesion Halliday/Hasan each identify differ-
ent sub-types. The types of grammatical cohesion are called reference3, substitu-
tion, ellipsis and conjunction. These types describe referential identity of either
meaning, lexico-grammatical form or category (cf. Esser 2009: 41). The types
of lexical cohesion are called reiteration (including (i) repetition, (ii) synonymy
and (iii) superordination) and collocation. While reiteration describes the rela-
tion between lexical items based on (i) the sharing of all, (ii) essential or (iii)
fewer features, collocation describes the relation between lexical items based on
the complementarity or the transfer of features (cf. Esser 2009: 43). Note that for
the purpose of the present study, only the concepts of ‘reference’ and ‘reiteration’
will be focused on more extensively (Sections 2.1.2 and 2.1.3). See the following
figure for an overview of the concept of ‘cohesion’:
Figure 2.1: The concept of ‘cohesion’
Cohesion
Grammatical Lexical
co es o
cohesion co es o
cohesion
Conjuncttion
Substituttion
Collocation Reiteration
Referennce
Ellipsis
Synonymyy
ordination
n
Repititionn
Super-
3 Note that the term reference is understood in different ways. Here, reference is under-
stood as a specific type of grammatical cohesion where typically pronouns, determiners
or comparative adverbs and adjectives are used to refer to a preceding or following
item in the text (cf. Halliday/Hasan 1976: 43 ff., 57 ff., 76 ff.). See Section 2.1.2 for a
detailed discussion of the term reference.
27
Each of these cohesive relations are established by means of linguistic devices – a
variety of grammatical or lexical items, e.g. pronouns or full noun phrases. Note
that these items do not have an inherent cohesive nature but only function as
cohesive devices (cf. Halliday/Hasan 1989: 75).
As noted above, the concept of cohesion is closely related to the concept of co-
herence as both concepts provide texture. Halliday/Hasan (cf. 1976: 23) point out
that cohesion is a concept that is limited to the actual text, while coherence also in-
volves the situational context. Cohesion describes the overt, linguistically-signalled
relationship between textual elements and thus refers to the grammatical and lexi-
cal devices on the text surface that establish connections between text elements
(cf. Tanskanen 2006: 7). Therefore, cohesion is based on the level of expression,
while coherence refers to the underlying level of meaning. It is important to point
out that cohesion can be regarded as a means of contributing to the coherence of a
text, but it is by no means a sufficient factor. Tanskanen adds an important aspect
of coherence by including the decoder-perspective. She states that the establish-
ment of coherence depends heavily on the decoder and their understanding and
interpretation of the encoder’s intentions. She concludes (Taskanen 2006: 21):
Cohesion can be regarded as a property of the text, while coherence depends upon the
communicators’ evaluation of the text. Cohesive devices, being on the surface of the text,
can be observed, counted and analysed and are therefore more objective. Coherence, on
the other hand, is more subjective, and communicators may perceive it in different ways.
The concepts of cohesion and coherence can be seen as independent yet inter-
twined (cf. Tanskanen 2006: 15).
It is necessary for the study of cohesion and ‘general nouns’ to clarify at this
point two other notions: the notion of ‘co-text’ and the notion of ‘context’. Ac-
cording to Sinclair (cf. 1991: 171), the notion of ‘co-text’ means, in any continuous
text, the words that come on either side of a word or phrase under scrutiny, thus,
the linguistic environment of that expression. The notion of ‘context’ means the
general, non-linguistic environment of any language activity and includes the so-
ciocultural background. Note that very often in linguistic literature, the notion of
‘context’ is used to mean both – the linguistic and the non-linguistic environment.
The present study, however, will distinguish the notions of ‘co-text’ and ‘context’.
2.1.2 The concept of ‘reference’

The concept of ‘reference’ is dealt with in many linguistic disciplines which is
why there is considerable variation in the meaning of the term reference. The
two most important approaches, the semantic and the text-linguistic approach
to reference, will be discussed here.
28
In semantics, the term reference is commonly understood as describing text-
external relations (cf. Esser 2009: 35). Here, the term reference describes the rela-
tion between a linguistic expression and an object of the extra-linguistic world.
This can be illustrated with the often quoted example from Halliday/Hasan
(1976: 2), which is repeated here as example (4):
(4) Wash and core six cooking apples […].
In example (4), the noun phrase six cooking apples is used to refer to an object in
the extra-linguistic world, the actual apples. This relation is text-external.
A very influential approach to the notion of reference as a text-external rela-
tion has its origin in the model of the linguistic sign developed by Ogden and
Richards in 1923. With their ‘semiotic triangle’, they show that there is no di-
rect relation between a linguistic expression and the extra-linguistic object or
referent. Instead, the relation is mediated by a concept or thought (cf. Ogden/
Richards 1923: 14–15). In other words: The concept of ‘reference’ describes
the relation between the full linguistic sign (expression and concept) and an
extra-linguistic object (cf. Lipka 2002: 57). In contrast to this rather abstract and
de-contextualised understanding of the term reference, Lyons (1977) presents
another widely accepted approach which describes a contextualised meaning
of the term reference. He states that reference describes “[…] the relationship
which holds between an expression and what that expression stands for on par-
ticular occasions of its utterance” (1977: 174). What Lyons describes here as
reference is the relationship between a concrete expression and a single extra-
linguistic object.
In text-linguistics, the term reference is also used to describe text-external
relations (exophoric reference) as well as text-internal relations (endophoric
reference). One very influential approach to reference is presented by Halliday/
Hasan (1976). In their work on cohesion in English, they describe three differ-
ent though related phenomena that underlie the terms reference and refer: (i)
text-external relations through exophoric reference, (iia) text-internal relations
through endophoric reference in general, e.g. through the use of ‘general nouns’
or synonyms (lexical cohesion), and (iib) a specific type of endophoric reference
through the use of mostly grammatical items (grammatical cohesion). See the
following examples taken from Halliday/Hasan (1976: 33, 275, 55) for an illus-
tration of these three understandings of reference:
(5) That must have cost a lot of money.
(6) Can you tell me where to stay in Geneva? I’ve never been to the place.
(7) John has moved to a new house. He had it built last year.
29
In example (5), the demonstrative pronoun that exophorically refers to some-
thing that is present in the situation of the utterance; the reference relation is
therefore text-external. The pronoun that signals that reference must be made to
the context of situation (cf. Halliday/Hasan 1976: 33). In example (6), the noun
phrase the place in the second sentence is used to refer back to Geneva in the first
sentence. This link is set up on the text surface and is thus endophoric. Similarly,
in example (7), the pronoun he refers back to John and the pronoun it refers back
to the noun phrase a new house. This link is also endophoric; it illustrates refer-
ence as a specific type of grammatical cohesion. The following figure gives an
overview of reference in semantics and text-linguistics:
Figure 2.2: Different concepts of ‘reference’
Reference
Semantics Text-linguistics
Contextualised Exophoric
p Endophoric
p
De-contextualised
De contextualised
understanding of the
understanding of the reference reference
term reference:
term reference:
relation between a
relation between a full Text external Text internal
concrete expresssion and
linguistic
li i i sign
i andd an relationship relationship
a single extra-linguistic
extra-linguistic object
object (not cohesive) (cohesive)
S ifi
Specific Reference as a
reference Reference as a general
specific means of
means of cohesion
Generic grammatical cohesion
(different devices, e.g.
reference (different devices, e.g.
`general
` l nouns´,
´
pronouns,
synonyms etc.)
comparatives etc.)
Figure 2.2 gives an overview of the approaches to reference in semantics and

text-linguistics. It can be seen that in semantics, the term reference is generally
understood as describing text-external relations. In text-linguistics, the concept
of reference is understood as describing text-external relations (exophoric refer-
ence) and text-internal relations (endophoric reference). Exophoric reference,
as understood by Esser (2009) and Halliday/Hasan (1976) is closely related to
the text-external understanding of the term reference in semantics, which is why
in Figure 2.2 these branches are connected with a dashed line. It will be shown
that there are different types of exophoric reference (specific reference and ge-
neric reference) and that in Halliday/Hasan’s approach, exophoric reference is
30
typically established through deictic expressions which refer to the situational
context of an utterance (cf. Halliday/Hasan 1976: 33). Halliday/Hasan’s under-
standing of endophoric reference implies either a very general concept or a spe-
cific cohesive device (cf. reference of types (iia) and (iib)).
It is important to note that exophoric reference is not cohesive. Only endo-
phoric reference is cohesive. Halliday/Hasan (1976: 37) state:
Exophoric reference contributes to the CREATION of text, in that it links the language
with the context of situation; but it does not contribute to the INTEGRATION of one
passage with another so that the two together form part of the SAME TEXT.
Halliday/Hasan (cf. 1976: 18) note that there is no sharp line between the two
concepts of ‘exophoric’ and ‘endophoric reference’, and Esser (2009: 35) con-
cludes that “[…] endophoric and exophoric reference interact in the creation
of a text world by a decoder.” It seems comprehensible that whenever a decoder
hears or reads a text, their interpretation of it is always based on their knowledge
of the world.
We now turn to a more detailed discussion of exophoric and endophoric ref-
erence as understood in text-linguistics. It has been stated earlier that there are
two types of exophoric reference, namely specific reference and generic refer-
ence. Some linguists distinguish further types of exophoric reference, e.g. non-
specific reference (cf. Biber et al. 1999). However, for the purpose of the present
study, it will be sufficient to discuss specific and generic reference. For an illustra-
tion of these two types of exophoric reference, see the following examples taken
from Quirk et al. (1985: 265 [original emphasis]):
(8) A lion and two tigers are sleeping in the cage.
(9) Tigers are dangerous animals.
The noun phrases a lion and two tigers in example (8) refer to a specific lion and
to two specific tigers in the extra-linguistic world. This example shows that spe-
cific reference can be established by indefinite as well as definite noun phrases
(cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 265). By contrast, in example (9), the noun phrase tigers
generically refers to the class of tigers, i.e. to any possible member of this class (cf.
Quirk et al. 1985: 265). Generic reference can be established with definite and
indefinite noun phrases as well as with singular and plural noun phrases. For a
more detailed discussion of generic reference, see Section 6.2.3.2.
In Halliday/Hasan’s approach to exophoric reference (1976), the text-external
relation is established through certain linguistic items which can only be inter-
preted with recourse to the situation of utterance. This is illustrated in the follow-
ing example, which is repeated here as example (10) (Halliday/Hasan 1976: 33):
31
(10) That must have cost a lot of money.
In example (10), the information needed for the interpretation of the demonstra-
tive pronoun that must be retrieved from the situation of utterance. Given that ex-
ample (10) is from a conversation between two people, the demonstrative pronoun
that probably refers to some entity in the environment of the decoder and encoder.
Note that this type of exophoric reference involves the linguistic phenomenon of
deixis. Deixis is the process in which an encoder establishes direct reference to
the speech situation with the help of deictic or ‘pointing’ items such as pronouns,
demonstratives and time and place adverbs. The interpretation of these deictic ex-
pressions depends on the shared situation (cf. Ehlich 1983: 85–86).4
In contrast to exophoric reference, endophoric reference is reference on the
text surface. As mentioned before, Halliday/Hasan (1976) use the terms refer-
ence and refer to describe a general concept and to describe a certain type of
grammatical cohesion. As a general concept, Halliday/Hasan (1976: 31) define
endophoric reference as follows:
There are certain items in every language which have the property of reference, […]; that
is to say, instead of being interpreted semantically in their own right, they make refer-
ence to something else for their interpretation. […] These items are directives indicating
that information is to be retrieved from elsewhere.
In the case of endophoric reference as a type of grammatical cohesion, this prop-

erty of reference is limited to personal pronouns and determiners, demonstra-
tive pronouns and determiners, and comparatives, which include adjectives and
adverbs like same, other, such, likewise and differently (Halliday/Hasan 1976: 31,
38–39). In the case of endophoric reference as a general concept, this property
also applies to lexical items such as noun phrases. See example (6) above for an
illustration.
Generally, in the case of endophoric reference, the source for the interpreta-
tion of linguistic items lies within the linguistic co-text. This kind of reference
may be either anaphoric when it points backwards to the preceding text, or cata-
phoric when it points forward to the following text. Halliday/Hasan (1976: 49,
56) demonstrate this distinction with the help of the following examples:
(11) There was a brief note from Susan. She just said ‘I am not coming home this week-
end.’
(12) I would never have believed it. They’ve accepted the whole scheme.
4 This aspect is closely related to the distinction of two styles of referencing introduced
by Bernstein (1971) and will be discussed in Section 3.3.3.
32
In example (11), the personal pronoun she in the second sentence refers back
to Susan in the preceding sentence, thereby creating a cohesive relation be-
tween the two clauses. Example (12) is less straightforward. Here, the pronoun
it refers forward to they’ve accepted the whole scheme and thereby links the two
sentences. In doing so, it fulfils some kind of pointing function, as it announces
that something will follow in the text which explains what it is that is hard to
believe. At the same time, this example of cohesion presents a special case of
‘extended reference’ (cf. Halliday/Hasan 1976: 52). Unlike in the examples men-
tioned so far, the pronoun it does not refer to a particular person or thing, but
instead refers to a complex process (cf. 1976: 52). Note that with this kind of
reference the cohesive device can refer not only to a particular sentence, but
possibly also to a larger portion of text. This aspect is important for the analysis
in the present study, since ‘general nouns’ very often tend to make reference to
larger stretches of text.
When speaking about reference-relations, Halliday/Hasan (1976) do not
make a clear distinction between the terms reference item and referring item. For
the purpose of the present study, I will use the term referent for the extra-lin-
guistic object, reference item for its verbal representation in the text and referring
item for the linguistic item that refers to it. For a demonstration, see the follow-
ing example taken from Halliday/Hasan (1976: 2), which is repeated here for
convenience as example (13):
In example (13), the personal pronoun them in the second sentence is the re-
ferring item, as it refers back to the noun phrase six cooking apples in the first
sentence, which is the reference item. The referent is the object in the extra-
linguistic world, in this case, the apples.
2.1.3 The concept of ‘reiteration’

In contrast to grammatical cohesion, which describes the cohesive effect achieved
through the choice of grammatical items, lexical cohesion describes the cohesive
effect that is achieved by the selection of lexical items (cf. Halliday/Hasan 1976:
274). Halliday/Hasan (1976: 12) describe the concept of ‘lexical cohesion’ as fol-
lows:
This form of cohesion is lexical […]; it consists in selecting the same lexical item twice,
or selecting two that are closely related. The two instances may or may not have the
same referent; but the interpretation of the second will be referable in some way to that
of the first.
33
As has been shown in Figure 2.1, the types of lexical cohesion are called reitera-
tion (including repetition, synonymy and superordination) and collocation. For
the purpose of the present study, the present section will focus on the concept
of reiteration which, according to Halliday/Hasan (1976: 278), can be defined as
follows:
Reiteration is a form of lexical cohesion which involves the repetition of a lexical item,
at one end of the scale; the use of a general word to refer back to a lexical item, at the
other end of the scale; and a number of things in between – the use of a synonym, near-
synonym, or superordinate.
The different types of reiteration have in common that one lexical item refers
back or forth to another, to which it is related by having a common referent
(cf. Halliday/Hasan 1976: 278). In accordance to what has been discussed in
terms of the threefold use of the terms reference and refer in Halliday/Hasan
(1976) (cf. Figure 2.2 in Section 2.1.2), it might be argued that the cohesive effect
of reiteration is based on the underlying principle of endophoric reference as a
general means of cohesion, which in Section 2.1.2 has been described as refer-
ence of type (iia) of Halliday/Hasan’s approach to reference.
Describing the different types of reiteration, Halliday/Hasan (cf. 1976: 279)
claim that they lie on a scale with a very specific term at the one end (repeated
item) and a very general term at the other end (‘general noun’) with only a pro-
noun being even more general. This scale shows a continuum or ‘cline’ of cohe-
sive elements, which can be presented with the help of the following example
taken from Halliday/Hasan (1976: 279) in a modified version:
a) The ascent 
 
b) The climb 
 
(14) I turned to the ascent of the peak. c) The task  is perfectly easy.
d) The thing 
 
e) It 
Example (14) shows the range of paradigmatic choice of lexical items that can
be used to establish lexical cohesion between the two sentences. Here, the noun
phrase the ascent of the peak in the first sentence is the reference item, the in-
terpretation of which is shown to be identical with that of the following lexical
items (in brackets) to which it is related by (a) repetition (ascent), (b) synonymy
(climb), (c) superordination (task), (d) the use of a ‘general noun’ (thing) or (e)
the use of a pronoun (it). Thus, from the top of this scale to its bottom, the refer-
ring items range from specific to general. What can also be observed in the above
34
example is that a reiterated item is in most cases accompanied by the anaphoric
referring item the.
For the purpose of the present study, reiteration through the use of a super-
ordinated term or a ‘general noun’ is particularly interesting. In general, the cat-
egory of superordinates refers to any item “[…] whose meaning includes that
of the earlier one; in technical terms, any item that dominates the earlier one in
the lexical taxonomy” (Halliday/Hasan 1976: 280). As Salkie (cf. 1995: 16) states,
it is in most cases the hyponym that is mentioned first and the superordinate
term is then used to refer to it anaphorically. This fact also holds true for the
superordinate noun phrase the task expressed in example (14) above. Here, the
more specific noun phrase the ascent of the peak has the fuller, richer meaning
and is followed by the superordinate noun phrase the task. According to Salkie
(cf. 1995: 18), using ‘general nouns’ to establish lexical cohesion is an extreme
instance of superordination. Referring back to example (14) above, the ‘general
noun’ thing refers back to the more specific noun phrase the ascent of the peak
and is thereby accompanied by the definite article which establishes a relation of
co-reference between the two noun phrases.
As Hoey (1991: 6) states, “[…] the boundary between reiteration by super-
ordinate and reiteration by general word is extremely fuzzy; […]”, since ‘gen-
eral nouns’ are themselves superordinate members in lexical hierarchies and are
moreover being used in exactly the same way as superordinate terms (cf. Halli-
day/Hasan 1976: 279). Note that Halliday/Hasan (cf. 1976: 278–279) themselves
do not clearly explain the difference between the use of superordinate terms and
‘general nouns’. They merely state that there is a difference in the level of general-
ity with the ‘general noun’ being even more general than a superordinate term.
Apart from this rather vague explanation, Halliday/Hasan use the terms general
word and general noun synonymously and it is not always clear whether the con-
cept of superordination or the concept of ‘general nouns’ or both is meant (cf.
1976: 278). When speaking of the concept of ‘general nouns’, the present study
will stick to the term general noun.
2.1.4 The concept of ‘general nouns’

Halliday/Hasan give the following definition of ‘general nouns’ (1976: 274):
The class of general noun is a small set of nouns having generalized reference within the
major noun classes, those such as ‘human noun’, ‘place noun’, ‘fact noun’ and the like.
Although the class of ‘general noun’ is certainly fuzzy and has many possible
members, Halliday/Hasan draw up a list of what they count as ‘general nouns’
35
and give in brackets the names of the major noun classes to which they belong,
such as human noun, fact noun, etc. (1976: 174):
people, person, man, woman, child, boy, girl [human]
creature [non-human animate]
thing, object [inanimate concrete count]
stuff [inanimate concrete mass]
business, affair, matter [inanimate abstract]
move [action]
place [place]
question, idea [fact]
Halliday/Hasan give the following example to illustrate the cohesive function of

‘general nouns’ (1976: 274–275):
(15) Didn’t everyone make it clear they expected the minister to resign? – They did. But
it seems to have made no impression on the man.
In this example, the ‘general noun’ man in combination with the definite article
in the third sentence refers back to the specific item the minister in the first sen-
tence and thus establishes a cohesive relation between the two. Like most ‘general
nouns’ with a cohesive function, man is accompanied by the definite article the,
which functions here as an anaphoric referring item (cf. Halliday/Hasan 1976:
275). As explained before, it establishes a relation of co-reference between minis-
ter and man, thereby making it clear that the two terms refer to the same person
in the extra-linguistic world.
Halliday/Hasan (cf. 1976: 274) emphasise that ‘general nouns’ as a means of
establishing cohesion are items on the borderline between grammatical and lexi-
cal cohesion, as “[…] a general noun is itself a borderline case between a lexical
item (member of an open set) and a grammatical item (member of a closed sys-
tem)” (Halliday/Hasan 1976: 274). Traditional grammar distinguishes between
two categories of words: the open-system words and the closed-system words.
According to Jackson (cf. 1980: 61), members of the closed class, also called
function words, are grammatical items such as numerals, determiners, preposi-
tions, conjunctions and pronouns. As the name already implies, the closed class
includes a small set of fixed members which hardly undergo any change over
time. The open class, on the other hand, includes all lexical items, also called
content words, such as nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs. This class has
a large open-ended vocabulary which changes permanently as new members
readily enter. The members of the open class bear the greatest load in terms of
meaning, while the function of the closed-class members is oriented more to-
wards the internal linguistic relationships (cf. Jackson 1980: 61). Halliday/Hasan
36
(cf. 1976: 275) state that a ‘general noun’ shows characteristics of a grammatical
item (pronoun) as well as of a lexical item (noun). They argue that on the one
hand, a ‘general noun’ is a lexical item, more specifically a superordinate mem-
ber of a lexical set. It serves as a device for establishing lexical cohesion as the
superordinated and more abstract ‘general noun’ refers anaphorically or cata-
phorically to a subordinated and more specific term within the same lexical set.
On the other hand, Halliday/Hasan (cf. 1976: 275) state that the combination of
a ‘general noun’ and a specific determiner, as e.g. in the man, is very similar to a
pronoun which is a grammatical item. For an illustration, compare the following
examples (Halliday/Hasan 1976: 275):
it seems to have made no impression on him.
As the two examples show, there is little difference in meaning between the two
referring items the man and him and according to Bolinger (cf. 1977: 52), who
has studied the use of pronouns and nouns, an alternation between a pronoun
and a ‘general noun’ is common in the English language. Another reason why
‘general nouns’ can be described as linguistic items that have characteristics of
both the open and the closed class of items is the fact that their inherent seman-
tic load is often very low and thus similar to pronouns. Only through reference
to the linguistic co-text and the extra-linguistic context is a ‘general noun’ filled
with more semantic content and thus behaves more like a noun. This behav-
iour has been described by Ivanič (1991: 103), who states: “[s]emantically these
nouns resemble pronouns in that their meaning is not self-contained. They have
both a constant meaning and a variable meaning.”
What Ivanič defines as the constant meaning of a word is its pure dictionary
meaning which is de-contextualised. The constant meaning of a word is often
very broad and unspecific and the dictionary even lists several possible mean-
ings. See the extract from the dictionary entry for the ‘general nouns’ thing and
things, taken from the online version of the Longman Dictionary of Contempo-
rary English online (cf. http://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/thing, last ac-
cess 09th November 2014):
• An idea, action, feeling, or fact that someone thinks, does, says, or talks about, or that
happens.
• An object that you are talking about without saying its name, or whose name you do
not know.
• Life in general and the way it is affecting people.
37
With this dictionary entry, it becomes clear that the constant meaning of ‘gen-
eral nouns’ such as thing and things is very broad and unspecific. Only through
reference to the co-text and the context of an utterance, a contextualised, specific
meaning is attached to the ‘general noun’ (cf. Ivanič 1991: 95).
Besides the special borderline status of ‘general nouns’, Halliday/Hasan
(cf. 1976: 2) point out another characteristic of these items: ‘General nouns’ can
sometimes be used by the speaker to bring an interpersonal element into the
meaning expressing a certain attitude. Consider the following example from
Halliday/Hasan (1976: 274–275), which was mentioned above and is repeated
here for convenience as example (18):
In example (18), the attitude conveyed through the use of the ‘general noun’ man
is one of distance. Through the use of such a general and superordinate word,
the speaker might want to emphasise that they dissociate themselves from the
minister and probably also from what this minister stands for. In this case, the
‘general noun’ man carries a contemptuous overtone. The expression of interper-
sonal meaning and attitude through the use of ‘general nouns’ can also – as we
shall see – be realised through modifying elements. This aspect will be further
discussed in Section 7.2.4.1.
2.2 Previous studies of ‘general nouns’

As Halliday/Hasan (cf. 1976: 274) themselves remark and, for example, Partington
(cf. 1998: 90) and Mahlberg (cf. 2005: 1) still confirm, ‘general nouns’ have un-
til now received little attention in linguistic literature. They are mentioned only
briefly in classic reference works such as A Comprehensive Grammar of the English
Language by Quirk et al. (cf. 1985: 1056, 1067, 1260, 1321) or the Cambridge Gram-
mar of English (cf. Carter/McCarthy 2006: 147 ff.)5, and are fully neglected, for
example, in The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language by Huddleston and
Pullum (2002).
Furthermore, Halliday/Hasan (1976, 1989) do not pay them much attention
in their later works on cohesion. Nevertheless, the term general noun is used in
various contexts and it is often not clear whether or not the concept of ‘general
5 Note that Carter/McCarthy (cf. 2006: 147 ff.) only concentrate on two particular ‘gen-
eral nouns’, namely thing and stuff, emphasising their means to express vagueness and
hedge statements.
38
nouns’ as introduced by Halliday/Hasan (1976) is implied. Accordingly, there is
terminological variance in the literature. Among those linguists who have fo-
cused on ‘general nouns’ and comparable types of nouns are: Bolinger (1977),
Winter (1977), Ivanič (1991), Schmid (2000), Hunston/Francis (2000), Flow-
erdew (2003a, 2003b) and Mahlberg (2005). In his work “Pronouns and repeat-
ed nouns”, Bolinger (1977) discusses similarities between nouns and pronouns
when they are used as referring items. This phenomenon was also addressed
by Halliday/Hasan when talking about the similar position of ‘general nouns’
and pronouns on a scale of cohesive elements (cf. 1976: 279, Section 2.1.3.). In
this context, Bolinger identifies “[…] a sizable vocabulary of nouns […], sharing
coreferential functions with pronouns” (1977: 50). Bolinger states that an encod-
er, when referring to a preceding item, chooses a noun or pronoun depending
on whether greater or lesser semantic complexity is appropriate (cf. 1977: 40).
In accordance with Halliday/Hasan’s definition of a ‘general noun’ as “a bor-
derline case between a lexical item (member of an open set) and a grammatical
item (member of a closed system)” (1976: 274), Winter (cf. 1977: 2, 18–20) de-
fines a class of open-system words including nouns, verbs and adjectives, which
he calls ‘vocabulary 3 items’. The semantic properties of these items are similar
to those of closed-system words (grammatical words) in sentence connection.
Functioning as signposts, vocabulary 3 items play an important role for the ex-
pression of clause relations in English. These items directly or indirectly para-
phrase the semantics of subordinators and connectors and thus explicitly name
clause relations (cf. 1977: 2). Winter gives an example (1977: 21):
(19) One condition for the success of the course is obvious. If the student likes the
course, he will follow with enthusiasm.
Here, the vocabulary 3 item condition in the first sentence reifies the information
that is given in the conditional clause in the second sentence (cf. 1977: 21).
This phenomenon is taken up by Ivanič (1991), who investigates a group of
nouns she calls ‘carrier nouns’. Similar to what was observed before, Ivanič states
that these nouns behave like pronouns in that they can have two meanings.
Besides a constant meaning, “these nouns frequently carry a specific meaning
within their context in addition to their dictionary meaning” (1991: 95). Carrier
nouns express an additional meaning depending on the context they refer to.
Ivanič gives the following example (1991: 95 [original emphasis]):
(20) Cut out the bottom and sides accurately from the plan measurements but leave
sufficient margin for planning after fixing the boat. Use your two lengths of 8.0 ft.
by 4.0 ft [sic] for this purpose, […]
39
In example (20), the carrier noun purpose in the second sentence is in addition
to its dictionary meaning specified through the information given in the first
sentence. Through reference to the preceding sentence, which is signalled by the
demonstrative pronoun this, the noun purpose carries a specific meaning.
While the works presented above concentrate on the open- or closed-system
status of ‘general nouns’, there are several works that focus on the cohesive func-
tion of ‘general nouns’ and comparable nouns. These works focus on the sign-
posting functions of such nouns which are only fully interpretable in reference
to their co-text and context. Among these works is the discussion by Schmid
(2000), who uses the term ‘shell nouns’ for any abstract noun that frequently oc-
curs in two specific grammatical patterns (Schmid 2000: 3 [original emphasis]):
(a) Determiner + (Premodifier) + Noun + postnominal that-clause, wh-clause
or to-infinitive: The (deplorable) fact that I have no money.
(b) Determiner + (Premodifier) + Noun + be + complementing that-clause, wh-
clause or to-infinitive: The (big) problem was that I had no money.
Schmid is interested in the linking function of shell nouns and investigates
their “[…] potential for being used as conceptual shells for complex, proposi-
tion-like pieces of information” (2000: 4). At the same time, Hunston/Francis
(cf. 2000: 185) are concerned with shell nouns within their grammatical ap-
proach to the classification of nouns, assuming that they are a ‘new’ class of
nouns, which are identifiable on the basis of their behaviour. These nouns are
unspecific and require lexical realisation in their immediate co-text. According
to Hunston/Francis (cf. 2000: 185–186), shell nouns such as allegation, theory or
fact are used with some kind of expansion in the surrounding text, indicating
what the allegation, the theory, or the fact is. ‘General nouns’ – as we shall see
in Section 7.2 – readily occur in the shell noun patterns described by Schmid
(2000) and Hunston/Francis (2000).
In the context of this discussion, Flowerdew (2003b) uses the term ‘signalling
noun’ for “[…] potentially any abstract noun, the meaning of which can only
be made specific by reference to its context” (2003b: 329). He names signalling
nouns such as attitude, difficulty, process, reason, result, etc. (Flowerdew 2003b:
329–330). Flowerdew, who is particularly interested in pedagogic aspects, investi-
gates the use of signalling nouns within different genres. He claims that a frequent
use of signalling nouns in science and technology has the effect of facilitating the
understanding of highly technical contexts for the learner (cf. 2003a: 41).
Mahlberg (2005) takes a corpus theoretical approach to ‘general nouns’. Based
on the British National Corpus and the British English component of the Bank of
English, Mahlberg classifies ‘general nouns’ as highly frequent nouns which are
40
characterised by local textual functions (cf. 2005: 173). The frequencies of a cer-
tain group of ‘general nouns’ in a particular type of text suggest that these nouns
share the same textual functions and that these textual functions characterise
groups of texts (cf. 2005: 177). Based on their local textual functions, Mahlberg
subcategorises ‘general nouns’ into three groups: ‘time nouns’, ‘people nouns’ and
‘world nouns’ (cf. 2005: 169).
The overview of previous studies of ‘general nouns’ and comparable phenom-
ena has shown that there is considerable variation in terminological use. What is
common to the type of nouns discussed in the different works presented above
is the fact that a semantically rather unspecific noun is being specified through
reference to its co-text and context. This – as we shall see – is also true for ‘gen-
eral nouns’.
2.3 Critical evaluation of the status of ‘general nouns’

As the overview of previous studies on ‘general nouns’ has shown, there are sev-
eral comparable phenomena such as ‘shell nouns’, ‘carrier nouns’ or ‘signalling
nouns’. All these nouns have in common that their inherent meaning is very
general and that they, when used cohesively, are specified through reference to
their co-text and context. In that way, all these different groups of nouns have
similar textual functions. It is questionable, in what way ‘general nouns’ differ
from these other groups of nouns. Halliday/Hasan (cf. 1976: 274–275, 279) de-
scribe that ‘general nouns’ are superordinate terms which are general in meaning
and which are used to refer to a more specific item in the preceding or following
text. That way, the use of general nouns is indeed very similar to that of shell
nouns, carrier nouns or signalling nouns. Resulting from this, it is also ques-
tionable whether one should define a set list of 18 ‘general nouns’ as defined by
Halliday/Hasan (cf. 1976: 274). Partington (cf. 1998: 96) suggests that ‘general
nouns’ are an open set and this is also what the overview of previous studies
on ‘general nouns’ and comparable phenomena suggests. Therefore, the list of
‘general nouns’ set up by Halliday/Hasan is rather an indication of the possibili-
ties with many more potential members (cf. Partington 1998: 96). Interestingly,
Halliday/Hasan (cf. 1976: 276) themselves do not consequently stick to their list
of ‘general nouns’ but, in further discussions, speak of additional ‘general nouns’
such as idiot and fool. Moreover, it must be critically remarked that the selec-
tion of the 18 ‘general nouns’ made by Halliday/Hasan (1976: 274) seems rather
heterogeneous and partly arbitrary. The listing of the ‘general nouns’ boy and girl
next to child, accompanied by ‘general nouns’ such as matter and fact (but not
e.g. issue) is not transparent.
41
Halliday/Hasan view ‘general nouns’ as a certain class of nouns that are char-
acterised by their general meaning and their cohesive function (cf. Halliday/
Hasan 1976: 274). There are three points of criticism to this definition: firstly, it
is criticised that ‘general nouns’ are described as constituting a class of their own.
In my view, ‘general nouns’ should rather be seen as a concept than as a certain
class of nouns. As has been illustrated when discussing comparable phenomena
to ‘general nouns’ in Section 2.2, it is rather that certain nouns can be used in
the ‘general noun’-sense which implies a cohesive use of a superordinate term
referring to a subordinate term. This view also allows for other nouns to be used
this way (see Partington 1998: 96). Secondly, it is criticised that ‘general nouns’
as described by Halliday/Hasan necessarily function cohesively by referring an-
aphorically or cataphorically to another item in the text. In my view, ‘general
nouns’ do not necessarily occur in the ‘general noun’-sense. It is assumed that
‘general nouns’ occur in natural language data in many different forms and func-
tions. Concerning form, it is assumed that ‘general nouns’, as any other kinds of
concrete and abstract common nouns, occur in natural language data as heads of
noun phrases of varying complexity (with and without modification). Therefore,
it is better to speak of ‘general noun phrases’.6 Concerning function, it is assumed
that ‘general nouns’ are not only used to establishing endophoric reference, but
that the use of ‘general nouns’ fulfils many other functions. This is in line with
Partington (cf. 1998: 104), who states that these items are more flexible in form
and function than has often been suggested.
Thirdly, it is criticised that ‘general nouns’ are necessarily general in meaning.
Since ‘general nouns’ assumingly occur in natural language data with different
kinds of modifiers and are assumingly used in different kinds of flexible patterns,
we can proceed from the assumption that ‘general nouns’ are not necessarily
general in meaning. Chapter 4 will discuss in detail which parameters influence
the degree of specification of ‘general nouns’.
6 Partington (cf. 1998: 92) already proposes the term ‘general noun phrases’. However,
he only refers to the fact that ‘general nouns’ are not only typically accompanied by the
definite article (as stated by Halliday/Hasan 1976: 275), but also by determiners, longer
determining phrases such as that sort of, or adjuncts like similar or like this. The present
study proposes the term ‘general noun phrase’ because it assumes that ‘general nouns’
readily occur in natural language data with different kinds of pre- and postmodifiers
in the form of phrases and clauses.
42
3. Approaches to general noun phrases across
different linguistic disciplines
Abstract: General noun phrases constitute a micro- and macro-linguistic phenomenon

touching upon different linguistic disciplines. Chapter 3 gives a holistic and comprehensive
approach of general noun phrases integrating grammatical, text-linguistic, pragmatic and
cognitive aspects. The outcome is a workable definition of these items for the present study.
3.1 Introduction
As Halliday/Hasan (cf. 1976: 274) have indicated, ‘general nouns’ are often ne-
glected in linguistic literature. According to Mahlberg (cf. 2005: 1), this is due to
the conceptual elusiveness of these items, which makes them very hard to grasp.
Mahlberg also cites the borderline status of ‘general nouns’ between a noun and
a pronoun (see Section 2.1.4) as a reason for their rather marginal position in the
relevant linguistic literature.
In my opinion, the problematic status of general noun phrases is also due to
the fact that they constitute a phenomenon that touches upon different linguis-
tic disciplines and that therefore needs to be considered from different linguis-
tic perspectives. Accordingly, the present chapter offers an approach to general
noun phrases which takes into account different linguistic disciplines relevant
for a comprehensive description of these items.
Starting from a micro-linguistic approach to general noun phrases, Section 3.2
grammatically classifies these items by means of word class membership as
suggested by Quirk et al. (1985). Widening this micro-linguistic perspective,
Section 3.3 offers a textlinguistic approach to general noun phrases, based on
de Beaugrande/Dressler (1981). This approach regards text as a communicative
occurrence in which the intentions of a text producer and the effects on a text
receiver are of great importance. The study of general noun phrases in this con-
text accounts for micro-structural features (such as the linking of linguistic items
on the text surface) as well as macro-structural features (such as communicative
functions of texts). That way, Section 3.3 represents the transition from a micro-
linguistic perspective to a macro-linguistic perspective on general noun phrases.
Section 3.4 offers a macro-linguistic approach to general noun phrases dealing
with pragmatic aspects in terms of Grice’s ‘Cooperative Principle’ (1975). It will
be discussed how the use of general noun phrases can affect the participants’
communicative behaviour and thus influence the success of a communication
43
situation. In this context, the use of general noun phrases as a means to express
vagueness will be discussed. Section 3.5 takes a cognitive approach to general
noun phrases, assuming that these items reflect broad categories in the decoder’s
mind. Depending on the degree of specification of the general noun phrase, these
categories move at different levels of abstraction. As a conclusion, Section 3.6
summarises the major aspects of Chapter 3 and gives a workable definition of
general noun phrases for the present study.
3.2 The grammatical approach to general noun phrases

3.2.1 Classification of nouns
As the term already implies, general noun phrases can be defined as a certain
type of noun phrase. According to the notional definitions of traditional gram-
mar, the noun phrase in English is usually composed of four main parts: 1. the
obligatory central part, the head, around which the other constituents cluster;
2. the determinatives preceding the noun, consisting of predeterminers, central
determiners and postdeterminers; 3. the premodifiers which comprise all the
items placed after the determinatives and before the head; and 4. the postmodi-
fiers, comprising all the items placed after the head (cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 1238–
1239). Noun phrases vary greatly both in form and function. Concerning form,
we must distinguish simple noun phrases from complex noun phrases. The noun
phrase head is an obligatory constituent; it is the minimal requirement for the
occurrence of a noun phrase (cf. Jackson 1980: 66). With the noun phrase head
alone or with the noun phrase head preceded by determiners, the noun phrase
is simple. With varying possibilities of adding pre- and postmodifier, the noun
phrase can be very complex (cf. Biber et al. 1999: 230, 240). Concerning func-
tion, the noun phrase can be subject, object, complement of clauses and comple-
ment of prepositional phrases (cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 245).
The most usual kind of head of a noun phrase is a noun. Alternatively, the
head may be a pronoun of some kind, very commonly a personal pronoun, but
also an indefinite pronoun, a possessive pronoun, or a demonstrative pronoun
(cf. Jackson 1980: 66). Note that when a pronoun functions as head of a noun
phrase, it cannot be premodified and it cannot have determiners.
Generally speaking, nouns refer to ‘things’. These things include people, places
or institutions, unique objects, classes of objects, feelings, and ideas (cf. Jackson
1980: 61). The class of nouns can be further categorised into subclasses, the
number of which differs across linguistic theories. The classification presented in
the present section is based on Quirk et al. (1985), Halliday (2004) and Sinclair
44
(2005). Nouns can be divided into six main groups: ‘proper nouns’, ‘common
nouns’, ‘count nouns’, ‘non-count nouns’, ‘concrete nouns’ and ‘abstract nouns’.
Figure 3.1, taken from Quirk et al. (1985: 247) in a slightly modified way, illus-
trates this classification:
Figure 3.1: The classification of nouns
concrete
count
abstract
common
concrete
no n
noun non-count
proper abstract
Proper nouns, which are written with initial capital letters, are mainly used for
naming specific people, places, months, days and events. Examples are Shake-
speare, Milwaukee, September, Thursday and Christmas (cf. Quirk et al. 1985:
288). These items usually have a unique denotation, which means that in the
extra-linguistic world, a proper noun names a unique entity and thus refers to
one single referent instead of a class of referents. It is important to distinguish
the terms proper noun and proper name: while the former only refers to single
words, the latter includes names which can consist of two or more words, such as
Ayers Rock (cf. Halliday 2004: 325). At this point, the discussion cuts across the
morphological simple/complex distinction, a phenomenon that deserves special
attention. A deeper analysis of noun compounds as an example of morphological
complex words, however, is not relevant for the present study and will therefore
be neglected here.
The second large group of nouns includes common nouns, which can be fur-
ther divided into count and non-count nouns. Common nouns are generalised as
a class of referents, which means that, in contrast to proper nouns, which name
specific things, and unique entities, common nouns refer to general items and
classes of entities. Examples are: book, table and brick (cf. Halliday 2004: 326).
Count nouns, which form the largest group of nouns in English, are common
nouns which refer to entities that can be counted. Accordingly, they can take the
singular and the plural. Count nouns can be modified, for example by taking nu-
merals. When used in the singular, these items can take a determiner, when used
in the plural, they do not take a determiner because then they refer to something
45
in general (cf. Sinclair 2005: 6). Compare the following examples taken from
Sinclair (2005: 6 [original emphasis]) in a slightly modified version:
(1) He got into the car and started the motor.
(2) They all live in houses.
In example (1), the count nouns car and motor take a determiner, namely the
definite article. In example (2), the plural noun houses does not take a deter-
miner because it does not refer to specific houses, but to houses in general.
Non-count nouns are common nouns which denote an undifferentiated mass
or continuum (cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 246). As opposed to count nouns, which refer
to countable objects or events, non-count nouns refer to general things such as
qualities, substances, processes and topics which cannot be counted. Non-count
nouns only take the singular and are usually not used with numerals or determin-
ers. Examples are: food, money, religion and happiness (cf. Sinclair 2005: 8).
Cutting across the above-presented count/non-count distinction, there is
a further subdivision of each of these noun groups into concrete and abstract
nouns, which is based on semantic aspects. According to Quirk et al. (cf. 1985:
247), concrete nouns are physical entities which are accessible to the senses, ob-
servable and measurable such as gold, toy and pig. Abstract nouns refer to ab-
stract objects, ideas or concepts that are typically not observable as well as not
objectively measurable. Examples are difficulty, remark and music.
Note that there is considerable overlap within the count/non-count group of
nouns. A non-count noun can, in certain contexts, be used as a count noun.
Consider the following example given by Quirk et al. (1985: 246 [original em-
phasis]):
(3) The house is built of brick.
(4) He used bricks to build the house.
While the singular noun brick in example (3) refers to non-countable material,
the plural noun bricks in example (4) refers to a countable object.
3.2.2 Modification
As has been explained in the preceding section, noun phrases are composed of
the obligatory head around which the determinative and the optional pre- and
postmodifying elements cluster. For a better understanding, see the following
Figure 3.2 (based on examples taken from Quirk et al. (1985: 1239)) as an exam-
ple of a complex noun phrase:
46
Figure 3.2: A complex noun phrase
determiner premodifier
p head ppostmodifier
some very expensive office furniture in the room
qquantifier adjective
j pphrase noun noun pprepositional
p pphrase
Figure 3.2 shows a complex noun phrase with the possible four noun phrase
constituents (determiner, premodifer, head, postmodifer) and exemplary reali-
sations of these constituents. The third constituent, the head, is the obligatory
part of a noun phrase. It has already been discussed in the preceding section. The
first constituent of the complex noun phrase is the determiner. Determiners are
closed-class items such as articles, demonstrative and possessive determiners,
and quantifiers (cf. Biber et al. 1999: 69–70). These items, as the name implies,
determine the noun phrase, which means they specify the reference of a noun
phrase (cf. Biber et al. 1999: 258).1 The second and the fourth constituent of the
complex noun phrase are modifiers.
With respect to form, modifying elements can be of any length, from words
to phrases to clauses. With respect to function, noun phrase modification gives
‘descriptive’ information to the head (cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 65, 245). Here, we
need to distinguish restrictive and non-restrictive modification. According to
Quirk et al. (1985: 1239), restrictive modification indicates a limitation on the
possible reference of the head that is being modified. In this case, the reference
of the head is a member of a class which can be identified only through the
modification that has been applied. Non-restrictive modification is additional
information which is not essential for identification, because e.g. the referent
of a noun phrase may be unique or has already been identified in the preceding
context. For an illustration, compare the following examples taken from Quirk
et al. (1985: 1239 [original emphasis]):
(5) Come and meet my younger daughter.
(6) Mary Smith, who is in the corner, wants to meet you.
1 While some linguists argue that determiners are premodifying elements (Halliday
(2004), Jackson (1980)), others argue that determiners are not to be treated under
premodification (cf. Quirk et al. (1985), Biber et al. (1999)). The present study is in
line with Quirk et al. (1985) and Biber et al. (1999) and views determination as a phe-
nomenon separate from modification. Since modification will be an essential criterion
for the analysis of general noun phrases in the present study, the present section will
concentrate on modification only.
47
The premodification in example (5) is restrictive as it identifies the noun phrase
as one out of, for example, two daughters. The postmodification in example (6)
is non-restrictive, as Mary Smith’s identity is independent of whether or not she
is in the corner (cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 1239).
Modifiers are classified into premodifiers and postmodifiers. Premodifiers
comprise all the items placed before the head other than determiners. The major
types are adjectives, or rather adjective phrases, participles, nouns and genitives.
Postmodifiers comprise all the items placed after the head. The major types are
prepositional phrases, non-finite clauses, relative clauses and complementations,
such as complementing that-clauses (cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 1239, 1322).
The discussion first turns to different types of premodifiers. Starting with
adjectives, Sinclair (cf. 2005: 62) states that these items are used to identify a
noun or to describe it in more detail. Some premodifying adjectives, or more
precisely some premodifying adjective phrases, can take a degree adverb or in-
tensifier such as quite, very, so, rather. Those that can take a degree adverb are
called gradable adjectives, as opposed to non-gradable adjectives. Compare the
following examples taken from Quirk et al. (1985: 1323, 435 [original emphasis])
in a slightly modified version:
(7) Her really delightful family.
(8) An atomic scientist.
Example (7) displays the use of the premodifying gradable adjective delightful,
which is itself premodified by the degree adverb really. Example (7) shows the
use of an adjective phrase. The adjective in example (8) is non-gradable and can
therefore not be intensified, as in *a very atomic scientist.
In addition, a distinction can be made between inherent and non-inherent
adjectives, or adjective phrases. Inherent adjectives characterise the referent of
the head directly and describe an integral quality whereas non-inherent adjec-
tives can be seen as an extension of the basic sense of the noun (Quirk et al. 1985:
435 [original emphasis]):
(9) A firm handshake.
(10) A firm friend.
In example (9), the adjective firm directly applies to the referent of the noun
handshake. In example (10), it does not apply to the referent of the noun directly.
Here, a firm friend is ‘a friend whose friendship is firm’. Besides the use of adjec-
tives, a head noun can also be premodified by present participles, as for example
in an approaching train, and past participles, as for example in a married man
(Quirk et al. 1985: 1326–1327).
48
The third group of premodifying elements besides adjective phrases and par-
ticiples is that of nouns, or noun phrases, and genitives. Similar to inherent ad-
jectives, nouns classify the heads of noun phrases, as for example in dish cloth or,
as has been shown in Figure 3.2, in office furniture. (cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 1330,
1239). Since noun premodifiers are so closely associated with their accompany-
ing head noun, they are often regarded as compounds (cf. Quirk et al. 1985:
1330). However, as has been mentioned before in Section 3.2.1, it is not relevant
for the present study to discuss noun-compounds in more detail. When using
a genitive as premodifier, as for example in his fisherman’s cottage, the genitive
fisherman’s describes the head noun, here, meaning that the cottage belongs or
belonged to a fisherman (cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 1335–1336).
We now turn to the discussion of postmodification. Different grammati-
cal structures may be used to postmodify a noun phrase, the most common of
which are: prepositional phrases, non-finite clauses such as infinitive clauses,
present participle clauses, past participle clauses and appositive clauses, and fi-
nite clauses such as relative clauses and appositive clauses (cf. Quirk et al. 1985:
1239). The prepositional phrase is the most common type of postmodification in
English and comprises the full range of prepositions (cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 1274
[original emphasis]). Consider the following examples:
(11) This book on grammar
(12) The meaning of this sentence
(13) The house beyond the church
In each of these examples, the head noun is specified by the following preposi-
tional phrase in italics.
The second type of postmodification is the use of non-finite clauses such as
infinitive clauses, present participle clauses, past participle clauses and apposi-
tive clauses. These clauses usually have no subject and are introduced by a non-
finite form of the verb (cf. Jackson 1980: 68, Quirk et al. 1985: 1271). See the
following five examples for an illustration (Quirk et al. 1985: 1266, 1263, 1265
[original emphasis]):
(14) The man to help you is Mr Johnson.
(15) The dog barking next door sounded like a Terrier.
(16) A report written by my colleague appeared last week.
(17) Your duty to report the accident takes precedence over everything else.
(18) The freedom of holding an opinion […] is a human right.
Example (14) demonstrates the use of the non-finite infinitive clause to help you
which postmodifies the noun phrase the man. Example (15) illustrates the use of
a postmodifying present participle clause. The non-finite verb barking introduces
49
the post-modifying clause that refers back to the dog. Similarly, example (16)
shows a non-finite past participle clause that refers back to the noun phrase a
report. Example (17) illustrates the use of a postmodifying non-finite appositive
clause. Non-finite appositive clauses occur with infinitive and present participle
clauses (cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 1271), which is presented in examples (17) and
(18). Note that the typical postmodifying function of appositive present partici-
ple clauses is as complement of a preposition, such as presented in example (18)
(cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 1272). Such constructions will be discussed in more detail
in Section 6.2.2.2.
The third type of postmodification comprises finite clauses such as relative
clauses and appositive clauses. Consider the following examples from Quirk et
al. (1985: 1244, 1260 [original emphasis]):
(19) The news that appeared in the papers this morning was well received.
(20) The fact that he wrote a letter to her suggests that he knew her.
Example (19) displays the use of a relative clause which postmodifies the noun
phrase the news. Here, the postmodifying relative clause is restrictive, which
means that the applied information in the relative clause identifies the referent
of the noun phrase head news (cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 1239). In example (20), the
noun phrase the fact is postmodified by an appositive that-clause. In contrast
to the relative clause, the appositive that-clause actually presents the complete
content of the head noun instead of presenting additional information (cf. Biber
et al. 1999: 645). Quirk et al. (1985: 1260, 1321) point out that appositive clauses
are common with general abstract nouns such as fact, idea, proposition, reply,
remark, answer, view, question, or duty. See also Schmid (cf. 2000: 3) on this
subject. Post-modifying appositive clauses, whether finite or non-finite, are im-
portant for the present study of general noun phrases and will thus be further
discussed in Section 6.2.2.2.
Concerning the degree of explicitness associated with each type of modifica-
tion introduced, Quirk et al. (cf. 1985: 1243) state that modification specifies the
head noun to different degrees. According to Quirk et al. (1985: 1243, 1321),
premodifiers are generally less explicit than postmodifiers. This is due to the fact
that postmodifiers more explicitly express certain relations (e.g. through the use
of verbs, verb tenses) which in premodifiers are left to be inferred by the reader.
While the noun phrase an oil man is not very explicit, the noun phrase a man
who produces oil or the noun phrase a man who advocates the use of oil is more
explicit. Therefore, Quirk et al. (cf. 1985: 1243) interpret postmodification as a
more explicit description of the same content of premodification. In this con-
text, Jackson (Jackson 1980: 69), discussing the different types of postmodifiers,
50
states that “[…] the amount of detail included becomes less as one progresses
from relative clauses through non-finite clauses to prepositional phrases.” The
fact that different types of modifiers express different degrees of explicitness is an
important aspect for the study of general noun phrases since modification, as has
been explained before, is one factor that influences the degree of specification of
general noun phrases. It can be assumed that different modifiers with different
degrees of explicitness have different effects on the specification of general noun
phrases (see Section 7.2).
3.2.3 Classification of general noun phrase heads

