Punctuation as a Means of Medium-Dependent Presentation Structure in English
Exploring the Guide Functions of Punctuation
0424
2013
978-3-8233-7753-5
978-3-8233-6753-6
Gunter Narr Verlag
Sebastian Patt
Despite its everyday relevance, the reputation of punctuation is tarnished. Actually, modern English punctuation is often considered not more than a necessary evil. For many people, punctuation usage follows seemingly arbitrary and unmotivated rules. The present approach moves away from a static, rulebased description towards a more dynamic, contextbased interpretation of punctuation. Punctuation is a highly versatile medium-dependent means of presentational choice. To accept this view is to take a significant step towards closing the gap that still exists between punctuational theory and the actual usage of punctuation. Punctuation adopts a guiding role for the reader and the present study explores this guide potential, providing a thorough analysis of both the linguistic status and the communicative value of punctuation.
<?page no="0"?> Sebastian Patt Punctuation as a Means of Medium-Dependent Presentation Structure in English Exploring the Guide Functions of Punctuation Language in Performance LiP <?page no="1"?> Punctuation as a Means of Medium-Dependent Presentation Structure in English <?page no="2"?> 47 Edited by Werner Hüllen (†) and Rainer Schulze Advisory Board: Thomas Herbst (Erlangen), Andreas Jucker (Zürich), Manfred Krug (Bamberg), Christian Mair (Freiburg i.Br.), Ute Römer (Atlanta, GA, USA), Andrea Sand (Trier), Hans-Jörg Schmid (München), Josef Schmied (Chemnitz) and Edgar W. Schneider (Regensburg) <?page no="3"?> Sebastian Patt Punctuation as a Means of Medium-Dependent Presentation Structure in English Exploring the Guide Functions of Punctuation <?page no="4"?> Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http: / / dnb.dnb.de abrufbar. © 2013 · Narr Francke Attempto Verlag GmbH + Co. KG Dischingerweg 5 · D-72070 Tübingen Das Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlages unzulässig und strafbar. Das gilt insbesondere für Vervielfältigungen, Übersetzungen, Mikroverfilmungen und die Einspeicherung und Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen. Gedruckt auf säurefreiem und alterungsbeständigem Werkdruckpapier. Internet: www.narr.de E-Mail: info@narr.de Satz: Informationsdesign D. Fratzke, Kirchentellinsfurt Printed in Germany ISSN 0939-9399 ISBN 978-3-8233-6753-6 <?page no="5"?> Contents Figures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX Typographical conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XV Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIII 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 Linguistic description, presentation structure and the status of punctuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 2.1 Issues of linguistic description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 2.1.1 Medium-transferability and the linguistic sign . . . . . . . . 13 2.1.2 Decoding linguistic utterances: a ‘three-channel approach’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 2.1.3 Linguistic description: distinctive units of analysis. . . . . 26 2.1.3.1 Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 2.1.3.2 The medium-independent expression system . . . 28 2.1.3.3 The medium-dependent expression systems of speech and writing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 2.2 Presentation structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 2.2.1 Medium-independent choices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 2.2.1.1 Choices which do not influence directly the structure of clause complexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 2.2.1.2 Choices which influence directly the structure of clause complexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 2.2.2 Medium-dependent choices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 2.2.2.1 Medium-dependent spoken choices . . . . . . . . . . . 43 2.2.2.2 Medium-dependent written choices. . . . . . . . . . . 48 2.3 Verbal and nonverbal information: punctuation from a semiotic perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 2.3.1 Verbal and nonverbal information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 2.3.2 Punctuation marks as indices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 2.3.2.1 Determining the communicative value of punctuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Patt_V-299End_neu.indd V 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="6"?> VI Contents 2.3.2.2 Punctuation in a model of verbal and nonverbal information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 3 A short diachronic view on punctuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 3.1 Forerunners of punctuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 3.2 Punctuation in Old and Middle English . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 3.3 Punctuation and the orthographic sentence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 4 The structure of written text: the script unit model . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 4.1 The relationship of orthographic sentence and clause complex . 81 4.2 The level of parasyntax. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 4.3 The script unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 5 Elements of punctuation in present-day English . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 5.1 Defining punctuation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 5.2 Non-alphanumeric characters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 5.2.1 As part of orthographic word-forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 5.2.2 Creating punctuation units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 5.2.2.1 Terminal period (or full stop) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 5.2.2.2 Question mark and exclamation mark . . . . . . . . . 102 5.2.2.3 Semicolon and colon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 5.2.2.4 Comma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 5.2.2.5 Dash and parentheses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 5.2.2.6 Quotation marks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 5.2.3 The dual function of punctuation marks: separation and specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 6 Collecting data to account for the communicative value of punctuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 7 Exploring the guide functions of punctuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 7.1 General punctuation principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 7.1.1 Punctuation as a style marker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 7.1.1.1 Indicating dimensions of linguistic variation . . . 126 7.1.1.2 Divided usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 7.1.2 Obligatory sentence-internal punctuation . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 7.1.2.1 Cases of structural opacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 7.1.2.2 Cases of intervening syntactic material . . . . . . . . 136 7.1.3 Punctuation and structural integrity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 7.2 Punctuation in context. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 7.2.1 Punctuation at word-level. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 7.2.1.1 Disambiguation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 7.2.1.2 Intensity of effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 7.2.2 Punctuation units and syntax. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 Patt_V-299End_neu.indd VI 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="7"?> Contents VII 7.2.2.1 Coordinated constituents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 7.2.2.1.1 Syndetic coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 7.2.2.1.2 Asyndetic coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 7.2.2.2 Restrictive and non-restrictive modifiers . . . . . . 160 7.2.2.2.1 Relative clause . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 7.2.2.2.2 Apposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 7.2.2.3 Adverbials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178 7.2.2.3.1 Adjunct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 7.2.2.3.2 Disjunct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 7.2.2.3.3 Conjunct. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198 7.2.2.4 Disambiguation of medium-independent structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204 7.2.2.4.1 The linguistic function of punctuation 204 7.2.2.4.2 Parsing strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206 7.2.2.4.3 Punctuation as a guide to ambiguous medium-independent structures: some examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 7.2.3 Punctuation units and text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224 7.2.3.1 Punctuational variability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224 7.2.3.1.1 Light and heavy punctuation . . . . . . . . 224 7.2.3.1.2 Punctuation as an indicator of suband superordinate boundaries . . . . . . . 229 7.2.3.1.3 Deviant punctuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232 7.2.3.2 The specifying function of punctuation . . . . . . . 242 7.2.3.2.1 Punctuation as a marker of separative force. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242 7.2.3.2.2 Punctuation and discourse structure. . 245 8 The guide functions of punctuation: theoretical and functional synopsis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251 8.1 Synopsis I: theoretical insights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251 8.2 Synopsis II: functional insights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253 8.2.1 Punctuation as a paralinguistic device: guide functions 1 to 8 (GF 1-8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254 8.2.1.1 Reducing cognitive complexity (GF 1-4) . . . . . . 254 8.2.1.1.1 Guide function 1 (GF 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . 255 8.2.1.1.2 Guide function 2 (GF 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . 257 8.2.1.1.3 Guide function 3 (GF 3) . . . . . . . . . . . . 258 8.2.1.1.4 Guide function 4 (GF 4) . . . . . . . . . . . . 260 8.2.1.2 Contributing to the conceptualisation of a piece of writing (GF 5-8). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262 8.2.1.2.1 Guide function 5 (GF 5) . . . . . . . . . . . . 262 8.2.1.2.2 Guide function 6 (GF 6) . . . . . . . . . . . . 264 Patt_V-299End_neu.indd VII 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="8"?> VIII Contents 8.2.1.2.3 Guide function 7 (GF 7) . . . . . . . . . . . . 266 8.2.1.2.4 Guide function 8 (GF 8) . . . . . . . . . . . . 267 8.2.2 Punctuation as a linguistic device: guide function 9 (GF 9) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269 9 Conclusion: punctuation and the reader. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295 Patt_V-299End_neu.indd VIII 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="9"?> Figures Figure 2.1 Transferring a linguistic utterance from one medium to the other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Figure 2.2 A traditional representation of the linguistic sign as proposed by de Saussure (1978 [1915]: 99). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Figure 2.3 Image acoustique and image écrite as equivalent representations of substance in a modified version of the linguistic sign. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Figure 2.4 A comprehensive extension of the linguistic sign . . . . . . . . 20 Figure 2.5 Description of homophonous and homographic lexemes . . 23 Figure 2.6 Medium-dependent and medium-independent units . . . . . 27 Figure 2.7 Tonal variations and concomitant distinctions in meaning of the sequence >is he sure of it< . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Figure 2.8 Medium-independent and medium-presentational choices 57 Figure 2.9 Verbal and nonverbal signs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Figure 2.10 The communicative value of punctuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Figure 4.1 Script units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Figure 4.2 Syntactic status at punctuation unit boundaries . . . . . . . . . 88 Figure 5.1 Written presentational choices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Figure 5.2 Punctuation hierarchy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 Figure 5.3 Symbols used in Figure 5.4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 Figure 5.4 Possible decision process when creating punctuation units 114 Figure 6.1 The potential nature of punctuation examples. . . . . . . . . . . 117 Figure 6.2 Cyclic process of a multi-method approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 Figure 7.1 Summary of general punctuation principles . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 Figure 7.2 The influence of constituent length on punctuation usage in syndetic non-elliptical coordinate constructions (based on Meyer 1987) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 Figure 7.3 The influence of the coordinators and and but on punctuation usage in syndetic non-elliptical coordinate constructions (based on Meyer 1987) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 Figure 7.4 Summary of script unit types distinguished in section 4.3. 174 Figure 7.5 The punctuation of adjunct phrases and adjunct clauses in sentence-initial position (based on Meyer 1987) . . . . . . . . . 180 Figure 7.6 Punctuation of finally located adverbial clauses with regard to adverbial type (based on Ford 1992) . . . . . . . . . . . 189 Patt_V-299End_neu.indd IX 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="10"?> X Figures Figure 7.7 The punctuation of disjunct phrases in sentence-initial position (based on Meyer 1987) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 Figure 7.8 The punctuation of conjunct phrases in sentence-initial position (based on Meyer 1987) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199 Figure 9.1 Overview of the indexical relations that are inherent in the punctuational guide functions (GF 1-9). . . . . . . . . . . . . 272 Figure 9.2 Heuristic problem-solving process when construing the guide function(s) of punctuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274 Figure 9.3 Schematic outline of the dynamic construal of punctuational information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276 Patt_V-299End_neu.indd X 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="11"?> Typographical conventions abc Unspecified object language; titles of written documents and names of corpora; foreign-language expressions; emphasis in written presentation “abc” Quotations ‘abc’ Representations of meaning; concepts; figurative language use Abc Proper names; concepts ABC Lexemes >abc< Medium-independent word-form(s) <abc> Written word-form(s) abc Highlighted parts in examples abc p def Highlighted punctuation marks in examples (sec. 7.2) abc def Highlighted position of where a punctuation mark could be placed in examples (sec. 7.2) abc-@ Examples from mere online sources abc Nucleus of a tone unit abc/ Spoken word-form(s) with a rising tone at tone unit boundary abc\ Spoken word-form(s) with a falling tone at tone unit boundary abc/ / Spoken word-form(s) with an amplified rising tone at tone unit boundary abc N Spoken word-form(s) with narrow fall at tone unit boundary abc E Spoken word-form(s) with emphatic pronunciation / abc/ Spoken word-form(s) presented in phonetic transcription In quotations, typographical styles for emphasis and spelling variants are kept in their original form, even if they differ from the conventions used in the present study. Patt_V-299End_neu.indd XI 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="12"?> Patt_V-299End_neu.indd XII 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="13"?> Acknowledgements The present study is, to a considerable extent, a product of the Einsamkeit und Freiheit that Wilhelm von Humboldt once described as characteristic of university life. However, this book would never have been written without the support of and the interaction with several people: First of all, I would like to thank Professor Dr Jürgen Esser for the opportunity to write my doctoral dissertation under his supervision and for his sustained interest in me as a linguist and as a person. In “sharing part of the journey” (to use his own words), his constant demand for critical thinking has led me to a more profound understanding of linguistic concepts and theory. From beginning to end, the present study reflects his academic guidance and personal support along the way, which have always gone beyond the average. Thanks are also due to Professor Dr Klaus P. Schneider who, in his role as the second reviewer of the present work, has made some very valuable suggestions on the text as a whole. While writing this book, I have benefited greatly from numerous comments and pieces of advice by Professor Dr Rolf Kreyer and by my fellow doctoral candidates Vera Benninghoven, Sanna Engell, Laura Göttmann, Julia Sosnizka and Sharmila Vaz. With all of them I have had regular inspiring discussions and their contributions have certainly made this study more readable. Needless to say, however, that all remaining infelicities are my own. Professor Dr Rainer Schulze has provided me with the opportunity to have this book published in the Language-in-Performance series (LiP), and the Narr Francke Attempto publishing company has formatted the manuscript with great care: thank you. I am particularly grateful to my family. Deserving special mention are my parents, Hans-Dieter and Elisabeth Patt, who have always been caring and supportive advisers and have thus opened a lot of doors for me. Without them, so many things would not have been possible, including this piece of work. It is dedicated to them. Finally, I am deeply indebted to my wife, Elina Patt. Her patience, her optimism, her encouragement and affection, her unfailing support, they have all guided me through the highs and lows of this project. In the background it was she who has thereby had a hand in its completion. This book is also for her. Bonn, July 2012 Sebastian Patt Patt_V-299End_neu.indd XIII 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="14"?> Patt_V-299End_neu.indd XIV 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="15"?> 1 Introduction Modern English punctuation is often considered not more than a necessary evil, being arbitrary and unmotivated, cf. Chafe (1988a: 8). Giving thought to this popular reputation, The Penguin Guide to Punctuation (Trask 1997: 1) concedes that, indeed, many people see punctuation as “[…] an inconsequential bit of decoration, not worth spending your valuable time on.” Not surprisingly then, punctuation is claimed to be often learned without teaching or, on the contrary, not learned despite much teaching, cf. Mann (2003: 359f.). And yet there is an undisputed relevance of punctuation, which arises from the sweeping consideration that - together with capitalisation, for example (a feature which one might add intuitively) - it must be regarded as a basic surface feature of written communication, cf. Cronnell (1980: 3) and Gleason (1970 [1955]: 433); or as Irmscher (1979: 126) puts it, apparently disagreeing with the common belief of arbitrariness: Even though many writers do not want to be concerned with punctuation, capitalization, and spelling, they have to be because the reader cannot easily do without them. All of the mechanics are signals of one kind or another. Sending out the wrong signals is misdirecting the reader or, more often, momentarily delaying the decoding process. Readers don’t like obstacles. The particular significance of punctuation as a purpose-related ‘signal’ is demonstrated forcefully in The Penguin Guide to Punctuation (Trask 1997: 3). Here it is shown how multifarious meanings of one ambiguous sequence can be communicated, depending on the position but also on the choice of marks. That is, by applying punctuation marks differently to the sequence in question, namely we had one problem only Janet knew we faced bankruptcy, a wide range of dissimilar graphic patterns can be produced in the first place. Of the many possibilities hence imaginable, four punctuated variants are mentioned explicitly in the compendium, each framed by an initial capital letter and a final period. And ultimately each provides the decoder with an altered reading of the same string of words, cf. (1a) to (1d). (1a) <We had one problem: only Janet knew we faced bankruptcy.> (1b) <We had one problem only: Janet knew we faced bankruptcy.> Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 1 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="16"?> 2 Introduction (1c) <We had one problem only, Janet knew: we faced bankruptcy.> (1d) <We had one problem only Janet knew we faced: bankruptcy.> Furthermore, and at present not entering into a discussion of the particular textual nuances communicated by the applied marks, there is not only the reported laymen’s lack of interest in punctuation. But, as Meyer (1987: 1) notes, a concurrent neglect of a systematic theoretical coverage in academic research of the status, usage and communicative value of punctuation can be observed. Modern English punctuation has never received the serious treatment that it certainly deserves. Most discussions are either wholly or partially prescriptive in nature and generally treat the marks of punctuation individually. Rarely is there an attempt to present punctuation as a system rather than as a collection of ad hoc rules and exceptions. And indeed, apart from its actual usage, punctuation is nearly exclusively dealt with in popular-science usage manuals or reference books. These all take a rather normative stance, seeing it as their indispensable duty to instruct writers in general in the correct application of punctuation marks and to suggest clear-cut rules. Again exemplary looking at The Penguin Guide to Punctuation (Trask 1997: ix), the author Robert L. Trask states: The book in your hand is a textbook, and it is written for people who find punctuation difficult. If you’re not too sure where commas ought to go, if you’re puzzled by colons and semicolons, if hyphens and apostrophes are something of a mystery to you, then this book is for you. […] Each punctuation mark is introduced in turn; its proper use is described with the aid of lots of examples; wherever possible I give you some simple rules for checking your punctuation. In view of more profound linguistic theory, the treatment of punctuation is mainly confined to appendices or final chapters in grammar books as, for example, in A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language (CGEL) by Quirk et al. (1985) or in The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (CamGr) by Huddleston/ Pullum (2002). It should be noted in passing that the Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English (LGSWE) by Biber et al. (2007 [1999]) does not devote a section to punctuation at all. Giving particular weight to both spoken and written language, this might take readers by surprise. Extensive coverage can only be found in the form of a few monographs. Most notably, there is Levinson’s (1985) theoretical reappraisal of the status of punctuation, which is based on a historical approach, expounding the concurrent development of punctuation and the orthographic sentence; and there is Parkes’s (1992) comprehensive (primarily diachronic) synopsis of the history of punctuation in the Western hemisphere. Meyer (1987) offers a corpus analysis of American punctuation usage, advocating Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 2 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="17"?> Introduction 3 some basic syntactic, prosodic and stylistic principles. Worth mentioning is also Nunberg’s (1990) suggestion of a ‘text-grammar’, whose categories are indicated by punctuation marks that constitute surface-based graphic units of differing length. In the first place, a text-grammar is thus supposed to be describable independent of the structure of a language (‘lexical grammar’) although it is subject to similar constraints and follows comparable organisational principles, cf. Nunberg (ib.: 17). As to punctuation, some further partly survey-like works exist, but they are all widely divergent in their approaches as well as their research interest, cf. e.g. Sopher (1977), Limaye (1983), Chafe (1988a; b), Dale (1992), Jones (1994; 1995), Dawkins (1995) and Hill/ Murray (2000). Convincing, systematic, comprehensive and nonnormative attempts to explore the determining parameters of punctuation marks as well as their functionality (roughly, the effects and the information accessible through their usage) are still missing, cf. e.g. Jones (1994: 421). Yet this neglect of studies in punctuation does not occur without any reason. In many linguistic approaches of the past, written language as such was examined solely as being contrastively opposed to spoken language, cf. Nunberg (1990: passim). In this respect, it was especially the phonocentricity of American structuralism which led to the supposition that - if dealt with at all - written language was mostly legitimated by reference to the spoken medium. The spoken word was given absolute theoretical precedence to any description of writing, and the latter was therefore dismissed as a discrete object of theoretical interest, cf. e.g. de Saussure (1978 [1915]: 45). This distinction in quality is expressed in the following quotation by Gleason (1970 [1955]: 408), proceeding to reserve the more central term ‘language’ for its spoken variant: Many linguists consider all forms of writing entirely outside the domain of linguistics and would restrict the discipline to the consideration of spoken language only. […] The term language, then used in any linguistic context without qualification, should be reserved exclusively for vocal language, that is for communication by means of speech. The qualified term, written language, will be used here, in default of any other unambiguous term, for a total system of communication based on writing. Playing second fiddle also terminologically, everything that was part of the written presentation was regarded as serving the purpose of transcribing speech, i.e. reproducing basic features of spoken language. Consequently, this also applied to punctuation; Marckwardt (1942: 156) writes in his Introduction to the English Language: Punctuation is in large part a system of conventions the function of which is to assist the written language in indicating those elements of speech which cannot be conveniently set down on paper: chiefly pause, pitch, and stress. In a similar vein Moffett/ Wagner (1976 [1968]: 236) note in a work on language teaching: Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 3 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="18"?> 4 Introduction Above all, good punctuation is a set of signals showing the reader how to read the flow of words as the speaker would say them. […] The chief hurdle to punctuating well is not being aware of what one hears. Bearing in mind the overall weight of structuralism as a scientific paradigm, it might thus seem almost superfluous to mention that if asked about the function of English punctuation, even today one of the most probable answers at least given by non-linguists remains that it indicates breaks or (breathing) pauses in written text - despite the previously reported reputation of arbitrariness. In view of the fact that, undeniably, in many cases the same kinds of syntactic and lexical properties can be observed in both speech and writing, a close interrelation of the two as such cannot be dismissed. However, not clearly differentiating between speech and writing, a view as expressed, amongst others, by Marckwardt and Moffett/ Wagner does not provide a convincing theoretical basis at all. That is, in structuralist approaches any similarities have been over-determined, assuming that only an implied congruence of the systems of writing and speech permits an adequate analysis of the former featuring an ingredient like punctuation, cf. Nunberg (1990: 3f., 15). In response to the particular communicative necessities of written text, modern linguistics postulates that speech and writing should rather be considered two diverse linguistic (sub-)systems, cf. e.g. Abercrombie (1965: 36), Hockett (1965 [1958]: 4), Halliday/ McIntosh/ Strevens (1966 [1964]: 48- 55) and Lyons (1969 [1968]: 63). Both are learned in different ways and at different stages in life, and they are used in different communication situations, for diverse purposes and in connection which different audiences, cf. Stubbs (1980: 100-115), Pawley/ Syder (1983: 557f.), Nunberg (1990: 3) and Halliday (1992 [1985]: xv, 29f., 39-45). In principle, then, speech and writing should be analysed independently of each other. Additionally, it is especially corpus or statistical linguistics that has helped to discover and substantiate quantitative and qualitative dissimilarities in the usage of constructions and vocabulary between the spoken and the written language. In the works of Biber and Finegan, by way of example, this is yielded through a comparison of speech and writing against the background of broadly defined textual dimensions, established on the basis of co-occurring linguistic features, which take into consideration the communicative tasks of the examined text samples, cf. Biber (1985; 1986a; b; 1988) and Biber/ Finegan (1986). Besides, Poole/ Field (1976), Chafe (1984 [1982]), Chafe/ Danielewicz (1987) as well as Leech/ Rayson/ Wilson (2001) and also Schäpers (2009) can be named exemplarily as other studies within this field. Of course, all these references represent only a somewhat random, incomplete fraction of the work in corpus linguistics in general and on the spoken-written distinction in particular. All in all, therefore, and without elaborating further on particular corpus linguistic findings, written language should own certain qualities that are Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 4 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="19"?> Introduction 5 “[…] unique to that mode” (Nunberg 1990: 3), cf. also Lakoff (1984 [1982]: 239f.). Analogous to a characteristic role fulfilled, for example, by intonation in speech, punctuation is supposed to account for one such special feature in writing. This naturally raises afresh the question of the status and functionality of the non alphabetical signs which accompany “[…] written lexical expressions […]” (Nunberg 1990: 3). The aforesaid interpretation of punctuation being solely supportive to the transcription of spoken language into writing is no longer an entirely satisfying option. Moreover, although showing parallels between punctuation marks and intonational features, pragmatic data illustrate only an approximate fit between the two anyway. A case in point is illustrated by Nunberg (ib.: 13), revealing that punctuation is no convincing written reflex of prosody: (2a) <Order your furniture on Monday, take it home on Tuesday.> (2b) <Order your furniture on Monday; take it home on Tuesday.> Whereas in (2a) a conditional meaning was intended (‘if you…, then you can…’), the inserted semicolon in (2b) was to indicate a string of two commands (‘do X; do Y’). Hardly any of the participants in extempore experiments managed to link the respective punctuation usage with an unambiguous, clearly relating intonation pattern in spoken language, though. There is no unfailing one-to-one mapping between punctuation marks and intonational qualities, and the written expression system on occasions seems to provide more information than the spoken one. Thus, in line with Quirk et al. (1985: 1611), Bolinger/ Sears (1981 [1968]: 276f.) conclude: Rhythm and intonation are roughly indicated by punctuation and capitalization, but too much is left out and what is put in suffers from a confusion of two aims: the representations of the breaks that we hear and the divisions […] that we write - the two usually agree, but not always. Theoretical inconsistencies, regarding for instance the purpose of punctuation in written texts which are never spoken, help to further increase doubts about a purely “[…] ‘transcriptional’ view of punctuation […]” (Nunberg 1990: 12). Or, to put it in more general terms, the related question lingers as to why particular features of the spoken expression system should be present in writing anyway, since writing is certainly something that is perceived visually rather than acoustically, cf. Chafe (1988a: 8) and Hoffbauer (2003: 73). It must be noted nonetheless that the need for steady reference to spoken language in order to guarantee an adequate application of punctuation as well as to understand its functionality is still vehemently supported in linguistics by researchers like Sopher (1977), Chafe (1988a; b) and partly also de Beaugrande (1984). In this respect, especially Chafe highlights the importance of a ‘mental image of sound’ in the process of reading and/ or Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 5 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="20"?> 6 Introduction text production. Accordingly, Sopher postulates that punctuation should be applied to ‘natural speech rhythm’ in order to facilitate encoding and decoding of written text. This basic stance diverges decidedly from the biased view on writing outlined above, and it will be considered further at a later stage in this study, cf. sec. 7.1 below. In linguistics, the general unease in only equating punctuation with pauses, juncture, stress and intonation is already, if rather unexpectedly, shared by some structuralists, cf. e.g. Roberts (1956), Francis (1958) and Fries (1973 [1952]). Although the correlation to speech, i.e. ‘language itself’ in their diction, always represents the most central argument in their reasoning, the above-mentioned authors all qualify this view later on: the merely approximate relationship of especially punctuation and intonation is recognised, and ‘regularisation processes’ are suggested as a possible reason, cf. e.g. Roberts (1956: 237). By this, a structural function of punctuation, supplementing “[…] the features of form and arrangement […]” (Fries 1973 [1952]: 282), is endorsed, too, cf. also Francis (1958: 469f.). This insight, together with the understanding that written language should be treated as a linguistic system in its own right, clears the way for the other main hypothesis concerning the functionality of punctuation; namely, there is a constant debate across all schools in linguistics over whether (or to which extent) punctuation is in fact determined by the grammar of a language; or whether, in turn, punctuation determines the grammar of a language. Taking a decided position, several linguists, such as Gleason (1970 [1955]: 433), posit the congruence between punctuation and syntactic configuration, noting that “[p]unctuation marks syntax” and that “[i]t is predicated upon a certain type of syntactic structure.” Whitehall (1967 [1958]: 119), surely a structuralist, believes: “Its most important function is “to make grammar graphic.”” Yet in general, it is again not very difficult to cite counter-examples that challenge an assumed merely syntactic functionality of punctuation, cf. (3a) from Levinson (1985: 137): (3a) <One of the ‘clouds’ dropped lower. And landed.> In (3a) part of the verb phrase is presented as detached from the main clause and as an isolated punctuation unit has received sentence status, typographically indicated by the capitalised And as well as the period following landed. First of all now, if, as Whitehall (1967 [1958]: 9, 30f., 124f.) postulates, the period as a ‘sentence separator’ carried the potential to assign a written ‘word-group’ the function of “[…] an independent grammatical unit […]” (ib.: 9), the sequence And landed as presented in (3a) would form such a unit. That is, echoing Whitehall, the period would symbolise a distinctive stressjuncture pattern, typically indicative of declarative subject-predicate statements and supposedly decisive of the question of self-containment. Hence, Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 6 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="21"?> Introduction 7 the And landed in (3a) would be quite distinct in syntactic status from the and landed presented in (3b). (3b) <One of the ‘clouds’ dropped lower and landed.> In the latter case, mainly determined by its written form, the string in question (and landed) would consequentially have to be labelled as syntactically dependent, constituting a structurally complementing element in an extended written arrangement. Following from its (non-)application, punctuation would thus have to be perceived as carrying the potential of altering or determining the syntactic structure of the written stretches in (3a) and (3b), yielding two different configurational patterns. Such an interpretation seems dubious to say the least: it appears to be based on unclear theoretical foundations underlying some linguistic approaches, in which grammar, punctuation and intonation are diffusely merged. Intuitively speaking, it is not punctuation from which syntactic structure follows, but at times the latter is made visible by punctuation. This potential of punctuation marks, namely to encode different syntactic patterns at the written level, has already been illustrated in (1a) to (1d) above. Still, such a function does not hold for (3a) and (3b) either. From a syntactic point of view, the status of the string And landed in (3a) is not different from the one in (3b), irrespective of its punctuational presentation. The information provided in writing is not relevant for differentiating between dissimilar syntactic arrangements. Since, secondly, the presentational configuration in (3a) does not represent the handbook-approved default punctuation one would probably expect with coordinated non-complex verb forms anyway, there should be more to the applied punctuation than simply marking an unquestionably existing structural boundary. Moreover, the insufficiency of an approach heavily biased in favour of syntax can also be illustrated by adding that punctuation in written stretches of English is often voluntarily reduced to or even restricted to the sentenceinitial capital and the sentence-final period. Referring to constraints, it seems safe to argue that the potential of punctuation marks to encode a particular reading cannot always be taken advantage of despite inherent syntactic ambiguity, cf. (4) also from Levinson (1985: 152). (4) <They called Susan a waitress.> Whether an ‘SVOO’or an ‘SVOC’-pattern is intended in the ambiguous example (4) is not resolvable by adding punctuation marks. The two ‘deep structures’ of the sentence, which are relevant at this stage, can be paraphrased as (i) ‘They called a waitress for Susan’ (‘SVOO’) and (ii) ‘They said that Susan was a waitress’ (‘SVOC’). It goes without saying that in such cases only the context can tell the meaning, and that in some borderline cases Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 7 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="22"?> 8 Introduction momentary confusion on the part of the reader is either deliberately or tacitly acquiesced to. Compare the newspaper headline in (5) as recorded by Long (1965 [1961]: 468): (5) <GIRLS SAY DOCTORS HAVE MORE BIRTHMARKS THAN BOYS> To begin with, the reader is left in doubt over which part, i.e. (i) the initial GIRLS SAY or (ii) the intruded and inversed SAY DOCTORS, has to be interpreted as the reporting clause of an alleged sequence of direct speech. The recognition of this sequence is even more demanding since no quotation marks are employed. As to (i), a comma or a colon is commonly employed to mark off the part in question from the rest; in the case of (ii), correlative commas would be indicative. Furthermore, it is also possible to interpret GIRLS SAY as a reporting clause introducing indirect speech. Consequentially, the rest of the sequence then represents the reported statement, structurally realised by a reduced nominal that-clause functioning as direct object. Characteristic punctuation is non-existent in this case. In short, as regards content, it remains unclear whether boys are compared with girls or rather with doctors since the unpunctuated written stretch certainly allows for both readings. A consistent indication or corroboration of syntactic structures in writing by means of punctuation, in effect, does not take place. And thus punctuation does not seem to be developing entirely or automatically out of the syntax of a language, cf. Pawley/ Syder (1983: 572-577). Nevertheless, the significance of punctuation as a syntactic cue system is emphasised by Baldwin/ Coady (1978) and Hill/ Murray (2000). This position will be resorted to again in section 7.2.2.4 below. Interestingly, a syntax-driven approach to punctuation is often amalgamated with rhetorical concepts. Here is what Gleason (1970 [1955]: 432) has to say, initiating the above-mentioned claim that punctuation co-occurs with syntactic boundaries: The punctuation marks, however, are not conceived of as representing features of speech. Instead they mark logical units of connected writing like “sentences,” “statements,” “questions,” “dependent clauses,” and the like. Since these are phrased in terms of logic, they are generally assumed to be universal. From a theoretical point of view, the quotation, obviously, reveals an undecided attitude towards the status of descriptive units like ‘sentence’ and ‘dependent clause’ on the one hand as well as ‘statement’ and ‘question’ on the other. Categories of grammar and categories of logic (or locution) are not explicitly distinguished, resulting in fuzzy terminology, cf. e.g. Quirk et al. (1985: 78, 803f.). Comparable to the structuralist position, this might lead to Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 8 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="23"?> Introduction 9 a blurred, misleading and simplified view on the functionality of punctuation. Notwithstanding any terminological inconsistencies, the concurrent implication of understanding punctuation broadly as a ‘rhetorical tool’, cf. Dawkins (1995), as it were, not only indicating “[…] what goes with what” (Long 1965 [1961]: 467) but also how, can still be considered an appealing theoretical position. It opens up a view on the functionality of punctuation marks that does not negate their possible reference to grammatical structure and intonation, but bonds them more firmly to the form and content of written text, too. So, punctuation is weighed up as an element of style which functions similarly as do deliberately chosen words and structures in the composition of text, a view which is implicitly or explicitly shared (although partly with highly different theoretical overtones and scope) already by Summey (1949), Irmscher (1979), Chafe (1988a; b), Halliday (1992 [1985]), Dawkins (1995), Jones (1995) and Esser (2006). It is this last-mentioned hypothesis which seems to provide the most fruitful basis for any further analysis, all the more, because Quirk et al. (1985: 1610) state - somewhat provisionary though - that punctuation, like intonation in speech, communicates “[…] grammatical and other distinctions […].” The present work explores these functions, and it tries to answer the question in how far structural punctuation - or ultimately the symbiosis of punctuation and text - carries semantic potential and how this potential shows. Therefore, an integrative approach to punctuation practice should overcome the exclusionary fallacy in the above-mentioned bias of American structuralism as well as in the inconsistencies of a purely syntactic approach. However, since the results of these advances are probably not to be dismissed in their entirety, the present work investigates, by and large, to which extent punctuation usage virtually coincides with and reflects syntactic as well as spoken but also semantic boundaries or features. Ultimately, it is hoped to gain further insights as to how the relations between punctuation and other linguistic units and levels of description are called on by writers and readers alike to successfully encode and decode verbal messages in writing. The study is arranged in nine chapters. After the introductory chapter, a closer look at linguistic description and presentational structuring is offered as a theoretical basis in chapter 2, following a comprehensive framework developed by Esser (2006). In this respect, the seminal stance has been adopted that a viable language model should be based theoretically on the ‘principle of medium-transferability’; this, in turn, must have repercussions on the theoretical understanding of the linguistic sign (sec. 2.1.1). Consequentially, medium-dependent and medium-independent levels of linguistic description as well as their distinctive units of analysis are carefully distinguished (sec. 2.1.3). Here, particular emphasis is placed on the fact that no obscurity remains about the precise status of these units. The communicative function Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 9 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="24"?> 10 Introduction of language allows for a varying presentation of linguistic units and structures. This awareness will help to reveal encoder-based choices along the different levels of linguistic description: changeable arrangements of the analysable units and categories in question (sec. 2.2). Whether these might partially be reflected, indicated or called upon by punctuation remains to be seen. As to linguistic analysis, all this, finally, entails in a logical differentiation between verbal and nonverbal information, shedding light on the theoretical position of punctuation in linguistics (sec. 2.3). Punctuation marks can be understood as ‘indices’ in a basic semiotic sense. They predominantly convey paralinguistic information. A reinforcement of these meticulous distinctions with the aid of a brief diachronic survey (ch. 3) complements the theoretical understanding of modern punctuation practice as a means of medium-dependent presentation structure. The intent to explore the relationship between punctuation and other linguistic units and levels of description is explicitly taken up in chapter 4, where a model is illustrated which has been developed elsewhere to allow for a systematic description of the structure of written text. It is suggested that this socalled ‘script unit model’ will serve as the theoretical and practical interface for any further steps of analysis, encountering the apparent predicament that readers decode information on at least two channels at the same time. Next, chapter 5 deals with the concept ‘punctuation’ and gives a concise overview of the conventionalised elements of punctuation in present-day English; the set of marks is defined which is relevant for this study. Since the present work has to be rated as a conceptual study, it endeavours to yield ‘type-exhaustiveness’ in the description of the communicative value of punctuation. The aim is to paint a complete picture of its functionality, i.e. of its communicative value, without approaching the all but impossible task of discussing every single instance of punctuation usage. This must have consequences for the process of data collection, which is discussed in chapter 6. Chapter 7 is then concerned with the actual manifestations of the communicative value of punctuation, programmatically termed its ‘guide functions’. To this end, general principles of punctuation usage are outlined first, avoiding clear-cut usage rules (sec. 7.1). After that, the relationship of punctuation with spoken and structural patterns as well as its textual function are explored. This is done in connection with categories typically associated with punctuation in grammar handbooks and linguistic theory (sec. 7.2). A distinction is made in this context between clearly syntactic categories (sec. 7.2.2) and those that arise from more comprehensive textual concerns (sec. 7.2.3). It is suggested that the outcome of this discussion contributes rewardingly to the above-mentioned conceptualisation of punctuation marks as indices and specifies their paralinguistic role. In chapter 8, the main findings are captured in a systematic overview, which eventually summarises what can be termed ‘the (specific) guide func- Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 10 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="25"?> Introduction 11 tions of punctuation’. Besides, the overview considers important parameters for both the use and the interpretation of punctuation marks. After all, this allows for a novel and more plausible understanding of punctuation in linguistics, opening up a cognitive and, to some extent, pragmatic perspective on its communicative value. In chapter 9, the study concludes with a condensed look at the practical consequences of this new perspective. Punctuation marks have meaning potential. The reader of a piece of writing is identified as the decisive factor in assessing this potential. To exploit the guide function(s) of punctuation marks, he or she must apply context-dependent routines of dynamic, i.e. on-line, meaning construal. What is new is that such a view leaves behind many of the traditional approaches which are rule-based and analyse punctuation in a fairly static and decontextualised manner. Arguably, they can only give a very limited account of what punctuation is actually capable of communicating, and this may be one of the reasons why punctuation has so far not been implemented satisfactorily in linguistic theory. Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 11 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="26"?> Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 12 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="27"?> 2 Linguistic description, presentation structure and the status of punctuation 2.1 Issues of linguistic description 2.1.1 Medium-transferability and the linguistic sign It has been addressed in the introductory chapter that one reason for a neglect of studies in punctuation is certainly to be found in linguistic structuralism. The spoken word has been given absolute theoretical precedence over any description of writing, eventually even dismissing the latter as an object of linguistic analysis in total, cf. e.g. Hughes (1996: 128f.). Or to put it in the words of de Saussure (1978 [1915]: 45): Langue et écriture sont deux systèmes de signes distinct; l’unique raison d’être du second est de représenter le premier; l’objet linguistique n’est pas défini par la combinaison du mot écrit et du mot parlé; ce dernier constitue à lui seul cet objet. Bloomfield (1979 [1933]: 21) voices a similar view: “Writing is not language, but merely a way of recording language by means of visible marks.” However, the precise relation between speech and writing has remained a matter of debate despite these decided positions. The somewhat obvious consideration that the spoken and the written language rely on different systems of signs, i.e. they are of different symbolic nature, leads Hockett (1965 [1958]: 4) to presume that for laymen arguably “[…] speech and writing are merely two different manifestations of something fundamentally the same.” While intended almost contemptuously, this position unwillingly adds to the confusion about the exact status of speech and writing - not least arising from their fundamental difference in materialisation - and about what also language actually is. These uncertainties make it necessary to enquire about the nature of the relationship between speech and writing, and to take this as a starting point for all further statements about written language featuring punctuation. Quite generally, verbal messages, if understood as communicative acts, can be expressed via the spoken or the written medium. In the following, ‘medium’ will be used as referring to substance, i.e. spoken or written. A synopsis of the various meanings and applications of the polysemous term ‘medium’ can be found in Esser (2002: 84f.; 2006: 18f.). At first sight, the medium-bound graphic and phonic realisations do not show any similarities. The Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 13 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="28"?> 14 Linguistic description, presentation structure and the status of punctuation former is perceived visually, the latter is perceived acoustically. Abercrombie (1967: 1) pointedly summarises this as follows: If we compare a piece of written English with a piece of spoken English, regarding them simply as physical objects or events and forgetting for the moment the fact that they convey meaning to us, it is apparent that they bear no resemblance to each other whatever. The piece of written English consists of groups of small black marks arranged on a white surface, while the piece of spoken English consists of a succession of constantly varying noises. It would hardly be possible for two things to be more different. However, both spoken and written realisations can clearly be applied to convey the same meaning: what can be spoken can be written down and vice versa. This basic fact is given weight in the exemplary quotations by Lyons (1975 [1972]: 65) and Nunberg (1990: 3f.) respectively. People can learn, fairly easily and successfully for the most part, to transfer from one medium to the other, holding invariant much of the verbal part of language. Both speech and writing are, after all, extremely versatile: when it comes to the crunch, there are few if any features of the spoken language that cannot be at last approximately transcribed in certain written texts (say in reporting dialogue) and conversely, very few features of the written language that cannot be rendered in reading aloud. It is the qualifications ‘much of the verbal part’, ‘very few features’ and ‘approximately’ in both quotations that shows that, potentially, not all features of spoken or written language can be relocated to the other medium: for each medium there are certain constraints as to what can be expressed. This has been nicely captured in Figure 2.1 below, taken from Esser (2006: 36). Figure 2.1: Transferring a linguistic utterance from one medium to the other Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 14 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="29"?