Texts and communicative practices - db-thueringen.de fileThis paper offers an encoding scheme for this purpose in form of attribute-value matrices. 1. ... properties of texts as parts

ASSIDUE

Arbeitspapiere des Seminars für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Erfurt

Nr. 2

Texts and communicative practices

An encoding scheme

Stavros Skopeteas

September 2002

Erfurt Seminar für Sprachwissenschaft

der Universität

Impressum:

Arbeitspapiere des Seminars für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Erfurt

Seminar für Sprachwissenschaft

Philosophische Fakultät

Universität

D - 99105 Erfurt

Herausgeber:

Prof. Dr. Christian Lehmann

© Stavros Skopeteas

ABSTRACT1

The principle that linguistic activity can only be understood in relation to the surrounding

communicative events goes back to the Prague school li nguistics and it is taken as evident in most

functional studies on language for the last decades. In this respect there is a need for language

documentation to deal not only with the archiving of texts but also with the description of their

context, i.e. the communicative events and cultural environments, within which they are produced.

This paper offers an encoding scheme for this purpose in form of attribute-value matrices.

1. Preliminar ies

The requirements of a functional textual description are somewhat discussed in the language

documentation studies. It is pointed out that a language documentation should consider the

properties of texts as parts of communicative events, such properties being e.g. the producer

and his purpose, the settings of the communicative situation, the relation among the speech

participants, etc. (cf. Lenk 1996; Lehmann 1999:12-14; 2001:92-95). The objectives of the

documentation of the communicative environment of texts are manifold. The most relevant

issue for the description of the linguistic system is the conditioning of linguistic variation. In

many cases variation at the linguistic level can be described as related to variable properties at

the communicative level. A further issue is that documentation should render a basis in order

to draw an ethnography of communication (Hymes 1974), namely to describe the relation

between the linguistic practice and the community’s li fe.

2. Domains

The encoding scheme describes information in three domains (cf. Figure 1):

- The domain of linguistic practice is the core of the documentation: The unit of

this domain is a description of a text with respect to its content and its form,

embedded in a description of the communicative event, within which the text is

produced.

1 The present paper has been presented at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology,

Leipzig (14.05.2001). A preliminary version of these ideas was the subject of numerous discussions

with Wolfgang Kesselheim.

Stavros Skopeteas 4

- The domain of the community describes persons that are involved in the

production and reception of texts, e.g. authors, informants, etc. Persons are

described in two perspectives: as individuals and as members of groups.

- The last domain includes knowledge of the community about entities of any kind,

li ke physical objects, artifacts, places, particular dates or periods etc. and also

knowledge about persons or groups of the community.

Figure 1: Domains

� � � � �

�LINGUISTIC PRACTICE text in event 1 … text in event n

� � �

DOCUMENTATION �COMMUNITY person 1 … person n

� � �

�KNOWLEDGE entity 1 … entity n

� � �

� � �

3. Properties

3.1. L inguistic practice

Figure 2 presents the properties used in the domain of linguistic practice. A “ text and event”

unit is being described according to five sets of properties: The first set identifies the unit

with a unique name for the text and a characterization with respect to the level of description,

if it an instance and a type (see §4). The second set provides information about the

participants in the communicative event, the producer and the addressee, and the relation

between them (familiar, formal etc.). The third area contains information about the

interaction, in particular:

- if it’s oral or written communication,

- the medium, including channels of oral communication and writing materials,

- a characterization according to the openness of the message – if it is private or

public –,

- values for the place and the time of the interaction,

- the settings of the interaction, e.g. the distance between the participants in space,

the simultaneity of the interaction etc.

- and finally, the cultural field, within which this interaction is embedded: e.g.

religion, administration, private li fe etc.

Texts and communicative practices 5

Figure 2: Properties of texts/communicative events

� � �LINGUISTIC PRACTICE

� �

� � � �

�TEXT IN EVENT

�

� �

� � � �

� �

�

�IDENTIFICATION

� �

� �

�

� � � � �

� �

�

�

�NAME unique value

� � �

� �

�

�

�LEVEL instance | type

� � �

� �

� � � �

� �

� � � �

� �

�

�PARTICIPANTS

� �

� �

�

� � � � �

� �

�

�

�NUMBER integer

� � �

� �

�

�

�PRODUCER person’s name

� � �

� �

�

�

�ADDRESSEE person’s name

� � �

� �

�

�

�RELATION familiarity; formality; dominance; etc.

� � �

� �

� � � �

� �

� � � �

� �

�

�INTERACTION

� �

� �

�

� � � � �

� �

�

�

�MODE oral | written | written to be read

� � �

� �

�

�

�MEDIUM paper | stone | papyrus | telephone

� � �

� �

�

�

�OPENNESS private | public

� � �

� �

�

�

�PLACE a value in space

� � �

� �

�

�

�TIME a value in time

� � �

� �

�

�

�PHYS_SET distance of the speech participants

� � �

� �

�

�

� simultaneous vs. discontinuous

� � �

� �

�

�

�FIELD religion | administration | private

� � �

� �

�

�

� sphere

� � �

� �

� � � �

� �

� � � �

� �

�

�FUNCTION

� �

� �

�

� � � � �

� �

�

�

�AFFECTION SCALE expressive ⊃ contactive

� � �

� �

�

�

� ⊃ informative ⊃ instructive

� � �

� �

�

�

�SPECIAL FUNCTION aesthetic | magic | etc.