From a grammatical perspective and with reference to the classification of nouns
presented in Section 3.2.1, all of the general noun phrase heads investigated in
the present study (Halliday/Hasan 1976: 274) are common nouns. Sixteen of the
general noun phrase heads investigated are count nouns and two of them are
non-count nouns. Seven general noun phrase heads are abstract and eleven are
concrete. See the following table for a classification of general noun phrase heads:
Table 3.1: The classification of general noun phrase heads
Types of nouns
General noun
phrase heads common noun non-count abstract
count noun concrete noun
noun noun
people x x x
person x x x
man x x x
woman x x x
child x x x
boy x x x
girl x x x
creature x x x
thing x x x
object x x x
stuff x x
business x x x
affair x x x
matter x x x
move x x x
51
Types of nouns
General noun
phrase heads common noun non-count abstract
count noun concrete noun
noun noun
place x x x
question x x x
idea x x x
As we can see in Table 3.1, there are ten concrete count nouns; these are people,
person, man, woman, child, boy, girl, creature, thing and object. There are six ab-
stract count nouns; these are affair, matter, move, place, question and idea. There
is one concrete non-count noun, namely stuff, and there is one abstract non-
count noun, namely business.
In her study on nouns with both open- and closed-system characteristics,
Ivanič (1991: 98) mentions the property of abstractness that is typical for nouns
similar to ‘general nouns’: “Most of these nouns are recognizably abstract rather
than concrete, but they differ from many other abstract nouns in that they are
frequently countable.” As we have seen in Table 3.1, there are some examples
of these kinds of nouns, which are affair(s), matter(s), place(s), question(s) and
idea(s). However, the majority of general noun phrase heads is not countable
abstract but countable concrete.
The different classes of nouns presented in Section 3.2.1 differ concerning
their degree of generality or specification. Sinclair (2005: 3) remarks:
In the relation between language and the world, these different types of noun group
show a range of choices between a very clear identification of someone or something,
and a clear decision not to identify.2
According to Sinclair (cf. 2005: 2–3), a clear identification of someone or some-

thing means using a proper noun which names a particular person or unique
entity. If you use a common noun with a general determiner such as a, some,
or any, you are referring to a class of entities. The identification of something
or someone is therefore less clear. The least specific way of referring to some-
one or something is by using an indefinite pronoun, such as nobody or anyone,
which does not refer to any particular person or thing. Halliday (2004: 327)
argues that a pronoun as the most general type of noun on a scale of possible
referring items is the “limiting case of anaphoric generalization”. A salient char-
acteristic of general noun phrase heads is certainly their semantic generality
2 Instead of using the term noun phrase, Sinclair (2005) uses the term noun group.
52
or unspecificity already mentioned by Halliday/Hasan (cf. 1976: 274). In this
context, Halliday/Hasan also emphasise the borderline status of general noun
phrase heads which in combination with the definite article are very similar to
pronouns. According to Sinclair’s statement that the reference of different types
of nouns ranges from general to specific, it can be assumed that general noun
phrase heads, similar to pronouns, have general reference. See the following
figure for an illustration:
Figure 3.3: The classification of general noun phrase heads in terms of specification
conrete count
count nouns
nouns abstract count
nouns
common
nouns
nouns concrete non-
proper non-count count nouns
nouns nouns
abstract non-
count nouns
from specific to general
general noun phrase heads
Figure 3.3 shows that proper nouns, denoting unique entities, are positioned at
the very specific end of the scale while abstract non-count nouns, which denote
undifferentiated substances or concepts, are positioned at the very general end of
the scale. At the beginning of the present section, it has been explained that ten
of the general noun phrase heads investigated are concrete count nouns, that six
of them are abstract count nouns, that one of them is a concrete non-count noun
and that one of them is an abstract non-count noun. Accordingly, Figure 3.3
shows that the general noun phrase heads investigated in the present study can
be positioned at a point where the classes of concrete and abstract count nouns
and concrete and abstract non-count nouns overlap. This point is located to-
wards the general end of the scale.
It is important to note that the above discussion of general noun phrase heads
and their positioning presented in Figure 3.3 only refers to de-contextualised
general noun phrase heads. As has been mentioned before, a treatment of gen-
eral noun phrase heads within their linguistic co-text will take into account
53
modification. Accordingly, a contextualised view of general noun phrases then
probably reveals a different degree of specification.
3.3 The text-linguistic approach to general noun phrases

3.3.1 Constitutive features of textual communication
In their approach to text-linguistics, de Beaugrande and Dressler (1981) focus on
the functions of texts (spoken and written) in human interaction. They define a
text as a communicative occurrence which is characterised by seven features of
textuality: cohesion, coherence,3 intentionality, informativity, acceptability,4 situ-
ationality and intertextuality (cf. de Beaugrande/Dressler 1981: 3–11). Consid-
ering the communicative function that texts intend to fulfil, the seven features
of textuality entail factors such as cognition, planning and social environment.
Note that de Beaugrande/Dressler (cf. 1981: 3) originally assumed that the
seven features of textuality were defining criteria. The authors even speak of
constitutive principles and state that a text can only successfully fulfil its com-
municative function and therefore be defined as text if all seven principles are
satisfied. Today, this view seems too rigid and there has been some controversy
on whether the seven features named by de Beaugrande/Dressler (1981) are in
fact constitutive principles of textuality. However, it is generally recognised that
a text has a communicative function which is determined by the encoder’s in-
tention and the decoder’s expectation. I therefore refer to the seven constitutive
principles of textuality as seven features of textual communication.
The aspect of communicative functions of texts and the text producer’s inten-
tions describe phenomena which go back to the works of J.L. Austin (1962). His
theory of performative utterances states that any utterance is composed of the
following three speech act components: the locutionary act (the actual utter-
ing of words), the illocutionary act (the intention of the speaker) and the perlo-
cutionary act (the effect of the utterance on the hearer) (cf. Austin 1962: 108).
Austin’s theory (1962) was further developed by J.R. Searle (1969), who divides
the locutionary act into an utterance act (the actual uttering of words) and a
propositional act (conveying the content), so that he distinguishes four compo-
nents of a speech act: the utterance act, the propositional act, the illocutionary
3 Note that the first two features listed, cohesion and coherence, refer to criteria of the
actual text, only the remaining five features refer to the situation of communication.
4 Note that the order of the features of textuality has been slightly changed. See footnote 14
for explanations.
54
act and the perlocutionary act (cf. 1969: 23–25). Later, Grice (1975) focused on
the perlocutionary act and describes that the success of any communication situ-
ation heavily depends on the participant’s cooperative behaviour. Grice’s ‘Coop-
erative Principle’ is considered to belong to the area of pragmatics, which is why
it will be dealt with in more detail in Section 3.4.
The present section now turns to a detailed discussion of the seven features
of textual communication. Cohesion as the internal linking of textual elements
within the surface text is the first essential aspect. It is the linguistically overt re-
lations between sentences that form the basis in the constitution of text. The use
of general noun phrases as one means of establishing these relations plays an im-
portant role for the decoding of semantic links within the text and thus contrib-
utes to the creation of successful communication (see Sections 2.1.3 and 2.1.4).
The second feature of textual communication is coherence (cf. de Beaugrande/
Dressler 1981: 4), which refers to the non-overt semantic linking of a text to the
context of the situation. Coherence refers to the underlying level of meaning and
concerns the interaction of the textual world and the decoder’s cognitive world.
Depending on the decoder’s stored knowledge of the world, coherence is thus, in
contrast to cohesion, decoder-dependent (or at least culture-specific), since the
encoder’s intentions can be interpreted and perceived differently from decoder to
decoder (or from culture to culture) (cf. Tanskanen 2006: 20–21). There can be a
mismatch between the encoder’s and the decoder’s understanding and interpreta-
tion of an expression when both language users activate different chunks of knowl-
edge (cf. de Beaugrande/Dressler 1981: 85). For example, when using the general
noun phrase the man to refer back to the minister (cf. Halliday/Hasan 1976: 274–
275), both language users must have the same knowledge about mental categories
and subcategories in order to correctly interpret that a minister is a man and that
man can be used as a superordinate term for minister. This aspect cuts across ob-
servations of cognitive linguistics and will therefore be discussed in more detail in
Section 3.5, when dealing with a cognitive perspective on general noun phrases.
The third feature of textual communication, intentionality, describes the in-
tentions the encoder follows concerning, for example, the distribution of knowl-
edge or the attainment of a certain aim (cf. de Beaugrande/Dressler 1981: 7). The
pursuing of the encoder’s intentions can influence the cohesion and coherence
of a text. Coherence establishes continuity of senses among the decoder’s knowl-
edge (cf. de Beaugrande/Dressler 1981: 84). This continuity of senses is activated
by the referring item, for example a general noun phrase, so that a referent, once
correctly identified, may pass longer stretches of text. The following example
taken from a Supreme Court judgment demonstrates this:
55
(21) “The real question is, were these payments genuinely director’s remuneration? […]
In the absence of any evidence of actual motive, the court must, I think, look at the
matter objectively and apply the standard of reasonableness.” [J4-14-1]5
The decoder needs to recognise that the general noun phrase the matter refers
back to the underlined portion of text and simultaneously acts as a starting point
for the following development in the discourse. The general noun phrase rei-
fies the question that has arisen at that point in the judgment and thus serves
as a starting point for further elaborations on the propriety of director’s remu-
neration that have been paid. Ivanič (1991: 104), who observes this function in
reference to ‘carrier nouns’, states that “[t]hese nouns ‘encapsulate’ preceding
meaning and turn it into ‘given’ information in subsequent discourse”. This way,
general noun phrases can help the encoder to encapsulate complex contents and
thereby give propositional density to a text. In the above example, the decoder is
able to identify the reference so that the cohesion and coherence of the text are
not disturbed. However, when an encoder’s intention is to be vague and unspe-
cific about something, this might be achieved through reference that the decoder
is no longer able to identify. This can be achieved, for example, through ‘remote
reference’ which means that too much text lies between the referring general
noun phrase and the reference item. Then, the decoder might not be able to
establish a cohesive link between both items which has the consequence that the
general noun phrase remains indefinite (cf. Partington 1998: 91). See the follow-
ing example from a Supreme Court judgment:
(22) As this summary suggests, their Lordships appear to have been much influenced
by their perception that the late Professor Halliday, whom they rightly described
as “the architect of the Act”, considered […].
In that event it would also be worth bearing in mind the observation of the Earl
of Halsbury LC, that the worst person to construe a statute is the person who was
responsible for its drafting, […]. [J2-2-7]
In example (22), the general noun phrase the person who was responsible for
its drafting remotely refers back to the noun phrase the late Professor Halliday,
whom they rightly described as “the architect of the Act”. There are eleven smaller
paragraphs which pass three and a half pages of text in between the referring
general noun phrase and the reference item. Therefore, it is not clear whether
the decoder can identify Professor Halliday as the reference item. The encod-
er’s intention for such remote reference might be that they do not want to be
impolite – offending Professor Halliday in referring to him directly as the worst
5 The coding system used in the present study will be explained in detail in Section 6.2.1.
56
person to construe a statute. The third feature of textual communication touches
upon pragmatic observations concerning communicative intentions of text pro-
ducers and will thus be taken up again in Section 3.4.
The fourth6 feature of textual communication, informativity (cf. de Beau-
grande/Dressler 1981: 8–9), is concerned with the informational load of an ut-
terance and thus ties in with the encoder’s aforementioned intentional use of
general noun phrases to convey either much or little semantic content. Depend-
ing on the extent to which an utterance is specified, the encoder is confronted
with a large amount of expected and known information as opposed to unex-
pected and unknown information (cf. de Beaugrande/Dressler 1981: 9). Particu-
larly low informativity, i.e. a small amount of new information, is likely to be
disturbing, causing the loss of the decoder’s attention or even their rejection of
the text (cf. de Beaugrande/Dressler 1981: 9). This aspect is interesting for the
study of general noun phrases as these items can be used to carry a great load of
semantic content as well as very little semantic content. See the following exam-
ples for a comparison. Example (23) is from the Liberal Democrat manifesto and
example (24) is from the Labour manifesto:
(23) Only Liberal Democrats will break up the banks and start building things again,
[…]. [LDM-9-1]
(24) Strong community life also depends on protecting the places in which people come
together. […] we are investing £235 million to create new or refurbished play
spaces and adventure playgrounds. We will protect the Post Office network, […].
The local pub and social club are also hubs of community life. [LM-16-9]
The general noun phrase things in example (23) conveys very little information,
as it is not specified what things refers to, not even in the wider co-text, which
cannot be presented here. By contrast, the general noun phrase the places in
which people come together in example (24) conveys much more information,
as it is specified through cataphoric reference to the underlined noun phrases,
i.e. the kind of places that are talked about. Chapter 4 will discuss in detail the
aspects that influence the load of information of general noun phrases.
The fifth feature of textual communication, acceptability, concerns the decod-
er’s attitude towards the acceptability of the utterance. An utterance is acceptable
6 Note that the order of the features of textuality has been slightly changed. While in
de Beaugrande/Dressler’s discussion (cf. 1981: 7–8) acceptability is the fourth and
informativity the fifth feature, in my presentation they have changed positions. This is
due to the fact that informativity (e.g. a very small amount of information) can influ-
ence the acceptability (e.g. the decoder cannot follow the argument and thus finds the
utterance disturbing), and not vice versa.
57
if it constitutes a cohesive and coherent text which is relevant for the receiver
(cf. de Beaugrande/Dressler 1981: 7). Concerning the aspects of relevance and
text-reception, this standard of textuality is closely related to pragmatic aspects
of communication, such as the ‘Cooperative Principle’ introduced by Grice
(1975), and will therefore be discussed in more detail in Section 3.4.
The sixth feature of textual communication, situationality, deals with the de-
gree of relevance of a certain utterance or text to a situation of occurrence (cf. de
Beaugrande/Dressler 1981: 9). A text is interpreted according to the situation
in which it is used. Whether a text is suitable or not depends to a great extent
on its “[…] believability and relevance to the participants’ outlook regarding the
situation.” (de Beaugrande/Dressler 1981: 179). Imagine, for example, a politi-
cian giving a speech during an election campaign. The audience will probably
have certain expectations regarding the content of that speech and its relevance
to current political issues and the forthcoming elections. A speech that does not
meet these expectations of the audience (for example if it has little relevance to
current political topics), would not be acceptable and thus make successful com-
munication difficult. It can be assumed that the use of very unspecific general
noun phrases, such as the general noun phrase things in example (23), can lead
to a rejection of the text by the decoder when they feel that the utterance conveys
too little relevant information.
The seventh feature of textual communication, intertextuality, states that the
production and reception of one text depends on the decoder’s knowledge of
other previously encountered texts (cf. de Beaugrande/Dressler 1981: 182). A
decoder’s knowledge of previous texts, contexts and situations enables them to
interpret a present text. However, this knowledge also raises expectations on a
present communication. These matters again touch upon pragmatic aspects of
communication situations and also cognitive aspects of text reception and will
thus be taken up again in Sections 3.4 and 3.5.
3.3.2 Regulative features of textual communication

Besides the seven features of textual communication mentioned before, de Beau-
grande/Dressler (1981) name three further features of textual communication
which influence the communicative success of texts. The regulative features
of textual communication, which include the efficiency, the effectiveness, and
the appropriateness of texts, can be defined as follows (de Beaugrande/Dressler
1981: 11):
The efficiency of a text depends on its use in communicating with a minimum ex-
penditure of effort by the participants. The effectiveness of a text depends on its
58
leaving a strong impression and creating favourable conditions for attaining a goal. The
appropriateness of a text is the agreement between its setting and the ways in which
the standards of textuality are upheld.
According to the above definition of efficiency, an encoder, but also a de-

coder, is meant to preferably put the least possible effort and endeavour into
the production and reception of the text. The degree of effectiveness of a text
determines whether a text is successful in influencing the decoder and thus
attaining a communicative goal. Both regulative features of textual communi-
cation are closely related: the effectiveness of a text can depend on the degree
of efficiency. There is a close relation between the efficiency-principle and the
textual feature of intentionality, which states that the encoder determines the
degree of cohesion, coherence and informativity depending on their commu-
nicative aims (cf. Section 3.3.1 above). The effectiveness-principle is related
to the textual feature of acceptability, which has to do with the decoder’s atti-
tude and expectancy towards the relevance of an utterance. The encoder always
faces the challenge to strike a balance between the efficiency of a text and its
effectiveness, as the aim is to obtain maximum reward for minimum effort (cf.
de Beaugrande/Dressler 1981: 170).
The criterion of efficiency is manifested in the use of cohesive devices to estab-
lish reference, such as general noun phrases. The use of a general noun phrase as
a referring item can reduce the text-producer’s effort and correspondingly raise
the text’s efficiency because a general noun phrase, as has been shown before,
can be used to encapsulate larger portions of semantic content. There is, how-
ever, a ‘trade-off ’ between propositional density and clarity of thought (cf. de
Beaugrande/Dressler 1981: 64): If the decoder is not able to identify or locate
the reference item because, for example, the referring item passes too much text,
then the granted effectiveness of the text is lost again. This aspect ties in with the
aforementioned intentions of an encoder. As mentioned before, this aspect will
be taken up again in Section 3.4.
The third regulative principle, appropriateness, regulates the above-mentioned
trade-off situation between the efficiency and the effectiveness of a text. Thus, a
text must provide a certain degree of clarity (achieved through effort of the pro-
ducer) in order to be successful (effective). Only then is the text appropriate to the
communication situation and the participants’ roles (cf. de Beaugrande/Dressler
1981: 170).
59
3.3.3 Restricted and elaborated style of referencing
The above mentioned aspect of appropriateness is connected to the sociolinguis-
tic terms ‘restricted code’, ‘elaborated code’ and ‘common ground’ that go back to
Bernstein and his work Class, Codes and Control (1971).
Bernstein (1971), originally interested in the correlation of social class and
language use, introduces two styles of referencing which have led to the recogni-
tion of two codes: the restricted style of referencing and the elaborated style of
referencing.7 According to Bernstein (cf. 1971: 76–77), the difference between
the two language-uses lies in the syntactic options that speakers use to organise
meaning. He explains that the elaborated style of referencing offers a wide range
of alternatives while the restricted style of referencing has only a limited range of
options in that respect. The restricted style of referencing is a semantic mode of
communication characterised by little explicit naming of things or rather entities
(cf. Halliday/Hasan 1976: 36). Instead, the restricted style of referencing heavily
relies on exophoric reference in that it strongly depends on the text-external con-
text of situation and the participants’ shared experience. Halliday/Hasan dem-
onstrate this language use by quoting the summary of a picture story given by
five-year-old children (1976: 35):
(25) They’re playing football and he kicks it and it goes through there it breaks the win-
dow and they’re looking at it and he comes out and shouts at them because they’ve
broken it so they run away and then she looks out and she tells them off.
In this example, the encoder frequently uses pro-forms such as they, he, it and
there to refer to things in their environment. The surrounding objects are treated
as mutually accessible. This summary of events is therefore closely tied to its
context without which the listener could not interpret what is said (cf. Halliday/
Hasan 1976: 35). A restricted style of referencing is characterised by a large
amount of exophoric reference and deictic expressions.
In contrast to the limited alternatives of syntactic organisation with the re-
stricted style of referencing, the elaborated style of referencing is characterised
by greater lexical flexibility in the use of referring items. According to Esser (cf.
2009: 36), this is manifested in the use of lexically filled noun phrases which
function as referring items. Halliday/Hasan (1976: 35) provide a demonstration
7 Note that Bernstein (1971) originally speaks of ‘restricted code’ and ‘elaborated code’.
The present section will stick to Esser (2009) who prefers to speak of ‘restricted style
of referencing’ and ‘elaborated style of referencing’.
60
of the use of the elaborated style of referencing in the equivalent version of a
summary of the picture story:
(26) Three boys are playing football and one boy kicks the ball and it goes through the
window and the ball breaks the window and the boys are looking at it and a man
comes out and shouts at them because they’ve broken the window so they run
away and then that lady looks out and she tells them off.
This summary contains much more explicit naming. Instead of pro-forms the
encoder makes use of a wider range of lexical alternatives (the ball, the window,
that lady) in order to refer to things. Therefore, this version is independent of
a shared situation between the communication partners, as the encoder prop-
erly introduces new entities in the text by using explicit noun phrases (cf. Esser
2009: 37).
When distinguishing the two types of language use, note that the term ‘re-
stricted’ might be misleading because it may imply an evaluation. According to
Halliday/Hasan (cf. 1976: 35), the restricted style of referencing is no less gram-
matical than the elaborated style of referencing and there is no significantly
greater amount of information given with the elaborated style of referencing.
That is to say there is no difference as to what is said but in how it is said. As
already mentioned at the very beginning of the present section, the distinction
between restricted and elaborated style of referencing is rather one of appro-
priateness. The restricted style of referencing is typical of spoken face-to-face
communication, where the participants share a common ground. This language
use is efficient as a great amount of meaning is conveyed with a few words, each
of which points the decoder to a lot more information which remains unsaid.
In terms of appropriateness, the restricted style of referencing only becomes re-
stricting if it is transferred to a context in which such an amount of encoding
and encapsulating is inappropriate (cf. Halliday/Hasan 1976: 36). The elaborated
style of referencing, on the other hand, is much more explicit in that it names
things. It is thus appropriate for written communication, where the circumstanc-
es set the limit for using expressions that point to the context. In order to be
understood, the encoder must elaborate on things.
Note that the distinction between restricted and elaborated style of referenc-
ing was later described by Kay (1977) as non-autonomous and autonomous
style. While a non-autonomous style (restricted style) depends on the encoder
and decoder sharing the communication situation, an autonomous style (elabo-
rated style) is independent of that situation (cf. Kay 1977: 21–22, 24).
Concerning the different styles of referencing discussed above, the use of
general noun phrases is relevant particularly in terms of a restricted style of
61
referencing typically found in conversations. See the following example taken
from the conversation corpus for an illustration:
(27) PS02B: So anyway Zoe’s gonna have some. And they fitted her Ange so I told
you I bet she put them on first.
PS029: Yeah because they were baggy.
PS02B: She, I told Jenny Yeah I told you. She must have stretched
them. That’s what she did.
PS029: Cos the box was open wasn’t it?
PS02B: Mm.
PS029: And one of the things were.
[C1-9-8]
(28) PS02E: Oh have you got a lighter now?
PS029: No. I’ve got matches behind you Sue. Up on the
PS02E: Oh. Why do you
PS029: Over there Sue. Up on that thing.
[C1-9-11]
Examples (27) and (28) demonstrate the use of general noun phrases with a re-
stricted style of referencing. In example (27), the simple general noun phrase one
of the things is used to refer to something that is present in the situation of utter-
ance. The same holds for the general noun phrase that thing in example (28). Here,
this pointing function is overtly expressed through the use of the demonstrative
pronoun that.
3.4 The pragmatic approach to general noun phrases

3.4.1 The Cooperative Principle
In his article “Logic and Conversation”, Grice (1975) discusses the pragmatic as-
pects of communication and emphasises the participants’ roles in conversation.
He states (1975: 45):
Our talk exchanges do not normally consist of a succession of disconnected remarks,
[…]. They are characteristically, to some degree at least, cooperative efforts; and each
participant recognizes in them, to some extent, a common purpose or set of purposes,
or at least a mutually accepted direction.
What Grice describes here is that the success of communication heavily depends
on the participants’ behaviour. According to Grice, the conversational partners
must cooperate in that they both accept one another to be understood in a par-
ticular way. The cooperative efforts of the participants can partly account for
‘conversational implicatures’ which means that an encoder can imply in their
utterance things that they need not verbalise because the decoder is assumed to
62
be cooperative and willing to follow what the encoder says and means (cf. Grice
1975: 43–44). The cooperative behaviour of the participants is formulated by
Grice in terms of the ‘Cooperative Principle’, which he describes as follows
(1975: 45):
Make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it oc-
curs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are en-
gaged.
Grice emphasises that this principle is by no means a set of prescriptive rules as

to how participants must behave in conversation, but rather a set of descriptive
norms as to how participants actually behave and are usually expected to behave
in conversation.
The ‘Cooperative Principle’ is divided up into four maxims which Grice calls
the maxims of ‘quantity’, ‘quality’, ‘relation’ and ‘manner’ (cf. Grice 1975: 45). The
first maxim, the ‘maxim of quantity’, relates to the quantity of information that
is required in an utterance and includes the following two statements: “1. Make
your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purposes of the
exchange)”, and “2. Do not make your contribution more informative than is
required” (Grice 1975: 45). Note that this maxim can be related to the textual
feature of informativity which also deals with the informational load of an utter-
ance (de Beaugrande/Dressler (cf. 1981: 8–9; see Section 3.3.1)).
The second maxim, the ‘maxim of quality’, refers to the truth-value of an ut-
terance and states: “Try to make your contribution one that is true” (Grice 1975:
46). It can be subcategorised into two submaxims which state: “1. Do not say
what you believe to be false”, and “2. Do not say that for which you lack adequate
evidence” (Grice 1975: 46).
The third maxim, the ‘maxim of relation’, concerns the focus of relevance of
the utterance and it simply says: “Be relevant” (Grice 1975: 46). This maxim is
related to the textual features of acceptability and situationality which deal with
the relevance of an utterance for the decoder and the relevance of an utterance
for the situation (cf. de Beaugrande/Dressler 1981: 7, 9; see Section 3.3.1).
The fourth maxim, the ‘maxim of manner’, differs from the preceding three
maxims in that it does not refer to what is said, but to how it is said. Its super-
maxim states: “Be perspicuous” (Grice 1975: 46), including the four submaxims:
“1. Avoid obscurity of expression”, “2. Avoid ambiguity”, “3. Be brief (avoid un-
necessary prolixity)”, and “4. Be orderly” (Grice 1975: 46).
The four maxims presented by Grice are closely connected to the purpose that
talk exchange is primarily employed to serve as a maximally effective exchange
of information (cf. Grice 1975: 47). In short, the ‘Cooperative Principle’ requires
63
the conversation to be precisely informative, truthful, relevant and explicit. In
this context, it is important to note that conversation participants do not always
follow these maxims strictly. In fact, Grice (cf. 1975: 49) states that very often
one or more of the maxims are violated rather than followed, either because the
participants deliberately and blatantly violate them or because the participants
are faced with the dilemma of being unable to fulfil a certain maxim without
disregarding another. Since conversation participants are expected to cooperate
in communication, a speaker who disregards or violates a maxim can be inter-
preted by their communication partner as conveying implicit meaning in their
utterance. Yet, Grice (cf. 1975: 50) emphasises that the conversational partners
must be capable of working out this implicature, for example by reference to the
co-text or context.
The use of general noun phrases in terms of the ‘Cooperative Principle’ is
interesting because these items, as has been mentioned before in Sections 3.3.1
and 3.3.2, can influence the degree of informativity and relevance, and thus, the
degree of effectiveness in an utterance. As a result, a text, or in particular, a con-
versational exchange might no longer be acceptable for the conversation part-
ners. For example, when completely unspecific general noun phrases are used
in a text without reference to the preceding or following text, the general noun
phrases convey very little meaning. Using such a general noun phrase, the en-
coder violates the maxim of ‘quantity’ because they do not give an appropriate
amount of information. As a result, the decoder might not be able to identify
the referent, might not be capable of working out an implicature and might not
be able to understand an utterance altogether. This can be the case, for example,
when the encoder is faced with the dilemma of wanting to fulfil the ‘maxim of
quality’, which expects them to tell the truth. Especially in the context of political
issues, telling the truth sometimes seems difficult, so encoders often decide to
solve this dilemma by violating the ‘maxim of quantity’. By withholding certain
information, the encoder avoids lying, which saves them from facing the prob-
lem of admitting errors or compromising themselves.
Also consider the use of general noun phrases in terms of the maxims of ‘rela-
tion’ and ‘manner’. As mentioned above, very unspecific general noun phrases
convey little meaning and only inexplicit and broad information. A frequent use
of such general noun phrases can lead to a rejection of a text by a decoder be-
cause the utterance is no longer relevant for them. Then, the ‘maxim of relation’
has been violated. Similarly, the encoder can use unspecific general noun phrases
to make their utterance vague and long-winded instead of concise and explicit,
which would display a violation of the ‘maxim of manner’. See the following
64
example taken from a parliamentary debate in the House of Commons of the
British Parliament:
(29) Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab): The European Food Safety Authority has concluded
that the major factor causing poor welfare in dairy cows is genetic selection to pro-
duce high yields. Given proposals to intensify milk production for higher yields,
such as those planned at Nocton, will the Secretary of State agree urgently to review
the welfare code for dairy cows in the UK and to meet a delegation of cross-party
MPs and non-governmental organisations to discuss how her Department can en-
sure that its code takes into account the latest scientific advice and ensures that any
new dairies do not compromise cow welfare?
Mr Paice: I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and others to discuss the mat-
ter, but I assure him that the Department puts welfare at the top of our agenda, as
I hope our record to date shows. However, we must be guided by science, which is
why I am looking forward to the results of the three-year study being carried out
in Scotland on intensive dairy farming, and the work at Harper Adams university
college on the same issue. After that, we will be in a better position to know the
precise answers. I remind him that the Farm Animal Welfare Council, which the
Department normally listens to, has said clearly that welfare is a function more of
management that of scale. [D3-14-5]
Nic Dakin from the Labour party has heard of proposals to intensify milk pro-
duction for higher yields and therefore asks the Secretary of State for Environ-
ment, Food and Rural Affairs to review the welfare code for dairy cows in the
UK. He also wants the Secretary of state to discuss how the Department ensures
that cow welfare is not compromised in the future. Mr Paice, who is Minister of
State in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, does not give
a clear answer to the two questions by Mr Dakin.
Mr Paice uses the unspecific general noun phrase the matter to refer to the
problems raised by Mr Dakin, such as the important demand to review the code
for cow welfare and to ensure cow welfare in the future. This might simply have
economic reasons since the general noun phrase the matter helps to encapsulate
complex facts and thus makes the utterance denser. However, by using such a
neutral and general expression as the matter, Mr Paice avoids a critical evalu-
ation of the problems related to cow welfare in the course of which he might
have to admit the Department’s failures. The use of the general noun phrase the
matter neutralises and plays down the problematic issue of cow welfare. By using
the general noun phrase the matter, Mr Paice violates the maxim of ‘quantity’ as
he gives very little information (for example as opposed to a complex expression
such as the problem of cow welfare or the need to ensure cow welfare).
Mr Paice does not give a clear answer to Mr Dakin’s questions. Instead of af-
firming to review the welfare code and to meet a delegation to discuss how to
65
ensure the welfare code in the future, or instead of denying it, Mr Paice answers
with irrelevant facts such as that the Department puts welfare at the top of their
agenda, or that cow welfare is a function more of management than of scale.
Mr Paice violates the maxim of ‘relation’ because this is not a relevant answer to
Mr Dakin’s questions. This is not only due to irrelevant facts listed by Mr Paice
but also through the use of the general noun phrase the matter. Even if the refer-
ence to the problems of cow welfare can be understood by the communication
partner, the matter is used here as a means of concealing or even downgrading
because the speaker avoids spelling out displeasing issues. This makes it not ap-
propriate in the sense of Grice’s maxims.
3.4.2 Vagueness in language

As described in the preceding sections, the use of very unspecific general noun
phrases touches upon aspects of vagueness in language which will be discussed
in the present section. In the foreword of Channell’s work Vague Language, Sin-
clair comments on the status of vague language in linguistics (1994: xviii): “The
art of being vague is a neglected concern for the linguist, and yet an important
part of the armoury of every speaker and writer.” According to Sinclair, vague-
ness in language is an important and efficient device in communication that is
often neglected in the relevant linguistic literature because of its rather negative
image. Vagueness is commonly assumed to be “a defect to be avoided” (Jucker et
al. 2003: 1738) and is thus seen as the undesirable counterpart of clear, precise
and unambiguous language. Accordingly, a common view of vagueness in lan-
guage is that ‘good’ language usage involves clarity and precision whereas ‘bad’
language usage involves a high degree of vague expressions. Channell comments
on this fallacy and emphasises a very important aspect (1994: 3): “[V]agueness
in language is neither all ‘bad’ nor all ‘good’. What matters is that vague language
is used appropriately.”
Vagueness constitutes an important aspect in language and can even be an in-
tended means in communication. Sinclair notes that language in communication
is in fact not always precise. Speakers of the same language share a common code
and a “rough agreement about the meaning of the code” (Channell 1994: xviii). In
reference to the ‘Cooperative Principle’ explained in the preceding Section 3.4.1,
this agreement leaves room for vague expressions which, to a certain degree, the
participants are able to decode. But an encoder may also use vague linguistic
items (e.g. general noun phrases) to express a degree of vagueness which they
know the decoder is no longer able to work out. Then, the encoder is deliberately
vague and they follow communicative intentions that mislead the decoder.
66
3.4.2.1 Defining vagueness
There is considerable variation in linguistic theories about how to define vague-
ness in language and about how vagueness is expressed in terms of linguistic
devices.
Vagueness must be marked off from ambiguity and polysemy. All three terms
refer to different instances of plurality of meaning. Firstly, an expression is am-
biguous if one single overt form entails two lexical units with two semantically
unrelated senses8 (Cruse 1986: 51–52). Through the context9 only one of the two
possible senses is selected (cf. Cruse 1986: 51). Consider the following example
given by Cruse (1986: 51):
(30) We finally reached the bank.
Here, the word bank entails two lexical units with two unrelated senses (bank1 =
financial institute, bank2 = edge of a river) and by reference to the context, only
one of the two possible senses is selected (cf. Cruse 1986: 51).
Secondly, an expression is polysemous if one single overt form entails two or
more lexical units with semantically related senses. The fact that the senses are
semantically related can, for example, be due to metaphorical transfer of mean-
ing (cf. Lipka 2002: 156). The following example is a simplified version of the
representation of various semantically related senses of the polysemous term cup
given by Lipka (2002: 94 [original emphasis]):
(31) cup = ‘container usu. with handle’
‘container with liquid’ (cup of tea)
‘ornamental vessel as prize’ (Davis Cup)
‘experience’ (her cup of sorrows)
Thirdly, vagueness10 is defined as a contrast to ‘well-defined’ (cf. Cruse 1986:

81). An expression is vague when it entails only one lexical unit with a single
sense. This sense is very general and unspecific and only through reference to the
8 Cruse speaks of a lexical unit as the “union of a single sense with a lexical form”
(1986: 80).
9 In his discussion about ambiguity and vagueness, Cruse leaves it open as to whether
such expressions are solved by the linguistic co-text or the situational context. Un-
fortunately, Cruse does not give the linguistic co-text of examples (30) and (32), nor
does he describe the situational context of these examples. For the discussion in the
present section, I assume that it is an interaction of both the linguistic co-text and the
situational context that solves ambiguous utterances.
10 Note that Cruse (1986: 51) uses the term generality to refer to vagueness.
67
context can it be modified and specified (cf. Cruse 1986: 51–52). Cruse gives the
following example (1986: 51):
(32) Sue is visiting her cousin.
Here, the term cousin carries a general sense which covers all the more specific
possibilities, for example male/female. Only through the context of the utterance
is the sense of cousin modified so that the decoder can identify the sex of the
person (cf. 1986: 51).
To sum up, the superordinate concept of plurality of meaning subsumes two
similar yet different concepts: that of ambiguity and polysemy on the one hand
and that of vagueness on the other hand. Building on that, a central position has
to be granted to the notions of ‘co-text’ and ‘context’. In the case of ambiguity
and polysemy, the co-text and context select one lexical unit from a group of dis-
tinct alternatives, while in the case of vagueness, the co-text and context rather
modify the general sense of one lexical unit. The following figure illustrates this:
Figure 3.4: The concepts of ‘ambiguity’, ‘polysemy’ and ‘vagueness’
Plurality of
i
meaning
Ambiguity Polysemy Vagueness

(two lexical units (two lexical units
(one lexical unit
with two unrelated with ttwo related
senses) with one sense)
senses)
XT
XT
XT
CONTEX
CONTEX
CONTEX
CO-TEXT, C
CO-TEXT, C
CO-TEXT, C
Selection of Selection of Modification

one lexical one lexical of single
unit unit sense
For a pragmatic approach to general noun phrases, the focus lies on the con-
cept of ‘vagueness’. Ullmann describes vague terms as ‘words with blurred edges’
(cf. 1962: 116). He accounts for vagueness in terms of the generic character of
words which refer to classes of things instead of unique objects (cf. Ullmann
68
1962: 118). Corresponding to what Cruse states, Ullmann (cf. 1962: 124) empha-
sises that vague terms can only be specified through the co-text and the context
of the communication situation.
Similarly, Goss (cf. 1972: 287–288) defines ‘vague nouns’ as nouns that refer
to a class with many members. In a dictionary, vague nouns would therefore
have one definition followed by many examples. See the following entry of mat-
ter in the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English online (cf. http://www.
ldoceonline.com/dictionary/matter_1, last access 2nd January 2015):
• Subject/situation: a subject or situation that you have to think about or deal with
• Matter: a situation that you are in or have been describing
• Material: the material that everything in the universe is made of, including
solids, liquids, and gases
In contrast to vague nouns, ‘clear nouns’ refer to a class with only one member,
for example apple or motorcycle (cf. 1972: 288).
Van Rooij (cf. 2011: 123) defines vagueness in contrast to precision and also
emphasises its contextual aspect: “An expression is vague, or has a tolerant mean-
ing, if it is insensitive to small changes in the objects to which it can be meaning-
fully predicated.” A vague expression can thus be modified through the co-text
and context so that its meaning shifts from use to use. According to van Rooij
(cf. 2011: 124), members of almost any lexical category can be vague. Prototypi-
cal vague expressions include adjectives such as tall, fast and red, nouns such as
heap, adverbials such as rather and probably, and quantifiers such as many and
a lot. Van Rooij (2011: 124) even goes so far as to say that “[…] no linguistic ex-
pression whose meaning involves perception and categorization can be entirely
free of vagueness”. In line with van Rooij’s understanding of vagueness, Channell
(cf. 1994: 42 ff., 95 ff., 119 ff., 157 ff.) includes in her definition of vague language
expressions such as approximators (about, around), approximating and vague
quantifiers (loads of, some), tags (something like that, and whatnot), placeholder
words (thingy, whatsisname) and vague nouns such as thing and stuff.
3.4.2.2 Types of vagueness

It is commonly assumed in linguistics that vagueness constitutes a deficiency in
language because it lacks precision and clarity. However, several linguists have
criticised this view and have shown that vague language is not all “bad”. Channell
says that the key issue is appropriateness (cf. 1994: 3). Jucker et al. (cf. Jucker et
al. 2003: 1738) agree with this and explain that, for example, in a legal contract a
high degree of precision is needed, while the same type of precision in a casual
69
chat between friends might be counterproductive or even off-putting. As a con-
sequence, I will distinguish two types of vagueness:
1. ‘Conventional’ vagueness that occurs as a natural language phenomenon and
is easily decodable.
2. ‘Rhetorical’ vagueness that is used intentionally in order to manipulate and mis-
lead the decoder. Rhetorical vagueness is hard or even impossible to decode.
The first type entails vagueness that occurs commonly in spoken as well as
written language. According to what has been defined as vague language in
Section 3.4.2.1, this category includes vague expressions such as approximators,
placeholders and general noun phrases such as thing and stuff typically found in
conversations where the speakers share the situation of utterance. Conventional
vagueness is not completely unintentional, but, in contrast to rhetorical vague-
ness, this use of vagueness can be identified and decoded within the communica-
tion situation. Channell (1994: 159, 168 [original emphasis]) gives the following
examples:
(33) …they didn’t actually have a word p – er processing software thingy package with
it.
(34) E: I’m talking about you know sort of acceptable middle class language and (.) sort
of working class language you know Bernstein and mm you know sort of elabo-
rated code and things like that.
In example (33), the speaker uses the placeholder thingy for the proper name for
the software they are talking about. According to the ‘Cooperative Principle’, this
shows a violation of the maxim of quantity, as the encoder gives less informa-
tion than is needed, they are not being specific. Decoders, assuming cooperative
behaviour, then interpret such vague expressions as implicatures11 of the encoder
which they use because they either do not know or have forgotten the actual
name or the encoder does not want to refer explicitly to it by using the name
because it is not relevant (cf. Chanell 1994: 33, 174–175, 181). Based on the en-
coder’s evaluation of the decoder’s cognitive abilities and the shared common
ground, the encoder assumes that the decoder is able to discover and interpret
11 Grice uses the term implicature to describe the implying or suggesting of something
that is not overtly expressed in an utterance (cf. Grice 1975: 43–44). Note that Grice
(cf. 1975: 43–44, 49–50) does not expressly refer the term implicature to the use of
vague expressions which, as illustrated in examples (33) and (34), are chosen by the
encoder because they have difficulties finding the right words or because they do not
know the actual name for something they want to say. For the purpose of the present
study, however, I extend the term implicature for such uses.
70
the implications that they convey (cf. Jucker et al. 2003: 1742). In example (34),
which is an extract from a discussion between student and tutor about a linguis-
tic topic, the student uses the vague expression sort of elaborated code and things
like that which shows that they are unsure what they are talking about. Accord-
ing to Channell (cf. 1994: 170), the use of such vague expressions enables the
speaker to talk about subjects they are not very knowledgeable about.
We have seen that ‘conventional’ vagueness is a form of vagueness that can
be identified and solved by the decoder. In contrast to ‘conventional’ vagueness
stands ‘rhetorical’ vagueness. It is characterised by an amount of vagueness that
is no longer seen as appropriate in conversational contexts and therefore has a
manipulating and misleading effect on the hearer. Referring to the data of the
present study, vagueness can be expressed by two means: (i) either by using a
very unspecific general noun phrase where a more specific term would be neces-
sary, or (ii) by creating remote reference. The latter is the case when too much
text lies in between a referring item and its reference item. The capacity of the
decoder’s short-term memory is then deliberately being overwhelmed so that
they can no longer establish reference between a general noun phrase and what
it refers to in the text, or at least has problems doing so. For the use of a very
unspecific general noun phrase were a more specific term would be needed, see
the following example from the Conservatives manifesto:
(35) Conservatives understand the inherent value of conserving things, and we know
the importance of ensuring […] a good quality of life for future generations.
[Conservative Manifesto, p. 95]12
This example, taken from the 2010 political manifesto of the British Conserva-
tive Party, demonstrates the use of the very unspecific general noun phrase things
as a means of expressing vagueness in a way that aims at manipulating and per-
suading the reader. A political manifesto is a public declaration of a party’s po-
litical intents, aims and visions for the upcoming electoral period. With such a
text, politicians have the opportunity to promote their ideas and convince the
reader of the manifesto to vote for them. In the above example, the encoder uses
rather strong and impassioned expressions such as ‘inherent value’ and ‘con-
serving things’. These expressions are supposed to convey a feeling of security:
the decoder should get the impression that in times of a relentlessly changing
12 The general noun phrase things in example (35) is taken from the Conservative Mani-
festo. It is not coded as it is not taken into account in the quantitative and qualitative
analysis because it is not clearly a concrete count noun (as defined by Halliday/Hasan
1976: 274). However, for the purpose of the present section, it serves as a good example.
71
globalised world, it is the Conservative Party that recollects the core values and
conserves and protects things. When reading such profound words, it seems to
fade into the background what things actually refers to. By using such a general
noun phrase, the encoder reaches the decoder without committing themselves
to any particular political actions and aims. Channell (cf. 1994: 178–179) states
that an encoder deliberately uses vague expressions to withhold information. In
that way, the encoder presents their data in a way which best supports their argu-
ment and thus helps to persuade their audience. In the above example, it would
surely be beneficial for the future electorate to know what the general noun
phrase things refers to. However, by using the unspecific general noun phrase,
the politician protects themselves from any sort of binding commitment and,
moreover, protects themselves from later being proven wrong. In that way, vague
expressions help not to threaten face (cf. Channell 1994: 190), an aspect which
seems to be of great importance in political contexts.
For the creation of remote reference as a means to express rhetorical vague-
ness, see the following example:
(36) Mrs Spelman: […] I might have made an error, Mr Speaker, in not responding
myself to the question put by the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry Mc Carthy).
I apologise, as I should have taken it – but, of course, I agree with everything that
the Minister of State had to say. [D3-17-2]
Example (36) is from a parliamentary debate from the British House of Com-
mons. Mrs Spelman, who is the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs, uses the general noun phrase the question put by the hon. Member
for Bristol East (Kerry Mc Carthy) to refer to a question concerning the Hunting
Act 2004 and issues related to the protection of wildlife brought up by Mrs Mc
Carthy. The question was asked 13 questions and 13 answers before the one in
example (36) and therefore the reference is considered remote. The decoder can
certainly not remember what the question exactly referred to, especially because
Mrs Mc Carthy posed more than that one question. This might be intended by
Mrs Spelman, who could have repeated the content of the question shortly. How-
ever, she wants to avoid bringing up the topic again and personally comment on
the Hunting Act and related topics. In example (36) Mrs Spelman just says that
she agrees with everything that her Minister of State responded and thus man-
ages to get the topic off the agenda.
The following example from the Labour manifesto illustrates an extreme case
of remote reference because the decoder cannot identify a reference item alto-
gether:
72
(37) In this election, the first of the post-crisis era, we stand as the people with the
experience, values and ideas to help our country through the next phase of national
renewal. [LM-18-1]
In example (37) the general noun phrase ideas to help our country through the
next phase of national renewal does not refer to any other item in the co-text,
which for reasons of space cannot be presented here. Example (37) is from the
Labour manifesto, therefore, the general noun phrase is probably used to make
general promises to the decoder. However, since the decoder cannot identify
what the general noun phrase refers to, these promises are not being specified.
Similar to example (35), the encoder uses rather strong and impassioned expres-
sions which are supposed to persuade the decoder that the Labour Party is able
to transform the country. When reading this, it seems to become irrelevant what
Labour’s ideas involve in concrete terms.
The above examples of ‘rhetorical’ vagueness have shown how encoders use
general noun phrases as a strategy to express a degree of vagueness that manipu-
lates the decoder. By using a very unspecific general noun phrase, the encoder
withholds information and refrains from going into (unpleasant) detail. That
way, the decoder is distracted and, in a way, blinded to specific (political) facts.
As a second means of expressing vagueness, the encoder refers to facts within a
discourse in a way that is not precise or definite enough for the decoder to iden-
tify. Therefore, reference relations become unclear and the encoder achieves that
problems and facts may be weakened and fade away in the mind of the decoder.
This is corroborated by Myers (cf. 1996: 3), who states that vagueness enables
the terms and interests of one group to be translated into those of another group
because “[…] [v]agueness allows mediation of apparently conflicting interests.”
(Myers 1996: 3). Therefore, vagueness is to be seen as an important communica-
tive strategy.
3.5 The cognitive approach to general noun phrases

3.5.1 Categorisation
Categorisation is the mental process of classification (cf. Ungerer/Schmid 1996: 2).
With its roots in ancient Greek philosophy, categorisation is a concept in psychol-
ogy which deals with the segmentation of the environment or extra-linguistic
world into classifications where unique particular objects or events can be treated
equivalently as members of one class (cf. Rosch/Loyd 1978: 1). A classical view of
categorisation since Plato and Aristotle has been that categories are discrete enti-
ties with clear-cut boundaries (cf. Rosch 2009: 41). According to the Aristologian
73
laws of logic, categories divide the universe into two sets of entities, members or
non-members of those categories. There are no ambiguous cases (cf. Taylor 1995:
23). In his work Philosophische Untersuchungen, the philosopher Wittgenstein
anticipated some of the inadequacies of the classical theory of categorisation. He
coined the notion of ‘family resemblance’, which refers to a complicated network
of overlapping similarities of category members (cf. 1953: 31e-32e). With these
investigations, Wittgenstein challenged the idea of clear-cut category boundaries
and laid the ground for further research in the field of categorisation.
Important works in that area include the studies on the categorisation of col-
ours conducted by Berlin and Kay (1969) and the subsequent studies on cat-
egorisation conducted by Rosch (1973, 1975 and 1978) and Rosch and Mervis
(1975) and Rosch et al. (1976). Berlin and Kay (cf. 1969: 1) examined basic col-
our terms in 20 selected languages from a number of unrelated language families
and found out that there exists a universal inventory of eleven basic perceptual
colour categories in the 20 languages investigated (cf. Berlin/Kay 1969: 2). Berlin
and Kay claim that the colour continuum is structured by a universal system of
reference points for orientation, so-called ‘focal colours’, which the basic colour
terms rely on (cf. Berlin/Kay 1969: 10).
In the early 1970s, the psychologist Rosch set out to explore the psychologi-
cal background of focal colours (cf. Ungerer/Schmid 1996: 6). In an experiment
with the Dani, a non-westernised culture in Papua New Guinea, Rosch tested
the processing of focal colours and found out that they appear to possess a per-
ceptual cognitive salience, since the Dani learnt them more rapidly and more
easily than other stimuli (cf. Rosch 1973: 341). Rosch suggested that domains
of colour are structured into semantic categories which develop around ‘natural
prototypes’ (foci of organisation for categories) (cf. Rosch 1973: 328). Having
taken an interest in the internal structure of categories, Rosch tested the con-
cept of ‘prototypicality’ and the categorisation of concrete objects in a series
of experiments with American college students who were asked to judge the
typicality of category members, for example members of the category ‘dog’ (cf.
Rosch 1975: 198). In line with Wittgenstein, Rosch’s findings constitute a refu-
tation of the classical approach to categorisation, as she showed that category
membership is not, as was assumed by philosophers and linguists for a long
time, a yes-or-no distinction but that categories have internal structure and are
represented in terms of prototypes (best examples of the category) surrounded
by other members of decreasing similarity to the prototype (cf. Rosch 1975:
225, 193).
74
After investigating the internal structure of categories and their prototypes,
Rosch et al. (1976) also studied the external structure of categories, i.e. the rela-
tionship between categories. Categories are related hierarchically, which means
that they occur at different levels of inclusiveness or levels of abstraction. If we
consider, for example, the cognitive categories ‘creature’, ‘dog’ and ‘Scotch Terri-
er’, we can claim that these categories are related in the way that ‘creature’ is a su-
perordinate category to ‘dog’, which in turn is a superordinate category to ‘Scotch
Terrier’ (cf. Ungerer/Schmid 1996: 60). The principle underlying this hierarchi-
cal structure is the notion of class inclusion as defined by Lyons (1977: 156):
To be distinguished from class-membership is class-inclusion. […] Inclusion is defined
as follows: X ⊃ Y (X includes Y) and Y ⊂ X (Y is included in X; Y is a subclass of X) both
mean that every member of Y is a member of X.
This means that a superordinate category includes all items of its subordinate
categories, so that, referring to the above example, the superordinate category
‘creature’ includes all the members of the subordinate category ‘dog’, which in
turn includes all the members of the subordinate category ‘Scotch Terrier’.
Important insights concerning the levels of categorisation were gained from
the works on folk taxonomies by Berlin et al., who studied the plant classifica-
tion of the Tzeltal people, a Mayan-speaking community in Southern Mexico
(cf. 1973: 219). The following table shortly summarises the results of the study
by Berlin et al. The table is taken in a modified version from Ungerer/Schmid
(1996: 64):
Table 3.2: Tzeltal plant classification according to Berlin et al. (1973)
Scientific class Level No. of category Example

regnum 1. unique beginner 1 plant
class 2. life form 4 tree
genus 3. generic 471 pine
species 4. species 273 red pine
varietas 5. varietal 8
One major outcome of the study by Berlin et al. (cf. 1973: 240) is the primacy of
the generic level, which can be supported by the high number of categories (471)
on that level (see Table 3.2). This prominence of the generic level was further
investigated by Rosch et al. (1976), who refer to it as the basic level. Based on
attribute-listings of American college students, Rosch et al. showed that basic
categories are not only most numerous, but also perceptually salient in as much
75
as they are the most inclusive categories whose members have significant num-
bers of attributes in common, have similar shapes and are at the same time the
most differentiated from another (cf. Rosch et al. 1976: 382). This becomes clear
when we again refer to the above mentioned example of the categories ‘creature’,
‘dog’ and ‘Scotch Terrier’. The subordinate category ‘Scotch Terrier’ is defined by
category attributes which are so closely related to the attributes of neighbouring
categories such as, e.g. ‘German shepherd’ and ‘Collie’ that differences between
those specimens are indeed very small (cf. attributes such as “has four legs and
a tail and barks”). The superordinate category ‘creature’, however, embraces such
a disparate variety of members (imagine the difference between elephants and
mice) that there are hardly any similarities. Therefore, the category ‘dog’ is con-
sidered as a basic level category. Against this background, basic level categories
achieve an ideal balance between internal similarities and external distinctive-
ness (cf. Ungerer/Schmid 1996: 67).
3.5.2 Context-dependence of categories