> Issues of linguistic description 15 About the information provided by the figure, Esser (ib.) writes: The horizontal border line separates the area of speech (upper part) and the area of writing (lower part). The incomplete nature of the translation from the soundwave to the graphic symbolization and vice versa is indicated by the dotted parts of the arrows after crossing the horizontal line. Specific medium-bound details as, for example, the colour or shape of written letters as well as the tone of the voice cannot be recovered when transferring a linguistic utterance from one medium to the other. So, for this process it is characteristic that in some cases there is a loss of medium-specific information. At this point already it becomes clear that, as Harris (2001) comments, a structuralist interpretation of written language as “[…] a copy or mirror image of the speech system […]” (ib.: 52) surely meets its limits, cf. ch. 1 above. That is to say, the mentioned limitations on changing between speech and writing make any interpretation questionable that sees writing as a (secondary) one-to-one effigy of speech. The system of speech and the system of written language often do not correspond. Consequentially, Halliday (1992 [1985]: 30) formulates a decided answer to the question whether writing incorporates all the features of the spoken language: Clearly it does not. There are various aspects of spoken language that have no counterpart in writing: rhythm, intonation, degrees of loudness, variation in voice quality (‘tamber’), pausing, and phrasing - as well as indexical features by which we recognise that it is Mary talking and not Jane, the individual characteristics of a particular person’s speech. Similarly, the elementary potential of changing back and forth between spoken and written realisations (‘holding invariant much of the verbal part of language’) does not axiomatically allocate a special role to spoken language. Hence, any structuralist view which judges the theoretical value of speech and writing differently proves to be unsatisfactory. But not understanding exactly their relation ultimately leads to a misconception of language itself. To avoid any further fallacious argumentation, a quotation by Uldall (1966 [1944]: 147) might be of assistance, which summarises the whole situation precisely: If either of these two substances, the stream of air or the stream of ink, were an integral part of the language itself, it would not be possible to go from one to the other without changing the language. Uldall’s statement reveals an important theoretical hypothesis, namely that spoken and written language constitute equivalent manifestations of a ‘third system’, namely of the abstract language-system (‘the language itself’). Adopting his view, Abercrombie (1967: 1) explains: Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 15 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="30"?> 16 Linguistic description, presentation structure and the status of punctuation The piece of spoken English and the piece of written English are the same language embodied in different mediums, one consisting of shapes, the other of noises. It is possible for the same language to be conveyed by different mediums because the language itself lies in the patterns which the mediums form, and not in the physical objects or events, as such, of which the mediums consist. Lyons (1999 [1981]: 60) comes to the conclusion that […] we will say not only that a language-system has a structure, but that it is a structure. For example, in so far as written and spoken English are isomorphic (i.e. have the same structure), they are the same language: there is nothing but their structure that they have in common. The language-system itself is, in principle, independent of the medium in which it is manifest. Due to the abstract nature of language, it can be concluded that it is hardly relevant that particular pieces of medium-specific information cannot be shifted from one medium to the other. It is the invariance of the ‘medium-independent’ word-forms of an utterance, captured in their syntactic arrangement, which allows a decoder to recognise an original linguistic event regardless of the medium in which it is realised or ‘expressed’, cf. Esser (2006: 37). And only the seminal distinction between ‘medium-independent’ (language-system) and ‘medium-dependent’ (phonic and graphic realisation) resolves the apparent inconsistency that something as different as speech and writing are coexistent modes of expression of the same language-system, cf. Uldall (1966 [1944]: 147). All these insights are included in what Lyons has later coined the ‘principle of medium-transferability’, which can be regarded as a concise formula that implies all characteristic features of natural language, cf. e.g Lyons (1975 [1972]: 65; 1999 [1981]: 11). Finally, then, Hockett’s ironic comment on an assumed layman’s view, namely that speech and writing would substantiate ‘something fundamentally the same’, has - though unwillingly - exactly hit the mark. If, on the basis of the principle of medium-transferability, anything but a seminal distinction of a medium-independent language-system and its modes of realisation (medium-specific) is conceptually untenable, this should be reflected more explicitly in linguistic theory. Most notably, it should be given weight semiologically in the conceptual, linguistic sign model, which is a basic component of the study of natural languages, cf. Bussmann (1996: 425). Reassessing the scope of the sign will implement theoretically the above-mentioned considerations including the widened perspective on speech and writing. Such reconsideration is suggested by Esser (2006). Theoretically, Esser builds on the basic Saussurean sign model, whose standing has, to a high degree, certainly reinforced the bias towards the spoken mode in linguistics in the first half of the twentieth century. Besides, de Saussure’s view of the sign abstracts from the language user as well as potential purposes concerning the Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 16 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="31"?> Issues of linguistic description 17 extra-linguistic reality. His model accounts for the ‘formal meaning’ of a single unit in the abstract language-system (langue), i.e. in a system of signs. It can be seen as the basis of microlinguistic analysis, since it disregards ‘contextual meaning’ as in macrolinguistic approaches, cf. Halliday (1961: 244f.) and Lipka (2002: 54f.). It is common knowledge that de Saussure defined the linguistic sign as an arbitrary but conventionalised interrelation between a ‘signified’ (concept; signifié) and a ‘signifier’ (image acoustique; signifiant), cf. Figure 2.2. It exists as a mental (psychique) unit and its sides evoke each other mutually. Figure 2.2: A traditional representation of the linguistic sign as proposed by de Saussure (1978 [1915]: 99) Featuring an expression side which solely incorporates a phonic representation, such a sign model, however, does not do justice to the theoretical implications described above. First of all, based on the principle of mediumtransferability, there have been identified at least two manifestations of the language-system, namely the phonic and the graphic medium. Thus, noting especially a grown independence of writing, Abercrombie (1965: 36) writes: But then writing is a medium for language in its own right, and though it is, in the last analysis, constructed on the basis of spoken language, the aim of writing is not, usually, to represent actual spoken utterances which have occurred. The quotation distinguishes the two expression systems functionally, assigning different aims to the application of the phonic and the graphic medium. The argument of ‘functional difference’ is taken up by Vachek (1974), cf. also Hughes (1996: 138f.). Vachek (1974: 121) argues to see the relation between speech and writing even more critically: It is often pointed out that spoken utterances are always historically prior; still, one overlooks here the fact that the problem of the mutual relation of spoken and written utterances should not be formulated in diachronic terms but solely in the synchronic terms of their mutual functional differentiation. For him, it is the (diachronic) argument of a ‘linguistic priority of speech over writing’, cf. e.g. Lyons (1969 [1968]: 60), which has often been used to Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 17 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="32"?> 18 Linguistic description, presentation structure and the status of punctuation relegate writing into secondary position as far as academic interest is concerned. If now, however, not only a theoretical but also a functional differentiation grants both speech and writing the status of discrete linguistic sub-systems, the preferred status of spoken language in a linguistic sign model is even less justified. Therefore, its expression side sign must not be restricted to consist of an image acoustique only, but it should also feature a reference to a written form that corresponds to a related signified, cf. Esser (2006: 28f.). In order to stick to the traditional Saussurean terminology, one could speak of an image écrite in this respect. Thus, the theoretical understanding of the linguistic sign can be modified in a first step as depicted in Figure 2.3. The illustration is similar to the one given by Esser (ib.: 28). Figure 2.3: Image acoustique and image écrite as equivalent representations of substance in a modified version of the linguistic sign In the model, the content side is now paired with both a phonic and its corresponding graphic pattern; the latter is no longer ignored, and as a consequence the theoretical value of the Saussurean sign model is judged as follows (ib.: 33f.): The observations made so far lead us to the conclusion that the simple concept of de Saussure’s linguistic sign as a combination of a concept and an image acoustique […] is just a special case focussing on the medium-bound phonological word-form. A conceptualisation of the linguistic sign as an inextricable connection between a concept and the idea of a corresponding expression also relates to Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 18 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="33"?> Issues of linguistic description 19 the distinction between ‘form’ and ‘substance’. As applied earlier, “[t]he substance is the material of language: “phonic” (audible noises) or “graphic” (visible marks)” (Halliday 1961: 243). The level of form, in contrast, refers to “[…] the organization of the substance into meaningful events […]” (ib.). The linguist is generally interested in the latter, namely in dealing with abstractions from the ‘material of language’. For the organisational properties at the level of form see section 2.1.3.2 below. Any modelling of the linguistic sign per se represents a kind of abstraction: it relates to elements of form. That is, the linguistic sign must be conceived of as a mental construct which exists independently of concrete linguistic events, i.e. substance. The boxes kept outside the circular sign model given in Figure 2.3 indicate this. They represent spoken and written word-forms, and symbolise actual utterance events or rather what de Saussure referred to as parole (substance). Both the image acoustique and the image écrite - constituting the expression side of the revised sign model - only render abstractions thereof; they represent first-level abstractions of actual medium-specific realisations of language. In order to highlight their status as elements of form, in Esser’s terminology, these abstractions are termed ‘phonic pattern’ and ‘graphic pattern’ respectively. This might seem more appropriate than using de Saussure’s somewhat psychological expression ‘image acoustique’ and the accordingly established ‘image écrite’, cf. also Figure 2.4 below. Considering the usefulness of an extended linguistic sign, Esser (2006: 29) concludes that it yields “[…] a situation where the existence of two distinct expression systems is semiologically recognized […].” A semiological recognition of two kinds of medium-bound patterning is however only a first step in the right direction; the important second one is the implementation that language is independent of the medium in which it is realised. Although constituting a seminal theoretic preliminary, this fact has been largely ignored in linguistics in general (and semiotics in particular). To put it bluntly: it must be documented conceptually that the encoding of a signified (concept) is possible on the basis of a structural configuration without reference to phonic or graphic information. Otherwise, no transfer from one medium to the other would be possible without altering the code. Therefore, Esser argues further that an amended version of the traditional, conventional sign model should also contain the notion of a medium-independent entity, which unites phonic and graphic patterns at a more abstract level and accounts for the abstract nature of language. As a result, the expression side (signifier) must be supplemented by the notion of a medium-independent word-form. Being abstracted from any written or spoken realisation, the interposed medium-independent pattern represents the entity which is subject to medium-transferability, i.e. it symbolises invariant linguistic information. It is thus a higher-ranking, i.e. second-level, abstraction from linguistic substance and complements the medium-dependent orthographic and pho- Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 19 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="34"?> 20 Linguistic description, presentation structure and the status of punctuation nological patterns, i.e. the first-level abstractions of the concrete linguistic event. Figure 2.4 displays an abstract version of the suggested amendment of the sign model, now incorporating an expression side which is unspecific as to its medium-bound realisation, cf. Esser (ib.: 28, 34). Despite its more delicate composition, the sign model maintains the duality of signifier and signified, which is a basic theoretical characteristic, following from their reciprocal evocation. Figure 2.4: A comprehensive extension of the linguistic sign In terms of notational conventions, medium-independent patterns or wordforms are presented between inward pointing angles. Of course, their symbolisation is arbitrary and follows the orthographic, the phonic or most likely a completely abstract realisation of the linguistic utterance, cf. Esser (ib.: 32). For reasons of accessibility, however, the medium-independent notion is usually presented in an orthographic encoding (spelled in British English in the present study). 2.1.2 Decoding linguistic utterances: a ‘three-channel approach’ The considerations on the linguistic sign lead Esser (2006) to propose a ‘three-channel approach to linguistic analysis’, which exploits the theoretical consideration of different linguistic expression systems in practice and which is based on the principle of medium-transferability, cf. Esser (ib.: 39- 42, passim). Furthermore, it offers a tripartite theoretical framework as to how the different levels of abstraction interrelate. Esser (ib.: 30f.) uses the Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 20 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="35"?> Issues of linguistic description 21 description of lexemes (or lexical items) to illustrate his approach. The term ‘lexeme’ has been employed “[…] to denote the more ‘abstract’ units which occur in different inflexional ‘forms’ […]” (Lyons 1969 [1968]: 197). The latter stand for grammatical word-forms, which ‘materialise’ in speech or in writing. The lexeme is thus a ‘type’ of the language-system, existent in the lexicon as an abstract class of word-forms, cf. also Bussmann (1996: 273). Firstly, grammatical analysis involves the recognition of medium-dependent word-forms. That is, from concrete utterance events, which are realised as sequences of “[…] temporally or spatially arranged sounds or symbols” (Esser 2006: 40), phonic or graphic patterns have to be abstracted (first-level abstractions). Such a decoding of meaningful units larger than single speech sounds or letters is at the heart of grammatical analysis. It is however obvious that some lexemes can be realised in speech and writing by several, contesting spoken or written word-forms. Thus, for example, there is no unequivocal decision possible (apart from, say, regional indicators) as to whether the lexeme COLOUR must be realised as <colour> or <color> in writing and accordingly as / k l ə / or / k l ə r/ in speech. There is the question of what constitutes the decisive factor in the competence of a language user that these graphic and phonic variants are taken as instantiations of the same lexeme. In an earlier publication, Esser (1998a: 177) posits […] that, for a complete description of lexemes, it is necessary (i) to include systematically both orthographic and phonological word-forms as alternative realizations of a lexeme and (ii) to distinguish […] the level of medium-independent word-form. Following his approach, it is the postulated medium-independent wordform which functions as a ‘cover term’, unifying all the medium-dependent realisations as belonging to one abstract concept, i.e. lexeme. The fact that the medium-dependent word-forms <colour>, <color>, / 'k l ə / and / 'k l ə r/ are conceived of as realisations of one lexeme COLOUR is hence based on the (at least understood) recognition of a more abstract, medium-independent word-form >colour<. On the basis of the latter, the equivalent status of the spoken and written forms is decided. Variants of pronunciation and/ or spelling are certainly not subject to medium-transferability. Rather, the variations can be conceived of as ‘tokens’ of an assumed medium-independent ‘type’, cf. Esser (2006: 35). 1 Lipka (2002: 88) describes the type-token relation as follows: 1 In principle, two different lexemes, i.e. COLOUR 1/ 2 , would have to be distinguished, denoting either the act or the substance of colouring. This, however, shall have no relevance for the present line of argument and the interpretation of the partly conflicting medium-bound word-forms mentioned. They are taken as instantiating a single type in this context: either COLOUR 1 or COLOUR 2 . A differing case will be discussed in the following. Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 21 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="36"?> 22 Linguistic description, presentation structure and the status of punctuation The relationship between tokens and types can be characterized as one of realization or instantiation. Concrete tokens can be said to realize or instantiate abstract underlying types. ‘Medium-independency’, therefore, implements theoretically what has basically already been addressed, although not terminologically, by Halliday (1992 [1985]: 29): We understand each other’s spoken language throughout the English-speaking world, unhampered by the wide variation in dialect - because all dialects are underlain by what is, by and large, a single phonological system. The same principle will work for writing. The second step of the illustrated ‘three-channel approach’ is thus one of advancing generalisation. From the considerations on COLOUR, it follows that the medium-dependent patterns must be abstracted further to arrive at medium-independent word-forms, which are subject to medium-transferability, i.e. they do not rely on particular medium-specific information and are hence invariant. In this respect, similar observations as for COLOUR can be made, for example, in connection with (i) the written word-forms <road> and <rode>, homophonous in speech; or (ii) the spoken forms / 'ımp ɔ : t/ and / ım'p ɔ : t/ , homographic in writing. There are no unambiguous one-to-one relations between the spoken and the written forms but rather one-to-many / many-to-one correspondences. In (i) only a single spoken form correlates with the two written ones, and in (ii) it is the other way round. As a result, some medium-dependent forms are clearly more informative than others. Whereas in (i) only the written forms provide information about the grammatical status of the word-forms, i.e. ‘common noun’ or ‘past tense of verb’, in (ii) this function is at most fulfilled by the shift of stress in the spoken realisations. They hint at an interpretation of ‘noun’ (forestress) and ‘verb’ (final stress). That is, not always do all the medium-dependent word-forms unequivocally corroborate grammatical information or express this information comparably explicitly, cf. also Lyons (1969 [1968]: 196-198). And once more an important aspect of the principle of medium-transferability becomes obvious: particular information that can, in one way or the other, be expressed in one medium is not transferable to another medium by definition. Again, the medium-dependent forms can be termed ‘realisations’ (or tokens) some of which in the case of homophony or homography are ambiguous as to the number of types they represent. Originating from concrete word-forms in phonic and graphic substance, Figure 2.5 illustrates the different steps of abstraction which are necessary to give grammatical and/ or lexical information for homophonous and homographic word-forms; yet it is not to be seen as a production model for linguistic analysis. The overview has been prompted by a similar diagram offered by Esser. Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 22 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="37"?> Issues of linguistic description 23 Figure 2.5: Description of homophonous and homographic lexemes In Figure 2.5, the solid arrows trace the different steps of abstraction that a decoder has to take when originating from concrete written or spoken word-forms. The grammatical ambiguity of the spoken form / r əυ d/ (upper half left) and of the written form <import> (lower half left), for example, can only be dissolved by explicit reference to the medium-independent level. Both medium-bound realisations give away conflicting information about their grammatical status. This is different for the written forms <road> and <rode> (upper half right) and for the spoken forms / 'ımp ɔ : t/ and / ım'p ɔ : t/ (lower half right). By linking the medium-bound graphic and phonic patterns with the grammatical level, the solid arrows are supposed to illustrate that the relevant word-forms allow for a direct assessment of their grammatical status. There is lexical and grammatical unambiguousness at the graphic and at the phonic level, respectively. The supposedly ‘negligible’ relationship of <road>, <rode>, / 'ımp ɔ : t/ and / ım'p ɔ : t/ with the medium-independent level is hinted at by the only dotted arrows. The problem is that in many linguistic approaches of the past the linguistic status of word-forms has been determined solely on the grounds of their medium-dependent (mostly intonational) patterns. Spoken qualities have Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 23 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="38"?> 24 Linguistic description, presentation structure and the status of punctuation been regarded as part of the morphological shape of a word. A quotation by Marchand (1969 [1960]: 22) illustrates this position: Bláckbìrd has the morphophonemic stress pattern of a compound, bláck márket has not, despite its phrasal meaning; the latter therefore is a syntactic group, morphologically speaking. Stress is a criterion here. This is obviously a very problematic view. Firstly, stress is a very transient quality, and hence black market can very well be found in quite different spoken realisations, namely forestress, level stress and final stress. Whether the medium independent >black market< stands for a lexicalised expression (‘kind of illegal trade’) or for a free grouping of two lexemes (‘urban space with bituminous pavement’) is, however, completely unaffected by its spoken realisation. Only the medium-independent context will tell. Secondly, then, if stress really was a criterion, this would make syntactic analysis almost completely arbitrary. That is, with regard to their potential functions as constituents in syntactic arrangements, it seems rather pointless to consider, for example, stone wall a syntactic group (since it is usually realised with level stress), but to take the most common realisation of steam boat (forestress) as an indicator of its compound status, cf. Marchand (ib.: 23). See Esser (2006) for a first criticism of such a position, cf. Esser (ib.: 45-47). While graphic and phonic realisations can make available supplementary information that facilitates structural interpretations, cf. e.g. <road>, <rode>, / 'ımp ɔ : t/ and / ım'p ɔ : t/ , they are not seldom inconclusive as to the syntactic status of the units they instantiate. After all, this also renders problematic one of the key positions of Generative Grammar, namely that the syntactic structure of a sentence fully determines its phonetic form, cf. e.g. Chomsky/ Halle (1968: 6). The previous discussion has emphasised the insight that grammatical analysis requires the identification of medium-independent word-forms. However, not always is a medium-independent word-form in a one-toone relation with a matching grammatical word-form, cf. Esser (2006: 40). This may already be inferred from Figure 2.5: A single medium-independent word-form (>import<) corresponds to two grammatical word-forms (noun-form or verb-form). Strictly speaking, therefore, it is not the isolated medium-independent word-form from which the grammatical and the lexical information can be derived directly. Instead, it is necessary to include a third stage of abstraction at which the ambiguity of single items can be resolved. Thirdly, then, the last level of abstraction in Esser’s ‘three-channel approach’ involves the recognition of syntactic patterns like phrases and clauses in order to yield grammatical analysis. Consequently, a ‘grammatically neutral’ medium-independent word-form is examined with regard to the functional and structural role it occupies in a more extensive syntagm. This is Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 24 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="39"?> Issues of linguistic description 25 based on assessing paradigmatically different arrangements of medium-independent word-forms and the categories they comprise. A good example for the present approach is probably to be found in the description of true homonymy, i.e. of forms or structures that are homophonous and homographic. Specifically, the example of box, which is also taken up by Esser (ib.: 41), may illustrate this. From its medium-dependent form, the type might be interpreted as either (i) ‘base form of verb’ or (ii) ‘singular form of noun’. Both options are realised as <box> in writing or as / b ɒ ks/ in speech. Even on the basis of its isolated medium-independent form >box<, it cannot be determined whether box is to be interpreted as belonging to the lexeme BOX 1 or to BOX 2 . This is dissolvable only by looking into the next higher level of articulation. (1) >we watched her box< The ambiguity of (1) serves Lyons (1999 [1981]) to demonstrate succinctly the independence of phonological and grammatical structure, cf. Lyons (ib.: 61). Moreover, also graphic information has no relevance at all for the interpretation of the given sequence. That is, the double meaning of (1) and so of the single form >box<, i.e. whether it indicates a noun or a verb, can only be solved by allocating differently the slots for phrases in the given arrangement (‘paradigmatic assessment’). Accordingly, on the abstract level of syntax, either >her box< can be understood as a noun phrase and >her< represents a pronoun-form, functioning as determiner or ‘possessive adjective’, as Jackson (1985 [1980]: 64) names its role. Alternatively >her< is decoded as a noun phrase and >box< as a verb phrase. The whole syntagm >her box< could then be taken as an embedded bare infinitive clause, functioning as direct object. With regard to the chain of medium-independent word-forms given, there are thus two structural configurations associated with the same sequence of formal items, cf. (2) and (3). (2) | we | watched | her box | NP VP NP (3) | we | watched | her | box | NP VP NP VP | S/ NP | In the end only explicit consideration of these insights, however trivial they may appear, will help to illustrate exactly the status of different levels of linguistic description and as to how these levels interrelate. Also it facilitates an understanding of how, in theory, every language user abstracts from medium-bound word-forms in order to yield linguistic information, especial- Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 25 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="40"?> 26 Linguistic description, presentation structure and the status of punctuation ly if the words’ phonic or graphic form is inconclusive. Contextual parameters seem indispensable here. From the aforesaid, it is evident that spoken and written patterns of linguistic utterances rest on a low level of abstraction, i.e. they are intimately related to an actual phonic or graphic realisation perceived through the acoustic and the visual channel, in that order. Their informative value is not necessarily required (or available) in order to conduct grammatical analysis. Esser (2006: 32) ultimately concludes “[…] that grammatical analysis is mediumindependent” or, more specifically, “[…] that the level of syntax, with its sublevels of phrase and clause, deals with abstractions that are independent of medium-bound realizations” (ib.: 42). As a consequence, unless the levels of phonology or graphology are explicitly referred to, linguistic statements as the superordinate abstracted channel generally do not build on medium-specific information. 2.1.3 Linguistic description: distinctive units of analysis 2.1.3.1 Overview The issues of the two previous sub-chapters bear some important theoretical consequences for the examination of written language and, consequentially, punctuation. The principle of medium-transferability allows for an explicit recognition of writing as a linguistic sub-system in its own right; the description of spoken language is no longer of sole importance. Both speech and writing constitute equivalent expression systems of the language-system. Such a paradigm shift allows for written language to be taken as a primary starting point of linguistic analysis. And since punctuation is undisputedly an ‘ingredient’ of the written expression system, an automatic assignment of punctuation to functions of the systems of speech or grammar appears questionable. Moreover, it can be concluded that there are no definite oneto-one relations among these levels. Neither are written expressions mapped unequivocally onto spoken expressions (see phenomena like homophony and homography), nor are written or spoken patterns conclusive at all times as to the grammatical status of a form or structure (see cases of homonymy). A medium-independent expression system is acknowledged theoretically. It represents a more abstract level of linguistic description and is describable independently of any medium-related spoken or written features. The medium-independent level and the levels of speech and writing are related by what can be referred to as ‘type-token’ or ‘concept-instantiation relations’; the existence of several contesting medium-bound expressions may be taken as one example of this insight. As a result, the medium-independent level and the medium-bound spoken and written levels of linguistic description require different units of analysis, and actually they make dissimilar statements about different configura- Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 26 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="41"?> Issues of linguistic description 27 tions and features. There must not be unrestricted amalgamation. Or in the words of Halliday (1961: 268): […] [W]hatever is decided for presentation, which will vary with purpose, both in theory and in description it is essential to separate the levels first and then to relate them. The theoretical reason is that different kinds of abstraction are involved, and therefore different categories. In description, the attempt to account for the data at all levels at once results in a failure to account for them fully at any level. If one rejects the separation of levels and wishes, for example, to combine grammatical and phonological criteria to yield a single set of units, the description becomes intolerably complex. With regard to the theoretical plausibility and practical relevance of different linguistic (sub-)systems, Halliday/ McIntosh/ Strevens (1966 [1964]: 51) have proposed a feasible framework of corresponding medium-dependent and medium-independent units in language; it is reproduced as Figure 2.6. Medium-dependency Medium-independency G RAPHOLOGY P HONOLOGY F ORM (Grammar) F ORM (Lexis) Paragraph Orthographic sentence Sub-sentence Orthographic word Letter Tone group Foot Syllable Phoneme Sentence Clause Group Word Morpheme Lexical item Figure 2.6: Medium-dependent and medium-independent units The original table is complemented here by the categories ‘medium-dependency’ and ‘medium-independency’. These labels can be applied unequivocally with the given columns on the basis of the theoretical considerations illustrated in section 2.1.1 above. The units in the first two columns from the left thus relate to the medium-dependent expression systems of writing and speech; those in the two columns on the right to the medium-independent language-system. It is important to note that Figure 2.6 illustrates the most probable correspondences between the different descriptive units; that is, “[…] those most frequently co-extensive are placed opposite each other” (ib.). However, there are no obligatory one-to-one relations between the units in one line. Although there will be no exhaustive discussion of the descriptive levels summarised in Figure 2.6, some general remarks might be helpful - not least for the argument of the present study. The units of the medium-independent expression system are referred to first. Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 27 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="42"?> 28 Linguistic description, presentation structure and the status of punctuation 2.1.3.2 The medium-independent expression system Following the distinction between substance and form made in section 2.1.1 above (p. 19), Lyons (1977: 28) elaborates on the general research interest in linguistics. He writes: Utterances are unique physical events[.] […] The linguist, however, is not generally concerned with utterances as unique observational entities. He is interested in types, not tokens[.] […] When we say that two utterances are tokens of the same type, we are implying that they have some structural or functional identity by virtue of which native speakers will recognize their sameness. At the medium-independent level, one tries to grasp this ‘sameness’ through the description of formal patterns. As to the relations within these mediumindependent arrangements, Halliday/ McIntosh/ Strevens (1966 [1964]: 28f.) point out that [t]he category of ‘structure’ […] is the category that accounts for the various ways in which an occurrence of one unit may be made up out of occurrences of the unit next below it […]. The category of ‘structure’ applies to all units in the grammar of a language except the smallest, which by definition has no structure, since it is not made up of anything smaller that can be identified at the level of grammar. So English has sentence structures, clause structures, group [phrase, SP] structures and word structures, whose elements have as their exponents respectively clauses, groups [phrases, SP], words and morphemes. The morpheme itself has no structure since there is nothing below it in the grammar. Thus the word ‘gladness’ has a structure consisting of two elements whose exponents are the morphemes ‘glad’ and ‘ness’, but these morphemes cannot be further analysed grammatically. The quotation mentions five grammatical units at the medium-independent level of form. These are also included in Figure 2.6 above. A discussion of the semantic concept ‘lexical item’ - commonly conceived of as “[…] the union of a single sense with a lexical form […]” (Cruse [1997] 1986: 80) - is desisted from at this point. - Grammatical units: sentence ↔ clause ↔ phrase (or group) ↔ word ↔ morpheme. The sentence is considered the highest-ranking structural unit at the grammatical level, whereas the morpheme is ranked lowest, cf. Fig. 2.6 above. The morpheme, having no grammatically analysable structure, is the smallest meaningful unit and therefore it constitutes also the smallest linguistic sign to be perceived by a decoder. In the public perception it is usually words or word-forms that “[…] enable people to refer to every object, action, and quality that members of a society wish to distinguish […]” (Quirk et al. 1985: 11). Although the notion ‘word’ allows for different conceptions, cf. e.g. Robins (1990 [1964]: 185f.), Lipka (2002: 85, 88f.) and Plag (2008 [2003]: Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 28 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="43"?> Issues of linguistic description 29 4-9), it is first of all a formal unit of the medium-independent expression system: undisputedly, the sense(s) of a word exist(s) independently of the medium in which it is realised, cf. sec. 2.1.1 above. Section 2.1.2 has shown that syntactic analysis (and hence the decoding of verbal messages) depends on units larger than morpheme or word: phrases (groups) and sentences. Traditionally, especially the sentence has played an important role as a referential unit in this context. However, its definition has been a constant and profoundly disputed topic. There seem to be sustained difficulties in grasping it conceptually and in linguistic approaches, the notion ‘sentence’ has been defined inconsistently throughout. Especially the common approach to capture ‘sentence’ by defining it as ‘a complete thought’ has stirred up many theoretical problems, cf. Levinson (1985: 6), Euler (1991: 64f.) and Herbst/ Schüller (2008: 3f.). Cutting these considerations short, what makes a sentence complete or incomplete is not determined by a philosophical decision, but by the incompleteness of its inherent grammatical structure as in (4), cf. Levinson (1985: 122). (4) >please get the bag from the ___< It is the grammatical incompleteness of the prepositional phrase as one of the constituents of proper clause and, after all, sentence structure which effects the ungrammaticality of (4). The articulate constitution of the sentence as a descriptive medium-independent unit should be regarded as the only theoretically viable approach to determine whether a structure represents a sentence or not. This is what has been given voice to above in the quotation by Halliday and collaborators on the category of structure. Quirk et al. (1985: 38) adopt their view: In order to state general rules about the construction of sentences it is constantly necessary to refer to units smaller than the sentence itself: units such as those which are commonly referred to by the terms CLAUSE, PHRASE, WORD, and MORPHEME. The relation between one unit and another unit of which it is part is CONSTITUENCY. As a result, the medium-independent level of form is, to a large extent, accessible via the concepts of ‘rank’ and ‘unit’. The descriptive units operate at different ‘ranks’ and gradually decrease in size. Each type of unit is composed of an arrangement of one or more lower-ranking units, which hence serve as its constitutive elements, cf. e.g. Halliday (1961: 251) and Quirk et al. (1985: 38-43). This characteristic is illustrated by the double arrows ( ↔ ) in the overview of the grammatical units on page 28 above. The syntagmatic relations of these elements then define the structure of a unit; or in Halliday’s (1961: 255) words: “A structure is thus an arrangement of elements ordered in “places.”” Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 29 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="44"?> 30 Linguistic description, presentation structure and the status of punctuation Since part-whole relationships (‘constituency’) between the above-listed units are not always recoverable, it can be added that, for example, clauses are in some cases coextensive with sentences. Consequentially, sentences which are made up of a single independent clause are termed ‘simple sentences’. There is no other clause that functions as one of its elements. In A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language Quirk et al. (1985: 53, 721) list seven major clause types for simple sentences, namely ‘SV’, ‘SVO’, ‘SVC’, ‘SVA’, ‘SVOO’, ‘SVOC’, ‘SVOA’, the constituents of which can be identified as subject (‘S’), verb (‘V’), object (‘O’), complement (‘C’) and adverbial (‘A’). There is difference of opinion as to whether the term ‘simple sentence’ should be applied to cases in which clauses operate directly at phrase level, i.e. as embedded clauses or as postmodifications of phrases, cf. Quirk et al. (ib.: FN 719f.). In the present work, only postmodifications of phrases (by a relative clause, for example) are taken as instances of simple sentences. Embedded clauses (such as nominal clauses), on the other hand, form the so-called ‘complex sentences’, cf. also Esser (2006: 43). Lastly, a ‘multiple sentence’ consists of at least two coordinated clauses (‘compound sentence’) or no less than one coordinated plus one subordinated clause (‘complex sentence’). The central role of the clause has lead to the insight that linguistic material can be accounted for systematically by drawing on types of clause patterns as well as on potential modifications or rearrangements of their elements, cf. also Esser (ib.: 60). The variants usually depend on diverse linguistic and extra-linguistic context parameters, cf. also sec. 2.2 below. Linguistically speaking, modifications and rearrangements represent contextualised sequences of the decontextualised basic clause pattern on which they are based. Despite their obviously deviating configurations, fronting, passive construction and cleft sentence can be named exemplarily as potential contextualised variations of a basic decontextualised ‘SVO’-pattern - just as, say, dark [ ] and clear [l] are allophones, i.e. contextualised variants, of the abstract phoneme / l/ at the level of phonology. Spoken and written utterances are hence describable in terms of ‘allo-sentences’ (also referred to as ‘text-sentences’, cf. e.g. Lyons 1977: 622). The allo-sentence accounts for rule-based “[…] facultative syntactic variants of the given [e.g. clause, SP] pattern […]” (Daneš 1964: 231), i.e. deviations in configuration, cf. also Esser (1984: sec. 2.3). In summary, then, allo-sentences are specific medium-independent instantiations (tokens) of clauses or rather clause patterns (types), amongst other things making use of the potential to reorganise their basic constituents. 2.1.3.3 The medium-dependent expression systems of speech and writing In the previous section, it has been mentioned in connection with the word gladness that the morpheme represents the smallest unit at the medium-in- Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 30 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="45"?> Issues of linguistic description 31 dependent level of syntax; see the relevant quotation by Halliday and collaborators on page 28. Consequentially, glad and ness have no structure that could be analysed grammatically. A further analysis of, say, the morpheme glad would mean to segment, for example, its sounds [g], [l], [æ] and [d]. These elements, however, are describable only beyond the field of grammar, as types of concrete phonic realisations. Such a description belongs to the medium-dependent expression system of speech, i.e. to the level of phonology, since it takes into account the physical properties of the phonic presentation which the grammar disregards. Arguably, phonology represents an ‘interlevel’ (between form and substance) at which the phonic substance is organised into formal patterns, cf. Halliday (1961: 269). A similar observation can be made for the medium-dependent expression system of writing, i.e. for concrete graphic realisations. Halliday/ McIntosh/ Strevens (1966 [1964]: 50) write: When we talk of ‘graphic substance’ we refer to the raw material of scripts: the signs themselves, their shape in isolation and in combination. There is no special branch in linguistics to cover the study of graphic substance, but it is often of linguistic interest[.] […] Graphology, however, is an essential part of the description of any written language. The use of the word may be unfamiliar. It has been chosen to parallel ‘phonology’, and the term includes orthography, punctuation, and anything else that is concerned with showing how language uses its graphic resources to carry its grammatical and lexical patterns. Like ‘phonology’ for spoken language, Halliday and collaborators understand ‘graphology’ as the concept that bridges the gap between abstract form and written substance by making those first-level abstractions that have been described as indispensable for linguistic analysis. Halliday/ McIntosh/ Strevens (ib.) conclude: The ‘graphological’ level of language, whatever the nature of the script, is characterized by its own distinctive patterns [units, SP], just as is the level of phonology. To a certain extent, of course, the appearance of the written expression system is shaped by the generally accepted primacy of speech (in terms of choice and combination of elements), an aspect which should be borne in mind, cf. sec. 2.1.1 above. Representing first-level abstractions of substance, the description of the medium-dependent units is always an analysis of types, but not of their instantiations, i.e. tokens. That is, setting up a graphic pattern, say <abcd>, requires the ability to abstract from countless occurrences of the sequence abcd in actual writing. Being thus connected with speaking or writing, the nature of the medium-dependent units is based on their shape in the phonic or graphic medium. Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 31 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="46"?> 32 Linguistic description, presentation structure and the status of punctuation At the graphological level, five descriptive units are distinguished in Figure 2.6 in section 2.1.3.1 above. - Graphological units: paragraph ↔ orthographic sentence ↔ sub-sentence ↔ orthographic word ↔ letter. These medium-dependent graphological units are accompanied by four phonological units which are relevant for linguistic description. - Phonological units: tone group (or tone unit) ↔ foot ↔ syllable ↔ phoneme. All of these units, phonological and graphological ones, are related to each other within their field by the same property of rank scale that was observed for those of formal texture, namely sentence, clause, phrase, word and morpheme, cf. Halliday/ McIntosh/ Strevens (ib.: 45). Again this is indicated by the double arrows ( ↔ ). Considering the scope of the present study, it will suffice to offer only a cursory look at the phonological units: Spoken language is realised in series of spurts, producing context-dependent utterance units. As a result, the most distinctive segment of the spoken presentation is the intonation or tone unit (also tone group). The tone unit is defined roughly as a stretch of speech and usually comprises more than one spoken word, cf. e.g. Chafe (1986: 15). Normally, it contains an intonational peak and ends in a distinctive rising or falling tone. The concept of a phonological word has been left out of the tabulation by Halliday and collaborators, because there are usually no isolated, distinctively segmented spoken word-forms (‘citation forms’) in connected speech. This is due to the continuity and variability of the speech signal. Phonological words (or citation forms) are usually referred to in entirely context-free descriptions as, for example, in the analysis of a minimal pair like / ænd/ vs / end/ , cf. also Obendorfer (1998: 14). In the conceptual framework by Halliday et al., the tone unit ranks above the foot and the syllable. Both units indicate the lacking congruence of phonological and graphological information: foot and syllable have no corresponding units at the level of graphology. Given their irrelevance for the discussion of punctuation, they are not considered further at this point. See Esser (2011) for a critical assessment of the relevance of the foot as a descriptive unit in linguistics. At the level of phonology, the phoneme represent the smallest descriptive unit. As is well-known, it is defined as the smallest segmental unit that brings about differences in meaning. Often (but not always), the phoneme is in a one-to-one relation with the letter. Strictly speaking, however, the written functional equivalent of the phoneme is the grapheme. Speaking of the medium-dependent graphological units of linguistic description, it may be conspicuous that the written page is missing from the Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 32 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="47"?> Issues of linguistic description 33 graphological units that are given in the overview in Figure 2.6 above (see also page 32). The written page represents the maximum medium-specific constitutional unit in writing that is perceivable as a whole. Since the appearance of the written page is highly susceptible to changes in macrosetting (layout, etc.), it is not considered further at this point. Besides, its relevance for the functional discussion of punctuation is questionable anyway. It may be noted in passing that the term ‘written page’ does not cover the electronic page as displayed, for example, on a computer screen. Being heavily dependent on the read-out, the electronic page does not allow for stable proportions. Accordingly, Figure 2.6 gives the paragraph as the largest graphic presentation unit. It usually exceeds the extent of a single orthographic sentence, being recognisable in written text through indention of the first line or through a preceding blank line. For the sake of completeness, it should be mentioned that there is also the concept of a so-called ‘notional paragraph’ in linguistics. The notional paragraph is based on the chain of medium-independent word-forms, and it loosely corresponds to the orthographic paragraph, cf. Longacre (1979: 115f.) and Esser (2006: 63f.). A notional paragraph covers those stretches of medium-independent structure that form a coherent whole; that is, it contains structural entities (such as clauses) which are related through formal features of cohesion and/ or meaning relations as described, for instance, by Rhetorical Structure Theory, cf. section 2.2.1.1 below. Compare also Halliday’s (2004 [1985]) medium-unspecific notion ‘rhetorical paragraph’ in this context, cf. Halliday (ib.: 371). For the description of ‘paratones’, i.e. potential spoken counterparts of orthographic paragraphs, see Mindt (2001: ch. 6), for example. Like all units of graphic presentation, the orthographic sentence is defined on the basis of written criteria only: it is bound to its left by a capital letter, and to its right a sentence ends in a punctuation mark such as the period, the question or the exclamation mark. Below sentence-level, written sub-sentences are outlined as entities which are created by punctuation marks within the boundaries of an orthographic sentence - for example, by the colon, the semicolon or the comma, cf. also ch. 5 below. On the basis of these theoretical issues, there is a terminological doubling which deserves mentioning. The term ‘sentence’ is used twice in the overview by Halliday/ McIntosh/ Strevens that has been reproduced as Figure 2.6 above. There is the medium-independent grammatical unit ‘sentence’ and there is the medium-bound graphological unit ‘orthographic sentence’. Despite suggesting the qualification ‘orthographic’ for the written unit, the term ‘sentence’ as such may be misleading. In a later publication, therefore, Halliday (1992 [1985]) substitutes the polysemous medium-independent notion ‘sentence’ for ‘clause complex’. He (ib.: 66) writes: Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 33 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="48"?