� � �

� �

� � � �

� �

� � � �

� �

�

�TEXT

� �

� �

�

� � � � �

� �

�

�

�CONTENT

� � �

� �

�

�

� � �

� � �

� �

�

�

�

�TOPIC

�

� � �

� �

�

�

�

�CONTENT STRUCTURE

�

� � �

� �

�

� � � � �

� �

�

� � � � �

� �

�

�

�FORM

� � �

� �

�

�

� � �

� � �

� �

�

�

�

�FORMAL STRUCTURE formal divisions

�

� � �

� �

�

�

�

�CODE register, sociolect

�

� � �

� �

�

�

�

�LEXICAL PROPERTIES

�

� � �

� �

�

�

�

�GRAMMATICAL PROPERTIES

�

� � �

� �

�

�

�

�ORTHOGRAPHICAL PROPERTIES

�

� � �

� �

�

� � � � �

� �

�

� � � � �

� �

�

�

�RELATIONS TO OTHER TEXTS

� � �

� �

�

�

� � �

� � �

� �

�

�

�

�MERONOMIC larger text including

�

� � �

� �

�

�

�

� present text

�

� � �

� �

�

�

�

�INTERTEXTUAL intertextually related

�

� � �

� �

�

�

�

� texts

�

� � �

�

� � � � �

The next set of properties in Figure 2 describes the role, that the text is supposed to take in

this interaction. The first distinction is a hierarchy of the functions of linguistic use. There are

numerous classifications for this domain, the one presented here is adopted from Heinemann

Stavros Skopeteas 6

& Viehweger (1991:146ff .). According to this hierarchy, the primary function involved with

each text is to produce an expression, the next function to the right is to make a contact, the

next function is to provide some information, and the most affective function is to give an

instruction. Every function in this affection hierarchy includes all functions to the left.

Furthermore there are also special functions that cannot be reduced to this first classification;

examples of this kind are poetical or magical texts.

The next set contains properties of texts concerning their content (topic and content

structure), their form (formal structure, code, lexical, grammatical and orthographical

properties) and their relations to other texts. There are two different kind of relations that are

included here: firstly meronomic relations that relate textual parts and wholes and secondly

intertextual relations to other texts li ke the original text of a translation, the source of a parody

or a citation etc.

3.2. Community

In the same way the domain of community contains entries concerning individuals or groups.

Each such unit is characterized according to five sets of properties, that can be seen in Figure

3.

- physical properties like age, sex and relevant places (birthplace or residence),

- intellectual properties like education, and other fields of knowledge,

- social properties like social status, profession and religion,

- linguistic properties like the competence in different languages, rhetoric abiliti es

and literacy,

- and relations to other persons with means of participation in groups of persons.


Figure 3: Properties of persons

� �COMMUNITY

� �

� � �

�PERSON �

� �

� �

�

� �

�

�IDENTIFICATION

�

�

� �

�

� � �

�

� �

�

�


� �

�

� �

�

�

�LEVEL instance | type

� �

�

� �

� � �

�

� �

� �

�

� �

�

�PHYSICAL PROPERTIES

�

�

� �

�

� � �

�

� �

�

�

�AGE

� �

�

� �

�

�

�SEX male |female

� �

�

� �

�

�

�PLACE birthplace; residence; etc.

� �

�

� �

� � �

�

� �

� �

�

� �

�

�INTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES

�

�

� �

�

� � �

�

� �

�

�

�EDUCATION

� �

�

� �

�

�

�FIELDS OF EXPERTISE

� �

�

� �

� � �

�

� �

� �

�

� �

�

�SOCIAL PROPERTIES

�

�

� �

�

� � �

�

� �

�

�

�STATUS

� �

�

� �

�

�

�PROFESSION

� �

�

� �

�

�

�RELIGION

� �

�

� �

�

�

�POLITICS

� �

�

� �

� � �

�

� �

� �

�

� �

�

�LINGUISTIC PROPERTIE S

�

�

� �

�

� � �

�

� �

�

�

�COMPETENCE IN LANGUAGES

� �

�

� �

�

�

�RHETORIC ABILITIES

� �

�

� �

�

�

�LITERACY

� �

�

� �

� � �

�

� �

� �

�

� �

�

�RELATIONS TO OTHER PERSONS

�

�

� �

�

� � �

�

� �

�

�

�MEMBERSHIP belongs to a group

� �

�

� �

�

�

�CONTACT PERSON contacts other persons

� �

�

� �

�

�

�INTERPERSONAL instantiates a social

� �

�

� �

�

�

� type

� �

�

�

� � � �

3.3. Knowledge

The last domain is the domain of knowledge. This domain includes knowledge of all kinds of

entities, physical objects, artifacts, places, persons, etc. that is relevant for the understanding

of a text. From the point of view of the ontology of communication this component is the

symbolic representation of the community’s knowledge. However relevant for a

documentation program is knowledge related to communicative practices, e.g. a

prohibition of oral communication in some place, a custom including ritualized text that takes

place at a particular date, the price and availabilit y of artifacts that serve as writing materials,

etc. The information structure of this domain is shown in Figure 4.