Prototypes have been defined by Rosch as central tendencies or “typical mem-
bers” of cognitive categories (cf. Rosch 1973: 328–329). This view, however, dis-
regards one major aspect, namely that of context. Thus, categories, and therefore
also their internal and external structure, may change when they occur in a par-
ticular context.
As has been explained in Section 2.1.1, the notion of ‘context’ refers to the
general, non-linguistic environment of any language activity including the so-
ciocultural background (cf. Sinclair 1991: 171). Halliday/Hasan (cf. 1989: 6–7)
distinguish between the ‘context of situation’, meaning the situational environ-
ment of an utterance, and the ‘context of culture’, meaning the cultural history
of the participants, and state that both are necessary for a proper understand-
ing of an utterance.13 Thus, concerning cognitive categories, it is our social and
cultural knowledge that heavily influences the categorisation of our experiences
of the world (cf. Ungerer/Schmid 1996: 43). This knowledge base, called ‘cog-
nitive model’, consists of all kinds of experienced and stored contexts that we
can use for association and comparison (cf. Ungerer/Schmid 1996: 47). Cog-
nitive models are not universal, but always depend on the culture in which a
person grows up and lives, since the culture provides the background for all the
situations we experience. Cognitive models thus ultimately depend on cultural
13 Halliday/Hasan (cf. 1989: 6–7) state that these terms have originally been coined by
Malinowski (1923).
76
models (cf. Ungerer/Schmid 1996: 50). Consider the following example given by
Ungerer and Schmid (1996: 43):
(38) Right from the start of the race the dogs began chasing the rabbit.
Without reference to any co-text and context, we would rely on our cognitive
category ‘dog’ and would probably think of an Alsatian as a prototypical dog
and a Retriever or a Poodle as being just slightly less prototypical. Considering
our social and cultural context in example (38), however, we are looking for a
dog that is typically associated with dog racing. Our prototypical dog (Alsatian)
would no longer fit here; instead, we would probably think of a dog like a Grey-
hound. Concerning the other members of the category ‘dog’, it would be quite
odd in this context to think of a Poodle as a typical member of the category. We
would now rather think of a Poodle as a peripheral member of the category ‘dog’.
This example demonstrates that the context not only determines the choice of
the category prototype, but that it also leads to an adjustment of the position of
other category members (cf. Ungerer/Schmid 1996: 44).
Ungerer and Schmid state that cultural models are important for the choice
of the basic level perspective (cf. Ungerer/Schmid 1996: 70). Schmid (1993: 74)
states:
Während das Prinzip der Basisebene als universal angesehen werden muß, variiert die
Höhe der Basisebene von Kultur zu Kultur, von Sprecher zu Sprecher je nach Interesse,
Erfahrung und Auseinandersetzung mit dem jeweiligen Bereich.14
According to Schmid (cf. 1993: 74), the concept of the ‘basic level’ is universal,
however, the position of the basic level category is context-dependent.
3.5.3 Categorisation and general noun phrases

3.5.3.1 Introduction
The preceding sections have pointed out that due to the general meaning and
the superordinate nature of general noun phrases,15 these items reflect broad
14 While the principle of the basic level must be considered universal, the height of the
basic level varies considerably from culture to culture, from speaker to speaker depend-
ing on interest, experience and confrontation with the respective area. (Translation
provided by V.B.)
15 It has been critically remarked in Section 2.3 of the present study that Halliday/Hasan
(cf. 1976: 275) tend to simplify the status of general noun phrases when describing
them as superordinate members of lexical sets. Moving away from perfectly con-
structed textbook examples, the present study has shown that the co-text and context
77
cognitive categories. As Rauh (cf. 2002: 260) explains, members of a category
share essential properties or attributes. The general noun phrase people, for ex-
ample, encapsulates different meanings; in cognitive terms, the general noun
phrase people constitutes a very broad category with many category members.
Following Wittgenstein, Anderson et al. (cf. 1976: 667) speak of a “family of po-
tential meanings” and state that the set of criterial properties for a category re-
flected by a general noun phrase shifts from use to use depending on the co-text
and context, so that a property which is distinguishing in one case may be un-
important or even absent in another. The different meanings of people can only
be specified or singled out through reference to its co-text and context in each
single utterance. In particular, only if we take into account modification and ref-
erences within the text and outside the text can we identify what people means in
a specific utterance, or in cognitive terms, which member of the category people
is selected as prototypical. When the general noun phrase head people is speci-
fied through modification and reference, we can say that the members of this
category share less common attributes than the members of the category ‘people’
reflected by a completely unspecific general noun phrase. This aspect will be ex-
plained in more detail in Sections 3.5.3.2 and 3.5.3.3.
Resulting from this process, the present section suggests to describe general
noun phrases as semantically empty containers that are filled with content to
different extents through references to the co-text and context. Rauh (cf. 2002:
260–261) explains that the use of linguistic items (here general noun phrases) in
actual discourse means that we have to take into account their co- and context
and that only then we can determine the degree of extension of a category. In
order to explain what Rauh means with ‘extension of category’, it is necessary
to consider category-internal and category–external structures. In Rosch’s ter-
minology (cf. 1978: 30), the internal structure of categories constitutes the hori-
zontal dimension of categorisation and refers to the segmentation of categories
and category members at one and the same level of inclusion, or in other words,
at the same level of abstraction. The horizontal dimension is concerned with the
distribution of category members and prototypes within one category and refers
to the axis where, for example, different kinds of dogs such as Pekinese, Alsatian
and Poodle are described. The following figure illustrates the horizontal distribu-
tion of category members:
of general noun phrases determine whether they have a general or specific meaning.
Thus, speaking of the superordinate nature of general noun phrases here only considers
de-contextualised general noun phrases.
78
Figure 3.5: Horizontal dimension of categorisation illustrated by the example ‘dog’
core or prototypical
peripheral member peripheral member
member of the
of the category of the category
category
Pekinese Alsatian Greyhound
The external structure of categories refers to the hierarchical distribution of

categories and category members on a vertical axis. The vertical dimension of
categorisation refers to the principle of class inclusion as described by Lyons
(cf. 1977: 156) and explains how categories such as ‘creature’, ‘dog’ and ‘racing
dog’ are distinguished in terms of super- or subordination. Thus, the vertical
dimension refers to levels of abstraction and describes relations of hyponymy.16
The following figure illustrates this:
Figure 3.6: Vertical dimension of categorisation illustrated by the example ‘dog’
abstract category creature
basic level category dog
specific category racing dog
A cognitive approach to general noun phrases considers internal as well as ex-

ternal structure aspects in order to show whether a general noun phrase has a
general or specific meaning in an utterance. Schmid emphasises that both di-
mensions regularly interact in the analysis of language (1993: 44):
16 The vertical dimension of category structure is based on findings of Berlin et al. (1973).
See Section 3.5.1 for a discussion of folk taxonomies as developed by Berlin et al.
79
Eine allgemeine, theoretisch klar fundierte Trennung zwischen intrakategorialen und
interkategorialen [horizontalen und vertikalen] Beziehungen ist nicht sinnvoll, da beide
Aspekte notwendigerweise bedeutsam werden, sobald zwei verschiedene Ebenen taxo-
nomischer Tiefe eingeführt werden.17
A cognitive approach to general noun phrases always includes both, considera-

tions of prototypes (horizontal dimension) and considerations of abstraction
and specification (vertical dimension). See the following figure for a demonstra-
tion of the processes involved in a cognitive analysis of a general noun phrase in
consideration of its co-text and context:
Figure 3.7: Extension of a general noun phrase category dependent on co-text and context
co-text and context of a selection of prototypical

general noun phrase meaning
selection of level of
periphery core periphery
categorisation
prototypical
member
When analysing a general noun phrase, the consideration of its co-text and con-
text is the starting point. Co-text and context add meaning to the general noun
phrase and it is only then that it can be determined whether a general noun
phrase is in fact general in meaning or whether it is specific. On the horizontal
axis, this means that co-text and context determine which meaning of the gen-
eral noun phrase is selected as prototypical in a given utterance. On the vertical
axis, co-text and context determine the degree of specification of the selected
general noun phrase meaning thus determine at which level of abstraction the
general noun phrase category is positioned.
17 A general, theoretically well-founded division of intra-categorial and inter-categorial

[horizontal and vertical] relations is not reasonable because both aspects necessarily
become relevant as soon as two different levels of taxonomic depth are introduced.
(Translation provided by V.B.)
80
3.5.3.2 General noun phrases as “empty containers”
As explained before, we can speak of an “empty container” when a general noun
phrase conveys only very general meaning due to a lack of specification through
the co-text and context. For an illustration, see the following example:
(39) The question at this election is whether people think the choice we made was the
right one and whether we use the power of government to help sustain recovery, or
allow it to be snuffed out. [LM-1-7]
Here, the general noun phrase head people is neither pre- nor postmodified and
there is no reference to any other item in the text. Thus, no specific meaning is
attached to the broad category ‘people’. The only information the decoder gets
for the interpretation of the general noun phrase people is through reference to
the context of the utterance: since the example is taken from the manifesto of the
British Labour Party, they know that the utterance is embedded in the context of
political elections in the UK. Accordingly, people probably refers to British elec-
torate. The category ‘British electorate’ constitutes a very broad category since
its members can be any male or female who is at least 18 years old on polling
day, who is a national of the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland, a Com-
monwealth country or a European Union member state and who has their per-
manent residence in the United Kingdom. Our cultural knowledge tells us that.
Strictly speaking, people could also be any person who thought the choice the
politician speaking in example (39) made was right, so basically any person in
the world who is interested in British politics or has at least heard of the Labour
Party. Given this interpretation, the category ‘people’ is very broad. Whatever
interpretation we support, there is only very little limitation as to the expansion
of the category reflected by the general noun phrase people in example (39).
Thus, in terms of cognitive structuring, it is quite problematic, if not impossible,
to name a prototypical member of such a broad category. The category ‘people’
moves at a rather superordinate and abstract level. See the following figure to
demonstrate this:
81
Figure 3.8: Extension of the general noun phrase category ‘people’ dependent on co-text and
context of example (39)
co-text and context of the selection of prototypical
general noun phrase meaning of this general
people
l noun phrase
h
superordinate level of
categorisation new bborn anyone US
baby interested citizen
in Labour
politics
subordinate level of
categorisation
Since the co-text and context of the general noun phrase do not specify its
meaning, it is hardly possible to single out a specific prototype of the category
‘people’. This leads to an arrangement of the category at a superordinate level of
abstraction.
3.5.3.3 General noun phrases as “full containers”

When a general noun phrase is specified through its co-text and context, for
example through modification and endophoric reference, it is supplied with in-
formation. In cognitive terms, we can speak of a container that is filled with
semantic content. See the following example for a demonstration. Note that only
the first occurrence of the general noun phrase head people is of primary interest:
(40) We, Labour, are the people to carry out this next stage of national renewal of our
values and our understanding of the role of government: to stand by ordinary people
so they can change their lives for the better. [LM-1-1]
The first instance of the general noun phrase head people is part of a complex gen-
eral noun phrase, the meaning of which is further specified through reference.
The general noun phrase head people is postmodified by the infinitive clause to
carry out this next stage of national renewal […]. The postmodification already
gives the information that the general noun phrase refers to politicians because
usually only politicians find themselves in a position in which they are able to
carry out political changes that affect the country, such as the above quoted “na-
tional renewal”. Our world knowledge tells us that. The general noun phrase is
82
further specified through anaphoric reference to “We, Labour, […].”,18 so that
the decoder knows that of all possible people only the members of the Labour
Party are concerned. In terms of category structure, we can say that the co-text
and context selects Labour politician as the prototypical member of the category
‘people’. The category ‘people’, reflected by the general noun phrase the people to
carry out this next stage of national renewal of our values and our understanding of
the role of government: to stand by ordinary people so they can change their lives for
the better is very specific and can therefore be positioned at a subordinate level of
abstraction. See the following figure for an illustration:
Figure 3.9: Extension of the general noun phrase category ‘people’ dependent on co-text and
context of example (40)
co-text and context of the general

noun phrase
p the p
people
p to carryy out
this next stage of national renewal
selection of prototypical
of our values and our
meaning of this general
understanding of the role of
noun phrase
h
government: to stand by ordinary
people so they can change their
lives for the better
superordinate level of
categorisation
g
subordinate level of
g
categorisation new born Labour US
baby politician citizen
Figure 3.9 illustrates the cognitive steps involved in the interpretation of the
complex general noun phrase the people to carry out this next stage of national
renewal of our values and our understanding of the role of government: to stand by
18 The general noun phrase is the subject complement of the clause and anaphorically
refers to its subject “We, Labour, […]”. Note that this type and other types of reference
relevant for the analysis in the present study will be further discussed in Section 6.2.3.
83
ordinary people so they can change their lives for the better from example (40). As
described in this example, the co-text specifies the general noun phrase so that
Labour politician can be identified as the prototypical meaning in the utterance.
The general noun phrase is positioned at a subordinate level of abstraction.
3.6 Summary: A workable definition of general noun phrases

The preceding sections have shown that a description of general noun phrases
within the textlingustic framework of cohesion by Halliday/Hasan (1976) is by
no means sufficient for a comprehensive description of these items because it
fails to consider important micro- and macrolinguistic aspects. The preceding
sections have therefore taken into account different linguistic disciplines for the
description of general noun phrases.
Starting from a grammatical point of view, general noun phrase heads were
defined as common nouns. Ten of the general noun phrase heads investigated
in the present study were defined as concrete count nouns, six were defined as
abstract count nouns, one was defined as concrete noun-count noun and one
was defined as abstract non-count noun (see Table 3.1 in Section 3.2.3). In a
classification of nouns along a scale from specific to general, the general noun
phrase heads investigated in the present study were positioned at a point where
the classes of concrete and abstract count nouns, and concrete and abstract non-
count nouns overlap. This point is located towards the general end of the scale
(see Figure 3.3 in Section 3.2.3). It has been emphasised that this arrangement
only refers to de-contextualised general noun phrase heads which are taken out
of their co-text and context.
With the text-linguistic framework of de Beaugrande and Dressler (1981), gen-
eral noun phrases were described in terms of a user-oriented approach to texts and
communication. Aspects such as intentions of the encoder as well as efficiency
and effectiveness of text-production and communication were considered. It was
shown that general noun phrases can be a helpful tool from the point of view of
the encoder and their intentions concerning the distribution of knowledge and the
attainment of a certain aim. The informational load of an utterance can be strongly
influenced by the use of general noun phrases: either general noun phrases are
very unspecific or they encapsulate a large amount of information. This influences
the degree of effectiveness and efficiency of the text. In a balanced relation, the
encoder is able to gain maximum reward for minimum effort. In an unbalanced
relation, however, there might be a ‘trade-off ’ between propositional density and
clarity of thought (cf. de Beaugrande/Dressler 1981: 64, 170).
84
In line with the text-linguistic approach to general noun phrases was a prag-
matic approach which has shown that general noun phrases have a great in-
fluence on the communicational behaviour which can be explained with the
‘Cooperative Principle’ as formulated by Grice (1975). General noun phrases can
influence the communicational success in that they can be used deliberately to
express vagueness. Vagueness as a linguistic phenomenon has thus been looked
at and it has been stated that vague nouns refer not to single entities but rather
to a class with many members (cf. Goss 1972: 287–288). Thus, general noun
phrases that are used vaguely need conceptual specification through reference to
their co-text and context. Schmid (1993: 183) states:
Für die semantische Interpretation eines solchen “general nouns” […] hat seine Un-
bestimmtheit die Folge, daß Ko- und Kontext zur Fixierung der aktuellen Bedeutung
einen immensen Beitrag leisten.19
This aspect has been further discussed within a cognitive approach to general
noun phrases. Ivanič (cf. 1991: 103) states that general noun phrase heads are se-
mantically rather undefined and that their meaning is not self-contained. From
a cognitive point of view, general noun phrases can be viewed like empty con-
tainers that contain the least amount of substantial meaning, for example the
general noun phrase thing. Only through reference to the co-text and context is
a specific, context-dependent meaning attached to the general noun phrase head
(cf. Ivanič 1991: 95). Then the general noun phrase can be viewed as a full con-
tainer. It has been shown that general noun phrases represent categories which
move at different levels of abstraction depending on the degree of specification of
the general noun phrase. Without modification and without reference to the co-
text and the context, a general noun phrase represents a superordinate category
with members that share an indefinite number of semantic features or attributes.
By contrast, a general noun phrase which is modified and refers to the co-text
and context moves at a less abstract level of categorisation. This can be the ge-
neric or basic level or even a more subordinate level. It has been emphasised that
the level of abstraction of a general noun phrase category and also the selection
of a prototypical meaning of that general noun phrase category varies depending
on the co- and context of the general noun phrase.
19 For the semantic interpretation of such a “general noun” […] the result of its indefi-
niteness is that co- and context make a great contribution to the fixation of the actual
meaning. (Translation provided by V.B.)
85
4. Framework for the analysis of general
noun phrases
Abstract: Chapter 4 presents the corpus-analytical framework, which takes into account
structural and semantic features of general noun phrases. The major tool is a matrix which
cross-tabulates the parameters +/-modification and +/-linkage. The result is a classification
of general noun phrases into four categories ranging from general to specific.
4.1 Combination of structural and semantic parameters of

general noun phrases
The present chapter introduces the framework for the quantitative and qualitative
analysis of general noun phrases in the present study.1 This framework is based
on the insights that have been gained by looking at general noun phrases from
different linguistic perspectives, such as the grammatical, the text-linguistic, the
pragmatic and the cognitive perspective. As an outcome of these approaches, a
major role must be granted to the notions of ‘co-text’ and ‘context’. It has been
shown that the degree of specification of general noun phrases can only be de-
termined through the consideration of these notions: while de-contextualised
general noun phrase heads – general noun phrase heads which are taken out of
their co-text and context – have very little intrinsic meaning, contextualised gen-
eral noun phrases heads – general noun phrase heads which are regarded within
their co-text and context – can carry a great load of semantic information. This
depends on whether they are modified and whether they are linked within the
co-text and context, thus, whether for their interpretation they make reference to
another item in the text or to the situation of the utterance.
For the functional analysis of general noun phrases, the notions of ‘co-text’
and ‘context’ must be operationalised. As explained in Section 2.1.1, the co-
text of a general noun phrase head refers to its linguistic surrounding. It re-
veals whether a general noun phrase head is pre- or postmodified and whether
the general noun phrase refers to another item in the text. The context reveals
1 The qualitative analysis of general noun phrases determines the degree of specification
of general noun phrases and discusses their functions across the different genres and
media in the underlying corpus. Beforehand, the quantitative analysis of general noun
phrases determines the frequencies and distribution of general noun phrases in the
same corpus. For the methods of both analyses, see Chapter 6.
87
whether a general noun phrase refers to situational aspects outside the text for
its interpretation. For the analysis of a general noun phrase, therefore, we rely
on structural parameters and semantic parameters which determine the speci-
fication of general noun phrases. The structural parameters are + modification
and - modification and determine whether the general noun phrase is simple
or complex, thus whether the general noun phrase head is modified or not. The
semantic parameters are + linkage and - linkage and determine whether the gen-
eral noun phrase establishes semantic links within its co-text and to its context.
For the analysis of general noun phrases it is assumed that only the combina-
tion of both parameters, modification and linkage, fully determines the degree of
specification of general noun phrases. Therefore, the major tool for the analysis
of general noun phrases in the present study is a matrix which combines the
presence and absence of the two parameters modification and linkage. This func-
tional matrix will be introduced in detail in Section 4.2.
4.1.1 Structural parameters of general noun phrases:

+/- Modification
As has been explained in Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2, general noun phrase heads
can be part of a simple or complex noun phrase. As part of a complex noun
phrase, general noun phrase heads can take modifiers of different lengths, from
words, to phrases, to clauses. These modifying elements supply the general noun
phrase head with more information and enable us to build up a more detailed
and precise description of it (cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 65). While a non-modified
general noun phrase head is very general in meaning, a pre- or postmodified
general noun phrase head or a pre- and postmodified general noun phrase head
is enriched with meaning and is thus more specific.
4.1.1.1 Non-modified general noun phrase heads: - Modification

As has been explained in Section 3.2.1, we must distinguish simple general noun
phrases from complex general noun phrases. The general noun phrase is simple
when the general noun phrase head occurs alone or when it is preceded by de-
terminers (cf. Biber et al. 1999: 230). Simple general noun phrases are semanti-
cally not specified and therefore have a very general meaning. See the following
example:
(1) Yvette Cooper: The right hon. Lady said last week […]. Safeguarding children is too
important to have such loopholes. I urge her to listen to experts and think again.
[D5-5-13]
88
In example (1), the general noun phrase head children is neither premodified
nor postmodified. Therefore, children constitutes a simple general noun phrase.
Moreover, the general noun phrase head is not preceded by any determiners,
which means that the general noun phrase consists only of the head. Since the
general noun phrase head children is not modified, it is semantically very un-
specific and refers to a very broad category. It must therefore be assumed that in
example (1), children refers to all children in general, regardless of parameters
such as sex, age, and origin.
See another example which shows the use of a simple general noun phrase:
(2) The periods of four years retained in respect of both building operations and change
of use to use as a dwelling house clearly reflect the legislator’s view that this would
give adequate opportunity for enforcement steps, after the expiry of which the in-
fringer would be entitled to repose and to arrange his affairs on the basis of the
status quo. [J7-13-1]
In example (2), the general noun phrase his affairs is considered simple, because
the general noun phrase head affairs is not modified. It is only preceded by the
possessive determiner his. Semantically, the general noun phrase is very unspe-
cific and it is not clear to the decoder what exactly is meant by his affairs. Note
that through reference to the co-text and context of the utterance, in particular
through association with utterances like ‘change of use to use of a dwelling house’
and ‘to repose and to arrange his affairs on the basis of the status quo’, the de-
coder can assume that his affairs refers to things that have been changed at or in
the house. This, however, includes semantic parameters of linkage which will be
discussed in Section 4.1.2.
4.1.1.2 Modified general noun phrase heads: + Modification

As has been explained in Section 3.2.2, modification of general noun phrase
heads comprises all the items placed before the head other than determiners and
all the items placed after the head. It has been explained that modifiers give more
information and specification to the head. They denote or rather specify proper-
ties of noun phrase heads in that they give additional information which serves
to enrich the semantic content of the head (cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 65, 1239). The
following examples demonstrate how pre- and postmodification and a combina-
tion of both specify a general noun phrase head:
(3) We will also reform Access to Work, so disabled people can apply for jobs with fund-
ing already in place for equipment and adaptation that they need. [LDM-1-29]
89
In example (3), the general noun phrase head people is premodified by the past
participle disabled. The premodifier specifies the general noun phrase head so
that the decoder understands that disabled people refers to a certain group of
people with certain characteristics.
(4) And we will give the people who work in our public services much greater responsi-
bility. [CM-1-13]
In example (4), the general noun phrase head people is postmodified by the rela-
tive clause who work in our public services. The relative clause specifies the gen-
eral noun phrase head and supplies it with essential information. It has been
explained in Section 3.2.2 that postmodifiers are generally more explicit than
premodifiers and that relative clauses in particular are most explicit (cf. Quirk
et al. 1985: 1243, 1321; Jackson 1980: 69). In line with this, we can see that the
postmodifying relative clause in example (4) gives more semantic specification to
the general noun phrase head than the premodifying past participle in example
(3). While in example (3) we only know that disabled people refers to a relatively
broad sub-category of people, in example (4) we know that the people who work
in our public services refers to a rather specific category of British people working
in specific positions.
(5) 200,000 jobs through the Future Jobs Fund, with a job or training place for young
people who are out of work for six months, […]. [LM-1-144]
In example (5), the general noun phrase head people is premodified by the ad-
jective young and postmodified by the relative clause who are out of work for six
month. Similar to example (4), the general noun phrase head in example (5) is
postmodified by the most explicit type of postmodification. The relative clause
supplies the head noun people with specific information concerning their mo-
mentary work condition. The premodifying adjective supplies the head noun
people with additional information concerning the parameter age so that the
whole general noun phrase young people who are out of work for six months refers
to a rather specific category of people.
Examples (3)-(5) illustrate an increase in the degree of specification of the
general noun phrases in italic. In cognitive terms this means that the category
represented by the general noun phrase disabled people is rather broad and has
many possible members. It moves at a rather abstract level. The category repre-
sented by the general noun phrase the people who work in our public services is
more specific and therefore has less possible members. Accordingly, it moves at
a less abstract level. The category represented by the general noun phrase young
people who are out of work for six months is the most specific category of the three
90
and therefore has the least possible members. It moves at the least abstract level
of the three.
4.1.2 Semantic parameters of general noun phrases: +/- Linkage

Besides structural parameters of modification, the specification of general noun
phrases also depends on semantic parameters such as endophoric reference and
exophoric reference to the context of the situation. Section 2.1.2 discussed the
concept of endophoric reference as formulated by Halliday/Hasan (1976). Ac-
cordingly, endophoric reference has been described as a process that links two or
more items in a text so that instead of being interpreted semantically in its own
right, a linguistic item makes reference to other linguistic elements in the text
for its interpretation (cf. Halliday/Hasan 1976: 31). For the full interpretation
of a linguistic item, for example a general noun phrase, the decoder also makes
reference to the extra-linguistic context of the utterance. Esser (cf. 2009: 137)
explains that in order to interpret a linguistic item (here a general noun phrase)
a text decoder then draws on previous knowledge (textual or of the world) for a
proper understanding of the utterance.
As has been explained in Section 4.1, the parameters modification and linkage
must be operationalised for the analysis of general noun phrases. Concerning
the parameter modification, this can be done without any problems as it is objec-
tively identifiable whether a general noun phrase head is modified or not. Con-
cerning the parameter linkage, this is more problematic. It can be determined
quite clearly whether a general noun phrase is linked within its co-text in terms
of endophoric reference or not because endophoric reference is detected on the
text surface. However, it cannot be clearly determined whether a general noun
phrase is linked to the textual or situational context of an utterance. The decoder
surely considers factors such as their textual knowledge, their world knowledge
and the situation of utterance for their interpretation of a general noun phrase.
However, it is not objectively measurable whether this is the case or to what
extent this is the case because the text-external factors that are included in the
interpretation of a general noun phrase vary from decoder to decoder and are
thus not objectively measurable. Therefore, the parameter linkage in the func-
tional matrix for the analysis of general noun phrases only includes the presence
and absence of endophoric reference. It should be born in mind, nonetheless,
that reference to the decoder’s textual knowledge, their world knowledge and
to the situational context of an utterance always plays an important role in the
interpretation of a general noun phrase.
91
4.1.2.1 Non-linked general noun phrases: - Linkage
When speaking of non-linked general noun phrases we speak of general noun
phrases that are semantically not linked through endophoric reference within
their co-text. These general noun phrases are not specified and, depending on
whether they have already been supplied with information through modifica-
tion, are very or at least rather unspecific. Consider the following example taken
from the Conservative manifesto:
(6) We have the energy, the ideas and the ambition to get Britain back on track. And that
includes everyone in Britain, wherever they live and whatever their circumstances.
[…] We can bring about the change Britain needs. [CM-18-1]
In example (6), the general noun phrase the ideas to get Britain back on track is
not specified through endophoric reference. Neither the preceding nor the fol-
lowing co-text specifies what exactly the Conservative’s ideas are. Note that for
reasons of space the above example cannot provide the wider co-text of the utter-
ance. The postmodifying infinitive clause to get Britain back on track supplies the
general noun phrase head with additional information which, however, does not
specify what the ideas exactly are. A party manifesto gives politicians the oppor-
tunity to introduce to their electorate their political concerns and aims. In such
a context it would be of particular importance to address and name the party’s
ideas clearly, but this is not the case in the above example of the Conservative
manifesto. Instead, the general noun phrase the ideas to get Britain back on track
does by no means refer to any other item or passage of text in the preceding or
following text which helps to identify the Conservative’s ideas. See another ex-
ample taken from a House of Common’s debate:
(7) The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles):
The government have published proposals to allow local retention of business rates
and are seeking views by 24 October. The plans give councils a strong financial in-
ventive to drive economic growth, as well as providing protections for places in need
of additional support. [D8-16-1]
The general noun phrase places in need of additional support is not linked within
its co-text through anaphoric or cataphoric reference. Note that due to reasons
of space, the wider co-text of the utterance cannot be presented here. An indica-
tion for the fact that the general noun phrase is not linked through endophor-
ic reference is the missing definite article, which according to Halliday/Hasan
(cf. 1976: 275) is an indicator for endophoric reference. The general noun phrase
head places is postmodified by the prepositional phrase in need of additional sup-
port which specifies that the general noun phrase refers to a sub-category of the
92
category places. However, there is no further specification through reference on
the text surface. Only through textual hints can the decoder identify that places
in need of additional support probably refers to businesses. However, this is not
a criterion for the analysis of general noun phrases in the present study which is
why the general noun phrase in example (7) is considered not linked.
4.1.2.2 Linked general noun phrases: + Linkage

When a general noun phrase is semantically linked within its co-text, it ana-
phorically or cataphorically refers to another item or a passage of text. This way,
the decoder identifies the information they need for their interpretation of the
general noun phrase. See the following example taken from the manifesto of the
Liberal Democrats:
(8) Only Liberal Democrats have the big ideas for fundamental, structural changes in the
way our country works to make it fair. Only Liberal Democrats will shake up the tax
system to put 700 back in the pockets of tens of millions of low and middle-income
families, […]. Only Liberal Democrats will break up the banks and start Britain
building things again, creating a sustainable economy that no longer threatens our
planet’s future. Only Liberal Democrats will invest in our schools to give every child,
no matter their background, a fair start in life. And only Liberal Democrats will sort
out our rotten political system once and for all. [LDM-18-1]
In the above example, the general noun phrase head ideas is premodified by
the adjective big and postmodified by the prepositional phrase for fundamen-
tal, structural changes in the way our country works and the infinitive clause to
make it fair. Through multiple modification, the general noun phrase head is
already supplied with specific information. Moreover, the general noun phrase
is specified through cataphoric reference to the underlined passage of text which
outlines the Liberal Democrat’s ideas. The general noun phrase the big ideas for
fundamental, structural changes in the way our country works to make it fair re-
fers to improvements in the tax system, the economy and education. The above
example illustrates that general noun phrases are in fact not necessarily general
in meaning but can be quite specific. See another example for such a specific
general noun phrase:
(9) Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab.): […] What steps are the Ministry of
Defence and the Secretary of State taking to ensure that when former British mili-
tary personnel lay their lives on the line, like their currently serving colleagues, the
terms, conditions and welfare of those very brave men and women are looked into
and they are looked after and taken care of? [D2-3-1], [D2-4-6]
93
In example (9), the general noun phrase heads men and women are premodi-
fied by the adjective phrase very brave. Both general noun phrases are specified
through anaphoric reference to the noun phrases former British military per-
sonnel and their currently serving colleagues. The demonstrative pronoun those
which is part of the general noun phrases clearly points to the reference items,
the two preceding noun phrases which are underlined. Through the anaphoric
reference, the general noun phrases are specified and it becomes clear who those
very brave men and women are.
For a demonstration of another specific general noun phrase, see the follow-
ing example taken from a Supreme Court judgment:
(10) One other matter should be mentioned at this stage. […], the Secretary of State
in December 2010 published the Localism Bill which, if enacted, will by section
104 amend the 1990 Act by inserting three new subsections […] expressly to deal
with issues of concealment. […], I would observe only, first, that their proposed
inclusion in the legislation surely indicates that […]; secondly that, pending the
proposed statutory amendments, only truly egregious cases such as this very one
[…] should be regarded as subject to the Connor principle. [J7-14-10]
In example (10), the general noun phrase one other matter cataphorically refers
to the following passage of text that is underlined. This passage of text elaborates
what that one other matter is and gives detailed information which specifies the
general noun phrase. Ivanič (cf. 1991: 104) states that general noun phrases can
encapsulate meaning which is exposed in the following sentences. In that way,
general nouns can function as signals for the organisation of the discourse. This
is the case in the above example (10). The general noun phrase one other mat-
ter announces what follows and serves as an umbrella term for the explanations
marked by underlining.
4.2 Functional matrix for the analysis of general noun phrases

As has been explained at the beginning of Section 4.1, the degree of specifica-
tion of general noun phrases can only be determined when both parameters,
modification and linkage, are taken into account. Therefore, the basic tool for
the analysis of general noun phrases is a functional matrix which combines the
two parameters modification and linkage, or rather the absence and presence of
these two parameters. See Figure 4.1, which presents the functional matrix for
the analysis of general noun phrases in the present study:
94
Figure 4.1: The functional matrix for the analysis of general noun phrases
specification
+ linkage
+ modification – modification
– liinkage
generalisation
With the functional matrix, the general noun phrases that are investigated in the
present study (cf. Halliday/Hasan 1976: 274) will be classified based on the four
parameters + modification, - modification, + linkage, and - linkage. As presented
in Sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2, these parameters determine whether a general noun
phrase is used in its very general sense or in a more specific sense. The combina-
tion of these four parameters result in four categories of specification: The first
category, which will be called the ‘most specific’ category, is characterised by the
parameters + modification and + linkage. The second category, which will be
called the ‘rather specific’ category, is characterised by the parameters - modi-
fication and + linkage. The third category, which will be called the ‘less specific’
category, is characterised by the parameters + modification and - linkage, and the
fourth category, which will be called the ‘least specific’ category, is character-
ised by the parameters - modification and - linkage. Figure 4.1 shows that as we
move from top left to bottom right we speak of generalisation and as we move
from bottom right to top left we speak of specification. In other words, when
we speak of generalisation, we move from the ‘most specific’ category of general
noun phrases to the ‘least specific’ category of general noun phrases and vice
versa when we speak of specification. See the following figure for an illustration:
95
Figure 4.2: Generalisation and specification illustrated with the functional matrix for the
analysis of general noun phrases
generalisation specification
+ linkage
+ linkage
‘most specific’ ‘rather specific’ ‘most specific’ ‘rather specific’
+ modification – modification + modification – modification

– linkagee
– linkagee
‘less specific’ ‘least specific’ ‘less specific’ ‘least specific’
As we can see in Figure 4.2, it is assumed that the parameter linkage has more in-
fluence on the degree of specification of a general noun phrase than the param-
eter modification. This explains why a general noun phrase which is not modified
but linked within its co-text is considered ‘rather specific’ while a general noun
phrase which is modified but not linked within its co-text is considered ‘less
specific’. See the following examples to demonstrate this:
(11) Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con): Is the Prime Minister aware of the
case of my constituent Mr Edmond Arapi, who is facing extradition to Italy, having
been tried in his absence? Will my right hon. Friend look into the matter urgently
and accelerate the review of extradition cases […]? [D1-14-4]
(12) Dr Fox: We have repeatedly made it clear that we believe that having an independ-
ent nuclear deterrent is a vital part of the United Kingdom’s sovereign capability,
[…]. Where we can co-operate on technical matters with the French, […], it would
make sense to do so. [D2-14-3]
The general noun phrase the matter in example (11) is specified not through
modification but through anaphoric reference to the preceding complex noun
phrase the case of my constituent Mr Edmond Arapi, who is facing extradition
to Italy, having been tried in his absence. The simple general noun phrase is in-
terpreted in reference to the preceding noun phrase (marked by underlining).
That way, the general noun phrase is filled with meaning, which makes it rather
specific. By contrast, the general noun phrase technical matters in example (12) is
96
less specific. Although the general noun phrase is complex because it is modified
by the adjective technical, it does not refer to any other item in the co-text for its
interpretation. Therefore, the general noun phrase technical matters is not speci-
fied any further and refers to a rather broad category.
The functional matrix for the analysis of general noun phrases is a basic tool
for a broad classification of these items into four categories of specification.
Section 3.2.2 has explained that there is an increase of explicitness from pre-
modification to postmodification and more particularly from phrases to non-
finite clauses to finite clauses (cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 1243, 1321; Jackson 1980: 69).
Therefore, the qualitative analysis of general noun phrases will also distinguish
the different types of modifier within a general noun phrase. Similar to the dis-
tinction of different types of modification, there are different types of semantic
links between general noun phrases and other items in the co-text. A general
noun phrase can, for example, refer to a preceding noun phrase or to a larger
stretch of text. Therefore, the qualitative analysis of general noun phrases will
also distinguish different types of endophoric reference. This leads to a finer sub-
division of general noun phrases within the ‘most specific’, ‘rather specific’, ‘less
specific’ and ‘least specific’ category (see Sections 7.2.1-7.2.4).
4.3 The scale of specification

Sections 4.1 and 4.2 have shown so far that the degree of specification expressed
by a general noun phrase is dependent on modification and endophoric refer-
ence. A general noun phrase such as thing or matter, which is used without any
specification such as modification or endophoric reference, is lexically super-
ordinate and constitutes a semantically broad category. We can say that in such
cases, general noun phrases live up to their name and are indeed very general in
meaning. However, other examples have shown that general noun phrases also
occur in utterances where they are specified through modification and endo-
phoric reference and are thus very specific. Such general noun phrases are less
abstract than the superordinate general noun phrases referred to above.
As has been explained in Section 4.2, the two uses of general noun phras-
es described above do not constitute the only possible ways for general noun
phrases to function in texts. They rather constitute two poles on a continuum
or scale on which general noun phrases range from ‘most specific’, to ‘rather
specific’, to ‘less specific’, to ‘least specific’. Therefore, the use of general noun
phrases can be described along a scale of specification. The following figure il-
lustrates this scale:
97
Figure 4.3: The scale of specification
general
on
abstractio
a
instan
ntiation
specific
Figure 4.3 shows the scale of specification, a de-contextualised concept which

can be implemented to describe general noun phrases in naturally occurring
language data, thus contextualised general noun phrases. At first glance, the con-
cept illustrated in Figure 4.3 corresponds to the concepts illustrated in Table 3.2
(Section 3.5.1) and Figure 3.6 (Section 3.5.3.1). However, the terms general and
specific illustrated in Figure 4.3 do not directly correspond to the terms unique
beginners and species used in Table 3.2 or abstract category and specific category
illustrated in Figure 3.6. Those terms used in Table 3.2 and Figure 3.6 denote
abstract, scientific classes which are defined by a de-contextualised description
of features. By contrast, the terms general and specific in Figure 4.3 refer to the
degree of specification of contextualised general noun phrases. This degree of
specification can only be determined through the co-text and context of a gen-
eral noun, in particular through the parameters modification and linkage. This
has been illustrated in Figures 3.8 (Section 3.5.3.2) and 3.9 (Section 3.5.3.3).
Figure 4.3 introduces the terms instantiation and abstraction which can be
used to describe the interpretation of general noun phrases. When for the in-
terpretation of general noun phrases their co-text and context is taken into
account, general noun phrases are typically encoded on the basis of an instantia-
tion (cf. Anderson et al. 1976: 667). Instantiation then refers to the process of
selecting one of the particular meanings encapsulated in a general noun phrase
(cf. Anderson et al. 1976: 668). In other words, instantiation here refers to a sin-
gle realisation of a general noun phrase in an utterance. Instantiation, indicated
by the left arrow that reaches from general to specific, is guided by the co-text
and context of an utterance. Anderson (1976: 673) nicely illustrates this with the
98
following example: “Without context, a robin may be ideally bird-like, but at the
Thanksgiving table a robin is not the best instantiation of bird.”
If we apply this to the use of general noun phrases this means that, without
reference to the co-text and context, people could be instantiated, for example, by
German citizens while this would not be the best instantiation of people in the La-
bour manifesto, the Conservative manifesto or the Liberal Democrat manifesto.
Here, people would probably be instantiated by British citizens.
In contrast to the process of instantiation stands the process of abstraction,
indicated by the right arrow that reaches from specific to general. Abstraction
means that due to a lack of specification through the co-text and context, none
of the encapsulated meanings of a general noun phrase is selected so that the
general noun phrase remains unspecific.
4.4 General assumptions for the analysis of general

noun phrases
Partington (1998) remarks that the literature on general noun phrases is scant
and that they have undoubtedly not received the attention they deserve. He criti-
cises that general noun phrases are not mentioned in classic reference works
such as Quirk et al. (1985), and states that even Halliday/Hasan (1976, 1989)
themselves do not owe them much attention in their later works (cf. Partington
1998: 90). If general noun phrases are discussed, the discussion is very often
based on perfect textbook examples which do not reveal much about their oc-
curring in actual language data. To the best of my knowledge, Mahlberg (2005)
was the first to conduct a comprehensive corpus study of general noun phrases.2
In a similar way, the present study wants to show how general noun phrases
are used in authentic language data and how their meaning and their functions
become observable through that use. Thus, the very fact that the investigation
of general noun phrases and their functions is based on authentic language data
can be described in terms of the first assumption underlying the analysis in the
present study:
1. General noun phrases are used in naturally occurring language data.
Halliday/Hasan (cf. 1976: 275) state that general noun phrases are superordinate
members of major lexical sets and are therefore general in meaning. Based upon
2 Note that Partington (1998) has also based his work on corpus linguistic methods;
however, in his work Patterns and Meanings (1998) only a small section deals with
general noun phrases.
99
this statement, the present study assumes that the frequency of general noun
phrases in a text influences the degree of specification of that text. While a high
frequency of general noun phrases is an indication for a high degree of general-
ity of a text, a low frequency of general noun phrases is an indication for a high
degree of specification of a text. Provided that, it is assumed that the frequency of
general noun phrase heads differs depending on the genre. Genres that are typi-
cally characterised as having a high degree of precision are genres from the legal
domain (cf. Tiersma 1999: 71). And genres that are typically associated with a
low degree of precision or in other words a high degree of generality are genres
from the political domain (cf. Gruber 1993: 1, Obeng 1997: 49). Politicians are
interested in promoting their ideas and thus try to convince and persuade their
audience (cf. Håkansson 1997: 82, 85). They tend to avoid explicit statements and
make general promises (see Section 3.4.1 and Section 3.4.2.2 for the use of general
noun phrases in political language). A genre that is also typically associated with
a high degree of generality is conversation. As will be explained in Sections 5.2.4
and 5.3.2.2, conversation typically takes place in face-to-face interaction with oth-
ers and is thus characterised by shared contexts of the conversation partners (cf.
Esser 2009: 36). Since the meaning of utterances can be reconstructed through the
shared contexts, conversation tends to avoid lexical and syntactic elaboration or
specification of meaning (cf. Biber et al. 1999: 1044). Considering these aspects,
the second assumption for the analysis of general noun phrases in the present
study is as follows:
2. Judgments have a low frequency of general noun phrases, manifestos and debates
have a high frequency of general noun phrases and conversation has the highest fre-
quency of general noun phrases. This indicates that legal language has a high degree
of precision or specification, political language has a high degree of generality and
conversation has the highest degree of generality.
Besides a genre-based difference concerning the frequency of general noun

phrases, the present study also assumes that the frequency of general noun
phrases differs in the spoken and the written medium. This assumption was
developed on the basis of the study of spoken and written language by Miller/
Weinert (1998) who conclude that spoken language is characterised by the sim-
plicity of noun phrases in comparison with the complexity of noun phrases that
occur in written language, particularly in the language of formal written texts
(cf. Miller/Weinert 1998: 135). The simplicity of noun phrases in the spoken
medium is closely related to the avoidance of lexical and syntactic elaboration in
that medium (cf. Biber et al. 1999: 1044). This is also assumed to be related to a
frequent use of general noun phrases which are characterised as unspecific and
100
general in meaning. In contrast, written language is assumed to be characterised
by a lower frequency of general noun phrases. See therefore the following as-
sumption:
3. Spoken language is assumed to show a higher frequency of general noun phrases
than written language.
Considering the genre- and medium-dependent aspects determining the fre-

quency of general noun phrases, the four sub-corpora of the present study can
be presented along the scale of specification. The result is an arrangement from
general texts with a high frequency of general noun phrases to specific texts with
a low frequency of general noun phrases. Bearing in mind genre- and medium-
specific criteria as explained above, the four sub-corpora are assumed to be ar-
ranged on the scale of specification as illustrated in the following figure:3
Figure 4.4: The assumed arrangement of the four sub-corpora on the scale of specification
(depending on frequency)
general
high
g frequency
q y of ggeneral noun
phrases
Conversation corpus
D b corpus
Debate
Manifesto corpus
Judgment corpus
low frequency of general noun

phrases
specific
p
3 Figure 4.4 presents the four sub-corpora of the present study along the scale of speci-
fication. Sections 5.1 and 5.3 present in detail the compilation of the corpus data for
these four sub-corpora (cf. Tables 5.1–5.5).
101
Note that the terms general and specific in Figure 4.4 must be restricted: while the
frequency of general noun phrases is only a first indication of the generality and
specification of the corpus texts, it is, in particular, the parameters modification
and linkage which determine the generality and specification of the general noun
phrases, and thus of the corpus texts.
The arrangement of the four sub-corpora on the scale of specification as illus-
trated in Figure 4.4 can be formulated in terms of the fourth assumption which
states:
4. The conversation corpus, the debate corpus, the manifesto corpus and the judgment
corpus can be arranged on the scale of specification from general to specific. In the
stated order the frequency of general noun phrases and thus the degree of generality
is assumed to decrease.
Assumption four shows that the frequency of general noun phrases is assumed
to be first and foremost dependent on the medium. This is why the two spoken
corpora are positioned at the general end of the scale. An assumed genre-based
difference in the frequency of general noun phrase heads can be seen in the po-
sitioning of the conversation corpus at the very general end of the scale followed
by the debate corpus, the manifesto corpus and the judgment corpus, which is
positioned at the very specific end of the scale.
The frequency of general noun phrases is dealt with in the quantitative analy-
sis of the present study in Section 7.1, whereas the form and function of general
noun phrases are dealt with in the qualitative analysis of the present study in
Section 7.2. Concerning the form of general noun phrases, Section 4.1.1 has ex-
plained that general noun phrase heads can be modified or not modified. While
non-modified general noun phrases are indeed rather general in meaning,
modified general noun phrase heads can be rather specific. Therefore, a general
noun phrase is not necessarily general in meaning but its degree of specification
depends on its form, more precisely, whether it is modified or not. Section 4.1.2
has explained that the degree of specification of general noun phrases is more-
over dependent on whether they are endophorically linked within the co-text or
whether they are endophorically not linked. Non-linked general noun phrases
are rather general in meaning while linked general noun phrases can be rather
specific. Section 4.2 has shown that it is the correlation of the two parameters
modification and linkage that fully determines the degree of specification of a
general noun phrase. While a general noun phrase without modification and
endophoric reference is in fact very general in meaning, a general noun phrase
with modification and endophoric reference is quite specific. In reference to
what has been said before about the degree of specification in the different
102
genres and media in the corpus of the present study, this leads us to the follow-
ing assumptions:
5. Judgments have a low frequency of simple general noun phrases without endophoric
reference, manifestos and debates have a high frequency of simple general noun
phrases without endophoric reference, and conversation has the highest frequency
of simple general noun phrases without endophoric reference.
6. Judgments have a high frequency of complex general noun phrases with endophoric
reference, manifestos and debates have a low frequency of complex general noun
phrases with endophoric reference, and conversation has the lowest frequency of
complex general noun phrases with endophoric reference.
7. Spoken language has a higher frequency of simple general noun phrases without
endophoric reference than written language and written language has a higher fre-
quency of complex general noun phrases with endophoric reference than spoken
language.
Concerning the degree of specification of general noun phrases used in the four
sub-corpora, the arrangement on the scale of specification corresponds to the
arrangement explained in Figure 4.4 above. See the following figure:
Figure 4.5: The assumed arrangement of the sub-corpora on the scale of specification
(depending on modification and linkage)
general
simple general noun phrase structure
[– modification], no endophoric
reference [– linkage]
Conversation corpus
D b t corpus
Debate
Manifesto corpus
Judgment corpus
complex general no
noun n phrase
structure [+ modification],
endophoric reference [+ linkage]
specific
103
Figure 4.5 shows the arrangement of the four sub-corpora on the scale of speci-
fication concerning the presence and absence of the parameters +/- modification
and +/- linkage of general noun phrases in the four sub-corpora. The conversa-
tion corpus is assumed to be positioned at the very general end of the scale, which
means it is assumed to have a high frequency of simple general noun phrases
without linkage. The debate corpus and the manifesto corpus follow. The judg-
ment corpus is assumed to be positioned at the very specific end of the scale with
a high frequency of complex general noun phrases with endophoric reference.
104
5. Corpus compilation
Abstract: The corpus, which was compiled for the present study, includes spoken and writ-
ten texts from four genres: Supreme Court judgments, political manifestos, parliamentary
debates, and general conversations. Chapter 5 describes features of written and spoken lan-
guage as well as the sampled domains (legal language, political language and conversation).
5.1 The corpus-linguistic approach of the present study