> 34 Linguistic description, presentation structure and the status of punctuation Eventually we shall discard the term ‘sentence’ from the grammar altogether; it can then be used unambiguously to refer to a unit of the writing system[.] […] In place of sentence in the grammar we shall use CLAUSE COMPLEX, because that will allow us to refer both to written and to spoken language in a way that makes the two comparable. This terminological emendation proves to be an important step in sorting out the differences between the medium-dependent levels and the mediumindependent level of description. The grammatical concept ‘sentence’ - or now rather ‘clause complex’ - serves as a reference point for any structural analyses. Conceptually, it must be distinguished from the orthographic sentence, which has been “[…] developed from the desire to [graphically, SP] mark clause-complexes […]” (Miller/ Weinert 1998: 33), cf. also Halliday (1992 [1985]: 66). What is especially interesting, then, is to examine those cases in which a clause (complex) does not coincide with an orthographic sentence, cf. e.g. ch. 4 below. With regard to punctuation, Levinson (1985: 8) concludes that “[…] if the orthographic [medium-dependent, SP] sentence is not a grammatical [medium-independent, SP] entity, then punctuation […] may also not be grammatically motivated.“ To complete the brief overview of the medium-dependent expression systems of speech and writing and of their descriptive units, a few remarks on the orthographic word are in order. An orthographic word is formed by a sequence of uninterrupted letters, and is flanked by adjacent spaces or a punctuation mark to its left and to its right. This is unequivocally expressed by the qualification ‘orthographic’. In the graphic presentation, a punctuation mark like the hyphen counts as a letter, and sometimes two orthographic word-forms are joined by a hyphen to create a more extensive orthographic word-form. It must be mentioned, however, that the interpretation of an orthographic word is not always coterminous with that of a medium-independent concept of word. That is, the definition of orthographic word ignores any morphological distinction between ‘complex words’ (or ‘compounds’) and ‘syntactic constructions’, which help to distinguish different concepts of meaning, such as ‘greenhouse’ and ‘green house’, cf. Huddleston/ Pullum (2002: 1729). It would have no bearing on the underlying concept if the orthographic variant <word-form> was spelled <word form>, <wordform> or even <Wordform>. Similarly, non-standard written forms like <gonna>, <dunno>, <outta> or <wanna> do not transmit medium-bound graphic indicators about the fact that they comprise more than one medium-independent word-form, namely >going to<, >do not know<, >out of< and >want to< respectively. There is no unequivocal one-to-one mapping, but one written form corresponds to up to three medium-independent word-forms. See the related discussion in section 2.1.2 above. Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 34 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="49"?> Presentation structure 35 2.2 Presentation structure The general opinion is that the function of linguistic signs, and thus of language in general, is to express the meaning of states, events and objects of the extra-linguistic world. Besides, signs also carry the potential to create a complex semantically coherent sphere, or ‘fictional world’, that imitates reality, cf. Leech/ Short (1981: 231), and which is then the basis for discussion in literary studies. Linguistic signs have a representational function, summarised as “[…] something stands for something else […]” (Trnka 1982: 87) (aliquid stat pro aliquo). As the reflections on medium-transferability and the linguistic sign have shown, this representational function is, first of all, a medium-independent one. Language becomes only communicatively available if the medium-independent structural patterns are rendered in speech or writing. Following Halliday/ Hasan (1976), abstract ‘meanings’ are encoded through grammar and vocabulary, and the resultant ‘wordings’, i.e. medium-independent patterns, are ultimately expressed in speech or writing, cf. Halliday/ Hasan (ib.: 5). The latter are vehicles to make visible or audible linguistic form. However, the invariance of meaning that is represented by linguistic signs (and which is realised as spatially arranged symbols or temporally arranged sounds in speech and writing) can be presented in various ways. This could already be inferred from the spoken or written alternatives of the lexeme COLOUR at the beginning of section 2.1.2 above. Emphasising the variance of such a presentational function, encoder-based choices must be considered subject to style. The term ‘style’, in the widest sense, pertains to linguistic variation of an individual (user) but also of language function (use), cf. Esser (1993: 172); more specifically, however, it has no clearly defined intensional meaning and requires extensional clarification. The divergent application of ‘style’ implies an equally changeable use of ‘presentation’. Like ‘style’, ‘presentation’ can be considered what Enkvist (1973) calls a ‘notational term’, cf. Enkvist (ib.: 17). This means that it is used variably and with multifarious theoretical overtones. Despite not interpreting it as a linguistic prime, Esser (2006) postulates that ‘presentation’ (and also ‘presentation structure’) should still be regarded as a relevant linguistic category, cf. Esser (ib.: 1). Conforming to the rather specified argumentation of Leech/ Short (1981: 233) that written literary expressions are in their presentational function “[…] directed towards the reader’s role as decoder […]”, Esser (2006: 2) argues that, prototypically, presentation “[…] describes decoder-oriented linguistic variation.” He (ib.: 139) then goes on to write that […] presentation [can be] narrowed down to describe a special kind of stylistic choice, namely choice that is made to facilitate or influence the decoding of a verbal message. Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 35 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="50"?> 36 Linguistic description, presentation structure and the status of punctuation On the basis of the theoretical considerations dealt with in sub-chapters 2.1.1 to 2.1.3 above, this exertion of influence can be implemented differently in all three linguistic expression systems. Consequentially, Esser (2006) advocates a comprehensive model of presentation structure that incorporates both medium-independent and medium-dependent structures of language. The decoding of a verbal message can be influenced on a twofold level of presentational dimension: there are choices possible which affect (i) the structural arrangement (e.g. word order) of a message, and there are choices which affect (ii) its typography or intonation. They will be dealt with in sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 respectively. Generally, it is in such a framework that also the functionality (or the communicative value) of punctuation marks has to be explored. Note that with regard to the variance of a presentational function, mainly invariant features that concern an encoder are excluded from Esser’s model from the very outset; this comprises features of linguistic variation such as ‘region’, ‘social group’, or ‘idiolect’. The same holds for extremely variable features like, for example, ‘communicative purpose’ and ‘subject matter’: they are also not covered by the term ‘presentation’. A more detailed discussion of these features of linguistic variation can be obtained from Esser (1993: 13-32). 2.2.1 Medium-independent choices This section deals with those presentational choices that are not contingent upon either medium-bound realisation. That is, it deals with variation that only affects the medium-independent arrangement of configurational units of text structure. This covers both the linearisation of syntactic units as well as the ordering of less tangible text-constituting semantic categories. 2.2.1.1 Choices which do not influence directly the structure of clause complexes Generally speaking, at the medium-independent level, Esser’s model deals with two different kinds of stylistic decisions that account for the texture of a verbal message: (i) choices which do not directly influence the structure of clause complexes, i.e. which have more extensive consequences, and (ii) decisions which influence the configuration of clause complexes directly. The potential modifications subsumed under (i) represent the widest presentational selection, and they depend mainly on the communicative purpose of a text and its functional or formal design. This involves what Esser terms Encoding Perspective and Global Textual Properties, cf. Esser (2006: 3). Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 36 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="51"?> Presentation structure 37 Together they constitute what can be summarised here as ‘global text-organising properties’, cf. also Fig. 2.8 below (p. 57). Their influence on the structure of clause complexes is merely an indirect one. Concretely, Encoding Perspective concerns the basic choice as to whether a text shall be rendered in monologic or in dialogic form. Clearly, a dialogue will be quite different from a piece of prose both in function and in form. The dimension described as Global Textual Properties covers options which influence the overall organisation of a verbal message or text. Esser names ‘fit of discourse-type to text-type’ as one field in which such largescale choice is possible. The labels ‘macrostructure’ and ‘thematic progression’, which could be subsumed under the cover term ‘thematic structure’, represent the other presentational fields he adduces in this context. The global textual property ‘fit of discourse-type to text-type’ deals with the relationship between the overall communicative function of a text or message and its actual surface realisation. A text-type has often been referred to on the basis of assumed global speech acts, such as ‘narrative’, ‘procedural’, ‘behavioural’ or ‘expository’, cf. Longacre (1976), Smith (1985) and similar Werlich (1976). On the other hand, Biber/ Finegan (1986: 20) write about the text-type concept: We distinguish between ‘genre’ categories and ‘text types’. […] Genre categorizations are assigned on apriori bases relating to author’s purpose. Text types, on the other hand, represent groupings of texts that are similar with respect to their linguistic form, irrespective of genre categories. A text-type, as defined by Biber/ Finegan, is established on the basis of cooccurring morphosyntactic features. This might reveal dominance of, say, past tense forms, firstor third-person pronouns and, at the same time, absence of second-person pronouns and present tense forms. Consequentially, by grouping actual texts according to the co-occurrence of linguistic features, Biber/ Finegan’s text-type categories dispense with many of the traditional labels, cf. e.g. Biber/ Finegan (ib.: 34-41). Smith (1985) and also Virtanen (1992) have noticed that the overall function (or purpose) of a text, which translates roughly into their terms ‘discourse framework’ and ‘discourse-type’ respectively, is not always manifest in the morphosyntactic features that allocate it to a certain text-type, cf. Smith (1985: 242-246) and Virtanen (1992: 302). A good example are biblical texts: whereas their morphosyntactic features often assign them to the text-type ‘narration’, their intention is mostly ‘behavioural’ or ‘hortatory’, i.e. they are applied for parabolic teaching. This opens up strategic alternatives to an encoder; the surface realisation of a text needs not be equivalent to its intended overall purpose, cf. Virtanen (ib.). Furthermore, Esser considers ‘thematic progression’ and textual ‘macrostructures’ in his model of presentation structure. By and large, both con- Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 37 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="52"?> 38 Linguistic description, presentation structure and the status of punctuation cepts are concerned with the organisation of the actual subject matter in a text, cf. Esser (2006: 4-7). At the level of the text, Daneš (1974: 114) argues that ‘thematic progression’ “[…] might be viewed as the skeleton of the plot.” For Daneš, the central types of thematic progression are ‘simple linear progression’, ‘progression with a continuous theme’ and ‘progression with derived themes’. As a basic principle, all three types represent ways of organising given and new information in an utterance, based on the dichotomy ‘theme vs rheme’ as advocated by proponents of the concept of Functional Sentence Perspective (FSP), cf. Daneš (ib.: 118-120). The stretch in (5) illustrates simple linear progression, using a truncated example by Daneš (ib.: 119). (5) New Jersey is flat along the coast and southern portion, but the northwestern region is mountainous. The geographical conditions promote a relatively variable climate, which is mild in general, but there is considerable cold in the mountain areas during the winter months. Additionally, summers are fairly hot. Due to the climate there is mainly processing industry, which includes chemicals, processed food, coal, petroleum, metals and electrical equipment. In the above text, theme and rheme are indicated by solid and dotted underlining respectively. The new information (rheme) communicated in the first segment is tied in with the next, in which it then constitutes the given information (theme), and so forth. This constant provision of ‘common ground’ links the individual segments and leads to a coherent whole. ‘Macrostructural choices’ are concerned with the relations that hold between parts of a text and also with the overall organisation of a text into semantic categories. It is assumed that most text-types are characterised by a conventionally developed inventory of semantic categories (or, in the widest sense, topoi). Van Dijk’s model of ‘superstructures’, for example, identifies semantic categories in a particular text that help to assign it to a certain genre or rather text-type, cf. e.g. van Dijk (1980). A schema, i.e. a superstructure, of a prototypical narrative, for example, includes the elements ‘story’, ‘moral’, ‘plot’, ‘evaluation’, ‘episode(s)’, ‘setting’, ‘event(s)’, ‘complication’ and ‘resolution’, cf. van Dijk (ib.: 142f.). Not all of the categories need to be present in a particular text in order to assign it to, say, the text-type ‘narrative’. Similarly, it is not obligatory for the elements of a superstructure to occur in a conventionally preset order. Clearly, this is the point at which presentational freedom sets in for an encoder when planning his or her message, cf. also Esser (2006: 5). In a similar vein, Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST), as originally thought of by Mann, Matthiessen and Thompson, accounts for the global organisation of a text. The ever-present question of an RST-inspired text analysis is Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 38 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="53"?> Presentation structure 39 the identification of the function fulfilled or effect caused by a particular part of text in its immediate context, cf. Rösner/ Stede (1993: 15). Therefore, in a first step, a text must be divided into rhetorical units. Unit size is arbitrary but should still reflect “[…] independent functional integrity […]” (Mann/ Thompson 1988: 248). This usually confines division to clause size. The division of a text into units then enables the analyst to examine in pairs the functional dependencies that hold between a single identified unit and the remaining cluster of units. Mostly, these pairs feature a ‘nucleus’, expressing the central objective of the text (usually the single unit) and a ‘satellite’ (the cluster of units), containing some sort of additional information. The cluster of units is then segmented in equal fashion and examined with regard to the textual relations of its parts until there is no further partitioning possible. It is also possible that two units instantiate multiple nuclei as in a ‘list relation’. This applies if they are of equal informative value and one cannot be preferred over the other as regards its status in the argumentation of the text, cf. Matthiessen/ Thompson (1988: 289). The precise interpretation of the semantic function of each pair of units is done with the help of an open set of relation definitions. (For a comprehensive overview of RST, go online to www.sfu.ca/ rst; last access 26 July 2011.) The working method of Rhetorical Structure Theory can be illustrated by a short text sample and its corresponding RST-diagram, cf. (6) from Mann/ Thompson (1988: 250). (6) Title: “Dioxin” [1] Concern that this material is harmful to health or the environment may be misplaced. [2] Although it is harmful to certain animals, [3] evidence is lacking that it has any serious long-term effect on human beings. [1-3] elaboration [1] [2-3] concession [1] [2] [3] The vertical line that runs from top to bottom identifies the nuclear unit [1] of the “Dioxin“-text: it provides the kernel information. Units [2] and [3] are Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 39 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="54"?> 40 Linguistic description, presentation structure and the status of punctuation satellites to [1] and serve the function of an ‘elaboration’; furthermore, [2] is in a ‘concession relation’ to [3]. 2.2.1.2 Choices which influence directly the structure of clause complexes It will be recalled from the beginning of section 2.2.1.1 that medium-independent presentational choices are not restricted to those that (i) have largescale consequences for the organisation of a text, but that there is also the possibility to (ii) influence the configuration of clause complexes directly. And presentational choices which directly affect the structure of clauses incorporate decisions as to the ‘arrangement of syntactic units’, cf. also Fig. 2.8 below (p. 57). First of all, choices which influence the order of elements may reflect encoder-based decisions as to how new information is passed on and as to how a decoder is supported in decoding it on the basis of previously communicated content, cf. Esser (2006: 6). That is to say, the aspect of thematic progression (or structure) does not only affect the overall organisation of a text (discussed in the preceding section), but is relevant also at clause level. It is what “[…] gives the clause its character as a message” (Halliday 2004 [1985]: 64). For Leech/ Short (1981: 178) the ideal way to organise a (not necessarily written) message is as follows: The best order of presentation, if one wants to facilitate the reader’s processing of information, both in fiction and in general expository writing, is to go from elements which presuppose the least prior knowledge to those which presuppose the most. Their understanding of ideal thematic progression complies with the concepts ‘theme’ and ‘rheme’ already mentioned in section 2.2.1.1 above. ‘Theme’ describes reference to given information, which has either already been mentioned explicitly before or which can be inferred from the context. It requires considerably little effort by a decoder to integrate this information into his or her textual understanding. “It is the element the speaker selects for ‘grounding’ what he is going to say” (Halliday 2004 [1985]: 58). ‘Rheme’, on the other hand, describes new information that is communicated to a reader or hearer; in the framework of the given text, it is not yet part of the decoder’s stock of knowledge. A theme-rheme (or ‘end-focal’) structure, as expressed by Leech/ Short, is probably the most common (and thus ‘unmarked’) strategy to organise information, cf. Quirk et al. (1985: 1356f.). Mathesius (1975: 156) writes: We have called this order o b j e c t i v e , since it pays regard to the hearer. The reversed order, in which the rheme of the utterance comes first and the theme follows, is s u b j e c t i v e . In normal speech this order occurs only in emotionally coloured utterances in which the speaker pays no regard to the hearer, starting with what is most important for himself. Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 40 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="55"?> Presentation structure 41 Of course, the considerations on thematic progression which concern the arrangement of syntactic units at clause level may be influenced by those which determine the large-scale organisation of a text, cf. sec. 2.2.1.1 above. Furthermore, the way an encoder arranges the syntactic units of his or her text will be motivated by reflections on processability. That is, for communicative purposes, the composition of syntactic structures must foremost include considerations about length and complexity, cf. Esser (2006: 7). And shorter and less complex syntactic units are much easier to process than long and intricate ones. Consequentially, the latter are very often likely to follow shorter ones in order to improve processability on the part of the decoder. Wasow (1997a: 347) notes: “Parsing is facilitated when as much tree structure as possible can be determined early in the string […].” This ‘principle of end-weight’ is, for example, recognised by Quirk et al. (1985: 1361- 1366), and it represents one possibility of presentational choice in order to influence the structure of clause complexes. An example of heavy noun phrase shift, analysed by Hawkins (1994), illustrates the relevance of the end-weight principle, cf. Hawkins (ib.: 57f.). With regard to human shortterm memory capacity and thus a “[…] smaller viewing window […]” (ib.: 57), Hawkins argues in his theory of Early Immediate Constituents that the example in (7b) would be much easier to decode than the one in (7a) - although both are equal in length. In (7b) it takes only five words to clarify the syntactic structure of the verb phrase, whereas it takes twelve words in (7a). Example (7b) is therefore advantageous from a decoder-oriented point of view. (7a) >i VP [gave NP [the valuable book that was extremely difficult to find PP [to mary]]< (7b) >i VP [gave PP [to mary] NP [the valuable book that was extremely difficult to find]]< It should be noted for completeness that some authors advocate a shift in perspective, arguing mainly from an encoder-based position. Wasow (1997a), for example, claims that the postponement of intricate constituents first of all facilitates message-planning for an encoder and is not primarily applied to meet the needs of a decoder. Besides, the sequencing of linguistic elements in a textual arrangement does not necessarily have to be based on considerations about syntactic complexity. As has been mentioned at the beginning of section 2.2, verbal messages often imitate a model of reality and reproduce certain extra-linguistic settings. Thus, they yield a more or less accurate degree of what Leech/ Short (1981) call ‘iconicity’, cf. Leech/ Short (ib.: 233). That is to say, as Leech/ Short (ib.: 234) put it, Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 41 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="56"?> 42 Linguistic description, presentation structure and the status of punctuation […] if A comes before B in the model of reality, then A comes before B in the text. This is a particularly convincing case of syntactic iconicity, because if A and B refer to events, the sequence ‘A and B’ is sufficient to enforce the interpretation that the former event precedes the latter. Since, for example, ‘cause’ usually precedes ‘effect’ in reality, (8b) is apparently quite different in meaning from (8a). And if meaningful at all, (8b) does at least not call up the sequence ‘cause-effect’, cf. Leech/ Short (ib.: 235). (8a) >tom ran out of money and had to find another job< (8b) >tom had to find another job and ran out of money< All in all, therefore, functional arrangements of syntactic units can be accounted for in the form of allo-sentences. As will be remembered, an allosentence has been termed ‘a contextualised variation of a basic decontextualised pattern’, cf. sec. 2.1.3.2 above (p. 30). The grammatical and lexical choices which Esser discusses under the labels ‘referring expressions’, ‘addresser’s modification’ and ‘tense and aspect’ shall be mentioned only for completeness. Broadly, they deal with the choice between deictic and non-deictic expressions and thus between a restricted and an elaborated code (‘referring expressions’); with potential presentation markers like you know or I mean, which may accompany the presentation of (usually) a speaker (‘addresser’s modification’); and with the possibility to express temporal or aspectual distinctions (‘tense and aspect’), cf. Esser (2006: 8f.). In a way, all these choices require consideration of (i) the global organisation of a message, but their application in each case also influences (ii) the syntactic structure of clauses directly. Accordingly, they might be considered intermediate between the presentational choices sketched in sections 2.2.1.1 and 2.2.1.2. In summary, it can be concluded that all medium-independent presentational choices, i.e. those that relate to the organisation of entire textual structures as well as to the syntactic arrangement of clauses are ‘pre-realisational’: they deal with the combination of semantic and structural elements, but are not concerned directly with the typographical and intonational patterning of verbal messages. 2.2.2 Medium-dependent choices Medium-dependent presentational decisions deal with less abstract aspects than the pre-realisational largeor small-scale structural choices dealt with in section 2.2.1 above. This complies with the theoretical model that has been argued for in sections 2.1 to 2.3 above: medium-bound graphic and phonic patterns instantiate abstract, medium-independent types. Spoken and written presentational decisions will be introduced briefly in sections 2.2.2.1 and 2.2.2.2 respectively. Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 42 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="57"?> Presentation structure 43 2.2.2.1 Medium-dependent spoken choices The tone unit, in which phonological words are fused, has been named the most important realisation unit in speech, cf. sec. 2.1.3.3 above. Chafe (1986: 15) writes: Each intonation unit is uttered with a coherent intonation contour, ending usually with one of a small set of pitch patterns associated with the ends of phrases or clauses. […] [I]ntonation units provide us with a unique window into the nature of information flow within the minds of speakers. Without elaborating on questions of information flow and thus truly cognitive questions, Chafe’s view still allows for two important conclusions, which are relevant for the description of spoken presentation structure. First of all, the reference to ‘intonation contour’ signals that for the presentation of spoken language those phonological features are of interest that are usually realised with portions larger than phonological words, cf. sec. 2.1.3.3 above. That is, medium-bound spoken choices mainly deal with suprasegmental properties, commonly referred to as ‘intonation’. Understanding intonation as a means of medium-bound presentational structure presupposes the assumption that it is “[…] tied to […] an encoder’s choice to structure and highlight the message for the decoder […]” (Esser 2006: 10). Secondly, although not distinguishing terminologically between medium-independent and medium-dependent levels of description, Chafe’s cross-reference to ‘phrases and clauses’ and to ‘the minds of speakers’ indicates that intonation constitutes mainly a supportive decoding device: it explicates the grammatical structure. The mention of ‘pitch pattern’, additionally, marks it as a potential indicator of illocutionary force. Halliday/ McIntosh/ Strevens (1966 [1964]: 73) advocate the distinction of three main choices (or ‘systems’) in the functional description of intonation, namely (i) tonality, (ii) tonicity and (iii) tone. The first main choice, termed ‘tonality’, deals with the assignment of tone unit boundaries to a spoken sequence or, more precisely, with its “[…] distribution into tone groups […]” (Halliday 1967: 18). The decision as to how a spoken utterance is realised in terms of tone units reveals a lot about its underlying grammatical structure, or rather as to how it is intended by its encoder. The ubiquitous relevance of the system of tonality is dealt with by Greenbaum, who illustrates the flexibility of intonation with two versions of the same string, reproduced as a medium-independent syntagm in (9), cf. Greenbaum (1991: 165): (9) >he said on several occasions he suffered from headaches< In speech, a tone unit boundary could be placed either after occasions or after said. Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 43 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="58"?> 44 Linguistic description, presentation structure and the status of punctuation (10a) he said on several occasions/ he suffered from headaches\ (10b) he said/ on several occasions he suffered from headaches\ The medium-dependent expression system here corroborates the dissolution of the existing structural homonymy on the medium-independent level, indicating whether the temporal adverbial is assigned to the main or to the subordinate clause, cf. (10a) and (10b) respectively. For Halford (1996: 32) the tone unit is a “[…] prosodic presentation unit […]” and it is “[…] not in direct correspondence with syntax […].” The relation between the medium-independent syntactic structure and the medium-bound phonic realisation is thus a matter of presentational choice, but not an unequivocal one. Mediumindependently, the insertion of the subordinator >that< in the position of the respective tone unit boundaries could clarify the structure given in (9), cf. Greenbaum (1991: 165). By and large, the placement of a tone unit boundary (tonality) depends very much on the length of an utterance, its medium-independent structure as well as on contextual factors such as speech (or reading) rate and communicative intention. Halliday (1992 [1985]: 36) emphasises this variability: The reason why the association between clause and tone group is meaningful is precisely that it is not fixed, but varies systematically as a means of giving structure to the message. It is this potential which makes the system of tonality a presentational device on the part of an encoder (speaker). Besides, tonality follows from the interaction of the systems of tonicity and tone, cf. Esser (1992 [1979]: 40). These are discussed in the following. The second main choice, termed ‘tonicity’, deals with the assignment of the nucleus, i.e. an intonational peak, to one particular item in each tone unit. This can, roughly, be equated with the provision of information points for the benefit of the decoder. As to a spoken presentation, there is for instance an intonational peak, each with the medial syllable of occasions and with the first of headaches, cf. (10a). Similarly, said as well as the initial syllable of headaches receives a nucleus in (10b). One should, however, not confuse the medium-dependent concept ‘nucleus’ with the medium-independent concept ‘focus’, which is best determined on semantic grounds. That is, as a semantic concept, the focus of a verbal message is usually on those items that are regarded as ‘new’ or ‘not yet given’ for a decoder. Focus can in many ways be equated with rheme, cf. sec. 2.2.1.1 above. And in an unmarked order focal, or rhematic, items come second in a clause structure. This has been given voice to in the quotation by Leech/ Short in section 2.2.1.1 above. To complicate things, the mediumbound nucleus (or tonic) is usually also realised at the end of its relevant presentation unit, i.e. tone unit, by default. Hence, spoken nucleus and semanti- Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 44 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="59"?> Presentation structure 45 cally defined focus often coincide. Note that, for example, Quirk et al. (1985) do not make a clear-cut distinction between focus and nucleus. Instead, they argue that the focus can be “[…] identified prosodically […]” and that it, i.e. the stressed element, is usually (and most neutrally) “[…] placed at the end of the information [i.e. tone] unit” (ib.: 1361). In view of the present theoretical framework, however, such an amalgamation of medium-dependent and medium-independent considerations is to be avoided. Conceptually, ‘focus’ and ‘nucleus’ represent descriptive concepts that are applied on the basis of different criteria and thus relate to different expression systems. On these grounds, then, the medium-dependent distinction between a final and a non-final nucleus can be related to the medium-independent distinction between an objective and a subjective order respectively, cf. Mathesius (1975: 156). In turn, a non-final nucleus in the spoken presentation may indicate that the medium-independent ‘principle of end-focus’, i.e. the placement of important constituents at the end of a structure, is not followed either, cf. Quirk et al. (1985: 1365f.). Notwithstanding any theoretical distinctions, this goes to show again that medium-independent and medium-dependent concepts do coincide frequently. For more on the concepts ‘nucleus’ and ‘focus’, see Esser (2006: 73f.) and Quirk et al. (1985: 1365f.), for instance. The question of where the greatest intonational prominence is placed is not only of interest with regard to information management. But it might also contribute to the way in which a medium-independent syntagm is decoded. Take, for example, the chain of word-forms in (11), cf. Newman (1946: 179): (11) >i have instructions to leave< Two possible spoken realisations are given in (12a) and (12b). Whereas they do not differ in terms of tonality, they do in terms of tonicity: (12a) I have instructions to leave\ (12b) I have instructions to leave\ The placement of the nucleus has a distinctive function here: it facilitates significantly the task of a potential decoder to dissolve the structural ambiguity. And hence, (12a) is conventionally decoded as ‘I have to leave instructions’ and (12b) reads ‘I have been instructed to leave’, cf. Newman (ib.). Finally, the third main choice, termed ‘tone’, deals with the realisation of tone movement at tone unit boundaries. In many approaches to intonation, a considerably delicate description of tone patterns is undertaken, eventually providing a potential encoder (speaker) with numerous options. The descriptive sets (or systems), however, are not necessarily congruent, neither conceptually nor terminologically, which often stems from differences in re- Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 45 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="60"?> 46 Linguistic description, presentation structure and the status of punctuation search interest as well as linguistic schools, cf. e.g. Crystal (1976 [1969]: 210f.) and Esser (1975: ch. 1). Yet, for the analysis of tone, at least two different positions have to be considered; namely, whether one wants to account for linguistically relevant distinctions or whether a phonetic description is to be achieved. To illustrate this: Sampson (1985) insists that, given the appropriate context, at least four possible functional variations in tone - communicating shades in meaning - were imaginable for a spoken realisation of the sequence given in (13), cf. Sampson (ib.: 37f.). (13) >is he sure of it< His suggestions, illustrated in Figure 2.7, have in common that each leaves unaltered the placement of the nucleus (on sure) and that the interrogative clause in (13) is always presented as a single tone unit in speech, i.e. there is a tone unit boundary after it. T ONAL V ARIATION E NCODED M EANING S YMBOL (i) low level pitch rising to high (high rise) ‘I am asking whether he is sure of it’ N EUTRAL (ii) low level pitch rising to mid (low rise) ‘I just want to know; not that it really matters’ U NCOMMITTED (iii) low level pitch rising to high, then falling ‘I need to know, because if he is not…’ C OMMITTED (iv) high level pitch falling to low, then rising ‘You ask whether he is sure of it; of course he is’ D ISAPPROVING Figure 2.7: Tonal variations and concomitant distinctions in meaning of the sequence >is he sure of it< However, the rather delicate tonal nuances couched in Figure 2.7 might not be easy to reproduce. And quite generally, gradable meanings such as ‘commitment’ or ‘disapproval’ are extremely difficult to indicate unequivocally in speech anyway. They leave room for subjective interpretation, i.e. there is a high degree of variation possible, cf. Esser (1975: 35). From the outset, Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 46 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="61"?> Presentation structure 47 Bolinger (1959: 200) seems to be critical of a too delicate description of tone movement: A rise, I would say, is a rise, and the difficulty of deciding when it is high and when it is low is simply that one can have not only the extremes but anything between them. What counts is the direction; the differences are gradient. Being often only a “[…] more versus less […]”, for Bolinger “[i]ntonation is marginal, and tolerates a lot of homophony” (ib.: 201). In effect, then, his view suggests that only the distinction ‘fall vs rise’ is of linguistic relevance. Other linguists such as Leech/ Svartvik (1994 [1975]), Esser (1975; 1992 [1979]), Cruttenden (1986), Nevalainen (1992), and Mukherjee (2001; 2003) have picked up this suggestion, basically arguing that “[…] the main functional divide takes place between these two pitch direction types […]” (Nevalainen 1992: 413), cf. also Leech/ Svartvik (1994 [1975]: 22-25), Esser (1975: passim; 1992 [1979]: 40f.), Cruttenden (1986: 98, 115, 168) and Mukherjee (2001: 19-23; 2003: 124). The only linguistically relevant distinction as far as the selection of tone is concerned is thus the binary choice between a rising and a falling tone. Consider the pair of opposites in (14a) and (14b) from Esser (1992 [1979]: 40): (14a) isn’t it fantastic/ (14b) isn’t it fantastic\ A maximally low degree of delicacy, i.e. ‘rise vs fall’, will suffice to assign the interrogative sequence either the illocutionary force (function) of a question, cf. ‘/ ’ in (14a), or that of an exclamation, cf. ‘\’ in (14b). Further tonal distinctions like those suggested for (13), cf. Fig. 2.7, do not contribute to this decision. But they are, usually, a logical outcome of the given coand context of an utterance, cf. Esser (1975: 33f., 114-118). From a microlinguistic point of view, therefore, the identification of detailed phonological (or even phonetic) features can be considered redundant; they play a role, however, in the description of attitudinal or expressive functions of intonation. Any volatile spoken features, including vocal tone and loudness, that may come along with the context (and lead to comparably fine shades in meaning as proposed by Sampson) can be subsumed under the term ‘paralinguistic information’, cf. sec. 2.3 below. All in all, the broad choices of tonality, tonicity and tone combine to form a linguistic (sub-)system: they have a presentational function when understood as medium-bound correlates to grammatical structure at the mediumindependent level of form. For this, a relatively low degree of descriptive delicacy is sufficient. Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 47 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="62"?> 48 Linguistic description, presentation structure and the status of punctuation 2.2.2.2 Medium-dependent written choices As far as written presentation is concerned, a great deal of standardisation has taken place over the course of history. This mainly affects the orthographic system and is surely a result of the increasing demands on the written language after the invention of the printing press in the fifteenth century. A standardised and relatively stable appearance of the written presentation facilitates efficient decoding, and it allows for a more facile access to the medium-independent linguistic information encoded in writing. With its spatially arranged symbols, the written expression system allows for surveyability, a feature by which it differs from the temporally arranged sounds in spoken language, cf. Vachek (1948: 68). “Written language […] can be inspected at will […]” (Kennedy 2000: 195). Crystal (2005 [1995]: 270) writes with regard to the chunks of text one is usually confronted with: The complex interaction of typeface [font plus eventual additions such as bold print, italicisation, underlining, etc., SP], type size, letter and line spacing, colour, and other such variables combine to produce what has sometimes been called texture - the dominant visual quality of the typeset text. The macrosetting in which a typeset is presented may be called ‘layout’. Broadly speaking, this describes the configuration of (chains of) letters on a page, including the specification of type-area, i.e. positions of margins plus text (body), and decisions about spacing, i.e. between words and lines, as well as about lineation, e.g. ‘justified’ vs ‘unjustified setting’, and colouration, cf. e.g. Esser (2006: 98-102) and also Bringhurst (2005 [1992]: 143-179). One of the few linguistic approaches to written text that include macrolevel elements such as layout features or other typographic components is proposed, for example, by Waller, cf. e.g. Waller (1980; 1982; 1985; 1987). In a similar vein, Levenston assesses in how far certain physical aspects of the written expression system (including macro-level features like typeface and layout) relate to, support and/ or bring about the meaning expressed in literary texts, cf. Levenston (1992). Furthermore, however, Crystal’s quotation makes it clear that also on a smaller scale, i.e. at the textual level, a reader is provided with encoder-based information of various kinds. That is, the design of different aspects of the text itself contributes significantly to the visual quality of its typographic presentation, i.e. to its texture, cf. also Samara (2004: 14). Five aspects are discussed in the following (microsetting). Firstly, there is probably the most basic presentational choice an encoder can make, namely whether a unit in writing is presented as one or as two orthographic words, cf. sec. 2.1.3.3 above. Similar to differences in stress in the spoken expression system, this is often used to provide syntactic information in a written word-form, cf. (15a) and (15b); see also the related, critical discussion in sections 2.1.2 and 2.1.3.3 above. Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 48 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="63"?> Presentation structure 49 (15a) <blackbird> [compound: ‘species of bird; Latin name turdus merula’] (15b) <black bird> [syntactic group: ‘bird with a black plumage’] However, the decision between compound spelling and spacing does not always allow for an unequivocal grammatical interpretation of written wordforms in present-day English; consider also the theoretical aspects mentioned in sections 2.1.1 to 2.1.3 above. Compound spelling and spacing are rather subject to the style of an encoder (writer) and need not reflect the syntactic status of an item in writing. Of course, the same holds for hyphenated word-forms. Sometimes, however, the graphic realisation might be utilised as an indicator of the degree of lexicalisation, i.e. to what extent a word has already become adopted into the mental lexicon as a usual formation. Esser (2006: 48) mentions the written variants of textlinguistics: (16a) <text linguistics> (16b) <text-linguistics> (16c) <textlinguistics> It could be argued that the relatively modern spelling as a single orthographic word might be a sign of its coinage as a regular lexical item. That is, if the degree of spatial proximity was an indicator of this process, hyphenation could be considered a transitional stage between the original spaced version and the modern compound spelling, indicating nonce formation and lexicalised neologism respectively, cf. Esser (ib.). This shows that the concept of a medium-independent word-form >text linguistics< is an indispensable concept to account for the variability of the written forms given in (16a) to (16c), cf. also sec. 2.1.2 above. Secondly, another important and conspicuous device of graphic presentation is capitalisation. Initial capital letters are applied - at least in English - to distinguish common nouns from proper nouns and thus designate, as Quirk et al. (1985: 1637) note, “[…] persons, places, works of literature, days of the week months of the year (but not usually the seasons), and the planets (but not the earth, the sun, or the moon).” In this respect, English differs from German, for example. In German, all nouns are systematically capitalised as a matter of convention. Although somewhat less systematically, this practice was equally common in English in the eighteenth century, but has been reduced under the influence of grammarians in an attempt of greater regularisation, cf. Crystal (2005 [1995]: 66f., 392). Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 49 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="64"?> 50 Linguistic description, presentation structure and the status of punctuation Further cases in which capital letters are still usually applied in English even today include those listed in (17) to (22). Examples (17) to (21) are taken from Quirk et al. (1985: 266f., 1637f.), (22) is from Esser (2006: 45). Potential additional minor conventions for capitalisation are left out, since they would neither strengthen nor diminish the point made here. (17) <the Church>, <the Renaissance> [nouns with unique denotation] (18) <Colonel John Mills> [appositional titles] (19) <These are the forms you wanted, Principal.> [status markers in vocatives] (20) <the Home Office>, <the Mineworkers Union> [names of institutions] (21) <The next problem, that of Ultraviolet Radiation, is one on which considerable progress has been made> [specific key words concepts] (22) <White House> vs <white house> [proper noun (one lexeme) vs premodified noun phrase] Notwithstanding any attempts of conventionalisation, Crystal (2005 [1995]: 122) highlights the great presentational variability as far as capitalisation is concerned: Should it be Bible or bible, Sun or sun, National Park or national park, Heaven or heaven, Communist Party or communist party (or Communist party)? Reference books vary in their practices. Thus Chambers Biographical Dictionary has people receiving the ‘Nobel prize for physics’, whereas the Encyclopaedia Britannica has them receiving the ‘Nobel Prize for Physics’. There are thousands of these cases, too. Again, it becomes apparent that an encoder-based presentational means like capitalisation is applied for the benefit of the reader. That is, ignoring a feature like capitalisation or assigning capital letters wrongly does not change the medium-independent syntactic status of written word-forms: it just might make decoding somewhat more demanding, cf. Esser (2006: 48f.). On the other hand, there is almost a tendency in modern graphic design, which Crystal (2005 [1995]) calls ‘graphological minimalism’, cf. Crystal (ib.: 392). It describes the relatively recent inclination to adopt a lower-case style for the presentation of brand or company names, “[…] sensing a contrast between a cool modern image and the style of established authority” (ib.). In the language of text-messages and online real-time chats, the usage of small Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 50 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="65"?> Presentation structure 51 letters has even become a constant feature beyond the presentation of isolated written word-forms. Surely, this is connected with a growing immediacy in written communication as it reduces production time. Generally, the mere stylistic distinction ‘uppercase’ vs ‘lowercase’ is sometimes considered as being a quality of typeface, cf. Samara (2004: 22) and below. Besides being applied to make orthographic word-forms more informative, capitalisation is a constitutive feature of the orthographic sentence, specified as a stretch of writing that is bounded by an initial capital (lefthand boundary) and a final punctuation mark (right-hand boundary), cf. sec. 2.1.3.3 above. Yet, Gleason (1970 [1955]: 432) observes a lack of functionality in the presence of capital letters at the beginning of sentences: “First words of sentences are capitalized, though this is strictly redundant, even in English, since sentence ends are also marked.” The capital letter as the lefthand boundary of an orthographic sentence is thus not more than a presentational decoding help for the reader: it offers recurrent points of reference. With its clearly distinguished boundaries on either side, the orthographic sentence represents an obtrusive presentation unit of written text. Thirdly, another field within which encoder-based variation is possible in writing is the orthographic system of English. Orthography yields a “[…] functional interpretation of the letters and their combination, i.e. graphemes” (Esser 2006: 88), and here the greatest deal of standardisation has taken place. Crystal (2005 [1995]: 67) summarises this development: By the middle of the [seventeenth, SP] century, printing conventions had become highly regularized, and the gulf established between the forms of speech and their written representation. The modern system, in which irregular spellings can be explained but not predicted, had arrived. The period of social tolerance of variant spellings came to an end; and as the 18th-century notions of correctness emerged, poor spelling became increasingly stigmatized. Primarily, conventionalised orthography facilitates the rendering and the decoding of medium-independent word-forms in graphic substance. That is to say, it provides writer and reader alike with a presentational resource to encode/ decode, by default, phonological and morphological information. However, even in modern English, orthography is not conformist. Spelling variants touch upon different fields: There is the coexistence of various national orthographic standards as can be observed in the comparison of British or American English. The discussion of the written forms <colour> (BrE) and <color> (AmE), cf. sec. 2.1.2 above, has already provided one prominent example. Others could be found in the difference between <-re> (BrE) and <-er> (AmE) or the doubling of consonants, cf. e.g. <fulfil> (BrE) vs <fulfill> (AmE). Dictionaries abound with further examples. There is also variation possible within national standards: compare the substitutability of <-ise> and <-isation> versus <-ize> and <-ization> in Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 51 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="66"?> 52 Linguistic description, presentation structure and the status of punctuation British English, to give only a single, random example. Whereas in some cases, coexisting variants stem from dialectal influence, in other cases they are the result of deliberate language planning, as can be witnessed, say, in Germany. Subsequent to a spelling reform in the 1990s, the number of cases has increased in which contesting spellings are possible to express the same lexical item. Compare, for example, the obvious differences in the German forms for ‘grizzly bear’, cf. (23); ‘mayonnaise’, cf. (24); or ‘purse’, cf. (25): (23) <Grizzlybär> vs <Grislibär> (24) <Mayonnaise> vs <Majonäse> (25) <Portemonnaie> vs <Portmonee> In each case, the first form represents the one valid before the reform, the second the newly introduced one. It should be emphasised that the spelling reform in Germany did not only affect loan words or specialised vocabulary as could be reasoned from the examples given in (23) to (25). In this context, the sole aim is to give striking examples of coexistent spellings, but not to account comprehensively for the changes made in the reform. With a view to English, it can be observed that for some expressions there even may be no commonly accepted orthography; although, admittedly, this mainly affects the inflected use of loan words. Consider a short paragraph, taken from Abbott (1988), where the underlined words give the author’s favoured spellings, cf. Abbott (ib.: 45f.): (26) ? <I would rather be in a comfortable verandahed house, sitting pyjamaed in a duveted bed and being fed puréed fruit by a muumuued beauty, than be bivouacked on a sparsely-treed plain, sitting anoraked and shivering in the leaden-skied gloom and eating potatoes that were sautéd yesterday before the power cables arc-ed.> The spelling of the underlined forms in (26) needs not be generally adhered to. Hence, written alternatives such as a double consonant in <duvetted> (for Abbott’s <duveted>), or the potential substitutes <anorak’d/ anoraked> (for <anorak-ed>) as well as <arcked/ arced> (for <arc-ed>) cannot be ruled out. Once again, it can be argued that the concept of a medium-independent word-form allows language users to abstract away from the written variants. On this basis, variants can be made, used and understood interchangeably - at least if the recognition value of the written word-forms is high enough. Besides regular or free variation, there might also be deliberate deviation from the rules of orthography, cf. Esser (2006: 89). Intentional misspellings may be employed to provide advertising slogans as well as names of companies and products with a high recognition value or to ensure that they “[…] Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 52 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="67"?