Stavros Skopeteas 8

Figure 4: Properties of knowledge about entities

� � �KNOWLEDGE

� �

� � � �

�ENTITY

�

� �

� � � �

� �

�

�IDENTIFICATION

� �

� �

�

� � � � �

� �

�

�


� � �

� �

�

�

�CATEGORY physical object |artifact | place

� � �

� �

�

�

� | person | date | behavio r

� � �

� �

�

�

� instance | type

� � �

� �

� � � � � �

� �

� � � �

� �

�

�SUBJECT community | group | individual

� �

� �

� � � �

� �

� � � �

� �

�

�CONTENT

� �

� �

�

� � � � �

� �

�

�

�ECONOMIC VALUE price; availability

� � �

� �

�

�

�SOCIAL VALUE e.g. symbols of power

� � �

� �

�

�

�MYTHOLOGICAL VALUE entity in mythology

� � �

� �

�

�

�RELIGIOUS VALUE related taboos, beliefs

� � �

�

� � � � � � � �

Each unit describes an entity of one category that is specified in the attribute

“ identification” . This entity is related to the specific culture with a content, that is an

economic value like price or availabilit y, a social value like particular objects that serve as

symbols of power, and in the same sense a mythological or religious value etc. This

knowledge is a property of a community subset: it can either be knowledge shared by the

whole community, or knowledge of a group of persons – e.g. knowledge shared in a religious

group – or even knowledge of a sole individual.

4. Levels

In general there are two levels of representations that are distinguished in the encoding

scheme, as it is ill ustrated in Table 1: instances and types. Instances are particular

occurrences of the units. The instances of the domain of linguistic practice are particular

texts, and the instances of the domain of community are persons and groups. The level of

instances is exempli fied in Table 1 by a simple classical attic dedication, written on three

thrones.

Types are abstractions from a set of instances. There are culture-specific types, that

represent a constellation of properties that have emerged in a particular community and more

abstract types, that are underspecified with respect to culture-specific properties, and so they

apply to the description of texts in different cultures. The different levels of description are

exempli fied in Table 1 with the discourse type “dedication” . In the attic culture the


prototypical notion of a dedication is a statement that appears as inscription on valuable

objects, that are donated mostly to the gods, whereas in the contemporary western culture the

prototypical notion of a dedication is a message written at the beginning of a book or a

statement made before a play or concert, as a sign of affection or respect for a person. These

are culture specific discourse types. At a higher level of abstraction, we can give a description

of the type “dedication” with reduced properties, leaving apart for example the property of the

medium and writing material, and thus we arrive to a definition, that applies both to the

classical attic as to the modern western type of dedication.

Table 1: Levels

instances

e.g. IG II(2) 3108 (written on three thrones): “a citizen of Rhamnous dedicated after winning in the comedy competition”

types

specific

culture specific discourse types: “ a type of attic inscription, written on different objects, that are dedicated typically to the god; they consist of simple sentences including the dedicating person, the addressee of the dedication, sometimes the dedicated object and sometimes the purpose of the dedication” (classical attic discourse type) “a message written at the beginning of a book or a statement made before a play or piece of music performed, as a sign of affection or respect for someone” (contemporary western discourse type)

generic abstract discourse types that hold for many languages: “a performative statement that specifies the addressee of an offer/donation”

4.1. Instances

The documentation of an instance in the domain of linguistic practice is presented in Figure 5.

The instance described is a scratch on pottery dating at about 350 BC. It contains a number of

curses concerning different persons as it is specified under “ topic”. The “lexical properties” of

this instance contain a lexical element that leads to the specification of the code as “colloquial

attic”. Under “orthography” are documented some deviations of the orthographic rules of the

classic attic, that inform us about the literacy of the anonymous author. The grapheme for the

aspirated stop is used instead of the grapheme for the non-aspirated and the graphemes for the

semi-open and the semi-closed front vowel are used in a non-consistent way. The latter

orthographic confusion serves also as evidence for the evolution of the phonological system

Stavros Skopeteas 10

of colloquial attic. The opposition among these vowels is already lost at the innovative

varieties of the classic era.