The analysis of general noun phrases conducted in the present study emphasises
language use and is thus based on naturally occurring language data. As has
been critically remarked in Section 2.3, the description of general noun phrases
in Halliday/Hasan (1976) builds on well-formed sentences and textbook exam-
ples – the plausibility and likelihood of which are called into question. Therefore,
the goal of the present study is a functional description of general noun phrases
based on authentic and genuine instances of language use which is not guided by
what is theoretically possible, but which is concerned with what is likely to occur.
The analysis of general noun phrases in the present study is based on a cor-
pus of written and spoken language consisting of texts from different genres
and media. The analysis is ‘corpus-based’, which means that the underlying cor-
pus is used to “expound, test or exemplify theories and descriptions that were
formulated before” (Tognini-Bonelli 2001: 65). The framework for the analysis
of general noun phrases (cf. Sections 4.1–4.3) and the assumptions concern-
ing the functions of general noun phrases across different genres and media
(cf. Section 4.4) will be tested against the underlying corpus of the present study.
For this purpose, a corpus consisting of four smaller sub-corpora was com-
piled. The judgment corpus consists of eight British Supreme Court judgments;
the manifesto corpus consists of the manifestos of the Labour Party, the Con-
servative Party and the Liberal Democrat Party; the debate corpus consists of
eight parliamentary debates of the British House of Commons; and the conver-
sation corpus consists of three everyday conversations taken from the spoken
section of the British National Corpus (BNC). These four sub-corpora represent
four different genres and two media. See the following table for an overview of
the corpus of the present study:
105
Table 5.1: The corpus of the present study
Corpus compilation
Domains Genres Sub-corpora Medium
Legal language Supreme Court judgments Judgment corpus
written
Political manifestos Manifesto corpus
Political language
Parliamentary debates Debate corpus
spoken
Conversation General conversation Conversation corpus
Certain aspects of corpus design were considered for the compilation of the
corpus so that it can serve the purpose of the analysis in the present study. At
first, aspects of representativeness, corpus size and balance were considered. The
question of corpus representativeness is problematic. While it is sometimes ar-
gued that corpora should be as large as possible (cf. Sinclair 1991: 18), corpus
size is not a reliable proof for representativeness since any corpus, however large,
is by definition finite and will thus never be able to capture the infinite resources
of language (cf. Lipka 1972: 155). Corpus representativeness is closely associated
with sampling. Given that natural language cannot be described exhaustively,
sampling is unavoidable to achieve a representativeness which matches the re-
search questions (cf. McEnery et al. 2006: 19). However, sampling cannot solve
the problem of representativeness. Kennedy (cf. 1998: 62) states that corpus rep-
resentativeness always remains a question of achieving the ideal. He points out
that the notion of representativeness is, in the final analysis, a matter of judgment
and can only be approximate.
The sampling of the texts in the corpus of the present study was based on the
general assumptions concerning the use of general noun phrases across different
genres and media (cf. Section 4.4). In order to test whether the use of general
noun phrases is dependent on the medium, written and spoken texts were com-
piled for the corpus. In order to test whether the use of general noun phrases
depends on the genre, texts from different genres were compiled for the corpus.
And finally, in order to test whether the use of general noun phrases correlates
with the degree of precision and generality of a text, and with communicative
aspects such as the intention of the encoder, texts from the domains of legal
language, political language and conversation were compiled for the corpus of
the present study.
For the purpose of the analysis in the present study, the sections of the corpus
were equally weighted, which means that the four sub-corpora roughly have the
same size and are composed of equal parts of spoken and written texts. Given
the fact that the corpus used for the present study represents four genres, namely
106
judgment, manifesto, debate and conversation, it can be defined as a specialised
corpus.
Another important aspect of corpus compilation is the corpus mark-up, a
system of standard codes inserted into a document stored in electronic form
to provide information about the text itself and govern processes such as for-
matting (cf. McEnery et al. 2006: 22). This information includes text features
such as line breaks, line numbers, word breaks and boundaries, and hesitations
(cf. Kennedy 1998: 82). This form of coding is included in the conversation cor-
pus of the present study which is extracted from sections of the spoken British
National Corpus (BNC).
5.2 Medium-, domain- and genre-specific features

of the corpus data
5.2.1 Some features of spoken and written language
The study of spoken and written language has a long history that goes back to
the ancient Greek Aristotelian rhetoric. Since the middle of the twentieth cen-
tury, linguists and anthropologists have attempted to define the similarities and
differences between spoken and written language (cf. Roberts/Street 1997: 168).
However, very often the terms spoken language and written language are used to
describe several distinct phenomena. In this context, Esser (cf. 2006: 24) points
to the polysemy of these notions, which is threefold: firstly, the terms spoken
language and written language refer to the medium in which language-signals
are realised. While spoken language is transmitted via sound waves, written lan-
guage is transmitted via graphic marks (cf. Schäpers 2009: 3). Esser (cf. 2006: 24)
refers to this difference in the substance of encoding with the terms phonic and
graphic patterns of word forms. Note that the differences in realisation include
medium-dependent devices, such as stress and intonation in spoken language,
and punctuation in written language (cf. Schäpers 2009: 3). Secondly, the terms
spoken language and written language point to the origin of the first encoding.
Texts that have their origin in speech, such as conversations, must be distin-
guished from texts that are only presented in their spoken realisation but have
their origin in writing, such as judgments (cf. Esser 2006: 24). Thirdly, the terms
spoken language and written language entail a distinction of the underlying ab-
stract grammatical and lexical forms, thus, the medium-independent grammati-
cal and lexical word forms that can be transferred from the spoken to the written
medium and vice versa (cf. Schäpers 2009: 5). In this context, Esser (1984: 1)
points out a major aspect:
107
Für die Klärung des Begriffs ‘gesprochenes Englisch’ ist wichtig, daß die Unterschie-
de ‘gesprochen’/’geschrieben’ nicht nur auf einen Substanzunterschied (phonisch/gra-
phisch), sondern auch auf einen (stilistischen) Formunterschied zu beziehen ist.1
This statement points to a structural and a stylistic level of distinction between

spoken and written language concerning, for example, the degree of complexity,
as investigated by Halliday (1987) and later by Schäpers (2009). The degree of
complexity of spoken or written language can be manifested in different realisa-
tions in the two media concerning the different structural levels of phrases and
clauses. Accordingly, Miller and Weinert (1998: 4–5) point out: the terms ‘spo-
ken language’ and ‘written language’ […] relate to partially different systems of
morphology, syntax, vocabulary, and the organisation of texts.
Each code, the spoken and the written code, shows different degrees of com-
plexity on the level of phrases and sentences (cf. Schäpers 2009: 8). For the pur-
pose of the present study, the level of phrases (namely the level of general noun
phrases) is of particular importance.
Schäpers’ study of nominal and clausal complexity in spoken and written lan-
guage (2009) builds on Halliday’s assumption that written language and spoken
language show different degrees of complexity on different levels (cf. 1987: 71):
while writing assumingly shows a high degree of complexity on the level of
phrases, spoken language assumingly shows a high degree of complexity on the
level of clauses. Thus, writing seems to be characterised by having more lexical
items per clause but fewer clauses. Spoken language seems to be characterised by
having more clauses within a clause complex but fewer lexical items per clause.
This goes in line with Chafe (cf. 1982: 37–39) who states that differences in spo-
ken and written language can be attributed to differences in the process of speak-
ing and writing. Accordingly, the slow pace of writing allows for an integration
of complex ‘idea units’2 (and thus complex phrases within few clauses), while
the rapid pace of spoken language leads to a fragmentation which shows up in
a stringing together of smaller idea units (simple phrases within many clauses).
Speaking about distributional differences in the complexity of noun phras-
es, Schäpers (2009) refers to Miller and Weinert (1998) who analysed complex
noun phrases in the spoken and the written medium. The overall conclusion that
Miller and Weinert draw from their data is that spontaneous spoken language
1 It is important for the clarification of the term ‘spoken English’ that the difference
‘spoken’/’written’ is not only to be referred to a difference in substance (phonic/graphic)
but also to a difference in form (stylistic). (Translation provided by V.B.)
2 According to Chafe (cf. 1982: 37), idea units typically have a coherent intonation con-
tour and each represents a single idea.
108
is characterised by the simplicity of noun phrases in comparison with the noun
phrases that occur in written language, particularly in the language of formal
written texts (cf. Miller/Weinert 1998: 135).
It can be concluded from the above discussion that the complexity of struc-
tural units such as the noun phrase is dependent on the medium in which it
occurs. This is closely related to the distinction of two stylistic language uses, the
restricted style of referencing and the elaborated style of referencing introduced
by Bernstein (1971), which was discussed in Section 3.3.3. Especially conversa-
tions, which typically take place in shared contexts, avoid lexical and syntactic
elaboration or specification of meaning and therefore have a very low frequency
of nouns, especially of complex noun phrases (cf. Biber et al. 1999: 235, 578). In
written discourse, however, referencing relies more strongly on endophoric ref-
erence and the reference items must be properly introduced in forms of lexically
filled, complex noun phrases (cf. Esser 2009: 36). This aspect will be taken up in
Section 5.2.4 when discussing some features of conversation.
In the same context, Nystrand (cf. 1987: 198) contrasts the explicitness and
context-free character of written language with the implicit and context-depend-
ent character of oral language. He states that written texts, unlike spoken, must
function apart from the context of their production. Written texts must thus be
‘autonomous’ and ‘explicit’ in order to fulfill their function detached from the
context (cf. 1987: 198). In accordance with Kay (cf. 1977: 21–22, 24), Nystrand
(cf. 1987: 211) further points out that the explicitness of written texts and the
implicitness of spoken texts is not a matter of right or wrong but merely a matter
of appropriateness. Nystrand (cf. Nystrand 1987: 211) emphasises that writing
and speech work differently as language systems and that the maintenance of
coherence is simply a question of appropriateness. While spoken language can
be more abbreviated, written language must be more elaborated. This aspect is
of major importance for the present study since the use or rather the overuse of
general noun phrases may lead to a degree of implicitness in a text which is no
longer appropriate in the context in which the text is used.
5.2.2 Some features of legal language

During the past three decades, ‘legal language’ has become a subject of linguistic
analysis (cf. Tiersma 1999: 1). According to Tiersma (cf. 1999: 49), legal English
is a variety of English that follows the rules that govern English in general but di-
verges stylistically from ordinary speech. Tiersma discusses these stylistic differ-
ences concerning first and foremost syntactic and lexical features. According to
Tiersma (cf. 1999: 55–56), legal language is considered notorious for its lengthy
109
and complex sentences with many embeddings. It is typical of legal syntax to
insert a huge quantity of information between the subject and the verb phrase
(cf. Tiersma 1999: 57). The motivation for such a complex syntax is the desire to
encompass all information on a particular topic as legal language ought to be as
precise and specific as possible (cf. Tiersma 1999: 56, 71).
In this context, Charnock points out that it is necessary, from a linguistic
point of view, to distinguish between the language of statutes and the language
of judgments (cf. 2010: 132). In his view, the often stated syntactic complexity of
legal language mainly applies to statutes and contractual texts because these are
essentially written legal documents which were never intended to be read from
beginning to end, but are mainly used for reference (cf. 2010: 113–114). By con-
trast, judgments are written documents which were originally read out in court,
which is why Charnock states that they show many of the characteristics of oral
discourse (cf. 2010: 113).3 What Charnock disregards is that judgments recur-
rently make reference to and quote acts and statutes, which is why I still assume
that complex sentences can also be found in judgments.
Together with the aforementioned complexity of noun phrases in the written
medium (cf. Schäpers 2009: 153), I assume the use of complex and thus specified
general noun phrases to be quite frequent in the written Supreme Court judg-
ments (cf. assumption 6 in Section 4.4). If this is the case, we could say that these
complex general noun phrases are an indication of the specific and precise na-
ture of Supreme Court judgments. In this context, Gibbons (2004) points to a very
interesting aspect: following Halliday (1985), Gibbons (cf. 2004: 2, 4) states that
the long and complex noun phrases typically used in legal language are a product
of de-contextualisation. This is due to the fact that language in legal documents
attempts to encompass linguistically general classes of events and participants.
Because these documents deal with events that are distant in time and place, the
language is distant in character. This can be manifested through the use of complex
noun phrases which are a result of the abstraction of ideas and complex concepts.
Besides special syntactic features of legal language, Tiersma (cf. 1999: 79) also
discusses vagueness as one of the lexical characteristics of legal language. Ac-
cording to Tiersma (cf. 1999: 67), legal documents such as in particular statutes
are meant to be of general applicability and address several audiences at once.
3 Legal documents in general can be either written or spoken. The present study is con-
cerned with Supreme Court judgments which can be defined as written to be spoken.
This means that judgments have their origin in writing and are, for the purpose of
the present study, therefore defined as written legal documents (cf. Charnock 2010:
113–114).
110
This can be achieved through the use of flexible, general or vague terms that leave
enough room for interpretation (cf. 1999: 79). However, vagueness, although it is
typical of legal documents such as statutes, is not typical of legal judgments. Ac-
cording to Charnock (cf. 2010: 132), the language used in judgments is explicit
and clear. While lawyers rely on statutes for their argumentation, they benefit
from flexible and vague terms that leave enough room for different interpreta-
tions. On the contrary, judges settle for one interpretation in order to make their
decision in a case. Their decision then does probably not include many flexible
and vague terms. This again supports my aforementioned assumption that the
use of specific and complex general noun phrases should be frequent in judg-
ments while vague, simple general noun phrases should be rather rare in judg-
ments (cf. assumption 5 and 6 in Section 4.4).
5.2.3 Some features of political language

The study of political language and political communication can trace its roots
back to Ancient Greek and the earliest classical studies of Aristotle and Plato and
is closely related to the studies of rhetoric as the art of verbal persuasion (cf. Kaid
2004: xiii). The study of political language is an interdisciplinary field of research
drawing on concepts of e.g. communication, political science, journalism, soci-
ology, rhetoric and other fields (cf. Kaid 2004: xiii). Since the research field of
language and politics is very complex, the present section can only concentrate
on one major aspect of political communication, namely persuasion. Since per-
suasion itself constitutes a rather broad concept, the present section focuses on
one aspect of persuasive communication which is relevant for the present study:
the aspect of vague or indirect communication in political language.
The primary goal of politicians in an election is to get elected, and in order to
achieve that goal they need to communicate their views and political standpoints
in a way that persuades the possible voter to do so (cf. Håkansson 1997: 82).
Sjöblom (1968: 30) characterises elections as games of power and persuasion in
which parties play roles determined by a strategic consideration of the actors.
Especially election campaigns preceding national elections constitute crucial test
points, where communication is of special importance to both politicians and
citizens (cf. Håkansson 1997: 82). This holds true especially for party-political
external communication, e.g. in the form of political manifestos as investigated
in the present study.
When communicating their political ideas and standpoints, politicians find
themselves in a dilemma: on the one hand, the potential electorate needs to
be provided with relevant information to be convinced of the rightness of the
111
parties policies and to convey the message that the country is in strong, compe-
tent hands (cf. Halmari 2005: 108). On the other hand, too much information
can be off-putting, therefore, unpleasant and politically risky topics need to be
avoided. Obeng (1997: 49) describes how politicians solve this conflict: in or-
der to achieve certain political goals, politicians tend to communicate indirectly
and vague, especially when the topic of the discourse “communicates difficulty”.
The use of unspecific general noun phrases is one means of communicating in-
directly (see Section 3.4.2.2). The motivations for a politician to communicate
indirectly and vaguely are diverse and range from political to personal interests:
indirectness is motivated first and foremost by political interests and political
necessity and as such it can serve for example as a marker of ‘diplomacy’ and of
politeness (cf. Obeng 1997: 49, 52). In this context, Obeng states (1997: 52):
Care must be taken during speech since an improper verbalization may lead to serious
political or diplomatic consequences […] and to the compromising of the politician’s
face integrity. Speaking candidly is therefore oftentimes seen as confrontational, impo-
lite and politically risky.
Closely related to the foregoing is the pursuit of personal interests of politicians:

politicians communicate vaguely to assure and maintain their personal face-sav-
ing and to avoid face-threatening acts. Gruber states (1993: 3):
[…] every politician has a public positive face […] which claims the consistent image
of himself as being a rational, trustworthy person whose political ideas and actions are
better fitted to the wants and demands of the general public than those of his opponents.
Through the use of indirect communication, this image must be maintained,

which constitutes a face-saving act, while the image of the opponent must be
threatened. Furthermore, indirect communication can help politicians to com-
municate topics which are tabooed in society but nonetheless useful for their
political aims (cf. Gruber 1993: 3).
Finally, politicians communicate indirectly because they must address differ-
ent audiences at the same time which means they must convince most different
target groups with individually different needs and wants (cf. Gruber 1993: 3).
Gruber (cf. Gruber 1993: 1) states that vagueness occurs most often in the area of
(party)-political external communication, e.g. in political manifestos, in which
politicians communicate with the general public in order to convince them of
their programs or ideas. This aspect is of major importance for the analysis of
general noun phrases in the present study since these items, as has been shown
in Section 3.4.2.2, can be used to express vagueness. Referring to assumption 5
(cf. Section 4.4) this means that particularly simple, unspecific general noun
phrases are supposed to be frequent in the political manifestos.
112
5.2.4 Some features of conversation
Conversation can be defined as “any interactive spoken exchange between two
or more people” (Pridham 2001: 2). It includes face-to-face exchanges such as
talk between friends and family or more public and ritualised exchange forms
such as classroom talk. Another example for the latter type is ‘Question Time’,
the replying to parliamentary questions as part of the debate procedure in the
British House of Commons. This genre is also included in the spoken corpus of
the present study and will be further discussed in Section 5.3.2.1. Besides face-
to-face exchanges, conversation also includes non-face-to-face exchanges such
as telephone conversations, and broadcast materials such as a live radio phone-in
or a television chat show (Pridham 2001: 2).
There are various approaches to the study of conversation. Within a macro-
linguistic framework, conversation is studied in terms of the use of language in
communication. Furthermore, linguists are interested, for example, in functional
aspects of conversation, speech acts and conversational processes, and the struc-
ture of conversation (cf. Tsui 1994: 3–4). One major framework for the study
of conversation is called Conversation Analysis and is applied to analyse how
conversations are socially organised and managed by participants. This includes
aspects such as turn-taking mechanisms, sequence organisation such as the use
of adjacency pairs, and repair (cf. Levinson 1983: 296 ff., 303 ff.)
Within a micro-linguistic framework, conversation is studied in terms of the
specific features of spoken language some of which have already been discussed in
Section 5.2.1. In the context of the present study, this particularly concerns the non-
nominal character of speech. Schäpers (cf. 2009: 153) found out that spoken language
is characterised by a simple noun phrase structure. These results are in accordance
with the findings of Biber et al. (cf. 1999: 235, 578) who showed that conversation,
as one example of spoken text, typically has a very high frequency of pronouns and
a very low frequency of nouns, especially complex noun phrases. The higher fre-
quency of pronouns in conversation can be explained by the shared situation and
the personal involvement of the speakers. They avoid lexical and syntactic elabora-
tion as found in written registers, because conversation relies on context for mean-
ing. As for noun phrase structure, which is of special interest for the present study,
Biber et al. (cf. 1999: 235, 578) state that speakers use fewer nouns, and if they do,
they use fewer elaborated noun phrases that contain modifiers and complements.
Consequently, I assume the conversation corpus of the present study to reveal a
high frequency of simple general noun phrases (cf. assumption 5 in Section 4.4).
In their discussion on spoken and written language, Carter/Mc Carthy
(cf. 2007: 19) state that one major characteristic of spoken language, and thus
113
also of conversation, is vagueness. Vagueness in spoken language is often not
harmful as through the shared speech-situations decoders are nevertheless
able to reconstruct the meaning of a vague utterance (see Section 3.4.2.2). For
the analysis of the present study, it will be interesting to see whether the con-
versational corpus supports these statements and reveals cases of vagueness
using simple, unspecific general noun phrases.
5.3 The corpus of the present study

5.3.1 Written corpus
5.3.1.1 Supreme Court judgments
Established by the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, the United Kingdom Supreme
Court is the final court of appeal within the United Kingdom, replacing the Ap-
pellate Committee of the House of Lords (cf. Dickson 2013: 2; cf. UKSC Annual
Reports 2009–2010: 9). The Supreme Court is the highest appellate court for all
civil cases within the United Kingdom and for all criminal cases from England,
Wales and Northern Ireland. The cases that are heard are cases of the greatest pub-
lic or constitutional significance (cf. Dickson 2013: 4; cf. UKSC Annual Reports
2012–2013: 19). The Supreme Court has twelve justices, including a president,
which is currently Lord Neuberger (cf. Dickson 2013: 7; cf. UKSC Annual Reports
2012–2013: 15). However, not all twelve justices hear every case. Typically a case is
heard by a panel of five justices, though sometimes the panel may consist of three,
seven or nine members (cf. UKSC Annual Reports 2012–2013: 26).
Supreme Court judgments have been chosen as corpus data for the analysis
of the present study to represent written legal language in the United Kingdom.
According to Moens (cf. 2007: 1749), Supreme Court judgments follow a con-
ventional schematic form and typically contain five parts: the first part refers
to the legal basis of the case such as the cause of action and type of complaint.
The second part explains the background of the case such as the description of
the underlying events and undisputed legal concepts. The third part contains the
disputed legal question, as for example an alleged offense in a criminal case. The
fourth part contains the justifying theory or the opinion and the fifth part then
contains the decision of each of the judges involved in the judgment.
According to Pérez/Rizzo (cf. Pérez/Rizzo 2012: 131), judgments are funda-
mental as a legal genre due to the central role they play in the common law sys-
tem: judgments stand at the very core of the common law system, such as in the
United Kingdom, acting as the main source of law followed by statutes and eq-
uity. Therefore, judgments hold a prominent position in legal English (cf. Pérez/
114
Rizzo 2012: 135). Moens (cf. 2007: 1748) explains that lawyers and courts value
past cases and use them in precedent reasoning. This holds true especially for
Supreme Court judgments since cases heard at the Supreme Court, as the final
court of appeal, follow a complex and long rout of appeal that implies much
greater argumentation and case citation than a case tried at a first-tier tribunal
(cf. Pérez/Rizzo 20112: 138).
There are some characteristic features of judgments of common law courts:
according to Mattila (cf. 2006: 85), judgments of common law courts are usu-
ally written in a ‘personal’ style. While the position taken by the court is ex-
pressed by the ‘we’ form, that of the judges as individuals is expressed by the ‘I’
form. Lashöfer (cf. 1992: 13) states that the personal style of the Supreme Court
judgments can be explained with the high prestige which judges in the United
Kingdom generally have. As Mattila (2006: 85) formulates it, “[…] the judges as
individuals are clearly visible: their grounds are full and detailed, their language
often colourful”. This aspect points at another characteristic feature of judg-
ments of common law courts: the expression of personal opinions and feelings
of the judges (cf. Lashöfer 1992: 19). Charnock (cf. 2010: 132) explains that Brit-
ish Supreme Court judges often make use of an idiosyncratic, sometimes even
conversational style. In addition, it has been noted that House of Lords judges
sometimes use idiomatic expressions and rhetorical devices (cf. Lashöfer 1992:
22, 25). See, for example, the dictionary entry in the Oxford Dictionary of Idioms
(Siefring 2004: 182) for “the man on the Clapham omnibus” meaning “the aver-
age man, especially with regard to his opinion”:
This expression is attributed to the English judge Lord Bowen (1835-94), who used it
as a metaphor for any ordinary reasonable person – such as a juror is expected to be.
Clapham is a district in South London.
The Supreme Court judgments that were chosen for the corpus of the present
study have been downloaded in pdf-format from the Supreme Court website.4
Since the Supreme Court gives free access to all decided cases the day after judg-
ments have been handed down, I was able to choose from a great number of
texts. One criterion for the selection of the eight judgments was that they rough-
ly belong to the same time period; all the texts chosen date from the period be-
tween 2010 and 2011. Another criterion was that all the judgments chosen dealt
with cases that belong to the same field of law. Accordingly, eight judgments were
4 http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/decided-cases/index.html (last access, 30th January

2013)
115
chosen that all dealt with cases of civil law. For an overview of the judgments
chosen for the judgment corpus, see Section 5.3.3.
5.3.1.2 Political manifestos

The 2010 general elections in Great Britain marked a transition from a Labour
governed system to a more complex political geography: the Liberal Democrats
joined the Conservative Party in a coalition government (cf. Driver 2011: 1). This
meant a shift from a two-party system (Labour and Conservatives as relevant
parties) to a multi-party system (Labour, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats
as relevant parties) (cf. Driver 2011: 2). British electoral politics was becoming
more competitive and a reduced number of political ‘diehards’ (committed vot-
ers unwavering for support of ‘their’ party) has had important consequences for
the organisation of political parties and how they go about winning votes. Ex-
amples include the professionalisation of politics and campaign trails that were
more expensive than ever before (cf. Driver 2011: 32). Labour, Liberal Demo-
crats and Conservatives must have had a particular interest in winning votes and
persuading the electorate. Therefore it seemed very promising to investigate the
2010 election manifestos of these parties. Kavanagh (2000: 1) states that “it is a
boast of British parties that they are programmatic. They fight general elections
on manifestos and, if elected, promise to carry them out.” Kavanagh (cf. 2013: 7)
adds, however, that in their wish to win elections, the parties are claimed to heat
up popular demands and expectations, often with little regard to a government´s
capacity to meet them. A high degree of persuasion strategies in the 2010 politi-
cal manifestos is of particular interest for the analysis of general noun phrases in
the present study. It has been shown that these items are a means of indirect and
vague communication which persuades the decoder.
Election manifestos have been chosen as corpus data for the analysis in the pre-
sent study as an example of written political language in the United Kingdom. Elec-
tion manifestos are little booklets which are intended for interested voters to give
them an overview of the political standpoints, aims and proposals of a party for
the upcoming parliamentary term (cf. Håkansson 1997: 92). The general election
manifestos that are analysed in the present study have been chosen from the three
British political parties that played a major role in the general election 2010: the La-
bour Party, the Liberal Democrats Party and the Conservative Party. As mentioned
above, in 2010, British electoral politics was becoming more competitive than be-
fore because of the reorganisation of political parties. A criterion for choosing the
2010 election manifestos of Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives
116
was therefore a supposedly high degree of linguistic persuasion strategies, such as
indirect communication through the use of general noun phrases.
In order to constitute a balanced corpus in terms of size, the manifesto sub-
corpus is approximately as large as the judgment sub-corpus. Moreover, the
manifestos chosen are all from the same election, namely the 2010 general elec-
tion. Another criterion concerns the compatibility of the three political mani-
festos concerning content. The party manifestos chosen for the analysis in the
present study are concerned with quite similar political issues, namely econom-
ics, society, education, healthcare, immigration and environment.
The manifestos were downloaded in pdf-format from the corresponding web-
sites where they are open available for inspection.5 All three party manifestos
date back to the 2010 general election in the United Kingdom. For an overview
of the manifestos chosen for the manifesto corpus, see Section 5.3.3.
5.3.2 Spoken corpus

5.3.2.1 Parliamentary debates
Britain can be described as a ‘unitary state’, which means that power exclusive-
ly lies in a central government. The guiding principle of British government is
parliamentary sovereignty which means that there is no higher authority than
the parliament6 and that the legitimacy of its decisions cannot be questioned by
any other national body (cf. McAnulla 2006: 13). The Parliament of the United
Kingdom is the central legislative body which means it can make, amend or re-
peal any law. Furthermore, it can create or bring down a government. The Prime
Minister and the Cabinet carry out the executive function and the courts carry
out the judicial function (cf. Williams 1998: 7–10). The parliament is bicameral
with a lower house, the House of Commons, and an upper house, the House
of Lords. While the former is elected democratically by the people, the latter is
based on a system of appointment by the Sovereign on the advice of the Prime
5 For the manifesto of the Labour Party, see the following link: http://www.labour.org.
uk/labours-manifesto-for-a-future-fair-for-all (last access 30th January 2013). For
the manifesto of the Liberal Democrats, see the following link: http://www.libdems.
org.uk/our_manifesto.aspx (last access 30th January 2013). For the manifesto of the
Conservative Party, see the following link: http://www.conservatives.com/News/
News_stories/2010/04/Conservatives_launch_election_manifesto.aspx (last access
30th January 2013).
6 Theoretically, the monarch is above the parliament as they hold the power to dissolve
parliament.
117
Minister and has only reduced powers (cf. Williams 1998: 7–10). The composi-
tion of the House of Commons determines the party of government and the
leader of the party then becomes Prime Minister (cf. Williams 1998: 8). See the
following figure taken in a slightly modified version from Williams (1998: 8) to
demonstrate the structure of the parliamentary government in Britain:
Figure 5.1: The structure of the parliamentary government in the UK
Prime Minister
Cabinet Government
Junior Ministers
House of Lords House of Commons Parliament
The British people
On a regular basis, the House of Commons and the House of Lords hold par-
liamentary debates in which members discuss government policy, propose new
law and current political issues. These discussions are often lively with minis-
ters intervening on each other’s speeches. Although debates follow a strict set of
rules, they are still rather dynamic discussions where ministers respond to the
points made by others instead of reading out formal speeches (cf. http://www.
parliament.uk/about/how/role/debate/, last access 17th December 2014).
During a debate, the Speaker, or Deputy Speaker, calls MPs in turn to give
their opinion on an issue. Very often then, MPs intervene with opinions, ex-
pressions of approval or disapproval, or humour. It is the Speakers role on the
one hand to ensure that MPs observe the courtesies of debate, and on the other
hand to allow a lively debate to take place (http://www.parliament.uk/about/
how/guides/people-events-and-places/, last access 17th December 2014), (http://
www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-information-office/Debates.pdf, last
access 17th December 2014).
118
One particular part of the daily parliamentary business of both Houses is the
putting of questions. The replies to parliamentary questions are published daily as
part of the debates and form part of the ‘Official Hansard Report’.7 According to
Chilton (cf. 2004: 92), the putting of questions in the British parliament has been
acknowledged to be an important sub-genre of parliamentary discourse. The spe-
cific institution of ‘Prime Minister’s Question Time’ is characteristic of the British
Parliament (cf. Chilton 2004: 92). Asking a question in the British House of Com-
mons is the culmination of a lengthy discourse process, involving several channels,
speakers, and writers. Members have to give notice of questions to officials (the
Clerks in the Table Office) in advance and officials from the relevant ministerial
departments can prepare answers and will give them orally from a written brief. In
general, a member is called by the Speaker, and the member puts their question,
after which point the questioner and other members are invited to put follow-on-
questions. This often leads to lengthy discussions (cf. Chilton 2004: 93).
The current system for oral answer questions is substantially unchanged since
1906 and there are certain rules that ought to be followed in parliamentary de-
bates (cf. Chilton 2004: 95).8 The most important rules concern the purpose of
a question which is to obtain information or press for action and should not
be framed primarily as to convey information or in effect a short speech. Fur-
thermore, questions which seek an expression of opinion, or which contain
arguments, inference or imputations, unnecessary epithets, or rhetorical, con-
troversial ironical or offensive expressions are not in order. Chilton (cf. 2004: 95)
remarks that the existence of these rules does not prevent their being broken.
For the analysis in the present study, parliamentary debates have been chosen
as an example of spoken political discourse. The comparison of written political
manifestos and spoken political debates will show whether the use of general
noun phrases differs not only across genres but also across media. As mentioned
before, the lively debates in British parliaments show conversational elements.
While written political discourse is supposed to show a frequent use of simple
general noun phrases as a means to communicate indirectly and vaguely, it will
be interesting to investigate whether spoken political discourse (with a slight
conversational element) shows an even more frequent use of simple general
noun phrases.
7 ‘Hansard’ is the official record of parliamentary proceedings in the United Kingdom. It

contains transcripts of parliamentary debates including votes, written statements and
written answers to questions (cf. http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/publications/
hansard/, last access 11th March 2015).
8 Chilton here quotes from “Erskine May”, one of the rule books of the UK parliament.
119
The parliamentary debates of both the House of Commons and the House
of Lords are recorded in a publication called ‘Hansard’ which is published on a
daily basis and is available online or in print.9 Apart from that, Parliamentary TV
gives access live streams of the parliamentary debates of both houses.10
In order to constitute a balanced corpus in terms of size, the debate sub-corpus
is approximately as large as the manifesto and the judgment sub-corpus. Note that
it was not possible to sample entire debates since they are so long that this would
have exceeded the scope of the sub-corpus. Therefore, only the section “Oral An-
swers to Questions” was selected from randomly chosen eight House of Commons
debates. These debates all range from 2010 to 2011 and are therefore approximately
from the same period of time as the manifestos and judgments chosen. The debates
(Official Reports) were downloaded in pdf format from the parliament website.11
For an overview of the debates chosen for the debate corpus, see Section 5.3.3.
5.3.2.2 General conversations

The general conversation corpus of the present study is sampled from the spoken
section of the British National Corpus (BNC). The BNC is a sample of approxi-
mately 100 million words of present day spoken and written British English with
a large majority of texts (over 93%) dating from the period 1985–1994 (cf. Leech
et al. 2001: 1). The BNC consists of 4,124 different text files with 90% of the corpus
representing current written, and 10% of the corpus representing current spoken
British English. It is noticeable that the spoken part of the BNC is proportionally
fairly small in contrast to the written part. This is due to the skilling and time-
consuming task of transcribing speech into computer readable orthographic text
(cf. Leech et al. 2001: 1). The BNC was designed to be a finite, balanced, sampled
corpus representing current British English as a whole including a wide range of
different genres, subject fields and registers (cf. Kennedy 1998: 50).
The written section of the BNC consists of about 80% ‘informative’ prose
(non-fictional expository writing) and about 20% ‘imaginative’ prose (mostly
fiction, but including some other literary texts such as poetry) (cf. Leech et al.
2001: 2). The spoken section of the BNC is divided into two parts: the conver-
sational part which makes up about 40% of the spoken section and the task-
oriented part which makes up about 60%. While the conversational part of the
9 http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/ (last access 17th December 2014)

10 http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Home.aspx (last access 17th December 2014)
11 http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/hansard/commons/bydate/#
session=26&year=2014& month=11&day=16 (last access 17th December 2014)
120
spoken BNC corpus is largely made up of every day spontaneous interactions,
the task-oriented part of the BNC represents different types of task-oriented spo-
ken activities that were “[…] unlikely to be recorded by the conversational vol-
unteers during a typical day in their lives […]” (Leech et al. 2001: 3). This means
that the task-oriented part of the spoken BNC corpus represents spoken British
English which is typically used in public activities such as lectures, consultations,
sermons, TV/radio broadcasting, etc. (cf. Leech et al. 2001: 3).
The general conversations taken from the BNC represent spoken British English,
more specifically spontaneous conversational English from the United Kingdom.
One major criterion for the selection of conversational English as a sub-corpus of
the present study is the fact that I assume spontaneous conversational English to
show a frequent use of simple general noun phrases. Section 5.2.4 has discussed
some linguistic aspects of conversation. It has been explained that spoken language
in general and conversational language in particular is characterised by a simple
noun phrase structure (cf. Biber et al. 1999: 235, 578) and also by vague utterances
(cf. Carter/Mc Carthy cf. 2007: 19). These utterances can only be reconstructed by
the decoder through the shared context of conversational situation. For the analy-
sis of the present study it will be interesting to see whether the conversational cor-
pus supports these statements and reveals cases of vagueness through the use of
simple, unspecific general noun phrases (cf. assumption 5 in Section 4.4).
The texts from the conversational part of the BNC were recorded by some
124 adults aged over 15. These adults were recruited systematically from 38 dif-
ferent parts of the United Kingdom and represent four different socio-economic
classes with balanced coverage of gender and age (cf. Kennedy 1998: 51). The
conversational part of the BNC corpus was intended to record all the spoken
conversational interactions of the volunteers during a typical day of their lives.
The volunteers were asked to carry a walkman and in many cases the only person
aware that the conversation was being taped was the person carrying the record-
er. That way all conversations were recorded as unobtrusively as possible and
the material gathered approximated closely to natural, spontaneous speech (cf.
Leech et al. 2001: 3). The volunteers were asked to record all of the conversations
they were involved in over a two to seven-day period. Therefore, one BNC con-
versational text file (indicated by a text classification code or header) includes
many separate conversations by one volunteer (cf. Burnard 2000: 13).
For the sampling of the conversation sub-corpus, I was able to choose from
153 conversational text files in the spoken part of the BNC corpus. The conversa-
tions that I sampled for the conversation sub-corpus were chosen randomly. In
order to get a balanced corpus in terms of size, the conversations chosen had ap-
proximately the same number of words as the texts in the other three sub-corpora.
121
Three conversations were chosen: conversations 1 and 2 were taken from the BNC
conversational text file with the code name KB6. This means that both conver-
sations were recorded from one and the same volunteer. According to the BNC
User’s Reference Guide (cf. Burnard 2000: 298, 305), KB6 is a text file with eight
conversations recorded by ‘Angela’ (speaker PS029) between 2nd and 6th December
1991. I randomly chose two out of the eight conversations. Conversation 3 was
taken from the BNC conversational text file with the code name KCD. This text
file includes 107 conversations recorded by `Helen’ (speaker PS0E8) between 31th
May and 1st June 1991. I randomly chose one conversation. For an overview of the
conversations in the conversation corpus, see the following section.
5.3.3 Summary: Overview of corpus data

For an overview of the corpus data sampled for the analysis in the present study,
see Tables 5.2–5.5 below:
Table 5.2: The judgment corpus
Supreme Court Judgments
Title in the No. of Total no.

Official title Content Year
present study words of words
the proper
Judgment 1 construction of an
[2010] UKSC 47 2010 7,814
(J1) option clause in a
lease of land
a granted standard
security over a
Judgment 2
[2010] UKSC 50 house in favour of 2010 14,155
(J2)
the Royal Bank of
Scotland
the Secretary of
State’s right to
Judgment 3 78,473
[2010] UKSC 54 recover certain 2010 7,260
(J3)
social security
benefits
profits of a limited
company not in
Judgment 4
[2010] UKSC 55 liquidation which 2010 8,361
(J4)
are distributed to
shareholders
122
Supreme Court Judgments

the decision of
Judgment 5 two costs officers
[2010] UKSC 57 2010 10,853
(J5) appointed by the
president of the SC
Judgment 6 loan transaction and
[2010] UKSC 58 2010 8,127
(J6) taxable incomes
planning
permissions for a
Judgment 7
[2011] UKSC 15 hay barn which was 2011 16,120
(J7)
in fact used as a
dwelling house
Judgment 8 a refused application
[2011] UKSC 22 2011 5,783
(J8) of asylum
Table 5.3: The manifesto corpus
Political Manifestos
economy,
The Labour Party education, health,
Labour Manifesto
Manifesto – A immigration, 2010 26,883
(LM)
future fair for all family, community,
environment
The Liberal
Democrat
Manifesto – values, money, job,
Liberal Democrat
change that life, community, 2010 21,450 77,048
Manifesto (LDM)
works for you, finances
building a fairer
Britain
The Conservative
Manifesto – economy, society,
Conservative
invitation to join environment, 2010 28,715
Manifesto (CM)
the government national interest
of Britain
123
Table 5.4: The debate corpus
Parliamentary Debates
House of
Commons international
Debate 1 (D1) 2010 9,829
Official Report. development
Vol. 510 no. 8
House of
Commons
Debate 2 (D2) defence 2010 10,089
Official Report.
Vol. 515 no. 44
House of
Commons environment, food
Debate 3 (D3) 2010 9,660
Official Report. and rural affairs
Vol. 517 no. 65
House of
Commons culture, media and
Debate 4 (D4) 2011 10,697
Official Report. sport
Vol. 521 no. 102
80,160
House of
Commons
Debate 5 (D5) home department 2011 9,779
Official Report.
Vol. 524 no. 127
House of
Commons violence against
Debate 6 (D6) 2011 9,671
Official Report. women and girls
Vol. 527 no. 153
House of
Commons
Debate 7 (D7) work and pensions 2011 10,522
Official Report.
Vol. 529 no. 168
House of
Commons communities and
Debate 8 (D8) 2011 9,913
Official Report. local government
Vol. 523 no. 193
124
Table 5.5: The conversation corpus
General Conversations
Conversation 1
KB6 1991 14,593
(C1)
Everyday chats
Conversation 2
KB6 between families 1991 25,003 70,741
(C2)
and friends
Conversation 3
KCD 1991 31,145
(C3)
125
6. Methodology
Abstract: Chapter 6 describes the quantitative and qualitative method used in the corpus-
study, such as the selection of relevant general noun phrases and the coding system used
in the analysis. Corpus examples illustrate the different types of pre- and postmodifier as
well as the types of linkage, which occurred in the data.
6.1 Methods for the quantitative analysis

6.1.1 From raw to relevant data
The quantitative and qualitative analysis of the present study investigates the gen-
eral noun phrase heads listed by Halliday/Hasan (1976: 274). These are people,
person, man, woman, child, boy, girl, creature, thing, object, stuff, business, affair,
matter, move, place, question and idea (cf. Section 2.1.4). As has been discussed in
the preceding chapters, the object of investigation for the analysis of general noun
phrases in the present study is the general noun phrase head in use. This means
that we are not dealing with lemmas or lexemes but with concrete word forms of
general noun phrase heads that occur in the corpus data. Thus, the corpus data
had to be searched for concrete word forms of the intended general noun phrase
heads and other word forms which were irrelevant for the analysis had to be
excluded. Therefore, as part of the preliminaries of the quantitative analysis, the
forms of general noun phrase heads that were found in the corpus data had to be
divided into ‘irrelevant’ and ‘relevant’ forms according to defining criteria that
included formal aspects, grammatical aspects such as word-class membership,
and semantic aspects such as polysemy, homonoymy and idiomaticity.
Since the corpus texts were in pdf format, the Acrobat Reader search func-
tion was used for automatic counting of the general noun phrase heads in the
corpus texts. However, the tool had limited capacities when dividing irrelevant
forms of general noun phrase heads from relevant forms, because this division
is among other things based on grammatical and semantic aspects. Since the
Acrobat Reader search function is no linguistic tool that is able to take into ac-
count such criteria and since the corpus texts were not tagged, supplementary
manual investigation was needed.
The process of identifying relevant general noun phrase heads was carried out
in four major steps: in a first step, the Acrobat Reader search function was used
to search for general noun phrase heads, for example move. As a result, the com-
puter displayed sequences of characters. These sequences of characters could be
127
coextensive with the general noun phrase head move but they could also be part of
a more complex unit such as a compound1 (move in prime mover), or a word form
of the same lexeme (move in the plural noun moves), or a word form of a different
lexeme (move in the past tense verb moved or move in mover), or it could also be a
completely irrelevant sequence of characters in a word (such as man in manifesto).
Consequently, in a second step the settings in the Acrobat Reader search
function were adjusted to searching for ‘Ganzes Wort’ which means that the tool
only searched for formally limited sequences of characters. For example, when
searching for the formally limited sequence move, the Acrobat Reader search
function, as a result, displayed a list of forms that belonged to the lemma MOVE.
According to Kennedy (cf. 1998: 207), a lemma is the term for a set of inflection-
ally and derivationally related word forms. Thus, the lemma MOVE is a for-
mal abstraction of the word forms of the noun move (move, moves, move’s and
moves’) and the verb move (move, moves, moved and moving). Since a lemma is a
purely formal abstraction, it does not take into account grammatical distinctions
such as word class membership.
However, since we are searching for the general noun phrase head move, in
a third step, supplementary manual investigation was needed to distinguish the
word forms of the noun move from the word forms of the verb move. The result
of the manual investigation was a distinction of the word forms of the lemma
MOVE into the word forms of the two lexemes move1 (verb) and move2 (noun).2
All the word forms of the verb move were excluded from the analysis and all the
word forms of the noun move were further regarded as relevant. In a fourth step,
which was also done manually, the word forms of the lexeme move (noun) were
investigated according to the semantic criteria. This is because the remaining
word forms of the noun move may also be used with ‘non-general noun phrase
head’ meanings, which are in a relation of polysemy or homonomy to the in-
tended ‘general noun phrase head’ meaning. Examples are move1 meaning ‘Um-
zug’ and move2 meaning ‘(Schach)zug’ or ‘Schritt’, or object1 meaning ‘Ziel’ or
‘Absicht’ and object2 meaning ‘Objekt’ or ‘Ding’.3 For the analysis of general noun
1 As explained in Section 3.2.1 the phenomenon of compounding is very complex and

deserves special attention. Therefore, I have decided to exclude from the analysis cases
where the general noun phrase head forms part of a compound.
2 Note that the concept of ‘lexeme’ distinguishes word classes, which is why the verb
move constitutes a different lexeme than the noun move.
3 When a single lexeme combines several senses which are more or less related we speak
of a polysemous lexeme (cf. Lipka 2002: 92, 154). For example, tree1 in the sense of
‘botanic object’ and tree2 in the sense of ‘geometrical object’ are polysemous insofar that
128
phrase heads this means that sometimes a general noun phrase head is used in a
different sense than the one described by Halliday/Hasan (cf. 1976: 274), or that
a word is formally identical to a general noun phrase head described by Halliday/
Hasan (cf. 1976: 274) but really is a different lexeme with a completely unrelated
meaning. In both cases, we speak of irrelevant general noun phrase heads. An
example is the general noun phrase head object, which according to Halliday/
Hasan (cf. 1976: 274) is an inanimate concrete noun. Instances of object used as
an abstract noun in the sense of ‘purpose’ were excluded from the analysis.
Besides detecting polysemy and homonymy, it was also checked whether the
remaining general noun phrase heads were part of a formally and/or syntacti-
cally and/or semantically fixed unit, such as a general noun phrase head in a
compound (written in two orthographic words), in a proper name, in a heading,
in a title, in a figure or in an index, in an idiom or idiomatic expression, or in a
set phrase. General noun phrase heads as part of compounds which were written
in two orthographic words were excluded from the analysis just like compounds
which were written in one orthographic word. Due to the settings in the Acrobat
Reader search function (‘Ganzes Wort’), compounds that were written in one
orthographic word were automatically excluded but compounds that were writ-
ten in two orthographic words had to be excluded manually.
General noun phrase heads that were part of proper names, as for example
in the name of a fund (The Child Fund), were excluded from the analysis. Ac-
cording to Quirk et al. (cf. 1985: 288), proper names may or may not consist of
more than one word. More importantly, these names grammatically function as
single units which means they cannot be varied by the insertion of words or by
change of inflection. With regard to the analysis of modification, therefore, prop-
er names containing general noun phrase heads were excluded from the analysis.
Since the qualitative analysis focuses on the reference of general noun phras-
es, general noun phrase heads within headings, titles, indexes and figures were
excluded because they are not integrated into the body text. Therefore, it seemed
problematic to describe the reference of those items to preceding and following
items of the co-text.
tree2 is a metaphorical extension of tree1 which is based on its branching properties (cf.
Esser 2006: 52). Similarly, move1 and move2 have related senses. In this context, Cruse
(1986: 80) speaks of a lexical unit as the “union of a single sense with a lexical form”
and of a lexeme as “a family of lexical units”. Thus, tree1, as well as tree2, is a lexical unit
while tree1 and tree2 together constitute the lexeme TREE. In contrast to polysemy, we
speak of homonymy when we have several lexemes which are formally identical but have
completely unrelated senses (cf. Lipka 2002: 92, 154). This is true for object1 and object2.
129
General noun phrase heads were also excluded from the analysis when they
were part of a fixed unit such as an idiom, an idiomatic expression, or a set
phrase. This touches upon aspects of idiomaticity, a concept which is controver-
sially discussed among linguists. The present study will use the broad classifica-
tion by Mahlberg (cf. 2005: 57) who speaks of “patterns of units of meaning with
strong dependencies between the surface elements”. This rather broad definition
allows me to include in this category different kinds of units of meaning with
varying degrees of stable syntactic and semantic structure, varying degrees of
lexicalisation and varying degrees of idiomaticity. Therefore, I will define the in-
ventory of the following phenomena as such ‘patterns of units of meaning’ which
will be excluded from the analysis: firstly, idioms or idiomatic phrases such as
business as usual. Secondly, set phrases such as as things now stand, and thirdly,
fixed expressions such as a matter of fact and per person.
The following figure summarises how relevant general noun phrase heads are
distinguished from irrelevant ones:
Figure 6.1: Distinguishing relevant from irrelevant general noun phrases
Automatic search for

Step 1
general noun phrase heads
sequences of characters
Automatic search for

Step
p2
th hi word
orthographic d fforms
lemmata
Manual investigation:
Step 3
grammatical distinction
lexemes
Manual investigation:
Step 4
semantic distinction
lexical units
130
As we have seen, the computer cannot distinguish between relevant general
noun phrase heads and irrelevant ones. Thus, supplementary manual investiga-
tion was needed to identify which general noun phrase heads were taken into
account in the analysis. In this context, Mahlberg (2005: 61) states: “[t]he com-
puter can assist the human observer by counting, selecting and displaying words;
but the computer cannot yield information about meaning.” In other words, the
computer can only count, select and display, it cannot interpret semantic and
grammatical information. The linguist must do this.
6.1.2 Determining the frequency of relevant general

noun phrase heads
For the frequency count of relevant general noun phrase heads, all the word
forms of a general noun phrase head were taken into account and searched for
individually: for example, when searching for the general noun phrase head
move, the word forms move, moves, move’s and moves’ were searched for indi-
vidually. For the relevant general noun phrase heads, the total number of tokens
of each type was counted for each of the four corpus samples. In a first step, this
frequency count was done for each text in each of the four corpus samples indi-
vidually. In a second step, the frequency of relevant general noun phrase heads
was determined for each of the four sub-corpora as a whole; this means an over-
view was given of the total number of tokens of each type of general noun phrase
head in the judgment corpus, in the manifesto corpus, in the debate corpus and
in the conversation corpus.
All the texts of the corpus samples were in pdf-format and the frequency
count of the general noun phrase heads in question was done with the Adobe
Reader search function. No lexical analysis software was used for the identifi-
cation of general noun phrase heads and the calculation of their frequency in
the texts. The main reason for this was that the span of context that the lexical
analysis software provides, in other words the span of words to the left and the
right of the general noun phrase head in question, was not large enough for
further qualitative analysis. Since anaphoric and cataphoric reference between
a general noun phrase and another textual item sometimes overcomes longer
stretches of text, it would not have proved useful to work with a list of isolated
instances of general noun phrase heads because for the qualitative analysis it
was necessary to look at the instances of general noun phrases within their full
co-text.
131
6.2 Methods for the qualitative analysis
6.2.1 The coding system used in the present study
After the relevant general noun phrase heads had been identified and counted
in the quantitative analysis, they were numbered and coded in order to facili-
tate further analyses. In a first step, the different types of general noun phrase
heads in question were numbered from one to eighteen according to the order in
Halliday/Hasan (1976: 274). See the following table:
Table 6.1: Numbering of general noun phrase heads
General noun
Number
phrase head
1 people
2 person
3 man
4 woman
5 child
6 boy
7 girl
8 creature
9 object
10 thing
11 stuff
12 business
13 affair
14 matter
15 move
16 place
17 question
18 idea
In a second step, a coding system was developed which marks the individual
occurrences (tokens) of each type of general noun phrase head in the particular
sub-corpus and allows the reader of this study to retrieve these single occurrenc-
es in the attached corpus data without much effort. For this coding system, the
single texts in the sub-corpora were given a label and they were numbered. In the
judgment corpus the judgments were given the label J and they were numbered
132
so that J1, J2, J3 etc. stands for judgment number one, judgment number two,
judgment number three etc. The manifesto corpus consists of three British party
manifestos which were named after the political party they were from. The three
manifestos were given a label which abbreviates the name of the party and the
word manifesto. Accordingly, the label LM stands for Labour manifesto, the la-
bel LDM stands for Liberal Democrat manifesto and the label CM stands for
Conservative manifesto. The labelling of the debates in the parliamentary de-
bate corpus and the conversations in the conversation corpus corresponds to
the labelling of the judgments in the judgment corpus. Thus, D1 marks debate
number one and C1 marks conversation number one. See the following table for
an overview:
Table 6.2: Labelling of corpus texts
Corpus Official title of single texts Labels

[2010] UKSC 47 J1
[2010] UKSC 50 J2
[2010] UKSC 54 J3
[2010] UKSC 55 J4
Judgment corpus
[2010] UKSC 57 J5
[2010] UKSC 58 J6
[2011] UKSC 15 J7
[2011] UKSC 22 J8
Labour manifesto LM
Manifesto corpus Liberal Democrat manifesto LDM
Conservative manifesto CM
House of Commons Official Report. Vol. 510 no. 8 D1
Debate corpus
KB6 C1
Conversation corpus KB6 C2
KCD C3
133
With the labels of the corpus texts and with the numbers of the types of general
noun phrase heads (1–18), it was possible to mark the single instances (tokens)
of general noun phrase heads in the different corpus-texts. See the following
figure for an illustration:
Figure 6.2: Example of the coding of a general noun phrase head in the judgment corpus
number three general noun number 17
judgment fi t occurrence
first
J3-17-1
The coding displayed in Figure 6.2 marks the first occurrence of the 17th general
noun phrase head (which according to Table 6.1 is the general noun phrase head
question) in the third judgment from the judgment corpus.
In a next step, the instances of relevant general noun phrase heads (tokens)
were marked in the corpus texts so that they were retrievable for the reader and
could be displayed within their co-text. The relevant general noun phrase head
tokens in the corpus texts were highlighted in the pdf document and a note,
which contained the particular coding, was added to each of them. This was
done for each relevant general noun phrase head in the corpus:
Figure 6.3: Highlighting of general noun phrase heads in the corpus texts
134
Figure 6.4: Coding of general noun phrase heads in the corpus texts
Now, every general noun phrase head could easily be accessed and displayed.
Using the “Kommentar” function in the Acrobat Reader, all the highlighted and
coded occurrences of general noun phrase heads were displayed in a list and
particular occurrences could be searched for by codes:
Figure 6.5: Searching for single occurrences of general noun phrase heads within a pdf
document
135
6.2.2 The parameter modification
As has been explained in Section 4.2, general noun phrases that occur in natural
language data are not necessarily general in meaning but can in fact be rather
specific. The degree of specification is determined by the correlation of the pa-
rameters +/- modification and +/- linkage. Concerning modification, various
types of premodification, postmodifiation and also combinations of pre- and
postmodification occurred in the corpus data.
6.2.2.1 Types of premodification

The types of premodification that occurred within the general noun phrases in
the corpus data correspond to the major types of premodifying items introduced
by Quirk et al. (cf. 1985: 1322), which were discussed in detail in Section 3.2.2
and are listed below:
1. adjectives, or adjective phrases
2. present and past participles
3. nouns and genitives
Additionally, there is another minor type of premodifier which occurred in the
corpus data:
4. compound adjectives
See the following examples for a demonstration of the above listed types of pre-
modifier:
(1) The question whether the planning assumptions can be taken into account too is the
crucial question in this case. [J1-17-4]
(2) It is not directed to the entirely different question whether the cost to the paying party
would be prohibitively expensive, which is what the Aarhus test is concerned with.
[J5-17-4]
Example (1) demonstrates the use of the adjective crucial as a premodifier of

the general noun phrase head question. In example (2), the general noun phrase
head question is premodified by the adjective phrase entirely different.
The following two examples illustrate the use of a premodifying present par-
ticiple (3) and a premodifying past participle (4):
(3) Where a literal construction would seriously damage the public interest, and no
deserving person would be prejudiced by a strained construction to avoid this, the
court will apply such a construction. [J7-2-3]
136
(4) […] the main issue was on section 320 of the Companies Act 1985 (approval by
company in general meeting of acquisition of non-cash asset by director or con-
nected person). [J4-2-1]
For the use of a noun and a genitive as premodifier, see examples (5) and (6):
(5) In a world of shifting economic power and increased threats, the UK stands to lose
a great deal of its ability to shape world affairs unless we act to reverse our declining
status. [CM-13-2]
(6) However, it is contended that such indication was given by [him] in error and that
when providing his answer to the inspector’s question [he] misunderstood what it
was that was being asked of him. [J7-17-10]
In example (5), the noun world premodifies the general noun phrase head affairs.
Note that all nouns that directly precede a relevant general noun phrase head
and cannot be found in either the Oxford Dictionaries Online or the Cambridge
Dictionary Online as part of a compound with that relevant general noun phrase
head (in which case the general noun phrase head would not have been taken
into account for the qualitative analysis) qualify as noun modifiers. In example
(6), the genitive inspector’s premodifies the general noun phrase head question.
As mentioned above, premodifying adjective compounds were also found in
the corpus data:
(7) We will rebuild confidence in the criminal justice system so that people know it is
on the side of victims and working for law-abiding people, not criminals. [CM-1-96]
In example (7), the adjective compound law-abiding premodifies the general

noun phrase head people. Quirk et al. (cf. 1985: 1567) state that compounds in
general are units which consists of more than one base and function both gram-
matically and semantically as a single word. The authors (cf. 1985: 1576–1578)
give examples of different types of adjective compounds, for example the type
‘verb and object’ consisting of object + ing participle, as illustrated in example (7)
meaning ‘X abides law’.
The above presented types of premodifier also occurred in the corpus data in
various combinations as multiple premodifier. For an illustration, see the follow-
ing two examples from the corpus:
(8) Work experience and apprenticeships are central to improving the prospects of
young unemployed people. [D7-1-2]
(9) Creative Bursaries will support the most artistically gifted young people in their early
professional careers. [LM-1-112]
In example (8), a combination of the adjective young and the past participle
unemployed premodifies the general noun phrase head people. In example (9),
137
a combination of the adjective phrase most artistically gifted and the adjective
young premodifies the general noun phrase head people.
6.2.2.2 Types of postmodification