> Presentation structure 53 will not be confused with an ordinary word in the language” (Crystal 2005 [1995]: 275). In this respect, consider the often quoted strapline of a food maker and the name of a supermarket in (27) and (28) respectively, cf. Crystal (ib.) and for (27) also Mukherjee (2000: 163): (27) <Beanz Meanz Heinz> (28) <KWIK SAVE> Moreover, abnormal spellings are also used frequently to reflect regional background and/ or idiosyncrasy. This includes “[…] what might be called ‘standard deviance’ - accepted ways of writing a colloquial [spoken, SP] form” (Crystal 2005 [1995]: 275). Consider (29) to (31) from Crystal (ib.): (29) <Gotcha! > [Got you! - portraying assimilation in speech] (30) <wot> [what - often signalling an uneducated speaker] (31) <Gawd> [God - suggesting distinctive regional (or class) pronunciation] The examples illustrate a graphic feature which has been described elsewhere as ‘eye dialect’, cf. e.g. Bowdre (1971) and Levenston (1992: 54-57). In practical terms, such obtrusive spelling irregularities are a constant feature of the language of pop songs, cf. e.g. Kreyer/ Mukherjee (2007). Roughly, deviant orthography is used here either as an attention-seeking device for merely poetic reasons; or it has already developed into a global stylistic pattern, characteristic, for example, of an artist’s individual style or of a specific branch of pop music, cf. Kreyer/ Mukherjee (ib.: 35f., 40-42). Finally, there is the so-called ‘special orthography’, or ‘textspeak’, which exploits the resources of a language in a particularly creative and innovative way, cf. Crystal (2004: passim). Special orthography is applied frequently in the language of text messages, emails or online chat rooms, since it meets the requirement of conciseness and yet expressiveness, cf. Esser (2006: 89). Its appearance is mainly based on abbreviations, sometimes taking advantage of homophonous letters or numbers and words. The following examples from Crystal (2004: 144, 145, 153) serve as cases in point, cf. (32) to (35). (32) <CU2MORO> - >see you tomorrow< (33) <DNDC> - >do not know do not care< (34) <PLS4GIVME> - >please forgive me< (35) <ROTFL> - >rolling over the floor laughing< Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 53 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="68"?> 54 Linguistic description, presentation structure and the status of punctuation In each case, only a single written form relates to several underlying medium-independent word-forms. Since the graphic presentation is maximally condensed, there is no one-to-one relation between a medium-independent type and a corresponding orthographic word-form. In (33) and (35), for example, there is rather a match between medium-independent word-forms and single corresponding medium-dependent letters. In other cases, such as (32) and (34), one even has to make an implicit detour via a more informative spoken realisation in order to gain access to the medium-independent types. This knowledge then allows for a presentation in standard orthography. Interestingly, offshoots of special orthography are occasionally encountered in modern pop song lyrics, cf. Mukherjee (2000) and Kreyer/ Mukherjee (2007). A feature that has arisen along with textspeak is the use of special symbols, called ‘emoticons’. Like textspeak, their use represents a particularly concise expressive feature of presentation a writer has at his or her disposal. Crystal (2004: 38f.) defines emoticons as […] sequential combination[s] of keyboard characters designed to convey the emotion associated with a particular facial expression. The simplest forms represent basic attitudes - positive, in the case of : ) and negative in the case of : ( . Although they originally have to be pieced together from left to right as they follow a written stretch, advanced computer technology now also permits the conversion of the successive ASCII symbols into visual representations such as ‘ ’ (for ‘positive’) or ‘ ’ (for ‘negative’). In any case, emoticons (or ‘smileys’) “[…] are not subject to medium-transferability and are therefore tied to graphic substance” (Esser 2006: 90). Having discussed three of the five major medium-bound written choices, the fourth includes features like italicisation, bold print, underlining, SMALL CAPITALS , but also the selection of different letterforms such as, for example, ‘Arial’ (sans serif), ‘Monotype Corsiva’ or ‘Times New Roman’ (serif). These two groups of presentational devices are commonly subsumed under the terms ‘typeface’ and ‘font’ respectively, cf. Esser (ib.: 95). (It will be remembered, however, that, in the quotation by Crystal at the beginning of this section 2.2.2.2, typeface and font are both captured by the notion ‘typeface’, cf. also Samara [2004: 22f.].) There is a close relation between font and type size, i.e. the dimensions in which a certain letterform is presented. As a case in point, compare ‘10-point’ vs ‘ 14-point ’. As to proportions: the common ‘Didot point’, for example, is set at 0.376 mm, cf. Samara (ib.: 28). Of two further presentational means which an encoder has at his or her disposal at the graphic level, one is thus “[…] changing the styles of the letters […]” (Esser 2006: 48) with possible variations in typeface, font and type size. For Huddleston/ Pullum (2002: 1724) the status of changes in typeface in the written expression system is obvious: “Ordinary lower-case roman rep- Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 54 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="69"?> Presentation structure 55 resents the default form, and these nonsegmental features can be regarded as modifications of the default form.” With regard to their function, it can thus be concluded that italicisation, bold print, etc. can be defined as encoder-based variation, deployed intentionally in order to highlight (or emphasise) parts of a message, i.e. text. It is a property that facilitates decoding for a reader. It is, however, important to note that Huddleston/ Pullum describe variation in typeface as a potentially nonsegmental feature. That is, its application is not (necessarily) confined to a single letter, but properties like italicisation and bold-print typically pertain to longer segments of text. Once more, though, it must be emphasised that any such modification of a written stretch does not affect its recognisability as an instantiation of an abstract medium-independent type. The question of nonsegmental features (or more fittingly of suprasegmental features) will be taken up again in section 5.1 below. Fifthly, and lastly, there is punctuation as an important means of written presentation structure, or as Crystal (2005 [1995]: 278) puts it: “Punctuation plays a critical role in the modern writing system, yet its significance is regularly underestimated.” The vital share punctuation has in the encoding and decoding of propositions in written text could already be inferred from examples (1a) to (1d) in chapter 1 above; for convenience, they are repeated here with a new numbering, cf. (36a) to (36d). (36a) <We had one problem: only Janet knew we faced bankruptcy.> (36b) <We had one problem only: Janet knew we faced bankruptcy.> (36c) <We had one problem only, Janet knew: we faced bankruptcy.> (36d) <We had one problem only Janet knew we faced: bankruptcy.> Unarguably, punctuation contributes to the visual and hence meaningful structuring of the written stretches by subdividing them into orthographic sentences or sub-sentences of differing length. But, as has been suggested earlier, punctuation is also applied with orthographic words: the hyphen, for example, may link two or more written word-forms to form a larger written unit as in <text-linguistics>; and the apostrophe indicates, say, whether a writer refers to a single person’s friend as in <the boy’s friend> or to the friend of a group of people as in <the boys’ friend>. This is not expressible in speech, where both stretches would be homophonous. Take into account the difficulties a reader may face when confronted with a piece of written text that is completely stripped of its punctuation and capital letters, cf. (37a): (37a) <feet crunched the gravel voices chattered the inner voice the other voice was saying how can we deny that this brave music wafted from the bushes is expensive of some inner harmony when we wake some Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 55 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="70"?> 56 Linguistic description, presentation structure and the status of punctuation were thinking the day breaks us with its hard mallet blows the office some were thinking compels disparity scattered shattered hither thither summoned by the bell ping ping ping thats the phone forward serving thats the shop so we answer to the infernal agelong and eternal order issued from on high and obey> In (37a), all capital letters have been removed that would have been the result of a preceding sentence-final punctuation mark. Since punctuation has been fully omitted, there no longer is any indicator for sentence-initial capitalisation either. For the status of initial capitals, see section 5.1 below. Example (37b) gives the same, now punctuated passage as originally realised by Virginia Woolf (2000 [1941]: 74) in her last novel Between the Acts. (37b) <Feet crunched the gravel. Voices chattered. The inner voice, the other voice was saying: How can we deny that this brave music, wafted from the bushes, is expensive of some inner harmony? “When we wake” (some were thinking) “the day breaks us with its hard mallet blows.” “The office” (some were thinking) “compels disparity. Scattered, shattered, hither thither summoned by the bell. ‘Pingping-ping’ that’s the phone. ‘Forward! ’ ‘Serving! ’ - that’s the shop.” So we answer to the infernal, agelong and eternal order issued from on high. And obey.> Whereas efficient decoding is virtually impossible (or at least heavily impeded) in (37a), with the help of punctuation it is not much of a problem for a competent speaker of English in (37b). All in all, for the written realisation of medium-independent strings of word-forms - more often than not - it does not suffice to give a sequence of the graphic patterns of these forms; moreover, the stretch encoded in writing must be supplemented by punctuation marks to endow it with special information and to enable successful communication. In other words, punctuation marks are important devices of the written medium as they provide particular encoder-generated information as to how a written stretch has to be ‘understood’ and it thus facilitates decoding on the part of the reader. Hence, it can be argued that, like all other medium-bound presentational features, punctuation as such is not liable to medium-transferability. This interpretation complies fully with the theoretical framework expounded in sections 2.1.1 to 2.1.3 above. Figure 2.8 gives an overview of the presentational choices that have been looked at in the present section, reproducing the important distinction between abstract medium-independent and more concrete mediumdependent options. Please note that the model does not aim at representing actual psychological processes (e.g. from top to bottom), although potential analogies cannot be ruled out categorically. Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 56 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="71"?> Presentation structure 57 Figure 2.8: Medium-independent and medium-presentational choices Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 57 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="72"?> 58 Linguistic description, presentation structure and the status of punctuation At the beginning of section 2.2, it has been claimed in compliance with the theoretical model on which this study is based that linguistic form encodes abstract meanings with the help of grammar and vocabulary, cf. Halliday/ Hasan (1976: 5). Spoken and written language are consequently regarded as (equivalent) ‘vehicles to make visible and audible linguistic form’. On these grounds, it has been shown that various encoder-based options have share in this at different levels of abstraction. Since the relations among all these levels are explicable on the basis of the principle of medium-transferability, any analysis of punctuation as a means of medium-dependent written presentational choice must be conducted against this background. That is to say, being a mere written property, punctuation must be analysed in view of its affiliations with the expression system of speech, with the medium-independent expression system of syntax and with regard to any further semantically relevant considerations it may express. It must be analysed, therefore, as to whether punctuation communicates medium-independent or spoken presentational decisions in the medium-bound expression system of writing, and, specifically, in how far there are any systematic correspondences. From a theoretical point of view, only such a broadly based approach to punctuation (firmly rooted in the written medium) seems to promise satisfying results as to its function, i.e. communicative value. Generally, the different elements of punctuation in present-day English will be dealt with in section 5.2 below. 2.3 Verbal and nonverbal information: punctuation from a semiotic perspective 2.3.1 Verbal and nonverbal information Complementing the large-scale theoretical framework, which is necessary for the functional description of punctuation, it is on the basis of the important distinction of medium-independency and medium-dependency that another differentiation has to be made between so-called ‘verbal’ and ‘nonverbal information’. ‘Verbal information’ stands for that kind of information of (sequences of) linguistic signs which undergoes medium-transferability. That is to say, verbal information constitutes the lexico-grammatical details found in morphemes, word-forms and syntactic patterns or constructions, cf. Esser (2006: 19f.). Additionally, the concept of verbal information covers knowledge of the abstract graphic or phonic patterns (images écrites et acoustiques) that are associated with the medium-independent lexico-grammatical information, and which constitute the basic knowledge for the realisation of the latter in speech and writing. ‘Nonverbal information’, on the other hand, represents those features and elements that only contribute to the realisation of (sequences of) lin- Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 58 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="73"?> Verbal and nonverbal information: punctuation from a semiotic perspective 59 guistic signs in the mediums of speech and writing. By definition, this precludes nonverbal information from covering features other than medium-dependent ones: nonverbal signs solely refer to presentational aids which are perceived either visually or acoustically, and by which encoders “[…] contextualize their verbal activities” (Arndt/ Janney 1987: 95). This accommodates the fact that the meaning communicated through linguistic utterances, i.e. sequences of signs, is not entirely inherent in the linguistic forms themselves. See, for example, Arndt/ Janney (ib.: 94f.) for an insightful case in point. Accounting more precisely for the qualities of nonverbal signs, there is a basic distinction being made between (i) ‘prosodic’ and (ii) ‘paralinguistic information’. This differentiation has already been alluded to at the end of section 2.2.2.1 above and is a common categorisation in linguistics, cf. e.g. Crystal/ Quirk (1964), Crystal (1976 [1969]), Cruttenden (1986), Arndt/ Janney (1987), Halliday (1992 [1985]) and Lyons (1999 [1981]). In the linguistic research, (i) prosodic features are restricted to vocal qualities; in speech, they form a system that may reinforce functional contrasts that hold at the level of form and which are relevant linguistically. Hence, the intonational systems of tonality, tonicity and tone are taken as prosodic features if their application to a syntagmatic chain of spoken word-forms serves to distinguish one syntactic arrangement (or category) from another as far as the underlying medium-independent structural configuration is concerned, cf. Esser (1975: 44f.), Quirk et al. (1985: 1588f.) and Halliday (1992 [1985]: 30f., 52). This is reflected in the discussion of the spoken presentational choices in section 2.2.2.1 above. Since prosodic features may be synchronised systematically with linguistic structure, their application is relatively normalised. In contrast, (ii) paralinguistic features are those nonverbal properties that do not have a distinctive grammatical correlate. That is, they cannot be linked directly with medium-independent structural decisions or categories but have already been referred to as less stable (‘volatile’), cf. sec. 2.2.2.1 above. Audible paralinguistic qualities include tempo, loudness as well as situational voice qualities, cf. Crystal (1976 [1969]: 128-130) and Halliday (1992 [1985]: 30f.). They are conditioned by a particular situation or an individual speaker, i.e. they occur entirely context-dependently, and thus allow for a broad range of idiosyncratic variation. Being concomitant with the phonic realisation of verbal messages, paralinguistic features usually communicate meanings which cannot be associated with a distinct and consistent spoken signal, cf. Esser (1975: 34f.) and Lyons (1999 [1981]: 24). Other vocal qualities, which relate information about the identity of an individual, such as vocal tone and pitch range, as it is sometimes argued, have no conventional meaning at all, cf. e.g. Cruttenden (1986: 177). Consequently, these largely invariable features that pertain to (and identify) the language user may be classed Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 59 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="74"?> 60 Linguistic description, presentation structure and the status of punctuation separately as ‘personal features’. 2 However, the ‘contextualisation’ of verbal messages does not only include nonverbal spoken features but also kinesic signs perceived visually. Accordingly, Lyons (1999 [1981]: 23f.) names “[…] eye-movements, head-nods, facial expressions, gestures, body-posture, etc.” With regard to their functionality, these “[…] non-vocal phenomena […]” (ib.: 23) resemble spoken qualities like tempo and loudness and they are, as a result, also allocated to the field of paralanguage. 2.3.2 Punctuation marks as indices The previous remarks show that nonverbal information has been researched mainly in connection with spoken communication: hence, ‘prosodic’ and ‘paralinguistic’ have been related solely to vocal, gestural and facial qualities, cf. Esser (2006: 20). The discussion of medium-dependent presentational choices in section 2.2.2 above has shown, however, that a writer has distinctive options also at the level of graphic encoding by which he or she may influence and facilitate the decoding of graphic patterns. Thus, nonverbal information cannot be an exclusive feature of spoken face-to-face communication. Together with features like capitalisation or variation in typeface, fonting, type size, orthography and also macrosetting, i.e. layout, punctuation must be considered a nonverbal property at the graphic level then. Yet, if punctuation marks are regarded as graphic nonverbal elements that contribute to the realisation of (sequences of) linguistic signs in the written medium in order to facilitate decoding (or communication), this is only possible on the basis of stipulated information which is associated - in one way or the other - with the individual marks. It appears therefore practicable to approach the interpretation of the communicative value of punctuation marks within the framework of semiotics or, specifically, to accept punctuation marks as elements of a definable semiotic system. The latter may be defined loosely as a predetermined set of items, within “[…] which it is conventionally agreed that a particular meaning will be realized by a particular representation” (Eggins 2004 [1994]: 14). Unarguably, the usage of punctuation as such is inextricably linked to the usage of human language, which can be conceived of as a complex, ordered semiotic system, whose unique design feature is the property of double articulation, cf. Mulder/ Hervey (1971: 325) and sec. 2.1.2 above. Since punctuation marks cannot be analysed “[…] into lower level 2 Different authors use different terms in their taxonomies of user-defining nonverbal features: Crystal/ Quirk (1964) call such nonverbal properties ‘personal’ whereas Crystal (1976 [1969]) chooses ‘person-identifying’; Cruttenden (1986) classifies them as ‘extralinguistic’ and, for example, Halliday (1992 [1985]) opts for ‘indexical’. Note that ‘indexical’ may be a problematic label in this context because, clearly, the quality of ‘conveying information’ (which the term stands for) is not unique to the personal features. All nonverbal features are to some extent informative. For punctuation, this will be shown in the following section 2.3.2. Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 60 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="75"?> Verbal and nonverbal information: punctuation from a semiotic perspective 61 components, or […] into higher level complexes […]” (ib.: 326), they are, by definition, no inherent part of the system of human language, but form a distinctive semiotic arrangement. This, in turn, is only logical since otherwise punctuation would have to be understood as part of the language system: an assumption which has already been questioned in chapter 1 above as one persistent but doubtful stance towards punctuation. Standing for something else, punctuation marks - like all semiotic elements - can be assigned to the wide class of indices. It is characteristic of an index to convey some extra information apart from those pieces of information which are inherently characteristic of the index-constituting entity itself. Consequentially, the interpretation that an entity functions as an index in a certain situation presupposes that it refers to something outside itself. The entity A, for example, may convey the information ‘that B’. Mulder/ Hervey (ib.: 327) write: In this light the relator of the above relation shows itself to be akin to the relator: ‘implies’. Thus we feel justified in making use of the symbol (actually a sign) → to replace the inconveniently long phrase ‘conveys the information that’; hence we rewrite the above relation simply as a → b, or as ‘index → information’. If the implicational relation between an index A and the information B it provides does not rely on natural causes, the index in question is called a ‘signum’. A case in point is the relation ‘white flag → surrender’, which is a result of convention or choice. On the contrary, the relation ‘lightning → thunder’, for example, represents a ‘natural relation’, cf. Mulder/ Hervey (ib.: 327-330). Since, at present, any natural cause or co-occurrence between punctuation and a certain effect seems implausible, it appears indeed axiomatic that the communicative function of punctuation marks is based on decisions of mutual assent. That is, like traffic signs or mathematical symbols each applied mark conveys some decodable pieces of information, which depend on (arbitrary) agreements among the members of a certain language community. Punctuation marks may be called ‘signa’. 2.3.2.1 Determining the communicative value of punctuation The general practicability of a semiotic approach to the description of nonverbal features is demonstrated by Esser (1975), who formalises the basic relation between an index and the information it conveys to analyse the functional potential of intonation, i.e. of the systems of tonality, tonicity and tone. For this, he ignores delicate intonational parameters, but rather regards each intonational system as a ‘prosodic category’ that may be correlated with linguistic structure, cf. Esser (ib.: 33, 41, 45) and also sec. 2.2.2.1 above. Following in the main Esser’s formal notation, the relationship between a punctuation mark and the conventional information it communi- Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 61 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="76"?> 62 Linguistic description, presentation structure and the status of punctuation cates may be illustrated as an instantiation of the relation ‘index → information’. Examples (38a) and (38b), as taken from Trask (1997: 3), serve as a case in point; see also chapter 1 above for further variations. (38a) <We had one problem: only Janet knew we faced bankruptcy.> (38b) <We had one problem only: Janet knew we faced bankruptcy.> CONDITION: syntagmatic chain of written word-forms <We had one problem only Janet knew we faced bankruptcy> INDEX: punctuation mark, e.g. colon (a) xxxx: xxxxxx (b) xxxxx: xxxxx INFORMATION: parsing of the syntactic configurations (a) [[[We had][one problem]][[[only][ Janet knew]][[we faced][bankruptcy]]]] (b) [[[We had][one problem][only]][[[ Janet knew]][[we faced][bankruptcy]]]] The placement of a punctuation mark in the aand b-examples indicates the correct parsing of the different syntactic structures that are expressed in writing by the same string of words. More precisely, the placement of the colon visualises the structural boundary between two juxtaposed main clauses. Depending on the position of the colon, however, both the length of each clause and the meaning of the whole clause complex differ slightly. A colon placement after problem as in (38a) calls for an assignment of only to the second clause, i.e. only Janet knew we faced bankruptcy. In this case, the proposition that is expressed by the two adjacent clauses may be summarised as focussing on the type of problem; specifically: ‘the whole problem is that it is merely Janet who knows about our impending insolvency’. Yet if the colon follows after only, cf. (38b), this is an evident conventional indicator that the adverb is interpreted as syntactically belonging to its left-hand constituent; that is, only is assigned to the clause that is rendered in writing by the orthographic stretch preceding the mark, i.e. We had one problem only. Semantically, this explicitly expresses that there is only a single problem that affects the encoder(s) and/ or that needs to be dealt with. (Mind that for reasons of accessibility, the verb and its subject are never separated in the above bracketing representations.) In (38a) and (38b), the information-value, i.e. “[…] the specific set of potential interpretations […]” (Mulder 1989: 437), which is implied in the cooccurrence of the mark and the written word-forms, can be described as a convention among language users: it signals the structural interpretation of the partly homonymous sequence. So the given relation ‘colon → structur- Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 62 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="77"?> Verbal and nonverbal information: punctuation from a semiotic perspective 63 al reading’ reflects that the applied punctuation mark is to be correlated with linguistic structure. Similar to a prosodic feature, cf. sec. 2.2.2.1 and sec. 2.3.1 above, it “[…] is related to grammatical distinctions” (Quirk et al. 1985: 1611). Of course, the colon is not the only permissible punctuation mark in the examples discussed. Take into account three random punctuational variants for each case, which could all replace the original colon in writing and would still affirm the relevant syntactic structure: (39a) <We had one problem; only Janet knew we faced bankruptcy.> (39b) <We had one problem - only Janet knew we faced bankruptcy.> (39c) <We had one problem. Only Janet knew we faced bankruptcy.> (40a) <We had one problem only; Janet knew we faced bankruptcy.> (40b) <We had one problem only - Janet knew we faced bankruptcy.> (40c) <We had one problem only. Janet knew we faced bankruptcy.> Although the positions of the marks are conventionalised with regard to a clarification of the underlying medium-independent structure, the preceding instantiations illustrate that a requirement for punctuation does not imply exactly which mark to choose. In this primary function, all punctuation marks that can be inserted in the relevant positions belong to a “[…] class of forms each member of which has the property of having a specific same denotation” (Mulder/ Hervey 1972: 15). In other words, those marks that can be used interchangeably in the relevant positions may be called ‘denotative synonyms’. The general presence of a punctuation mark is a necessary condition for an unequivocal decoding of the underlying structure. However, the latter is no sufficient explanation for the type of mark. Consider the following case: Betty will help you when she has finished her own work, taken from Quirk et al. (1985: 1628). An unmarked written realisation would probably see a comma being inserted after you, providing nonverbal encoder-based information, cf. (41a). (41a) <Betty will help you, when she has finished her own work.> It is apparent that the comma, again, functions as a visual cue in the written expression system, by which the syntactic structure of the underlying medium-independent arrangement is reproduced, i.e. visualised. Betty will help you is recognised as the main clause and when she has finished her own work is readily decodable as a (non-restrictive) temporal adverbial clause, separated visually by the inserted comma. On the other hand, since the underlying medium-independent configuration is not structurally ambiguous, it can be assigned unequivocally in the Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 63 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="78"?> 64 Linguistic description, presentation structure and the status of punctuation written expression system also without a graphic element that marks a syntactic boundary. And (41b) would certainly be a somewhat acceptable written variant. (41b) <Betty will help you when she has finished her own work.> The comma has no distinctive linguistic function in the above example (41a) (although it can have a semantic one, cf. sec. 7.2.2.3.1 below): the mark only represents what may be called a ‘redundant feature’ at the graphic level. This already suggests that the comma is not a steadily predictable graphic feature - even if possibly most frequent - in the relevant position. Besides comma placement (or zero), the random variants in (41c) and (41d), featuring a dash and a period respectively, are equally applicable choices, should the writer so decide. (41c) <Betty will help you - when she has finished her own work.> (41d) <Betty will help you. When she has finished her own work.> In terms of logic, it can be concluded that an intended structural dissolution of the stretches discussed in (41a) to (41d) is no sufficient explanation for both the general presence and the specific type of mark. Given the obvious presentational variability in connection with punctuation application, it appears that the actual meaning of an applied mark surpasses a ‘completely abstract information-value’, i.e. denotation. Mulder (1989: 149) explains that […] ‘to denote’ only refers to that part of the information provided which is wholly fixed conventional. Anything else belongs to the realm of ‘connotation’ a cover-term for anything not wholly conventional even though perhaps alluded to by context or imprecise conventions. [emphasis supplied] The differentiation of denotation and connotation is central to the definition of the semiotic elements ‘sign’ and ‘symbol’, which Mulder/ Hervey (1971: 333) call “[…] complementary subclasses […]” of a signum. They define a sign as an index - or signum - “[…] whose information value depends wholly on fixed conventions […]” (ib.), irrespective of its operation, cf. also Mulder (1989: 437). The information-value of a symbol, on the other hand, “[…] is not wholly determined by fixed conventions, but at least partly by separate definitions for each separate operation […]” (ib.). And on the basis of the denotation-connotation distinction, Esser (1975: 37f.) concludes: Wenn Konnotationen im Unterschied zu Denotationen nicht auf vollkommen festgelegten Konventionen beruhen, also keinen generalisierbaren Informationswert haben, so lassen sich Symbole […] als Konnotationen auffassen. Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 64 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="79"?> Verbal and nonverbal information: punctuation from a semiotic perspective 65 In their capacity as semiotic elements, punctuation marks therefore display qualities of symbols. The information-value implied in the use of a punctuation mark, i.e. the specific set of potential interpretations, is not fully defined or ‘wholly fixed’ (denotation; sign). But rather, the full potential of an applied mark is only situationally negotiable, to some extent depending on ‘separate definitions for each separate operation’ (connotation; symbol): any comprehensive interpretation of the information derived follows from more comprehensive textual concerns. The qualification ‘to some extent’ is made, because the particular values of punctuation marks are very well partly regulated by specific preset conventions, belonging to punctuation as a system, cf. ch. 5 below. Accordingly, Quirk et al. (1985: 1610) write: For punctuation […] the array of devices is well recognized; there are established names for the individual items; and their use is (to a considerable extent) equally institutionalized […]. The implications of such a view require a more precise definition of the symbol, forming a subclass of the signum and, consequentially, of the index in general. This is, in fact, provided by Mulder/ Hervey (1971), who distinguish further between so-called ‘nonce-symbols’ and ‘proper symbols’, cf. Mulder/ Hervey (ib.: 333-335). On the one hand, a symbol “[…] whose information value depends WHOLLY on occasional definition […]” (ib.: 334) is called ‘nonce-symbol’. On the other hand, bearing in mind the above quotation by Quirk et al., the semiotic status of punctuation is captured more suitably by what Mulder/ Hervey (ib.: 335) term ‘proper symbols’: A symbol whose information value in a given operation is PARTIALLY DETERMINED by the FIXED conventions of the system to which it belongs, but also depends on a separate definition for each separate operation, we shall call a PROPER SYMBOL. From a semiotic perspective, therefore, the communicative value of punctuation marks depends on specific definitions for each specific use. It is somewhat “[…] open to negotiation, and represents a semiotic transaction between writer and reader” (Cordeiro 1988: 64). Nevertheless, certain preset conventions regulate the meaning assignable to each mark within the system of punctuation, including particular conventions for communication. 2.3.2.2 Punctuation in a model of verbal and nonverbal information As to the interpretation of punctuation, the previous sections have shown that the specific meaning of an applied mark cannot be captured by reference to an entirely conventionalised information-value. Moreover, the full communicative potential of punctuation is always based on collateral knowledge and thus on connotations. The differentiation between ‘denota- Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 65 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="80"?> 66 Linguistic description, presentation structure and the status of punctuation tion’ and ‘connotation’ (and consequently between ‘sign’ and ‘symbol’) alludes to the traditional distinction of ‘prosody’ and ‘paralanguage’, which is made in connection with the classification of nonverbal vocal (and partly kinesic) information. At the beginning of this sub-chapter 2.3 it has been argued that, while potentially clarifying linguistic structures, prosodic features are relatively normalised. On the other hand, paralinguistic properties have been described as providing supplementary information with which a lot of variation is possible. Prosodic nonverbal information can therefore be considered as signs, referring to denotations, and the paralinguistic qualities are symbols and may be interpreted through connotations. Due to the traditionally preferential treatment of vocal and kinesic nonverbal properties, this classification has been hardly considered with regard to the description of graphic properties, cf. sec. 2.3.2 above. One of the few exceptions is Pickering (1995). He (ib.: 439) attempts to fill the theoretical void and regards any “[…] intentional modulation of the writing system in co-ordination with the meaning and message of a text” as paralinguistic nonverbal information. More specifically, and going beyond the field of punctuation, he (ib.) writes: Typeface is one part of a paralinguistic device, or typographically expressed semiotic subsystem of writing, a system which makes its own contribution to textual meaning. The system, in fact, includes not only the points (stop, comma etc.), but also special fonts, special typefaces, as well as type size, density, tone, colour and arrangement on the page. It has been surprisingly little studied in linguistics, yet it not only has an important bearing on the relation between the spoken and written language, but also upon organization in text. Pickering clearly adduces that specific qualities of the written expression system, which come along with the graphic patterns of verbal messages, have the same status as have features like voice qualities, loudness and tempo in speech. Such a reappraisal of the applicability of the concept of paralinguistics, exceeding the fields of spoken and body language, complies fully with the theoretical framework within which the present study is conducted. Besides, a widened scope of ‘paralanguage’ follows through an earlier, yet sparsely received approach by Bolinger/ Sears (1981 [1968]) to get a grip on language structure and its material embodiment; they distinguish terminologically between ‘paralinguistics’ (covering spoken and kinesic features) and ‘paragraphology’ (referring to written nonverbal properties, including punctuation), cf. Bolinger/ Sears (ib.: 281). Being the first to establish a model of presentation structure that covers both medium-independent and medium-dependent spoken and written choices, Esser (2006) mentions explicitly the concept of written paralinguistic information in his comprehensive taxonomy of verbal and nonverbal information. His table is reproduced here as Figure 2.9, cf. Esser (ib.: 20). Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 66 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="81"?> Verbal and nonverbal information: punctuation from a semiotic perspective 67 S IGNS V ERBAL N ONVERBAL Abstract form Prosodic Paralinguistic Mediumindependent Medium-dependent Morphemes Lexemes Word-forms Constructions Phonological word-forms Orthographic word-forms Acoustic channel Visual channel Phonic substance Substance of human body Graphic substance Intonation Wordforms of connected speech Vocal features Facial expressions Gestures Typography: Punctuation Deviant orthography Variations of character Layout Figure 2.9: Verbal and nonverbal signs Punctuation marks can be identified technically in the given model as “[…] non-verbal, paralinguistic signs that are transmitted via the visual channel in graphic substance” (ib.: 83). By attributing paralinguistic qualities to punctuation in a model of verbal and nonverbal information, the already mentioned view is substantiated that punctuation as such carries a comprehensive semantic potential: a full account of the communicative value or meaning of an employed mark is not possible without considering connotative aspects. The fact that one particular mark cannot be associated unequivocally with a particular piece of information in any given operation (denotation), and the mere possibility that different marks may be chosen in one and the same (functional) position is every indication for this insight. Considering the discussion in section 2.3.2.1 above, however, there are exceptions to this categorical view. That is to say, in some cases, the placement of a punctuation mark does have a wholly conventionalised information-value (or denotation), showing on the basis of oppositions. In these cases, all punctuation marks that can possibly be inserted in the relevant position belong to “[…] class of forms each member of which has the property of having a specific same denotation” (Mulder/ Hervey 1972: 15). Obviously, in their basic capability punctuation marks also display a similar linguistically functional potential like intonational features, i.e. like the prosodic features of tonality, tonicity and tone, cf. Esser (1975: 38) and Quirk et al. (1985: 1610). Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 67 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="82"?> 68 Linguistic description, presentation structure and the status of punctuation All in all, Esser’s placement of punctuation marks as ‘nonverbal paralinguistic signs’ may be extended slightly: a punctuation mark is to be conceived of as a nonverbal proper symbol, whose information-value (and thus its communicative value in general) conveys paralinguistic, but in certain cases also distinctive linguistic information. Occasionally, there is a decontextualised denotation that can be associated with punctuation marks - or to which the marks can be reduced, cf. e.g. (38a) and (38b) above. nonverbal channel V ISUAL graphic feature P UNCTUATION information L INGUISTIC P ARALINGUISTIC Figure 2.10: The communicative value of punctuation Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 68 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="83"?> 3 A short diachronic view on punctuation The present chapter gives a brief overview of the development of punctuation usage - and its function - by looking at several periods in the history of writing and, accordingly, at the way punctuation was used. Crystal (2005 [1995]: 278) postulates that this will give vital impetus to the analysis of its role in present-day English: To understand punctuation, a historical perspective is essential. The modern system is the result of a process of change over many centuries, affecting both the shapes and uses of punctuation marks. While writing practice in English, like that of many other European languages, too, has certainly been influenced by early writing in Greek and Latin, there is the question as to whether this influence can be traced back directly and shows as a constant thread in the history of writing. In other words: Is a postulation justified that implies a smooth, cumulative development with regard to the elements and functions of punctuation in the history of writing? In this respect, claims such as “Our present system of punctuation is ultimately descended from the punctuation practice of the ancient Greek and Romans […]” (Meyer 1987: 1) suggest a rather straightforward link from ancient to modern punctuation. For the aforesaid considerations, forerunners of punctuation are sketched in section 3.1. Section 3.2 briefly examines Old and Middle English punctuation, and in section 3.3 the emerging system of punctuation in the era of printing takes centre stage. For a highly specified account of these developments, the reader is additionally referred to Parkes (1992): especially his first part may be of interest in this context. 3.1 Forerunners of punctuation The tradition to communicate by graphic means in the form of letter combinations was initiated most probably in Western Asia or rather the Middle East at approximately the end of the eleventh century B.C. Since English writing practice was mostly influenced, however, by the European alphabetic tradition that originated from classical Athens and Rome, this subchapter does not aim to give an exhaustive overview of punctuation from the very beginning of writing. But it will focus on sketching punctuation prac- Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 69 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="84"?> 70 A short diachronic view on punctuation tice (or rather its forerunners) in the period from European Antiquity to early Medieval Latin writing. Ancient writing practice in Latin or Greek saw texts being presented as lingua (or scriptio) continua, which did not produce any word-spaces or other graphical interruptions in the written stream of language, cf. e.g. Parkes (1992: 10). Initially, the writing direction also alternated line by line from left to right and vice versa (with every other line being mirror-reversed). Writing was carried out in so-called ‘boustrophedon fashion’, i.e. the appearance of the lines of type resembled the path of an ox-drawn plough in a field. Only rarely, occasional letter spaces marked main pauses, cf. e.g. Clemoes (1980 [1952]: 11), Chappell/ Bringhurst (1999 [1970]: 23), Halliday (1992 [1985]: 32f.), Baron (2000: 173, 177) and Küster (2006: 204f.). Rewritten (and slightly adapted), the first two orthographic sentences of the present paragraph serve as an example of boustrophedon writing, cf. (1). (1) A consistent application of word-spaces found its way into writing only after the year 600, and only by the twelfth century was it fully developed, cf. Parkes (1992: 41). From a functional point of view, word-spaces as well as blank spaces between sentences, lines and paragraphs can be considered ‘null elements’. Strictly speaking as spaces are visible in written text, they may be taken as proper characters resembling, for example, the letters that form orthographic words. This can be substantiated further by the fact that in word processing, word-spaces have to be ‘produced’ by hitting the spacebar, and like alphanumeric or punctuation characters they are thus assigned a binary code, i.e. ‘00000’, that represents them. Consequentially, word-spaces can be understood as non-alphanumeric characters, which, stricto sensu, makes them comparable to punctuation marks. In Medieval Latin, the language mainly used for writing in Europe from the year 500 onwards, a ubiquitous presentational inconsistency is observable; hence, “[…] within a single manuscript even the shape of a letter might vary considerably” (Levinson 1985: 22). Apart from the firm rule to mark abbreviations, the only punctuation pattern that began to develop over the centuries was based on three rhetorical concepts of Ancient Greek or Classical Latin, namely periodus, cola and comma. A periodus, i.e. period, was always identified as constituting a complete thought - irrespective of any length measurement, cf. Müller (1964: 86-90) and Levinson (1985: 24f.). A short pe- Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 70 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="85"?> Forerunners of punctuation 71 riod, i.e. cola (English ‘colon’), would contain eight to seventeen syllables and was therefore seen as “[a] limb of a sentence intermediate between a comma and a periodus” (Clemoes 1980 [1952]: 3). Consequently, Clemoes (ib.) notes that the comma was “[…] the shortest division of a rhetorical period […]”, usually consisting of less than eight syllables. In order to transfer these concepts into writing, regular spaces were introduced by which texts were structured into sections of differing lengths and which were in accordance with (or rather mirrored) the above-mentioned rhetorical subdivisions. Already in the fourth century, grammatical treatises mention the use of a tripartite set of puncti being added to written text, cf. e.g. Ong (1944: 349f.). But it appears that this custom was established systematically only from the tenth century onwards, cf. Levinson (1985: 30f.). Of course, this appraisal may stem from the insecure state of source material before that time. The mentioned puncti, i.e. dots, were diversely arranged with respect to line height and their general position coincided with the above-mentioned structural spaces. They are commonly referred to as distinctio (or positura), distinctio media and subdistinctio, cf. Ong (1944: 350), Müller (1964: 91f.) and Parkes (1992: 13). The different dots (like the structural word-spaces) can most probably be interpreted as guides for the reader: the punctuation marks should facilitate oral reading and declamation. By offering the reader an opportunity to breathe, they had a practical relevance and the different characters indicated the respective pause length. From the eleventh century, specific notational signs called ‘neums’ added to the points; in combination they may have been used to suggest a favourable intonation contour. This seems plausible all the more because writings were hardly produced outside monasteries, and most of them were of a religious kind. Hence, written texts were mainly used for liturgical purposes and, for example, constituted the basis for the Gregorian chants of that time, described as a distinctive type of ‘speechsong’, cf. Clemoes (1980 [1952]: 7). Ong (1944: 350f.) summarises the status of the punctuation practice rooted in the classical tradition: The oratorical considerations […] are undoubtedly tied up to a degree with grammar and syntax. But in the case of all three punctuation marks which the early grammarians mention, the clarification of the syntax is coincidental. The grammarians are interested primarily in the exigencies of breathing. It is convenient to place the breath pauses, and consequently the punctuation marks, where they will not interfere with the sense. But interest in both breathing and sense is quite independent of formal attention to grammatical structure. The infrequent use of punctuation in ancient writing was not more than a rudimentary means to support the oral reproduction of written language. And the rare marks were certainly not used deliberately to make visible syntactic boundaries and hence to reproduce medium-independent structural configurations at the graphic level. Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 71 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="86"?> 72 A short diachronic view on punctuation 3.2 Punctuation in Old and Middle English In Old English texts of the late ninth century, the use of enlarged letters was definitely more developed than the application of non-alphabetical marks. Given the sparse distribution of additional symbols, palaeographers conclude that especially capitalisation played an important role as it might have functioned as a rhythmic guide for the reader, cf. Krapp (1961 [1932]: xxv) and Levinson (1985: 46f.). On the other hand, a purely aesthetic value of capital letters in Old English text samples is noticed, too, cf. Levinson (ib.). If punctuation marks appear at all in publications of Old English texts, their application is very often referred to in the editorial apparatus as ‘modernised’. This, however, suggests that the marks have been included independently by the editors of the manuscripts, i.e. “[…] the punctuation is invariably created“ (Levinson ib.: 41). But since there cannot be an unequivocal solution for a re-punctuation of Old English texts, it is not “[…] surprising that different [present-day, SP] editors punctuate the same Old English texts differently […]” (Levinson ib.: 42) and also that the interpretation of these repunctuated variants “[…] leads to entirely different responses by the reader” (ib.). For more on the consequences of normalising the punctuation of Old English manuscripts, see, for example, Mitchell (1980), but also Brown (1986) for a typical case from Middle English. All in all, it is difficult to summarise the general status of Old English punctuation. Mitchell (1980: 385) says that […] the most determined optimist needs all his resolution as he contemplates the three things which are certain about punctuation in manuscripts of Old English: there is often not much of it; there is little agreement about its significance; it is not the punctuation of modern English or German. For the rest there is uncertainty, dispute, and difference of opinion, about its nature […]. Considering Middle English writing, Brown (1986: 140) similarly observes that, for example, Chaucer’s manuscripts of The Canterbury Tales “[…] either have no punctuation at all or diagonal lines (“virgules” and “half-virgules”) and, rarely, some other marks […]”, of which he only mentions the period, however. A clear pattern of the distribution, and thus functionality, of the marks is not recognisable. Beyond Chaucer, Crystal (2005 [1995]: 68) regards all pre-Renaissance punctuation practice as part of “[…] a graphic tradition which was limited, unclear, and inconsistent.” As a result from its inconsistent application, English punctuation in the manuscript era has only seldom been treated academically at all. From the sparse, aged research on medieval punctuation that does exist, two opposed theoretical traditions can be distinguished that attempt to explain the purpose of punctuation marks until the closing years of the Middle Ages: those which explain the occurring symbols on (i) structural grounds, and those which find (ii) elocutionary explanations. Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 72 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="87"?