Shopping online in the USA at Kmart couldn't be easier. You can pay for your order in a store or even use an international credit card. Once you place an order, you or someone you know can pick it up at a Kmart store, have it shipped or delivered to a U. If you're looking to do some international online shopping, be sure to visit kmart. Theoretical constructs, no matter what framework they may originate in, are not needed here. The method of data compilation used is confined to a counting linguistic items in the discourse corpora investigated and b counting the phonemes that each of these items is composed of.
Such analyses are replicable for any discourse corpus of any language, and the results can be expected to be fairly similar in all cases. At the core of the concept of markedness lies the idea that there is some kind of asymmetry in the formal, distributional, semantic, cognitive etc. Such natural contrasts are referred to as oppositions.
But this definition of markedness is vague enough to render the concept universally viable and thus, possibly, more or less trivial. Thus, it does not come as a surprise that the notion of markedness has been used outside of linguistics, for instance, in poetry, anthropology, music, and religion. To illustrate such extensions of the concept of markedness, Battistella 18, based on McCawley, cites the idea that "belief in a certain type of supreme being is culturally unmarked, while other options atheism, agnosticism, belief in a nonprototypical supreme being are marked".
Such interpretations of markedness will not be the subject of the present study, although the possibility that they point to general principles of cognitive organization cannot be ruled out. Many of these correlations are not only encountered at the intra-linguistic, but at the cross-linguistic level as well cf. Research on morphosyntactic markedness was initiated by Greenberg Although it may be true that none of the diagnostics of morphosyntactic markedness is utilized in all treatises on the topic that have accumulated ever since, Greenberg's catalog of morphosyntactic markedness criteria not only set the standards for all subsequent work in this area.
Despite the vastness of the literature on markedness available today, Greenberg's rich list of criteria is not outdated; it can still be taken as defining the essence of morphosyntactic markedness theory. Greenberg deals with phenomena such as "contextual neutralization", i.
However, the markedness criteria which are of immediate interest in the context of the present study are 1 and 8 in Greenbergs list:. Greenberg 1: zero marking Greenberg, 26f. In a binary opposition of linguistic items, it is often the case that one member the marked member is overtly marked, while the other member the unmarked member receives zero expression. Greenberg 8: discourse frequency Greenberg, 31ff. In a given opposition of linguistic items, one member tends occur more frequently in discourse. The more frequent member is referred to as unmarked.
The criteria in question are discourse frequency, structural complexity, semantic complexity, and cognitive complexity for a similar weighting of markedness criteria, cf. Greenberg emphasizes the special importance of discourse frequency as one of the correlates of markedness. Today, the role of discourse frequency as one of the most focal components of markedness theory has been acknowledged e.
In equating commonness or frequency with unmarkedness on the one hand, and with naturalness on the other, Lass goes one step further and recommends abandoning the terms markedness and unmarkedness, since the latter, in his logic, are covered by the more basic notion of naturalness. In much of Greenberg's work, the grammatical paradigm creates the notional coherence between linguistic items that provides the basis for investigating markedness relations.
Thus, any grammatical elements standing in a paradigmatic relationship to each other, i. Further, in contemporary markedness theory, markedness contrasts are not required to be binary -- for instance, a triple contrast, as exemplified by the distinction of singular vs. In subsequent approaches to markedness the criterion of structural complexity has been modified: the unmarked member of a structurally defined markedness relation does not necessarily have to be zero-marked to be classed as unmarked.
It also counts as an instance of structural asymmetry if both members of an opposition of linguistic categories are overtly expressed in such a way that one of the markers involved is structurally less complex than the other. Thus, zero marking merely is the extreme manifestation of lack of structural complexity. However, as Chomsky's approach evolved over the decades, so did the concept of markedness which is employed in generative language theory.
However, starting with its application to syntax, as in Chomsky , generative markedness has been transformed into a theory-internal concept that has become somewhat dissociated from its roots, which are to be sought in empirically observable symptoms such as the systematic interrelatedness of discourse frequency, structural complexity, and semantic complexity.
Since the present study exclusively deals with such symptoms of markedness, generative markedness will not be considered in greater detail in this paper. This possibility is envisaged in Greenberg already, and has been elaborated on especially in Croft From the perspective of the enormous theory-building potential that inheres in them, however, cross-linguistic approaches to markedness are still in their infancy.