Figure 5: Documentation of a simple instance: An attic curse

� � �LINGUISTIC PRACTICE

� �

� � � �

�TEXT IN EVENT

�

� �

� � � �

� �

�

�IDENTIFICATION

� �

� �

�

� � � � �

� �

�

�

�NAME Ker III Att C 9.1

� � �

� �

�

�

�LEVEL instance

� � �

� �

� � � � � �

� �

� � � �

� �

�

�PARTICIPANTS

� �

� �

�

� � � � �

� �

�

�

�NUMBER 2

� � �

� �

�

�

�PRODUCER anonymous

� � �

� �

�

�

�ADDRESSEE Hermes, Persephone

� � �

� �

�

�

�RELATION personal; religious

� � �

� �

� � � � � �

� �

� � � �

� �

�

�INTERACTION

� �

� �

�

� � � � �

� �

�

�

�MODE written

� � �

� �

�

�

�MEDIUM scratch on pottery

� � �

� �

�

�

�OPENNESS private

� � �

� �

�

�

�PLACE Kerameikos

� � �

� �

�

�

�TIME c. 350 BC

� � �

� �

�

�

�PHYS_SET (meta - ) & physical distance of the

� � �

� �

�

�

� speech participants; discontinuous

� � �

� �

�

�

�FIELD religion

� � �

� �

� � � � � �

� �

� � � �

� �

�

�FUNCTION

� �

� �

�

� � � � �

� �

�

�

�AFFECTION SCALE instructive

� � �

� �

�

�

�SPECIAL FUNCTION magic

� � �

� �

� � � � � �

� �

� � � �

� �

�

�TEXT

� �

� �

�

� � � � �

� �

�

�

�CONTENT

� � �

� �

�

�

� � � � � �

� �

�

�

�

�TOPIC curse about several

� � � �

� �

�

�

�

� persons

� � � �

� �

�

�

�

�CONTENT STRUCTURE sequence of separate

� � � �

� �

�

�

�

� curses for each person

� � � �

� �

�

� � � � � � �

� �

�

� � � � �

� �

�

�

�FORM

� � �

� �

�

�

� � � � � �

� �

�

�

�

�FORMAL STRUCTURE simple sentences

� � � �

� �

�

�

�

�CODE colloquial attic

� � � �

� �

�

�

�

�LEXICAL PROPERTIES � � � � � � � ‘ damn:1. SG’ � � � � �

� � � � � (= colloquial) � � � � � � � � � � GRAMM. PROPERTIES pattern ‘I damn + � � � � � � � � � � body part + person + � � � � � � � � � � before God’ � � � � � � � � � � ORTH. PROPERTIES faults: <p h> instea d � � � � � � � � � � ! " # $ % " & ' > instead of ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( < ) * > + + + + + ,

,

,

,

, - - - - -


4.2. Generic types

The generic types are abstract schemes of properties that can be applied across cultures. Such

types are for example the tale, the drama, the dialog, the biography, the song, the game

instruction, the stone inscription, the personal letter, etc. (cf. Lehmann s. d.). Figure 5

exempli fies the encoding scheme of a generic type, namely the dialog. The generic type of

dialog is an underspecified scheme. It presupposes the existence of two or more speech

participants and an interchange of the roles of producer and addressee between them. It is

mostly an oral discourse type, but it not necessarily so.

Figure 6: Scheme of a generic type

. / 0LINGUISTIC PRACTICE

0 0

. / 0 0

0TEXT IN EVENT

0

0 0

0 . / 0

0 0

0

0IDENTIFICATION

0 0

0 0

0

0 . / 0 0

0 0

0

0

0NAME dialog

0 0 0

0 0

0

0

0LEVEL type.generic

0 0 0

0 0

0 1 1 2 2 0

0 0

0 . / 0

0 0

0

0PARTICIPANTS

0 0

0 0

0

0 . / 0 0

0 0

0

0

0NUMBER 3 2 4 4 4 4

4 4 5 5 6 6 4 4 4 4 7 8 4 4 4 4 4 INTERACTION 4 4 4 4 4 4 7 8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 MODE mostly oral 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 6 6 4 4 4 4 7 8 4 4 4 4 4 FUNCTION 4 4 4 4 4 4 7 8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 AFFECTION SCALE 3 contactive 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 6 6 4 4 4 4 7 8 4 4 4 4 4 TEXT 4 4 4 4 4 4 7 8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 CONTENT 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 7 8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 CONTENT STRUCTURE interchange of roles 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6

The notion of generic types can also be applied to the domain of community. Generic

types of persons that can be applied across cultures are for example types like the

“ intellectual” , the “father” , the “old man” etc.

4.3. Specific types

The subject of language documentation is the “specific type”, namely the realization of an

abstract cross-linguistic type in a particular linguistic community. In Figure 7 two entries in

the domain of language practice ill ustrate the difference between two specific types of


classical attic. The first entry concerns the specific type “graff iti on pottery” and the second

entry the type “marble inscription” .

Figure 7: Specific types: graffiti on pottery vs. inscription on marble in classical Attic

9 : ;LINGUISTIC PRACTICE

; ;

9 : ; ;

;TEXT IN EVENT

;

; ;

; 9 : ;

; ;

;

;IDENTIFICATION

; ;

; ;

;

; 9 : ; ;

; ;

;

;

;NAME graffiti on pottery

; ; ;

; ;

;

;

;LEVEL type.specific

; ; ;

; ;

; < < = = ;

; ;

; 9 : ;

; ;

;

;PARTICIPANTS

; ;

; ;

;

; 9 : ; ;

; ;

;

;

;PRODUCER non educated masters, mo stly slaves

; ; ;

; ;

;

;

;ADDRESSEE citizens of Athens

; ; ;

; ;

;

;

;RELATION non - personal

; ; ;

; ;

; < < = = ;

; ;

; 9 : ;

; ;

;

;INTERACTION

; ;

; ;

;

; 9 : ; ;

; ;

;

;

;MODE written

; ; ;

; ;

;

;

;MEDIUM pottery; graffiti

; ; ;

; ;

;

;

;OPENNESS private

; ; ;

; ;

;

;

;PLACE workshops with ca. 40 - 50 workers

; ; ;

; ;

;

;

;TIME 4th

c. BC ; ; ;

; ;

;

;

;PHYS_SET non - simultaneous

; ; ;

; ;

;

;

;FIELD commercial

; ; ;

; ;

; < < = = ;

; ;

; 9 : ;

; ;

;

;FUNCTION

; ;

; ;

;

; 9 : ; ;

; ;

;

;

;AFFECTION SCALE expressive

; ; ;

; ;

;

;

;SPECIAL FUNCTION aesthetic

; ; ;

; ;

; < < = = ;

; ;

; 9 : ;

; ;

;

;TEXT

; ;

; ;

;

; 9 : ; ;

; ;

;

;

;CONTENT

; ; ;

; ;

;

;

; 9 : ; ; ;

; ;

;

;

;

;TOPIC typically mythological

; ; ; ;