> Punctuation in Old and Middle English 73 Proponents of (i) the structural approach usually find that, primarily, punctuation is applied “[…] to make plain the meaning of the text […]” (Lucas 1971: 22). For them, as Levinson (1985: 68) writes, […] the explanation of the marks is in terms of their relation to syntactic structures such as sentences, coordinate clauses, conditional clauses, adverbial phrases, and so on, and their meaning is seen as reflecting the grammar or “structure” of the language. In view of early punctuation practice, however, this must be regarded as problematic in that it reveals a common fallacy to approach historical linguistics from a modern perspective. Levinson (ib.: 72f.) states: Our current thinking about language is so grammatically based, as is our understanding of modern punctuation - both of which come from our being a “writing” society - that it is hard to adjust our perspective to a world where written language was still not common currency. In addition, medieval scholars […] do not include in their descriptions all the many instances where the grammatical construction identified as motivating the presence of a mark in fact fails to show that mark. These “counter-examples” are neither counted in, nor accounted for, and there seems to be no awareness that the inconsistency revealed by the lists of “syntactic” marking denies their grammatical framework. Most importantly, whereas medieval scribes surely had an intuitive sensitivity for the syntactic structure and grammar of English - after all, they were able to communicate - they did not yet distinguish theoretically the grammatical categories that were supposedly marked by punctuation. A look at the Oxford English Dictionary (Simpson/ Weiner 1989 [1928]: 487) validates that a conscious discussion of language in terms of structural units did most probably not take place until the first half of the seventeenth century when the notion ‘syntax’ was first used; consequently, a grammatical understanding of a descriptive unit like ‘sentence’ is not recorded before that time, cf. also Levinson (1985: 49, 117). In summary, a structural approach based on grammatical relations must be viewed critically. Contrary to the structural tradition, (ii) the elocutionary tradition follows the classical understanding of punctuation, departing from the already mentioned assumption that writing practice in the manuscript era attempted to record and store spoken language. Hence, punctuation marks are taken as signposts to direct the oral reader where to take a breath in order to facilitate the spoken delivery. Punctuation is seen as a ‘physiological device’, cf. Ong (1944: 360). Besides regulating breathing, punctuation marks are usually equated with pauses if interpreted physiologically, and consequently Levinson finds no serviceable co-occurrence of the points and breathing alone, cf. Levinson (1985: 66). Levinson (ib.) assesses the correlation of punctuation and pauses as follows: Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 73 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="88"?> 74 A short diachronic view on punctuation In early manuscripts, the marks were seen as indicating full pauses, half pauses, and even quarter pauses, or more generally “longer” pauses or “shorter” pauses […]. Each punctuation mark is closely associated with a particular pause value, establishing a relative hierarchy among the marks, cf. e.g. Fowler/ Fowler (1949 [1906]: 229). But if the non-alphanumeric symbols are regarded as signals which supposedly indicate precisely a potential oral delivery of a written stretch, it might not suffice to relate punctuation merely to pausing and breathing. As a basic principle, therefore, all marks (or their combinations) should rather be interpreted as indicating additionally “[…] whether the voice is rising or falling” (Willard 1950: 6). And Levinson (1985: 67) writes about this more comprehensive ‘cadence theory’: This view is that the marks did indeed indicate pauses, but that these pauses came at the end of certain intonational contours, and more specifically indicated when the voice was to be lowered, when raised, and when held in suspension. In this respect, the local occurrence of combinations of marks or of complex marks in medieval English manuscripts, for example, may be taken as a more sophisticated and efficient version of the ancient practice of placing points at different heights along the line of writing, cf. Willard (1950: 5-7) and Levinson (1985: 48f.). Generally, though, each text, i.e. manuscript, must be analysed separately in order to avoid the impression that a somewhat existing repertoire can be delimited, from which scribes could choose the appropriate punctuation marks for their texts. Of course some marks - like the point, for example - were more recurrent than others but, as Levinson (ib.: 63) emphasises, “[…] there was no common system in use.” For a more profound investigation of different fields of punctuation in Old and Middle English, using selected manuscripts as illustrative material, consider, for example, Levinson (ib.: 41-114). After all, the unsteady usage of punctuation shows that medieval English writing practice was “[…] responsive more to rhetorical than to grammatical structure” (Huppé 1970: xvii). And since the purpose of writing was still seen largely in the transcription of speech (and probably a later oral reproduction thereof), the inconsistencies in the application of punctuation (if present at all) can be explained by the fact that, in general, the intonation of a piece of writing allows for a broad range of acceptable intonation features. Consistency in punctuating written text was simply not needed (nor was it achievable), cf. Levinson (1985: 79f., 99). Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 74 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="89"?> Punctuation and the orthographic sentence 75 3.3 Punctuation and the orthographic sentence The previous two sections have shown that in the manuscript era punctuation served as a means to facilitate the oral production of written language and is best interpreted against this background. Reading in antiquity and the Middle Ages must therefore not be confused with a modern style of rapidly ingesting information. In her substantial diachronic treatment of writing and punctuation, Levinson (1985: 79) takes a decided position: To attribute contemporary reading fluency to the medieval reader, as many studies implicitly do, seems unfounded. There is far more justification to hold that reading was a slow, laborious activity of decoding difficult individual scripts, and that the reader went slowly, because he was doing something like sounding out the words in his head. This changed drastically after the invention of the printing press around 1450, which shortly after saw written material being produced in great number and for a widening range of purposes. With printing, writing was no longer seen exclusively as a guide to speaking - with punctuation marks providing relevant information - but it became increasingly important for silent reading, cf. also Salmon (1962: 360) and Cronnell (1980: 5). Closely connected with this change in text production and reading at that time was also a growing intellectualisation among the people, being both cause and effect. A suitable adaptation to this functional shift, however, could only be achieved by an increasing standardisation in the structure of written informational, i.e. presentational, units. “Practices established by printers soon began to appear in manuscripts” (Parkes 1992: 56). Ultimately, this led to the development of the orthographic sentence. According to Levinson (1989), this development did not take place before the beginning of the sixteenth century, cf. Levinson (ib.: 113). In section 2.1.3.3 above, the orthographic sentence has been defined as a stretch of written language, delimited by an initial capital and a final period (or an equivalent mark), cf. Quirk et al. (1985: 1610) and Huddleston/ Pullum (2002: 1728). The concept of an orthographic sentence is covered by the notion ‘text-sentence’ in other approaches, cf. e.g. Nunberg (1990), Miller/ Weinert (1998) and partly also Levinson (1985; 1989). Their idea of text-sentence, in turn, varies from a rather structural-semantic one which, for example, Lyons (1977) advocates, stating that “[…] text-sentences […] are context-dependent utterance-signals […]” (ib.: 622). In his conceptualisation, text-sentences are not medium-bound, and in this respect they resemble the concept of allo-sentence used earlier, cf. sec. 2.1.3.2 above. Lyons distinguishes text-sentences from so-called ‘system-sentences’, which he takes as “[…] abstract theoretical constructs […]” (ib.). See Esser (2006: 57f.) for an overview over the terminological distinctions made by different authors with regard to different levels of abstraction. Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 75 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="90"?> 76 A short diachronic view on punctuation The fact that the orthographic sentence emerged only after the beginning of the sixteenth century, and thus considerably late, substantiates the assumption that its invention involved a more conscious reflection about language, conceptually distinguishing between an orthographic and a grammatical notion of sentence, cf. Levinson (1985: 8; 1989: 114). Halliday (1992 [1985]: 66) argues with regard to the relation of the two concepts: The clause complex is, in fact, what the sentence (in writing) comes from. The unit that was intuitively recognised by our ancestors when they first introduced the ‘stop’ as a punctuation mark was the clause complex. Halliday’s position reflects that despite existing parallels in conceptualisation, the two different notions of sentence belong to different levels of description, namely to the medium-dependent typographic expression system and to the medium-independent structural level. And, accordingly, Levinson (1985: 7f.) writes: “Such a view requires a reappraisal of the widely held notion that the sentence in writing is a prior grammatical entity from which rules of punctuation flow.” Levinson’s findings are supported by Huddleston/ Pullum (2002: 1728f.), who state that the expression […] ‘orthographic sentence’ embodies no commitment as to whether or not the unit concerned is syntactically a sentence, a question which may have no determinate answer. A systematic approach to the mapping relations between medium-independent syntactic structures and orthographic sentences, delimited (or rather ‘created’) by punctuation marks, will be introduced in the subsequent chapter. If printed texts no longer have the function of recording and storing spoken language, it seems inappropriate to suggest that punctuation marks are still (merely) serving the purpose of directing the oral reader (i) where to take a breath, (ii) for how long to extend a pause when reciting and of reproducing (iii) intonational contours; see breathing, pause and especially cadence hypothesis, respectively. How should a scribe (or reader) measure the exact length of a pause, or why should it even bother him (or, surely, less often her) to thoroughly reproduce a potential intonation contour? An increasing number of written texts that were produced were never to be spoken, cf. Levinson (1985: 67). A less restrictive explanation is therefore needed, which does not rely largely on subjective judgement, but accounts more convincingly for a supposedly more complex functionality of punctuation in the era of printing. Nevertheless, the traditional interpretation of an oral function of punctuation marks seems to persist in several approaches, and often, as in Ong (1944), for example, punctuation in Early Modern English is still related firmly to the classical-medieval view. In contrast, while still accepting a close connection of punctuation marks and pauses, Fries (1970 [1925]) understands that, ideally, in the sixteenth and Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 76 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="91"?> Punctuation and the orthographic sentence 77 seventeenth century the placement of graphic symbols as indicators of these intermissions “[…] is to be determined upon a structural basis, with no hint of an elocutionary system” (ib.: 78). It is inherent in this view that punctuating written text can no longer be viewed as an idiosyncratic practice, which is determined by the inconsistencies of a potential spoken realisation or a scribe’s personal education, devoid of any common tradition. In his study on Shakespearean punctuation, Fries (ib.: 73) writes: On mere a priori grounds it would seem necessary that whenever or wherever punctuation is generally used in printed texts there must exist something of an accepted or general interpretation of its use. A peculiarly individual system of pointing without a key could have no meaning for others than the author. When William Caxton started printing in England in 1476, only three punctuation marks were used systematically, namely forward slash (also stroke or virgule) </ >, colon <: > and the omnipresent point (or dot) <.>, cf. Vallins (1957 [1956]: 132) and Crystal (2005 [1995]: 56f., 68). Over the following century, a system of more punctuation marks was set up. New marks included the ‘reinvention’ of the comma <,> that began to replace the stroke; the semicolon <; >; the dash <->, a frequent replacement for the colon; as well as the question and the exclamation mark, i.e. <? > and <! >. The last mark to be implemented in English writing was the quotation mark <”>, which was not used until the end of the seventeenth century cf. Vallins (1957 [1956]: 140f.). Although the mere increase in the number of symbols indicates that punctuation from the sixteenth century onwards should indeed be considered more than a mechanical breathtimer, it is only seldom suggested what this ‘more than’ could actually be, cf. Vallins (ib.: 137). Salmon (1962) proposes an answer in her description of punctuation usage as it stood after about one and a half centuries of printing. She analyses exemplarily two authentic texts, supposedly written and/ or worked on by a contemporary reviser, Henoch Clapham, and additionally resorts to Alexander Gil’s handbook Logonomia Anglica from 1614 as well as to Charles Butler’s English Grammar from 1633 (both mentioned without bibliographical reference in the present study), cf. Salmon (1962: 351). From these, Salmon works out three basic principles that she describes as characteristic of punctuation practice in general from at least the beginning of the seventeenth century; in this system, the rhetorical aspect of punctuation is diminished though not ruled out, cf. Salmon (ib.: 358). 3 3 The following examples (2) to (10) are quoted from Salmon (1962: 353-357), and the graphic presentation found there is retained. Although Salmon explicitly deals with punctuation usage within the written sentence, her examples are, unexpectedly, not invariably presented as orthographic sentences, i.e. as written stretches bounded by an initial capital and a final period. Apparently, she puts forward only those sentence parts which are relevant for her argumentation. Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 77 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="92"?> 78 A short diachronic view on punctuation Firstly, punctuation serves to clarify further the meaning of individual orthographic sentences by subdividing them into units of differing length. This is normally done by means of the forward slash, later by the comma. The resulting graphic units are usually coextensive with underlying syntactic categories (including a visual indication of clause boundaries). In total, Salmon arrives at ten structural categories, which are supposed to account for all the cases in which commas are regularly applied to subdivide written sentences, cf. Salmon (ib.: 352-354). Three examples shall suffice to illustrate, in the main, the first principle. (2) <among the Filosoferz, Plato was the most lerned> (3) <the Lord concluded euery one of his actions or creatures, with this proper demonstration> (4) <either by this, or some other greater paines> Whereas (2) and (3) instantiate the standard that prepositional phrases are marked off comma-wise 4 , example (4) shows that phrases linked by a coordinating conjunction are also regularly separated by a comma, cf. Salmon (ib.: 353). Furthermore, as shown in (5) below, the subject is usually detached from the rest of the written stretch by a comma when comprising more than one orthographic word. (5) <The gud examplz of parents, ouht to bi a rvl of ljf> Secondly, punctuation indicates special grammatical relationships of clauses (but sometimes also phrases) at the graphic level by marking off, for instance, main and subordinate clauses with marks other than the usual comma. The systematic replacement of commas by ‘heavier’ semicolons at the boundary of main and relative clause serves as a case in point: it shows, as in example (6), “[…] that the relative pronoun refers, not to the immediately preceding word, but to one some distance away” (ib.: 354). For more on the notion of punctuational heaviness, see chapter 5 below. (6) <Such a … Saynt was Watson in Qu. Elizabeths days; who for fresh Treason synce, came to be canonized> 4 It seems reasonable to suggest that the segmentation of the text portions under (2) and (3) is indeed decided on purely structural, but not on functional grounds. That is to say, it is the occurrence of the unit ‘preposition plus noun phrase’ that regularly calls for the insertion of a comma, not its potential functional interpretation as an adverbial. Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 78 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="93"?> Punctuation and the orthographic sentence 79 Similarly, the colon - as a replacement for the standard comma - often separates the main from the relative clause “[…] when the antecedent is not expressed by any one word” (ib.: 355), cf. (7). (7) <to inuent new formes, or alter their course: which by no meanes they could> Referring to the propositional content of the preceding clause rather than being used adnominally, the relative cause under (7), i.e. which by no meanes they could, falls in the category ‘sentential relative clause’ as used by Quirk et al. (1985), cf. Quirk et al. (ib.: 1118-1120). Thirdly, Salmon postulates a certain (developing) semantic potential of punctuation. That is to say, the choice of marks reflects varying relationships between two coordinate clauses which are rendered in the written expression system as one orthographic sentence. Three kinds of relationship between main clauses are distinguished, namely (i) linkage by and, (ii) linkage by other coordinating conjunctions and (iii) linkage by punctuation only, “[…] i.e. not separated by a fullstop [sic] […]” (Salmon 1962: 356). If (i) two clauses are coordinated by and, this is frequently indicated by the unmarked insertion of a comma at the graphic level. The relationship is close. “Commas are seldom used […]” (ib.) if (ii) coordination between clauses is effected by a coordinator other than and - for example, but. Such a less close relationship regularly calls for the use of semicolons. Consider examples (8) and (9), in that order: (8) <A Foole is his name, and folly is with him> (9) <I looked he would conuent me; but he did not> If, however, (iii) no structural element at all links two syntactically equivalent clauses presented in one orthographic sentence, “[c]olons are most frequently used […]” (ib.), cf. (10). In such a case of ‘asyndetic coordination’, the (semantic) relation of the two conjuncts is perceived as relatively loose. (10) <the authoritie thereof is very needfull to be knowen: the waightiest businesse of the earth is built thereon, children vnderstanding it not> A further parameter for the choice of comma, semicolon or colon between two units may be their length. Although Salmon provides several examples which seem to substantiate this criterion, she remains sceptical about its validity, cf. Salmon (ib: 358). Salmon’s analysis paints an emerging complex picture of punctuation usage in the era of printing; the purpose of the marks changes from ‘pure- Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 79 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="94"?> 80 A short diachronic view on punctuation ly rhetorical signposts’ to ‘structural (and semantic) indicators’. Hence, as compared to ancient and medieval writing practice, the significance of punctuation has increased after the invention of the printing press, developing into a graphic feature with a more elaborate communicative potential, which facilitates the decoding of written text. And it is this apparent rise in complexity which parallels the previous theoretical apprehension that modern punctuation represents a nonverbal, largely paralinguistic feature of written language, cf. sec. 2.3 above. In summary, the modern understanding of punctuation is inextricably linked to the concept of the orthographic sentence; that is, punctuation and the sentence in writing are describable as two mutually defining conceptualisations, following from the growing need of a ‘reading society’ to standardise “[…] the presentation of medium-independent word-forms in graphic substance” (Esser 2006: 114). If this view is considered explicitly in linguistic theory, the initially voiced assumption must be dismissed that the “[…] present system of punctuation is ultimately descended from the punctuation practice of the Ancient Greeks and Romans […]” (Meyer 1987: 1). There is no straight, cumulative development of punctuation. The relatively recent nature of the orthographic sentence - and therefore also of punctuation in the modern sense - provides a simple but significant argument, cf. Levinson (1985: 13, 70f.). Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 80 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="95"?> 4 The structure of written text: the script unit model 4.1 The relationship of orthographic sentence and clause complex In the previous chapter it has been sketched briefly that the modern system of English punctuation can be associated closely with the beginning of the era of printing. Specifically, it has been argued that a shift in the communicative value of punctuation took place when the process was initiated that a medium-bound conceptualisation of the sentence, i.e. written, and a medium-independent one, i.e. structural, were distinguished. Esser (2009: 100) reviews the outcome of this development, observing that […] the cohesive function of syntactic units is complemented by a corresponding visual orthographic unit. The orthographic sentence can be regarded as a metalingual comment that facilitates the decoding process at the syntactic level. Hence the general stylistic rule taught at schools: “We write in complete sentences.” This generally accepted stylistic principle, however, must not be mistaken to conclude that the orthographic sentence in writing serves no other purpose than indicating maximal syntactic boundaries, i.e. that the end of an orthographic sentence, by definition, parallels that of a clause (complex). Yet this is still implicitly advocated in some linguistic studies. Compare, for example, Preisler’s (1992: 24) definition of ‘sentence’: “A sentence is one or more main clauses, corresponding to units which in written language are bounded by the punctuation mark (.).” In actual writing practice, on the other hand, both descriptive units do not coincide on many occasions and hence written sentences are not always in a one-to-one relation with clauses. Instead, there are numerous cases in which syntactically independent clauses are conjoined within one orthographic sentence. Consider, for example, (1) and (2) from the novel Queen Camilla by Sue Townsend (2006: 73, 124): (1) <His face and scalp showed the evidence of a life lived in violent confrontation; knives, knuckles and broken bottles had embedded themselves in Grice as he had battled and cheated his way to riches.> (2) <His mother in law, the Queen, was alright, she didn’t bother them much, she kept herself to herself.> Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 81 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="96"?> 82 The structure of written text: the script unit model Number (3) below is but one of many instances from Samuel Beckett’s (1966 [1959]: 13) Molloy, and (4) and (5) are taken from Sigler’s (2008: 176, 115) Infected: A Novel. (3) <There I am then, he leaves me, he’s in a hurry.> (4) <It wasn’t real, it wasn’t a voice in his head like the Triangles’, it was a memory.> (5) <She wanted to protect Sharon, Dew understood that now.> In (1) a main clause, i.e. His…confrontation, and a clause complex (main clause plus adverbial clause), i.e. knives…riches, are brought together in one written sentence by means of a semicolon. Although they are unarguably coherent, there is no cohesive device which links them structurally. In (2) to (4), three independent clauses, and in (5) two, are put together using separating commas only. This instantiates a case of asyndetic coordination, cf. sec. 7.2.2.1.2 below. Despite their obvious existence, these so-called ‘comma splices’ are by and large proscribed by usage guides, whose rigid views, however, lack a consistent theoretical framework: a notion such as ‘sentence’ is still frequently captured by the nebulous concept ‘complete statement/ thought’, cf. sec. 2.1.3.2 above. And on this basis Trask (1997: 18), for example, plainly insists prescriptively that “[…] you cannot join two sentences with a comma […].” Besides the visual integration of syntactically unrelated material, one selfcontained clause (complex) is often also separated at the graphic level, being presented as two or more orthographic sentences. Again, consider the following examples from a novel and from an autobiography (Rankin 2009 [2008]: 186 and Worsnip 1990: 158), cf. (6) and (7); from journalistic writing (Sun, Brenner 30 Jun. 2009 [2]: 50f.), cf. (8); and from print advertising (Zimmermann 2008: 92), cf. (9) and (10): (6) <She’d been talking to Mike, enjoying his company. And, by his body language, he’d seemed to be enjoying hers. But then Allan had brought the professor over, and Gissing had begun the job of monopolising the conversation, droning on about ‘the importance of taste and discrimination’.> (7) <After all, listeners need never know, or care, whether the person speaking to them had cerebellar disease. If it were not for one thing more - the speech.> (8) <His Under-21s had done brilliantly to reach last night’s Euro Championship final but, in the end, the Three Lions came up short. Again.> Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 82 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="97"?> The level of parasyntax 83 (9) <Try this beautiful road car. At your Mercury dealer’s.> (10) <It covers both vital engine and drive parts. Including both replacement parts and labor.> From a syntactic point of view, (6) comprises one medium-independent clause complex, in which and or but effect a syndetic parataxis of clauses. And in writing, two of the coordinate clauses (introduced by and or but respectively) are presented as distinct orthographic sentences. The textual function of the coordinators as markers of cohesion, cf. e.g. Halliday/ Hasan (1976), and their potential pragmatic relevance as discourse markers, cf. e.g. Fraser (1990; 1999), are not dealt with at this point. The focus is merely on the relationship of the structural configuration and its written realisation; that is, in the sense of Halliday/ Hasan, it is on the truly coordinative, not on the conjunctive function of coordination, cf. Halliday/ Hasan (1976: 233- 238) and also Meyer (1996: 36f.). As to the relation of formal texture and written presentation, the finally located if-clause is detached from its matrix structure in (7). The same is done with the adverb and the prepositional phrase in (8) and (9), functioning as temporal and locative adverbial respectively. In (10) the non-finite present participle clause is given the status of an orthographic sentence. Hence, despite the popular stylistic dictum not to separate structural units at the level of writing, the previous instantiations exemplify that punctuation, frequently, cuts across syntagms, cf. also Halliday (2004 [1985]: 371). 4.2 The level of parasyntax A similar phenomenon has been noticed in the description of spoken language, where, as Mukherjee (2003: 121) notes, “[…] language users produce linguistic structures which do not conform to the predominantly written ideal of a grammatically well-formed sentence.” Spontaneous spoken language - being less planned and revised than writing - is full of utterances which are characterised by false starts, anacolutha and other infelicities that may be attributed to on-line speech production, cf. e.g. Monschau/ Kreyer/ Mukherjee (2003: 582) and Mukherjee (2003: 121). Consequently, the resultant structures cannot be described sufficiently by taking into account syntactic relations alone, but often it is merely intonational features which effect a link between syntactically unrelated material, cf. Mukherjee (ib.: 122) and Halford (1996: 131). One theoretical approach to language in which the complex relationship of speech (or rather prosody) and syntax is already considered can be found in the axiomatic functionalist school of linguistics as initiated, for example, by Mulder (1989). Basically complying with the original Prague School dic- Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 83 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="98"?> 84 The structure of written text: the script unit model tum that ‘form follows function’, functionalists like Mulder focus on those linguistic phenomena which are communicatively relevant, cf. Mulder (ib.: 6, 55, 71). The sentence is regarded as the most important linguistic unit as far as the communicative function of language is concerned: it is defined as an “’[…] entity such that it is a self-contained vehicle for conveying messages’” (ib.: 90). In thus defining the sentence, axiomatic functionalists conjoin the traditional linguistic concepts of utterance-meaning and sentence-meaning, cf. e.g. Lyons (1999 [1981]: 163-170). That is to say, the sentence is not seen as a merely syntactic, i.e. decontextualised, entity, but - as distinguished from the abstract syntagm - it is defined as comprising syntactic relations, i.e. its syntactic base, plus prosodic qualities. The sentence is a contextualised unit with comprehensive communicative potential, cf. Euler (1991: 63). Mukherjee (2001: 6) summarises the implications of such a view for the description of language: The analysis of this linguistic unit [the sentence, SP], reaching beyond syntax proper, requires a new level of linguistic description: the sentential level or the level of parasyntax. A useful model that puts these considerations to practice, accounting explicitly for the close interrelation of syntax and prosody in the analysis of spoken language, is the ‘talk unit’. As a concept, the talk unit has been developed by Euler (1991), and more comprehensively Halford (1996), and was later applied fruitfully by Esser (1998b; 1999; 2000), Mukherjee (2001) and also Monschau (2004). The talk unit model exploits the basic textual role of the tone unit, which functions as an ‘information unit’, segmenting spoken language into convenient chunks, cf. e.g. Halliday (2004 [1985]: 15, 87- 89) and Monschau/ Kreyer/ Mukherjee (2003: 582). On this basis, it provides a descriptive framework, which enables an analysis of the stylistic, informational and also pragmatic implications that arise from the interdependence of tone units with the structural units of the medium-independent expression system. Specifically, Mukherjee (2001: 30) defines the talk unit as follows: “The talk unit is a parasyntactic presentation structure in spoken English which ends at a tone unit boundary with syntactic completeness and a falling tone.” This means: one intonation unit may comprise more than one clause (complex) and one clause (complex) may comprise more than one unit of intonational completion. Mediating between the levels of syntax and intonation, the concept of the talk unit, therefore, offers a feasible descriptive framework, allowing for an integration of syntactically unrelated parts by means of intonation and, in turn, discrete tone units can be conjoined by means of syntax, cf. Halford (1996: 33f.) and Esser (1998b: 480; 2006: 120). Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 84 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="99"?> The script unit 85 4.3 The script unit As to the written expression system: The above-mentioned possibility (and deliberate practice) of presenting one medium-independent clause or clause complex as two orthographic sentences, or else two unrelated clauses within a single orthographic sentence, requires an analogous descriptive approach to the structure of written text and hence the communicative value of punctuation marks. A description of punctuation which is based only on syntactic considerations, or which revolves merely around the implications at the graphic level, is not sufficient. In axiomatic functionalism, the nonverbal feature ‘punctuation’ is considered equivalent to spoken prosodic features. Punctuation supplements the syntactic base of a syntagm, or as Mulder (1989: 375) puts it: On the whole, in written English (and other languages that use the same writingsystem, i.e. alphabetic and other graphic conventions) punctuation and sentenceinitial capitals are para-syntactic devices. They correspond roughly to para-syntactic features in spoken language, even though written language constitutes a semiotic system in its own right. Correspondingly, Hoffbauer (2003: 86) comes to the conclusion that the syntactic as well as the medium-bound graphic level “[…] contribute independently to the message of a text.” In principle, these positions underpin the theoretical approach the present study takes, namely, that every linguistic utterance can be described as an interaction of (at least) two expression systems, with each system having its own distinctive units of analysis, cf. sec. 2.1.3 above. A neglect of this insight would inevitably lead, for example, to an overemphasis of the syntactic function of punctuation. “Meaning structures are not bounded by orthographic or syntactic [units]” (Cordeiro 1988: 72). In transferring the talk unit model into writing, Hoffbauer (2003: 86) encounters the apparent predicament that readers decode information from both expression systems at the same time. To capture both the syntactic structure and the structuring function of punctuation, a unit of analysis must be chosen which is potentially larger than the syntactic unit, and potentially larger than the orthographic sentence. In analogy to the talk unit in speech I have opted for a unit in which the maximal borders of each system coincide. This unit will be termed Text-Constructional Unit. For reasons of terminological consistency and in order to avoid confusion as to the levels of medium-dependency and medium-independency, Esser (2006: 120) rather vows to name the written equivalent ‘script unit’. The script unit is then defined as the segment constituted by syntax plus orthographic sentence. Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 85 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="100"?> 86 The structure of written text: the script unit model Figure 4.1: Script units In particular, three script unit variants are observed by Hoffbauer, which are illustrated in Figure 4.1, taken from Esser (ib.: 121). They are describable as one simple and two complex ones, and are subsumed under the braces from left to right respectively, cf. also Esser (2009: 103f.); the notion ‘self-contained syntagm’ is coterminous with the medium-independent expression ‘clause complex’. In (i), the simple type, one orthographic sentence concurs with one clause complex, i.e. a self-contained syntagm. Cases (ii) and (iii) represent the complex script units, in which the staggered segmentation of syntactic and graphic units is palpable: in type (ii) one clause complex is presented as several orthographic sentences; examples (6) to (10) in section 4.1 above can be referred to as a case in point. And type (iii) reflects that several self-contained syntagms are conjoined within one orthographic sentence by means of sentenceinternal punctuation; see (1) to (5) above. It is obvious that especially in cases of syntactic unrelatedness, i.e. script unit type (iii), the (medium-bound) typographic structure of a text conveys more information than its underlying (medium-independent) syntactic patterning. That is to say, the perceived ‘relationship’ between the two syntagms can only be derived from punctuation. The status of more specific cases in the script unit model, such as double fillings of syntactic slots, will be discussed later in this study, cf. sec. 7.2.2.2.2 and 7.2.2.4.3 below. The script unit model assigns a central role to the orthographic sentence, which represents a functionally relevant unit that facilitates planning and decoding for the writer and the reader respectively. Orthographic sentences, therefore, form the ‘building blocks’ of written language and in that they fulfil a similar basic textual function as the tone unit at the level of spoken language. However, the previous examples suffice to show that a reader is provided with more than just punctuational indicators of orthographic sen- Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 86 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="101"?> The script unit 87 tences. Written text is usually structured by means of punctuation also below the level of the written sentence, i.e. sentence-internally. Hence, these marks are processed and interpreted, too, when a reader is confronted with the task of decoding written text. Punctuation delimits the boundaries of a script unit and, beyond that, provides its internal structure. At the level of writing, the distribution of punctuation marks forms what will be called ‘punctuation units’ in the present study, cf. also sec. 5.2.2 below. In this context, the definition of a punctuation unit is congruent with the one given by Chafe (1984: 438): “A punctuation unit is any stretch of written language between punctuation marks.” In a script unit a reader is provided with two kinds of basic information at places of punctuation usage. Firstly, the typographic structure signals either graphic completeness or incompleteness. To this end, it is assumed that punctuation marks which indicate the end of an orthographic sentence, i.e. <.>, <! > and <? >, suggest graphic finality, i.e. completeness. Accordingly, for Quirk et al. (1985) these are ‘termination points’, cf. Quirk et al. (ib.: 1610). Marks such as <,>, <; >, <: > and <->, but also <()>, on the other hand, signal graphic incompleteness, performing “[…] functions within the sentence […]” (ib.). In segmented illustrations of script units below, graphic incompleteness and finality are coded ‘~’ (tilde) and ‘|’ (vertical line) respectively for better accessibility. From this basic distinction, it can be concluded that the choice and placement of marks in the written stream of language constitutes a presentational means which affects the packaging of information into typographically delimited units. This complies with the view by Quirk et al. (ib.: 1446), for whom the decision to divide a text into orthographic sentences (or sub-sentences) and the corresponding choice of mark […] depends on how the writer wishes these smaller sections of his text to be seen in relation to each other: intimately linked as though naturally indissociable (no punctuation); closely associated but separated (comma or semicolon, according to degree); relatively separate (pointed as independent sentences). Most important in the above quotation is the reference to differences in the separative weight of individual punctuation marks: each symbol appears to correlate with a certain degree of separation (or, the other way around, integration) when inserted between adjacent text segments. It is therefore assumed further in the present study that, originating from the distinction between graphic finality and incompleteness, the actual meaning of an applied mark is affected by a conventionalised strength hierarchy, which puts in relation to each other not only two groups of marks (final vs non-final), but rather all the individual symbols, cf. also ch. 5 below. Secondly, at places where punctuation marks are used, a reader may obtain information on the syntactic status of the underlying medium-independ- Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 87 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="102"?> 88 The structure of written text: the script unit model ent configuration up to this particular point, i.e. on the syntactic status ‘so far’. This is based on the above-mentioned view that the typographic structuring is a means to standardise the presentation of medium-independent word-forms in graphic substance, cf. also sec. 3.3 above. Hence, punctuation marks should, at least partly, function as graphic signposts, whose choice and placement facilitates the decoding (and processing) of the structural arrangement of a given text. On these grounds, the insights into the correspondences between punctuation unit boundaries and the medium-independent expression system will be taken as a further important contribution to the examination of the communicative value of applied punctuation marks, being potentially influential to their textual function. Note that the syntactic status ‘so far’ is assessed at clause level. Whether punctuation unit boundaries coincide with phrase boundaries, for example, is irrelevant, cf. also Mukherjee (2001: 57). Figure 4.2 gives an overview of the possible configurations of the syntactic structure ‘so far’ at punctuation unit boundaries. The tabular synopsis is taken from a study on the related talk unit model, cf. Esser (1998b: 484) and similar Mukherjee (2001: 28). Grammatical predictions Description of the category Code Functional interpretation predictions are set up syntactically incomplete with later completion n non-final syntactic status syntactically incomplete with no later completion n$ no further predictions syntactically complete to the left with stranded elements to the right f potentially final syntactic status syntactically complete to the left with a new syntactic beginning to the right, introduced by a coordinator f& final syntactic status syntactically complete to the left with a new syntactic beginning to the right f§ Figure 4.2: Syntactic status at punctuation unit boundaries Since there are two categories whose functional interpretation is given as ‘final syntactic status’, a terminological specification of the script unit is in order. This follows a useful subclassification of the talk unit, distinguishing so-called ‘minor’ from ‘major talk units’, cf. Mukherjee (ib.: 29f.). Analogously, whereas the major script unit constitutes the maximal unit of parasyntactic presentation, a minor script unit always forms part of a major script unit. Although suggesting graphic and syntactic completeness, a minor script unit is characterised by the fact that a new syntactic begin- Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 88 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="103"?> The script unit 89 ning to its right is introduced by a coordinator, thus establishing a structural link with the preceding configuration. (Note that Quirk et al. [1985] consider three conjunctions as proper coordinators, namely and, but and or, cf. Quirk et al. [ib.: 920]; this view is adhered to in the present study.) Hence, a script unit is labelled ‘minor’ if the supposedly completed configuration becomes a constituent of a larger parasyntactic presentation structure, i.e. of a major script unit, through syndetic coordination. Major script units are coded ‘|f§’, minor ones ‘|f&’. In emphasising a systematic assessment of medium-independent and medium-dependent structures, the script unit approach thus requires a close look at both the preceding and the ensuing text in a given environment. Consider examples (6) and (8) from section 4.1 above, which are repeated here as (11) and (12): (11) She’d been talking to Mike, ~ f enjoying his company. | f& And, ~ n by his body language, ~ n he’d seemed to be enjoying hers. | f& But then Allan had brought the professor over, ~ f& and Gissing had begun the job of monopolising the conversation, ~ f droning on about ‘the importance of taste and discrimination’. | f§ (12) His Under-21s had done brilliantly to reach last night’s Euro Championship final but, ~ n in the end, ~ n the Three Lions came up short. | f Again. | f§ Exemplarily, the format of (11) and (12) illustrates the (potential) delicacy of the internal structure of the script unit, accounting systematically for the relationship between syntactic and graphic status not only at the boundaries of orthographic sentences, but also at those of sub-sentences (or ‘punctuation units’). Specifically, every punctuation unit of a script unit is reviewed separately (by allocating it a separate line) and for each punctuation unit, the codes in the right-hand boxes indicate the graphic and syntactic status of the text ‘so far’, i.e. until the end of the unit under scrutiny. Remember in this context that the tilde (‘~’) encodes graphic incompleteness and that the vertical line (‘|’) encodes graphic finality. Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 89 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="104"?> 90 The structure of written text: the script unit model At the end of both the first and the second orthographic sentence in (11), for example, the preceding text suggests graphic and syntactic completeness. Only a look to the right in the written sequence reveals that in each case the following material is attached by a coordinator and thus structurally linked. And consequentially, despite graphic completeness and although no grammatical expectations are left open with regard to the preceding text, the stretches in question represent minor script units (coded ‘|f&’ at their righthand boundaries), but not major script units. Similarly, in (12) there is graphic plus potentially syntactic finality at the end of the first orthographic sentence. However, since there is a stranded element to the right, i.e. the dislocated adverb again (presented as a distinct orthographic sentence), the punctuation units in question neither form a minor nor a major script unit; hence the code ‘|f’. As the typographically dislocated element is an inherent part of the underlying configuration, it is integrated into the script unit, which ends only after the subsequent punctuation unit (major script unit, coded ‘|f§’). To summarise, a major script unit ends when the right-hand boundaries of a unit of graphic completion, i.e. an orthographic sentence, and of a selfcontained syntagm, i.e. a clause complex, coincide (coded ‘|f§’). That is to say, the script unit accounts for a stretch of writing where graphic and syntactic completeness concur. As a model, it considers systematically the interaction of typographic and medium-independent structure, and therefore serves as a suitable framework within which the function of punctuation can be analysed in detail. The different elements of punctuation in present-day English are dealt with next. Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 90 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="105"?> 5 Elements of punctuation in present-day English The previous chapter on the script unit has shown that punctuation marks occupy an important position at the interface of medium-independent language structure and medium-dependent typographic realisation. Therefore, any further analysis of the communicative value of punctuation requires a closer look at its general conception in descriptions of present-day English (sec. 5.1). On the basis of a narrow definition, particular elements of punctuation are then introduced briefly (sec. 5.2), bearing in mind the claim by Quirk et al. that substructuring a written stretch by means of punctuation ‘depends on how the writer wishes these smaller sections of his text to be seen in relation to each other’, cf. sec. 4.3 above. Besides, a partly conventionalised basis for the use of punctuation is supposed to regulate the meaning that can actually be attributed to the individual elements; this complies with their classification as proper symbols in section 2.3.2.1 above: the information-value of a proper symbol is determined by separate definitions for each separate operation, i.e. use, but partly also by the conventions of the system to which it belongs. 5.1 Defining punctuation Some approaches to punctuation advocate a relatively broad definition. Consider Jones (1995: 620), for example: Punctuation […] can be defined as the range of non-lexical orthography. This definition includes a very wide range of phenomena, from the sub-lexical (hyphens, apostrophes) through the inter-lexical punctuation marks to stylistic devices such as underlining and italicising, and structural devices such as paragraphing and bullet-point itemisation. Generally speaking, an interpretation of punctuation as ‘non-lexical orthography’ echoes the term ‘nonverbal information’ as used in section 2.3 above. Specifically, Jones recognises three punctuation classes: Firstly, he names nonverbal devices as part of orthographic word-forms, i.e. ‘sub-lexical’ punctuation. Taking into account cases like those under (1), cf. Jones (1996: 5), the term ‘intra-lexical punctuation’ might be more appropriate. Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 91 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="106"?> 92 Elements of punctuation in present-day English (1) <music-hall>, <it’s>, <T.S. Eliot>, <suband inter-lexical>, <parents’ concerns>, <I.B.M.> Secondly, there are those marks that create punctuation units, i.e. characters which are inserted in the stream of written language as visual, structuring elements - ‘inter-lexical’ in his terminology. See (2) from Jones (1994: 424). (2) <The sunlit weeks between were full of maids: Sarah, with orange wig and horsy teeth, was so bad tempered that she scarcely spoke; Maud was my hateful nurse who smelled of soap, and forced me to eat chewy bits of fish, thrusting me back to babyhood with threats of nappies, dummies and the feeding bottle.> And thirdly, Jones’s definition covers nonverbal features which do not fill one particular slot in the sequence of written word-forms, but which only form modifications thereof. Together with devices which affect the organisation and presentation of written text on a page, this is what he calls ‘superlexical’ punctuation. For Jones (1996: 6), “[…] these super-lexical operations have a similarity to conventional, inter-lexical punctuation […].” He adduces the following examples (3a) and (3b) to illustrate this potential: (3a) <He assigned Silas Marner - a book that Jean, who spoke little English (and read less), could barely understand. We read it anyway.> (3b) <He assigned Silas Marner a book that Jean who spoke little English and read less could barely understand . We read it anyway.> In passing, note that Jones’s use of the term ‘lexical’ does not reflect a conscious distinction between a medium-dependent and a medium-independent level; yet this is irrelevant for the line of argument at this point. Jones’s three classes of punctuation are implied in a basic distinction on which Huddleston/ Pullum (2002: 1724) base their definition of punctuation - in principle, it is equally far-reaching: The punctuation marks are all segmental units of writing - i.e. they fully occupy a position in the linear sequence of written symbols. There are, however, various nonsegmental features which can serve the same kind of purpose as the punctuation marks. […] We will therefore regard punctuation as covering the use not only of punctuation marks but also of such nonsegmental features as italics, capital letters, bold face, and small capitals. ‘Punctuation’ may be understood as a cover term, which, in its broadest sense, is used to refer to two groups of features. These can be summarised (i) as segmental non-alphanumeric characters (better known as punctuation Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 92 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="107"?