This fact is often glossed over by the practice of devoting more discussion space to data that support markedness theory than to counterexamples. Of the categories of singular and plural, the former is considered the less marked. Nevertheless, the verbal person markers for the third person present tense in English reverse the prediction made by Greenberg 1, which concerns structural complexity: the third person present singular is coded by means of the affix -s , while the third person present plural is zero-marked.
In Japanese, the case marker ga is predominantly associated with the coding of the transitive agent A and the intransitive subject S , while the element o serves to code the transitive patient P , a function which it shares with two additional Japanese case markers Hinds, Nevertheless, with respect to the parameter of structural complexity, the Japanese case markers ga and o behave in such a way that higher frequency is paired with higher structural complexity, and lower frequency with lower structural complexity.
In the light of such examples, which are certainly not exceptional, neither in Japanese nor in any other language, markedness must be viewed as an organizational feature of human language which is strong but not pervasive. Empirical data that illustrate this correlation between discourse frequency and structural complexity, which is known as the law of abbreviation, are given below in this section. Like markedness, the law of abbreviation constitutes a very noticeable intra-linguistic and cross-linguistic tendency rather than an absolute rule. Thus, in any language, there are, presumably, counterexamples to the law of abbreviation, that is, high-frequency items which are phonemically complex, and low-frequency items which are phonemically simple.
That is to say, the law of abbreviation will, by and large, hold for any pair, triplet, etc. It so happens that the law of abbreviation and the observation that the markedness criteria Greenberg 1 structural complexity and Greenberg 8 discourse frequency are interdependent describe precisely the same correlation of linguistic variables.
But if the overwhelming majority of random pairings of linguistic items within a given language comply with the law of abbreviation, the concept of markedness, insofar as it deals with the systematic correlation between Greenberg 1 and Greenberg 8, must be interpreted as a necessary consequence of the law of abbreviation: the set of linguistic items which can be linked by means of a paradigmatic, semantic, or otherwise defined opposition within a given language system will, in any case, be a subset of the total of logically possible pairings of linguistic items within this language system.
Much of the fascination of markedness stems from the fact that the correlations addressed in section 2 have always been thought to hold between linguistic items which are paradigmatically, semantically, or otherwise connected, and thus form natural oppositions. This property of markedness appears far less mysterious as soon as markedness can be identified as a corollary of a higher-order principle in the organization of human language such as the law of abbreviation, which affects all linguistic items contained in a given language system.
Three text corpora ranging in length between about and words were compiled either by asking native speakers to produce autobiographical materials or similar texts in written form, or by tape-recording and transcribing such texts directly. Only grammatical items were included in the list of linguistic items used for the experiment, whose results underscore the assumption that the markedness tenet "high discourse frequency correlates with low structural complexity, and vice versa" applies, by and large, to all linguistic items contained in a given language system.
In practice, markedness theory focuses on the properties of grammatical items, rather than those of lexical items -- consequently, to substantiate the claim that markedness theory needs to be integrated into the Zipfian framework, grammatical items should be investigated in the first place. Limiting the database to grammatical items this way does not introduce any bias into the data. If the law of abbreviation indeed captures a powerful regularity within language systems, any random set of linguistic items from a given language can be expected to yield the same results with respect to the interdependence of the parameters of frequency and structural complexity: on the whole, the more frequent items will be the less complex ones.
This should be true regardless of whether the linguistic items investigated are taken from grammar or from the lexicon, or from both. In a preliminary study which preceded this project, a combined sample of lexical and grammatical items from the Lakota corpus was analyzed. The results, which will not be reproduced here, bear out this prediction. Such a study is of considerable theoretical interest in its own right. The question of whether Zipfian principles are operative in grammatical systems should be of fundamental relevance for any theory of grammar, but it has never been raised.
Zipf's particular methodological approach to discourse analysis has probably done a lot to encourage this neglect. The major drawback of Zipf's method from this perspective is its insensitivity to the internal morphological structure of words, on the one hand, and to the semantic individuality of linguistic items, on the other. In most cases, Zipf merely counted words, irrespective of their morphological composition; differences in the meaning of phonetically identical linguistic items are equally irrelevant in Zipf-style analyses.