The types of postmodification that occurred within a general noun phrase in the
corpus data correspond to the major types of postmodification introduced by
Quirk et al. (cf. 1985: 1239), which are described in detail in Section 3.2.2:
1. prepositional phrase
2. non-finite clauses (past and present participle clause, infinitive clause, apposi-
tive clause)
3. finite clauses (relative clause, appositive that-clause, appositive interrogative
clause)
In addition, three minor types of postmodifier were found in the corpus data of
the present study:
4. appositive noun phrase
5. adjective or adjective phrase
6. adverb or adverb phrase
See the following examples for a demonstration of the types of postmodifier
found in the corpus data, starting with the prepositional phrase:
(10) Millions of people in this country are at best detached from democracy, at worst
angry and disillusioned. [CM-1-108]
In example (10), the general noun phrase head people is postmodified by the
prepositional phrase in this country. The following four examples demonstrate
the use of non-finite postmodifying past- and present participle clauses, infini-
tive clauses and appositive clauses:
(11) […] although a section 83 appeal was a status appeal (i.e. one that depended on
the status of the person making the appeal as opposed to the species of decision
appealed against) it was nevertheless restricted to a particular class of persons.
[J8-2-5]
(12) They help to answer some (but not all) of the questions prompted by Mummery LJ’s
summary. [J8-17-3]
(13) The parties are invited to make submissions in writing within 28 days on the ques-
tions to be referred to the Court of Justice. [J5-17-17]
Example (11) demonstrates the use of the non-finite present participle clause
making the appeal which postmodifies the general noun phrase head person.
Similarly, in example (12), the non-finite past participle clause prompted by
138
Mummery LJ’s summary postmodifies the general noun phrase head question. In
example (13), the infinitive clause to be referred to the Court of Justice postmodi-
fies the general noun phrase head questions.
(14) Steve Webb: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. The idea of
measuring pensioner poverty in terms of material deprivation is supplementary to
the income measures, […]. [D7-18-3]
Non-finite appositive clauses occurred in the corpus data with present participle
clauses as described by Quirk et al. (cf. 1985: 1271). Note that the typical post-
modifying function of appositive present participle clauses is as complement of
a preposition, such as presented in example (14) and explained by Quirk et al.
(cf. 1985: 1272).
The following two examples illustrate the use of postmodifiying finite relative
clauses:
(15) This too is not a question which can sensibly be answered on a day by day basis.
[J7-17-7]
(16) By the stage when her appeal reached the House of Lords the question which she
wished to raise had already been considered twice in the courts below. [J5-17-13]
In example (15), the restrictive relative clause which can be answered on a day by
day basis postmodifies the general noun phrase head question. Here, the relative
clause gives essential information as it identifies what kind of question is referred
to. In example (16), the non-restrictive relative clause which she wished to raise
provides additional information about the general noun phrase head question.
The information is additional insofar as it is not needed to identify what question
means.
Besides relative clauses, appositive clauses (appositive that-clauses and appos-
itive interrogative clauses) were used in the corpus data to postmodify a general
noun phrase head. Quirk et al. (cf. 1985: 1301) state that appositive clauses in-
volve the linking of units of the same rank. For linguistic units to be appositives
they must normally be identical in reference or the reference of one must be in-
cluded in the reference of the other.4 Another characteristic of appositive clauses
is that the appositive units are in a copular relationship. This means that in con-
trast to a head-modifier construction, the two appositive units can be linked
4 Meyer (cf. 1992: 58–59) argues that this is not a necessary criterion for a construc-
tion to be an apposition. He introduces various types of referential and also non-
referential relations between the units of an apposition (cf. Meyer 1992: 59–73)
(see Section 6.2.3.1.3 for further information).
139
with be or other copular verbs5 (cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 1261). Furthermore, Quirk
et al. (cf. 1985: 1260, 1261) state that with appositive clauses, an antecedent noun
is often a general abstract noun such as fact, idea, proposition, reply, remark, an-
swer etc. (see also Schmid (cf. 2000: 3) on this subject)). See the following exam-
ples taken from the judgment corpus:
(17) It took a purely subjective approach to the question whether a case for such an order
had been made. [J5-17-14]
(18) This provision must be based on the general idea that the change of use has been
there for all to see for four years. [J7-18-1]
In example (17), the appositive interrogative clause whether a case for such an or-
der has been made defines the content of the general noun phrase head question.
Similarly, in example (18), the appositive that-clause that the change of use has
been there for all to see for four years postmodifies the general noun phrase head
idea in that it presents its complete content. In both examples, there is identity of
reference between the appositive units, more precisely between the general noun
phrase head and the appositive clause. Furthermore, both examples could be re-
formulated using a copular verb (the question is whether…, the idea is that…) and
both examples nicely illustrate that the head of the noun phrase that is modified
by an appositive clause is a general abstract noun.
The minor types of postmodifier that occurred in the corpus data of the pre-
sent study were appositive noun phrases, adjectives or adjective phrases and ad-
verbs or adverb phrases. See the following examples:
(19) This section applies where on or after the appointed day a person (the transferor)
agrees to sell any securities, […]. [J6-2-1]
(20) Under Labour, youth unemployment has reached over 900,000, with one in five
young people unable to find a job. [CM-1-25]
(21) PS01V: just happened to go in one day for some meat […]? That’s the cheapest place
down there. [C2-16-1]
In example (19), the appositive noun phrase the transferor postmodifies the gen-
eral noun phrase head person. Quirk et al. (cf. 1985: 1301) state that apposition
primarily and typically is a relation between noun phrases. In example (19), the
second noun phrase, the transferor, which is enclosed in parentheses, defines
or rather characterises the first noun phrase, a person. In example (20), the ad-
jective phrase unable to find a job postmodifies the general noun phrase head
5 Copular verbs (or linking verbs) are verbs such as be, become and appear that link the
subject of a clause and the subject complement or adverbial and occur in SVC and SVA
clause types (cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 54, 1172).
140
people. According to Quirk et al. (cf. 1985: 1348), noun phrase modifiers can
have their own complementation, as for example an infinitive clause (cf. Quirk
et al. 1985: 1226) which can be seen in example (20). In example (21), the general
noun phrase head place is postmodified by the adverb phrase down there.
6.2.3 The parameter linkage

Besides modification, linkage is the second crucial parameter to determine the
degree of specification of general noun phrases. As explained in Section 4.1.2,
the presence of the parameter linkage refers to various types of endophoric ref-
erence while its absence refers to the fact that general noun phrases show text-
external reference, which is either specific or generic (cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 265,
see Section 2.1.2). Since the qualitative analysis in the present study revealed that
one of the functions of general noun phrases is generic reference, this type is
discussed in more detail in Section 6.2.3.2.
6.2.3.1 Types of endophoric reference

6.2.3.1.1 Halliday/Hasan’s endophoric reference
‘Halliday/Hasan’s endophoric reference’ describes cases of reference that most
likely approximate those cases of ‘classic’ endophoric reference described by
Halliday/Hasan (1976). Cases of classic endophoric reference show clear ana-
phoric or cataphoric reference of general noun phrases to preceding or follow-
ing items, in particular noun phrases and other phrases, either within the same
sentence or across sentence boundaries. Thus, cases of classic endophoric refer-
ence are straightforward examples of endophoric reference, such as the minister-
man-example, provided by Halliday/Hasan (1976: 274–275) and repeated here
for convenience:
Two examples of Halliday/Hasan’s endophoric reference taken from the judg-

ment corpus are provided below:
(23) The Prime Minister: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question […] about ensur-
ing that we protect and help those at the front line […]. […] it is all through the
lifetime of those people. [D1-1-23]
(24) We will continue to press for stronger international action against terrorism […]
and build stability and the rule of law in places that would otherwise shelter terror-
ist networks. We have shown in Afghanistan and elsewhere that […]. [LM-16-12]
141
In example (23), the general noun phrase those people refers back to the noun
phrase those at the front line and establishes a relation of co-reference. In ex-
ample (24), the general noun phrase places that would otherwise shelter terror-
ist networks refers to the following noun phrase Afghanistan and the adverb
elsewhere.
6.2.3.1.2 Encapsulation
‘Encapsulation’ as a type of reference is a phenomenon that has already been
dealt with in Section 2.2 when describing previous studies on and different ap-
proaches to general nouns phrase heads and comparable types of nouns. Among
those linguists who have focused on the referential behaviour of such nouns
are Winter (1977), Ivanič (1991), Schmid (2000), and Flowerdew (2003a and
2003b).6 In accordance with these works, Halliday/Hasan (1976) take into ac-
count the function of general noun phrases in discourse under the heading of
‘extended reference’ (see Section 2.1.2 for further explanations). In the case of
extended reference, the general noun phrase does not refer to one particular
person, object or thing but instead refers to a complex process (cf. Halliday/
Hasan 1976: 52).
The common element shared by the nouns in the above cited works is their
special potential to refer to pieces of information and to paraphrase and reify
this information. For the purpose of the qualitative analysis in the present study,
this type of reference will be called encapsulation. Encapsulation can be either
anaphoric or cataphoric. Conte (1996), who focuses on anaphoric encapsulation,
states that the anaphoric item consists of a ‘general noun’ (or an evaluative noun)
as the lexical head and a clear preference for a demonstrative determiner (cf.
1996: 1). The author defines anaphoric encapsulation as follows (1996: 1):
[…] a cohesive device by which a noun phrase functions as a resumptive paraphrase
for a preceding portion of a text. This portion of text […] may be of various length and
complexity (a whole paragraph or just one sentence).
Referents of the encapsulating noun phrases are not individuals but entities like
state-of-affairs, events, situations, processes, facts, propositions or utterance-acts
(cf. Conte 1996: 2). The following example taken from the judgment corpus il-
lustrates anaphoric encapsulation:
6 For a more detailed discussion of each of these works, see Section 2.2 of the present
study.
142
(25) I regret to learn that your indebtedness to the Bank […] is not being repaid […]
and I have therefore to advise that unless within ten days from the date of this letter
you effect repayment of the whole sums due to the Bank […]. I shall have no alter-
native but to institute proceedings against you for recovery. […] and it is therefore
in your own interest to give this matter your immediate attention. [J2-14-1]
In example (25), the general noun phrase this matter refers back to the preceding
portion of text, more precisely to the two clauses marked by broken underlining,
and resumptively paraphrases them. In addition, the general noun phrase this
matter is used to reify what has been said, as on the basis of old information (in-
formation in the preceding portion of text) a new discourse referent is created,
which has not been mentioned before (the general noun phrase this matter) and
which becomes the reference item in the subsequent discourse (cf. Conte 1996: 4).
In that way, anaphoric encapsulation often functions as an organising principle
in discourse. The new referential expression (this matter in the above example)
summarises the preceding discourse portion and simultaneously functions as a
starting point for the new one (cf. Conte 1996: 5).
In the corpus data of the present study, there were also cases of cataphoric
encapsulation. See the following example taken from the judgment corpus:
(26) The respondent appealed against the costs officer’s decision under rule 53 of the
Supreme Court Rules. They asked the single Justice to refer to the following ques-
tions [J5-17-1] to a panel of Justices under rule 53(2):
(1) whether it was open to the costs officers, […], to achieve that result through
the detailed assessment process; and
(2) if it was, whether the test indicated by the phrase “prohibitively expensive”
should be focused exclusively on the actual circumstances of the parties to the
litigation and not on the question what would be prohibitively expensive for
the ordinary member of the public.
The single Justice referred the application to a panel of five Justices and di-
rected that these questions [J5-17-3] should be decided after an oral hearing.
Example (26) illustrates an interesting case of reference through encapsula-

tion which is cataphoric as well as anaphoric. The first general noun phrase
the following questions [J5-17-1] functions as an advance organiser and cata-
phorically encapsulates the clauses under (1) and (2). The second general noun
phrase these questions [J5-17-3] anaphorically encapsulates these clauses and
thus also functions as a discourse organiser because it resumptively para-
phrases what has been explained in the preceding text. Interestingly, the two
general noun phrases function as a sort of structural frame for the complex
information given under (1) and (2) and therefore guide the reader: while the
first general noun phrase functions as a signpost of what is about to come, the
143
second general noun phrase functions as a summary and reifies what has just
been explained.
6.2.3.1.3 Reference between appositive units

In the type of reference called ‘reference between appositive units’, the general
noun phrase anaphorically or cataphorically refers to a preceding or following
item which is in apposition to the general noun phrase.7 Meyer (cf. 1992: xiii) in
his work Apposition in Contemporary English defines apposition as a grammati-
cal relation between two units realised by constructions having particular syn-
tactic and semantic characteristics. We have already seen in Section 6.2.2.2 that
appositive units can have a variety of syntactic forms, such as the form of noun
phrases, ing-clauses, that-clauses and interrogative clauses. As far as the semantic
structure of apposition is concerned, Meyer (cf. 1992: 57–73) states that there are
different kinds of referential and also non-referential relations between the two
units in an apposition. In the focus of the analysis of general noun phrases in the
present study, however, are only referential relations between appositive units.
The type of reference between appositive units that typically occurred in the
corpus data of the present study was cataphoric reference of the first appositive
unit to the second appositive unit. According to Meyer (cf. 1992: 64), this type
occurs in any apposition in which the first unit is a noun phrase and the second
unit is a clause or sentence. See the following examples from the corpus:
(27) It took a purely subjective approach to the question whether a case for such an order
had been made. [J5-17-4]
In example (27), the first unit of the apposition (the general noun phrase the
question) refers cataphorically to the second unit of the apposition (the apposi-
tive interrogative clause whether a case for such an order had been made). The
second appositive unit presents the complete content of the first appositive unit.
A further example, which is less straightforward, is provided below:
(28) Building the Big Society means encouraging the concept of public-spirited service –
the idea that everyone should play a part in making their communities stronger.
[CM-18-6]
7 Note that Meyer (cf. 1992: xiii) speaks of ‘appositive units’ while Quirk et al. (1985:
1301) speaks of ‘appositives’. Concerning the relation of apposition, both authors
(cf. Meyer 1992: xiii, Quirk et al. 1985: 1301) use the expression ‘to be in apposition’
in order to explain that two appositive units, or two appositives, are related through
apposition. The present section will stick to Meyer’s terminology.
144
In example (28), the noun phrase the concept of public-spirited service is the first
appositive unit and the general noun phrase the idea that everyone should play
a part in making their communities stronger is the second appositive unit. There
is a second apposition embedded in the general noun phrase; here the idea is
the first unit and the appositive that-clause is the second unit. In the embedded
apposition, the first appositive unit, the idea, cataphorically refers to the second
appositive unit, the appositive that-clause. The reference relation in the superior
apposition is less straightforward. Since both appositive units are definite noun
phrases we can argue that both appositive units are referring. Note that Meyer
(1992) does not discuss appositions in which both appositive units are definite
noun phrases, however, I suggest that the first appositive unit, the noun phrase
the concept of public-spirited service, cataphorically refers to the general noun
phrase because it seems like a subordinate unit which is more specific than the
first appositive unit. It can, however, also be argued that the second appositive
(the general noun phrase the idea that…) unit refers anaphorically to the first
appositive unit (the noun phrase the concept of…).
6.2.3.1.4 Reference between subject and complement

We can classify a linguistic unit either on the basis of its form (e.g. as a noun
phrase) or on the basis of its function (e.g. as subject of the clause) (cf. Quirk
et al. 1985: 48). Besides modification and apposition, which are two clause func-
tions which can be realised through different linguistic forms, there is a third
clause function, that of complement (cf. Quirk et al. 728–729). For the purpose
of the analysis in the present study, the present section will focus on subject com-
plements.
Subject complements apply some attribute or definition to the subject and thus
semantically identify or characterise the referent of the subject. They are in a cop-
ular relationship with the subject and occur in the clause pattern SVC (cf. Quirk
et al. 1985: 728). Subject complements normally have the form of noun phrases
or adjective phrases such as in John is a boy or John seems restless but subject com-
plements may also be realised by nominal clauses such as that-clauses and inter-
rogative clauses (cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 728, 1049, 1051, 1054). The use of nominal
clauses as subject complements in SVC clause patterns using a copular verb in
either subject or complement position was quite frequent in the corpus data. Con-
cerning the type of reference in these instances, there typically was a referential
relation between the subject of a clause and its subject complement with a general
noun phrase being either in the subject or in the subject complement position.
145
In the case where the general noun phrase is in the subject position and refers
to its subject complement we can speak of cataphoric reference of the general
noun phrase subject to its subject complement. In the case where the general
noun phrase is in the subject complement position we can speak of anaphoric
reference of the general noun phrase subject complement to the subject of the
clause. To illustrate the former, see the following examples taken from the judg-
ment corpus:
(29) The question that these appeals give rise to is whether a creditor who wishes to en-
force the security to obtain performance of the debt for which security was given
can choose whether to proceed by way of a calling-up notice or may proceed in-
stead on the basis that the debtor is in default under standard condition 9(1)(b).
(S NP + V + Cs interrogative clause) [J2-17-3]
(30) The next matter to note is that the 1992 Act was a consolidating statute. (S NP + V +
Cs that-clause) [J3-14-1]
Example (29) provides a case of cataphoric reference of a general noun phrase in

subject position to its subject complement. The general noun phrase the question
that these appeals give rise to is the subject of the clause (S NP) and the underlined
interrogative clause is the respective subject complement (Cs interrogative clause) which
provides the definition of the subject and identifies what the question that these
appeals give rise to refers to. Subject and subject complement in example (29)
are linked with the copular verb be. Similarly, in example (30), the subject of the
clause which is realised by the general noun phrase the next matter to note (S NP)
is complemented by the subject complement of the clause which is realised by
the that-clause that the 1992 Act was a consolidating statute (Cs that-clause). Both
units are linked by the copular verb be. The subject refers cataphorically to its
subject complement because the complementing that-clause identifies the refer-
ent of the general noun phrase in subject position.
For a demonstration of anaphoric reference of a general noun phrase in sub-
ject complement position to its subject see the following examples from the
judgment corpus:
(31) The question1 whether the planning assumptions can be taken into account too is
the crucial question2 in this case. (S NP + V + Cs NP) [J1-17-3]
(32) Whether this conduct (and that of his father-in-law with whom he secretly con-
structed the house) was or was not susceptible to prosecution under the general
criminal law cannot be the determining question here. (S interrogative clause + V + Cs NP)
[J7-17-16]
In example (31), the general noun phrase the question1 whether the planning as-
sumptions can be taken into account too is the subject of the clause (S NP). The
146
general noun phrase the crucial question2 in this case is the subject complement
of the clause (Cs NP). Both units are linked by the copular verb be. While the sub-
ject complement is merely a characterising attribute for the subject, we can say
that, vice versa, the subject defines and identifies the referent of the subject com-
plement. Thus, the crucial question in this case anaphorically refers to the question
whether the planning assumptions can be taken into account too. In example (32),
the subject of the clause is the interrogative clause beginning with whether (bro-
ken underlining) (S interrogative clause) and the subject complement of the clause is the
general noun phrase the determining question (Cs NP). Both units are linked with
the copular verb be. Similar to the reference relation in example (31), the subject
complement in example (32) refers anaphorically to its subject, which provides
a definition for it and thus identifies the referent of the general noun phrase the
determining question.
6.2.3.1.5 Remote reference

As described under Sections 3.3.1 and 3.4.2.2 the type of reference called ‘remote
reference’ describes anaphoric or cataphoric reference between a general noun
phrase and another item in the text which is remote. This means that a larger
passage of text lies in between the two items, which makes it difficult if not im-
possible for the decoder to identify the reference relation between the general
noun phrase and the reference item. See the following example taken from the
judgment corpus to illustrate a case of remote reference:
(33) The question whether the planning assumptions can be taken into account too is
the crucial question in this case.
[8 pages of text in between]
I do not think that the parties can have given express consideration to the question
that has arisen in this case. [J1-17-5]
Example (33) shows a case of remote reference. The general noun phrase the
question that has arisen in this case remotely refers to the reference item, the
general noun phrase the question whether the planning assumptions can be taken
into account too, which goes back 8 pages in the judgment. Since the reference
is remote, the memory of the decoder might be overwhelmed and they might
not be able to identify the reference item. However, it can also be argued that the
decoder is nevertheless able to identify the reference relation despite its remote-
ness. Very often, remote reference is used, for example in judgments, for eco-
nomic reasons. For example, the general noun phrase the matter remotely refers
to the overall concern or the facts of the case which have been explained at the
beginning of a judgment. See the following example to illustrate this:
147
(34) The two sides have now been arguing for over six years about DCC’s tax return for
the relevant period […].
[5 pages of text in between]
That figure of £1.8m is the only one agreed by both sides (and by the Special Com-
missioner and all the judges who have so far considered the matter) as an element
in the tax computations. [J6-14-1]
Since the facts of the case include the essential information for the judgment in
question, it can be argued that the decoder is able to memorise these facts and to
identify that the matter refers to these facts even if there is a longer passage of text
in between the remotely referring general noun phrase and the reference item,
the explanations of the facts of the case. In this context, Löbner (cf. 1998: 13–14)
introduces the notion of ‘globally defined functional concept’. This means that
a particular referent (for example the referent of the matter in example (34)) is
only defined once for the given situation of utterance. This means that at the very
beginning of the judgment, it was defined what the matter refers to, thus, what
the facts of the case are. Löbner (cf. 1998: 14) explains that since the situation of
utterance is one and the same throughout the entire text (here: the judgment) the
general noun phrase the matter (used to referring to the facts of the case) works
as a ‘globally defined functional concept’. Löbner (1998: 14) states that “[e]ach
time the expression occurs […], its anchoring is reactivated”. In this respect, the
globally defined noun phrase differs from other referring items whose referents
are determined by only locally defined functional concepts (cf. 1998: 14).
Section 3.3.1 has shown that remote reference can be used by the encoder
for different reasons, for example to be deliberately unspecific about something.
This might be intended by the encoder, for example, to avoid being unpolite and
offending (see Section 3.3.1 for a more detailed discussion). Additionally, the
present section has shown that remote reference occurs when a general noun
phrase, once globally defined for a situation of utterance, refers to a preceding
item in the text. Very often, this is done for economic reasons.
6.2.3.2 Generic reference

According to Quirk et al. (cf. 1985: 265), generic reference is reference to a class
of entities without specific reference to a particular member of that class. This
reference occurs with singular and plural noun phrases as well as with definite
and indefinite noun phrases.
A general noun phrase with the indefinite article, for example, can generically
refer to a representative member of a class (cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 281). See the
following example from the judgment corpus:
148
(35) It was well understood that a person was in principle entitled to recover at com-
mon law money paid under a mistake of fact. [J3-2-7]
Generic general noun phrases with zero article can have both plural nouns and
non-count nouns as head. These general noun phrases consider a class of enti-
ties as an undifferentiated whole (cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 282). See the following
example from the judgment corpus:
(36) …‘subsidiary protection’ which Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004
(the Qualification Directive) requires to be given to certain third country nationals
or stateless persons. [J8-2-1]
General noun phrases with the definite article can only express generic reference
with singular heads indicating the class as represented by its typical specimen
(cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 282):
(37) Where any such determination […] is made, the person making the determination
shall […] (b) specify the period during which that amount was paid to the person
concerned. [J3-2-2-], [J3-2-3]
According to Quirk et al. (cf. 1985: 283) the definite article together with plural
nouns other than nationality names (the Chinese) or phrases with an adjective
head referring to a group of people (the blind) cannot be used for generic refer-
ence. However, there were cases of generic reference expressed by a combination
of the definite article and a plural noun in the corpus data. See the following
example taken from the judgment corpus:
(38) It is worth noting that the deed contained a declaration in terms of which the
expression, ‘the Obligant’, was to mean both the persons who granted the security
[…]. [J2-2-2]
Here, the general noun phrase the persons who granted the security is generic
because it refers to all persons who grant securities hypothetically and therefore
generally refers to a group of persons.
The form ‘all + noun’ with no article usually has generic reference (cf. Quirk
et al. 1985: 259). Similarly, the form ‘no + noun’ with no article usually has ge-
neric reference (cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 392). See the following examples from the
corpus:
(39) All young people should be active and engaged in their communities, […]. [LM-
1-124]
(40) No child should have to grow up in poverty. [LM-5-51]
There were instances of generic reference in the corpus data expressed by the first
person plural and a general noun phrase head. See the following example:
149
(41) The Tories want to gamble with our children’s education. [LM-5-7]
Quirk et al. (cf. 1985: 350) state that ‘we’ and ‘our’ can be used in the collective
sense of ‘we, the nation’ or ‘we, the party’ expressing generic reference. This is
demonstrated in example (41), where our children generically refers to ‘Britain’s
children’.
150
7. Corpus analysis
Abstract: Chapter 7 presents the results of a detailed quantitative and qualitative analysis
of general noun phrases across the four sub-corpora. As an outcome, a number of patterns
of general noun phrase use are suggested, which show that these items are much more
flexible in form and function than described by Halliday/Hasan (1976).
The present chapter presents the results of the corpus analysis of general noun
phrases. For the analysis, corpus occurrences of the general noun phrase heads
introduced by Halliday/Hasan (1976) were investigated in the four different sub-
corpora and will be discussed on the basis of the general assumptions concerning
the use of general noun phrases in different media and genres presented earlier
(cf. Section 4.4).
The analysis in the present study is based on quantitative and qualitative
methods. After the raw data had been turned into relevant data, the frequency of
relevant general noun phrase heads was determined and their distribution was
investigated in and across the four sub-corpora. The results of this quantitative
analysis are presented in Section 7.1. Then, the degree of specification of relevant
general noun phrases, which is defined by the correlation of the parameters mod-
ification and linkage, was determined in each of the four sub-corpora. The results
of this qualitative analysis are presented in Section 7.2.
7.1 Quantitative analysis: Frequencies and distribution of

relevant general noun phrase heads in the corpora
7.1.1 Quantitative results from the judgment corpus
The results of the frequency count of general noun phrase heads in the judgment
corpus are presented in Table 7.1 below. The table indicates the raw, thus non-
normalised as well as the normalised frequency of each general noun phrase
head in the judgment corpus.1
1 Note that the four sub-corpora differ in length. Thus, in order to compare the number
of general noun phrase heads in these corpora, the results were normalised for a sub-
corpus with a length of 100,000 words. Note that the discussion in Section 7.1 will refer
only to the normalised frequencies of general noun phrase heads.
151
Table 7.1: Frequencies of general noun phrase heads in the judgment corpus
Tokens
Type count counted manually counted automatically
non-normalised non-normalised normalised
people 3 3 3.82
person 54 52 66.25
man 7 4 5.1
woman 3 3 3.82
child 13 1 1.27
boy 0 0 0
girl 0 0 0
creature 2 0 0
thing 9 0 0
object 7 0 0
stuff 0 0 0
business 16 0 0
affair 4 1 1.27
matter 62 36 45.86
move 10 0 0
place 15 3 3.82
question 119 78 99.37
idea 3 1 1.27
sum 327 182 231.85
In Table 7.1, the left column presents the 18 general noun phrase heads that
were investigated in the analysis (types). The second column from the left pre-
sents the non-normalised frequencies of all the general noun phrase heads in
the judgment corpus, both relevant and irrelevant (tokens). The third column
from the left presents the final results of frequency count of the 18 general noun
phrase heads after supplementary manual investigation and therefore presents
only the non-normalised frequencies of relevant general noun phrase heads in
the judgment corpus. In addition, the rightmost column displays the normalised
frequencies of these relevant general noun phrase heads.
The normalised overall frequency of all 18 general noun phrase heads in the
judgment corpus is 231.85. This frequency is made up of a rather uneven distri-
bution of general noun phrase head types: we can see that three general noun
152
phrase head types stand out in terms of their frequency, namely person, matter
and question. In comparison to the 15 remaining general noun phrase head types
which occur considerably less often or do not occur at all, person, matter and
question show a relatively high frequency within the judgment corpus: person
occurs 66.25 times, matter occurs 45.86 times and question occurs 99.37 times.
Together, these three general noun phrase heads occur 211.48 times, which al-
ready accounts for almost 90% of the overall frequency of general noun phrase
head tokens in the judgment corpus.
The remaining 7 general noun phrase head types occur only between 1.27
times and a maximum of 5.1 times in the judgment corpus. These are people,
man, woman, child, affair, place and idea. Eight general noun phrase heads do
not occur at all, namely boy, girl, creature, thing, object, stuff, business and move.
The distribution of general noun phrase head types and tokens in the judgment
corpus is shown in the following figure:
Figure 7.1: General noun phrase head types and tokens in the judgment corpus
115
question
n
110
105
100
95
90
85
80
person
n
75
70
65
60
55
matter
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
woman
people
business
crreature
place
man
10
affair
object
child
move
hing
idea
sttuff
5
boy
girl
c
a
th
i
g
b
The x-axis of Figure 7.1 displays the 18 general noun phrase heads under inves-
tigation and the y-axis represents their normalised frequencies in the judgment
corpus.
Mahlberg (cf. 2005: 164) states that frequent nouns characterise a group of
text. These nouns have local textual functions that refer to properties of texts,
153
e.g. texts that deal with certain topics. In reference to the results of the quantita-
tive analysis of general noun phrase heads in the judgment corpus presented in
Table 7.1 and Figure 7.1, we can similarly assume that person, matter and ques-
tion are frequent general noun phrase heads (in comparison to the remaining
general noun phrase heads investigated). This implies that they characterise the
Supreme Court judgments as a group of text.2 For the general noun phrase head
person, this holds true insofar as person is a word typically used in legal English.
According to the Oxford Dictionaries online, person in legal or formal contexts
refers to an unspecified individual (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defini-
tion/english/person, last access 30th September 2014). See the following example,
which illustrates the typical use of the general noun phrase head person in the
judgment corpus:
(1) Where any such determination as is referred to in subsection (1) above is made,
the person making the determination shall in the case of the Secretary of State or
the First-tier Tribunal, and may in the case of the Upper Tribunal or a court – […].
[J3-2-2]
Besides the typical use of the general noun phrase head person in Supreme Court
judgments, the general noun phrase heads matter and question also typically oc-
curred in the Supreme Court judgments investigated. The following three exam-
ples demonstrate the use of the general noun phrase heads question and matter
in Supreme Court judgments:
(2) All this is expressly provided for by section 71 of the Social Security Administration
Act 1992 (the 1992 Act). But does section 71 provide an exclusive code for recovery?
That is the question. [J3-17-2]
(3) The respondents appealed against the costs officers’ decision under rule 53 of the
Supreme Court Rules. They asked the single Justice to refer the following questions
to a panel of Justices under rule 53(2): […] The single Justice referred the applica-
tion to a panel of five Justices and directed that these questions should be decided
after an oral hearing. [J5-17-1], [J5-17-3]
2 What Mahlberg (cf. 2005: 164) refers to as frequent nouns are 20 ‘general nouns’ that
are among the most frequent nouns in the BNC and the Bank of English (rank 1–91).
Note that these ‘general nouns’ do not correspond to the general noun phrase heads
listed by Halliday/Hasan (1976) and investigated in the present study. Nevertheless, it
can be argued that Mahlberg’s conception of frequent nouns with local textual functions
can be transferred to the general noun phrase heads investigated in the present study.
Therefore, it can be assumed that the most frequent general noun phrase heads in each
sub-corpus have local textual functions that characterise a group of corpus texts.
154
(4) The council denied that the building constructed was a dwelling house, maintained
that a ten year period for enforcement applied under section 171B(3) and on
30 August 2007 refused a certificate. Mr Beesley appealed and the matter came
before Mr K L Williams, a planning inspector appointed by the second respondent,
the Secretary of State. [J7-14-4]
Example (2) shows that the general noun phrase head question is used in Supreme
Court judgments to express that facts of the case are questioned and revised.
Apart from that, questions that are raised are typically referred to throughout the
hearings, which can be illustrated in example (3). Here, the general noun phrase
the following questions is used cataphorically, while the general noun phrase these
questions is used anaphorically. Both general noun phrases thus have a text-
organising function. Example (4) reveals that the general noun phrase head mat-
ter is typically used in Supreme Court judgments when referring to the facts of
the case, the disputable aspects or the legal dispute as a whole. The general noun
phrase head matter can then be used to refer to and encapsulate these complex
points for the purpose of reduction.
7.1.2 Quantitative results from the manifesto corpus

The results of the quantitative analysis of general noun phrases in the manifesto
corpus are presented in Table 7.2 below:
Table 7.2: Frequencies of general noun phrase heads in the manifesto corpus
Tokens
people 467 418 542.56
person 9 5 6.49
man 12 8 10.38
woman 21 15 19.47
child 219 154 199.89
boy 0 0 0
girl 2 2 2.60
creature 0 0 0
thing 26 1 1.30
object 0 0 0
stuff 0 0 0
business 144 0 0
155
Tokens
affair 7 3 3.89
matter 12 1 1.30
move 21 2 2.60
place 77 17 22.10
question 6 3 3.89
idea 12 10 12.98
sum 1,035 639 829.42
The normalised overall frequency of general noun phrase heads in the mani-
festo corpus is considerably high with 829.42 occurrences of all 18 general noun
phrase heads. Similar to the results of the judgment corpus, there are two gen-
eral noun phrase head types in the manifesto corpus that stand out concerning
their frequency; these are people and child. People occurs 542.56 times in the
manifesto corpus and child occurs 199.89 times. These frequencies show that
the two general noun phrase heads people and child together account for almost
90% of the overall frequency of general noun phrase head tokens in the mani-
festo corpus.
Following the very frequent general noun phrase head types people and child,
the general noun phrase head types woman and place occur 19.47 times and
22.10 times. The remaining general noun phrase head types occur 1.30 times
(thing) up to 12.98 times (idea). Five general noun phrase head types, namely
boy, creature, object, stuff, business, did not occur at all in the manifesto corpus.
Interestingly, these five general noun phrase heads are the very general noun
phrase heads that did not occur in the judgment corpus. See the following figure,
which illustrates the distribution of general noun phrase head types and tokens
in the manifesto corpus:
156
Figure 7.2: General noun phrase head types and tokens in the manifesto corpus
600
ple
80
580
peop
560
540
520
500
480
460
440
420
400
380
360
340
320
300
280
260
240
child
220
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
woman
qquestion
bbusiness
60
place
crreature
pperson
matter
oobject
aaffair
move
idea
40
man
thhing
sttuff
ggirl
bboy
20
m
m
0
Figure 7.2 shows that in the manifesto corpus, the general noun phrase heads
people and child considerably outnumber the remaining 16 general noun phrase
heads regarding their frequency. In the context of Mahlberg’s discussion of tex-
tual functions of frequent nouns (cf. 2005: 164), this suggests that people and
child among other nouns textually characterise the political manifestos investi-
gated. Considering the content and purpose of political manifestos, this is cer-
tainly true: a manifesto describes a party’s political concerns and goals for the
upcoming electoral period and is thus aimed at possible future voters. In the
case of the British party manifestos that were investigated in the present study, a
highly frequent use of the general noun phrase head people is thus comprehen-
sible: the manifestos are aimed at British people and address all those political
issues that affect these people. See the following example:
(5) Under a Liberal Democrat government, you will not have to pay any income tax
on the first £10,000 you earn. This will put £700 back into the pockets of millions of
people on low and middle incomes and free 3.6 million more people on low incomes
from having to pay any income tax at all. [LDM-1-11], [LDM-1-12]
In example (5), the general noun phrases millions of people on low and middle in-
comes and 3.6 million more people on low incomes are used to refer to a particular
part of the British people, namely all British people on low and middle incomes.
157
The Liberal Democrats describe a financial advantage that they want to provide
for this rather broad class of the British population.
The frequent use of the general noun phrase head people in the manifesto cor-
pus can also be said to express that the politicians very often address the people
of Britain (the possible electorate) in order to emphasise the integration of the
voters into the party’s political concerns. See the following example:
(6) We will stamp out corruption and abuse by giving people power to sack corrupt
MPs, end big money politics, and make sure those who seek to sit in Parliament pay
full UK taxes. [LDM-1-7]
In example (6), the general noun phrase head people is used to refer to all the
British people, or at least all eligible voters. The Liberal Democrats emphasise
that all those people will be integrated into political concerns and that they will
gain certain powers.
Similar to the frequent use of the general noun phrase head people demonstrat-
ed in examples (5) and (6), the general noun phrase head child is also used fre-
quently and thus indicates that topics such as family life, childcare and education
are dealt with in the manifestos. See the following example for a demonstration:
(7) Don’t settle for low politics and broken promises: be more demanding. Set your
sights on the Britain you want for your children and your grandchildren, and use
your vote to make it happen. [LDM-5-2]
Here, possible voters are addressed directly with the expression the Britain you
want for your children. The possible voter is asked to change the political situa-
tion so that the future of their (future) children is safe. The whole topic ‘children’
is an emotional issue for many people, which is why manifestos deal with this
topic. This explains a high frequency of the general noun phrase head child.
In the context of textual functions of general noun phrases, another aspect is
very interesting: the two general noun phrase heads woman (19.11 times) and
girl (2.55 times) are more frequent than man (10.19 times) and boy (does not oc-
cur) in the manifesto corpus. This might indicate that the rights of women and
the equality of men and women are important topics in political discourse. The
following example supports this assumption:
(8) Introducing fair pay audits for every company with over 100 employees to combat
discrimination in pay, for example against women. [LDM-4-2]
158
7.1.3 Quantitative results from the debate corpus
The results of the quantitative analysis of general noun phrase heads in the de-
bate corpus are presented in Table 7.3 below:
Table 7.3: Frequencies of general noun phrase heads in the debate corpus
Tokens
people 233 219 273.31
person 7 6 7.49
man 12 10 12.48
woman 45 36 44.93
child 73 49 61.15
boy 0 0 0
girl 13 12 14.98
creature 0 0 0
thing 41 2 2.50
object 3 0 0
stuff 0 0 0
business 99 1 1.25
affair 37 0 0
matter 74 64 79.89
move 17 3 3.74
place 83 16 19.97
question 111 20 24.96
idea 17 17 21.22
sum 865 455 567.84
As we can see in Table 7.3, there are 567.84 normalised occurrences of gen-
eral noun phrase heads in the debate corpus. Similar to the manifesto corpus,
the general noun phrase head people outnumbers the remaining general noun
phrase heads in the corpus concerning its frequency. People is the most frequent
general noun phrase head in the debate corpus; it occurs 273.31 times. Second
most frequent is a group of general noun phrase heads including matter with
79.87 occurrences, followed by child with 61.15 occurrences and woman with
44.93 occurrences. Third most frequent is a group of general noun phrase heads
159
including question with 24.96 occurrences, idea with 21.22 occurrences, place
with 19.97 occurrences, girl with 14.98 occurrences, man with 12.48 occurrenc-
es, and person with 7.49 occurrences. The remaining general noun phrase head
types, including move, thing, and business occur 1.27 up to 3.74 times. Five gen-
eral noun phrase head types do not occur altogether, namely boy, creature, object,
stuff and affair. These general noun phrase heads correspond to those that did
not occur in the judgment corpus and in the manifesto corpus. For an overview
of the distribution of general noun phrase head types and tokens in the debate
corpus see the following figure:
Figure 7.3: General noun phrase head types and tokens in the debate corpus
320
300
people
280
260
240
220
200
180
160
140
120
matterr
100
80
child
wooman
60
questionn
40
place
idea
business
person
crreature
man
girl
move
object
thing
affair
20
sttuff
boy
m
b
t
b
The distribution of general noun phrase head types and tokens in the debate
corpus, which is presented in Figure 7.3, shows clearly that the general noun
phrase head people is the most frequent type with a considerable distance to the
remaining general noun phrase heads. Figure 7.3 also shows that of the remain-
ing general noun phrase heads, woman, child and matter occur quite frequently
with 44.93 up to 79.87 tokens.
Similar to what has been discussed concerning the general noun phrase
head people in the manifesto corpus, it can be stated that people is also typically
used in the parliamentary debates investigated and therefore has a characteris-
ing function for this group of texts. Considering the content and purpose of
160
parliamentary debates, people is often used because parliamentary debates dis-
cuss topics that concern and affect the British people. See the following example:
(9) Richard Benyon: […] I do not want to burden people with regulation – that is
not the direction that the Government are going in – and I am happy to meet my
hon. Friend and the MMO to see whether we can find another way forward, […].
[D3-1-1]
The following example demonstrates the second most frequent general noun
phrase head matter in the debate corpus:
(10) Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab): The European Safety Authority has concluded that
the major factor causing poor welfare in dairy cows is genetic selection to produce
high yields. Given proposals to intensify milk production for higher yields, […],
will the Secretary of State agree urgently to review the welfare code for dairy cows
in the UK, and to meet a delegation of cross-party MPs and non-governmental
organisations to discuss how her Department can ensure that its code takes into
account the latest scientific advice and ensures that any new dairies do not com-
promise cow welfare?
Mr Paice: I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and others to discuss the matter,
but I assure him that the Department puts welfare at the top of our agenda, […].
[D3-14-5]
Example (10) illustrates the use of the general noun phrase the matter of one
member of parliament to refer back to a preceding statement of another mem-
ber of parliament (here the passage that is marked by broken underlining). In
example (10), as in many other examples in the debate corpus, the general noun
phrase head matter is used throughout a discussion to refer back to political is-
sues that are on the agenda of a debate. This way, the general noun phrase can be
used to encapsulate complex facts and reify them.3
7.1.4 Conversation corpus

The results of the quantitative analysis of general noun phrase heads in the con-
versation corpus are presented in Table 7.4 below:
3 See Halliday/Hasan (cf. 1976: 52) for ‘extended reference’ (Section 2.1.2); see also Sec-
tion 6.2.3.1.2 for the concept of ‘encapsulation’ through the use of general noun phrases.
161
Table 7.4: Frequencies of general noun phrase heads in the conversation corpus
Tokens
people 35 26 36.76
person 4 3 4.24
man 11 1 1.41
woman 7 7 9.90
child 24 14 19.80
boy 18 10 14.14
girl 41 23 32.52
creature 1 1 1.41
thing 140 58 82.01
object 0 0 0
stuff 56 44 62.22
business 6 0 0
affair 4 3 4.24
matter 22 0 0
move 12 0 0
place 31 18 25.45
question 3 2 2.83
idea 6 2 2.83
sum 421 212 299.77
As we can see in Table 7.4, there are 299.77 normalised instances of general
noun phrase heads in the conversation corpus. The two most frequent general
noun phrase head types are thing and stuff with a normalised frequency of 82.01
and 62.22. Second most frequent is a group of general noun phrase head types
including people with 36.76 occurrences, girl with 32.52 occurrences and place
with 25.45 occurrences. Third most frequent is a group of general noun phrase
head types including woman with 9.90 occurrences, child with 19.80 occurrenc-
es, and boy with 14.14 occurrences. The remaining general noun phrase head
types including person, man, creature, affair, question, and idea occur 1.41 up to
4.24 times.
Four general noun phrase head types do not occur altogether, these are object,
business, matter, and move. They partly correspond to those general noun phrase
162
head types that did not occur in the judgment corpus, the manifesto corpus and
the debate corpus. Concerning the distribution of general noun phrase head
types and tokens in the conversation corpus, see the following figure:
Figure 7.4: General noun phrase head types and tokens in the conversation corpus
thing
85
t
80
75
70
stuff
65
60
55
50
45
ple
peop
40
girl
35
plaace
30
25
child
20
boy
man
15
b
wom
question
person
10
creature
affair
business
idea
matter
object
man
move
5
m
m
o
Figure 7.4 shows that although the overall number of general noun phrase head
tokens in the conversation corpus is rather low, the conversation corpus has the
broadest distribution of general noun phrase head types; in other words, more
different general noun phrase head types occur in the conversation corpus and
they occur quite frequently (with more than five tokens). Note that this becomes
clearer when comparing the frequencies and distribution of general noun phrase
heads across the four sub-corpora in Section 7.1.5.
Two general noun phrase heads, namely thing and stuff, are used more fre-
quently than the remaining general noun phrase heads. This can be explained
with the purpose and appropriateness of language use in conversations: in the
context of the restricted style of referencing,4 which is typical of conversations,
it was mentioned that this style of referencing is characterised by a frequent use
of pronouns and deictic expressions and an infrequent use of complex noun
phrases (cf. Esser 2009: 36). Partington (cf. 1998: 91) states that ‘general nouns’
4 For a detailed discussion, see Section 3.3.3.
163
are part of the system of deixis and function as pro-forms which corresponds
to Halliday/Hasan’s (cf. 1976: 274) statement that ‘general nouns’ are items on
the borderline between the open and closed class system. When general noun
phrase heads like thing and stuff, which are very general in meaning, are used to
refer to objects that are talked about in conversations, referencing heavily relies
on the shared situation. The objects that are talked about are mutually accessible
to encoders and decoders and therefore it is sufficient to refer to those objects
even with such a general term as thing, because the encoder assumes that the
decoder sees and understands what is meant. In contrast, objects that are talked
about in written discourse have to be properly introduced with lexically filled
noun phrases (cf. Esser 2009: 36–37). Thus, very general noun phrases like thing
and stuff would be inappropriate in such a context.
The frequent use of the general noun phrase heads thing and stuff in conversa-
tions can also be explained with the theory of conversational implicature formu-
lated by Grice (1975).5 Conversation is a cooperative venture and speakers are
assumed to adhere to four maxims of conversation. According to these maxims,
speakers try to send truthful, informative, relevant and unambiguous messages
and hearers assume them to do so (cf. Grice 1975: 45–46). When a speaker is
faced with the dilemma of being unable to fulfil a certain maxim without disre-
garding another, then vague expressions (e.g. general noun phrase heads such as
thing and stuff) can help them to be, for example, as truthful as possible in a situ-
ation where they are not able to give an exact reply (for example because they do
not know better) (cf. Channell 1994: 33). Furthermore, vague expressions enable
a speaker to imply in their utterance things that they need not verbalise because
the listener is assumed to be cooperative and willing to follow what the speaker
says and means (cf. Grice 1975: 44). This aspect again follows up the statement
that an elaborated style of referencing is not necessary and not appropriate in
face-to-face situations.
The following example demonstrates the use of the general noun phrase head
stuff, which enables the speaker to follow the Gricean maxims of conversation:
(11) PS02A: What colour are you having the worktop?
PS029: Well I thought cos I like that marble flooring. If they haven’t got any
green worktops cos Ange said when she went up there
PS02A: You’d best price that as well.
PS029: What?
PS02A: Your flooring.
5 For a detailed explanation, see Section 3.4.1.
164
PS029: Yeah. They didn’t have any worktops, the green Ange said. She can’t
remember any but there again you were she weren’t looking for green.
But they’ve got that marble. You know what we had? Over Jan’s, pity we
didn’t nick that weren’t it? They got that sort of marble stuff. The same
as the floor so I might pick the green marble. To go with the floor.
[C1-11-4]
The extract from the conversation in example (11) shows that speaker PS029
uses the general noun phrase that sort of marble stuff to refer to all the objects
that are made of marble or that are of marble colour. Speaker PS029 probably
does not know the exact term for the material, which is why they use the general
noun phrase head stuff, which is a very broad and general description. That way,
speaker PS029 manages to be as truthful as possible according to the evidence
they have and is thus able to follow the maxim of quality. At the same time, it is
not relevant for the speakers to know the exact term for the worktop material.
Using the general noun phrase head stuff, speaker PS029 implies that they speak
of a type of stone material used for worktops and floors. Given that the other
speakers share the situation and are cooperative, they understand what is meant.
Example (11) has shown how the general noun phrase head stuff is typically used
in conversation. This use is representative for many similar uses of the general
noun phrase head stuff and also thing in the conversation corpus.
7.1.5 Summary and comparison of results