; ;

;

; < < = = ; ;

; ;

;

; 9 : ; ;

; ;

;

;

;FORM

; ; ;

; ;

;

;

; 9 : ; ; ;

; ;

;

;

;

;FORMAL STRUCTURE short text

; ; ; ;

; ;

;

;

;

;CODE vulgar attic

; ; ; ;

; ;

;

;

;

;ORTH. PROPERTIES common faults

; ; ; ;

; ;

< < < < = = = = ;

Texts and communicative practices 13 > ? @

> >

>TEXT IN EVENT

>

> >

> ? @ >

> >

>

>IDENTIFICATION

> >

> >

>

> ? @ > >

> >

>

>

>NAME marble inscription

> > >

> >

>

>

>LEVEL type.specific

> > >

> >

> A A B B >

> >

> ? @ >

> >

>

>PARTICIPANTS

> >

> >

>

> ? @ > >

> >

>

>

>PRODUCER highly qualified artists

> > >

> >

>

>

>ADDRESSEE citizens of Athens

> > >

> >

>

>

>RELATION non - personal

> > >

> >

> A A B B >

> >

> ? @ >

> >

>

>IN TERACTION

> >

> >

>

> ? @ > >

> >

>

>

>MODE written

> > >

> >

>

>

>MEDIUM marbl

> > >

> >

>

>

>OPENNESS mostly public

> > >

> >

>

>

>PLACE artistic studio

> > >

> >

>

>

>TIME 4th

c. BC > > >

> >

>

>

>PHYS_SET non - simultaneous

> > >

> >

>

>

>FIELD commercial

> > >

> >

> A A B B >

> >

> ? @ >

> >

>

>FUNCTION

> >

> >

>

> ? @ > >

> >

>

>

>AFFECTION SCALE expressive

> > >

> >

>

>

>SPECIAL FUNCTION aesth etic

> > >

> >

> A A B B >

> >

> ? @ >

> >

>

>TEXT

> >

> >

>

> ? @ > >

> >

>

>

>CONTENT

> > >

> >

>

>

> ? @ > > >

> >

>

>

>

>TOPIC typically mythological

> > > >

> >

>

> A A B B > >

> >

>

> ? @ > >

> >

>

>

>FORM

> > >

> >

>

>

> ? @ > > >

> >

>

>

>

>FORMAL STRUCTURE short text

> > > >

> >

>

>

>

>CODE great attic/poetic dialect

> > > >

> >

>

>

>

>ORTH. PROPERTIES rare faults

> > > >

>

A A A A A B B B B B

There are some common properties between both text types. Both are produced for

commercial purposes, both are instances of written communication, the Athenian citizens are

in both cases the addressees, the function is expressive-aesthetic, the topic of the text is in

most cases a mythological motif, and the formal structure is in both cases typically a short

text.

The texts of both types are usually written in different codes. Whereas marble

inscriptions are instances of documentation of the great attic or of the poetic dialects used by

the Athenian intellectuals of the classical period, the graff iti on pottery is the best evidence for

the vulgar attic of this era (s. Woodhead 21981). At the level of the communicative event,

within which both types are produced, there are some crucial differences that condition the

variation at the level of the expression.


The material used is quite different. Marble is valuable and pottery is cheap. Marble

inscriptions are produced by highly quali fied artists, that work in personal studios, whereas

pottery is produced in classical Athens in big workshops by non-educated masters, in the

majority slaves.

Beside the relevance of this information for the conditioning of linguistic variation this

example ill ustrates the issue about the specific discourse types. They are patterns of

combination of features at different levels, from the level of the expression to the level of the

participants of the interaction, the used material, etc. that emerge in context of a particular

culture. The relation between an instance and a specific type is a prototypical relation.

Instances can occur in different degrees of deviation with respect to the prototypical

properties of the specific type. Since specific discourse types are patterns built i n a particular

culture and not simple descriptive abstractions they must be considered as conventional

linguistic units li ke the units of morphology and syntax. Furthermore, they can be described in

terms of different degrees of conventionalization, that emerges partially parallel to their

evolution. For example funerary inscriptions of the early period are less complex, as they

include verse epitaphs of one or two lines and have less conventionalized lexical properties

than the inscriptions of the same type in the classical period. Most funerary inscriptions of the

last period are written following less than ten different motifs li ke ‘here lies A’ , or ‘this is

tomb of A’ , ‘B set the tomb of A’ , or ‘I am the tomb of A’ etc.

Specific types in the domain of persons are the different characters. Figure 8

exempli fies one of the four characters that are instantiated through different heroes in the

comedies of Aristophanes. The character is the “arrogant” and has the following properties:

he is always a man, he is an educated person but not an intellectual, and he has a high social

status and aristocratic beliefs. In the comedy he uses instructive texts, his addressee is the

“average citizen” – another specific type – and the code he uses is either the conservative

variety of attic or Homeric Greek.