The form show-s is ambiguous between a nominal and a verbal reading. In a classical Zipfian discourse analysis, all occurrences of the form show-s are added up in the count as instances of the occurrence of a single linguistic unit, regardless of whether show-s has a nominal or a verbal meaning in individual cases. Since, further, morphologically complex word forms are left unsegmented in classical Zipfian analyses, words are always counted as a whole.
Thus, in the case of shows , instead of the morphological units show- and -s , only the complex word form shows enters a classical Zipf-style analysis as a countable unit. Consequently, this method of counting, which has been adopted by Zipf's successors e. The percentage of grammatical items that end up in a classical Zipf-style analysis depends on the morphological type of the language in question. The more synthetic a language is, the fewer grammatical items will be captured; the more isolating a language is, the more grammatical items will be included in the analysis.
Thus, by means of Zipf's method, the behavior of the full inventory of grammatical items which occur in a given text corpus can be assessed only for a perfectly isolating language. For one, to make sure that grammatical items are targeted systematically, all complex word forms are segmented into their morphological components.
In this type of analysis, the English lexeme letter , when occurring as a component of the plural form letter-s , is counted separately from the element -s 'plural'. Occasionally, Zipf employed analyses which incorporate morphological segmentation as well, but the details of these analyses remain too obscure to use them as proof for the validity of Zipfian principles in grammar. Secondly, in the analysis of the Armenian, Thai, and Lakota corpora, homonymy relations between linguistic items are not ignored, as they were in Zipf's methodological approach.
Thus, phonetically identical elements are treated as separate linguistic items if the meanings they convey are dissimilar. On these grounds, the English roots ring 'circular object or structure' and ring 'to make the sound of a bell, call on the phone', for instance, must be analyzed as distinct elements. In a more fine-grained analytical approach, variation in the complexity of phonemes originating at the sub-phonemic level might, of course, be taken into account; the nature of the phonological features involved may have an impact on the values for the overall complexity of individual phonemes.
This analytical option will, however, be left to future research. The present paper is to be taken as a pilot study which, for the first time, explores the viability of the method outlined above. Needless to say, the transcript used as the basis of phoneme counts is phonemic in all cases. Traditional orthographies often represent individual phonemes by more than a single symbol. An example is the English past tense suffix -ed in forms such as talk-ed , which has to be rendered by [- t ] in a phonemic transcription. There are, of course, various methods of counting phonemes, especially with regard to the question of how sounds with articulatory features such as aspiration, glottalization, and nasalization should be analyzed.
For instance, Armenian has a triple series of voiceless stops, which distinguishes the features plain vs. In a more fine-grained phonetic analysis, it is certainly possible to differentiate these with respect to their relative complexity. Thus, glottalized and aspirated consonants should be more complex than plain ones.
This entails the additional question of what value of numerical complexity should be ascribed to more complex stops -- should they be counted as biphonemic? To circumvent such analytical complications, a simple, less fine-grained, analysis is chosen for the purpose of this study: all three types of stops are classed as monophonemic. This also goes for nasalized vowels and for affricates.
The glottal stop that obligatorily precedes any word-initial vowel is counted as a separate phoneme. In Thai, the contrast between long and short duration of vowels is a distinctive feature. Long vowels are counted as biphonemic, while short ones are counted as monophonemic. In columns 3 and 4 in the appendix, for each of the 73 grammatical items occurring in the Thai corpus investigated, the respective numerical values for structural complexity measured in phonemes and discourse frequency are given.
To determine whether the variables of discourse frequency and structural complexity do indeed correlate in the three corpora investigated, the average discourse frequency of each group of linguistic items, as defined by their structural complexity or length in phonemes, is calculated in table 2. For this purpose, the frequencies of all items in a given complexity group are added up, and the resulting values F are divided by the number of group members M.
Table 2. Discourse frequency and phonemic complexity of grammemes in Armenian, Thai, and Lakota. It should be noted that this type of analysis does not usually yield distributions which are as clearly hyperbolic as the output of rank-based analyses, which are discussed in section 1 and below.