The preceding sections have dealt with the results of the quantitative analysis
for each of the four sub-corpora. The aim of the present section is to compare
these results and discuss in how far they confirm the assumptions concerning
the frequency and distribution of general noun phrases across different genres
and media (cf. Section 4.4).
The results of the quantitative analysis confirmed the first of my assumptions,
as they show that general noun phrases are indeed used in naturally occurring
language data, namely in different texts from different genres and media (see
Section 4.4). However, this does not apply to all 18 general noun phrase head
types investigated in the present study. The analysis of the four sub-corpora
showed that the general noun phrase head object does not occur at all in the four
sub-corpora. The general noun phrase heads boy, creature, stuff and business do
not occur in three of the four sub-corpora, the general noun phrase head move
does not occur in two of the four sub-corpora and the general noun phrase heads
affair, matter, girl and thing do not occur in one of the four sub-corpora. This
means that the general noun phrase heads people, person, man, woman, child,
165
place, question and idea occur in all four sub-corpora investigated (for a detailed
discussion of the distribution of general noun phrase head types in the four sub-
corpora, see Figure 7.7).
The quantitative analysis revealed that the normalised overall frequency of
general noun phrase heads differs across the four sub-corpora of the present
study. The following figure presents a comparison:
Figure 7.5: Comparison of the normalised overall frequencies of general noun phrase heads
in the four sub-corpora
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Judgment corpus Manifesto corpus Debate corpus Conversation corpus
Figure 7.5 displays the normalised frequencies of general noun phrase heads in
the four sub-corpora. The manifesto corpus has the highest overall frequency of
general noun phrase heads with 829.42 occurrences. It is followed by the debate
corpus with a normalised overall frequency of 567.84 general noun phrase heads,
and the conversation corpus with the third highest normalised overall frequency
of general noun phrase heads with 299.77 occurrences. The difference between the
frequencies of general noun phrase heads in these three corpora is approximately
the same. The judgment corpus, which has the lowest normalised frequency of
general noun phrase heads (231.85 occurrences), closely follows the conversation
corpus. The results illustrated in Figure 7.5 confirm the second of my assump-
tions, which stated that both sub-corpora from the political domain show a higher
frequency of general noun phrase heads than the legal language corpus which
shows a lower frequency of general noun phrase heads (see Section 4.4). The con-
versation corpus, which was assumed to have the highest frequency of general
noun phrase heads, surprisingly shows only the third highest frequency of general
166
noun phrase heads. The findings displayed in Figure 7.5 confirm that the overall
frequency of general noun phrase heads differs across genres.
The third of my assumptions, which stated that the overall frequency of gen-
eral noun phrase heads also depends on the medium and that spoken language
displays a higher overall frequency of general noun phrase heads than written lan-
guage, could, however, not be generally confirmed. This can be explained by the
fact that the overall frequency of general noun phrase heads in the written medium
is both very high (in the manifesto corpus) and very low (in the judgment corpus).
As explained in Section 4.4, the frequency of general noun phrase heads in a
text is an indication of its generality or specification. Accordingly, the four sub-
corpora can be presented along the scale of specification, as illustrated in the
following Figure 7.6. Note, however, that the frequency of general noun phrases
is only a first indication of the generality and specification of the corpus texts
under investigation and that rather the parameters modification and linkage
(cf. Section 7.2) determine the generality and specification of the general noun
phrases, and thus of the corpus texts.
general
high frequency of general noun
phrase heads
829.42
Manifesto corpus
567.84
Debate corpus
299.77
C
Conversation
i corpus
231.85
Judgment corpus
l frequency
low f off generall noun
phrase heads
specific
167
Figure 7.6 shows that the manifesto corpus has the highest normalised overall
frequency of general noun phrase heads with 829.42 and is therefore positioned
at the very general end of the scale of specification. The debate corpus follows
with a normalised overall frequency of general noun phrase heads of 567.84 and
is thus in a relatively central position with a slight tendency towards the general
end of the scale. The conversation corpus follows with a normalised overall fre-
quency of general noun phrase heads of 299.77. Thus, the conversation corpus is
positioned towards the specific end of the scale. This was not expected, but can
be explained in the context of the restricted style of referencing in conversations.
Biber et al. (cf. 1999: 235, 578) and Esser (cf. 2009: 36) state that conversations
typically have a very high frequency of pronouns and a very low frequency of
nouns (for a detailed discussion, see Sections 3.3.3 and 7.1.4). Thus, in view of
the fact that conversations have a low frequency of nouns altogether, it is un-
derstandable that the normalised overall frequency of general noun phrases is
accordingly low in conversations. The judgment corpus is positioned near the
conversation corpus and exhibits the lowest normalised overall frequency of
general noun phrase heads with 231.85. It is therefore positioned at the specific
end of the scale.
As we can see, the fourth of my assumptions concerning the positioning of
the four sub-corpora on the scale of specification was not confirmed. According
to the fourth of my assumptions (see Section 4.4), the two spoken sub-corpora
(first the conversation corpus, then the debate corpus) were positioned at the
general end of the scale of specification, while the two written sub-corpora (first
the manifesto corpus then the judgment corpus) were positioned at the specific
end of the scale. It was thus assumed that the positioning of the sub-corpora on
the scale of specification would first and foremost dependent on the medium.
However, as discussed above (see Figure 7.5), the overall frequency of general
noun phrase heads in a sub-corpus, and thus also its positioning on the scale of
specification, does not depend on the medium but on the genre. As illustrated
above, this can be explained by the fact that in the two written sub-corpora, the
frequency of general noun phrase heads is very high (in the manifesto corpus)
and also very low (in the judgment corpus).
In the discussion of the overall frequency of general noun phrase heads so far,
we did not take into account the difference in the range of general noun phrase
types that occurred in the four sub-corpora. Thus, another interesting finding the
quantitative analysis has revealed is the distribution of general noun phrase head
types: there are differences as well as similarities across the four sub-corpora. The
following figure provides an overview:
168
169
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
360
380
400
420
440
460
480
500
520
540
people
person
man
woman
child
boy
girl
creature
thing
object
stuff
business
Judgment corpus
affair
matter
move
place
question
idea
people
person
man
woman
child
boy
girl
creature
thing
object
stuff
business
Manifesto corpus
affair
matter
move
place
question
idea
people
person
man
woman
child
boy
girl
creature
thing
object
stuff
Debate corpus
business
affair
matter
move
place
Figure 7.7: Comparison of the distribution of general noun phrase heads in the four sub-corpora
question
idea
people
person
man
woman
child
boy
girl
creature
thing
object
stuff
business
affair
Conversation corpus
matter
move
place
question
idea
Figure 7.7 compares the distribution of general noun phrase heads across the
four sub-corpora that were investigated. One interesting aspect that Figure 7.7
shows is that the extent to which the whole range of 18 different general noun
phrase head types are used in the sub-corpora differs. As explained at the begin-
ning of the present section, there are certain general noun phrase heads from
Halliday/Hasan’s list that do not occur at all in the sub-corpora. The conversation
corpus makes use of the highest number of different general noun phrase heads
(14 types), followed by the manifesto corpus and the debate corpus, which have
the same number of different general noun phrase heads (13 types), followed
by the judgment corpus, which makes use of the smallest number of different
general noun phrase heads (10 types). Apart from the number of different gen-
eral noun phrase heads in the four sub-corpora, it is interesting to see how fre-
quently these different general noun phrase heads occur in the four sub-corpora
(tokens). This can be illustrated with the red line in Figure 7.7, which marks a
normalised frequency of 20. It seems a reasonable limiting mark, which serves
as a good indicator to illustrate differences and similarities in the distribution of
general noun phrase heads across the four sub-corpora. When comparing the
general noun phrase heads above that mark, it becomes apparent that in the
judgment corpus, there are only three general noun phrase head types that occur
more than 20 times. These are person, matter and question. Similarly, there are
only three general noun phrase head types in the manifesto corpus that occur
more than 20 times, namely people, child and place. In the debate corpus, there
are six general noun phrase head types that occur more than 20 times. These
are people, woman, child, matter, place, question and idea. In the conversation
corpus, there are five general noun phrase head types, namely people, girl, thing,
stuff and place, which occur more than 20 times. We can see that in the two
spoken sub-corpora, the debate corpus and the conversation corpus, more dif-
ferent general noun phrase head types occurred frequently (more than 20 times).
Therefore, we can say that it depends on the medium how many different general
noun phrase head types occur frequently (more than 20 times).
The quantitative analysis revealed another interesting aspect which can be ob-
served in Figure 7.7: In each sub-corpus, two or more general noun phrase heads
occurred that were considerably more frequent than the remaining general noun
phrase heads in that sub-corpus. This is in line with Mahlberg’s discussion of
local textual functions of general noun phrase heads (cf. 2005: 164). Mahlberg
states that frequent nouns characterise a group of text. These nouns have local
textual functions that refer to properties of texts, e.g. texts that deal with certain
topics (cf. 2005: 164). Accordingly, we can say that those general noun phrase
170
heads that are considerably more frequent than the remaining ones have a char-
acterising function for the sub-corpus they occur in. In the judgment corpus,
these general noun phrase heads are person, matter and question. As explained in
Section 7.1.1, person is typically used in legal language to refer to an unspecific
individual. Question and matter are typically used to refer to the questions and
the facts of the case. In the manifesto corpus, the general noun phrase heads
that considerably outnumbered the remaining ones were people and child. As
explained in Section 7.1.2, people is characteristic for British political manifestos
in so far as it is typically used to address the British people, the possible future
voters. Moreover, the general noun phrase head people is used to emphasise the
integration of the British people in political concerns. Child was typically used
when referring to (emotional) topics such as family life, childcare and education.
The general noun phrase heads that characterise the debate corpus in terms of
frequency were people, woman, child and matter. As explained in Section 7.1.3,
people, woman and child were typically used because the parliamentary debates
investigated dealt with topics that affected the British people, topics such as
childcare, education and the equality of and violence against women. Matter was
typically used to refer to (complex) political issues that were on the agenda. In
the conversation corpus, the general noun phrase heads thing and stuff typically
occurred. As Section 7.1.4 explained, this is due to the restricted style of refer-
encing typically used in conversations. This style of referencing heavily relies on
the shared situations, so that thing and stuff are typically used when referring to
entities that are present in the situation of utterance.
As an example of characterising general noun phrase heads in the four sub-
corpora see the following figures:
171
Figure 7.8: Comparison of the frequencies of the general noun phrase heads ‘people’ and
‘child’
550
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Judgment corpus Manifesto corpus Debate corpus Conversation corpus
people child
Figure 7.9: Comparison of the frequencies of the general noun phrase heads ‘matter’ and
‘question’
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
400
30
20
10
0
Judgment corpus Manifesto corpus Debate corpus conversation corpus
matter question
Figure 7.8 illustrates that the use of textually characteristic general noun phrase
heads is similar in the manifesto corpus and in the debate corpus. This can be ex-
plained by the fact that both sub-corpora belong to the same domain and that the
subject-matters dealt with in the text samples are therefore similar. Interestingly,
172
the judgment corpus and the debate corpus, which belong to different domains,
also show similarities in the use of typically characterising general noun phrase
heads (cf. Figure 7.9). Although this similarity cannot be explained with a do-
main-specific use of typical general noun phrase heads, and certainly not with a
medium- or genre-specific use of typical general noun phrase heads, it can nev-
ertheless be explained with a similarity in the discourse function of the general
noun phrase heads matter and question. In the judgment corpus, as well as in the
debate corpus, matter and question are used to refer to (complex) questions and
facts that are dealt with in the Supreme Court judgments investigated, or that are
on the agenda of the parliamentary debates investigated.
Having discussed and interpreted the overall frequency, the range and the
distribution of general noun phrase heads in the four sub-corpora, the following
can be summarised: If only the overall frequency of general noun phrase heads
in the four sub-corpora is considered, the difference is genre-dependent. If we
consider the range of different general noun phrase head types (i.e. how many of
the 18 general noun phrase head types do in fact occur in the four sub-corpora),
we can see a small difference between the domains that the four sub-corpora
represent. The conversation corpus has the highest amount of different general
noun phrase types, followed by the two sub-corpora from the political domain
(debate corpus and manifesto corpus) which each have the same number of gen-
eral noun phrase head types. The corpus from the legal domain has the lowest
amount of different general noun phrase types. Now, if we only take into ac-
count the range of different general noun phrase head types with a minimum
token frequency of 20, we can see a medium-based difference between the four
sub-corpora. Figure 7.7 has shown that the two spoken sub-corpora, the debate
corpus and the conversation corpus, show a wider distribution of general noun
phrase head types with a minimum frequency of 20. There are six different types
in the debate corpus and five in the conversation corpus while there are only
three different general noun phrase head types with a minimum frequency of
20 in the two written corpora (judgment and manifesto corpus).
7.2 Qualitative analysis: The degree of specification of relevant

general noun phrases in the corpora
7.2.1 Qualitative results from the judgment corpus
After all relevant general noun phrase heads in the judgment corpus had been
identified, numbered and coded, they were analysed in terms of modification
and reference. The purpose of this was to determine their degree of specification
173
and, finally, to make a statement about their use across the different genres and
media in the four sub-corpora of the present study.
In a first step, it was determined how many of the 182 relevant general noun
phrases in the judgment corpus were complex and how many were simple
(+/- modification). Then, it was analysed how many of the 182 relevant general
noun phrases in the judgment corpus were linked to their co-text through en-
dophoric reference and how many were not linked (+/- linkage). The results are
illustrated below:
Table 7.5: Modified and non-modified general noun phrase heads in the judgment corpus
Total no. of general noun phrases + Modification – Modification

182 108 74
100 % 59.34 % 40.66 %
Table 7.6: Linked and non-linked general noun phrases in the judgment corpus
Total no. of general noun phrases + Linkage – Linkage

182 105 77
100 % 57.69 % 42.31 %
As we can see in Table 7.5, there were more complex general noun phrases in the
judgment corpus than simple ones. In particular, 59.34% of the 182 relevant gen-
eral noun phrases had a modifier, either premodified, postmodified or both. The
other 40.66% of the 182 relevant general noun phrases were simple, which means
their heads were not modified. In terms of linkage, Table 7.6 shows that the num-
ber of linked general noun phrases in the judgment corpus was higher than the
number of those that were not linked. In particular, 57.69% of the relevant gen-
eral noun phrases enodphorically referred to some other item in their co-text.
The other 42.31% of the 182 general noun phrases had no endophoric reference.
Note that neither the parameter modification nor the parameter linkage alone
is sufficient to determine the degree of specification of general noun phrases.
It is rather the correlation of both parameters. The outcome is illustrated in the
following figure:
174
Figure 7.10: Correlation of modification and linkage of general noun phrases in the judgment
corpus
‘most specific’ general ‘rather specific’

noun phrases general noun phrases
+ linkage
29.57% 27.47%
(55) (50)
– linkage
29.12% 13.19%
(53) (24)
‘less specific’ general ‘least specific’ general

noun phrases noun phrases
As illustrated in Figure 7.10, the distribution of general noun phrases is rath-

er even across three of the four categories of specification: 29.57% of the to-
tal of 182 relevant general noun phrases were ‘most specific’, which means they
were characterised by the parameters + modification and + linkage. Similarly,
27.47% of the relevant general noun phrases were defined as ‘rather specific’
(- modification/+ linkage), and 29.12% of the relevant general noun phrases
were ‘less specific’ (+ modification/- linkage). By contrast, only 13.19% of the
relevant general noun phrases were neither modified nor linked, which means
they were ‘least specific’.
In a second step of the qualitative analysis of general noun phrases in the
judgment corpus, the distribution of general noun phrase heads across the four
categories of specification was determined. The results are illustrated in the fol-
lowing figure:
175
Figure 7.11: Distribution of general noun phrase heads across the four categories of
specification in the judgment corpus
question (46) woman (1)

question (27)
person (3) place (1)
matter (22)
matter (3) idea (1)
person (1)
‘most specific’ ‘rather specific’
+ linkage
29.57% 27.47%
(55) (50)
‘less specific’ ‘least specific’
– linkage
29.12% 13.19%
(53) (24)
person (31) woman (2) person (16) question (2)

matter (10) place (2) people (2) child (1)
question (5) people (1) man (2) affair (1)
man (2)
Figure 7.11 shows which general noun phrase heads typically occurred in the
four categories of specification in the judgment corpus (raw frequencies). In the
‘most specific’ and ‘rather specific’ category, question was the most frequent gen-
eral noun phrase head. In the ‘less specific’ and ‘least specific’ category, person
occurred most frequently as a general noun phrase head. These results reveal a
parallel, which can be observed across the two categories that are characterised
by the parameter linkage: Question was the general noun phrase head that was
most frequently linked through endophoric reference, whether modified or not.
Person was the general noun phrase head that most frequently occurred without
endophoric reference, whether modified or not. There was no such parallel for
the parameter modification.
The following examples (12)-(15) from the judgment corpus demonstrate the
general noun phrase heads that typically represent the four categories illustrated
in Figures 7.10 and 7.11. These examples illustrate a decline from ‘most specific’
general noun phrases to ‘least specific’ general noun phrases in terms of presence
and absence of the two parameters modification and linkage.
(12) Given that Mrs Brown, in Arun, “cheated” on her neighbours and planning author-
ity, should she too have lost the benefit (after whatever was the relevant limitation
period) of immunity from enforcement action?
176
In responding with a resounding “no” to that forensic question (posed, I should at
once make clear, in my language rather than Mr Maurici’s), it is necessary to iden-
tify […]. [J7-17-15]
Example (12) illustrates the use of a ‘most specific’ general noun phrase. The
general noun phrase head question is premodified by the adjective forensic and
postmodified by the past participle clause posed […] in my language rather than
Mr Maurici’s. Endophoric reference further specifies the general noun phrase:
that forensic question (posed […] in my language rather than Mr Maurici’s) ana-
phorically encapsulates what is being asked in the preceding three lines of exam-
ple (12), marked with broken underlining.
(13) The question whether the review procedure is prohibitively expensive is a matter1
that can, and should, be addressed by the Court itself. Preferably this should
be done at the outset of the proceedings. […] But the advantages of having the
matter2 resolved at the outset apply just as much at that stage as they do at first
instance. [J5-14-4]
In example (13), the general noun phrase the matter2, which has no modifier, does
not seem very specific at first. However, Halliday/Hasan’s anaphoric reference to
the preceding general noun phrase the question whether […] (marked by broken
underlining) specifies what the simple general noun phrase the matter2 refers to.
Thus, although the matter2 is not specified through modification, it is nevertheless
specified through anaphoric reference to another item in the text, which provides
the content of the general noun phrase the matter2. This way, example (13) il-
lustrates the use of a ‘rather specific’ general noun phrase. Note that the general
noun phrase the matter2 does not refer back to the noun phrase a matter1 that can,
[…]. The function of a matter1 that can, […] is merely to complement the general
noun phrase the question whether […]; it could just as well be left out.
(14) Where any such determination as is referred to in subsection (1) above is made, the
person making the determination shall […] determine whether […]. [J3-2-2]
The general noun phrase the person making the determination in example (14) is
specified through the postmodifying present participle clause making the deter-
mination. However, since there is no reference to any preceding or following item
in the text that would clarify what the general noun phrase refers to, example (14)
is ‘less specific’.6
6 Note that the general noun phrase in example (14) is generic and therefore refers to a
class of entities. This will be explained in detail in section 7.2.1.3 when discussing ‘less
specific’ general noun phrases.
177
(15) By 1986, the law of unjust enrichment or restitution was by no means in its infancy.
It was well understood that a person was in principle entitled to recover at com-
mon law money paid under a mistake of fact. [J3-2-7]
The simple general noun phrase a person in example (15) is ‘least specific’ be-
cause the noun phrase head is neither specified through modification nor does
the general noun phrase refer to any preceding or following item in the co-text.
Similar to the general noun phrase in example (14), the general noun phrase in
example (15) has generic reference.
So far, some first results show that complex general noun phrases are more
frequent in the judgment corpus than simple general noun phrases, just as linked
general noun phrases are more frequent than non-linked general noun phrases.
Therefore, ‘most specific’ general noun phrases, which are characterised by mod-
ification and endophoric reference, are more frequent in the judgment corpus
than ‘least specific’ general noun phrases, which are characterised by the absence
of both of the parameters modification and linkage. Furthermore, question is typ-
ically found as a noun phrase head in ‘most specific’ and ‘rather specific’ general
noun phrases. Person is typically found as a noun phrase head in ‘less specific’
and ‘least specific’ general noun phrases.
For a finer classification of general noun phrases in terms of their degree of
specification, the parameter modification was subcategorised and different types
and realisations of modifier were determined. According to Quirk et al. (1985:
1243, 1321), premodifiers are generally less explicit than postmodifiers. This
is due to the fact that postmodifiers express certain relations more explicitly
(e.g. through the use of verbs, verb tenses). In the case of premodifiers, these
relations are left to be inferred by the reader. While the noun phrase an oil man
is not very explicit, the noun phrases a man who produces oil or a man who
advocates the use of oil are more explicit. Therefore, Quirk et al. (1985: 1243)
interpret postmodification as a more explicit description of the same content of
premodification. Moreover, it was necessary to determine the different realisa-
tions of modifiers, as the degree to which modification specifies the head noun
varies along the different types of phrases and clauses that realise modification.
In this context, Jackson (1982), who discusses the different types of postmodi-
fiers, states: “[a]s one passes from relative clauses through non-finite clauses to
prepositional phrases, […] one finds a graduation from most to least explicit”
(Jackson 1982: 70).
The parameter linkage must be subcategorised into the different types of endo-
phoric reference (as described in Section 6.2.3), since the degree of specification
of a general noun phrase varies depending on these different types. A general
178
noun phrase that encapsulates a complex thought or fact is more specific than a
general noun phrase that remotely refers to some item in the text that possibly
goes back several paragraphs or pages. Thus, in order to make reliable statements
about the degree of specification of general noun phrases in terms of modifica-
tion and linkage, the following sections separately discuss the degree of specifi-
cation of general noun phrases in the categories ‘most specific’, ‘rather specific’,
‘less specific’ and ‘least specific’.7
7.2.1.1 ‘Most specific’ general noun phrases in the judgment corpus

The first category of general noun phrases in the judgment corpus, the category
of ‘most specific’ general noun phrases, is defined by the correlation of the
parameters + modification and + linkage. This category includes 55 general noun
phrases with different types of pre- and postmodifiers and different types of
endophoric reference.
For the results of the more in-depth analysis of these 55 general noun phrases,
see Tables 7.7–7.9:
7 Note that some of the numbers determined in the qualitative analysis of general noun
phrases in the four sub-corpora were very small. These numbers should, however,
not be considered statistically significant but are to be understood in the sense of
an exhaustive list. For the sake of clarity, the tables which present the results of the
qualitative analysis of general noun phrases in the four sub-corpora (Sections 7.2.1.1-
7.2.4.4), will only present the (up to) five most frequent types of modifiers, endophoric
reference, and combinations of those. Note that the discussion of these results and the
illustration of examples may only focus on the (up to) three most relevant numbers
in detail.
179
Table 7.7: Most frequent types of modification in ‘most specific’ general noun phrases in the
judgment corpus
+ Modification
Types of modification
premodifier postmodifier
combination
single single
appositive int. clause

prepositional phrase
adjective + appos.
relative clause
int. clause
adjective
multiple
multiple
others
others
others
sum
9 2 3 15 7 5 4 8
1 1
11 30 55
12
12 31
Table 7.8: Most frequent types of linkage of ‘most specific’ general noun phrases in the judg-
ment corpus
+ Linkage
Types of endophoric reference
anaphoric encapsulation
cataphoric ref. to subj.

cataphoric ref. to 2nd
remote reference
H/H’s anaphoric
complement
appos. unit
reference
others
sum
3 4 23 12 6 7 55
180
Table 7.9: Most frequent combinations of modification and linkage of ‘most specific’ general
noun phrases in the judgment corpus
+ Linkage
anaphoric encapsulation
cataphoric ref. to subj.

cataphoric ref. to 2nd
remote reference
complement
appos. unit
others
sum
pre-mod. adjective 2 0 5 0
prep. phrase 0 0 2 0
post-mod. appos. int. clause 0 14 0 0

+ Modification
relative clause 0 0 2 4
adj. + inf. clause 0 0 2 0

combination adj. + appos. int.
0 4 0 0
clause
others 31
sum 55
Table 7.7 shows that of the 55 general noun phrases in the ‘most specific’ cat-
egory, eleven were only premodified, one had multiple premodifiers, 30 were
only postmodified, one had two postmodifiers and twelve were both pre- and
postmodified. In terms of explicitness of the different types of modification men-
tioned earlier in Section 3.2.2 and 7.2.1 (cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 1243), this means
that most of the 55 general noun phrases of the ‘most specific’ category had a
very explicit type of modifier (postmodifier).
The most frequent type of premodifier was the adjective, which occurred nine
times, and the most frequent type of postmodifier was the appositive interroga-
tive clause, which occurred 15 times with the general noun phrase head question.
181
This can be explained by the fact that the general noun phrase head question
implies that it is likely to be postmodified by the grammatical category of inter-
rogative clauses. The second most frequent type of postmodifier was the relative
clause, which occurred seven times.
Concerning endophoric reference, Table 7.8 shows that the most frequent type
of endophoric reference was cataphoric reference to the 2nd appositive unit. This
type occurred 23 times in the ‘most specific’ category of general noun phrases
in the judgment corpus. In 21 of these occurrences, question was head of the
general noun phrase with reference to its appositive unit. The second most fre-
quent type of endophoric reference was cataphoric reference of the general noun
phrase to its subject complement. In ten of the twelve instances in the ‘most
specific’ category of general noun phrases, this type of reference occurred with
the general noun phrase head question. Interestingly, the third most frequent
type of endophoric reference was remote reference with six occurrences, four of
which contained the general noun phrase head question. Remote reference is not
considered to be a very specific type of linkage. However, all of the occurrences
of remote reference were postmodified or pre- and postmodified, which in turn
adds a certain degree of explicitness to the general noun phrase.
The analysis of the general noun phrases in the first category has revealed
four major types of ‘most specific’ general noun phrases (cf. Table 7.9), which
are characterised by typical combinations of certain modifiers and certain types
of reference.
(i) The general noun phrase head question, which was postmodified by an ap-
positive interrogative clause and which referred to this appositive unit cata-
phorically. (14 times)
(ii) The general noun phrase head question, which was premodified by an
adjective and which referred to its subject complement cataphorically.
(five times)
(iii) The general noun phrase heads question or person, which were postmodi-
fied by a relative clause and which remotely referred to some item or expres-
sion in the preceding text. (four times)
(iv) The general noun phrase head question, which was premodified by an ad-
jective and postmodified by an appositive interrogative clause and which
referred to that appositive unit cataphorically. (four times)
The following examples from the judgment corpus demonstrate the above-
mentioned patterns of general noun phrase use in the ‘most specific’ category:
182
(16) The focus […] was initially on […] the question whether the decision of AIT de-
prived him of an effective judicial remedy against an adverse act of the administra-
tion, contrary to general principles of European Union law. [J6-17-1]
Example (16) illustrates the typical use of the general noun phrase head ques-
tion that is postmodified by an appositive interrogative clause (broken underlin-
ing). At the same time this appositive interrogative clause is the reference item to
which the question refers cataphorically and which provides its content.
(17) The essential question seems to be whether the bill of costs will be, or is, excessive
bearing in mind the overriding requirement of access to justice. [J5-17-7]
Example (17) illustrates the typical use of the general noun phrase head ques-
tion, which is premodified by an adjective. The whole general noun phrase the
essential question refers to its subject complement, in this case an interrogative
clause, cataphorically. Examples (16) and (17) are semantically very similar but
differ with regard to their syntax: While the interrogative clause in example (16)
is part of the general noun phrase, and thus a phrase element, it is the subject
complement in example (17), and thus a clause element.
(18) The question1 whether the planning assumptions can be taken into account too
[J1-17-3] is the crucial question in this case.
[8 pages in between]
I do not think that the parties can have given express consideration to the question2
that has arisen in this case. [J1-17-5]
Example (18) shows the use of the general noun phrase head question2 that is
postmodified by the relative clause that has arisen in this case. The general noun
phrase remotely refers to the preceding general noun phrase the question1 whether
the planning assumptions can be taken into account too that occurred 8 pages be-
fore. It is therefore questionable whether the reader still has in mind what exactly
that question was. However, the question that has arisen in this case refers to the
essential question in that case, which has been taken up and rephrased at several
points during the judgment. Therefore, the reader, although he might not have
in mind the exact wording of the question referred to by the general noun phrase
[J1-17-5] in example (18), might still know what it was roughly concerned with.
(19) Even assuming that it could be shown that the development of a hay barn was
“begun” within section 56(2), this cannot assist on the essential question whether
the building as constructed and completed was a barn […]. [J7-17-2]
Example (19) shows the general noun phrase head question, which is premodi-
fied by the adjective essential and postmodified by the appositive interroga-
tive clause whether the building as constructed and completed was a barn. This
183
appositive interrogative clause is at the same time the reference item for the es-
sential question.
To sum up, the closer analysis of the general noun phrases in the ‘most specific’
category has revealed that explicit modification, particularly through the use of
postmodifiers (most frequently appositive interrogative clauses), typically speci-
fies the general noun phrase heads in this category. The most frequent type of
reference that occurred in the ‘most specific’ category was cataphoric reference
of a general noun phrase to its appositive unit. Concerning the correlation of
modification and reference, it has been observed that the modified general noun
phrase with question as its head and with reference to the 2nd appositive unit is the
most frequent type of ‘most specific’ general noun phrase in the judgment corpus.
7.2.1.2 ‘Rather specific’ general noun phrases in the judgment corpus

The second category of general noun phrases in the judgment corpus, the cat-
egory of ‘rather specific’ general noun phrases, is defined by the parameters -
modification and + linkage. This category includes 50 general noun phrases that
were not modified but linked to their co-text through endophoric reference. The
following table illustrates the results of the more detailed analysis of these 50
general noun:
Table 7.10: Most frequent types of linkage of ‘rather specific’ general noun phrases in the
judgment corpus
+ Linkage
subj. complement
cataphoric ref. to
remote reference
H/H’s anaphoric
encapsulation
anaphoric
reference
others
sum
10 14 14 9 3 50
Table 7.10 presents the most frequent types of endophoric reference in the ‘rath-
er specific’ category of general noun phrases in the judgment corpus: anaphoric
encapsulation and cataphoric reference to the subject complement. Both types
occurred 14 times. The second most frequent type of endophoric reference was
Halliday/Hasan’s anaphoric reference, which occurred ten times.
184
The following examples demonstrate the typical behaviour of ‘rather specific’
general noun phrases in the judgment corpus. Example (20) below starts with an
illustration of cataphoric reference to the subject complement:
(20) The question is whether the agreement dated 20 October 2003 involved a return
of capital by PPC to its shareholder TUK through TUK’s subsidiary Moorgarth (it
being common ground that no relevant distinction exists in this context between
TUK and Moorgarth). [J4-17-5]
In example (20), the general noun phrase the question is not modified. The gen-
eral noun phrase is the subject of the clause complex and refers cataphorically
to its complement, which is marked by broken underlining. Note that the sub-
ject complement is usually a noun phrase or an adjective phrase, but it can also
be a nominal clause, such as the interrogative clause in example (20) (cf. Quirk
et al. 1985: 728, 1050–1051). This pattern typically occurred with the general
noun phrase the question in the ‘rather specific’ category. The following example
demonstrates the other most frequent pattern of the ‘most specific’ category of
general noun phrases in the judgment corpus, namely anaphoric encapsulation:
(21) So long as PPC owned the YMS freeholds, it owned property which had been
overvalued (on instructions) by about £4m. On this analysis the sale negotiated
between Mr Price and Mr Moore, two experienced businessmen, was not at a gross
undervalue, and perhaps not at an undervalue at all. But the dismissal of this ap-
peal means that these matters will not be the subject of any further adjudication
by the court. [J4-14-4]
In example (21), the simple general noun phrase these matters anaphorically en-
capsulates the arguments in the preceding two orthographic sentences in the
preceding five lines of the example. The simple general noun phrase these mat-
ters encapsulates complex information and reifies it for the subsequent discourse
in order to give density to the text. This makes reading more economic. When
comparing Tables 7.8 and 7.10, it becomes apparent that anaphoric encapsula-
tion was found more frequently in the ‘rather specific’ category of general noun
phrases than in the ‘most specific’ category. Thus, it is assumed that anaphoric
encapsulation shows a tendency to occur with general noun phrases that have no
modifier. This might be due to the fact that non-modified general noun phrase
heads, as for example matter, are more suitable as neutral shells for complex facts
and thoughts and are also more suitable for making reading more economic than
general noun phrase heads that are modified and thus more specific. In cogni-
tive terms, we could say that non-modified ‘empty containers’ are better suited
for encapsulating complex content than ‘containers which are already filled with
content’ through modification. Example (22) below illustrates this nicely.
185
(22) The appeal arose out of a Judicial Review, which was initially brought by a Mr David
Edwards. He instructed Mr Richard Buxton, whose fees were funded by the Legal
Services Commission. The claim was dismissed by Lindsay J ([2005] EWHC 657)
and Mr Edwards brought an appeal to the Court of Appeal. On the third and final
day of that appeal Mr Edwards withdrew his instructions from Messrs Richard Bux-
ton, and, at that stage, Mrs Pallikaropoulos was added as an additional party in order
to continue the appeal. Mrs Pallikaropoulos was not eligible for legal aid, but the
Court of Appeal made a costs capping order limiting her exposure to the Respond-
ents’ costs to the sum of £2,000. The appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed
([2006] EWCA Civ 1138) and Mrs Pallikaropoulos successfully petitioned the House
of Lords for leave to appeal to that court. Having obtained leave she then applied for
a waiver of the security sum payable on such an appeal, and also applied for a protec-
tive costs order. By letter dated 22 January 2007 the Judicial Office indicated to her
that, on the basis of the information then before them, the members of the Appeal
Committee were not then minded to grant either application. The appeal was heard
in January 2008 and lasted three days. On 16 April 2008 the House of Lords dis-
missed the appeal, thereby affirming the Court of Appeal’s decision. The matter was
then adjourned for the parties to make written representations on costs. [J5-14-8]
In example (22), the simple general noun phrase the matter anaphorically encap-
sulates the underlined description of the facts of the case, which covers ten ortho-
graphic sentences over 24 lines. The general noun phrase the matter reifies this
complex description and, whenever the matter is mentioned henceforth, the read-
er reactivates the description of the facts of the case. See another example below:
(23) In more concrete terms, if a formal notice had been given, Mrs Wilson would have
been warned about the situation and about the danger of being ejected from her
home, before any proceedings were started. Which seems only reasonable. Ap-
proaching the matter on this footing, I would have allowed the appeal. [J2-14-2]
In example (23), the simple general noun phrase the matter makes general refer-
ence to the facts of the case. In contrast to examples (21) or (22), however, no
concrete linguistic item or items in the preceding or following text can be located
as reference item(s) that the general noun phrase the matter refers to (reference
here is actually remote). Instead, the matter refers to every aspect of the facts of
the case that has been described up to that point. This construction was typical
of the Supreme Court judgments analysed.
The following example demonstrates the second most frequent type of endo-
phoric reference in the ‘rather specific’ category:
(24) […] no clear and simple answer is available to the question as to what is the right
text. […] In any event it cannot be said to be so obvious as to leave no reasonable
scope for doubt as to the manner in which the question would be resolved […].
[J5-17-16]
186
In example (24), the simple general noun phrase the question anaphorically re-
fers to the preceding general noun phrase the question as to what is the right text.
To sum up, in the ‘less specific’ category of general noun phrases in the judge-
ment corpus, anaphoric encapsulation was most typically used with non-mod-
ified general nouns as neutral shells to encapsulate complex thoughts and facts.
7.2.1.3 ‘Less specific’ general noun phrases in the judgment corpus

The third category of general noun phrases in the judgment corpus, the category
of ‘less specific’ general noun phrases, is defined by the parameters + modifica-
tion and - linkage. This category includes 53 general noun phrases that are speci-
fied through modification but not through linkage to their co-text.
An important observation was made when analysing the ‘less specific’ and
also the ‘least specific’ general noun phrases in the judgment corpus: the general
noun phrases without endophoric reference very often generically referred to a
class of entities in the extra-linguistic world. Thus, generic reference of general
noun phrases seemed typical of Supreme Court judgments. The results of the
more in-depth analysis of the 53 general noun phrases in the ‘less specific’ cat-
egory are discussed in the following:
Table 7.11: Most frequent types of modification in ‘less specific’ general noun phrases in the
judgment corpus
+ Modification
single single
present part. clause
past part. clause
relative clause
prepositional
combination
adjective
multiple
multiple
phrase
others
others
sum
4 4 8 5 6 13 3
3 5
8 35 2 53
11 40
187
Table 7.12: Most frequent combinations of modification and - linkage in ‘less specific’ gen-
eral noun phrases in the judgment corpus
– Linkage
generic no
sum
reference reference
prep. phrase 4 4
postmodifier
present participle clause 5 0

+ Modification
past participle clause 5 1

relative clause 7 6
others 14 7
35 18
sum
53
Table 7.11 illustrates the types of modification that were found in the ‘less spe-
cific’ category. It reveals that of the 53 general noun phrases in the ‘less specific’
category, eight were premodified only, three had multiple premodifiers, 35 were
postmodified only, five had more than one postmodifier and two were both pre-
and postmodified. This suggests that most of the 53 general noun phrases of the
‘less specific’ category were modified by a rather explicit type of modification
(postmodifer). The most frequent type was the relative clause, which occurred
13 times. In seven of these instances, person was the head of the general noun
phrase. The second most frequent type was the postmodifying prepositional
phrase (8 instances), followed by the past participle clause (6 instances).
Of the 53 general noun phrases in the ‘less specific’ category, 35 general noun
phrases were used to make generic reference. This equals 66.04% of the total.
In a majority of 29 of the instances with generic reference, person was the head.
The remaining 18 general noun phrases in the ‘less specific’ category were non-
referring, which means they were used to make neither endophoric nor generic
reference. This amounts to 33.96% of the total in the ‘less specific’ category. Here,
matter was the most typical non-referring general noun phrase head.
Concerning the correlation of modification and reference, which is illustrated
in Table 7.12, two typical patterns of ‘less specific’ general noun phrases will be
pointed out here:
(i) The generic general noun phrase with the general noun phrase head person
and a relative clause as postmodifier. (seven times)
(ii) The non-referring general noun phrase (most typically with the head
matter), which was postmodified by a relative clause. (six times)
188
The following examples demonstrate these two typical types of ‘less specific’ gen-
eral noun phrases:
(25) Section 83 of the Act gives a specific right of appeal against a refusal of asylum to a
person who, like FA, has been granted leave to enter or remain for a period exceeding
one year. [J8-2-1]
Example (25) displays the use of a postmodified general noun phrase that ge-
nerically refers to a class of persons. Through the use of the indefinite article, the
generic general noun phrase functions as a representative member of the class
of persons who have been granted leave to enter or remain for a period exceed-
ing one year (cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 281). The comparison like FA emphasises
this function. Example (25) is representative of many other uses of the general
noun phrase head person in the judgment corpus. Person is typically used in
Supreme Court judgments to make generic reference, particularly when quoting
or referring to acts, statutes and directives and when discussing legal questions
referring to the case in question.
(26) In the present case, the question1 is whether it is right to describe a dwelling house
as having or being of no use as a dwelling house, when it has just been completed
and its owner intends to occupy it within days. This too is not a question2 which
can sensibly be answered on a day by day basis. [J7-17-7]
Example (26) shows the use of a postmodified non-referring general noun

phrase. The general noun phrase head question2 is postmodified by the relative
clause which can sensibly be answered on a day by day basis. The general noun
phrase is non-referring: It is referring neither anaphorically nor cataphorically to
another item in the text and it does not make generic reference. The general noun
phrase a question2 which can sensibly be answered on a day by day basis is the
complement for the subject this and therefore only has an attributive function.
(27) This makes it unnecessary at this point to decide whether change of use under
section 171B(2) can consist in a simple departure from permitted use, without any
actual prior use. I doubt this, since the word “use”, in each place where it appears in
that subsection is on its face used in a real or material sense, rather than in the legal
sense of “permitted use”. [J1-16-1]
In example (27), the general noun phrase each place where it appears in that sub-
section does not refer endophorically to any preceding or following item in the
co-text. Moreover, the general noun phrase is not used generically. Therefore, it
is non-referring.
To sum up, the more detailed analysis of general noun phrases in the ‘less
specific’ category has shown that the explicit types of postmodification typically
189
specified the general noun phrase heads in that category. It has also been shown
that ‘less specific’ general noun phrases, in particular those with the general
noun phrase head person, were typically used for generic reference in parts of
the Supreme Court judgments that quote acts, statutes and directives or that deal
with legal questions.
7.2.1.4 ‘Least specific’ general noun phrases in the judgment corpus

The fourth category of general noun phrases in the judgment corpus, the cate-
gory of ‘least specific’ general noun phrases, is defined by the parameters - modi-
fication and - linkage. This category contains 24 general noun phrases that are
neither modified nor linked to their co-text through endophoric reference.
The closer analysis of the least specific category of general noun phrases re-
vealed that 20 of the 24 ‘least specific’ general noun phrases had generic reference.
This amounts to 83.33%. Within this group of generically referring general noun
phrases, person was the most frequent head with 16 occurrences. The following
example demonstrates the generic use of the general noun phrase person:
(28) Lloyd LJ sought to distinguish the tax cases to which I have referred on the grounds
that payments by the state to a person have nothing to do with the tax regime.
[J3-2-8]
In example (28), the non-modified general noun phrase a person refers generi-
cally to the class ‘person’ of which it is a representative member.
The remaining four general noun phrases in the ‘least specific’ category of the
judgment corpus were non-referring. Neither of them was linked endophori-
cally to a preceding or following item in the co-text nor were they used to make
generic reference. The following example demonstrates this:
(29) This question arises, for example, where a claimant has notified a change of cir-
cumstances (such as that he has begun full- time work or that his child has left the
household) and by mistake the Department overlooks (or delays actioning) the
notification and continues making benefit payments at the same rate; […]. [J3-5-1]
The general noun phrase his child in the above example is considered to be non-
referring. There is no endophoric reference relation to any preceding or follow-
ing item in the co-text. Moreover, the general noun phrase is not generic. Since
the noun phrase a claimant in the first line of example (29) is generic, the gen-
eral noun phrase his child might also be considered generic. However, general
noun phrases are usually not generic when they have a possessive determiner.
Therefore, the general noun phrase his child in example (29) is considered to be
non-referring.
190
To sum up, the frequent generic reference of general noun phrases in the ‘least
specific’ category corresponds to the frequency of generic general noun phrases
in the ‘less specific’ category. Of the 77 general noun phrases in the judgment
corpus without endophoric reference, a majority of 55 make generic reference,
which adds up to 71.43%. This seems typical of the Supreme Court judgments
that were analysed.
7.2.2 Qualitative results from the manifesto corpus

In a first step of the qualitative analysis of relevant general noun phrases in
the manifesto corpus, it was determined how many of these 639 relevant gen-
eral noun phrases were complex and how many were simple (+/- modification).
Then it was determined how many of the 639 relevant general noun phrases
in the manifesto corpus were linked and how many of them were not linked
(+/- linkage). The results are illustrated below:
Table 7.13: Modified and non-modified general noun phrase heads in the manifesto corpus
Total no. of general noun

+ Modification – Modification
phrases
639 293 346
100 % 45.85 % 54.15 %
Table 7.14: Linked and non-linked general noun phrases in the manifesto corpus

+ Linkage – Linkage
phrases
639 23 616
100 % 3.60 % 96.40 %
As Table 7.13 displays, simple general noun phrases occurred more often in the
manifesto corpus than complex general noun phrases. The majority of 54.15% of
the relevant general noun phrases had no modifier while the remaining 45.85%
of the 639 relevant general noun phrases in the manifesto corpus were either pre-
modified, postmodified or pre- and postmodified. In terms of linkage, Table 7.14
illustrates that a majority of 96.40% of the relevant general noun phrases in the
manifesto corpus were not linked to their co-text through endophoric reference.
The remaining 3.6% of the relevant general noun phrases were linked to their
co-text through endophoric reference.
191
Further analyses of the correlation of the parameters modification and linkage
have revealed the following results:
Figure 7.12: Correlation of modification and linkage of general noun phrases in the
manifesto corpus

+ linkage
3.29% 0.31%
(21) (2)
– linkage
42.57% 53.83%
(272) (344)

In contrast to the judgment corpus, the manifesto corpus had a rather uneven
distribution of general noun phrases across the four categories of specification.
Interestingly, the categories which are characterised by the parameter - linkage
have the highest numbers of general noun phrases: 272 of the 639 relevant gener-
al noun phrases in the manifesto corpus were defined as ‘less specific’ (42.57%),
and there were 344 ‘least specific’ general noun phrases, which makes up 53.83%
of the total. The two remaining categories of the manifesto corpus (+ linkage)
were made up of 21 ‘most specific’ general noun phrases (3.29% of the total
639 relevant general noun phrases) and only two ‘rather specific’ general noun
phrases (0.31% of the total).
So far, the results presented above confirm the hypothesis that simple general
noun phrases, which are not linked to their co-text through endophoric refer-
ence (‘least specific’ general noun phrases), are most frequent in the manifesto
corpus. They represent a very low degree of specification.
In a second step of the qualitative analysis of relevant general noun phrases in
the manifesto corpus, the distribution of general noun phrase heads across the
four categories of specification was determined.
192
specification in the manifesto corpus
people (8) question (2)

place (5) child (1)
idea (5) child (2)
+ linkage
3.29% 0.31%
(21) (2)
– linkage
42.57% 53.83%
(272) (344)
people (197) affair (3) people (213) idea (2)

child (39) idea (3) child (112) thing (1)
place (14) girl (1) woman (10) girl (1)
person (5) matter (1) man (5)
woman (5) question (1)
man (3)
Figure 7.13 shows that in three of the four categories of specification, namely
the ‘most specific’ category, the ‘less specific’ category and the ‘least specific’ cat-
egory, the general noun phrase head people occurred most often. In the ‘rather
specific’ category, child occurred as the head in both of the general noun phrases.
Child also occurs frequently in the other categories; it is second most frequent in
the ‘less specific’ category and in the ‘least specific’ category.
For a demonstration of the general noun phrases that typically represent the
four categories of specification in the manifesto corpus illustrated, refer to the
following examples (30)-(33). They nicely illustrate a decline in the degree of
specification of general noun phrases:
(30) But we believe Sure Start needs to work better because the people who need it
most – disadvantaged and dysfunctional families – are not getting enough of the
benefit. [CM-1-68]
In example (30) the general noun phrase people is ‘most specific’, as it is post-
modified by a relative clause (who need it most) and also by an appositive noun
phrase (disadvantaged and dysfunctional families). Furthermore, there is cata-
phoric reference of the first appositive unit (the people who need it most) to the
193
second appositive unit (disadvantaged and dysfunctional families) within the
general noun phrase.
(31) Living in a family on a low income, having special educational needs or disabilities,
and being in care all remain strongly linked to children1 failing to achieve. We
are determined to narrow the gap between these children2 and their peers, […].
[LM-5-27]
Example (31) shows the use of the ‘rather specific’ general noun phrase these
children2, which anaphorically refers to the preceding noun phrase children1 fail-
ing to achieve in the preceding sentence and establishes a relation of co-reference
between the two items.
(32) We will seek to ensure that disabled people are able to lead dignified and independ-
ent lives, […]. [LM-1-40]
In example (32) the ‘less specific’ general noun phrase disabled people is speci-
fied through the premodifier, the adjective disabled. However, the general noun
phrase is not linked to its co-text endophorically and is thus not further speci-
fied. Disabled people describes a category or a class and therefore has generic
reference.
(33) We must not let the mis-selling of financial products put people off saving.
[CM-1-22]
The general noun phrase people in example (33) is ‘least specific’ because it is
neither modified nor linked to its co-text through endophoric reference. Similar
to example (32), people also refers generically to a category or class.
To arrive at a more accurate and precise determination of the degree of speci-
fication of general noun phrases in the manifesto corpus, the following sections
discuss the four categories of specification separately.
7.2.2.1 ‘Most specific’ general noun phrases in the manifesto corpus

The category of ‘most specific’ general noun phrases is defined by the correla-
tion of the parameters + modification and + linkage. This category includes 21
general noun phrases that had different premodifiers, postmodifiers or pre- and
postmodifiers. Moreover, these general noun phrases were linked to their co-text
through different types of endophoric reference. The following table illustrates
the results of a closer analysis:
194
Table 7.15: Most frequent types of modification in ‘most specific’ general noun phrases in
the manifesto corpus
+ Modification
postmodifier
single
combination
appos. that-clause
others
relative clause
multiple
prep. phrase
sum
others
2 4 3 2
4
11 5 1 21
15
Table 7.16: Most frequent types of linkage of ‘most specific’ general noun phrases in the
manifesto corpus
+ Linkage
cataphoric cataphoric ref. to 2nd anaphoric ref. to subject/
others sum
encapsulation appos. unit object
3 8 4 6 21
Of the 21 general noun phrases in the ‘most specific’ category, only one was
premodified, which is subsumed under the category ‘others’ in Table 7.15. The
majority of 15 general noun phrases were postmodified (eleven had one post-
modifier, four had multiple postmodifiers) and five were pre- and postmodified.
In terms of explicitness of different types of modification (cf. Quirk et al. 1985:
1243, Sections 3.2.2 and 7.2.1), this means that most of the 21 ‘most specific’
general noun phrases were modified by a rather explicit type of modification.
The most frequent type of postmodifier was the appositive that-clause, which
occurred four times with the general noun phrase head idea. Second most fre-
quent was the relative clause, which occurred three times with the general noun
phrase head place.
Concerning endophoric reference, Table 7.16 shows that the most frequent
type of endophoric reference was cataphoric reference to the second appositive
195
unit, which occurred eight times (most typically with the general noun phrase
head people). The second most frequent type of endophoric reference that oc-
curred within the ‘most specific’ category of general noun phrases was anaphoric
reference to the subject or object of the clause (people and place were the two
general noun phrase heads).
Concerning the combination of modification and reference, there was a wide
range of different types of combinations of modification and endophoric refer-
ence, which each occurred only once. Only two types could be considered most
typical, although it must be emphasised that they were not significantly more
frequent than the rest (cf. footnote 55 in Section 7.2.1):
(i) The general noun phrase head idea, which was postmodified by an apposi-
tive that-clause displaying cataphoric reference of the first appositive unit
(head) to the second appositive unit (postmodifer). (three times)
(ii) The general noun phrase head place which was postmodified by a relative
clause and which, together with the postmodifer, encapsulated following
pieces of information cataphorically. (two times)
The following examples demonstrate these two patterns of ‘most specific’ general
noun phrases in the manifesto corpus:
(34) It is a change from one political philosophy to another. From the idea1 that the role
of the state is to direct society and micro-manage public services, to the idea2 that the
role of the state is to strengthen society and make public services serve the people who
use them. [CM-18-2], [CM-18-3]
(35) Strong community life also depends on protecting the places in which people come
together. […] we are investing £235 million to create new or refurbished play
spaces and adventure playgrounds. We will protect the Post Office network, […].
The local pub and social club are also hubs of community life. [LM-16-9]
In example (34), the ‘most specific’ general noun phrases the idea1 that […] and
the idea2 that […] both include a postmodification through appositive that-
clauses (that the role of the state is…). In both cases, there is cataphoric reference
within the general noun phrases to these appositive that-clauses. In example
(35), the general noun phrase head places is postmodified by the relative clause
in which people come together. The whole phrase cataphorically encapsulates the
noun phrases (marked by broken underlining).
To sum up, the closer analysis of general noun phrases in the ‘most specific’
category of the manifesto corpus has revealed that noun phrase heads in that
category are typically postmodified by an appositive that-clause or a relative
clause. Moreover, the type of endophoric reference that typically occurred in
the ‘most specific’ category of general noun phrases in the manifesto corpus was
196
cataphoric reference to the second appositive unit and anaphoric reference to
the subject or object of the clause. Concerning the correlation of modification
and linkage, the general noun phrase head idea was typically postmodified by an
appositive that-clause and cataphorically referred to this second appositive unit.
7.2.2.2 ‘Rather specific’ general noun phrases in the manifesto corpus

The second category of general noun phrases in the manifesto corpus, the catego-
ry of ‘rather specific’ general noun phrases, is defined by the parameters - modi-
fication and + linkage. This category includes only two general noun phrases,
which were not modified but endophorically linked to their co-text. In both of
the two ‘rather specific’ general noun phrases, child was the head of the phrase.
One of the two general noun phrases was linked anaphorically to a preceding
item, and the other was the second part of an apposition and referred anaphori-
cally to its first appositive unit. The following two examples demonstrate the two
instances of ‘rather specific’ general noun phrases found in the manifesto corpus:
(36) Living in a family on a low income, having special educational needs or disabili-
ties, and being in care all remain strongly linked to children1 failing to achieve.
We are determined to narrow the gap between these children2 and their peers…
[LM-5-27]
(37) We will […] increase the funding of the most disadvantaged pupils, around one
million children. [LDM-5-19]
In example (36), there are two instances of the general noun phrase head chil-
dren. Children1 is the reference item and children2, which is considered here,
is the referring item [LM-5–27]. Example (36) illustrates the use of the ‘rather
specific’ general noun phrase these children2, which is not modified but which
anaphorically refers to children1 failing to achieve and establishes a relation of
co-reference between the two linguistic items. In example (37), the general noun
phrase around one million children is not modified.8 It is the second appositive
unit that stands in apposition to the first appositive unit, the noun phrase the
most disadvantaged pupils. Here, the general noun phrase is the postmodifier
for another preceding noun phrase. In example (37), the second appositive unit
makes anaphoric reference to the first appositive unit. It is generally arguable
whether second appositive units can refer back to first appositive units or wheth-
er second appositive units rather have an attributive or descriptive function only.
For the purpose of the present study, we assume that second appositive units can
8 Note that for the purpose of the present study, determiners were not defined as pre-
modifiers (cf. section 3.2.2).
197
in fact refer back to first appositive units, provided that they are definite. This
means they are preceded by the definite article, other determiners with a similar
function (such as demonstrative and possessive pronouns), or certain quantifiers
such as many and several, or ordinal and cardinal numerals (cf. Quirk et al. 1985:
253–254, 261–264). Therefore, the second appositive unit in example (37) refers
back to the first appositive unit. Moreover, in example (37) it is not clear that the
second appositive unit is merely a description of the first appositive unit. The
first appositive unit the most disadvantaged pupils can just as well be a descrip-
tion of the second appositive unit around one million children.
7.2.2.3 ‘Less specific’ general noun phrases in the manifesto corpus