Figure 8: Specific types in community: Characters

C D ECOMMUNITY

E E

C D E E

EPERSON E

E E

E C D

E

E E

E

EIDENTIFICATION

E

E

E E

E

E C D E

E

E E

E

E

ENAME " arrogant"

E E

E

E E

E

E

ELEVEL specific.type

E E

E

E E

E F F G G

E

E E

E C D

E

E E

E

EPHYSICAL PROPERTIES

E

E

E E

E

E C D E

E

E E

E

E

ESEX male

E E

E

E E

E F F G G

E

E E

E C D

E

E E

E

EINTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES

E

E

E E

E

E C D E

E

E E

E

E

EEDUCATION educated; non - intellectual

E E

E

E E

E F F G G

E

E E

E C D

E

E E

E

ESOCIAL PROPERTIES

E

E

E E

E

E C D E

E

E E

E

E

ESTATUS high

E E

E

E E

E

E

EPROFESSION general

E E

E

E E

E

E

EPOLITICS aristocrat

E E

E

E E

E F F G G

E

E E

E C D

E

E E

E

ELINGUISTIC PROPERTIE S

E

E

E E

E

E C D E

E

E E

E

E

ECOMPETENCE IN LANGUAGES conservative variety

E E

E

E E

E

E

E of Attic/ Homeric greek

E E

E

E E

E

E

ERHETORIC ABILITIES high comp etence

E E

E

E

F F F F G G G G

5. Complex units

The units we examined so far are all simple units. However, an encoding scheme concerning

texts needs also a technique for the description of more complex units, i.e. texts that include

other texts. Figure 9 ill ustrates this case with a comedy. A comedy is a very complex text,

since it contains textual divisions, that could stand also as individual texts: lyric stanzas with

different functions (li ke introducing the piece or breaking the plot etc.), dialogical parts in

many scenes, citations from other poets etc.

In Figure 9 a comedy and a part of the same comedy are represented as different

instances. The comedy is the Birds of Aristophanes and the part is a dialog between the main

hero of the comedy Peistheteros and an attic poet Kinesias. The relation among them is

notated in the field “ relations to other texts” in the part of the comedy, namely the dialog.