Linguistic or other items are rank-ordered according to their frequency values by means of the following method:. We can indicate on the abscissa of a double logarithmic chart the number of the word in the series and on the ordinate its frequency. Thus, in Eldridge's English count, the most frequent word occurs times, and is represented by 1 on the abscissa and on the ordinate; the second word is and is represented by 2 on the abscissa and on the ordinate. The words from through each occur 19 times, hence from through on the abscissa the ordinate is 19, and this group of words of like frequency would appear on the chart as a straight line running at 19 on the ordinate from to on the abscissa.
The hyperbolas are converted into more or less straight lines when the double logarithmic grid Zipf mentions in the above quote is used. The raw discourse data on Armenian, Thai, and Lakota, which have been processed in tables 2 to 4, can, of course, also be used as the basis for rank-frequency analyses. Since this type of analysis is not concerned with correlating discourse frequency with structural complexity, it could, theoretically, be neglected in the context of the present study.
Nevertheless, in Figures 2 to 4, rank-frequency analyses of the Armenian, Thai, and Lakota data have been conducted, the result being "genuine" Zipfian hyperbolas:. Thus, in particular, the general rule of thumb "the shorter, the more frequent" is as valid within grammar as anywhere else in human language. But if this strong correlation between the variables of discourse frequency and structural complexity obtains within a discourse corpus as a whole, it can also be expected to hold between the members of random grammeme pairs picked from a list like the one reproduced in the appendix.
In other words, it can be predicted that within such chance pairings of grammemes, the grammeme which displays the higher frequency value will, in the majority of cases, also show the lower complexity value. To test this prediction on the Armenian, Thai, and Lakota data, random pairs of grammemes are formed by means of a web-based random number generator www. In order to use this technical format for the grammemes under investigation, individual grammemes are made identifiable by numbering them consecutively, as is done for the Thai data in the rightmost column in the appendix.
Next, the random number generator is set to creating two columns of numbers between 1 and 73 for Thai since the Thai grammeme list contains 73 items via the integer mode; each horizontal row, then, represents a random grammeme pair. For Thai, the first three rows yielded the following grammeme pairs:. Table 3. The way sentences link up with each other to form discourse is cohesion. Cohesion makes the items hang together. Cohesion comes about as a result of the combination of both lexical and grammatical structures.
It should be considered in terms of the two basic dimensions of linguistic organization — paradigmatic and syntagmatic. In this way it is meaningful to extend the principles of linguistic description beyond the limit of the sentence. One can study the structure of discourse paradigmatically by tracing the manner in which the constituent linguistic elements are related along the axis of equivalence, or one can study it syntagmatically by tracing the manner in which the linguistic elements are related along the axis of combination.
By taking the former, one recognizes pronouns and other pro-forms as cohesive devises, and by taking the latter, it is such forms as sentence connectors and the thematic arrangements of sentence constituents which emerge the principal features of cohesion. Cohesion through combination and cohesion through equivalence are discussed by Halliday as cohesion through grammar and cohesion through lexis.
In grammatical scheme, he talks about subordination, co-ordination, pronouns etc. Analysis of cohesive links within a discourse gives one some insight into how writers structure what they want to say. Many devices are used to create cohesion such as recurrence, use of pro-forms, connectors, thematic arrangements etc. Connections between other words and sentences, which is the field of cohesion, would not be sufficient to enable one to make sense of what we read and hear. It is quite easy to create a highly cohesive piece of discourse which has a lot of connections between the sentences, but which remain difficult to interpret.
It is people who make sense of what they read and hear. They try to arrive at on interpretation which is in line with their experience of the way the world is. So, the 'connectedness' which people experience in their interpretation of what is being heard or read is coherence. Cohesion is connectivity of the surface, whereas coherence deals with connectivity of underlying content. Coherence, in other words, is related to the mutual accessibility and relevance of concepts and relations that underlie the surface level.
A reader or listener would have to create meaningful connections which are not always expressed by the words and sentences, taking into account the surface phenomena. People often take part in conversational interactions where a great deal of what is meant is not actually present in what is said and they ordinarily anticipate each other's intentions, which makes this whole complex process easy going.
The following example given by Widdowson can be taken into account: Her: That's the telephone. Him: I'm in the both. Her: O. Here one finds no cohesive ties within this fragment of discourse. It is due to coherence that each of these people manages to make sense of what the other says.