The third category of general noun phrases in the manifesto corpus, the ‘less
specific’ category, is defined by the correlation of the parameters + modification
and – linkage. This category includes 272 general noun phrases, which are speci-
fied through modification but not through linkage to their co-text. The following
tables illustrates the results of the closer analysis of the general noun phrases in
this category:
manifesto corpus
+ Modification
combination
single single
pres. part. clause
adjective + prep.
past participle
relative clause
multiple
multiple
prep. phrase
sum
adjective
phrase
others
others
others
104 13 18 51 17 25 7 13 15
4 5
135 100 272
28
139 105
198
Table 7.18: Most frequent combinations of modification and - linkage of ‘less specific’ gen-
eral noun phrases in the manifesto corpus
– Linkage
generic no
sum
reference reference
premodifier adjective 89 15
+ Modification
prepositional phrase 34 17
modification
postmodifier
Types of
relative clause 22 3
others 72 20
217 55
sum
272
Table 7.17 shows the frequency of types of modification that occurred within
the general noun phrases of the third category of specification in the manifesto
corpus. It becomes apparent that of the 272 ‘less specific’ general noun phrases
in the manifesto corpus, 139 were premodified (135 had one premodifier, four
had multiple premodifiers), 105 were postmodified (100 had one postmodifier,
five had multiple postmodifiers) and 28 general noun phrases were pre- and
postmodified. This shows that the most frequent type of modification of general
noun phrases in the ‘less specific’ category was premodification, which, accord-
ing to Quirk et al. (1985: 1243), is the least specific type of modification. The
most frequent premodifier was the adjective, which occurred 104 times. In the
majority of 85 of these cases, people was the head of the general noun phrase.
The most frequent postmodifier was the prepositional phrase, which occurred
51 times. In 30 of these cases, people was head of the general noun phrase, fol-
lowed by 13 instances of child as general noun phrase head. The second most
frequent postmodifier was the relative clause with 25 instances. People was head
of the general noun phrase in 19 of these instances.
Of the 272 general noun phrases in the ‘less specific’ category, 217 were used
to make generic reference, which adds up to 79.78%. In the majority of 163 of
these generic general noun phrases, people was the head of the phrase. These
results indicate characteristic patterns of general noun phrase use in political
manifestos. The remaining 55 general noun phrases in the ‘less specific’ category
had neither endophoric reference nor generic reference; they were classified as
non-referring. The non-referring general noun phrases amount to 20.22% of the
general noun phrases in the ‘less specific’ category. Typically, people was head of
the phrase (34 times).
199
Concerning the combination of modification and linkage, Table 7.18 shows
that generic general noun phrases most often had an adjective as premodifier.
This pattern occurred 89 times. In a majority of 77 of these cases, people was the
head of this generic general noun phrase. Non-referring general noun phrases
typically had a prepositional phrase as postmodifier. This pattern occurred
17 times. In ten of these cases, people was head of the phrase.
The following examples demonstrate the use of generic general noun phrases
and non-referring general noun phrases in the ‘less specific’ category of general
noun phrases in the manifesto corpus:
(38) We will also reform Access to Work, so disabled people can apply for jobs with
funding already in place for equipment and adaptation that they need. [LDM-1-29]
(39) This will put £700 back into the pockets of millions of people on low and middle
incomes and free 3.6 million more people on low incomes from having to pay any
income tax at all. [LDM-1-12], [LDM-1-11]
jective disabled. The general noun phrase disabled people refers generically to
the class of disabled people; it is not linked endophorically within the text. In
example (39), the general noun phrases millions of people on low and middle
incomes and 3.6 million more people on low incomes are also not linked endo-
phorically to any other item in the preceding or following text. Moreover, these
general noun phrases are not generic, because the quantifiers millions of and
3.6 million more indicate that the general noun phrases refer to a certain number
of people, and not to people in general.
To sum up, the closer analysis of the general noun phrases in the ‘less specific’
category revealed that adjectival premodification was the most frequent type of
modification in this category. It was also observed that a majority of 79.78% of
the general noun phrases in the ‘less specific’ category was used to make generic
reference, most frequently with the general noun phrase head people. Concern-
ing the combination of modification and linkage, it was observed that the gen-
eral noun phrase head people was typically used with an adjectival premodifier
to make generic reference.
7.2.2.4 ‘Least specific’ general noun phrases in the manifesto corpus

The fourth category of general noun phrases in the manifesto corpus, the cat-
egory of ‘least specific’ general noun phrases, is defined by the parameters -
modification and - linkage. This category contains 344 general noun phrases
that are neither modified nor linked to their co-text through any kind of endo-
phoric reference. The majority of 76.45% of the 344 general noun phrases had
200
generic reference (263 instances). Thus, similar to the majority of general noun
phrases in the ‘less specific’ category, the majority of general noun phrases in
the ‘least specific’ category were used to make generic reference. In 181 of the
263 generic general noun phrases, people was the head of the phrase. This is
followed by child, which was the second most frequent head of the generic
general noun phrases (67 times). The remaining 81 general noun phrases in
the ‘least specific’ category (23.55%) were non-referring. This means they were
neither linked endophorically nor did they have generic reference. In 45 of
these cases, child was the head of the non-referring general noun phrase. In 32
of these cases it was people.
The following examples from the manifesto corpus demonstrate the generic
use of the general noun phrase head people and the non-referring use of the gen-
eral noun phrase head child:
(40) This manifesto makes the case that there should be no return to business as usual.
People have suffered too much with their jobs, livelihoods and confidence to allow
a return to the same old ways. [LM-1-10]
(41) For the next generation we will protect – not cut – the Child Trust Fund – the
world’s finest universal savings policy for young people, already giving 4.8 million
children a nest egg for the future. [LM-5-5]
Example (40) shows that the general noun phrase people is neither modified nor
linked to its co-text through endophoric reference. People is used here to refer
generically to a category or class and thus refers to people in general. Since the
Labour manifesto is addressed to the British people, the general noun phrase
people in the above example probably refers to the class of British people. In
example (41), the non-modified general noun phrase children is non-referring.
Through the use of the quantifier 4.8 million, the general noun phrase refers to
a specific number of children. Therefore, it does not make generic reference to a
group. Moreover, it is not linked endophorically.
To sum up, a majority of 76.45% of the general noun phrases in the ‘least spe-
cific’ group of the manifesto corpus were used to make generic reference. In most
of these cases, people was the head of the generic general noun phrase.
7.2.3 Qualitative results from the debate corpus

In a first step of the qualitative analysis of relevant general noun phrases in the
debate corpus, it was determined how many of the 455 relevant noun phrases in
the debate corpus were complex and how many were simple (+/- modification).
Then, it was determined how many of the 455 relevant general noun phrases
201
in the debate corpus were linked to their co-text through endophoric reference
and how many were not linked (+/- linkage). The results are illustrated below:
Table 7.19: Modified and non-modified general noun phrase heads in the debate corpus

phrases
455 271 184
100 % 59.56 % 40.44 %
Table 7.20: Linked and non-linked general noun phrases in the debate corpus

phrases
455 101 354
100 % 22.20 % 77.80 %
As we can see in Table 7.19, complex general noun phrases occurred more
often in the debate corpus than simple general noun phrases. The majority of
59.56% of the 455 relevant general noun phrases in the debate corpus were
either premodified, postmodified or pre- and postmodified, and the remain-
ing 40.44% of the relevant general noun phrases in the debate corpus were not
modified. In terms of linkage, Table 7.20 shows that the majority of 77.80% of
relevant general noun phrases in the debate corpus are not linked to their co-
text through endophoric reference. The remaining 22.2% of the 455 relevant
general noun phrases in the debate corpus were linked to their co-text through
endophoric reference.
In order to fully determine the degree of specification of relevant general
noun phrases in the debate corpus, the parameters modification and linkage were
taken into account.
202
Figure 7.14: Correlation of modification and linkage of general noun phrases in the debate
corpus

+ linkage
9.23% 12.97%
(42) (59)
– linkage
50.33% 27.47%
(229) (125)

Figure 7.14 displays that, similar to the distribution in the manifesto corpus, the
biggest proportion of general noun phrases in the debate corpus were defined by
the parameter - linkage. The majority of 50.33% were ‘less specific’, which means
they were modified but not linked to their co-text through endophoric reference.
Second most frequent were ‘least specific’ general noun phrases in the debate
corpus, which make up 27.47% of the total. 9.23% of the total of relevant general
noun phrases were ‘most specific’, and 12.97% were ‘rather specific’.
ence (‘least specific’ general noun phrases), are frequent in the debate corpus.
Furthermore, the results show that complex general noun phrases without link-
age are the most frequent type of general noun phrases in the debate corpus. This
confirms that general noun phrases with a rather low degree of specification are
most frequent in the debate corpus.
In a second step of the qualitative analysis of relevant general noun phrases in
the debate corpus, it was analysed which general noun phrase heads were typi-
cally found across the four categories of specification of general noun phrases in
the debate corpus.
203
specification in the debate corpus
question (12) child (3)

idea (12) thing (2)
people (4) matter (1) matter (36) woman (2)
man (3) move (1) people (12) place (1)
woman (3) place (1) question (7) Idea (1)
+ linkage
9.23% 12.97%
(42) (59)
50.33% – linkage 27.47%

(229) (125)
people (131) girl (5) people (72) place (3)

matter (27) person (4) child (23) person (2)
child (24) idea (4) woman (16) man (2)
woman (14) move (2) girl (7)
place (11) business (1)
man (5) question (1)
Figure 7.15 shows that in the ‘most specific’ category, the general noun phrase
heads question and idea occurred most frequently. In the ‘rather specific’ catego-
ry, the general noun phrase head matter was most frequent. In both categories,
which are defined by the absence of the parameter linkage (the ‘less specific’ and
the ‘least specific’ category), the general noun phrase head people occurred most
frequently.
The following examples (42)-(45) demonstrate typical general noun phrases
of the four categories of specification in the debate corpus. These examples il-
lustrate a decline from specific to general:
(42) The idea of measuring pensioner poverty in terms of material deprivation is supple-
mentary to the income measures, and we will continue to publish both. [D7-18-3]
In example (42), the general noun phrase is ‘most specific’: firstly, its head idea
is postmodified by an appositive present participle clause (of measuring pension-
er poverty in terms of material deprivation). Note that the structure the idea of
measuring […] could also be understood as a complementing present participle
clause of a preposition; however, in appositive structures, these present participle
clauses have prepositions that are absent in the corresponding finite clause: X has
204
the idea that measuring […] is supplementary […] (cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 1272).
Secondly, the general noun phrase in example (42) is further specified through
cataphoric reference to the second appositive unit, the appositive present parti-
ciple clause cited above.
(43) I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. I am well aware of his work in the
past on the know how fund and I appreciate his continuing interest in the matter.
[D1-14-1]
Example (43) shows the use of a ‘rather specific’ general noun phrase the matter,
which is not modified but anaphorically refers to the preceding noun phrase the
know how fund in the same sentence. This establishes a relation of co-reference
between the two items.
(44) People who have served in the armed forces need to declare that they have done so,
[…]. [D2-1-4]
In example (44) the ‘less specific’ general noun phrase head people is specified
through the postmodifying relative clause who have served in the armed forces.
However, the general noun phrase is not linked to its co-text endophorically and
is thus not further specified. People who have served in the armed forces describes
a category or a class of people and therefore has generic reference.
(45) We have the Directgov site in place, and we are keen for people to be able to put
petitions before the House at the earliest opportunity – and this provides the earli-
est opportunity. [D4-1-22]
In example (45), the general noun phrase head people is ‘least specific’ because it
is neither modified nor linked to its co-text through endophoric reference. Here,
people also refers generically to a category or class.
7.2.3.1 ‘Most specific’ general noun phrases in the debate corpus

general noun phrases that have different premodifiers, postmodifiers or pre- and
postmodifiers. Moreover, these general noun phrases were linked to their co-
text through different types of endophoric reference. The following tables 7.21–
7.23 illustrate the results of the more in-depth analysis of these 42 general noun
phrases:
205
the debate corpus
+ Modification
postmodifier
premodifier
single multiple
appos. pres. part. clause
appositive noun phrase
combination
appos. that-clause
appos. int. clause
adjective phrase
relative clause
prep. phrase
sum
adjective
genitive
others
others
others
11 2 2 1 3 2 2 4 5 1 2 1
17 3 6 42
16
20
debate corpus
+ Linkage
H/H’s anaphoric anaphoric cataphoric ref. to remote
others sum
reference encapsulation 2nd appos. unit reference
14 7 13 5 3 42
206
Table 7.23: Most frequent combinations of modification and linkage in ‘most specific’ gen-
eral noun phrases in the debate corpus
– Linkage
cataphoric ref. to
remote reference
H/H’s anaphoric
2nd appos. unit

reference
others
sum
premod. adjective 6 0 3
+ Modification
appositive that-clause 0 4 0
postmod.
relative clause 4 0 0
others 25
sum 42
Table 7.21 shows that of the 42 general noun phrases in the ‘most specific’ cat-
egory, 16 were premodified, 20 were postmodified (17 were postmodified, three
had multiple postmodifiers) and six were pre- and postmodified. In terms of
explicitness of the different types of modification (cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 1243,
Sections 3.2.2 and 7.2.1), this means that most of the 42 ‘most specific’ general
noun phrases were modified by a rather explicit type of modification.
The premodifier that occurred most frequently in the ‘most specific’ category
of general noun phrases in the debate corpus was the adjective, which occurred
eleven times. Typically, question was the head in these general noun phrases.
The most frequent type of postmodifier was the relative clause, which occurred
five times with a variety of general noun phrase heads. This is followed by the
appositive that-clause, which occurred four times with the general noun phrase
head idea.
Concerning endophoric reference, Table 7.22 shows that the most frequent
type of endophoric reference was Halliday/Hasan’s anaphoric reference, which
occurred 14 times with a variety of general noun phrase heads. The second most
frequent type of endophoric reference that occurred within the ‘most specific’
category of general noun phrases was cataphoric reference to the second apposi-
tive unit, which occurred 13 times. In the majority of these cases, idea was head
of the referring general noun phrase.
207
The analysis of the general noun phrases in the ‘most specific’ category has
revealed three major types of ‘most specific’ general noun phrases in the debate
corpus, which were characterised by typical combinations of certain modifiers
and certain types of endophoric reference (cf. Table 7.23).
(i) A general noun phrase (with either man, child or people as head of the
phrase), which was premodified by an adjective and anaphorically referred
to a preceding item. (six times)
(ii) A general noun phrase (with either people, child or matter as head of the
phrase), which was postmodified by a relative clause and anaphorically re-
ferred to a preceding item. (four times)
(iii) A general noun phrase (most typically with idea as its head), which was
postmodified by an appositive that-clause and which referred to that second
appositive unit. (four times)
The following examples (46)-(48) demonstrate these typical patterns of ‘most
specific’ general noun phrases in the debate corpus:
(46) This morning, I met a young Chevening scholar from Iraq who is studying for an
MSc in engineering and robotics at Sussex university. […] Will my hon. Friends
confirm that we want as many overseas students like that young man as possible to
come to the UK, […]? [D5-3-1]
In example (46), the ‘most specific’ general noun phrase that young man con-
tains the premodifying adjective young and the phrase anaphorically refers to the
complex noun phrase a young Chevening scholar from Iraq who is studying for an
MSc in engineering and robotics at Sussex university.
(47) However, what we have to realise as a country is that this is […] about recognising
that the people who have been injured so badly in Iraq and Afghanistan will need
a lifetime of help. […] I have a strong defence team and a strong health team, who
are going to work together to ensure that we deliver for those people, who have
done so much for us. [D1-1-26]
In example (47), the general noun phrase head people is modified by the relative
clause who have done so much for us. The whole phrase anaphorically refers to the
noun phrase the people who have been injured so badly in Iraq and Afghanistan in
the first sentence of example (47).
(48) […] I would have thought he would welcome the idea that as we move to the new
benefit, we are planning to cash-protect those who are already in receipt of other
benefits. [D7-18-1]
208
In example (48), the general noun phrase head idea is postmodified by the ap-
positive that-clause that as we move to the new benefit, we are planning to cash-
protect those who are already in receipt of other benefits. Within the general noun
phrase, the first appositive unit (the idea) cataphorically refers to the second ap-
positive unit (the appositive that-clause).
To sum up, the closer analysis of general noun phrases in the ‘most specific’ cat-
egory of the debate corpus has revealed that noun phrase heads in that category are
typically premodified by an adjective or postmodified by a relative clause or an ap-
positive that-clause. Moreover, the type of endophoric reference that typically oc-
curred in the ‘most specific’ category of general noun phrases in the debate corpus
was Halliday/Hasan’s anaphoric and cataphoric reference to the second appositive
unit. Concerning the correlation of modification and linkage, it could be observed
that general noun phrase heads, which were premodified by an adjective, or those,
which were postmodified by a relative clause, typically displayed anaphoric refer-
ence to a preceding item in the text. General noun phrases (with idea as its head)
which were postmodified by an appositive that-clause and which cataphorically
referred to this second appositive unit occurred frequently, too.
7.2.3.2 ‘Rather specific’ general noun phrases in the debate corpus

The second category of general noun phrases in the debate corpus, the category of
‘rather specific’ general noun phrases, is defined by the parameters - modification
and + linkage. This category includes 59 general noun phrases that were not modi-
fied but were linked endophorically to their co-text. The following table illustrates
the results of the closer analysis of these 59 ‘rather specific’ general noun phrases:
debate corpus
+ Linkage
H/H’s anaphoric reference anaphoric encapsulation others sum
29 28 2 59
Table 7.24 demonstrates that the most frequent types of endophoric reference
found in the ‘rather specific’ category of general noun phrases in the debate cor-
pus were Halliday/Hasan’s anaphoric reference with 29 instances and anaphoric
encapsulation with 28 instances. In 16 of the 29 instances of Halliday/Hasan’s
anaphoric reference, matter was head of the referring general noun phrase. It was
also the most frequent head in 20 of the 28 instances of anaphoric encapsulation.
209
The following two examples demonstrate the typical use of general noun
phrases in the ‘rather specific’ category in the debate corpus:
(49) On press reports about the sharing of aircraft carriers, may I say that, despite hav-
ing 500 constituents who work in the Upper Clyde shipyards, I have always seen
the matter as a strategic, not primarily industrial, question? [D2-14-2]
(50) He knows that my view is very clear that we would be better off with a British Bill
of Rights rather than with the Human Rights Act, and that matter is being exam-
ined. [D1-14–5]
In example (49), the simple general noun phrase the matter anaphorically refers
to the preceding noun phrase the sharing of aircraft carriers in the same sentence.
In example (50), the simple general noun phrase that matter anaphorically en-
capsulates the preceding clause that we would be better off with a British Bill of
Rights rather than with the Human Rights Act.
7.2.3.3 ‘Less specific’ general noun phrases in the debate corpus

The third category of general noun phrases in the debate corpus, the category
of ‘less specific’ general noun phrases, is defined by the correlation of the pa-
rameters + modification and - linkage. This category includes 229 general noun
phrases, which were specified through modification but not through linkage to
their co-text. The following tables illustrate the results of the closer analysis of
the general noun phrases in this category:
debate corpus
+ Modification
single single
combination
pres. part. clause
past participle
relative clause
multiple
multiple
prep. phrase
sum
adjective
others
others
45 12 7 56 14 38 13
8 13
64 121 23 229
72 134
210
Table 7.26: Most frequent combinations of modification and - linkage of ‘less specific’ gen-
eral noun phrases in the debate corpus
– Linkage
generic no
sum
reference reference
premodifier adjective 38 7
past participle 11 1
+ Modification
prepositional phrase 28 28
postmodifier
relative clause 29 9
others 49 29
155 74
sum
229
We can see from Table 7.25 that of the 229 ‘less specific’ general noun phrases in
the debate corpus, 72 were premodified, 134 were postmodified and 23 general
noun phrases were pre- and postmodified. This shows that the most frequent
type of modification of general noun phrases in the ‘less specific’ category was
postmodification, which, according to Quirk et al. (cf. 1985: 1243), is a rather
explicit type of modification. The most frequent premodifier was the adjective,
which occurred 45 times. In 37 of these cases, people was head of the general
noun phrase. The most frequent postmodifier was the prepositional phrase,
which occurred 56 times. Most frequent heads in these phrases were people
(25 instances) and matter (16 instances). The most frequent combination of pre-
and postmodifiers was an adjective in combination with a prepositional phrase.
This pattern occurred six times (typically with people as head of the phrase).
Of the 229 general noun phrases in the ‘less specific’ category, 155 were used
to express generic reference, which constitutes a majority of 67.98%. In 103 of
these cases, people was head of the generic general noun phrase. This is in ac-
cordance with the results of the analysis of general noun phrases in the ‘less
specific’ category of the manifesto corpus. In 74 of the 229 ‘less specific’ general
noun phrases of the debate corpus were non-referring, which means they were
neither linked on the text surface by endophoric reference nor did they have
generic reference. Most typically, people was the head of a non-referring general
noun phrase (28 times), followed by matter (21 times). In reference to Table 7.26,
we can point out three major patterns of general noun phrase use in the ‘less
specific’ category of the debate corpus:
211
(i) The generic general noun phrase (typically with people as the head of the
phrase), which was premodified by an adjective. (38 times)
(ii) The generic general noun phrase (typically with people as the head of the
phrase), which was postmodified by a relative clause. (29 times).
(iii) The non-referring general noun phrase (typically with matter as the head of
the phrase), which was postmodified by a prepositional phrase. (28 times)
The following two examples demonstrate the typical use of a generic general
noun phrase (i) and a non-referring general noun phrase (iii) in the ‘less specific’
category of general noun phrases in the debate corpus:
(51) What proportion of his Department’s expenditure for 2010-11 supports access to
culture for young people; and if he will make a statement. [D4-1-12]
(52) Incentives for biofuel production are primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend
the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, but… [D3-14-3]
jective young. The general noun phrase young people refers to a class of people
and is thus generic. It is not linked endophorically. In example (52), the gen-
eral noun phrase head matter is postmodified by the prepositional phrase for
my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. The
general noun phrase is indefinite; this is why it is not referring anaphorically
to the preceding noun phrase Incentives for biofuel production. It has a comple-
menting or descriptive role and thus functions more like a predicative adjective
here (cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 273). Therefore, the general noun phrase in example
(52) is considered non-referring.
category has revealed that postmodification, as a rather explicit type of modifi-
cation, typically occurred in this category. It also revealed that the majority of
modified general noun phrases in the ‘less specific’ category (67.69%), in par-
ticular postmodified general noun phrases, were generic. The typical pattern,
which occurred most often in the ‘less specific’ category of general noun phrases
in the debate corpus, was the generic general noun phrase head people, which
was premodified by an adjective.
7.2.3.4 ‘Least specific’ general noun phrases in the debate corpus

The fourth category of general noun phrases in the debate corpus, the category of
‘least specific’ general noun phrases, is defined by the parameters - modification
and - linkage. This category contains 125 general noun phrases, which are neither
modified nor linked to their co-text through endophoric reference.
212
The closer analysis of the ‘least specific’ general noun phrases revealed that 86
of the 125 general noun phrases in this category (68.8% of the total) were used
generically. This is similar to the use of general noun phrases in the ‘less specific’
category of the debate corpus. In 46 of the 86 generic general noun phrases,
people was head of the phrase. Child was the second most frequent head of the
generic general noun phrases with 19 occurrences.
The remaining 39 of the 125 ‘least specific’ general noun phrases in the debate
corpus were non-referring, which means they were neither linked endophori-
cally within the text nor did they have generic reference. This amounts to 31.2%.
In 26 of the 39 non-referring general noun phrases people was the head.
The following examples from the debate corpus demonstrate the generic and
non-referring use of the general noun phrase head people:
(53) I do not want to burden people with regulation – that is not the direction that the
Government are going in – and I am happy to meet my hon. Friend […]. [D3-1-1]
(54) We estimate that universal credit as a static system, not even taking into account
any dynamic effect, will lift 900,000 people out of poverty, […]. [D7-1-14]
Example (53) shows that the general noun phrase head people is neither modi-
fied nor linked to its co-text through endophoric reference. People is used here to
make generic reference to a category or class and refers to people in general. By
contrast, the simple general noun phrase people in example (54) is not generic
but refers to a specific number of people. Since this general noun phrase is not
linked endophorically, it is non-referring.
7.2.4 Qualitative results from the conversation corpus

In a first step of the qualitative analysis of relevant general noun phrases in the
conversation corpus, it was determined how many of the 212 relevant noun
phrase heads in the conversation corpus were modified and how many of them
were not modified (+/- modification). Then, it was determined how many of
the 212 relevant general noun phrases in the conversation corpus were linked
to their co-text through endophoric reference and how many were not linked
(+/- linkage). The results are illustrated below:
213
Table 7.27: Modified and non-modified general noun phrase heads in the conversation
corpus

phrases
212 98 114
100 % 46.23 % 53.77 %
Table 7.28: Linked and non-linked general noun phrases in the conversation corpus

phrases
212 35 177
100 % 16.51 % 83.49 %
As we can see in Table 7.27, simple general noun phrases occurred more often
in the conversation corpus than complex general noun phrases. In particular,
98 of the 212 relevant general noun phrases were complex, which means they
were either premodified, postmodified or pre- and postmodified. This amounts
to 46.23% of the total. 112 of the 212 relevant general noun phrases were simple,
which means they were not modified. This amounts to 53.77% of the total.
In terms of linkage, Table 7.28 shows that a majority of general noun phrases
in the conversation corpus were not linked to their co-text through endophoric
reference. More specifically, 35 of the 212 relevant general noun phrases in the
conversation corpus were linked to their co-text through endophoric reference.
This makes up 16.51% of the total. The remaining 177 general noun phrases in
the conversation corpus were not linked to their co-text through endophoric
reference, which amounts to 83.49% of the total.
The correlation of the parameters modification and linkage fully determine
the degree of specification of relevant general noun phrases in the conversation
corpus. For an illustration of the results, see the following figure:
214
Figure 7.16: Correlation of modification and linkage of general noun phrases in the
conversation corpus

+ linkage
7.55% 8.96%
(16) (19)
– linkage
38.68% 44.81%
(82) (95)

Similar to the distribution of general noun phrases in the manifesto corpus

and the debate corpus, we can see that also in the conversation corpus, gen-
eral noun phrases are generally more frequent in the two categories, which are
characterised by the parameter - linkage. There were 95 ‘least specific’ general
noun phrases in the conversation corpus, which amount to 44.81% of the total of
212 general noun phrases. This is the largest category. Second largest is the ‘less
specific’ category, which includes 82 of the 212 relevant general noun phrases
in the conversation corpus. 8.96% of the relevant general noun phrases in the
conversation corpus are ‘rather specific’, and the smallest category of the conver-
sation corpus includes 7.55% of the relevant general noun phrases.
ence (‘least specific’ general noun phrases), are most frequent in the conversa-
tion corpus. This implies that the conversations investigated are characterised by
general noun phrases with a very low degree of specification.
In a second step of the qualitative analysis of the conversation corpus, the dis-
tribution of general noun phrase heads across the four categories of specification
was determined. The following figure shows the results:
215
specification in the conversation corpus
stuff (5) person (1)
thing (4) place (1) stuff (7) place (2)
affair (3) idea (1) thing (6) child (1)
people (1) girl (2) question (1)
+ linkage
7.55% 8.96%
(16) (19)
– linkage
38.68% 44.81%
(82) (95)
thing (21) boy (5) thing (27) woman (4)

stuff (16) child (4) stuff (16) place (3)
place (12) woman (3) people (14) man (1)
people (11) person (2) girl (14) creature (1)
girl (7) idea (1) child (9) question (1)
boy (5)
Figure 7.17 shows that in the ‘most specific’ and the ‘rather specific’ category of
general noun phrases in the conversation corpus, the general noun phrase head
stuff was most frequent and the general noun phrase head thing was second most
frequent. In the ‘less specific’ and the ‘least specific’ category of general noun
phrases in the conversation corpus this order was reversed: Here, the general
noun phrase head thing was most frequent and the general noun phrase head
stuff was second most frequent. This is interesting, because stuff did not occur at
all in the judgment corpus, the manifesto corpus and the debate corpus.
For a demonstration of the general noun phrases typically representing
the four categories of specification in the conversation corpus illustrated in
Figure 7.17, see the following examples (55)-(58):
(55) PS029: Yeah. They didn’t have any worktops, the green Ange said. She can’t remem-
ber any but there again she weren’t looking for green. But they’ve got that marble.
You know what we had? Over Jan’s, pity we didn’t nick that weren’t it. They got that
sort of marble stuff. [C1-11-4]
In example (55), the ‘most specific’ general noun phrase head stuff is premodified
by the adjective marble. Concerning endophoric reference, we can see that there
is a reference chain between the three items any worktops, that marble (marked
216
by broken underlining) and the general noun phrase that sort of marble stuff. It
can be assumed that the second item in this chain, that marble, is elliptic, the
noun worktop is left out. Therefore, the general noun phrase that sort of marble
stuff anaphorically refers to the preceding item that marble (worktop).
(56) PS01U: We bought loads of stuff. I got
PS01V: Mm.
PS01U: erm a lovely piece of middle leg pork for Sunday there were erm a
piece of turkey breast, a bit like a joint
PS01V: Mm.
PS01U: you know with all the skin put round.
[C2-11-17]
Example (56) shows the use of a ‘rather specific’ general noun phrase, which is
not modified but linked to its co-text through endophoric reference. The general
noun phrase head stuff cataphorically encapsulates the utterance in the following
two turns of the speaker PS01U, a lovely piece of middle leg pork for Sunday […] a
piece of turkey breast, a bit like a joint […] with all the skin out around.
(57) PS0E9: Shall I ask daddy to get me a lable for my
PS0E8: Huh, you can try. Well you can do one with the erm, with the little
thing.
PS0E9: I don’t need to take scissors or anything.
PS0E8: No, no.
[C3-9-10]
In example (57) the ‘less specific’ general noun phrase the little thing is specified
through the premodifying adjective little. However, the general noun phrase is not
linked to its co-text endophorically and is thus not further specified. The little thing
probably refers to a kind of labelling machine that is either present in the situation
or at least known by both speakers and is therefore common ground to them.
(58) PS02E: Oh have you got a lighter now?
PS029: No. I’ve got matches behind you Sue. Up on the
PS02E: Oh. Why do you
PS029: Over there Sue. Up on that thing
PS02E: Where? Oh.
[C1-9-11]
In example (58), the general noun phrase that thing is ‘least specific’ because it is
neither modified nor linked to its co-text through endophoric reference. Similar
to the general noun phrase in example (57), that thing probably refers to some-
thing, which is present in the speaking situation, in this case probably a piece of
furniture in the presence of the speakers. This is implied by the deictic expression
217
that. Examples (57) and (58) illustrate that ‘less specific’ and ‘least specific’ general
noun phrases in conversations often express ‘conventional vagueness’, a type of
vagueness that is defined as a natural language phenomenon (cf. Section 3.4.2.2).
This type of vagueness, which can be expressed through general noun phrases, is
typical of spoken face-to-face interaction. Channell (cf. 1994: 180) states that in
unspecified and vague utterances (e.g. example (57) and (58)), very often the en-
coder does not know or has forgotten the actual name of something, e.g. the label-
ling machine or the piece of furniture. This lexical gap is then filled with a general
noun phrase, which nevertheless conveys enough meaning and is easily identifi-
able for the decoder. Due to the shared situation in such conversations, the vague
expressions are easily decodable and the utterance is nevertheless understandable.
For a more accurate and precise determination of the degree of specification
of general noun phrases in the conversation corpus, the following sections sepa-
rately discuss the four categories of specification.
7.2.4.1 ‘Most specific’ general noun phrases in the conversation corpus

general noun phrases that had different premodifiers, postmodifiers or pre- and
postmodifiers. Moreover, these general noun phrases were linked to their co-text
through different types of endophoric reference. Tables 7.29–7.30 below illus-
trate the results of a more in-depth analysis:
the conversation corpus
+ Modification
combination
single
multiple
multiple
sun
single
adjective
others
noun
6 3 1 2 1
2
10 1 16
3
12
218
conversation corpus
+ Linkage
H/H’s anaphoric H/H’s cataphoric anaphoric
others sum
reference reference encapsulation
10 2 2 2 16
Table 7.29 shows that of 16 general noun phrases in the ‘most specific’ category,
12 were premodified, 3 were postmodified and one was pre- and postmodified.
In terms of explicitness of different types of modification mentioned earlier in
Sections 3.2.2 and 7.2.1 (cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 1243), this means that most of
the ‘most specific’ general noun phrases were modified by a rather inexplicit
type of modification, namely premodification. The premodifier that most often
occurred in the ‘most specific’ category of general noun phrases in the con-
versation corpus was the adjective (six times). In three of these cases, stuff was
head of the general noun phrase. Concerning endophoric reference, Table 7.30
shows that the most frequent type of endophoric reference was Halliday/
Hasan’s anaphoric reference, which occurred ten times with various general
noun phrase heads.
The analysis of the general noun phrases in the first category has revealed
one major type of ‘most specific’ general noun phrases which is characterised
by a typical combination of a certain modifier and certain type of endophoric
reference. Note that all other combinations only occurred once (see footnote 55):
(i) A general noun phrase (with various general noun phrase heads), which was
typically premodified by an adjective and anaphorically referred to a preced-
ing item in the text.
For a demonstration of this typical pattern of ‘most specific’ general noun phrases
in the conversation corpus, see the following examples:
(59) PS01V: We went to MFI, we went to erm BQ, Furniture Factors didn’t we? And
PS01U: What you looking for?
PS01V: For bedroom stuff
PS01U: Mhm
PS01V: there’s some nice stuff, MFI beat the lot, didn’t they Alec?
[C2-11-5]
(60) PS02C: What’s Father Christmas bringing you Ben?
PS02F: Erm a bobblin
[…]
219
PS000: Oh Ben. You stupid thing. Where’s my drink, where’s my drink?
[C1-9-3]
In example (59), the general noun phrase head stuff is premodified by the adjective
nice. Furthermore, the whole general noun phrase some nice stuff anaphorically re-
fers to the preceding generic general noun phrase bedroom stuff. In example (60),
the general noun phrase head thing is premodified by the adjective stupid. Here,
the general noun phrase anaphorically refers to Ben. The general noun phrase car-
ries an interpersonal element in its meaning conveying a certain attitude on the
part of the speaker. According to Halliday/Hasan (1976: 276), this is an important
function of general noun phrases. However, general noun phrases that conveyed
interpersonal meaning, particularly through the use of attitudinal modifiers (such
as in example (60)), hardly occurred in the corpus data. The instances that did oc-
cur predominantly occurred in the spoken conversation corpus.
7.2.4.2 ‘Rather specific’ general noun phrases in the conversation corpus

The second category of general noun phrases in the conversation corpus, the
category of ‘rather specific’ general noun phrases, is defined by the parameters
- modification and + linkage. This category includes 19 general noun phrases,
which were not modified but which were endophorically linked to their co-text.
See the following table for the results of the closer analysis of these 19 ‘rather
specific’ general noun phrases:
conversation corpus
+ Linkage
H/H’s anaphoric H/H’s cataphoric cataphoric
remote reference sum
reference reference encapsulation
12 3 2 2 19
Table 7.31 shows that the most frequent types of endophoric reference found in
the ‘rather specific’ category of general noun phrases in the conversation cor-
pus were Halliday/Hasan’s anaphoric reference with 12 instances and Halliday/
Hasan’s cataphoric reference with 3 instances. Of the 12 instances of Halliday/
Hasan’s anaphoric reference in the ‘rather specific category’, stuff was head in five
of these general noun phrases, followed by thing in four of these phrases.
The following two examples demonstrate the typical use of general noun
phrases in the ‘rather specific’ category in the conversation corpus:
220
(61) PS02B: No. What babe?
PS02F: And and the big bear said who’s been sleeping in my bed.
PS029: Zoe wants I gotta tell her
PS029: Yeah she wants
PS02F: I know more, I know more. And and the big bear said who been sleep-
ing in my bed.
PS02B: That’s right. Very good. Thank you my love.
PS029: said what’s that? I said that’s just, nothing. Oh it’s only a tape recorder.
PS02B: Oh that thing again!
[C1-9-4]
In example (61), the simple general noun phrase that thing anaphorically refers
to the preceding noun phrase a tape recorder. Note that the demonstrative pro-
noun that carries a certain derogatory tone, which might express that the speak-
ers in utterance (61) are irritated by carrying the tape recorder that recorded the
conversation. Similar to the use of the general noun phrase you stupid thing in
example (60) in the preceding Section 7.2.4.1, the general noun phrase that thing
in example (61) above also conveys interpersonal meaning.
(62) PS0E8: I’ve done the margarine, you you can get me the erm thing.
PS0E9: Where’s the margarine?
PS0E8: It’s in here, it’s melted, you’ve just watched it melt.
PS0E8: Can you get me the flan tin down there?
[C3-9-14]
In example (62), the simple general noun phrase the thing cataphorically refers
to the noun phrase the flan tin in the next but two utterances. Note that similar
to examples (57) and (58) in Section 7.2.4 above, example (62) shows the use of a
rather vague general noun phrase which is probably used by the speaker because
they cannot think of the actual name of the tin. The general noun phrase the
thing is used to fill that lexical gap (cf. Channell 1994: 180).
7.2.4.3 ‘Less specific’ general noun phrases in the conversation corpus

The third category of general noun phrases in the conversation corpus, the cat-
egory of ‘less specific’ general noun phrases, is defined by the correlation of the
parameters + modification and - linkage. This category includes 82 general noun
phrases, which were specified through modification but not through linkage
to their co-text. Tables 7.32 and 7.33 illustrate the results of the more in-depth
analysis of these general noun phrases:
221
conversation corpus
+ Modification
single single
combination
relative clause
multiple
multiple
prep. phrase
sum
infinitive
adjective
others
others
clause
noun
32 8 4 5 5 11 2
2 5
44 23 8 82
46 28
Table 7.33: Most frequent combinations of modification and - linkage in ‘less specific’ gen-
eral noun phrases in the conversation corpus
– Linkage
generic no
sum
reference reference
adjective 3 29
premodifier
noun 1 7
+ Modification
infinitive clause 0 5
postmodifier
relative clause 5 6
others 5 21
14 68
sum
82
Table 7.32 gives the frequencies of the different types of modification that oc-
curred within the general noun phrases of the third category of specification in
the conversation corpus. Of a total of 82 ‘less specific’ general noun phrases, 46
were premodified, 28 were postmodified and eight general noun phrases were
pre- and postmodified. This means that in the majority of ‘less specific’ general
noun phrases in the conversation corpus, we find a rather inexplicit type of mod-
ification (cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 1243). The most frequent premodifier was the ad-
jective, which occurred 32 times with a variety of different general noun phrase
heads. The most frequent postmodifier was the relative clause, which occurred
222
eleven times, and neither showed a clear preference for a particular general noun
phrase head.
Table 7.33 illustrates that the majority of 68 general noun phrases in the ‘less
specific’ category were non-referring. This amounts to 82.93% of the total. There
was a range of different general noun phrase heads, e.g. thing, place, stuff, or
people. The remaining 14 general noun phrases in this category (17.07%) were
generic. There was no clear preference for a specific general noun phrase head.
Concerning the combination of the parameters modification and linkage,
Table 7.33 shows that there were three typical patterns of general noun phrases
in the ‘less specific’ category:
(i) A generic general noun phrase, which was postmodified by a relative clause.
(five times)
(ii) A non-referring general noun phrase with an adjective as premodifier.
(29 times)
(iii) A non-referring general noun phrase with a noun as premodifier.
(seven times)
For a demonstration of these typical uses of generic and non-referring general
noun phrases in the ‘less specific’ category in the conversation corpus, see the
following examples:
(63) PS029: just say right we’ll put a pound a week in and at the end of the year
[…]
PS029: But you want people who’s gonna pay every week. You don’t want people
you gonna have to keep
[C1-1-4], [C1-1-5]
In example (63), the two general noun phrase heads people are both postmodi-
fied by a relative clause (who’s gonna pay every week and you gonna have to keep).
Both general noun phrases refer to a class or group of people and are therefore
generic.
(64) PS01U: Ah well I got my freezers from Millers, and I got my fridge.
[…]
PS01V: In fact, I looked at Currys’ prices, cos Currys’ were a, and Currys
looked as if they were the cheaper
[…]
PS01T: But Currys were always de dearer than Millers.
PS01U: Different people who you speak to though Joyce
PS01V: Yeah.
PS01U: not just round here but er asking, and like, I’ve have our
PS01V: Yeah.
223
PS01U: Kim’s husband Ian th when they were shopping round for different
things and
PS01V: Mm.
[C2-9-19]
In example (64), the general noun phrase head things is premodified by an ad-
jective. The general noun phrase different things is not linked to any other item
in the text endophorically. It is also not generic, as it does not refer to a class or
group of things but to specific things. The general noun phrase different things
expresses conventional vagueness, a type of vagueness that is considered appro-
priate in conversations for two reasons: firstly, it can be easily decoded, due to
the shared situation, that different things probably refers to different objects that
one would want to shop. Secondly, in the context of the above conversation, it is
not relevant to specify what the different things were that Kim and her husband
Ian were shopping round for.
(65) PS01T: Looks as though it had been cut out for some reason.
PS01V: It does, don’t it?
PS01T: Is it collar?
PS01V: Well I think it’s probably off that other pattern. Well I do, I’m waiting
for two patterns aren’t I? Looks like er making for a collar don’t it?
PS01T: Yeah.
PS01V: I’ll keep that though because I don’t know if.
PS01T: I’ll put it in here.
PS01V: Mm. I’ll have that stapler.
PS01T: And I, if I see anybody I’m not gonna stop and talk to them!
PS01T: could of could of walked on.
PS01V: Mm.
PS01T: And every time, every time I’m glad she’s starting summat else!
PS01V: Mm mm. And then we went and had a look in that that er tape thing.
PS01T: Yeah.
PS01V: No, so it will be possible talk to them then?
PS01T: Yeah.
PS01V: It’s alright to talk to him you know i giving you, just give you that bit of
extra warmth without er
PS01T: The weight.
[C2-9-25]
In example (65), the general noun phrase head thing is premodified by the noun
tape. The general noun phrase neither refers anaphorically or cataphorically nor
does it have generic reference. The deictic pronoun that indicates that the gen-
eral noun phrase that tape thing refers to an entity in the shared situation of the
speakers. However, since exophoric reference is not a criterion for the analysis
224
in the present study, the general noun phrase that tape thing is defined non-
referring.
category has revealed that they were frequently premodified by an adjective and
that they were non-referring in most of the cases (82.93%). This specific combi-
nation was also the most frequent type in the ‘less specific’ category.
7.2.4.4 ‘Least specific’ general noun phrases in the conversation corpus

The fourth category of general noun phrases in the conversation corpus, the
category of ‘least specific’ general noun phrases, is defined by the parameters -
modification and - linkage. This category contains 95 general noun phrases,
which were neither modified nor linked to their co-text through any kind of
endophoric reference. The closer analysis of the ‘least specific’ general noun
phrases has revealed that, similar to the majority of general noun phrases in the
‘less specific’ category, the majority of general noun phrases in the ‘least specific’
category were non-referring (82 instances, which equals 86.32% of the total). The
remaining 13.83% (13 instances) were generic.
In eight of the 13 generic general noun phrases, people was head of the phrase.
There was a greater variety of general noun phrase heads in the non-referring
group, including heads such as thing (27 instances), stuff (16 instances), and girl
(11 instances).
For a demonstration of the generic and non-referring uses of the general
noun phrase heads people, girl, thing and stuff see the following examples from
the conversation corpus:
(66) PS029: She’s a hairdresser.
PS02E: I’m a hairdresser, yeah.
PS029: Does people’s hair like mummy’s. Makes me look tidy occasionally.
[C1-1-7]
Example (66) shows that the general noun phrase people is neither modified nor
linked to its co-text through endophoric reference. People is used generically to
refer to the class people in general.
(67) PS01V: Colonaise the council car park at Colonaise Pete works there don’t he?
PS01T: Yeah.
PS01U: Or just started to work there. It were thirty pence when it were, when
it was er this fella owned it
PS01T: Yeah.
PS01U: the council’s took it over
PS01T: No, the council’s took it over, they sold it to this bloke.
225
PS01U: The council’s took it over now and it’s sixty pence! The council has
because that’s who Pete works for! And that’s how he’s got that job.
PS01V: And what about me paying ten pound fine didn’t I? Cos I were twenty
minutes over the
PS01U: Yeah.
PS01V: thing.
[C2-9-13]
In example (67), the simple general noun phrase the thing is non-referring be-
cause it is neither endophorically linked within the surface text nor is there
generic reference to a class. Through associations triggered by the co-text of ex-
ample (67), more particularly by the noun phrase the council car park at Colo-
naise, it can be assumed that the general noun phrase the thing refers to a parking
ticket; however, such associations are not a criterion for endophoric reference in
the present study.
(68) PS01V: Are you gonna have a bit of this stuff on some toast Alec?
PS01T: No thanks love.
[C2-11-18]
Example (68) shows a non-referring use of the simple general noun phrase this
stuff. The deictic pronoun this indicates that the general noun phrase makes ref-
erence to something that is present in the situation of the conversation. However,
exophoric reference is not considered in the present study.
7.2.5 Summary and comparison of results

The preceding sections have dealt with the results of the qualitative analysis for
each of the four sub-corpora. The aim of the present section is to compare these
results and discuss in how far they confirm the assumptions concerning the use
and the functions of general noun phrases across different genres and media
(cf. Section 4.4).
Assumptions five, six, and seven (cf. Section 4.4) were dealt with in individual
steps of the qualitative analysis. In a first step, the number of simple and com-
plex general noun phrases was determined. It was also analysed, how many of
the relevant general noun phrases were linked and how many were not linked.
Table 7.34 presents a comparison of these results:
226
Table 7.34: Comparison of modified and non-modified general noun phrase heads and linked
and non-linked general noun phrases in the four sub-corpora (in percentage)
Complex General
Simple general Linked general
Sub-corpora general noun noun phrases
phrases without linkage
Judgment corpus 59.34 40.66 57.69 42.31
Manifesto corpus 45.85 54.15 3.60 96.40
Debate corpus 59.56 40.44 22.20 77.80
Conversation
46.23 53.77 16.51 83.49
corpus
With regard to the parameter modification, Table 7.34 shows that in the judgment
corpus and in the debate corpus, complex general noun phrase heads were more
frequent than simple general noun phrase heads. Interestingly, the frequencies
of modified and non-modified general noun phrase heads in both corpora were
very similar, with approximately 60% modified and 40% non-modified general
noun phrase heads. By contrast, in the manifesto corpus and the conversation
corpus, simple general noun phrase heads were more frequent than complex
ones. Here, the frequencies in both corpora were again very similar, with ap-
proximately 46% modified and 54% non-modified general noun phrase heads.
Regarding the parameter linkage, Table 7.34 shows that, in the judgment cor-
pus, general noun phrases which are linked to their co-text through endophoric
reference were more frequent than general noun phrases without linkage. By
contrast, in the manifesto corpus, the debate corpus and the conversation corpus,
general noun phrases which are not linked to their co-text through endophoric
reference were significantly more frequent than general noun phrases with link-
age. Note that in the judgment corpus, there is only a small difference between
the number of linked and non-linked general noun phrases (approximately 58%
linked and 42% non-linked). In contrast, in the other three corpora, the differ-
ence between linked and non-linked general noun phrases is much bigger. In the
debate corpus, the ratio of linked and non-linked general noun phrases is ap-
proximately 22% to 78%, in the conversation corpus, it is approximately 17% to
83%, and it is the biggest in the manifesto corpus with approximately 4% linked
to 96% non-linked general noun phrases.
An interesting observation, which was made in the first step of the qualitative
analysis, was that the difference between the frequencies of modified and non-
modified general noun phrases is not so big in the four sub-corpora, whereas
the difference between the frequencies of linked and non-linked general noun
227
phrases is much bigger in the four sub-corpora (cf. Table 7.34). This supports the
assumption that linkage is a crucial parameter in the analysis of general noun
phrases.
In a second step of the qualitative analysis, the focus was placed on the cor-
relation of the two parameters modification and linkage and the distribution of
general noun phrases across the resulting four categories of specification: ‘most
specific’, ‘rather specific’, ‘less specific’, and ‘least specific’ general noun phras-
es. See Table 7.35 for a comparison of the frequencies of general noun phrases
across these categories:
Table 7.35: Comparison of general noun phrases across the four categories of specification in
the four sub-corpora (in percentage)
‘rather
‘most specific’ ‘less specific’ ‘least specific’
specific’
Sub-corpora general noun general noun general noun
general noun
phrases phrases phrases
phrases
Judgment corpus 29.57 27.47 29.12 13.19
Manifesto corpus 3.29 0.31 42.57 53.83
Debate corpus 9.23 12.97 50.33 27.47
Conversation corpus 7.55 8.96 39.15 44.34
Table 7.35 shows that in the judgment corpus, ‘most specific’ general noun
phrases were most frequent and ‘least specific’ general noun phrases were least
frequent. However, note that the distribution of general noun phrases across
three of the four categories of specification is almost completely even in the
judgment corpus. By contrast, in the manifesto corpus, ‘least specific’ general
noun phrases were most frequent and ‘rather specific’ general noun phrases
were least frequent. In the debate corpus, ‘less specific’ general noun phrases
were most frequent and ‘most specific’ general noun phrases were least fre-
quent. In the conversation corpus, ‘least specific’ general noun phrases were
most frequent and ‘most specific’ general noun phrases were least frequent.
Similar to the distribution of general noun phrases across the four categories
of specification in the manifesto corpus, there is a great difference in frequency
in the conversation corpus between ‘most specific’ and ‘rather specific’ general
noun phrases on the one hand and ‘less specific’ and ‘least specific’ general noun
phrases on the other hand.
Again, an interesting observation was made: the distribution of the four cat-
egories of specification is rather even in the judgment corpus. In the manifesto
228
corpus, debate corpus, and conversation corpus, however, there is a great differ-
ence in the distribution of general nouns across the ‘most specific’ and ‘rather
specific’ categories on the one hand and the ‘less specific’ and ‘least specific’ cat-
egories on the other hand. Similar to what has been stated above (cf. Table 7.34),
this supports that linkage is a crucial parameter in the use of general noun
phrases, in particular in the three mentioned sub-corpora.
The results presented in Table 7.35 partly confirm the fifth, sixth and seventh
of my assumptions (cf. Section 4.4). Concerning assumption five, my findings do
confirm that the frequency of simple general noun phrases without endophoric
reference (‘least specific’) is lowest in legal language and high in the manifestos.
However, they do not confirm that the debate corpus, which together with the
manifesto corpus represents the political domain, consequently has a similar fre-
quency of ‘least specific’ general noun phrases. In fact, the debate corpus is sec-
ond lowest with regard to this category. The results also do not confirm that ‘least
specific’ general noun phrases are most frequent in the conversation corpus.
Concerning assumption six, my findings do confirm that judgments (rep-
resenting legal language) have the highest frequency of ‘most specific’ general
noun phrases and that the two political corpora have a low frequency of gen-
eral noun phrases from this category. However, the findings do not confirm that
the conversation corpus has the lowest frequency of ‘most specific’ general noun
phrases. In fact, theses general noun phrases are least frequent in the manifesto
corpus.
Concerning the seventh of my assumptions, the results presented in Table 7.35
do not confirm that ‘least specific’ general noun phrases are more frequent in
spoken language than in written language and that ‘most specific’ general noun
phrases are more frequent in written language than in spoken language. We might
already conclude from this, that the use of general noun phrases, more particularly
their degree of specification, is not medium-dependent.
When making statements about the degree of specification of general noun
phrases, we have so far only taken into account the ‘most specific’ and the ‘least
specific’ category. If we want to make more reliable statements about the de-
gree of specification of general noun phrases, all four categories (‘most specific’,
‘rather specific’, ‘less specific’, and ‘least specific’) must be considered. For this
purpose, the frequencies presented in Table 7.35 were calculated as follows: first,
the frequencies of general noun phrases in the ‘most specific’ category and in
the ‘rather specific’ category were added, in order to get an average frequency of
‘specific’ general noun phrases. Second, the frequencies of general noun phrases
in the ‘less specific’ category and in the ‘least specific’ category were added,
229
in order to get an average frequency of ‘unspecific’ general noun phrases.9 The
four sub-corpora were positioned along the scale of specification accordingly:
sub-corpora with a low frequency of ‘most specific’ and ‘rather specific’ general
noun phrases and a high frequency of ‘less specific’ and ‘least specific’ general
noun phrases are at the very general end of the scale. Sub-corpora with a high
frequency of ‘most specific’ and ‘rather specific’ general noun phrases and a low
frequency of ‘less specific’ and ‘least specific’ general noun phrases are at the very
specific end of the scale. Figure 7.18 illustrates this:
Figure 7.18: Positioning of the four sub-corpora along the scale of specification
general
high frequency of ‘less low frequency of ‘most
specific’ and ‘least specific’ specific’ and ‘rather specific’
general noun phrases general noun phrases
96.4 3.6 Manifesto corpus
83.49 16.51 Conversation corpus