> Defining punctuation 93 marks), supplementing a stretch of medium-dependent written word-forms; and (ii) as suprasegmental alterations of the written segments, which are, by and large, not decodable as actual supplementary elements in the chain of written units, but “[…] are chiefly visual in orientation […]” (Jones 1995: 620). To describe these features, the label ‘suprasegmental’ seems more fitting than the term ‘nonsegmental’, as used by Huddleston/ Pullum, because ‘suprasegmental’ already implies the potential of the graphic devices to extend over a longer stretch of written language. Compare the corresponding use of ‘suprasegmental’ to describe intonational features in the spoken expression system. Suprasegmental written features like underlining, bold print, italics, small capitals and also word-initial capitalisation 5 fulfil a broad range of varying purposes, representing modifications of the default form, i.e. ordinary lower-case roman, cf. sec. 2.2.2.2 above. Primarily, they are applied to draw special attention to parts of written text (emphasis) or to represent titles, expression from foreign languages and metalingual concepts, to mention only a few conventions, cf. Quirk et al. (1985: 1635-1639). Structural features like paragraph division, customarily marked by line indentation, are not part of the suprasegmental devices, but (like Jones) both the Comprehensive Grammar and the Cambridge Grammar mention the occasional practice of subsuming these under the notion of punctuation, cf. Quirk et al. (ib.: 1611) and Huddleston/ Pullum (2002: 1725) respectively. Despite their somewhat sweeping generalisation expressed in the above quotation, namely that other graphic features ‘can serve the same kind of purpose as the segmental punctuation marks’, Huddleston/ Pullum (ib.) also voice concerns about a too extensive conception of punctuation: It is not usual, […] nor would it be helpful, to extend the domain of punctuation to cover the lay-out of larger units (division into chapters or sections, use and format of headings, and so on). Sharing these reservations, punctuation, in its role as a stylistic means, has been mentioned earlier as distinct from other graphic features that facilitate encoding and decoding for writer and reader respectively. Figure 5.1 reproduces the relevant part of Figure 2.8 from section 2.2.2.2 above. 5 Strictly speaking, the capitalisation of individual letters is not restricted to word-initial position. But rather, in modern graphic design there is a growing stylistic tendency to also capitalise individual letters in word-internal positions. The well-known written presentation of a brand name may be taken as a case in point: <eBay>, cf. also section 2.2.2.2 above. Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 93 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="108"?> 94 Elements of punctuation in present-day English GRAPHIC REALISATION OF LINGUISTIC UNITS [‘written qualities’] macrosetting (page reproduction) layout microsetting (text presentation) compound spelling + spacing capitalisation variation in orthography typeface, font, type size punctuation Figure 5.1: Written presentational choices In the present study, the term ‘punctuation’ is synonymous only to ‘segmental punctuation marks’, i.e. to a set of non-alphanumeric characters that supplement the typographic realisation of medium-independent word-forms. In principle it is therefore limited to the orthographic sentence. Other presentational devices of the written language, such as suprasegmental modifications or layout features, form distinctive linguistic sub-systems to be separated from punctuation - despite sometimes used for similar purposes. This will guarantee a differentiated view on nonverbal graphic features in general and on punctuation in particular. From the theoretical standpoint of the present study, the dichotomy ‘segmental vs suprasegmental’ is not accepted as a viable classificatory subdivision of punctuation; punctuation is only a segmental device. In consequence, a differentiation between segmental and suprasegmental features rather applies to the characteristics of graphic nonverbal devices in general. Consequently, a conception of punctuation to cover only particular non-alphanumeric characters equals a more narrow definition than supported, for instance, by Huddleston/ Pullum and especially Jones. In the following, suprasegmental modifications (or even aspects of layout) are only considered if they interact with the non-alphanumeric marks and if they potentially influence their interpretation. 5.2 Non-alphanumeric characters Historically speaking, present-day English punctuation is the result of standardisation processes in the presentation of written language, cf. ch. 3 above. In this context, the modern set of punctuation elements was finally established in the nineteenth century and is still in use today, cf. Meyer (1987: 2). Punctuation marks, i.e. particular non-alphanumeric characters, supplement two fields in the written expression system. Firstly, they occur as part of orthographic word-forms, providing reader-oriented information at word-level (sec. 5.2.1). Secondly, the non-alphanumeric characters cre- Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 94 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="109"?> Non-alphanumeric characters 95 ate what has been termed ‘punctuation units’ in section 4.3 above; that is, they structure written text into units of graphic finality or incompleteness (sec. 5.2.2). 5.2.1 As part of orthographic word-forms The non-alphanumeric punctuation characters that are most frequently found as part of orthographic word-forms are: (i) the hyphen <-> (ii) the apostrophe <’> (iii) the abbreviation period <.>. Quirk et al. (1985) define the two major functions of (i), the hyphen, as separating a written word into two components at the end of a line, and as combining two or more orthographic word-forms, cf. Quirk et al. (ib.: 1613). This creates what may be called ‘graphic compounds’. As to word division, it is well-known that the use of the hyphen is divergent. Quirk et al. (ib.) note: AmE practice is to respect the phonologically natural points - in other words, syllable division […]. BrE practice is to give more weight to morphological and etymological considerations […]. Examples of combined, i.e. hyphenated, word-forms include, among others, noun compounds (with an adverb as second base), adjective compounds (featuring a participle) and modifying phrases, listed under (4) to (6) respectively, cf. Quirk et al. (ib.). (4) <runner-up> (5) <habit-forming> (6) <take-it-or-leave-it (attitude)> Contrasting the use of a hyphen with the use of ‘zero’ (space) at word-level, there is reason to suggest that the application of a hyphen effects a closer relation between two graphic elements, hence the term ‘graphic compounding’, cf. also Esser (2006: 48). Apart from functioning as a graphic linker, the hyphen is used as an indicator to distinguish at the graphic level between different lexicalised concepts, instances of which are <reform> (‘change for the better’) and <re-form> (‘form again’), cf. Quirk et al. (1985: 1614). In any case, the conventions for the use of a hyphen to link the bases of compounds and to separate prefixes “[…] are subject to considerable variation […]” (ib.: 1613). And the actual re- Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 95 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="110"?> 96 Elements of punctuation in present-day English alisation of the hyphen character may be subject to variability, too, as shows the occasional distinction between a hard, i.e. ordinary, and a long hyphen. If used, the long hyphen is applied to “[…] modifiers consisting of nouns or proper names where the semantic relation is “between X and Y” or “from X to Y”” (Huddleston/ Pullum 2002: 1762), cf. (7) and (8). (7) <staff-student relation> (8) <the London-Paris-Bonn axis> Sometimes the function of the long hyphen is also fulfilled by the slash </ >, cf. Huddleston/ Pullum (ib.: 1764). The main purpose of the slash, however, is that of an inclusive ‘or’ which signals alternative readings, cf. (9) from Quirk et al. (1985: 1639). (9) <students and/ or staff> Since the application of the slash is part of punctuation conventions which can be classed as “[…] (a) chiefly technical and (b) formulaic […]” (ib.), its use will not be considered further in the present study. Applied to orthographic word-forms is also (ii) the apostrophe; it is mostly employed to denote the genitive case as, for example, in <reader’s> or readers’>, contrasting these forms with the nominative plural form <readers> (all three homophonous in speech, of course: / ri : d ə z/ ). Additionally, the apostrophe indicates contracted forms in phrases such as <I’m> or <won’t>, denoting that these written units comprise more than one underlying medium-independent word-form, cf. sec. 2.1.3.3 above. And the apostrophe also appears to improve readability with items that lack institutionalised spelling and as an inherent part of particular expressions. See (10) and (11) respectively, taken from Quirk et al. (ib.: 1636). (10) <There are three i’s in that word.> (11) <o’clock> In principle, therefore, the apostrophe has both an indicating and a delimiting or, more appropriately, linking function. With (iii) the period, abbreviations of word-forms are indicated, like in <i.e.>, unless the last letter of the abbreviated word is included: consider <Dr> or <Mr> or <vs> where the abbreviation period is consequentially omitted. The period of an abbreviation is never followed by a sentence-final period; that is, if the last word in an orthographic sentence is shortened, only one period is realised, fulfilling both the marking of the abbreviated word and of the right-hand sentence boundary, cf. e.g. Quirk et al. (ib.: 1637), Nunberg Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 96 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="111"?> Non-alphanumeric characters 97 (1990: 67) and also Meyer (1987: 26). To summarise, the abbreviation period is a specifying punctuation mark which indicates the status of a particular sequence of letters as a shortened version. It resembles the apostrophe as a genitive marker. Other characters potentially used with orthographic word-forms are not considered at this point because their use is mostly restricted to special cases (or languages) and they are commonly not taken as traditional or central elements of punctuation. Consider, for example, the underscore <_>, which is sometimes used to link orthographic word-forms in email-addresses and in that resembles the aforementioned hyphen. Note that the hyphen and the period, or rather called ‘dot’ in this context, are indeed employed as alternatives. Graphic elements like diacritics are not regarded as punctuation marks either but as an inherent aspect of word spelling, i.e. orthography. They are thus left out. 5.2.2 Creating punctuation units Considering the second field of punctuation application, marks are applied above the level of orthographic word-forms, creating punctuation units of varying length. In the narrower sense, punctuation units are considered entities which are created by punctuation marks within the boundaries of an orthographic sentence. The term ‘punctuation unit’ is synonymous with ‘sub-sentence’. Hence, several linked units, divided by boundary markers such as the comma, constitute one sentence in writing, cf. Esser (2009: 95f.). In this case, a punctuation unit may be coextensive with an orthographic sentence when its left-hand boundary is realised by a capital letter and when to its right it is delimited by a period. This potential match follows from the property of rank scale, which does not only apply to the units of formal texture, but also brings out the relationship of the graphological ones as firstlevel abstractions of language substance, cf. sec. 2.1.3.3 above: one paragraph one orthographic sentence one punctuation unit (or sub-sentence) one orthographic word one letter. In the broader sense, as defined in section 4.3 above, the label ‘punctuation unit’ pertains to any stretch of writing that is enclosed by punctuation marks other than those mentioned as immediate parts of orthographic word-forms in section 5.2.1 above. Bearing in mind the descriptive power of the script unit model, a punctuation unit boundary gives away information on the graphic status at this particular point (finality vs non-finality) and on the underlying syntactic status of the structure ‘so far’. Still, the concepts of sentence and sub-sentence are accounted for by distinguishing (punctuation) units of graphic finality and non-finality, cf. sec. 4.3 above. On the basis of their occurrence in large text collections, Jones (1995: 624) assigns a number of marks to a “[…] core subset of punctuation characters Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 97 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="112"?> 98 Elements of punctuation in present-day English that accounts for the majority of instances.” This subset comprises the period, the comma, the semicolon, the colon, the dash, the question and the exclamation mark, together with parentheses and quotation marks, cf. (12). (12) <. , ; : - ? ! () “”> Jones (ib.) recognises further “[…] a second subset, formed of more unusual punctuation symbols […]”, including, for example, the marks given under (13). (13) <# & % $ + = @ ~> The status of these symbols as punctuation marks seems dubious and they are not dealt with in the present study. The reason lies in the fact that all of these elements can be associated clearly with lexicalised expressions, having very specific meanings, and a classification as ‘special characters’ - to which others may be added - appears more promising. Consider exemplarily the lexicalised meaning of the logogram <&>, which can be conceived of as a special written alternative of <and>, instantiating the lexeme AND, cf. also Esser (2006: 38). The status of the symbols listed under (13) is thus considerably different from that of ‘ordinary’ punctuation marks and they would have to be discussed separately elsewhere. It is the elements under (12) which the subsequent sections will focus on when punctuation above word-level is considered. The space of this work would not suffice, of course, to describe all the major and minor aspects as they hold for the individual marks. The following sections, therefore, will exclude all technical and formulaic uses of punctuation, and will deal with those aspects instead which supposedly contribute most to the communicative value of punctuation as a segmental structuring device in written text. 5.2.2.1 Terminal period (or full stop) The terminal period (henceforth period) is realised by the same character like the abbreviation period, a double function that can also be observed for the apostrophe and the single quotation mark character, for example. It is obvious that there is not necessarily a one-to-one relation between a specific character and a particular purpose. The period can be considered the key mark of punctuation application as it indicates the boundaries of orthographic sentences. Its significance becomes most obvious if one takes into account that in connection with the development of the writing system only sentence-marking, i.e. external, punctuation has become truly obligatory. Sentence-internal punctuation, on the Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 98 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="113"?> Non-alphanumeric characters 99 other hand, is largely optional. Consequently, “[…] large stretches of acceptable standard English are often written with no punctuation other than the sentence marker” (Levinson 1985: 116); see section 7.1.2 for cases of obligatory sentence-internal punctuation. The period stands for maximal distance between two punctuation units, realising them as (parts of) distinct orthographic sentences. The period, therefore, suggests graphic completeness, cf. sec. 4.3 above. Taking into account the high separative force of a period, its application in syntagm-internal position illustrates succinctly what Hoffbauer (2003) calls the ‘principle of informational weight’, cf. Hoffbauer (ib.: 75f.). That is to say, the use of a period to separate a written stretch whose constituents form a clause (complex) at the structural level has an influence on the distribution of information in the sequence of orthographic word-forms. Consider examples (8) to (10) from section 4.1 above, here reproduced as (14) to (16): (14) <His Under-21s had done brilliantly to reach last night’s Euro Championship final but, in the end, the Three Lions came up short. Again.> (15) <Try this beautiful road car. At your Mercury dealer’s.> (16) <It covers both vital engine and drive parts. Including both replacement parts and labor.> In all three cases a period is placed in syntagm-internal position, and at the parasyntactic level this yields script units of type (ii) as shown in section 4.3 above. Creating a unit of graphic completion, the first period signals graphic finality, although there is only a provisional corresponding syntactic closure at the medium-independent level: in each of the above examples there are stranded elements to the right, namely a dislocated adverb, a prepositional phrase and a non-finite participle clause respectively; a new syntactic beginning, therefore, follows only after these constituents. Strictly speaking, the pieces of information from both channels, i.e. graphic and syntactic, contradict each other. From an informational point of view, de Beaugrande (1984: 247) postulates that the presentation of one structural complex as two or more orthographic sentences […] can assign heaviness to word groups by making them autonomous stretches, rather than adjuncts of something else. All the resources that normally get distributed over a whole sentence are focussed on just a few words. Of course, ‘autonomous’ does not refer to a structural but rather to a graphic autonomy here; the same holds for the use of ‘adjunct’. In section 4.3 above the central role of the orthographic sentence has been emphasised: it constitutes the ‘building blocks’ of written language, fulfilling a Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 99 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="114"?> 100 Elements of punctuation in present-day English basic textual function like the tone unit does at the level of speech. One constitutive aspect of the tone unit is the assignment of an intonational peak (nucleus) to one item in each tone unit, which can, roughly, be equated with the provision of information points for the benefit of the decoder, cf. sec. 2.1.3.3 and 2.2.2.1 above. In an unmarked presentation the nucleus is commonly placed at the end of a tone unit, guided by the principle of end-nucleus. And for a sequence of tone units, Leech/ Short (1981: 222f.), for example, postulate a ‘principle of climax’: “In a sequence of interrelated tone units, the final position [tone unit, SP] tends to be the major focus of information.” Compare also Quirk et al.’s ‘principle of resolution’, cf. Quirk et al. (1985: 1036). However, Esser (1988; 1993) has shown that it is not only the position of a tone unit, i.e. final position, in a sequence of tone units, but most importantly the distinctive tone movement of the individual tone unit, i.e. rise vs fall, which has an important bearing on its informational weight. That is to say, a tone unit with a falling tone at the end is always perceived as more informationally prominent than a tone unit ending in a rise, irrespective of whether the fall actually comes after the rising tone, cf. Esser (1988: 60; 1993: 144). Hence, in the spoken presentation of (17a) and (17b), from Quirk et al. (1985: 1360), the constituent I went to France is always the focal element, cf. also Esser (2006: 79f.). (17a) last week/ I went to France\ (17b) I went to France\ last week/ Although the relationship of speech and writing has often been interpreted at the expense of the written language, it appears worth transferring into writing the basic idea of this particularly spoken characteristic: Modelled on the informational impact of a falling tone in speech, the written period, similarly, indicates informational prominence. Hence, if there is a punctuation unit boundary in syntagm-internal position which is marked by a period (at the same time terminating an orthographic sentence, of course), it carries more informational weight than as if it was expressed, for example, by a comma, a colon or even by ‘zero’. At the same time, the period raises the weight of the bounded punctuation unit in relation to subsequent units. The period is thus comparable in function to a falling tone movement. Compare (18a) and the actually attested version in (18b) used by Hoffbauer (2003: 76): (18a) <It does its harm unseen and it affects everyone.> (18b) <It does its harm unseen. And it affects everyone.> In (18a) one clause complex, consisting of two coordinated clauses, is realised as one orthographic sentence, realising script unit type (i), cf. sec. 4.3 Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 100 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="115"?> Non-alphanumeric characters 101 above. Informationally, the second clause carries more weight than the first one, presupposing the adherence to the medium-independent principle of end-focus. Example (18b), on the other hand, illustrates how the structurally dependent constituents are presented as autonomous graphic stretches, i.e. as self-contained orthographic sentences: script unit type (ii). Hoffbauer (ib.) summarises the resulting situation nicely: [The period] places an additional focus on the informationally less prominent first clause, thereby raising it in terms of relative importance. As a result of the focussing activity of the period, the two clauses carry a more equal amount of informational weight. Of course, the aforesaid does not only hold for the relationship of clauses in graphic presentation. Consider more closely two versions of example (15) given above; for ease of reference, they are reproduced as (19a) and (19b). (19a) <Try this beautiful road car at your Mercury dealer’s.> (19b) <Try this beautiful road car. At your Mercury dealer’s.> Whereas in (19a) the prepositional phrase is in focus position due to its placement, in the realisation of (19b) there is an additional indicator at the graphic level, raising the importance of the first part of the clause, namely Try this beautiful road car. To explain: If the correspondence of one unit of graphic completion and one clause complex as in (19a) corroborates the perception that there is only one focal element, i.e. the adverbial in end-focus position, this changes in (19b). The graphic separation of the underlying medium-independent configuration into two written sentences in (19b), creating two units of graphic completion, is a visual indicator that also the number of information points is to be judged differently. On the basis of the graphic presentation both the object this beautiful road car and the adverbial At your Mercury dealer’s are now in the focus, cf. also Hoffbauer (ib.: 74-76). At the same time, the adverbial in (19b), i.e. a syntactically dependent element, is assigned a pseudo-independent status by presenting it as a secluded element, i.e. as a distinct written sentence. This perception certainly stems from the fact that, as mentioned in sections 2.1.3.3, 3.3 and 4.1 above, “[t]he clause complex is, in fact, what the sentence (in writing) comes from” (Halliday 1992 [1985]: 66). Graphic finality suggests syntactic self-containedness. And this leads to the general conclusion that the visual separation of a structurally related element “[…] makes it more distantly related to the [clause (complex)] of which it is syntactically a member” (Meyer 1987: 88). Hence, the placement of a period in syntagm-internal position has consequences for the perception of both the preceding and the ensuing text. Whereas there may be a structural relation of subordination, as in (19b), the perceived relation- Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 101 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="116"?> 102 Elements of punctuation in present-day English ship is virtually one of ‘informational coordination’. Yet, this view is built on medium-bound typographic information only. 5.2.2.2 Question mark and exclamation mark Having considered the period, the question mark and the exclamation mark are identical in purpose as far as their terminating function is concerned. Accordingly, in section 4.3 above, <.> and <? > and <! > have been classed as ‘termination points’, also known as ‘primary terminals’, cf. Huddleston/ Pullum (2002: 1731). In addition to this, the question and the exclamation mark serve as indicators of speech function, denoting the illocutionary force of interrogative, cf. (20), and exclamatory speech acts, cf. (21); both examples originate from Huddleston/ Pullum (ib.). (20) <Have you seen my glasses? > (21) <What nonsense they talk! > It may be argued that especially in connection with the question mark “[…] writers and readers seem to be able to imagine how writing sounds” (Chafe 1988a: 8), associating the presence of a question mark with a mental image of a rising tone. 6 Accordingly, Nunberg (1990) speaks of ‘tone indicators’ when dealing with <? > and <! >, cf. Nunberg (ib.: 65). Against this background, a close relation of speech and writing cannot be dismissed as it represents a decoding help. Moreover, in English the written presentation may provide the only illocutionary indicator that signals the reader the nature of the speech act expressed by a stretch of writing - even if the mere word order contradicts this assumption. Compare the repunctuated presentation of (10), given as (22): (22) <There are three i’s in that word? > In the words of Huddleston/ Pullum (2002: 1732) it may be stated that both question and exclamation mark “[…] match the meaning and illocutionary force much more directly than do the syntactic clause type categories […]”; see, for example, Gleason (1970 [1955]: 432) for a similar comment on the question mark. It is the purpose of <? > and <! > as indicators of speech function which does not constrain them to only occur in sentence-final position, but possibly also in connection with medial questions and exclamations. 6 The equation of a written question mark with a rising tone in speech, of course, draws on stereotypical knowledge of a language user. As Chafe (1988b: 403), for example, observes, the linguistic reality does not corroborate a clear one-to-one relation: “Yes-no questions generally exhibit a final rising pitch; question-word questions, a falling pitch.” Corpus linguistic findings support this view, painting a more delicate picture of questions and tone movement. Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 102 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="117"?> Non-alphanumeric characters 103 Regular punctuation that only fulfils functions within the sentence is put into effect by the semicolon and the colon, the comma, by the dash and parentheses and by quotation marks. Due to their often optional nature, these are classed as ‘secondary boundary marks’, cf. Huddleston/ Pullum (2002: 1735). They are discussed in the following sections. 5.2.2.3 Semicolon and colon Quirk et al. (1985) describe the function of semicolon and colon in terms of decreasing closeness. That is, the interdependence between two punctuation units is perceived as closer if separated by a colon than by a semicolon, cf. Quirk et al. (ib.: 1620). Dale (1992) and Huddleston/ Pullum (2002), however, disagree and advocate an inverse view, cf. Dale (1992: 118) and Huddleston/ Pullum (2002: 1737). The semicolon occurs frequently in formal writing and it is most closely related to the conjunction and, often substituting it in cases of asyndetic coordination, cf. sec. 7.2.2.1.2 below, and (23) and (24) from The Oxford Style Manual (Ritter 2003: 124). (23) <The road runs through a beautiful wooded valley; the railway line follows it closely.> (24) <Truth ennobles man; learning adorns him.> Apposition indicators such as namely or that is provide a further help as to whether a semicolon or a colon should be chosen, cf. (25a) and (25b) as given by Quirk et al. (1985: 1623). (25a) <In one respect, government policy has been firmly decided; that is, there will be no conscription.> (25b) <In one respect government policy has been firmly decided: there will be no conscription.> This goes to show that besides making up for the medium-independent structural omission of a coordinating conjunction, semantically, the semicolon may introduce explanatory content. For which lexical cues are not mandatory, cf. (26) from Huddleston/ Pullum (2002: 1742). (26) <The bill was withdrawn; the sponsors felt there was not sufficient support to pass it this session.> As to the colon, Quirk et al. (1985: 1620) mention a specific semantic value which is conventionally associated with this mark and which - as it is argued Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 103 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="118"?> 104 Elements of punctuation in present-day English - justifies the view of a closer relation between the punctuation units separated by a colon than by a semicolon: The function of the colon […] can be summed up as follows: what follows (as in this sentence) is an explication of what precedes or a fulfilment of the expectation raised (even if raised only by its own use). And Halliday (1992 [1985]: 33) agrees on the quality, firmly associated with the vertically arranged dots, “[…] the colon having a special CATAPHORIC (forward-referring) implication.” A similar point, implicitly favouring greater closeness between the portions of text separated by a colon than by a semicolon, is made by Yaggy (1953). She argues that the semicolon is, usually, applied to a written stretch so that the resulting punctuation units are equal as to their underlying syntactic configurations. The colon, on the other hand, leads to punctuation units, whose structure may comprise a single word, a phrase but also a main clause, irrespective of the structure of the preceding punctuation unit ending in the colon, cf. Yaggy (ib.: 130). (27) <She has but one hobby: chocolate> (28) <It is available in two colours: pink and blue.> Consequentially, as in (27) and (28) from Ritter (2003: 125), a colon stands for “[…] an equality of meaning, not of form” (Yaggy 1953: 131). 5.2.2.4 Comma According to Quirk et al. (1985: 1615), notably “[…] the comma is the most flexible [mark, SP] in the range of its use, and hence the most difficult to categorize.” Moreover, the comma is the punctuation mark which occurs most frequently in written texts. In an analysis of a corpus of around 84 million words - featuring, among others, the Bible, the Project Gutenberg text collection and two years of the Guardian - the mean distance between two commas was approximately 18.5 words. In contrast, the mean word distance between two colons and two semicolons was c. 280.7 and c. 390.6 respectively, cf. Jones (1995: 621); see Meyer (1987) for similar frequency findings. It may be argued that, in many cases, the comma is the unmarked graphic device that is employed to structure further the graphic presentation of orthographic sentences. The more often it occurs, the less marked its occurrence will be. On these grounds, then, the comma signals only a low degree of separation between two written constituents - lower than the colon and especially the semicolon. It has a highly integrating character. As a punctuation mark that creates punctuation units, it contrasts most strongly with the period, which stands for maximal distance between two punctuation units. Interestingly, though, the mean word distance value for the period was rela- Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 104 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="119"?> Non-alphanumeric characters 105 tively low either in the mentioned corpus, i.e. it was used very often: on average there was a period about every 21.4 words. Although perhaps counterintuitive at first, the high frequency of the period is no falsification of having classed it as the mark with the greatest separative weight. The solution lies in the distinction of obligatory and optional punctuation made earlier: the period (together with the question and the exclamation mark) is used to demarcate orthographic sentences. These constitute the basic units of graphic presentation, which renders their visual marking obligatory. Consequentially, the number of periods in a text will be relatively high because otherwise there would be no decoder-friendly, processable presentation of the text. A high frequency of the comma, largely being an optional punctuation mark, on the other hand, indicates its important sub-structuring function of written sentences with a relatively low separative force and thus obtrusiveness. Irmscher (1979: 191f.) states: The period and the comma are the basic marks of punctuation. Between them, they do everything punctuation needs to do. All the others are refinements of them; the others do more specially or more emphatically what the period and comma do. The period and the comma, therefore, are the utility marks. Quirk et al. (1985) restrict the use of the comma, adding that it should not be used for the graphic separation of independent clauses unless they are linked by a coordinator, cf. Quirk et al. (ib.: 1615). As has been mentioned in section 4.1 above, mainly style manuals describe this phenomenon as ‘comma-splicing’ and consequently as bad style, cf. e.g. Trask (1997: 6f.), Peck/ Coyle (1999: 12-14) and Ritter (2003: 117f.). However, such a rather prescriptive view on punctuation must be considered problematic. It simply does not reflect the general practice in real-language data. Beyond that, the dismissal of comma-splices appears to be counterintuitive anyway, because it interferes with the assumed elementary potential of the comma to signal a low degree of semantic separation. If the use of a comma in the following two examples was ‘prohibited’ - although each time there is a close propositional relation of the two main clauses - encoder and decoder alike would be deprived of an important communicative device in the written expression system. Examples (29) and (30) are from Peck/ Coyle (1999: 13) and Ritter (2003: 118). (It should be noted in passing that the comma in [29] also has a disambiguating function, providing a graphic indicator that the adverbial on earth is to be assigned to the first and not to the second clause.) (29) <Water is the most important compound on earth, it is found on the surface and in the atmosphere.> (30) <I like swimming very much, I go to the pool every week.> Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 105 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="120"?> 106 Elements of punctuation in present-day English Dawkins (1995), therefore, accepts the comma as a potential boundary marker for the graphic separation of main clauses in certain cases, cf. Dawkins (ib.: 541). It “[…] makes for greater fluency of expression” (Sopher 1977: 308); see Huddleston/ Pullum (2002: 1741) for a similar view. 5.2.2.5 Dash and parentheses Using a dash instead of a comma, for example, often signals a sharper disruption in the relationship of the two separated punctuation units. Consider (31a), from Quirk et al. (1985: 1631), and a possible variant in (31b): (31a) <Slowly, he strolled over, and she smiled at him.> (31b) <Slowly, he strolled over - and she smiled at him.> A dash only occurs singly if the separated punctuation unit, like in (31b), occurs in sentence-final position, i.e. if its right-hand boundary co-occurs with the right-hand boundary of an orthographic sentence. Like the colon, the dash is a semantically loaded punctuation mark. Hoffbauer (2003) gives its value as ‘emphasis and suspense’, cf. Hoffbauer (ib.: 70). She (ib.: 71) relates this interpretation not least to “[…] an iconic motivation of the type “space is time” […].” For example in (31b) - as it may be argued - the line of thought is suspended more conspicuously by the use of a dash than by the employed comma in (31a). Clearly, this is down to its fairly extensive appearance in connection with the adjacent spaces. The dash constitutes an obtrusive visual break, thus representing more appropriately the chain of events: ‘he started moving towards her, but only after a short moment, when he finally caught her eye, she began to smile’. The dash would most probably parallel a hesitation pause in spoken language. The disruptive moment is intensified when a correlative use of dashes creates an included punctuation unit as in (32) and leads to a “[…] dramatic and informal impression, suggesting an impromptu aside, rather than a planned inclusion” (Quirk et al. 1985: 1629), cf. also Yaggy (1953: 131). The material embraced by dashes stands out prominently: (32) <At that time, the students - goodness knows for what reason - reversed their earlier, more moderate decision, and a big demonstration was planned.> Sometimes, the dash is presented with the same symbol as the hyphen; that is, there are no differences in length, but only in the presence or absence of adjacent spaces. In the present study, two different symbols are used, i.e. <-> (hyphen) vs <-> (dash). On the other hand, there are house styles which do not only keep apart hyphen and dash, but even suggest different ‘dash types’. Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 106 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="121"?> Non-alphanumeric characters 107 Most prominently, there is the distinction of an em-rule and an en-rule dash (with regard to its approximate size), and the Cambridge Grammar, for instance, differentiates between no less than four different dash characters, cf. Huddleston/ Pullum (2002: 1726). These peculiarities are mainly a consequence of the selected font and are mentioned here only for completeness. Parentheses (or less elaborate ‘brackets’, cf. Peters 2004: 408) always occur in pairs, realised as <()> or <[]> or <{}>; that is, they constitute both the left-hand and the right-hand boundary of a punctuation unit, except for formulaic uses as in bullet point itemisation, for instance: <a)>, <b)> or <1)>, <2)>. If parentheses replace correlative dashes they are usually considered more formal, cf. Quirk et al. (1985: 1629) and Huddleston/ Pullum (2002: 1725). Beyond greater formality, they “[…] indicate that the enclosed element is a kind of sub-routine, a loop off the main track of the sentence […]” (Halliday 1992 [1985]: 34). Hoffbauer (2003) instantiates ‘explanation’, ‘example’, ‘comment’, ‘definition’ and ‘translation’ as the possible functions fulfilled by parentheticals, cf. Hoffbauer (ib.: 65). It seems, however, that these textual relations may be indicated by the use of dashes as well: as (32) shows exemplarily, the dash interpolation clearly contains a comment on the rest of the sentence. For the difference between dash and parentheses, therefore, compare two versions of the same stretch in (33a) and (33b) - one supplied with dashes, one with parentheses. The dash-version is from Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (Babcock Gove 1993: 48a), cf. also Hoffbauer (2003: 68f.). (33a) <Two of our group (Eddie and John) came walking down the street.> (33b) <Two of our group - Eddie and John - came walking down the street.> In the parenthesised version (33a) the ‘sub-routine’ mentioned by Halliday may be partly effected by the vertical shape of the parenthesis characters, practically secluding the two names and possibly implying the following paraphrase: ‘just in case you want to know who these two people were, here are the names’. Hence, it is commonly assumed that parentheses do not emphasise the included material, but rather subordinate it in terms of relative importance. The parenthetical appears less prominent than a dash insertion, cf. Hoffbauer (ib.: 64). And the textual relation in which the parenthesised material stands with regard to the rest of the text may thus be described as ‘backgrounding’. In contrast, the material interpolated in (33b) is emphasised, probably due to the horizontal position of the dashes: the first dash guides the reader forward and virtually does not allow him or her to miss out on the two names. The closing dash, in equal fashion, then restores Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 107 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="122"?> 108 Elements of punctuation in present-day English the reader’s attention to the interrupted, suspended matrix structure. Like earlier in (31b) and (32), the sentence-internal dashes also create a feeling of suspense to be solved, automatically raising the importance of the secluded stretch; it is foregrounded in terms of information management. 5.2.2.6 Quotation marks Quotation marks, also, mark off a particular stretch of writing, thus ‘separating’ it from the surrounding text, and can occur both at word-level and with punctuation units. In this regard, they are not unequivocally classifiable. Huddleston/ Pullum (2002) name five main categories which describe the purpose of quotation marks in written text; these are: indicating direct speech; quotations from written works; proper names; technical terms, or expressions used ironically; and metalingual expressions, cf. Huddleston/ Pullum (ib.: 1753). As far as the employment of quotation marks is concerned, a correlative use is mandatory. Variation is however possible, using either single <’’> or double <“”> quotation marks, “[…] which tends to be purely arbitrary” (Halliday 1992 [1985]: 35). However, as Huddleston/ Pullum (2002: 1753) accentuate, if “[…] quotation marks are needed at different levels […] the two kinds of quotation marks should alternate […]”, cf. e.g. (34). (34) <Wilson’s claim that “Shakespeare’s ‘To be or not to be’ is surely the most famous line of English literature, or any other” is disputed by French critics.> In general, there is the possibility of extending the scope of quotation marks beyond the length of one orthographic sentence or even paragraph, for instance, when a longer stretch of direct speech is reproduced in writing. Departing from the prerequisite of a paired occurrence, an opening quotation mark is sometimes used at the beginning of each paragraph in such a case (especially in fictional and journalistic writing), indicating the continuing speech of an individual. The closing character is realised only at the end of the entire stretch, though. Besides constituting visual boundaries in a sequence of written wordforms, what is more important about the use of quotation marks is, of course, that they label a piece of writing as distinct from its immediate co-text. They specify its status by classifying it as part of the five categories mentioned initially. On these grounds, it can be argued that they do not actually communicate a certain degree of separation between pieces of a text, but rather append a metalingual comment as to their perceived nature. That quotation marks are always employed in addition to other characters, but do not replace them, supports this view. On these grounds, quotation marks are not included in the punctuation hierarchy discussed in the following section. Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 108 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="123"?> Non-alphanumeric characters 109 5.2.3 The dual function of punctuation marks: separation and specification Quite generally, a review of the literature yields numerous categorisations of punctuation marks, cf. e.g. Limaye (1983), Meyer (1987), Nunberg (1990), Halliday (1992 [1985]), Dawkins (1995) and Mann (2003). Although the individual classifications vary in terminology and delicateness, they all mention - more or less explicitly - the functions ‘specification’ and ‘separation’, which Quirk et al. (1985: 1610) summarise as the “[…] two broad purposes […]” of punctuation marks as such, cf. also Quirk et al. (ib.: 1610-1639). That is to say, punctuation marks are employed (i) to indicate the status of a particular stretch of writing and, most crucially, (ii) to indicate boundaries in the flow of written language, i.e. to create punctuation units, cf. also Huddleston/ Pullum (2002: 1729f.). Against this background, each mark is typically regarded as fulfilling either the purpose of specification or that of separation. However, the above discussion in sections 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 has yielded the assumption that the individual marks cannot be divided unequivocally among these functions. It rather seems as if all punctuation marks (bar quotation marks perhaps) serve the dual function ‘separation plus specification’, both aspects are interdependent. Every punctuation mark, in a way, serves as a separator, occupying one segment in the flow of written language. It is a structuring device. But in forming a boundary, it acquires a specifying function, too: choice and application of a mark are closely associated to the decision about how certain (adjacent) portions of text should relate to each other. In this regard, two interrelated aspects have become apparent: (a) Some marks carry a specific semantic value and thus indicate specific rhetorical relations; that is, they specify semantic bonds and illustrate the degree of balance as it holds among juxtaposed punctuation units. (b) Punctuation marks are indicators of separative force; that is, they indicate the relative closeness of juxtaposed material by featuring different degrees of separative force. Hence, their use has an effect on the information structure of a written stretch. As to (a): There are four marks, which can be associated clearly with a particular semantic value (or at least a special status), thus indicating more specifically the relationship of adjacent punctuation units, cf. also sec. 5.2.2 above. These marks are colon, parentheses, dash and semicolon. Firstly, the most prominent characteristic of the colon is its cataphoric function. In the discourse structure of a text, it introduces an explanation or extension of the preceding punctuation unit of which it constitutes the righthand boundary. As to the rhetorical balance of the punctuation units separated Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 109 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="124"?> 110 Elements of punctuation in present-day English by a colon: they are normally in a ‘nucleus-satellite relation’. Remember from section 2.2.1.1 above that in Rhetorical Structure Theory the nucleus expresses the central objective of a stretch, whereas the satellite contains some sort of additional information. Specifically, a colon expansion is normally in an ‘elaboration relation’ (satellite) to a preceding nucleus, cf. also Dale (1992: 118). Secondly, parentheses enclose material that is informationally (though not necessarily structurally) subordinate to the written stretch in which it is inserted. Their embracing form adds to this impression. Rhetorically, a parenthetical is in a ‘background relation’ to the rest of the text, thus constituting the satellite to a central nucleus. Being backgrounded, the material included in parentheses provides additional information so that a decoder, i.e. reader, will comprehend fully the medium-independent configuration rendered in writing. Thirdly, dashes indicate material which is (contrary to parentheses) foregrounded in terms of information management. Again, this is closely connected to the mark’s appearance. Its use often creates an emphatic impression, by which it differs further from the more formal character of parentheses. There are parallels, however, as to the textual relations by which dash interpolations and parentheticals are connected with the rest of the text. Overall, Hoffbauer (2003: 68) may be right, suggesting that “[…] the semantic value of the dash has only gradually developed and it seems likely that the development is not completed.” As a possible fourth mark there is the semicolon, which may be labelled the “[…] coordinating mark of punctuation […]” (Quirk et al. 1985: 1622). Its potentially special status results from the fact that the semicolon normally links two punctuation units which are equal in structure and for the contents of which, as it may be assumed, it is therefore probable to be in a ‘list relation’; they are balanced, cf. Dale (1992: 118). Two units are in a ‘list relation’ if they are of equal informative value and one cannot be preferred over the other as regards its status in the argumentation of a text, cf. Matthiessen/ Thompson (1988: 289). For text portions separated by a semicolon, this potential appears greater than for text portions separated by other sentence-internal marks. Elaborative content may also follow the application of a semicolon, of which it is, however, a weaker indicator than the colon. Both marks, semicolon and colon, differ in separative force, cf. (b) below. Overall, the semicolon does not seem to be carrying a specific semantic value as observed for the colon, the dash and for parentheses. As to (b) - the indication of relative closeness and thus information structure: Sections 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 strengthened the assumption that the marks can be placed along a conventionalised hierarchy. Exceeding the basic (and relatively broad) distinction of graphic finality and non-finality (incompleteness), cf. sec. 4.3 above, such a hierarchy puts in relation to each other not only two groups of marks (final vs non-final), but rather all the individual symbols. A punctuation hierarchy refers to the weight of the individual Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 110 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="125"?> Non-alphanumeric characters 111 characters, satisfying the assumption that the marks correlate in such a way as to communicate different degrees of semantic integration between parts of a text. Consequently, text portions separated by marks high on the hierarchy also carry a greater amount of informational weight than those marked off by lower punctuation marks. The concept of a punctuation hierarchy has been a constant topic in linguistic research and has been given consideration in different ways. Most comprehensively, for Quirk et al. (1985: 1611) there is a well-defined hierarchy “[…] reaching from the word to the paragraph […].” Figure 5.2 illustrates such a hierarchy as it results from the above discussion of the elements of present-day English punctuation. The marks at word-level (except for the abbreviation period) are included for completeness. Quotation marks, on the other hand, have been left out because they cannot be replaced by other marks in written text; it is therefore assumed that they do not contribute to the perceived closeness of adjacent text portions. Also excluded are structural aspects such as paragraphing, because the field of punctuation has been restricted to comprise the orthographic sentence and to cover non-alphanumeric characters only, cf. sec. 5.1 above. Finally, the supposedly special status of <: ()- ; > that has been addressed under (a) above does not exert a directly observable influence on the hierarchy concept. That some marks may provide extra information is therefore not considered explicitly in Figure 5.2. Given its significance, however, this aspect is implemented in Figure 5.4 at the end of the present section. F IELD M ARK C HARACTER S EPARATIVE F ORCE R ELATION TO O RTHOGRAPHIC S ENTENCE C REATING P UNCTUATION U NITS period question mark exclamation mark <.> <? > <! > maximal External (obligatory) punctuation: graphic finality semicolon <; > high Internal (largely optional) punctuation: graphic non-finality parentheses dash colon <( )> <-> <: > medium comma <,> low A S P ART OF O RTHOGRAPHIC W ORD -F ORMS word space Ø minimal Word-level punctuation: graphic non-finality hyphen apostrophe <-> <’> unseparated letters <abcabc> none Figure 5.2: Punctuation hierarchy Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 111 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="126"?> 112 Elements of punctuation in present-day English The organisation of the above hierarchy follows from two basic considerations. Firstly, those marks that are applied to orthographic word-forms are lowest on the hierarchy. The secondary boundary markers, i.e. the marks which structure orthographic sentences internally, are ranked higher, but are, in turn, ascribed less separative force than the primary marks, i.e. the termination points, which suggest graphic completeness; these are strongest. Secondly, among the internal boundary markers, the semicolon is perceived as stronger than parentheses, which seem to correspond to the colon in separative force. The colon, in turn, is attributed a greater separative weight than the comma. Of the marks above word-level the comma is most integrative as far as the relation of adjacent text segments is concerned. The dash is taken as equivalent to the colon and to parentheses in its degree of semantic integration due to its comparable function. Thus, punctuation marks equivalent in separative force are integrated into a single segment in the above overview, where their vertical order is then irrelevant. Although sharing the label ‘minimal’ with the apostrophe and the hyphen, word spaces are acknowledged as slightly stronger, indicated by the broken line that sets off the word space section from the joint one of hyphen and apostrophe. For a note on spacing and hyphenation, see sections 2.2.2.2 and 5.2.1 above. It should be added that for Quirk et al. (1985: 1612) parentheses and the dash can only be implemented “[…] somewhat uneasily into the hierarchy […]” and they neglect both marks in theirs. But from the above discussion there is reason to suggest that their placement in the hierarchy as illustrated in Figure 5.2 is still a viable option. On the other hand, it is especially their association with a particular semantic value, as mentioned under (a) above, which allows a reader to infer from their use textual relations among portions of text. Potential difficulties in unequivocally determining the separative force of these marks are thus compensated. Figure 5.4, in the form of a flowchart, illustrates the possible decision process when choosing punctuation marks, combining the above considerations on a punctuation hierarchy with the assumed semantic value of individual marks. Given the potentially complex relationship of typographic presentation and medium-independent structure, however, Figure 5.4 must not be understood as a production model of punctuation usage. That is to say, some decisions and/ or choices are certainly illustrated in a simplified way without considering every possible option of an encoder, i.e. writer. Note further that in the diagram only the process of creating punctuation units is dealt with; hence, choices of marks that operate at word-level are omitted, cf. sec. 5.2.1 above. Also, decisions about the application of quotation marks as well as of question and exclamation marks are not considered due to their almost exclusive status-marking purpose. Prior to exempli- Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 112 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="127"?