Figure 9: Documentation of a complex instance: An attic comedy

H I JLINGUISTIC PRACTICE

J J

H I J J

1 JTEXT IN EVENT

J

J J

J H I J

J J

J

JIDENTIFICATION

J J

J J

J

J H I J J

J J

J

J

JNAME Aves

J J J

J J

J

J

JLEVEL instance.complex

J J J

J J

J K K L L J

J J

J H I J

J J

J

JPARTICIPANTS

J J

J J

J

J H I J J

J J

J

J

JNUMBER n

J J J

J J

J

J

JPRODUCER Aristophanes

J J J

J J

J

J

JADDRESSEE Athenian citizens

J J J

J J

J

J

JRELATION non - personal

J J J

J J

J K K L L J

J J

J H I J

J J

J

JINTERACTION

J J

J J

J

J H I J J

J J

J

J

JMODE written to be read

J J J

J J

J

J

JOPENNESS public

J J J

J J

J

J

JPLACE Athens

J J J

J J

J

J

JTIME 414 BC

J J J

J J

J

J

JPHYS_SET theater

J J J

J J

J

J

JFIELD political, social

J J J

J J

J K K L L J

J J

J H I J

J J

J

JFUNCTION

J J

J J

J

J H I J J

J J

J

J

JAFFECTION SCALE instructive

J J J

J J

J

J

JSPECIAL FUNCTION aesthetic

J J J

J J

J K K L L J

J J

J H I J

J J

J

JTEXT

J J

J J

J

J H I J J

J J

J

J

JCONTENT

J J J

J J

J

J

J H I

J J J

J J

J

J

J

JTOPIC an ingenious Athenian

J

J J J

J J

J

J

J

J persuades the birds to

J

J J J

J J

J

J

J

J build a city in the

J

J J J

J J

J

J

J

J clouds and compels the

J

J J J

J J

J

J

J

J gods to accept

J

J J J

J J

J

J

J

J humiliating terms

J

J J J

J J

J

J

J

JCONTENT STRUCTURE complex: dialogical

J

J J J

J J

J

J

J

J and lyrical stanzas

J

J J J

J J

K K K K L L L L J J

J

Texts and communicative practices 17 M N O

M M

MTEXT IN EVENT

M

M M

M N O M

M M

M

MIDENTIFICATION

M M

M M

M

M N O M M

M M

M

M

MNAME 1 1372 - 1409

M M M

M M

M

M

MLEVEL instance.simple

M M M

M M

M P P Q Q M

M M

M N O M

M M

M

MPARTICIPANTS

M M

M M

M

M N O M M

M M

M

M

MNUMBER 2

M M M

M M

M

M

MPARTNER 2 Peistheteros

M M M

M M

M

M

MPARTNER 3 Kinesias

M M M

M M

M

M

MRELATION non - familiar; personal

M M M

M M

M P P Q Q M

M M

M N O M

M M

M

MINTERACTION

M M

M M

M

M N O M M

M M

M

M

MMODE oral

M M M

M M

M

M

MOPENNESS private

M M M

M M

M

M

MPLACE 4 in a city on the clouds

M M M

M M

M

M

MTIME cf. 1

M M M

M M

M

M

MPHYS_SET 4

M M M

M M

M

M

MFI ELD cf. 1

M M M

M M

M P P Q Q M

M M

M N O M

M M

M

MFUNCTION

M M

M M

M

M N O M M

M M

M

M

MAFFECTION SCALE instructive

M M M

M M

M P P Q Q M

M M

M N O M

M M

M

MTEXT

M M

M M

M

M N O M M

M M

M

M

MCONTENT

M M M

M M

M

M

M N O

M M M

M M

M

M

M

MTOPIC 3 wishes to be

M

M M M

M M

M

M

M

M accepted in the

M

M M M

M M

M

M

M

M in 4 and to take

M

M M M

M M

M

M

M

M wings. 2 send him

M

M M M

M M

M

M

M

M away

M

M M M

M M

M

M

M

MCONTENT STRUCTURE complex

M

M M M

M M

M

M P P Q Q M M

M M

M

M N O M M

M M

M

M

MFORM

M M M

M M

M

M

M N O

M M M

M M

M

M

M

MFORMAL STRUCTURE verses; simple

M

M M M

M M

M

M

M

M sentences

M

M M M

M M

M

M

M

MCODE 2 colloquial attic

M

M M M

M M

M

M

M

M 3 attic of lyric

M

M M M

M M

M

M P P Q Q M M

M M

M

M N O M M

M M

M

M

MRELATIONS TO OTHER TEXTS

M M M

M M

M

M

M N O

M M M

M M

M

M

M

MMERONOMIC part of 1

M

M M M

M

P P P P P Q Q Q Q Q

The relation between a complex instance and its parts is a relation of entailment. The

dialog is part of the whole “comedy”. Analogous distinctions appear also for other domains.

The corresponding distinction in community is the distinction between individual and groups.

Groups like a family, a par ish, a vill age, a school class, a working team and a poli tical

par ty are populations of individuals that share common knowledge and interact linguistically

with each other. Similarly in the domain of the knowledge a simple unit includes an object


like a throne and a complex unit a collective where this object belongs to, li ke a theater (as

concerns thrones in the particular culture).

6. Relations

The last section examines the relations among different units. Figure 9 ill ustrates only some

of the relations in the presented text. The unit of interest is the text in event nr. 4, that is a

part of the dialog of Figure 9, in particular the passages of Peistheteros, who represents the

“average citizen” . The form of these passages has the following properties: written in verses,

they consist only of short sentences, and the code used is the colloquial attic.

The property of the “verses” is inherited from the specifications of the including

complex text: comedies are written in verses. The relation is indicated with a cross-reference

to the including text, the comedy Aves (unit nr. 3), which inherits its formal properties from

its type, namely the attic comedy as a specific type (unit nr. 2).

The second property of the passages of Peistheteros concerns the “short sentences” .

This feature is inherited from the discourse type of this passage, the attic dialog, an

instatiation of the universal dialog.

Finally, the last property of these passages is the “colloquial code”. This feature is

inherited from the character of the hero. This property is inhered from the producer of the

text, and furthermore from his culture-specific type, the Athenian average citizen and his

linguistic habits.