77.8 22.2
Debate corpus
42.31 57.04 Judgment corpus
low frequency of ‘less specific’ high frequency of ‘most

and ‘least specific’ general specific’ and ‘more specific’
specific
9 The principle underlying this calculation is the assumption that for determining the
degree of specification of general noun phrases, linkage is a more crucial parameter
than modification.
230
Figure 7.18 shows that due to the very low frequency of ‘most specific’ and ‘rather
specific’ general noun phrases and the very high frequency of ‘less specific’ and
‘least specific’ general noun phrases, the manifesto corpus is positioned at the
very general end of the scale. In contrast to the assumption made in Section 4.4,
the conversation corpus follows the manifesto corpus on the scale of specifica-
tion. With a relatively low frequency of ‘most specific’ and ‘rather specific’ general
noun phrases and a relatively high frequency of ‘less specific’ and ‘least specific’
general noun phrases, the conversation corpus is still positioned towards the
general end of the scale. The debate corpus follows closely, with a similarly low
frequency of ‘most specific’ and ‘rather specific’ general noun phrases and a simi-
larly high frequency of ‘less specific’ and ‘least specific’ general noun phrases.
The position of the debate corpus is relatively central, with a tendency towards
the general end of the scale. The judgment corpus is in fact clearly positioned at
the very specific end of the scale, with the highest frequency of ‘most specific’
and ‘rather specific’ general noun phrases and the lowest frequency of ‘less spe-
cific’ and ‘least specific’ general noun phrases. The arrangement of corpus texts
on the scale of specification illustrated in Figure 7.18 deviates from the assumed
arrangement illustrated in Section 4.4.
The first conclusion that can be drawn from the arrangement of the sub-cor-
pora on the scale of specification presented in Figure 7.18 is that the degree of
specification of general noun phrases is indeed not medium-dependent, at least
not in general. The similar position of the two spoken corpora might suggest
a medium-dependency, but the opposite positions of the two written corpora,
the manifesto corpus and the judgment corpus, contradicts a general medium-
dependency. Nevertheless, we can suggest that general noun phrases are used
similarly at least in spoken language. This raises new questions, which can only be
answered on the basis of further research in a larger corpus of spoken language.
Another conclusion, which can be drawn from the results presented in
Figure 7.18, is that the arrangement of the four sub-corpora along the scale
of specification is not influenced by the domain which the four sub-corpora
represent. This can be explained by the fact that the two corpora from the po-
litical domain, the manifesto corpus and the debate corpus, have different po-
sitions on the scale. Therefore, we can conclude that the results presented in
Figure 7.18 suggest a genre-specific use of general noun phrases.
What seems to be a crucial factor here is the purpose of the text. Judgments,
which need to be precise and clear, use more ‘most specific’ and ‘rather specific’
general noun phrases than ‘less specific’ and ‘least specific’ general noun phrases.
The high frequency of ‘least specific’ general noun phrases in the manifesto
231
corpus can be explained with the need to make general election promises and
generically refer to people and things. Simple general noun phrases without en-
dophoric reference are a useful means for that purpose. The use of general noun
phrases in the debate corpus is, in this respect, similar. Yet, these non-referring
or generic general noun phrases are more often modified, which makes them a
bit more specific than those in the manifesto corpus. Parliamentary discussions
are often very lively, and ministers openly express their opinions, and their ap-
proval or disapproval. This is often done with the use of general noun phrase
modifiers. In the conversation corpus, the frequent use of ‘less specific’ and ‘least
specific’ general noun phrases can be explained by the fact that the shared situ-
ations in conversations do not require a degree of elaboration typical of ‘most
specific’ and ‘rather specific’ general noun phrases. Conversation partners can
nevertheless interpret implications such as those expressed by ‘less specific’ and
‘least specific’ general noun phrases.
The third step of the qualitative analysis in the present study involved deter-
mining the distribution of general noun phrase heads across the four categories
of specification. These results are compared in Table 7.36:
Table 7.36: Comparison of the most frequent general noun phrase heads in the four catego-
ries of specification across the four sub-corpora
Most frequent Most frequent Most frequent Most frequent

‘most specific’ ‘rather specific’ ‘less specific’ ‘least specific’
Sub-corpora
general noun general noun general noun general noun
phrase heads phrase heads phrase heads phrase heads
Judgment corpus question question person person
Manifesto corpus people child people people
Debate corpus question, idea matter people people
Conversation
stuff stuff thing thing
corpus
Table 7.36 shows that in the judgment corpus, the general noun phrase head
question was most frequent in the ‘most specific’ and ‘rather specific’ categories,
whereas person was most frequent in the ‘less specific’ and ‘least specific’ catego-
ries. In the manifesto corpus, people was most frequent in the ‘most specific’, the
‘less specific’ and the ‘least specific’ categories. Child was most frequent in the
‘rather specific’ category. In the debate corpus, question and idea were most fre-
quent in the ‘most specific’ category. Matter was the most frequent general noun
phrase head in the ‘less specific’ and ‘least specific’ categories. In the conversa-
tion corpus, the most frequent general noun phrase head in the ‘most specific’
232
and ‘rather specific’ categories was stuff, and thing was most frequent in the ‘less
specific’ and ‘least specific’ categories.
Table 7.36 illustrates that the distribution of general noun phrase heads
across the four categories of specification reveals parallels. In two of the four
sub-corpora, the judgment corpus and the conversation corpus, the typical gen-
eral noun phrase heads coincide in the ‘most specific’ category and the ‘rather
specific’ category as well as in the ‘less specific’ category and the ‘least specific’
category. In the manifesto corpus and the debate corpus, this parallel can be
observed in the ‘less specific’ and ‘least specific’ category. This again supports
the assumption that the parameter linkage is a crucial parameter for the use of
In Section 7.1.5 (see the discussion in reference to Figure 7.7), it was explained
that the frequent use of certain general noun phrase heads in certain sub-corpora
points to a characterising function that these general noun phrase heads have
in the respective sub-corpus. We can therefore assume that the frequent use of
certain general noun phrase heads is genre-dependent. The results presented in
Table 7.36 also support this assumption. Additionally, we can see that there are
typical domain-specific general noun phrase heads in the manifesto corpus and
the debate corpus.
In a fourth step of the qualitative analysis, typical realisations of ‘most spe-
cific’, ‘rather specific’, ‘less specific’ and ‘least specific’ general noun phrases were
analysed. These results are illustrated in Table 7.37:
Table 7.37: Comparison of most frequent realisations of general noun phrases in the four
categories of specification across the four sub-corpora

realisation of realisation of realisation of realisation of
Sub-corpora ‘most specific’ ‘rather specific’ ‘less specific’ ‘least specific’
phrases phrases phrases phrases
question +
question,
appositive
anaphoric
interrogative person + relative
Judgment encapsulation person, generic
clause, clause, generic
corpus or cataphoric reference
cataphoric reference
reference to subj.
reference to 2nd
complement
appositive unit
233
realisation of realisation of realisation of realisation of
Sub-corpora ‘most specific’‘rather specific’ ‘less specific’ ‘least specific’
phrases phrases phrases phrases
child, H/H’s
idea + appositive
anaphoric
that-clause, adjective +
Manifesto reference or people, generic
cataphoric people, generic
corpus anaphoric reference
reference to 2nd reference
reference to
appositive unit
subject
adjective + man/
matter, H/H’s adjective +
Debate child, H/H’s people, generic
anaphoric people, generic
corpus anaphoric reference
reference reference
reference
adjective + stuff, stuff, H/H’s
Conversation adjective + thing, thing, non-
H/H’s anaphoric anaphoric
corpus non-referring referring
reference reference
Table 7.37 shows the most frequent realisations of general noun phrases in the
four categories of specification across the four sub-corpora. The categories,
which were most frequent in the four sub-corpora are given in dashed cells. The
realisations of general noun phrases in these cells are therefore considered to be
characteristic of the respective sub-corpus.
In the judgment corpus, the general noun phrase head question, which was
postmodified by an appositive interrogative clause and referred cataphorically
to this clause, was the most frequent realisation of ‘most specific’ general noun
phrases. Thus, patterns like the question which… or the question whether… were
typically found in the judgment corpus. Such patterns were used to refer to
the underlying question of the case repeatedly and, in the case of the pattern
question + ‘appositive interrogative clause’ + ‘cataphoric reference to 2nd apposi-
tive unit’, this could be done in a concise way.
In the manifesto corpus, the most frequent realisation of the ‘least specific’
category was the non-modified general noun phrase head people, which was
used to make generic reference. This pattern was used frequently because politi-
cal manifestos address people in general – the British people in the case of the
investigated manifestos. Manifestos advertise political views and aims that affect
people. This explains why the use of generic general noun phrases such as in the
following example occurred frequently in the manifestos:
234
(69) Labour believes we should […] reform our public services to put people in control.
[LM-1-14]
Through the generic use of people in example (69), Labour addresses every pos-
sible reader of the manifesto, thereby achieving that everyone who reads it feels
integrated into the political actions. Labour’s plan to put the British people in
control and give them power sounds very promising. However, in the example
above, it is not specified who will really be put in control. Note that the frequent
generic and also non-referring general noun phrases in the manifesto corpus,
also with heads other than people, are very often used in similar ways as in ex-
ample (69). The following example illustrates the use of a simple non-referring
general noun phrase:
(70) […] the problems confronting Britain have escalated, and escalated fast. So our
ideas are ambitious and radical as well as modern. [CM-18-4]
The use of the general noun phrase in example (70) is rather vague because it
is not specified, through neither modification nor endophoric reference, what
ideas refers to. However, such a general statement sounds promising and im-
presses the potential voter.
Similar to the results of the manifesto corpus, the typical pattern in the de-
bate corpus was the general noun phrase head people, which was used to make
generic reference. However, in the debate corpus, the general noun phrase people
was typically premodified by an adjective. The function of such generic noun
phrases corresponds to that in the manifesto corpus, namely the expression of
general promises, but, as mentioned above, premodifiers might additionally be
used to express opinions, approval or disapproval of ministers.
The typical pattern found in the conversation corpus was the general noun
phrase head thing, which was not modified and which was neither linked endo-
phorically, nor used to make generic reference, i.e. it was non-referring. The fact
that this pattern was most frequent can be explained by the restricted style of
referencing typically used in conversations. This style of referencing relies heav-
ily on shared situations, so that thing is typically used when referring to entities
that are present in the situation of utterance. Thus, ‘least specific’ general noun
phrases in conversations often express ‘conventional vagueness’, a type of vague-
ness that is defined as a natural language phenomenon (cf. Section 3.4.2.2). This
type of vagueness is typical of spoken face-to-face interaction where the speakers
share the situation and have a common ground. Channell (cf. 1994: 180) states
that in unspecified and vague utterances, the speaker very often does not know
or has forgotten the actual name of an object and thus fills the lexical gap with a
general noun phrase such as thing in order to be able to convey meaning all the
235
same. Due to the shared situation in such conversations, the vague expressions
can be decoded easily and the utterance is nevertheless understandable.
A very important aspect that the results in Table 7.37 reveal is that Halliday/
Hasan’s anaphoric or cataphoric reference was found in the corpus data in only
five of the 16 typical patterns of general noun phrases illustrated in Table 7.37
(cells with a red frame). This takes up my critical remarks in Section 2.3 and con-
firms that general noun phrases do not at all exclusively occur in the anaphoric
function illustrated in the perfect textbook examples given by Halliday/Hasan
(1976). Quite the contrary, it has been demonstrated that general noun phrases
occur in many different patterns and fulfil functions that have so far not been
associated systematically with general noun phrases as described by Halliday/
Hasan (1976):
(i) General noun phrases are neutral shells, which encapsulate complex infor-
mation and reify it for subsequent discourse.
(ii) General noun phrases encapsulate subsequent information and then func-
tion as discourse markers.
(iii) General noun phrases can be used as the first of two appositive units, which
cataphorically refers to the second appositive unit (very often a clause).
(iv) General noun phrases can be used as the subject in a clause, referring cata-
phorically to the subject complement.
(v) General noun phrases can be used to make generic reference.
(vi) General noun phrases can be used as completely unspecific items without
any kind of endophoric or generic reference and function as empty phrases
(especially in political language) or as fillers (especially in conversation).
236
8. Summary and conclusions
Abstract: Chapter 8 summarises the most important findings of a comprehensive study

of general noun phrases based on a corpus of four different genres. The results imply a
genre-specific and also purposeful use of general noun phrases. This emphasises the role
of these items, which so often have been neglected in descriptions of English.
The present study has examined general noun phrases in naturally occurring
language data, more specifically, in a corpus of written and spoken texts from
four different genres, namely Supreme Court judgments, political manifestos,
parliamentary debates and general conversations. These genres represent three
different domains, namely legal language, political language and conversation.
The starting point for the present study was Halliday/Hasan’s text-linguistic
approach to ‘general nouns’, which exclusively focuses on the cohesive function
of these items. According to Halliday/Hasan (1976: 274–275), ‘general nouns’
are nouns with only very general meaning, which are used anaphorically or cata-
phorically in order to create cohesion. With this status, ‘general nouns’ share
some characteristics with pronouns. I have critically remarked in Section 2.3
that this definition cannot sufficiently describe the form and function of ‘gen-
eral nouns’ in naturally occurring language data. Concerning form, it has been
suggested that ‘general nouns’ occur in natural language data as heads of noun
phrases of varying complexity and should therefore be referred to as ‘general
noun phrases’ or ‘general noun phrase heads’. This refutes the assumption that
they are necessarily general in meaning. Furthermore, it is assumed that general
noun phrases are not exclusively anaphoric but can fulfil other functions.
These critical remarks were the starting point for a comprehensive description
of general noun phrases, which combines grammatical, text-linguistic, pragmatic
and cognitive aspects. From a grammatical perspective, all of the 18 general noun
phrase heads were defined as common nouns. Sixteen of them were defined as
count nouns and two of them as non-count nouns. Ten of the count nouns were
defined as concrete count nouns; these were people, person, man, woman, child,
boy, girl, creature, thing and object. Six of the count nouns were defined as abstract
count nouns; these were affair, matter, move, place, question and idea. One of the
non-count nouns was defined as concrete, namely stuff, and the other one was de-
fined as abstract, namely business. On a scale that ranged from specific to general,
the general noun phrase heads investigated in the present study were positioned
at a point where the classes of concrete and abstract count nouns and concrete
237
and abstract non-count nouns overlapped. This point was located towards the
general end of the scale.
A text-linguistic description of general noun phrases included aspects of
communication in terms of the constitutive and regulative features of textual
communication1 defined by de Beaugrande/Dressler (1981)2 and the distinction
of two styles of referencing: the restricted and the elaborated style of referencing
described by Bernstein (1971). It was shown that general noun phrases can be
used intentionally by the encoder to follow certain aims, for example to be vague
and unspecific about something. One means of achieving this is to influence
the informational load of an utterance either through the use of a general noun
phrase, which is so unspecific that it conveys only little information, or through
remote reference, which means that too much text lies in between the general
noun phrase and the reference item so that the decoder cannot establish the
reference relation, or through a lack of any reference relation at all. Since par-
ticularly low informativity is likely to be disturbing (cf. de Beaugrande/Dressler
1981: 9), general noun phrases have shown to influence the decoder’s attitude
towards the acceptability of an utterance.
In terms of the regulative features of textual communication defined by de
Beaugrande/Dressler (1981), it was shown that the use of a general noun phrase
as a referring item can reduce the text-producer’s effort and correspondingly
raise the text’s efficiency because a general noun phrase can be used to encap-
sulate longer stretches of text. There is, however, a ‘trade-off ’ between proposi-
tional density and clarity of thought (cf. de Beaugrande/Dressler 1981: 64): if the
decoder is not able to identify or locate the reference item, for example, because
the referring item passes too much text, then the granted effectiveness of the
text is lost again. This aspect ties in with the aforementioned intentions of an
encoder. In line with the decoder’s attitude towards the appropriateness of an ut-
terance is the distinction of the restricted and the elaborated style of referencing.
According to Esser (cf. 2009: 36), the restricted style of referencing heavily relies
on exophoric reference, which is manifested in the frequent use of pronouns and
1 De Beaugrande/Dressler (1981) originally speak of regulative and constitutive princi-

ples which must necessarily be fulfilled. Today, this view seems too rigid, however, it is
generally recognised that a text has a communicative function which is determined by
the encoder’s intention and the decoder’s expectation. Therefore, I refer to the constitu-
tive and regulative principles as features of textual communication (cf. section 3.3.1).
2 The aspect of communicative functions of texts and the text producer’s intentions really
describe phenomena which go back to the works of J.L. Austin (1962) and J.R. Searle
(1969).
238
deictic expressions. The elaborated style of referencing, on the contrary, is mani-
fested in the use of lexically filled noun phrases. Concerning the different styles
of referencing, the use of general noun phrases is relevant particularly in terms
of a restricted style of referencing typically found in conversations. General noun
phrases such as that thing and one of the things, which point to the situation of
utterance, typically occurred in conversations where the shared situation of the
speakers allowed for such expressions.
Closely related to textual features of communication are pragmatic features of
communication, such as the ‘Cooperative Principle’ formulated by Grice (1975).
According to Grice (cf. Grice 1975: 45–47), the conversational partners must
cooperate in that they both accept one another to be understood in a particular
way. Grice sets up four maxims, which require the conversation to be informative,
truthful, relevant and explicit. Grice (cf. 1975: 49) states that very often one or more
of the maxims are violated. If, for example, completely unspecific general noun
phrases are used in a text without reference to the preceding or following text, the
general noun phrases in fact convey very little meaning. The encoder violates the
maxim of ‘quantity’ (cf. Grice 1975: 45), and, as a result, the decoder might not be
able to identify the referent and, in the end, might not be able to understand an ut-
terance altogether. If, for example, the encoder is faced with the dilemma of want-
ing to tell the truth, he or she might solve this by holding back information. This is
particularly relevant in the context of political issues, and general noun phrases, as
the present study has shown, are a useful means for this purpose.
As an outcome of the description of general noun phrases under text-linguistic
and pragmatic aspects, it was shown that unspecific general noun phrases can be
used to express vagueness. In Section 3.4.2.2, two types of vagueness were dis-
tinguished: (i) ‘conventional’ vagueness, which occurs as a natural language phe-
nomenon and is easily decodable, and (ii) ‘rhetorical’ vagueness, which is used
intentionally in order to manipulate and mislead the decoder and which is hard
or even impossible to decode. The first type of vagueness, conventional vagueness,
was expressed, for example, by unspecific general noun phrases such as thing and
stuff typically found in conversations where the speakers share the situation of ut-
terance. As explained above in the context of the restricted style of referencing,
this type of vagueness is appropriate in conversations and can easily be decoded.
Rhetorical vagueness, by contrast, is characterised by an amount of vagueness that
is no longer seen as appropriate and therefore has a manipulating and misleading
effect on the decoder. Rhetorical vagueness was expressed, for example, by using a
very unspecific general noun phrase where a more specific term would be neces-
sary, or by an unspecific general noun phrase, which remotely referred to another
239
item for its interpretation, or which did not refer to any other item at all. Especially
in political contexts, it was shown that the encoder deliberately uses rhetorically
vague general noun phrases to withhold information, refrain from going into (un-
pleasant) detail and to weaken down problems. This way, politicians protect them-
selves from any sort of binding commitment and face threat.
Moving to a cognitive approach to general noun phrases, de-contextualised
general noun phrases can be viewed as representing broad cognitive categories
which, according to whether they are specified through the co-text and context,
move at different levels of abstraction. A de-contextualised general noun phrase
such as matter encapsulates different meanings; in cognitive terms, the general
noun phrase constitutes a very broad category with many category members. The
different meanings of matter can only be specified through reference to its co-text
and context in each single utterance. Resulting from this process, it was suggested
to describe general noun phrases as semantically empty containers that are filled
with content to different degrees through reference to the co-text and context.
As an outcome of the description of general noun phrases under grammati-
cal, text-linguistc, pragmatic and cognitive aspects, a major role was granted to
the parameters modification and linkage. These parameters were integrated into
a functional matrix, which served as the major tool to determine the degree of
specification of a general noun phrase. With this innovative framework, the pre-
sent study has offered a systematic method to describe the degree of specification
or generalisation of a word.
Figure 8.1: The functional matrix illustrating the generalisation and specification of general
noun phrases
generalisation specification
+ linkage
+ linkage
‘most specific’ ‘rather specific’ ‘most specific’ ‘rather specific’
+ modification – modification + modification – modification

– linkage
– linkage
‘less specific’ ‘least specific’ ‘less specific’ ‘least specific’
240
The functional matrix classifies general noun phrases into ‘most specific’, ‘rather
specific’, ‘less specific’ and ‘least specific’ general noun phrases. According to the
presence and absence of the parameters modification and linkage, the degree of
specification of general noun phrase increases or decreases. This is illustrated
by the arrows, which show a generalisation or a specification. See the following
examples for an illustration of the four categories of specification:
(1) Only Liberal Democrats have the big ideas for fundamental, structural changes in the
way our country works to make it fair. Only Liberal Democrats will shake up the tax
system to put 700 back in the pockets of tens of millions of low and middle-income
families, […]. Only Liberal Democrats will break up the banks and start Britain
building things again, creating a sustainable economy that no longer threatens our
planet’s future. Only Liberal Democrats will invest in our schools to give every child,
no matter their background, a fair start in life. And only Liberal Democrats will sort
out our rotten political system once and for all. [LDM-18-1]
(2) Living in a family on a low income, having special educational needs or disabilities,
and being in care all remain strongly linked to children1 failing to achieve. We are
determined to narrow the gap between these children2 and their peers… [LM-5-27]
(3) […] the plans give councils a strong financial inventive to drive economic growth,
as well as providing protections for places in need of additional support. [D8-16-1]
(4) This manifesto makes the case that there should be no return to business as usual.
People have suffered too much with their jobs, livehoods and confidence to allow a
return to the same old ways. [LM-1-10]
Examples (1)-(4) show a decline in the specification of general noun phrases. In

example (1), the general noun phrase the big ideas for fundamental, structural
changes in the way our country works to make it fair is ‘most specific’ because it is
specified through modification and through cataphoric reference to the under-
lined part of the text. In example (2), the general noun phrase these children2 is
‘rather specific’ because it is not specified through modification but it is specified
through anaphoric reference to the underlined noun phrase. In example (3), the
general noun phrase places in need of additional support is ‘less specific’ because
it is specified through modification but not through reference. In example (4),
the general noun phrase people is ‘least specific’ because it is specified neither
through modification nor through reference.
The corpus of the present study was compiled from different domains and
genres. See the following table for an overview of the corpus data:
241
Table 8.1: Compilation of the corpus data
Corpus compilation
Total no.
Domains Genres Sub-corpora Medium
of words
Supreme Court
Legal language Judgment corpus 78,473
judgments written
Political manifestos Manifesto corpus 77,048
Political language
Parliamentary debates Debate corpus 80,160
spoken
Conversation General conversation Conversation corpus 70,741
The compilation of the corpus data was based on the assumptions that (i) legal
language is very precise and specific, (ii) political language is rather unspecific in
the sense of a rhetorical type of vagueness, and (iii) conversation is unspecific in
the sense of a conventional type of vagueness. This way, the corpus of the present
study provided a very suitable database for a study of general noun phrases and
how they are (consciously or subconsciously) used in different genres and for
different purposes.
In search for insights into the use of general noun phrases, the results of a de-
tailed quantitative and qualitative corpus analysis were presented and discussed.
The findings of a qualitative analysis (Section 7.1) showed that the overall fre-
quency of general noun phrase heads was highest in the manifesto corpus and
lowest in the judgment corpus. The debate corpus had the second highest fre-
quency of general noun phrase heads, and the conversation had the third highest
(or second lowest) overall frequency of general noun phrase heads. This result
reveals a difference in the overall frequency of general noun phrase heads across
genres. The role that the different media or domains of the corpus data played
was only marginal.
See the following figure, which illustrates the results of the quantitative analysis
in terms of a positioning of the four sub-corpora along the scale of specification:
242
Figure 8.2: The four sub-corpora on the scale of specification (depending on frequency)
general
high frequency of general noun
phrase heads
829.42
Manifesto corpus
567.84
Debate corpus
299.77
Conversation corpus
231.85
Judgment corpus
low frequency of general noun

phrase heads
specific
Section 7.2 presented the results of the qualitative analysis of general noun phrases
in the four sub-corpora. In a first step, it was shown that in the judgment corpus
and in the debate corpus, complex general noun phrase heads were more frequent
than simple general noun phrase heads. By contrast, in the manifesto corpus and
in the conversation corpus, simple general noun phrase heads were more frequent
than complex ones. Furthermore, it was shown that in the judgment corpus, gen-
eral noun phrases that were linked to their co-text through endophoric reference
were more frequent than general noun phrases that were not linked. By contrast,
in the manifesto corpus, the debate corpus and the conversation corpus, general
noun phrases that were not linked to their co-text through endophoric reference
were significantly more frequent than general noun phrases that were linked.
Furthermore, the functional matrix for the classification of general noun phras-
es into four categories of specification was applied. It was shown that in the judg-
ment corpus, ‘most specific’ general noun phrases (+ modification/+ linkage) were
most frequent and ‘least specific’ general noun phrases (- modification/- linkage)
243
were least frequent. By contrast, in the manifesto corpus, ‘least specific’ general
noun phrases were most frequent and ‘rather specific’ general noun phrases
(- modification/+ linkage) were least frequent. In the debate corpus, ‘less specific’
general noun phrases (+ modification/- linkage) were most frequent and ‘most
specific’ general noun phrases were least frequent. In the conversation corpus,
‘least specific’ general noun phrases were most frequent and ‘most specific’ gen-
eral noun phrases were least frequent. For an overview of these results, see the
following figures:
Figure 8.3: The categories of specification which were most frequent in the four sub-corpora
Judgment + linkage
corpus
Manifesto
corpus
– linkage
Debate corpus
Conversation
corpus
Figure 8.4: The categories of specification which were least frequent in the four sub-corpora
Debate corpus
+ linkage
Manifesto
Conversation corpus
corpus
– linkage
Judgment
corpus
244
For an illustration of these results on the scale of specification, an average fre-
quency of ‘most specific’ and ‘rather specific’ general noun phrases and an av-
erage frequency of ‘less specific’ and ‘least specific’ general noun phrases was
calculated. This way, the results of all the four categories of specification for each
corpus were taken into account. See the following figure for an overview:
Figure 8.5: The four sub-corpora on the scale of specification (depending on modification
and linkage)
general
high frequency of ‘less specific’ low frequency of ‘most

and ‘leastt specific’’ general noun specific’’ and ‘rather
h specific’
ifi ’
phrases general noun phrases
96.4 3.6 Manifesto corpus
83.49 16.51 Conversation corpus

77.
77 8 22 2
Debate corpus
42.31 57.04 Judgment corpus
low frequency of ‘less specific’ high frequency of ‘most

and ‘least specific’ general noun specific’ and ‘more specific’
phrases general noun phrases
specific
245
The arrangement of the four sub-corpora on the scale of specification is genre-
dependent. This can be explained with the purpose of each sub-corpus (i.e.
genre): for example, Judgments, which need to be precise and clear, have many
‘most specific’ and ‘rather specific’ general noun phrases and few ‘less specific’
and ‘least specific’ general noun phrases. By contrast, political manifestos, which
are used to make general election promises, have many ‘less specific’ and ‘least
specific’ general noun phrases and only few ‘most specific’ and ‘rather specific’
The qualitative analysis revealed typical realisations of general noun phrases
across the four categories of specification. In sum, there were 16 typical pat-
terns of general noun phrase use across the four genres of the corpus. A very
important observation was that in only five of the 16 typical patterns of general
noun phrases, Halliday/Hasan’s anaphoric or cataphoric reference was found in
the corpus data. This outcome has convincingly demonstrated that general noun
phrases are not exclusively used anaphorically or cataphorically. Instead, it was
shown that these items are much more flexible in (form) and function. Based
on the findings of the corpus analysis, we can claim that there are six major
functions of general noun phrases. Neither of these functions have so far been
associated systematically with general noun phrases as described by Halliday/
Hasan (1976):
(i) General noun phrases are neutral shells, which encapsulate complex infor-
mation and reify it for subsequent discourse.
(ii) General noun phrases encapsulate subsequent information and then func-
tion as discourse markers.
(iii) General noun phrases can be used as the first of two appositive units, which
cataphorically refers to the second appositive unit (very often a clause).
(iv) General noun phrases can be used as the subject in a clause, referring cata-
phorically to the subject complement.
(v) General noun phrases can be used to make generic reference.
(vi) General noun phrases can be used as completely unspecific items without
any kind of endophoric or generic reference and function as empty phrases
(especially in political language) or as fillers (especially in conversation).
The present study has methodological implications. While genre-specific pat-
terns are usually analysed in a macro-linguistic framework, the present study
has integrated a micro- and macro-linguistic perspective in order to systemati-
cally study the use of a specific class of words – here general noun phrases – in
a corpus of different spoken and written genres. A combination of approaches
lead to the development of an innovative analytical tool (the functional matrix
246
described in Section 4.2), which convincingly illustrated that the specification of
general noun phrases can only be analysed systematically by integrating gram-
matical aspects (parameter modification) and text-linguistic and semantic ap-
sects (parameter linkage).
Most importantly, the results of the qualitative analysis have implications
for the text-strategic potential of general noun phrases in different genres. For
example, it was shown that general noun phrases in judgments have helped to
represent complex issues and, thus, have a major influence on discourse organi-
sation (functions (i)-(iv)). This is especially interesting in the light of an ongoing
debate in the legal field about the drafting of texts. A major concern of scholars
in the so-called ‘Plain Language Movement’ is to make legal language intelligible
for ordinary people, in particular with regard to lexical and syntactic complexity
(cf. Trosborg 1997: 141). The encapsulation of complex issues with a common
noun such as the general noun phrase head matter or question, may be said to
contribute to the lexical simplification of legal language in judgments. More-
over, the use of general noun phrase heads in syntactic structures such as those
described in functions (iii) and (iv) may also play a role in the light of the ‘Plain
Language Movement’. These issues offer opportunities for further research.
The text-strategical potential of general noun phrases is especially relevant
with regard to the purposeful use of language in the political context. We have
seen that ‘least specific’ general noun phrases are typically used in political mani-
festos for generic reference (function (v)) and as completely unspecific items or
empty phrases (function (vi)). In the former, general noun phrases are a use-
ful tool to construct (national) collectivity. In the latter function, general noun
phrases are a valuable tool to keep references deliberately vague, to make general
promises without too much commitment, and, to avoid responsibility. This way,
general noun phrases contribute to the purposeful use of language in political
discourse.
As one outcome of the analysis of general noun phrases in the present study, it
was stated that the overall frequency, the distribution and the degree of specifica-
tion of general noun phrases is genre-dependent. Therefore, it would be interest-
ing for further research to examine general noun phrases in a greater variety of
genres. It would also be interesting for such research to extend the list of general
noun phrase heads by Halliday/Hasan (1976: 274). Concerning the genre-based
implications the present study offered, it would be interesting to validate the
findings in a larger corpus of legal language or political language only.
247
References
Anderson, R.C., J.W. Pichert, E.T. Goetz, D.L. Schaller, K.V. Stevens & S.R. Trol-
lip (1976): “Instantiation of general terms”, Journal of Verbal Learning and
Verbal Behaviour 15, 667–669.
Austin, J.L. (1962): How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge: Harvard Univer-
sity Press.
Berlin, B. & P. Kay (1969): Basic Color Terms. Berkeley, California: Center for the
Study of Language and Information.
Berlin, B., D. Breedlove & P. Raven (1973): “General principles of classification
and nomenclature in folk biology”, American Anthropologist 75, 214–242.
Bernstein, B. (1971): Class, Codes and Control. Theoretical Studies towards a So-
ciology of Language 1. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Biber, D., S. Johansson, G. Leech, S. Conrad & E. Finnegan (1999): Longman
Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman.
Bolinger, D. (1977): Pronouns and Repeated Nouns. Indiana: Indiana University
Linguistics Club.
Carter, R. & M. McCarthy (2006): Cambridge Grammar of English. A Compre-
hensive Guide. Spoken and Written English Grammar and Usage. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Carter, R. & M. McCarthy (2007): Exploring Spoken English. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Chafe, W. (1982): “Integration and involvement in speaking, writing, and oral
literature”, Spoken and Written Language: Exploring Orality and Literacy, ed.
D. Tannen, Norwood: Alex Publishing Corporation, 35–53.
Channell, J. (1994): Vague Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Charnock, R. (2010): “Traces of orality in Common Law judgments”. Researching
Language and the Law: Textual Features and Translation Issues, eds. D.S. Gian-
noni & C. Frade. Bern: Peter Lang, 113–134.
Chilton, P. (2004): Analysing Political Discourse. Theory and Practice. London:
Routledge.
Conte, M.-E. (1996): “Anaphoric encapsulation”, Belgian Journal of Linguistics:
Coherence and Anaphora 10, 1–10.
Cruse, D.A. (1986): Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
De Beaugrande, R. & W. Dressler (1981): Introduction to Text Linguistics. London:
Longman.
249
Dickson, B. (2013): Human Rights and the United Kingdom Supreme Court.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Driver, S. (2011): Understanding British Party Politics. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Esser, J. (1984): Untersuchungen zum Gesprochenen Englisch: Ein Beitrag zur
Strukturellen Pragmatik. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
Esser, J. (2006): Presentation in Language: Rethinking Speech and Writing. Tübin-
gen: Gunter Narr.
Esser, J. (2009): Introduction to English Text-Linguistics. Frankfurt a.M.: Peter
Lang.
Ehlich, K. (1983): “Deixis und Anapher”, Essays on Deixis, ed. G. Rauh. Tübingen:
Gunter Narr, 79–98.
Flowerdew, J. (2003a): “Register-specificity of signalling nouns in discourse”,
Corpus Analysis: Language Structure and Language Use, eds. C. Meyer &
P. Leistyna. Amsterdam: Rodopi Publishers, 35–46.
Flowerdew, J. (2003b): “Signalling nouns in discourse”, English for Specific Pur-
poses 22, 329–346.
Gibbons, J. (2004): “Taking legal language seriously”, Language in the Law, eds.
J. Gibbons, V. Prakasam, K.V. Tirumalesh & H. Nagaraja. New Delhi: Orient
Longman, 1–16.
Goss, B. (1972): “The effect of sentence context on associations to ambiguous,
vague and clear nouns”, Speech Monographs 39, 286–289.
Grice, H.P. (1975): “Logic and conversation”, Speech Acts, eds. P. Cole & J.L.
Morgan. New York: Academic Press, 41–85.
Gruber, H. (1993): “Political language and textual vagueness”. Pragmatics 3, 1–28.
Håkansson, N. (1997): “Election rhetoric of political parties. An appraisal and a
proposal”, The Public 4, 81–95.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1985): Spoken and Written Language. Geelong, Victoria:
Deakin University Press.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1987): “Spoken and written modes of meaning”. Comprehend-
ing Oral and Written Language, ed. R. Horowitz & S. Samuels. San Diego:
Academic Press, 55–82.
Halliday, M.A.K. (2004): An Introduction to Functional Grammar, third edition
revised by Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. London: Arnold.
Halliday, M.A.K. & R. Hasan (1976): Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Halliday, M.A.K. & R. Hasan (1989): Language, Context and Text: Aspects of
Language in a Social-Semiotic Perspective, second edition. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
250
Halmari, H. (2005): “In search of ‘successful’ political persuasion: A comparison
of the styles of Bill Clinton and Ronald Regan”, Persuasion Across Genres. A
Linguistic Approach, eds. H. Halmari & T. Virtanen. Amsterdam: John Benja-
mins, 105–134.
Hoey, M. (1991): Patterns of Lexis in Text. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Huddleston, R. & G.K. Pullum (2002): The Cambridge Grammar of the English
Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hunston, S. & G. Francis (2000): Pattern Grammar: A Corpus-Driven Approach
to the Lexical Grammar of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ivanič, R. (1991): “Nouns in search of a context: A study of nouns with both
open- and closed-system characteristics”, International Review of Applied Lin-
guistics in Language Teaching 2, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 93–114.
Jackson, H. (1980): Analyzing English. An Introduction to Descriptive Linguistics.
Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Jucker, A.H., S.W. Smith & T. Lüdge (2003): “Interactive aspects of vagueness in
conversation”, Journal of Pragmatics 35, 1737–1769.
Kaid, L.L. (2004): Handbook of Political Communication Research. Mawah, New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kavanagh, D. (2000): “Labour Party manifestos 1900–1997”. Labour Party Gen-
eral Election Manifestos, 1900–1997, ed. I. Dale. London: Routledge, 1–8.
Kavanagh, D. (2013): The Politics of the Labour Party. London: Routledge.
Kay, P. (1977): “Language evolution and speech style”, Sociocultural Dimensions
of Language Change, eds. B.G. Blount & M. Sanches. New York: Academic
Press, 21–33.
Kennedy, G. (1998): An Introduction to Corpus Linguistics. London: Longman.
Lashöfer, J. (1992). Zum Stilwandel in richterlichen Entscheidungen. Über stilisti-
sche Veränderungen in englischen, französischen und deutschen zivilrechtlichen
Urteilen und in Entscheidungen des Gerichtshofs der Europäischen Gemein-
schaften. Münster & New York: Waxmann.
Leech, G., P. Rayson & A. Wilson (2001): Word Frequencies in Written and Spo-
ken English: Based on the British National Corpus. Harlow: Longman.
Levinson, S. (1983): Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lipka, L. (1972): Semantic Structure and Word-Formation. Verb-Particle Con-
structions in Contemporary English. München: Wilhelm Fink.
Lipka, L. (2002): English Lexicology. Lexical Structure, Word Semantics and Word-
Formation. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
Lyons, J. (1977): Semantics, 2 volumes, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
251
Mahlberg, M. (2005): English General Nouns: A Corpus Theoretical Approach.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Malinowski, B. (1923): “The problem of meaning in primitive languages”, Supple-
ment 1, The Meaning of Meanings, eds. C.K. Ogden & I.A. Richards. London:
Keagan and Paul, 451–510.
Mattila, H.E.S. (2006): Comparative Legal Linguistics. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Mc Anulla, S. (2006): British Politics. A Critical Introduction. London: Blooms-
bury Academic.
Mc Enery, T., R. Xiao & Y. Tono (2006): Corpus-Based Language Studies. An
Advanced Resource Book. New York: Routledge.
Meyer, C.F. (1992): Apposition in Contemporary English. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Miller, J. & R. Weinert (1998): Spontaneous Spoken Language: Syntax and Dis-
course. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Moens, M.F. (2007): “Summarizing court decisions”, Information Processing and
Management 43, 1748–1764.
Myers, G. (1996): “Strategic vagueness in academic writing”, Academic Writing,
eds. E. Ventola & A. Mauranen. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 3–18.
Nystrand, M. (1987): “The role of context in written communication”, Com-
prehending Oral and Written Language, eds. R. Horowitz & J. Samuels. San
Diego: Academic Press, 197–214.
Obeng, S.G. (1997): “Language and politics: Indirectness in political discourse”,
Discourse & Society 8, London: Sage Publications, 49–83.
Odgen, C.K. & I.A. Richards (1923): The Meaning of Meaning. A Study of the
Influence of Language upon Thought and of the Science of Symbolism. London:
Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co.
Partington, A. (1998): Patterns and Meanings. Using Corpora for English Lan-
guage Research and Teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Pérez, J.M. & C.R. (2012): “Structure and design of the British Law Report
Corpus (BLRC): a legal corpus of judicial decisions from the UK”. Journal of
English Studies 10, 131–145.
Pridham, F. (2001): The Language of Conversation. London: Routledge.
Quirk, R., J. Svartvik, G. Leech & S. Greenbaum (1985): A Comprehensive Gram-
mar of the English Language. London: Longman.
Rauh, G. (2002): “Word classes as prototypical categories”, Context and Cogni-
tion. Papers in Honour of Wolf-Dietrich Bald’s 60th Birthday, eds. S. Scholz,
M. Klages, E. Hantson & U. Römer. München: Langenscheidt-Longman,
259–270.
252
Roberts, C. & B. Street (1997): “Spoken and written language”, The Handbook of
Sociolinguistics, ed. F. Coulmas. Oxford: Blackwell, 168–186.
Rosch, E. (1973): “Natural categories”. Cognitive Psychology 4, 328–350.
Rosch, E. (1975): “Cognitive representations of semantic categories”, Journal of
Experimental Psychology: General 104, 192–233.
Rosch, E. (1978): “Principles of categorization”, Cognition and Categorization,
eds. E. Rosch & B.B. Lloyd. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associ-
ates, 27–48.
Rosch, E. (2009): “Categorization”, Cognition and Pragmatics, Handbook of Prag-
matics Highlights 3, eds. D. Sandra, J.-O. Östman & J. Verschueren. Amster-
dam: John Benjamins, 41–52.
Rosch, E. & C.B. Mervis (1975): “Family resemblances: Studies in the internal
structure of categories”, Cognitive Psychology 7, 573–605.
Rosch, E., C.B. Mervis, W.D. Gray, D.M. Johnson & P. Boyes-Braem (1976): “Ba-
sic objects in natural categories”, Cognitive Psychology 8, 382–439.
Rosch, E. & B.B. Loyd (1978): Cognition and Categorization. Hillsdale, New Jer-
sey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Salkie, R. (1995): Text and Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge.
Schäpers, U.K.E. (2009): Nominal versus Clausal Complexity in Spoken and Writ-
ten English: Theory and Description. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Schmid, H.J. (1993): Cottage und Co., Idea, Start vs. Begin: Die Kategorisierung
als Grundprinzip einer differenzierten Bedeutungsbeschreibung. Tübingen:
Max Niemeyer.
Schmid, H.J. (2000): English Abstract Nouns as Conceptual Shells: From Corpus to
Cognition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Searle, J.R. (1969): Speech Acts. An Essay in the Philosophy of Language.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Siefring, J. (2004): The Oxford Dictionary of Idioms. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Sinclair, J. (1991): Corpus Concordance Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Sinclair, J. (2005): Collins Cobuild English Grammar. Glasgow: Harper Collins.
Sjöblom, G. (1968): Party Strategies in a Multiparty System. Lund: Studenttlite-
ratur.
Tanskanen, S.-K. (2006): Collaborating towards Coherence. Lexical Cohesion in
English Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
253
Taylor, J. (1995): Linguistic Categorization. Prototypes in Linguistic Theory, sec-
ond edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Tiersma, P.M. (1999): Legal Language. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Tognini-Bonelli, E. (2001): Corpus Linguistics at Work. Amsterdam: John Ben-
jamins.
Trosborg, A. (1997): Rhetorical Strategies in Legal Language: Discourse Analysis
of Statues and Contracts. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
Tsui, A.B.M. (1994): English Conversation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ullmann, S. (1962): Semantics. An Introduction to the Science of Meaning. Oxford:
Basil Blackwell.
Ungerer, F. & H.J. Schmid (1996): An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics.
London: Longman.
Van Rooij, R. (2011): “Vagueness and linguistics”, Vagueness: A Guide, ed.
G. Ronzitti. Heidelberg: Springer, 123–170.
Williams, A. (1998): UK Government & Politics. Oxford: Heinemann.
Winter, E.U. (1977): “A clause-relational approach to English texts: A study of
some predictive lexical items in written discourse”, Instructional Science 6,
Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1–92.
Wittgenstein, L. (1953): Philosophische Untersuchungen. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Online sources
Burnard, L. (2000): Reference Guide for the British National Corpus (World Edi-
tion). <http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/archive/worldURG/urg.pdf>, last access
11th December 2014.
Cambridge Dictionaries Online, <http://dictionary.cambridge.org/>, last access
18th December 2014.
Conservative Manifesto. Invitation to Join the Government of Britain. <http://
www.conservatives.com/News/News_stories/2010/04/Conservatives_
launch_ election_manifesto.aspx>, last access 30th January 2013.
Liberal Democrat Manifesto. Change that works for you. Building a fairer Britain.
<http://www.libdems.org.uk/our_manifesto.aspx>, last access 30th January
2013.
Löbner, S. (1998): “Definite Associative Anaphora”, unpublished manuscript, Düs-
seldorf, <http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/mU3YzU1N/Loebner_Definite_
Associative_ Anaphora.pdf>, last access 11th December 2014.
Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English Online, <http://www.ldoceon
line.com/>, last access 18th December 2014.
254
Oxford English Dictionaries Online, <http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/>,
last access 18th December 2014.
Parliamentary Debates, “Debates” <http://www.parliament.uk/documents/com
mons-information-office/ Debates.pdf>, last access 17th December 2014.
The Supreme Court Annual Reports and Accounts 2009–2010. “Establishment
of the court”, London: The Stationary Office, <https://www.gov.uk/govern
ment/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/ file/247798/0064.pdf>, last
access 18th December 2014.
The Supreme Court Annual Reports and Accounts 2012–2013. “Serving the
UK and beyond: Jurisdiction and casework”, London: The Stationary Office,
<https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/annual-report-2012–13.pdf>, last ac-
cess 18th December 2014.
The Labour Manifesto. For a Future Fair for All, <http://www.labour.org.uk/
labours-manifesto-for-a-future-fair-for-all>, last access 30th January 2013.
255
English Corpus Linguistics
Edited by Thomas Kohnen and Joybrato Mukherjee
Vol. 1 Roberta Facchinetti / Frank Palmer (eds.): English Modality in Perspective. Genre Analysis
and Contrastive Studies. 2004.
Vol. 2 Grace Y. W. Tse: A Corpus-based Study of Proper Names in Present-day English. Aspects
of Gradience and Article Usage. 2005.
Vol. 3 Sabine Braun / Kurt Kohn / Joybrato Mukherjee (eds.): Corpus Technology and Language
Pedagogy. New Resources, New Tools, New Methods. 2006.
Vol. 4 Clemens W. A. Fritz: From English in Australia to Australian English. 1788–1900. 2007.
Vol. 5 Christiane Brand: Lexical Processes in Scientific Discourse Popularisation. A corpus-lin-
guistic study of the SARS coverage. 2008.
Vol. 6 Sebastian Hoffmann / Stefan Evert / Nicholas Smith / David Lee / Ylva Berglund Prytz:
Corpus Linguistics with BNCweb – a Practical Guide. 2008.
Vol. 7 Lars M. Blöhdorn: Postmodifying Attributive Adjectives in English. An Integrated Corpus-
Based Approach. 2009.
Vol. 8 Uta Katharina Elisabeth Schäpers: Nominal versus Clausal Complexity in Spoken and
Written English. Theory and Description. 2009.
Vol. 9 Ulrike Gut: Non-native Speech. A Corpus-based Analysis of Phonological and Phonetic
Properties of L2 English and German. 2009.
Vol. 10 Sandra Boggel: Metadiscourse in Middle English and Early Modern English Religious
Texts. A corpus-based study. 2009.
Vol. 11 Donald Sims MacQueen: The Integration of MILLION into the English System of Number
Words. A Diachronic Study. 2010.
Vol. 12 Tanja Rütten: How to Do Things with Texts. Patterns of Instruction in Religious Discourse
1350–1700. 2011.
Vol. 13 Yvonne Alexandra Breyer: Corpora in Language Teaching and Learning. Potential, Eval-
uation, Challenges. 2011.
Vol. 14 Kirsten Gather: Syntactic Dislocation in English Congregational Song between 1500 and
1900. A Corpus-based Study. 2014.
Vol. 15 Daphné Kerremans: A Web of New Words. A Corpus-Based Study of the Conventionalization
Process of English Neologisms. 2015.
Vol. 16 Ewa Jonsson: Conversational Writing. A Multidimensional Study of Synchronous and
Supersynchronous Computer-Mediated Communication. 2015.
Vol. 17 Vera Benninghoven: The Functions of ‘General Nouns’. Theory and Corpus Analysis.
2018.
www.peterlang.com
n
english corpus linguistics
ecl 17
V o l u m e 17
Thomas Kohnen · Joybrato Mukherjee (eds.)
The author critically discusses the concept of ‘general nouns’, which Halliday/
Hasan introduced in their approach to lexical cohesion (1976), and she provides to have access to a corpus as a representative sample
a comprehensive overview of these nouns from a micro- and a macro-linguistic advances in English corpus linguistics include the fo
perspective. For the empirical analysis, the author compiled a corpus, which h between a monitor corpus for lexicographical descri
allows statements about a medium- and genre-specific use of ‘general nouns’. was observed in the corpus of Old English texts on th
For this purpose, she developed an analytical tool, which takes into account itative analysis of corpus data may yield interesting
formal and semantic features. The major outcome of the corpus analysis is e kind of reference corpus is represented by the Brit
that ‘general nouns’ are much more flexible in form and function than Halliday/
Hasan assumed and, most importantly, that they fulfil genre-specific functions Vera Benninghoven
some of which have not systematically been associated with lexical cohesion. composition of this corpus shows its representativene
Vera Benninghoven · The Functions of ‘General Nouns’

The Functions
of ‘General Nouns’
Vera Benninghoven has taught linguistics at the English department of the h between a monitor corpus for lexicographical descri
University of Bonn and the University of Cologne. Her research interests include was observed in the corpus of Old English texts on th
morphology, lexicology, text-linguistics and corpus-linguistics. itative analysis of corpus data may yield interesting
www.peterlang.com
ECL_017_274758_Benninghoven_MP_A5HC 151x214 globalL.indd 1 13.08.18 03:42

(English Corpus Linguistics 17) Vera Benninghoven - The Functions of Gener

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(English Corpus Linguistics 17) Vera Benninghoven - The Functions of Gener

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

n

english corpus linguistics

Vera Benninghoven · The Functions of ‘General Nouns’

The Functions of ‘General Nouns’

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

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

Peter Lang – Berlin · Bern · Bruxelles · New York ·

List of tables and figures .................................................................................... 15

2. A linguistic discussion of ‘general nouns’ ............................................ 25

3. Approaches to general noun phrases across

4. Framework for the analysis of general noun phrases ..................... 87

5. Corpus compilation .................................................................................... 105

6. Methodology .................................................................................................. 127

7. Corpus analysis ............................................................................................. 151

8. Summary and conclusions ....................................................................... 237

References ............................................................................................................. 249

Figure 2.1: The concept of ‘cohesion’...................................................................... 27

Abstract: Halliday/Hasan’s approach to cohesion in English (1976), which treats ‘general

2 See Section 2.2 for a more detailed description of Mahlberg’s study.

1.2 Structure of the study

2.1 Halliday/Hasan’s approach to ‘general nouns’

According to Halliday/Hasan, cohesion is a semantic concept, which describes

In example (2), the cohesive relation is considered grammatical because a gram-

Figure 2.1: The concept of ‘cohesion’

2.1.2 The concept of ‘reference’

Figure 2.2: Different concepts of ‘reference’

Figure 2.2 gives an overview of the approaches to reference in semantics and

In the case of endophoric reference as a type of grammatical cohesion, this prop-

2.1.3 The concept of ‘reiteration’

2.1.4 The concept of ‘general nouns’

Halliday/Hasan give the following example to illustrate the cohesive function of

2.2 Previous studies of ‘general nouns’

2.3 Critical evaluation of the status of ‘general nouns’

Abstract: General noun phrases constitute a micro- and macro-linguistic phenomenon

3.2 The grammatical approach to general noun phrases

Figure 3.1: The classification of nouns

3.2.3 Classification of general noun phrase heads

Table 3.1: The classification of general noun phrase heads

According to Sinclair (cf. 2005: 2–3), a clear identification of someone or some-

from specific to general

general noun phrase heads

3.3 The text-linguistic approach to general noun phrases

3.3.2 Regulative features of textual communication

According to the above definition of efficiency, an encoder, but also a de-

3.4 The pragmatic approach to general noun phrases

Grice emphasises that this principle is by no means a set of prescriptive rules as

3.4.2 Vagueness in language

Thirdly, vagueness10 is defined as a contrast to ‘well-defined’ (cf. Cruse 1986:

Figure 3.4: The concepts of ‘ambiguity’, ‘polysemy’ and ‘vagueness’

Ambiguity Polysemy Vagueness

Selection of Selection of Modification

3.4.2.2 Types of vagueness

3.5 The cognitive approach to general noun phrases

Table 3.2: Tzeltal plant classification according to Berlin et al. (1973)

Scientific class Level No. of category Example

3.5.2 Context-dependence of categories

3.5.3 Categorisation and general noun phrases

Pekinese Alsatian Greyhound

The external structure of categories refers to the hierarchical distribution of

Figure 3.6: Vertical dimension of categorisation illustrated by the example ‘dog’

abstract category creature

basic level category dog

specific category racing dog