> Non-alphanumeric characters 113 fying the decision process, Figure 5.3 lists and annotates the symbols used in Figure 5.4. 7 Figure 5.3: Symbols used in Figure 5.4 To summarise, sections 5.2.1 to 5.2.3 have shown that punctuation has an important function for the meaningful presentation of written language. As a working hypothesis, it seems appropriate to describe punctuation usage as being “[…] motivated by a variety of syntactic, semantic, prosodic […] and stylistic considerations” (Meyer 1987: 15). In other words, the distribution of punctuation marks appears to be co-occurring with grammatical, prosodic and ‘other’ patterns. Facilitating the decoding of written text, punctuation assumes a potentially complex guiding role for the reader. In the following it will be examined which resources this global guiding role exploits in particular, how these resources become manifest in the perception of the decoder and whether they can possibly be captured in a systematic way. 7 The subsequent overview and the flowchart in Figure 5.4 have been designed with a software tool called PapDesigner. It was developed at the Georg-Simon-Ohm Berufskolleg, Cologne, and can be downloaded as freeware from http: / / www.gsokoeln.de/ papdesigner/ Hauptseite.html (version 2.2.0.8; last access 26 July 2011). The tool complies with standard DIN 66001. Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 113 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="128"?> 114 Elements of punctuation in present-day English Figure 5.4: Possible decision process when creating punctuation units Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 114 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="129"?> 6 Collecting data to account for the communicative value of punctuation At the end of the preceding chapter it has been suggested as a working hypothesis that punctuation fulfils a potentially complex guiding role which draws on a combination of syntactic, semantic, prosodic and also stylistic aspects, cf. sec. 5.2.3 above. To reveal these, the following basic theoretical assumptions, i.e. theorems, need continuous consideration: (i) Punctuation is a medium-dependent typographic means of presentational variation and choice, cf. sec. 2.2 above. (ii) Punctuation marks can be classified semiotically as so-called ‘proper symbols’, thus forming a subclass of indices. The marks have the potential to communicate linguistic and paralinguistic information, cf. sec. 2.3.2 above. (iii) Punctuation facilitates the decoding of medium-independent syntactic information at the graphic level. The relationship of the medium-independent structural and the medium-dependent graphic expression system is captured systematically in the script unit model, cf. ch. 4 above. (iv) Punctuation fulfils the dual function of separation plus specification, cf. ch. 5 above. On the basis of these theoretical preliminaries, the question suggests itself of how one should proceed when approaching an analysis of the communicative value of punctuation. It has become clear that the relatively vague notion of communicative value implies that of guiding role for the reader. However, ‘guiding role’ is still a very all-encompassing term. Given the range of punctuation marks and also the manifold contexts in which they occur, it is suggested that the global guiding role of punctuation becomes manifest in (or shows as) several more specific ‘guide functions’. These guide functions instantiate, as it were, the global guiding role of punctuation. And in order to make reliable statements about the communicative value of punctuation, i.e. about its guiding role for the reader, it is the assumed more specific guide functions of punctuation which are explored in the present study. From an encoder-based presentational perspective it appears problematic that functional descriptions of punctuation are often limited to a discussion Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 115 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="130"?> 116 Collecting data to account for the communicative value of punctuation (or itemisation) of seemingly unrelated handbook rules which lack efficient organisation. Or as Mann (2003: 360) puts it: The usual practice of arranging punctuation rules by mark (one section on the comma, one on the semicolon, and so on) generates long lists of rules that are hard to learn because they’re apparently unrelated, irrational, highly complex, and communicatively irrelevant. Without entering a discussion about the rightfulness of every argument of Mann’s criticism, her quotation, by and large, implies that the common practice may be labelled ‘problematic’ if only because a writer will only seldom ask, for example, ‘How do I use the semicolon? ’ but rather ‘How do I punctuate X? ’, cf. also Mann (ib.). Basically, punctuating written text, i.e. ‘X’, relies on the binary decision ‘mark vs no mark’ in a certain position; that is, a writer has to take into account certain (communicative) aspects or goals, which justify the inclusion or omission of a character. The binary contrast whether or not to employ a mark is complemented by the requirement to choose from different marks, especially as far as sentence-internal punctuation is concerned. The overview of the elements of punctuation in presentday English in chapter 5 above, of course, functions as important decision guidance for this process, i.e. for the selection of an appropriate mark. However, the classification of punctuation marks as proper symbols in section 2.3 above has shown that their communicative value is not inherent in the individual characters themselves, but is partly determined by their use, i.e. operation, in a particular context; this is implied by item (ii) in the list above. Hence, also a decoder, i.e. a reader, does not understand the communicative value of a punctuation mark because of its mere presence, but because of the interdependence between the particular type, its position in the written sequence, the resultant typographic presentation and the underlying sequence of medium-independent word-forms rendered in writing, i.e. that which the typographic presentation concretises in written substance. What therefore needs answering is, firstly, which role punctuation plays in the decoding of the syntactic arrangement at the written level, and, secondly, how exactly choice and placement of punctuation contribute to the decoding and conceptualisation of a written stretch beyond potential syntactic correlations. Consequentially, a description of the specific guide functions of punctuation marks needs to be approached from their use in context rather than from the individual marks in isolation, cf. also McCormick Calkins (1980). One general determinant of (the selection of) these contexts lies in the examination of punctuation examples; there are three angles from which punctuation may be considered: Firstly, there is what may be called ‘correct punctuation usage’, i.e. the application of marks as it is recommended by the handbooks and style manuals on writing and punctuation practice. Their Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 116 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="131"?> Collecting data to account for the communicative value of punctuation 117 standard of correctness is largely based on reflections on the individual symbol and its designated use, cf. also ch. 5 above. Secondly, there is the so-called ‘acceptable punctuation’. This covers those applications of marks which are accepted as communicatively purposeful by the language user (mainly the reader in this case). Normally, these instances form a considerably large intersection with those regarded as correct - probably even larger than actually realised in the subsequent figure below. To a certain extent, ‘acceptable’ can only be a pre-theoretical notion in this context, since the acceptability judgements are not based on empirical research. Thirdly, there are those cases of punctuation which are actually attested in real-language data, here termed ‘authentic punctuation usage’. Authentic punctuation usage is associated with written texts which have been encoded as part of actual language behaviour, i.e. in written communication, but not for merely linguistic purposes. For the time being, the label ‘authentic’ is to be seen as independent of whether a certain punctuation practice is judged as ‘correct’ or as ‘acceptable’. A special case of authentic punctuation is that of ‘punctuation errors’ made by foreign language learners. Punctuational flaws Figure 6.1: The potential nature of punctuation examples Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 117 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="132"?> 118 Collecting data to account for the communicative value of punctuation of this kind are normally beyond the individual’s control and are therefore not regarded as meaningful. They are not dealt with in the present study. (Admittedly, this may sometimes be a grey area.) The authentic punctuation that is considered is, by and large, regarded as the result of deliberate choice, i.e. it is meaningful. The fact that it might still deviate from certain established norms remains unaffected. In the form of set theory, Figure 6.1 depicts the complex picture of the potential nature of punctuation examples, as it results from the combination of the three ‘sources’ referred to. The realisation of the Venn diagram is inspired by a similarly structured overview in an article on grammar writing, cf. Aarts (1991: 50). The intersection at the centre of the diagram, labelled ‘[+] authentic, [+] correct, [+] acceptable’, provides the unproblematic examples. It comprises those cases of punctuation practice which are actually attested, which are in line with the norms of correctness of the usage books and which are communicatively purposeful. Below the centre there is the intersection which comprises the concocted instantiations of punctuation usage, i.e. those cases which have been made up by the linguist to illustrate how the punctuation marks should be used (labelled ‘[-] authentic, [+] correct, [+] acceptable’). These products of ‘armchair linguistics’, as for example Fillmore (1992) calls them, are commonly used in the diverse usage books and style manuals on writing and punctuation, but do not originate from authentic data, i.e. they are not attested, cf. e.g. Fillmore (ib.: 35). The intersection labelled ‘[+] authentic, [+] correct, [-] acceptable’ will, beyond doubt, not produce a great number of relevant examples. If some punctuation usage was actually instantiated and was accepted as correct on merely theoretical grounds, it would be irrational if, at the same time, it was not communicatively acceptable. One case in point, however, may be legal English. For written legal English, Halliday (1992 [1985]) notices the prevalent practice to omit sentence-internal punctuation; the application of marks is thus largely confined to the sentence-final period, cf. Halliday (ib.: 38) and also Peters (2002: 84) and Esser (2006: 117). While - up to a certain degree - the omission of structuring punctuation marks may still be in line with the demands of the style manuals and their standards of correctness, an unpunctuated stretch will be communicatively unacceptable (from a modern perspective). Hence, not always is the label ‘correct’ equivalent to the label ‘acceptable’. Of course, acceptability is a relative concept in this context: at least for the restricted field of legal language, a written text presented without any structuring punctuation marks may very well be tolerable. 8 Quite generally, though, Haigh (2009 8 Strictly speaking, it cannot be dismissed that the case of written legal English might apply equally well to the intersection discussed hereafter; in this respect consider the status of the unpunctuated private letter reproduced by Esser (2006: 87f.), cf. also sec. 7.2.3.1.3 below. Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 118 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="133"?> Collecting data to account for the communicative value of punctuation 119 [2004]: 25) observes that “[…] modern legal drafters have begun to use punctuation in the same way that ordinary writers use punctuation - to give guidance about meaning.” All the more, it will be interesting to explore the guide functions of those instances of punctuation practice which are actually attested and are seen as communicatively meaningful, i.e. acceptable, but which do not comply with the demands of usage books and style manuals (labelled ‘[+] authentic, [-] correct, [+] acceptable’ in the diagram). Amongst others, this comprises the subsequent cases. (1) <It was old and battered, perhaps left by a holidaymaker, but she rather craved the comfort of an easy read. In English.> (2) <Der neue Transporter. Scheut keinen Vergleich.> (3) <What. Do. You. Think. You’re. Doing.> In (1) (Sanders 2008: 233), the adverbial In English is given sentence status in writing although, structurally, it is bound to the preceding main clause. In the, albeit German, case under (2) from a 2009 Volkswagen advertising campaign (without bibliographical reference), the predication (‘stands up to any comparison’) is separated from the preceding subjectival noun phrase (‘the new transporter’) by a period plus a line break. This is unconventional also by English standards. And the case in (3), from David Lodge’s (2009: 201) novel Deaf Sentence, deviates clearly from the generally accepted norms of correctness because one clause complex is presented as no less than six orthographic (one-word) sentences. Hence, the graphic form contradicts the syntactic structure in the above examples, paralleling those instances discussed in section 4.1 above. On these grounds, the present approach has to be rated as a conceptual study: it endeavours to yield type-exhaustiveness in the description of the communicative value of punctuation, i.e. its global guiding role; that is to say, the focus of analysis is not on a mere quantification of the instantiations of punctuation practice, i.e. of its tokens. But rather the main aim is to paint a complete picture of those general nuances and aspects of punctuation usage which actually influence and facilitate the decoding of written text, and thus to describe the abstract underlying types which motivate and explain the use and interpretation of punctuation. Obviously, this includes the relevant information utilised by both encoder and decoder. For the concepts of type and token see also section 2.1.2 above. To put it in a nutshell: it is the general aspects, i.e. types, which direct the application and understanding of punctuation in certain contexts that shall be accounted for, but not every single instantiation of such a type, i.e. token. Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 119 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="134"?> 120 Collecting data to account for the communicative value of punctuation In the first place, therefore, to achieve type-exhaustiveness, the present study on punctuation requires qualitative theory-building. McEnery/ Wilson (2001 [1996]: 76) describe the principles and the advantages of qualitative research as follows: Qualitative forms of analysis offer a rich and detailed perspective on the data. In qualitative analyses, rare phenomena receive, or at least ought to receive, the same attention as more frequent phenomena and, because the aim is complete detailed description rather than quantification, delicate variation in the data is foregrounded: qualitative analysis enables very fine distinctions to be drawn since it is not necessary to shoehorn the data into a finite number of classifications. To adopt a qualitative descriptive approach entails the problem of data collection, a problem which has already been brought up in connection with the aim of describing punctuation in context. Broadly speaking, also for the present work on punctuation, the “[…] question is the old one of what sort of data a linguistic should describe […]” (Aarts 1991: 46), when he or she wants to make authoritative statements about a certain aspect of (a) language. An ‘intuition-based’ approach, as Aarts understands it (using the example of grammar writing), builds on “[…] the linguist’s intuitive and explicit knowledge of the language and whatever is helpful in the literature” (ib.). The mainstay of a so-called ‘observation-based’ account, on the other hand, is that it refers to authentic corpus data and thus “[…] also accounts for the facts of language use […]” (ib.: 47). Whereas intuition is often allocated to qualitative research, observation is seen as the key aspect of quantitative forms of analysis. And for a long time, qualitative and quantitative approaches have been regarded as dichotomous, irreconcilable concepts. However, dealing with the relationship of quantitative and qualitative research, McEnery/ Wilson (2001 [1996]: 77) observe a significant change: There has recently been a move in social science research towards multi-method approaches which largely reject the narrow analytical paradigms in favour of the breadth of information which the use of more than one method may provide. Accordingly, in his Introduction to Qualitative Research, Flick (2005 [1998]: 40, 262) argues that “[q]ualitative and quantitative research are not incompatible opposites which should not be combined […].” Instead, “[…] the combination of both strategies has crystallized as a perspective, which is discussed and practised in various forms.” In her doctoral thesis on the mobility of constituents in the English noun phrase, de Mönnink (2000) adopts what she calls ‘the multi-method approach to descriptive linguistics’. In accepting the descriptive value of intuition, her approach borrows from Popper’s (e.g. 2009 [1959]) stance towards scientific methodology and from Mulder’s (1968) axiomatic approach to language. What is more is that de Mönnink argues more forcefully for a combination of the insights of linguistic intuition with those of observable data, cf. de Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 120 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="135"?> Collecting data to account for the communicative value of punctuation 121 Mönnink (2000: ch. 2). In short, her general argument can be paraphrased as follows: mere introspection is an appropriate means to start an analysis, but should never be the end point in the process of linguistic description; rather it must be tested on or must be supplemented by objective data in order to achieve what Labov (1972) terms ‘intersubjective agreement’, cf. Labov (ib.: 97). And in the context of the present study this means that any supposition about punctuation arrived at by introspection should also be recognisable in authentic data, i.e. in the language of everyday life, i.e. parole, if deemed reliable. For this claim see also the related, broadly based ‘principle of the vocal majority’ formulated by Labov, cf. Labov (ib.: 108f.). Describing more precisely the desired examination process in a multimethod approach, de Mönnink (2000: 34) postulates that […] the use of both types of data should not be a linear and/ or unidirectional process, starting with intuitive data and ending with corpus data. Instead, a descriptive study should be conducted following a cyclic process. Figure 6.2: Cyclic process of a multi-method approach Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 121 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="136"?> 122 Collecting data to account for the communicative value of punctuation Visually, this cyclic process can be illustrated as in Figure 6.2, adapted from de Mönnink (ib.). Note that the figure has been altered in that it makes use of the term ‘authentic data’ instead of ‘corpus data’ which is used in the original illustration; see below for some remarks on the reasons. According to de Mönnink, a multi-method approach to linguistic analysis may begin and end anywhere on the circle, given that the whole round is followed at least once. With a view to Figure 6.2, therefore, both the starting point on the circle and the direction of advancement are left up to the analyst. This is supposed to be illustrated by the dotted (double) arrows and the label ‘starting point’ on the inside of the circle. They are not part of de Mönnink’s original figure. Often, as has been suggested above, it may be easiest to start with intuitive data as the basis of any further research hypotheses before proceeding to include authentic (corpus) data, cf. de Mönnink (ib.: 35). It is by now well-known that in modern linguistics the notion ‘corpus’, as McEnery/ Wilson (2001 [1996]: 73) explain, […] typically implies a finite body of text, sampled to be maximally representative of a particular variety of a language, and which can be stored and manipulated using a computer. However, there is the question of the search parameters a corpus analysis would have to be based on in this context. A mere search for the individual punctuation marks would most probably not lead to satisfying results. Or at least it would require a very laborious examination of isolated instances which would then still have to be interpreted (or classified) more universally. This is especially true since the present study does not seek to give an account of only the most common functions of punctuation usage, but to describe also those types which are more uncommon and do not follow the widespread norms; these cases in particular cannot be retrieved from a corpus. On this account, the present study (unlike Meyer’s [1987] corpus analysis, for example) is not concerned with observation that is confined to a finite compilation of texts, i.e. a corpus, supposedly representing the English language or, more precisely, English writing. But authentic data are collected more heterogeneously with regard to the contexts in which punctuation is used. That is, the data are collected as they are observable in connection with certain descriptive categories (defined a priori), a procedure which shall not least guarantee the explanatory power (and the representativeness) of the discussion. Besides, it is this procedure which guarantees that also those contexts are considered which most probably spawn low-frequency items. These ‘special cases of punctuation usage’ are likely to fall through the mesh if analysing a finite corpus only. All in all, by choosing this way of complementing linguistic intuitions by objective observations (and vice versa), greater relevance is assigned to the initially raised writer-based, contextualised question ‘How do I punctuate X? ’ than to the decontextualised one of how to use a certain mark. Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 122 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="137"?> Collecting data to account for the communicative value of punctuation 123 Specifically, the collection of authentic data, therefore, includes consulting the relevant research literature, close reading (fictional texts, journalistic writing, etc.) and taking into account “[…] data-based research, but in this case it will [mainly] be the published material of other researchers” (Wray/ Bloomer 2006 [1998]: 10). One source of such ‘published material’ is Meyer’s (1987) comprehensive corpus study on American punctuation, which provides frequencies of particular punctuational practices and offers corresponding interpretations. Although Meyer’s book focuses on American punctuation practice (using the Brown Corpus as database), a difference between British and American punctuation is not made in the present study; after all, both systems can be regarded as relatively similar, with American punctuation being supposedly a bit more rigid, cf. Meyer (ib.: 2f.) and also Partridge (1998 [1953]: 211). Note that some punctuation examples, especially if they originate from the research literature, might not be unequivocally verifiable as ‘authentic’. Such a slight uncertainty is accepted in the present study, however, because it is deemed unlikely to have a significant influence on the overall findings. The range of marks, whose guide functions will be analysed in the following, is limited to those discussed in chapter 5 above. Dealing only very briefly with word-based punctuation, the main focus will be on the markers of punctuation units; and in collecting authentic data, the present study specifically concentrates on those marks that are understood to form the ‘core subset of punctuation characters’, namely the points forming the set p = {. , ; : - ? ! () “”}, cf. sec. 5.2.2 above. The structure of the subsequent chapter 7 is as follows: In section 7.1 some general punctuation principles are illustrated, which guide the application of punctuation marks. These principles do not apply to the use of individual marks but are wider in scope, pertaining to the general practice of punctuating written text. Section 7.2 consists of three parts: Firstly, the guide functions of punctuation at word-level are looked at rather shortly (sec. 7.2.1). This brevity is due to the supposedly limited range and potential of punctuation at this level, cf. also Jones (1995: 620). After that, it is discussed, secondly, in how far punctuation above word level, i.e. considering marks that create punctuation units, has a guide function for the specification of structural patterns at the graphic level (sec. 7.2.2, ‘punctuation units and syntax’). To this end, certain categories are examined which grammar handbooks typically associate with the application of punctuation marks. And, thirdly, it is explored in how far the global guiding role shows as specific textual functions (sec. 7.2.3, ‘punctuation units and text’), offering a more general perspective on the interaction of punctuation marks above word-level and written text. This potentially includes cases that run counter to the principles mentioned in section 7.1 and to the aspects focused on in section 7.2.2. Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 123 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="138"?> Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 124 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="139"?> 7 Exploring the guide functions of punctuation 7.1 General punctuation principles In chapters 4 and 5 above it has been shown that the style manuals and usage handbooks on writing have adopted a relatively normative (if not prescriptive) stance towards the use of punctuation. They have formulated clear-cut punctuation rules, and depending on whether a writer follows these rules, his or her style is labelled, sweepingly, as either ‘good’ or ‘bad’. Usually, a further differentiation is not made. On the other hand, considering actual writing practice, violations of the punctuation rules occur by far too often so as not to second-guess the authority and practicability of the imposed regulations. Many (‘good’) writers simply do not follow them. As early as 1949, Summey (1949: 4) put down a critical remark on the supposedly clear-cut punctuation conventions, which prescribe not only the places of punctuation but also the precise choice of mark: The notion that there is only one correct way of punctuating a given word pattern is true only in limited degree. Skilful writers have learned that they must make alert and successful choices between periods and semicolons, semicolons and commas, commas and dashes, dashes and parentheses, according to meaning and intended emphasis. Dawkins (1995: 533) goes one step further, claiming boldly that with their postulation of rules the style manuals and usage books “[…] have got it all wrong when it comes to punctuation […].” In the context of the present study, which regards punctuation as an encoder-based, decoder-oriented means of presentation - thus assuming its variance - Dawkins’s appraisal does not miss its point. Yet, the value of a certain degree of decidedness in the use of punctuation cannot be dismissed. Obviously, “[…] the originator of the message is usually not present to clear up any difficulty that may arise” (Quirk et al. 1985: 1611). And punctuating written text without referring at least in part to a generally accepted ‘key’, as Fries (1970 [1925]) puts it, would have no meaning for someone other than the encoder, i.e. the writer; see the relevant quotation by Fries in section 3.3 above. So, Quirk et al. rightly claim that ‘the set of marks is well recognised and their use is (and has to be) relatively institutionalised’; see the relevant quotation in section 2.3 above. Accordingly, the present thesis attempts to Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 125 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="140"?> 126 Exploring the guide functions of punctuation incorporate both aspects, namely stylistic freedom and partial institutionalisation. It acknowledges the existence of certain principles or tendencies (rather than clear-cut rules). But these principles, at most, only guide the employment of punctuation marks. Punctuation practice is by no means uniform. The present study is therefore fully in line with the more liberal view by Dawkins (1995: 544): In contrast to the rule-matching process required by a handbook, this approach to punctuating is an expression of the writing-is-thinking premise, for it provides the occasion and the tools for thinking. There are three basic punctuation principles, which seem to guide the use and the interpretation of punctuation marks. They, and the different fields they touch upon, are dealt with in the following sections: ‘punctuation as a style marker’ (sec. 7.1.1), ‘obligatory sentence-internal punctuation’ (sec. 7.1.2) and ‘punctuation and structural integrity’ (sec. 7.1.3). As mentioned in chapter 6 above, the principles, by and large, do not apply to the use of individual marks but are wider in scope, pertaining to the general practice of punctuating written text. 7.1.1 Punctuation as a style marker 7.1.1.1 Indicating dimensions of linguistic variation Since punctuational uniformity is an idealised conception, it appears more useful to assume that the application and interpretation of punctuation marks are determined by different factors of the communication situation and the referential content. Esser (1993) gives a comprehensive account of the dimensions of linguistic variation, which form a framework for stylistic description and for which he distinguishes those that pertain to the language user and those that refer to language use, cf. Esser (ib.: 9-32) and the literature cited there. In turn, punctuation should have the potential to be indicative of these parameters. It may function and may be employed as a style marker. To give some random examples: the punctuation of a text may divulge, i.e. signal, information about (i) the time in which the text was produced, cf. e.g. ch. 3 above, and probably also about (ii) its region of origin, considering, as a case in point, the differing sequentialisation of quotation marks and other punctuation characters in American and British English, cf. e.g. <…,” he said.> (AmE) vs <…”, he said.> (BrE). Beyond, the reference to legal English in chapter 6 above has shown that punctuation (or rather its absence) may also hint at (iii) the field of discourse a text is situated in. On the other hand, Huddleston/ Pullum (2002) argue that there appears to exist (iv) no social variation in the use of punctuation: there is no distinction possible between a standard and a non-standard punctuation style. Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 126 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="141"?> General punctuation principles 127 Similarly, (v) “[…] the style contrast between formal and informal is of relatively limited relevance to punctuation” (ib.: 1727). It is suggested, however, that one context in which at least the latter may actually be relevant is the use of the semicolon. Meyer (1987: 24) finds in his corpus analysis that the semicolon is distributed most widely […] in the learned style and relatively infrequently in the journalistic and fictional styles, a distribution suggesting that semicolons are markers of formal style. Having said this, the absence of semicolons is certainly not a byword for an informal style. What implies informality is the multi-application of question and exclamation marks, which may be not least due to visual obtrusiveness. Usually, multi-applications of <? > and <! > serve the purpose of intensification. Compare the imitation of a letter in (1), taken from the epistolary novel Dracula by Bram Stoker (2000 [1897]: 46f.), and an alleged newspaper advertisement in (2), presented to the reader in Charles Dickens’s (1911: 216) essay “The Tattlesnivel Bleater”: (1) <“Tell me all the news when you write. You have not told me anything for a long time. I hear rumours, and especially of a tall, handsome, curly-haired man? ? ? “> (2) <‘Boddleboy is pianoforte playing at St. Januarius’s Gallery, with pretty tolerable success! He clears three hundred pounds per night. Not bad this! ! ’> The quotation marks in the examples do not indicate instantiations of direct speech: in (1) they are used by the author to emphasise the communicative function of the letter, whereas in (2) they indicate the quotation from a newspaper article. With the triply employed question marks in (1), the author indicates a great deal of curiosity on the part of the female correspondent and exploits the illocutionary force of the declarative question visually. The final double exclamations marks in (2), on the contrary, visually emphasise the praised qualities of the piano player referred to in a concluding judging statement. Consequently, the use of <? ? ? > and <! ! > may be associated with prosodic connotations. The three question marks stand for an amplified rising tone in speech (for once coded as ‘/ / ’), which fits the climactic presentation of the man’s attributes; the two exclamation marks might lead to an intensified stress through emphatic accentuation if the writings were read aloud. See (3) and (4) for corresponding possible spoken realisations. (3) I hear rumours\ N and especially of a tall/ handsome/ curly-haired man/ / Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 127 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="142"?> 128 Exploring the guide functions of punctuation (4) Not bad E this\ All in all, it seems as if the perceived informality of the multi-application of question and exclamation marks stems from their graphic impact and from almost automatically associating their occurrence with the idea of an emotionally coloured spoken realisation. 7.1.1.2 Divided usage The preceding section nourished the insight that the spoken expression system is not to be ruled out entirely as a reference point in explaining the impact of punctuation. And with regard to the general practice of punctuating, several authors continue to assume punctuation (or some of its uses) to be prosodically motivated, cf. e.g. Sopher (1977: 304, 313), de Beaugrande (1984: 196-200), Danielewicz/ Chafe (1985: 225), Chafe (1986; 1988a; b; 1992), Cruttenden (1986: 181-182; 1990: 71). They maintain the claim (with differing vehemence) that the application of marks in present-day English follows something like a ‘principle of (inner) voicing’, even predicting that punctuation may “[…] increasingly become a handmaiden to informal speech […]” (Baron 2000: 195). Chafe (1988a), for instance, emphasises the apparent (subconscious) relevance of a mental image of sound for the distribution of punctuation marks, cf. Chafe (ib.: 8). He illustrates this view by giving, amongst others, two examples whose punctuation captures the prosody of the inner voice quite differently. The relevant cases (5) and (6) are taken from fictional texts by Melville (1994 [1851]: 75) and Agee (2006 [1957]: 239), respectively. (5) <The poor fellow whom Queequeg had handled so roughly, was swept overboard; all hands were in a panic; and to attempt snatching at the boom to stay it, seemed madness. It flew from right to left, and back again, almost in one ticking of a watch, and every instant seemed on the point of snapping into splinters.> (6) <He has been dead all night while I was asleep and now it is morning and I am awake but he is still dead and he will stay right on being dead all afternoon and all night and all tomorrow while I am asleep again and wake up again and go to sleep again and he can’t come back home again ever any more but I will see him once more before he is taken away.> Chafe (1988a) argues that the punctuation in (5) scrupulously reproduces the assumed prosodic intentions of the author, typical of nineteenth-century prose; (6), on the other hand, evokes “[…] an effect of breathlessly tumbling, silent ideas” (ib.: 9). Again, this is supposed to be a consequence of the Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 128 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="143"?> General punctuation principles 129 written presentation, namely of the omission of any structuring mark which could comply with prosodic boundaries, cf. also de Beaugrande (1984: 200). Efforts to associate every punctuation mark with, say, a tone unit boundary, however, have to be taken with a grain of salt. Monschau (2004: 166), for example, makes it clear that, at last, “[…] we still come across more tone unit boundaries in the spoken medium than punctuation marks in the written medium.” She refers to arguments by Chafe himself, who has found that punctuation units in present-day English written text are normally longer than the tone units which constitute the building blocks of spoken language, cf. Chafe (1986: 21f.; 1988b: 413). Moreover, in text excerpts given to adult readers, the average length of punctuation units was 9.4 words. However, when asked to read the texts aloud, the length of the spoken presentation units, i.e. tone units, decreased to comprise only 5.2 words on average, cf. Chafe (1988b: 406, 408). This complies with the average tone unit length of around five to six words in spontaneous spoken language in general. Interestingly, in each read-aloud version the present punctuation was simply overridden as a structuring device, cf. Chafe (ib.: 407; 1992: 25). The presentational differences between oral and silent reading were then confirmed in a control test, in which adult readers were asked to - silently - punctuate unpunctuated versions of the original texts: they inserted punctuation marks after about every tenth word, cf. Chafe (1988b: 410-412). Monschau (2004: 168) assesses these findings as follows: What we have to consider in this context is that the permanent form of writing makes it possible for both writers and readers to process larger chunks of information at a time, “to assimilate more information in a single gulp of comprehension” (Chafe 1988[b]: 414). Readers do not have to follow the pace set by a speaker and can read (and if necessary reread) at their own pace: “the eye, that takes in large units of text at a glance, requires fewer signals than the ear that receives the message piecemeal” (Sopher 1977: 306, 311). Consequentially, punctuation clearly provides points of orientation in written text, living up to the specific perception demands of graphic presentation, which are not least related to its surveyability, cf. sec. 2.2.2.2 above. “We cannot, in other words, consistently rely on punctuation to show us an author’s prosodic intentions” (Chafe 1992: 24). This holds true in particular if these intentions are equated mechanically with guides for an oral reproduction of the writing in question, being a very specific activity anyway. Often, the principle of (inner) voicing, i.e. of a prosodically motivated punctuation, is therefore viewed as just one possible punctuation style, yielding divided usage in the punctuation of an individual or within a language community. That is, a general distinction is made between two opposing styles of punctuation: there is “[…] punctuation according to grammar, and punctuation according to phonology” (Halliday 1992 [1985]: 37). The first is com- Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 129 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="144"?> 130 Exploring the guide functions of punctuation monly described as a ‘heavy’, the latter as a ‘light’ style. Syntactic, i.e. grammatical, boundaries are visually reproduced in cases of the so-called ‘heavy punctuation’. In cases of ‘light punctuation’, on the other hand, a punctuation unit is regarded as corresponding to a tone unit; that is, a mark is coterminous with a tone unit boundary, yet does not necessarily imply pausing, cf. Halliday (ib.). Two graphic presentations of the same medium-independent clause complex illustrate a case of heavy (or close) grammatical punctuation in the adapted version (7a) and the lighter (or open) prosody-oriented original in (7b), taken from The Guardian (Guardian, Laville 13 Feb. 2007- @). The article only featured on guardian.co.uk and was not published in the print version of the newspaper. To avoid confusion, online sources are coded ‘-@’ in the following. (7a) <A file was passed to the Crown Prosecution Service, but no charges were brought, and, although the IPCC found all three residents had been hit by officers, they made no recommendations that anyone should be subjected to a disciplinary hearing.> (7b) <A file was passed to the Crown Prosecution Service but no charges were brought and, although the IPCC found all three residents had been hit by officers, they made no recommendations that anyone should be subjected to a disciplinary hearing.> The notions of light and heavy punctuation build on the general assumption that, when spoken, a chain of word-forms is usually segmented into fewer tone units than it comprises syntactic units. As a consequence, if punctuation leans on the assumed tone unit structure of a piece of writing, it should, by and large, see fewer marks being applied than if it strictly reproduces syntactic boundaries. Accordingly, prosodic punctuation is referred to as ‘light’. And since a written representation of syntactic units apparently requires more marks, it is labelled ‘heavy’. In terms of presentational choices, heavy, i.e. grammatical, punctuation provides less room for individual interpretation as it is based on the medium-independent expression system. The written realisation of (7b), however, follows the medium-dependent system of intonation, and “[…] the writer transposes his awareness of tone unit structure into writing” (Esser 2006: 86). Unless a particular effect is intended, writers will often opt for a light punctuation, cf. Quirk et al. (1985: 1631) and Chafe (1988b: 416). Since punctuation serves as a visual means that facilitates the decoding of a stretch of written language, a continuous employment of grammatical punctuation holds the risk of visually overloading it. In (7a), for example, the correlative commas around <and> plus the one before <but> might impede an easy and quick decoding of the text: too many punctuation marks are perceived as visual obstacles in the course of reading, and thus they are reduced to a minimum in the original text. Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 130 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="145"?> General punctuation principles 131 But, as a corollary, such perception-related considerations show that the preferred light punctuation mode is not built exclusively on spoken, prosodic aspects. Bearing in mind that the tone units in both spontaneous speech and oral reading are usually shorter than the punctuation units in written presentation, Monschau (2004: 168) writes: If there really was a tendency to an increasing prosodic motivation of punctuation, one would rather expect a general tendency to heavy punctuation, particularly in texts which are explicitly written for the purpose of being read aloud. Clearly, a more neutral definition of a light punctuation mode would be that it simply sees relatively few marks being inserted in positions in which their presence is optional, cf. Huddleston/ Pullum (2002: 1727). In this way, the prosodic correlations are not overrated. For that reason, the unarguably existing prosodic motivation of punctuation is sometimes regarded only as a deliberately created local phenomenon, captured by the concept of the socalled ‘speaking comma’, cf. e.g. Peters (2002: 84). The term ‘speaking comma’ refers to the placement of a comma (or else) which is not motivated by syntactic considerations or other perception demands but, obviously, by spoken language, cf. Monschau (2004: 164f.); its presence is explicitly reproduced when giving a spoken account of the written stretch in question - for example by a tone unit boundary or an obtrusive pause. In other words, “[…] the writer’s pause is judged a strategic point for a reader’s pause as well” (de Beaugrande 1984: 197). This makes the speaking comma a local stylistic, i.e. punctuational, device that can be deployed independently of an otherwise light punctuation mode (at least theoretically). ‘Reading commas’, on the contrary, “[…] are exclusively intended to guide the mind in seeing through a grammatical construction, i.e. they are merely a visual aid in the interpretation of texts” (Monschau 2004: 175). Of course, the distinction of speaking and reading commas partially overlaps with that of a light or a heavy punctuation mode. The potential textual effects of light and heavy punctuation are picked up again in section 7.2.3.1.1 below. It is apparent that, together with the last-mentioned local stylistic effects, the styles of punctuation discussed in this section are not, in and of themselves, characteristic of any of the dimensions of variation considered in section 7.1.1.1 above. But rather, in their application they are comparable to the possibility to choose one linguistic form rather than another within a certain variety. Apparently, the basic punctuation styles discussed in this section 7.1.1.2 constitute (more or less) ‘free variations’ for writers of presentday English. Such partly divided usage accounts, firstly, for the potentially unpredictable and variable punctuation practice of an individual (given similar contexts) and, secondly, for the differing punctuation preferences of the writers of a language community, despite being related sociologically, regionally or otherwise, cf. Quirk et al. (1985: 31f.). Of course, it is possible Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 131 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="146"?> 132 Exploring the guide functions of punctuation that the inclination of an encoder to use a particular punctuation style in a particular situation is not based on an entirely open choice, but is influenced decisively by formative factors like education, mother tongue interference, etc. 7.1.2 Obligatory sentence-internal punctuation On the one hand, sentence-structuring, i.e. internal, punctuation is often optional in English, cf. also sec. 5.2.2.1 and 5.2.2.2 above. Resulting from minimal standardisation, it can be applied relatively flexibly, cf. Esser (2006: 115). Its use, as should be noted in passing, thus differs from that in other languages, such as German. In German, punctuation follows clause boundaries much more rigidly, and sentence-internal punctuation is by no means optional as described above. Syntactic correlations seem more systematic. (Hannay [1987: 84] makes a similar observation for Dutch.) Not surprisingly, German punctuation is sometimes regarded as primarily supporting the silent reading of written text, cf. e.g. Holschuh (2002: 54f.); in this context consider the remark on ‘reading commas’ in the previous section. However, a comprehensive spelling reform initiated in the late 1990s has seen some relaxation of punctuation usage in German, too. This mainly affects the separate spelling of words and the use of the comma, for example, with infinitive constructions or in connection with coordinating conjunctions such as und or oder. On the other hand, there are very well some types in which structuring punctuation within the orthographic sentence is more than a merely facultative phenomenon in English, too, cf. Levinson (1985: 144f.). One may even assume a ‘principle of obligatory sentence-internal punctuation’. Levinson gives an overview of these cases, which can be summarised for the present purposes to comprise instantiations of (i) structural opacity (sec. 7.1.2.1) and (ii) intervening syntactic material (sec. 7.1.2.2), cf. Levinson (ib.: 146- 151). Both types have in common that punctuation functions as an essential boundary marker that makes possible and/ or facilitates the decoding for the reader. At the written level, punctuation bypasses syntactic inexplicitness or suspension. 7.1.2.1 Cases of structural opacity The notion of opacity is commonly used to account for the low degree of decomposability of particular linguistic items: If the meaning of, say, a word cannot be figured out by reference to its constituent morphemes, it is considered ‘opaque’, thus lacking structural transparency, cf. Plag (2008 [2003]: 16). Of course, the same also holds for larger expressions. The meaning of a phrase like to kick the bucket (‘to die’) cannot be deduced from the sum of its constituent parts, i.e. of the individual word-forms. Such expressions, too, Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 132 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="147"?> General punctuation principles 133 are opaque and they are classified as so-called ‘substantive, i.e. fixed, idiomatic phrases’, cf. e.g. Croft/ Cruse (2005 [2004]: 232-234). A transfer of the concept of opacity to punctuation may yield a plausible explanation why in some instances sentence-internal marks are essential. Consider the example under (8) from a Guardian article (Guardian, Kelso 12 Jan. 2007: 3): (8) <The former England captain ended months of speculation yesterday by announcing that his largely unhappy three-year spell at Real Madrid will end in the summer, a move that signals the end of Beckham’s career in top-flight football and any lingering ambition to regain the England place he lost when Steve McClaren replaced Sven- Goran Eriksson as head coach of the national side last summer.> Not only does the non-restrictive apposition following the comma add supplementary information on the clausal object of the matrix clause, but from a structural perspective it also instantiates a double filling of syntactic slots, cf. also sec. 7.2.2.2.2 below. The heavily postmodified noun phrase could easily replace the constituent it modifies, i.e. the object that his largely unhappy three-year spell at Real Madrid will end in the summer. However, apart from special apposition indicators like namely or that is, there are usually no formal linking elements which make explicit the structural relation between an appositive constituent and its head. Hence, the recognition of the assumed syntactic relatedness cannot be based directly on the presence of linguistic items; from a structural perspective it may be regarded as opaque, thus increasing the decoding demands on a recipient. This is somewhat made up for at the graphic level, where a reader is provided with a visual cue as to where supplementary, yet related, information is attached. The singly employed comma in (8) visually separates the non-restrictive apposition from its head and prevents a reader from running into the appositive constituent. He or she is provided with a graphic cue to bypass structural inexplicitness. In actual communication, it is the punctuation (not any structural element) which functions as a linking device and which seems to ‘integrate’ the apposition into the clause complex (for which the orthographic sentence provides the integral frame). Since, in the written expression system, punctuation increases the transparency of structurally opaque configurations, the basic presence of a mark seems equally obligatory when, for instance, clauses are conjoined asyndetically, i.e. without a coordinator, cf. also sec. 7.2.2.1.2 below. Consider once more example (2b) from chapter 1 above, here repeated as (9): (9) <Order your furniture on Monday; take it home on Tuesday.> Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 133 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="148"?