Figure 10: Relations

R S TLINGUISTIC PRACTICE

T T

R S T T

1 TTEXT IN EVENT

T

T T

T R S T

T T

T

TIDENTIFICATION

T T

T T

T

T R S T T

T T

T

T

TNAME dialog in classic Athens

T T T

T T

T

T

TLEVEL type.spe cific

T T T

T T

T U U V V T

T T

T R S T

T T

T

TTEXT

T T

T T

T

T R S T T

T T

T

T

TFORM

T T T

T T

T

T

T R S

T T T

T T

T

T

T

TFORMAL STRUCTURE simple sentences

T

T T T

T T

U U U U V V V V T T

T

Texts and communicative practices 19 W X Y

W W

2 WTEXT IN EVENT

W

W W

W X Y W

W W

W

WIDENTIFICATION

W W

W W

W

W X Y W W

W W

W

W

WNAME comedy

W W W

W W

W

W

WLEVEL type.specific

W W W

W W

W Z Z [ [ W

W W

W X Y W

W W

W

WTEXT

W W

W W

W

W X Y W W

W W

W

W

WFORM

W W W

W W

W

W

W X Y

W W W

W W

W

W

W

WFORMAL STRUCTURE verses

W

W W W

W W

Z Z Z Z [ [ [ [ W W

W W

X Y W W

3 WTEXT IN EVENT

W

W W

W X Y W

W W

W

WIDENTIFICATION

W W

W W

W

W X Y W W

W W

W

W

WNAME Aves

W W W

W W

W

W

WLEVEL instance.complex

W W W

W W

W Z Z [ [ W

W W

W X Y W

W W

W

WTEXT

W W

W W

W

W X Y W W

W W

W

W

WFORM

W W W

W W

W

W

W X Y

W W W

W W

W

W

W

WFORMAL STRUCTURE cf. 2

W

W W W

W W

W

W Z Z [ [ W W

W W

W

W X Y W W

W W

W

W

WRELATIONS TO OTHER TEXTS

W W W

W W

W

W

W X Y

W W W

W W

W

W

W

WINTERTEXTUAL instance of 2

W

W W W

W W

Z Z Z Z [ [ [ [ W W

W

Stavros Skopeteas 20 \ ] ^

\ \

4 \TEXT IN EVENT

\

\ \

\ ] ^ \

\ \

\

\IDENTIFICATION

\ \

\ \

\

\ ] ^ \ \

\ \

\

\

\NAME 3 verse 1375

\ \ \

\ \

\

\

\LEVEL instance.simple

\ \ \

\ \

\ _ _ ` ` \

\ \

\ ] ^ \

\ \

\

\PARTICIPANTS

\ \

\ \

\

\ ] ^ \ \

\ \

\

\

\NUMBER 2

\ \ \

\ \

\

\

\PRODUCER 5

\ \ \

\ \

\

\

\ADDRESSEE Kinesias

\ \ \

\ \

\

\

\RELATION non - familiar; personal

\ \ \

\ \

\ _ _ ` ` \

\ \

\ ] ^ \

\ \

\

\INTERACTION

\ \

\ \

\

\ ] ^ \ \

\ \

\

\

\MODE oral

\ \ \

\ \

\

\

\OPENNESS private

\ \ \

\ \

\

\

\PLACE 6 city on the clouds

\ \ \

\ \

\

\

\TIME cf. 3

\ \ \

\ \

\

\

\PHYS_SET 6

\ \ \

\ \

\

\

\FIELD political, social

\ \ \

\ \

\ _ _ ` ` \

\ \

\ ] ^ \

\ \

\

\FUNCTION

\ \

\ \

\

\ ] ^ \ \

\ \

\

\

\AFFECTION SCALE instructive

\ \ \

\ \

\ _ _ ` ` \

\ \

\

\ ] ^ \ \

\ \

\

\

\FORM

\ \ \

\ \

\

\

\ ] ^

\ \ \

\ \

\

\

\

\FORMAL STRUCTURE cf. 3 (verse)

\

\ \ \

\ \

\

\

\

\ cf. 1 (simple sent)

\

\ \ \

\ \

\

\

\

\CODE cf. 5 colloquial

\

\ \ \

\ \

\

\ _ _ ` ` \ \

\ \

\

\ ] ^ \ \

\ \

\

\

\RELATIONS TO OTHER TEXTS

\ \ \

\ \

\

\

\ ] ^

\ \ \

\ \

\

\

\

\MERONOMIC part of 3

\

\ \ \

\ \

\

\

\

\INTERTEXTUAL instance of 1

\

\ \ \

\ \

\ _ _ _ ` ` ` \

\ \

\ ] ^ \

\ \

\

\TEXT

\ \

\ \

\

\ ] ^ \ \

\ \

\

\

\FORM

\ \ \

\ \

\

\

\ ] ^

\ \ \

\ \

\

\

\

\FORMAL STRUCTURE cf. 3 verse

\

\ \ \

\ \

\

\

\

\ cf. 1 simple sent .

\

\ \ \

\ \

\

\ _ _ ` ` \ \

\ \

\

\ ] ^ \ \

\ \

\

\

\RELATIONS TO OTHER TEXTS

\ \ \

\ \

\

\

\ ] ^

\ \ \

\ \

\

\

\

\MERONOMIC part of 3

\

\ \ \

\ \

\

\

\

\INTERTEXTUAL instance of 1

\

\ \ \

\

_ _ _ _ _ ` ` ` ` `

Texts and communicative practices 21 a b cCOMMUNITY

c c

a b c c

5 cPERSON c

c c

c a b

c

c c

c

cIDENTIFICA TION

c

c

c c

c

c a b c

c

c c

c

c

cNAME Peistheteros

c c

c

c c

c

c

cLEVEL instance.simple

c c

c

c c

c d d e e

c

c c

c a b

c

c c

c

cLINGUISTIC PROPERTIE S

c

c

c c

c

c a b c

c

c c

c

c

cCOMPETENCE IN L cf. 7

c c

c

c c

c d d e e

c

c c

c a b

c

c c

c

cRELATIONS TO OTHER PERSONS

c

c

c c

c

c a b c

c

c c

c

c

cINTERPERSONAL instance of 7

c c

c

c c

d d d e e e c c

c c

a b c c

7 cPERSON c

c c

c a b

c

c c

c

cIDENTIFICATION

c

c

c c

c

c a b c

c

c c

c

c

cNAME average Athenian

c c

c

c c

c

c

cLEVEL type.specific

c c

c

c c

c d d e e

c

c c

c a b

c

c c

c

cLINGUISTIC PRO PERTIES

c

c

c c

c

c a b c

c

c c

c

c

cCOMPETENCE IN L colloquial attic

c c

c

c

d d d d e e e e

7. Conclusion

Generic types are neither the subject of language documentation nor of language description,

since they are not culture-specific entities. The relevance of generic types, li ke dialog or

narrative, is that they provide a basis to create a number of templates for the documentation of

texts. This is the level of abstract universal structures. Simple and complex instances are to

be based on these generic templates. This is the stage of language documentation. The

possibilit y to draw correlations between specific text types and their communicative

foundations is the stage of language description.

8. References

Heinemann, Wolfgang & Vierweger, Dieter 1991, Textlinguistik: Eine Einführung. Tübingen:

Max Niemeyer

Hymes, Dell 1974, Foundations in sociolinguistics: an ethnographic approach. Philadelphia:

Univ. of Pennsylvania Pr.

Lehmann, Christian, Structure of a language description. Manuscript.


Lehmann, Christian 1999, Documentation of endangered languages: a priority task for

linguists. Erfurt: Seminar für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität (ASSIDUE 1).

Lehmann, Christian 2001, “Language documentation: a program”. In: Bisang, Walter (ed.),

Aspects of Typology and Universals. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 83-97.

Lenk, Elena 1996, Erstellung eines Textkorpus für eine Sprachdokumentation mit LDS. Univ.

Bielefeld: Bielefeld (Allgemein-Vergleichende Grammatik, Arbeitspapier Nr.13)

Woodhead, A. Geoffrey 21981, The study of Greek inscriptions. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ.

Pr.

Documents

Texts and communicative practices - db-thueringen.de fileThis paper offers an encoding scheme for this purpose in form of attribute-value matrices. 1. ... properties of texts as parts