This brief conversation can be understood in the following way: She requested him to perform action.
https://www.crypto-exchange.pro/images/sijuq-o-acheter.php He gives reason why he is unable to comply with request. She undertakes to perform action. It is possible to produce language which is cohesive without being coherent as discourse and vice-versa. This is not to say that there is no correspondence between them: very often, and particularly in written discourse, there might be a very close correspondence between cohesion and coherence.
But they remain two different aspects of linguistic organization: cohesion is the link between sentences, and coherence the link between the communicative acts which the sentence perform. Each simple sentence has a theme 'the starting point of the utterance' and a rheme, everything else that follows in the sentence which consists of 'what the speaker states about, or in regard to, the starting point of the utterance' Mathesius The theme, then, is what speakers or writers use as a 'point of departure' Webster, Concentrating on the themes or topics of sentences does not tell someone much about the rest of the sentence, which is called the rheme or comment of the sentence.
In fact, when someone looks at the themes and rhemes together in connected discourse, they see further patterns emerging. To make the theme marked, a speaker or writer uses fronting device. For example: John calls it relaxation. Unmarked theme Relaxation, John calls it. Marked theme 'The more marked the construction, the more likely an implicated meaning will be that which the utterance is intended to convey' Davidson One may talk in general of thematisation as a discoursal rather than simply a sentential process.
What the speaker or writer puts first will influence the interpretation of everything that follows. The first sentence of the first paragraph will constrain the interpretation not only of the paragraph, but also of the rest of the discourse. The notion of 'relative prominence' arising from process of thematisation plays a vital role in discourse structure because the way a piece of discourse is staged, must have significant effect both on the process of interpretation and on the process of subsequent recall.
The mode of discourse is related to the distinction between speech and writing. Mode 'has to do with the effects of the medium in which the language is transmitted' Leech, Deuchar and Hoogenraad It is distinction between the auditory and visual medium. Although written discourse is no worse than spoken discourse, yet the latter is always considered much more important and much emphasis is laid on it. Spoken discourse is a vast phenomenon, and all can not be anticipated in hard statistical terms of the distribution of different types of speech in people's everyday lives.
If one lists at random a number of different types of speech and consider how much of each day or week people spend engaged in each one, one can only roughly guess at some sort of frequency ranking, other than to say that casual conversation is almost certainly the most frequent for most people. Conversations vary in their settings and degree of structuredness. Some types of speech are as follows: Telephone calls Business and private Classroom Classes, lectures, tutorials, seminars Interviews Jobs, journalistic, in official settings Service encounters Hotels, ticket offices, shops, etc.
Rituals Prayers, sermons, weddings Language-in-action Talk accompanying doing: fixing, cooking, demonstrating, assembling, etc. Monologues Strangers, relatives, friends Organizing and directing people Work, home, in the street One should look closely at the forms and patterns of different types of spoken discourse.
Different roles and settings generate different forms and structures, and discourse analysts try to observe in natural data just what patterns occur in particular settings. We can never think of a literate man who never writes or tries to write something. Both spoken and written discourse perform different functions in society, use different forms, and exhibit different linguistic characteristics.
Linguistic Theory: The Discourse of Fundamental Works. Front Cover. Robert De Beaugrande. Longman, - Linguistics - pages. 0 Reviews. This series. Summary. In Linguistic Theory, Robert de Beaugrande analyses linguistic theories not as abstract ideas or theses, but as the process and product of theoretical.
Writing has the advantage of relative permanence, which allows for record-keeping storage function in a form independent of the memories of those who keep the records. Written discourse can communicate over a great distance by letters, newspapers, etc. The invention of the tape-recorder, the telephone, the radio and television have helped to overcome the limitations of the spoken language regarding time, distance and numbers. Written discourse is not only permanent but also visible.
An important consequence of this is that the writer may look over what he has already written, pause between each word with no fear of his interlocutor interrupting him. He may take his time in choosing a particular word, even looking it up in the dictionary if necessary. Written language makes possible the creation of literary works of art in ways comparable with the creation of paintings or sculpture. Speech, of course, retains functions which writing will never be able to fulfil, such as quick, direct communication with immediate feedback from the addressee.
The speaker must monitor what it is that he has just said, and determine whether it matches his intentions, while he is uttering his current phrase and monitoring that, and simultaneously planning his next utterance and fitting that into the overall pattern of what he wants to say and monitoring, moreover, not only his own performance but its reception by his hearer. The view that written discourse and spoken discourse serve, in general, quite different functions in society has been forcefully propounded by scholars whose main interest lies in anthropology and sociology.
Goody suggests that analytic thinking followed the acquisition of written language 'since it was the setting down of speech that enabled man clearly to separate words, to manipulate their order and to develop syllogistic forms of reasoning' Goody But we can not deny the fact that speech is an everyday activity for almost everyone, whereas written discourse may not be.
Nor can we state that spoken and written discourse are not complementary in function and one is more important than the other. Features of spoken discourse such as rhythm, intonation and non-linguistic noises such as sighs and laughter are absent in written discourse. Spoken discourse can also be accompanied by non-verbal communication such as gestures and facial expressions because speech is typically used in a face-to-face situation. These features can not easily be conveyed by written discourse.
Written discourse also has several features which spoken discourse lacks. We can include punctuation, paragraphing and the capitalization of letters. In written discourse, intonation can to some extent be conveyed by punctuation, but not completely.
The intonation of the sentence 'I'll buy a shirt for you from High Street' will differ according to whether the action or object or person or place is the most important idea. The different meanings, thus, implied by differences of intonation would be difficult to convey in written discourse without changing the structure of the sentence. Just as the differences of the function and forms of spoken and written discourse overlap one another in the same way the characteristics of these two discourses, as will be discussed, have actually some overlap between the two.
Normal non-fluency refers to unintended repetitions e. I … , fillers e. One finds false start 'where a sentence is broken off midway as a result of a change of mind' Leech, Deuchar and Hoogenraad ; for example, 'You should — well tackle it yourself. In spoken discourse, people face the phenomena of hesitation that lead to non-fluency. Spoken discourse contains many incomplete sentences, often simply sequences of phrases.
Written discourse, on the other hand, does not, naturally, face such phenomena and as a result it appears more fluent. Monitoring features 'indicate the speaker's awareness of the addressee's presence and reactions' Leech, Deuchar and Hoogenraad In monitoring, one uses such adverbs and adverbials as 'well', 'I think', 'I mean', 'you know', 'you see', 'sort of'.
Interaction features call the active participation of the addressee. Interaction features include second person pronoun, questions, imperatives etc. Written discourse if it is not in dialogue form, generally, lacks these features. In spoken discourse, one encounters inexplicitness because of many facts such as shared knowledge of the participants, which makes explicitness unnecessary; extra information is conveyed by 'body language' e.
Pronouns such as this, that, it, are used frequently in speech, which leads to inexplicitness. In written discourse, a writer does not have the advantage of the addressee's presence, so he must be much more explicit in his process. Avoiding the above mentioned inexplicitness, written discourse also acquires explicitness with the help of clear sentence boundaries but in speech sentences may be unfinished, because the knowledge of the addressee makes completion unnecessary. How many elements the clauses or phrases contain or how many levels of subordination there are tend to mark simplicity or complexity.
In written discourse, rather heavily pre-modified noun phrases are quite common — it is rare in spoken discourse. Nesting and embedding of clauses is much more found in written discourse. Spoken discourse is less complex than written because of the short time available to produce and process it. Written discourse, on the other hand, can be re-drafted and re-read. In spoken discourse, the addressee can not easily refer back to what has gone before, so important information has to be repeated. This can be noticed, for example, in normal conversation.
The category of mode with reference to spoken and written discourse, as has been discussed, has peculiar linguistic characteristics, but there can be some overlap in these characteristics, depending on what they are used for, and in what situation. Tenor 'has to do with the relationship between a speaker and the addressee s in a given situation, and is often characterized by greater or lesser formality' Leech, Deuchar and Hoogenraad Tenor can be formal or informal, polite or familiar and impersonal or personal.
If the relationship between the speaker and addressee is official and distant, for example in a legal document, the tenor will be formal, and if it is close and intimate, for example a conversation between friends, the tenor will be informal. A formal discourse will have complex sentences and polysyllabic vocabulary while in an informal discourse there will be simple sentences and monosyllabic vocabulary.
The tenor of discourse will be polite if the speaker and addressee are not well known to one another, whereas it will be familiar if the speaker and the addressee are well known and intimate to one another. Politeness is of more relevance when the addressee are physically present, or when the function of the discourse is to have an effect on the addressee, as in advertising.