> 134 Exploring the guide functions of punctuation Due to the lack of an explicit coordinating element, a structural relationship between the two clauses is not automatically recognisable, increasing the workload of a potential decoder when encountering the stretch in speech or writing. Of course, it is in a way obvious that the two syntactically unrelated clauses are semantically linked if placed in immediate adjacency: the noun furniture is taken up by the pronoun it in the second clause, and it thus functions as a reference marker, signalling anaphoric textual coherence. But the use of the coordinator and, for example, would certainly increase the accessibility of the stretch in question. Considering the punctuated version in (9), it becomes clear that the employment of marks in connection with deleted coordinators (or else conjunctions) is primarily governed by semantic considerations; the mark, i.e. the semicolon in this case, takes up the function of the omitted lexical item. In an abstract notation, the interplay between the written texture and the underlying medium-independent syntactic pattern can be illustrated as follows for the case of non-restrictive apposition in (8), cf. (10), and that of asyndetic coordination in (9), cf. (11): (10) PUNCTUATION UNIT I PCT. MARK ~ f PUNCTUATION UNIT II PCT. MARK | f§ (11) PUNCTUATION UNIT I PCT. MARK ~ f§ PUNCTUATION UNIT II PCT. MARK | f§ In (10), the apposition case, the status ‘so far’ of the underlying syntactic structure is potentially final (coded ‘f’) at the end of the first punctuation unit, i.e. in the position of the obligatory sentence-internal mark. Since there is no structural relator which establishes a connection to the subsequent wording, the non-final punctuation mark (‘~’; for example, the comma) has a crucial linking function for the decoder: in the case of apposition, it ‘connects’ the first syntagm to the (stranded) elements to the right (second punctuation unit), yielding a major script unit (‘|f§’). (See chapter 4 above for a detailed discussion of the script unit model, including the relevant notational conventions; see also section 7.2.2.2.2 below for more on appositions.) In (11), representing the cases of asyndetic coordination, there is a final syntactic status at the end of the first punctuation unit and a new syntactic beginning to the right. But since two self-contained syntagms are conjoined within one orthographic sentence - and the script unit is a presentational unit defined by syntax plus punctuation - the second syntagm, i.e. clause, is conceived of as forming a part of the presentation structure. Only after the orthographic sentence is concluded by a terminal boundary marker, which coincides with syntactic finality, a major script unit is complete. A non-final punctuation mark like <; > plus syntactic finality is not sufficient. Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 134 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="149"?> General punctuation principles 135 Other instantiations in which the demand for sentence-internal punctuation falls under the label ‘structural opacity’ are listed in (12a) to (14a). (12a) <It being the end of the day, the farmers brought in the cattle.> (13a) <Strange, it was she who started it.> (14a) <Peter plays many sports, even tennis.> The examples are taken from Levinson (1985: 147f.), who regards the punctuation units as realising syntactically unrelated constituents. To speak of syntactic unrelatedness, however, does not seem an adequate classification, as the following remarks show. As to (12a), it is well-known that a non-finite clause is in a subordinate relation to a (subsequent) main clause. Admittedly, the lack of an extra structural element, i.e. a conjunction, somewhat disguises this relation; in the example under scrutiny, it has to be inferred from the present participle form being. But, as a matter of principle, non-finiteness is a marker of dependency and therefore of a structural relation. A potential finite and ‘more explicit’ alternative of (12a) would be (12b) where the subordinate relation is expressed by the conjunction since. (12b) <Since it was the end of the day, the farmers brought in the cattle.> Apart from these basics, the true value of the commas in (12a) and (12b) lies in the fact that they mark the transition between two clauses, which is not overtly marked by a linguistic element. In each case, the punctuation mark represents a reading help for the reader by providing a medium-bound cue to decode the underlying configuration. In (13a) the punctuation unit boundary, i.e. the comma, separates a highly elliptical ‘SVC’-structure from the ensuing, subordinate cleft sentence structure. Consider the possible non-elliptical version (13b), including a subordinating conjunction, i.e. that, which certainly maximises the transparency of the underlying configuration: (13b) <It was strange that it was she who started it.> Example (14a) is similar to the appositive case discussed under (8) at the beginning of this section 7.1.2.1. The constituent even tennis, allocated a distinct punctuation unit by the sentence-internal comma, specifies the proposition ‘that Peter plays many sports’. At the same time, however, it constitutes a double filling of the object slot, posing an alternative to the regular object many sports, cf. (14b). Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 135 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="150"?> 136 Exploring the guide functions of punctuation (14b) <Peter plays even tennis.> To sum up, a syntactic relationship (at least an indirect one) is describable for all of the constituents presented as distinct punctuation units in the initial three examples (12a) to (14a). Strictly speaking, therefore, the underlying formal constituents are not syntactically detached, as Levinson argues. Their relation is not asyntactic, cf. also sec. 7.2.2.2.2 below. It is only that the relatedness is not explicated by extra structural elements, which denies the decoder direct access: it is of an opaque nature. And consequently, to describe the punctuation in these examples as motivated by the underlying ‘structural opacity’ appears reasonable. 7.1.2.2 Cases of intervening syntactic material As a second type, intervening syntactic material requires punctuation: Levinson explains it as a case in which an initiated structural arrangement is suspended by an interfering ‘sentence-partial’. Often this might result in confusion on the part of the decoder, and the intruding material therefore needs to be set off by punctuation marks at the written level. Consider one of her examples, given as (15a), cf. Levinson (1985: 150f.): (15a) <The candidate, he noticed, was not making sense.> The correlative comma placement prevents the reader from ‘being led up the garden path’, misinterpreting the clause he noticed as a shortened defining relative clause which postmodifies the preceding noun phrase, cf. also sec. 7.2.2.2.1 and 7.2.2.4.2 below. The punctuation suggests that the whole syntagm must be interpreted as the instantiation of an ‘SVO’-structure, cf. also sec. 2.1.3.2 above. In the ‘allo-pattern’ at hand (‘O PART1 SVO PART2 ’), however, the clausal object (The candidate was not making sense) is fronted but then interrupted by the main clause subject (he) and the verb-form (noticed); it is virtually split in two (‘O PART1 ’, ‘O PART2 ’). This construction is frequently chosen to indicate direct speech: the medially located material (‘SV’) constitutes the reporting clause, cf. e.g. Quirk et al. (1985: 1022). As concerns its graphic realisation, the object covers two non-adjacent punctuation units; in (15b) these are reproduced in the first and in the third line. (15b) The candidate, ~ n he noticed, ~ n was not making sense. | f§ The commas at the end of punctuation units one and two mark the graphic status of the writing as incomplete (‘~’). Whereas the first one suggests a Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 136 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="151"?> General punctuation principles 137 suspended structure, the second one indicates the resuming of the pending configuration. There is ‘more to come’, and it is for the punctuation to provide the reader with clarifying signals. The punctuation marks signal graphic non-finality and can easily be correlated also with structural incompleteness. Thus, both commas correspond to a non-final syntactic status with later completion (‘n’). Syntactic completion to the left with stranded elements to the right (‘f’) is ruled out by the overall presentation at the second comma; the stretch The candidate he noticed is no instance of marked theme. Looked at from the level of parasyntax: only at the point at which graphic and structural finality coincide (‘|f§’), is there a self-contained presentation, i.e. script, unit. After all, the punctuation in the given example compensates for the fact that forms and properties of the matrix structure need to be held active in the working memory until the interjacent material is processed. In view of the stable nature of written presentation, Chafe (1986: 20) finds that, unlike discontinuity in spoken language, […] discontinuous punctuation units are fairly common in written language. The […] fact that readers are able to scan them and, when necessary, reread them makes them more tolerable from the reading side. What is discontinuous, of course (also in [15a]), is the underlying syntactic configuration which spreads over two (or more) non-neighbouring punctuation units, but it is not the punctuation units as such; constituting written presentation units, their boundaries are clearly defined by the occurrence of a punctuation mark. Still, the overall configuration of (15a) puts a strain on the decoding capacities of a reader, and in order to dispense with any such problems, a different structural arrangement could be chosen. Consider (15c): (15c) | he | noticed | that | the candidate was not making sense | S V conj. O If this configuration is rendered in writing, sentence-internal punctuation can be dispensed with. All in all, considering Levinson’s original notion ‘sentence-partial’, the broader expression ‘intervening syntactic material’ seems more appropriate for the relevant cases. In the first place, since their status is determined on a syntactic basis, cf. Levinson (1985: 150f.), the use of ‘sentence’ might blur the boundaries of medium-dependent and medium-independent description in this context. ‘Sentence’ should be used solely for a unit of the written language. Beyond, it seems probable that the intervening material is not always syntactically fragmented. Hence, ‘material’ is a more neutral term. For completeness, note that intervening material would, in principle, require punctuation also at word-level. The novelist David Lodge (2009: 56), Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 137 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="152"?> 138 Exploring the guide functions of punctuation for example, integrates the adjective bloody into the adjective unbelievable by interrupting the morphological structure of unbelievable after the prefix un. He gives the written form <un-bloody-believable>. The graphic marking of morphological boundaries by the correlative hyphens seems especially helpful since the resulting structure has not been coined as a regular word yet. 7.1.3 Punctuation and structural integrity Whereas in the preceding section 7.1.2 it has been emphasised that the application of punctuation appears obligatory in some cases to make clear the meaning, the opposite case is possible, too. Quirk et al. (1985), for example, mention the ‘strict rule’ not to place a punctuation mark between any of the central clause elements S, V, O, and C (but not A), cf. Quirk et al. (ib.: 1619). With regard to the difficulties of clear-cut punctuation rules, it seems more appropriate to speak of a guiding principle in this context, i.e. of a ‘principle of structural integrity’. That is to say, a visual separation of the above-mentioned clause constituents at the written level through punctuation might impede the decoding for the reader, it would be counterintuitive. The following examples from Quirk et al. (ib.) instantiate three cases of English punctuation in which the principle of structural integrity is not adhered to. (16) ? <The man over there in the corner, is obviously drunk.> (17) ? <I know, that you are tired.> (18) ? <He gave the leading lady, a bouquet.> In view of punctuation principles or tendencies, the label ‘wrong’, as used by Quirk et al., appears too strong for the written stretches in (16) to (18). Using it with the above examples would deny their communicative significance. But, assuming the quasi-contractual nature of Grice’s ‘cooperative principle’ according to which every participant in a communication is constantly interested in its progress and every utterance is geared towards this goal, the above punctuation should still be taken as communicatively relevant, cf. Grice (1975: 45, 47-50). It follows certain encoder-based intentions - despite deviating from the principle of structural integrity, cf. also ch. 4 and 6 above. One such intention Quirk et al. (1985: 1620) even point out themselves: A comma between subject and verb, for instance, might help to avoid confusion on the part of the reader due to a doubling of word-forms, cf. (19). (19) <What his name is, is of no interest to me.> Further supposedly deviant examples, together with the potential motives of a writer, are referred to in section 7.2.3.1.3 below. Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 138 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="153"?> General punctuation principles 139 All in all, the above discussion allows for the far-reaching conclusion that every general principle, which guides the employment of punctuation marks, may be overridden by other principles or specific contextual considerations if these fulfil better the communicative goals of a writer and/ or if they simplify decoding. The principle to punctuate intervening syntactic material is a case in point. It may overrule the principle of structural integrity as could be seen in section 7.1.2.2 above, cf. (15a). Figure 7.1 gives a condensed overview of the punctuation principles outlined in the preceding sections. Figure 7.1: Summary of general punctuation principles Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 139 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="154"?> 140 Exploring the guide functions of punctuation 7.2 Punctuation in context It is important to mention once more that the present analysis of punctuation is not based on examining the use of the individual marks, but that different features and categories, typically associated with punctuation, are looked at in the following. Hence, it is explored how punctuation works in these contexts: which information is provided by punctuation and how punctuation marks contribute to the meaning and to the decoding of written text? Of course, the general punctuation principles illustrated in the previous section are constantly kept in view during this analysis. With punctuation above word-level, analysed in sections 7.2.2 and 7.2.3 below, the relevant marks (or the places where they could occur) are highlighted: either by grey shading, i.e. < > (if there is a mark); or by dotted shading, i.e. < > (if there is no mark). If found to facilitate accessibility, the stretch under scrutiny is additionally indicated by dotted underlining, i.e. < >. All these features are not part of the original graphic presentation of the examples. 7.2.1 Punctuation at word-level 7.2.1.1 Disambiguation In sections 2.2.2.2 and 5.2.1 above it has already been shown that the central communicative value of punctuation at word-level is its disambiguating function. This mainly concerns uncertainties about the grammatical status of a word-form or expression, i.e. whether, roughly speaking, a singular or a plural genitive form is intended as gone through exemplarily in (20a) to (20d) by Bolinger/ Sears (1981 [1968]: 279). (20a) <my sister’s friend’s investments> (20b) <my sisters’ friends’ investments> (20c) <my sisters’ friend’s investments> (20d) <my sister’s friends’ investments> Since all four expressions in (20a) to (20d) are homophonous, they cannot be disambiguated by means of pronunciation or other merely spoken features. In spoken discourse, they will most probably have to be clarified by accompanying gestures or other paralinguistic devices. At the written level, punctuation provides a more direct and easier possibility to fulfil this task. In an example from a student’s essay in (21), taken from the British component of the International Corpus of English (ICE-GB: W1A-007#090), the writer does not manage to produce correctly in writing the grammatical distinction between a plural pronoun (<ones>) and a determiner (<one’s>), i.e. identifier in the genitive case (sometimes also classified as ‘possessive adjective’, Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 140 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="155"?> Punctuation in context 141 cf. Jackson 1985 [1980]: 64 and sec. 2.1.2 above). Hence, he or she denies the reader a visual, metalingual comment about the medium-independent syntactic status of the orthographic word-form. (21) <One favours a model that agrees with ones fundamental beliefs about the causation of the behavioural phenomena in question.> As in (21), linguistic expressions normally occur in larger contexts and it will be the overall medium-independent structural organisation that helps to disambiguate them. This is achieved by the accompanying co-text, i.e. by the surrounding linguistic units and especially the finite verb-forms; see also the ‘three-channel approach’ described in section 2.1.2 above. After all, the intelligibility of (21) is not entirely dependent on its punctuation. However, if isolated non-finite structures are concerned, the disambiguating role of a medium-dependent feature like punctuation becomes increasingly important. Thus, with respect to the number of fans, the Sun headline (Sun, Payne 16 Dec. 2006: 85) in (22) heavily relies on the application of the apostrophe. (22) <United fans’ anger at ticket rise> In similar regard, Truss (2003: 41), noticing an information sign in a children’s playground, jokingly asks whether in a certain area parents and children alike need to be afraid of a mutated creature, cf. (23). (23) <Giant Kid’s Playground> Apart from indicating grammatical distinctions, word-based punctuation is also applied to indicate metalingual expressions or concepts as in (24). (24) <No repetition of that neat word ‘accident’ can stop that siren in his brain, or close the chasms of blame that yawn inside him.> Taken from Graham Swift’s (2002 [1984]: 111) novel Waterland, the author employs the single quotation marks to indicate that he uses language itself to make a statement about language. The correlative marks are a means of specification. The same is done in the present study when linguistic items are referred to: a written expression like <the term ‘lexeme’> sees lexeme being marked as a metalingual expression at the graphic level, marked as object language. A suprasegmental feature like italicisation would provide another possibility to prevent a reader from misreading and thus misinterpreting the respective word-form(s), cf. sec. 5.1 above. In speech, either accentuation would most probably have to be indicated by gestures or even circum- Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 141 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="156"?> 142 Exploring the guide functions of punctuation scriptional expressions. Moreover, the latter would then have direct consequences for the medium-independent structural configuration of a text. For a more thorough investigation of the disambiguating, i.e. linguistically distinctive, function of punctuation, considering marks above word-level, see also section 7.2.2.4 below. 7.2.1.2 Intensity of effect Despite its mostly unadventurous use, written material shows that punctuation at word-level is occasionally extended beyond its conventional, primarily disambiguating function. This mainly produces cases in which punctuation marks are employed to generate or reinforce a particular effect in the written medium. Note, for example, the increasing number of instances in which the hyphen is applied to link several orthographic word-forms, resulting in an artificially created ‘visual unit’ in writing; hence, the term ‘graphic compound’ introduced in section 5.2.1 above. The caption in (25) from a supplement of The Sun (Sun, Cole 06 Jul. 2005: ‘Persil’ 2) shows how writing practice exploits the linking function of the hyphen in the doubled premodifiers. Examples (26) and (27), in which the hyphen is used similarly, originate, in that order, from a supplement of The Times (Times, Maxwell 29 Nov. 2006: ‘Times2’ 17) and from the comment section of the same newspaper (Times, Hume 23 Feb. 2007: 16). (25) <Here’s your cut-out-and-keep must-have summer guide to kids’ activities> (26) <No, this isn’t some Lynne-Truss-on-ice punctuation workshop, but rather an exercise in remixing some of Campbell’s stories to invigorating effect.> (27) <And it’s not only celebrities seeking public sympathy by playing the poor-little-victim-of-addiction card[.]> In a fourth example, again from The Sun (Sun, Russell 09 Jan. 2007: 4), cf. (28), the visual unity is mainly achieved by the correlative use of quotation marks. (28) <Gavin, 51 - who smokes 20 a day - blasted the latest addition to the list of crazy “you couldn’t make it up”-style antics.> The stretch (composed of five orthographic word-forms) between the double quotation marks constitutes the first base of a compound and is then connected to the second base, a noun, by virtue of a hyphen. Together with Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 142 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="157"?> Punctuation in context 143 the preceding adjective crazy, they combine to form a complex premodification of the head noun antics, readable as an adjective (crazy) plus a noun modifier (“you couldn’t make it up”-style). The embracing quotation marks exhibit the same visual ‘linking force’ like the hyphens in (25) to (27), but additionally indicate in the written expression system the utilisation of a quotation. In all four cases, i.e. (25) to (28), the hyphenated or otherwise conjoined items serve as premodifiers in complex noun phrases, which makes their visual bonding favourable. If they were part of a postmodification, however - for example, in a relative clause - they would be written open. With regard to the structural level of linguistic description, the linked written word-forms are supposed to correspond to one medium-independent word-form; they shall thus be perceived as a structural unit. Also, the graphic conjoining certainly creates the impression of a rather pointed, precise language. That is, it appears less formal and laborious than applying a postmodifying clause or else. Although the multi-hyphenation of words is still likely to be considered a marker of informal style, it is by no means limited to personal or literary texts anymore. The above-quoted random examples from the field of daily journalism support this conclusion. A comparable effect of visual integration is achieved in the written realisation of a band’s name in (29) below; see, for example, Pechner/ Fuchs- Gamböck (2004: 17) for evidence. Here, the apostrophe, although or just because applied in a deviant manner, serves as a linking device between two shortened orthographic word-forms (<brothers> and <sisters>). Mediumindependently, its function is normally fulfilled by the coordinators and or but. (29) <Bro’Sis> As with contracted word-forms, the apostrophe is to be interpreted as a figurative substitute for the omitted parts, cf. sec. 2.2.2.2 and 5.2.1 above. Of course, it is arguable whether the graphic presentation could actually be interpreted as visualising several medium-independent units like contracted word-forms would, i.e. as denoting the medium-independent string >brothers and sisters< in the given case. More likely, though, <Bro’Sis> stands for a proper name, corresponding to only a single medium-independent wordform. Morphologically speaking, the only difficulty, then, is “[…] to know whether the resultant formation should be treated as a clipping or as a blend” (Bauer 1984 [1983]: 233). Since the involved morphemes are clearly recoverable from the form Bro’Sis, ‘clipping’ seems the more appealing label than opting for a blend, whose morphological structure is normally regarded as non-transparent, cf. Bauer (ib.: 234). Note, however, that Plag (2008 [2003]) does not have issues with the clipping-blending dichotomy at all: he Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 143 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="158"?> 144 Exploring the guide functions of punctuation speaks of clipping only in connection with a single truncated word-form. As soon as two word-forms are syncopated and conjoined to form a new word (or if a current compound is thus shortened), this is blending for him (e.g. ‘AB+CD=AD’), cf. Plag (ib.: 13, 121-123). With regard to the medium-independent status of Bro’Sis, these morphological subtleties are irrelevant; after all, the discussed case in (29) resembles the instances of hyphenation mentioned afore. Instead of linking several words through punctuation, one can also find its deliberate omission, plus that of word-spaces which normally embrace each orthographic word-form. This, likewise, has a linking effect. An example from Graham Swift’s (2002 [1984]: 111) novel Waterland, already partially analysed in section 7.2.1.1 above, will serve as an illustration. (30) <But my father does not rest assured. He walks up and down the towpath asking Whywhywhy. […] And Freddie Parr’s father, with even greater cause, is asking Whywhywhy. No repetition of that neat word ‘accident’ can stop that siren in his brain, or close the chasms of blame that yawn inside him.> From a literary perspective, the compound spelling visually illustrates the constant and rapid repetition (or recurrence) of an unsolvable, agonising question. In the context of the punctuation hierarchy, compound spelling does not convey any separative force at all, it is at the bottom of the hierarchy, cf. sec. 5.2.3 above. This being said, the non-default presentation in (30), i.e. the local omission of word spaces, arguably, is the best choice for an encoder to create greatest semantic closeness between the joined items, i.e. the triply repeated why. The effect of the written form on the reader is intensified by the capitalisation of the first letter, suggesting inner voicing, i.e. direct speech. Besides, the latter feature is usually earmarked for the identification of proper nouns in English and may thus be described as depicting the almost discrete personality of the omnipresent thoughts in (30). With regard to the repercussions on the medium-independent level, i.e. whether the graphic presentation denotes one or more syntactic words, two different interpretations are conceivable: Bearing in mind the remarks on the preceding examples (25) to (29), the particular case in hand might be approached in similar fashion. On the one hand, the compound spelling might therefore indicate that <Whywhywhy> denotes a complex word, i.e. that it is a compound also from a morphological perspective, corresponding to one medium-independent word-form. On the other hand, the visually linked forms in (25) to (29) and that discussed in (30) may be assessed differently. In this case, there is no one-to-one mapping between the written form <Whywhywhy> and a corresponding medium-independent structure, cf. also sec. 2.1.3.3 and 2.2.2.2 above. To explain, the fusing of the orthograph- Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 144 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="159"?> Punctuation in context 145 ic word-forms as implemented here is an exclusive feature of the written expression system, and the presentation as scriptio continua is not supposed to have any implications whatsoever for the perception of the syntactic status of the stretch of writing, cf. also sec. 3.1 above. Just as two self-contained clauses are not taken as structurally related if they are presented in one orthographic sentence, cf. ch. 4 and sec. 7.1.3 above, so are word-forms, fused by the omission of spaces, not automatically perceived as indicating a single medium-independent word-form. The written <Whywhywhy> may simply instantiate an extreme case of asyndetic linkage at word-level, one might argue. Both the above realised compound spelling and, for example, separation by comma (<why, why, why>) would denote the same medium-independent structural configuration, namely >word 1 word 2 word 3 <. 7.2.2 Punctuation units and syntax 7.2.2.1 Coordinated constituents The coordination of syntactic constituents has a direct influence on the organisation of a message at the medium-independent level, cf. sec. 2.2.1.2 above. It obviously involves the linkage of minimally two elements, and through the use of a coordinator these are realised at the same level of constituent structure, which means that their conjoining instantiates the concept of parataxis or ‘equal arrangement’, cf. Meyer (1996: 35) and Quirk et al. (1985: 918f.). Quirk et al. (ib.: 918) write further: The term COORDINATION is used […] for both syndetic (or linked) coordination, and asyndetic (or unlinked) coordination. The difference between the two constructions is that syndetic coordination is marked by overt signals of coordination (and, or, but), whereas asyndetic coordination is not overtly marked. Punctuation in connection with syndetic coordination is discussed in section 7.2.2.1.1, and in connection with asyndetic coordination in the next but one section 7.2.2.1.2. Although coordination is a phenomenon that can be applied to a variety of syntactic structures (especially using and), cf. e.g. Meyer (1996: 31f.), the graphic marking of coordinate structures by punctuation is mostly relevant at clause level. Quirk et al. (1985: 1617) describe the situation that can be observed in English: “We generally do not insert any punctuation mark if we coordinate two units within a sentence other than independent clauses […].” Hence, in the two subsequent sections, the interaction of punctuation and main clause coordination will be focused on. 7.2.2.1.1 Syndetic coordination According to Quirk et al. (1985), syndetic coordination is the most common form of establishing paratactic relations among constituents, cf. Quirk Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 145 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="160"?> 146 Exploring the guide functions of punctuation et al. (ib.: 918). Despite being a common syntactic phenomenon, Dawkins (1995: 542) is again highly dismissive of entirely decontextualised punctuation rules, cf. also sec. 7.1 above: To oversimplify and suggest that one should use a comma whenever a coordinator is used between independent clauses - or not use one when the second clause is ellipted - is to falsify the description of written English and to misinform the student. Such criticism notwithstanding, present-day English writing practice reveals that punctuation as such is used in a vast majority of cases whose underlying structural arrangement can be described as syndetic non-elliptical coordination, i.e. where two main clauses are linked by means of a structural item (and, or, but) and a subject is present in both of these clauses. According to an extensive corpus analysis by Meyer (1987), these instances amount to a total of 85%, cf. Meyer (ib.: 30-35). The analysis is largely based on the onemillion-word Brown Corpus of Standard American English and, in particular, samples from the fields of journalism, fiction and learned writing were examined. It is undisputed that a mark before a coordinator (such as and) co-occurs with a syntactic boundary. This is shown exemplarily in the following case (31a) from The International Herald Tribune (11 Dec. 2006), quoted here from World and Press (World and Press, Hoge 02 Jan. 2007: 1). (31a) <He infuriated the Bush administration by labeling the Iraq war “illegal” two years ago, and he said Monday that while observing international law can be “inconvenient”, it is essential.> Considering, however, the correlation of the written presentation and the medium-independent linguistic configuration, the comma under scrutiny is actually redundant: the structural relation between the conjoined clause complexes is clearly indicated (and thus made explicit) by the inserted coordinator. There is no structural opacity, cf. sec. 7.1.2.1 above. The graphic indicator of non-finality, i.e. the comma, is a supplementary element, so to speak, which corroborates the function of the structural linker in the written expression system and helps the reader see through the written stretch; it functions as a mere reading comma, cf. sec. 7.1.1.2 above. 9 From a presenta- 9 With regard to paratactic relations, the so-called ‘serial comma’ should be mentioned as another instance of syntactically redundant comma placement. It is applied to visually delimit the last item in a list, even though this is already preceded by a coordinator, for example and. Consider the example from Orwell (1971 [1945]: 14): <The best known among them was a small fat pig named Squealer, with very round cheeks, twinkling eyes, nimble movements, and a shrill voice.>. It is especially common in American English and may avoid ambiguity, as in the following case from The Chicago Manual of Style (University of Chicago Press 2003 [1906]: 245): <She took a photograph of her parents, the president, and the vice president.>. Remember, how- Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 146 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="161"?> Punctuation in context 147 tional point of view, it is for the interjacent coordinator to integrate the first self-contained syntagm He infuriated the Bush administration by labeling the Iraq war “illegal” two years ago into a larger formation, and the non-final punctuation mark corroborates this relationship. Both mark and coordinator serve as perceptual cues that there is ‘more to come’. The whole complex in (31a) constitutes a maximal presentation structure, i.e. a major script unit (‘|f§’); see section 4.3 above for the definitions of major and also minor script units. The script unit ends where graphic and syntactic completeness coincide and can be illustrated as in (31b). (The second punctuation unit boundary before it is essential is of no interest for the present purposes and is left unconsidered.) (31b) He infuriated the Bush administration by labeling the Iraq war “illegal” two years ago, ~ f& and he said Monday that while observing international law can be “inconvenient”, ~ n it is essential. | f§ That punctuation provides a perceptual point of orientation in the previous example seems especially crucial as both clause complexes are relatively long (fourteen words each). By contrast, in the following example (32) from Nick Hornby’s (2000: 4) novel About a Boy, the very short coordinated clauses render the use of a comma or an even stronger mark as a visual cue dispensable - especially as the units present closely related, sequenced content. (32) <The pizzas arrived and they ate them straight out of the boxes.> Drawing upon constituent length, approximately one-third of syndetically coordinated non-elliptical main clauses whose constituents fall short of ten words is not punctuated, cf. Meyer (1987: 32). Such an influence on punctuation usage can be substantiated further as in (32) both constituents contain only simple clauses. Meyer’s corpus analysis shows that of 171 compound clauses, involving two simple clauses, a good 22% (38 cases) are left unpunctuated, cf. Meyer (ib.: 34). Hence, the marginal complexity of the constituents in (32), i.e. short and simple clauses only, makes the absence of a puncever, that punctuation is mainly relevant in the context of main clause coordination. Apart from the serial comma, it occurs only infrequently with the syndetic parataxis of phrases and similarly seldom with that of subordinate clauses (e.g. in object position: <He said that…, (? ) and that….>). Things are different if units other than clauses are joined asyndetically (e.g. <very round cheeks, twinkling eyes, nimble movements> in the Orwell example). Punctuation is normal here. After all, its function is the same as discussed in the subsequent section for cases of asyndetic coordination and does not need extra mentioning. Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 147 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="162"?> 148 Exploring the guide functions of punctuation tuation mark an even more likely option. The number of unpunctuated cases decreases drastically if the concatenated main clauses together have three or more subordinate clauses attached to them. Here, of a total 111 instances the unpunctuated cases only constitute 2.7%, cf. Meyer (ib.). Note that complexity is understood in a technical sense in this context, leaving out of consideration other features that may add to the intricacy of a passage such as obscure vocabulary, textual incoherence, etc., cf. e.g. Quirk et al. (1985: 987). On the whole, however, Meyer (1987) argues that constituent length appears to be more important than clause complexity when it comes to punctuation usage, cf. Meyer (ib.: 33). Of course both may be connected; the reader is referred to Hawkins (1994; 2004) and Wasow (1997b; 2002), for instance, who explore in detail the contact points of length and complexity. Figure 7.2 interprets some of Meyer’s findings, showing in how far length serves as an indicator of the kind of punctuation mark employed in instances of syndetic non-elliptical main clause coordination, cf. also Meyer (1987: 32). The percentages have been rounded to the second decimal place. M ARK L ENGTH No mark Comma Semicolon Period Dash Both clauses < 10 words 23 30.26% 45 59.21% 1 1.32% 7 9.21% 0 0% 76 100% Both clauses 10-15 words 10 20% 26 52% 3 6% 10 20% 1 2% 50 100% Both clauses 15 words 1 1.01% 33 33.33% 8 8.08% 57 57.58% 0 0% 99 100% Figure 7.2: The influence of constituent length on punctuation usage in syndetic non-elliptical coordinate constructions (based on Meyer 1987) Without analysing the above figure bit by bit, it obviously allows for a general conclusion: as a rule of thumb, the longer the coordinated constituents, the heavier the applied punctuation mark. In German, for example, such a punctuational freedom has long been unthinkable: syndetically coordinated non-elliptical main clauses were punctuated across the board. However, a comprehensive spelling reform initiated in the late 1990s has seen some relaxations on punctuation usage in this context. Now a similarly flexible, decoder-oriented applicability of punctuation with coordinating conjunctions such as und or oder is officially sanctioned. Again, the data have been rounded up to the second decimal place. So far, no specification has been made as to the type of coordinator used although it can be demonstrated that its choice influences the decision whether and how to punctuate. Figure 7.3 gives an overview of the punctuation Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 148 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="163"?> Punctuation in context 149 with and and but for 466 instances of coordinated non-elliptical main clauses, distilled from Meyer’s corpus analysis, cf. Meyer (ib.: 51). Again the percentages have been rounded to the second decimal place. C OORDINATOR No mark Comma Semicolon Period Dash AND 72 25.89% 150 53.96% 5 1.8% 47 16.91% 4 1.44% 278 100% BUT 6 3.19% 77 40.96% 18 9.57% 87 46.28% 0 0% 188 100% Figure 7.3: The influence of the coordinators and and but on punctuation usage in syndetic non-elliptical coordinate constructions (based on Meyer 1987) Most importantly, antithetically coordinated clauses linked by but, as in examples (33) from The Guardian (Guardian, Newham 12 Jan. 2007: 3) and (34) from George Orwell’s (1989 [1949]: 57) 1984, are nearly always punctuated, cf. Quirk et al. (1985: 1617) and Meyer (1987: 51, 54). (33) <David Beckham will breathe new life into a league that desperately needs a fillip, but soccer in America has resisted many attempts to import popularity.> (34) <The party did not permit divorce, but it rather encouraged separation in cases where there were no children.> With and, on the other hand, more than one fourth of the cases remains unpunctuated. The differences between the two coordinators become even more conspicuous if one compares non-elliptical with elliptical main clause coordination, i.e. with subject deletion in the second clause (not captured by Figure 7.3). Regardless of the coordinator, the default case is the absence of a comma or any other punctuation mark: 82%; constructions with subject ellipsis are (perceived as) of low syntactic complexity, cf. Meyer (ib.: 30). According to Meyer, however, this percentage is not split evenly between and or but. Even with an elided subject in the second main clause, there is a comma in 64% of the cases when but is the coordinating conjunction, yet only in 13% of the cases with and, cf. Meyer (ib.: 56f.). This parallels the tendencies in the use of punctuation with non-elliptical coordination illustrated in Figure 7.3 above. Consider examples (35) and (36) from World and Press (World and Press, Reid 01 Nov. 2006: 15) and from Ian Rankin’s (2005 [2004]: 286) thriller A Question of Blood, in that order. Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 149 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="164"?> 150 Exploring the guide functions of punctuation (35) <Mr Thompson, 25, not only defied predictions that his body would be incapable of such a feat, but also grew stronger and became quicker.> (36) <Rebus thought about signing his name to the petition, but knew it would be an empty gesture.> In both cases the ellipsis of the coreferential subject connects the coordinated constituents more closely, cf. Meyer (1995: 248f.). At the same time, however, the coordinator but signals a relationship of incongruity between the two coordinates, marking the meaning of the second one as adversative to what has been expressed in the first, cf. also Quirk et al. (1985: 1472). By producing a visual ‘obstacle’ in the course of reading, the commas corroborate or even intensify this contrast in the medium-dependent written expression system. In this way, the punctuation serves to ‘rectify’ the semantic disaccord that arises from the collision of the ellipsis and but: the importance of the adversative character is acknowledged. One of the rarer cases of punctuating and plus subsequent subject ellipsis (13%) is given in (37) from The Guardian (Guardian, MacAskill 12 Jan. 2007: 1): (37) <He claimed to have the votes of about 10 dissident Republican senators, and predicted the passage of the resolution with bipartisan support would “mark the beginning of the end of the war in Iraq”.> Despite the gapping in the second clause, there are two reasons which, arguably, still make the use of a comma as a structuring aid favourable. Firstly, there is the length of the coordinated units in (37); note in particular the 21-word second clause complex, featuring reported speech and a quotation. Secondly, instead of labelling the second constituent ‘less complex’, it can be argued that the shortened object clause as part of the second coordinate [that] the passage of the resolution… even increases the decoding demands on the reader. The omission of the subordinator that conceals the structural pattern and might make the whole clause complex less accessible for a decoder. As a consequence, the insertion of a punctuation mark makes sense from a rhetorical point of view: it is governed not least by considerations on processability, serving as a point of reference in the graphic presentation, cf. Quirk et al. (1985: 1616f.). All in all, the application of punctuation in connection with and or, on the contrary, but is of an ancillary nature: it is useful but not essential, i.e. not required at all points for the decoding of a syntactic configuration. That it “[…] conforms to grammatical rather than rhetorical considerations is in fact overridden” (ib.: 1617). To classify its function, punctuation conveys paralinguistic rather than linguistic information, cf. sec. 2.3 above; that is, the application of marks has no distinctive function in this context. More specifically, it serves Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 150 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="165"?> Punctuation in context 151 as a prominent encoder-generated, decoder-oriented reading aid, which follows considerations on length and also complexity, but for which the meaning (or ‘function’) of the coordinators is relevant, too. That is to say, coordination is applied to express meaning relations between portions of written text and these are reinforced by the use of punctuation. Consequentially, if a contrasting coordinator like but is used, punctuation usage is much more likely than with and - with greater readiness to use also heavier marks than the comma, namely the semicolon or the period. In this context, consider also the subsequent reflections. (Punctuation usage with or resembles that with but except for the fact that disjunctive coordination with or is less frequent, cf. e.g. Meyer [1987: 50-53].) The use of the strongly delimiting period together with syndetic clause coordination, i.e. in syntagm-internal position, brings up a final, yet interesting aspect. Halliday/ Hasan’s (1976) claim that, quite generally, coordination may be viewed from a ‘coordinative’, i.e. structural, but also from a ‘conjunctive’ perspective. The latter takes into account that coordinators (here: and, but, or) may be applied to fulfil a merely textual function, resembling conjuncts like however or nevertheless in some contexts, cf. Halliday/ Hasan (ib.: 233-238). Consequently, in cases of ‘conjunctive coordination’, the employed coordinator functions as a marker of transition and has more of a pragmatic than a grammatical, structural function. It may indicate, for example, that more information is going to be added to a text or discourse; hence the term ‘pragmatic’ or also ‘transitional coordination’, cf. Meyer (1996: 35-37). It is not particularly surprising that in a 1996 corpus study, in which Meyer analysed an overall 1,475 instances of coordination in speech and writing, transitional coordination was observable exclusively in the spoken data. That there were no instances in the set of written examples may be owing to the principally premeditated character of written text: given a distant encoder-decoder relation, transitional, i.e. merely pragmatic, elements are not essential and therefore rare in written language. Contrary to writing, spoken language is often realised much more spontaneously and the application of coordinators may reflect this spontaneity. They constitute elements of floorholding and signify, so to speak, the ad-hoc planning of speech. At the written level, however, one possible indicator of such a floor-holding function of coordinators may be preceding graphic plus syntactic completeness. Take (38a) and (39a), for example, which are from one of the earlier mentioned novels by Orwell (1989 [1949]: 184) and from a Newsweek article (Newsweek, Underhill 28 Feb. 2000: 45): (38a) <He noticed that the clock on the mantlepiece said nine, meaning twenty-one. But the light seemed too strong.> (39a) <Britain has no laws on privacy. And the British have a sometimes unhealthy belief in the state’s wisdom.> Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 151 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="166"?> 152 Exploring the guide functions of punctuation In both cases, a mere look at the underlying medium-independent configuration endorses only a structural interpretation of the coordinators under scrutiny: they constitute linking elements that join two constituents to form a larger clause complex, cf. e.g. Halliday/ Hasan (1976: 234). It is the written presentation of (38a) and (39a), then, which adds to the picture. Based on the structural interpretation, the inserted periods are perceived as being placed in syntagm-internal position, thus raising the informational weight of the first constituent. (In this respect, the period resembles a falling tone in spoken language, as has been argued in section 5.2.2.1 above.) Besides, in (38a) the strongly delimiting period maximises the contrast between the coordinated constituents, effected by the use of but. From a textual perspective, this depicts the moment of hesitation and the perception of doubt that the character experiences when comparing the indicated time on the clock with his subjective impression. Figure 7.3 above shows that with and the period occurs not so often. One possible reason is that it is perceived as cancelling out the decontextualised additive meaning of the coordinator by laying down an obtrusive marker of separation. The frequent comma, on the other hand, has only a low separative force, cf. ch. 6 above. So, in (39a) the interjacent period dissociates the relation between the juxtaposed sentences, challenging the impression of nearness induced by and. As a result of the written form, the second coordinate, i.e. clause, is read as an addendum (or afterthought), which elaborates on the claim that there is an apparent lack of legislation in Britain by giving one possible reason. In view of the propositional content of the clause complex, it is the constellation ‘period plus and’ which might assign a causal meaning to the second sentence. A reader will probably construe the coordinator as ‘for’. In terms of presentation structure, the use of a period before the coordinating conjunction creates a minor script unit (‘|f&’) in both examples: graphic completeness coincides with syntactic finality with a new syntactic beginning to the right, introduced by a coordinator (but in [38b], and in [39b]). (38b) He noticed that the clock on the mantlepiece said nine, ~ f meaning twenty-one. | f& But the light seemed too strong. | f§ (39b) Britain has no laws on privacy. | f& And the British have a sometimes unhealthy belief in the state’s wisdom. | f§ Despite constituting relevant presentation units (graphic plus syntactic completeness), every minor script unit is part of a larger presentation structure, namely of a major script unit (‘|f§’). (Please note that the first punctuation Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 152 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="167"?> Punctuation in context 153 unit boundary in [38b] is irrelevant for the present argument.) For that reason, in the course of reading, the coordinators that follow syntagm-internal periods serve as connectives at two levels: structurally, they link the first to the second coordinate; textually, they signal the complementing of a preceding minor presentation unit. This may involve the reinforcement of existing meaning relations between the linked text portions, as in (38a); or their (subtle) modification, as in (39a). In (40), therefore, from Townsend’s (2006: 96) Queen Camilla (emphasis supplied), the capitalised But at the beginning of the last punctuation unit is certainly perceived as a textual, cohesive element in the first place. The preceding period ends a minor script unit, visually creating a halt for the reader. This fittingly coincides with a leap in the narrative time (from past to present). On that note, the ensuing coordinator signals the addition of a related yet conflicting statement. With the two (emphasised) coordinators earlier in the text, in contrast, the structural function dominates because of the cooccurring graphic non-finality; there is no pervasive indicator for their textual, i.e. cohesive, function and so it takes a back seat. (40) He had witnessed his eldest child, ~ n Dora, ~ n being born, ~ f& but when the midwife had passed the baby to Boy, ~ n his main emotion had been relief that his wife, ~ n Cordelia, ~ n had stopped screaming, ~ f& and he was glad when the midwife took the child away to be cleaned and weighed. | f& But now he held on to the little dog and would not allow the make-up artist or anybody else to take it from him. | f§ Summing up, and abstracting from the discussed cases, it has been shown that punctuation is an important ingredient of the graphic presentation of coordinated units. It is the consequence of the graphic presentation, of the punctuation, that coordinators can be interpreted as having a speech-like floor-holding or conjunctive function in the sense of Halliday/ Hasan (1976) also in written texts. That is, the presence of a minor script unit is a necessary condition to regard the function of a subsequent coordinator not only as structural but also (and primarily) as conjunctive, i.e. pragmatic; in that case, a coordinator may create cohesive links in cases of coordinated main clauses. (If considering the structural, medium-independent arrangement alone, this view cannot be substantiated.) Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 153 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="168"?> 154 Exploring the guide functions of punctuation As always, the absoluteness of such a claim has to be taken with some caution. After all, coordinate structures which are punctuated like those in (38a) and (39a) only contain a strong hint that a conjunctive, floor-holding function of the coordinators may be intended. But this view is highly context-dependent. As a matter of illustration, there is example (41) as used by Hoffbauer (2003: 108), who took it from a food advertisement. (41) <That means that juice boxes now make even better sense for your family and for your children. And for your children’s children, too.> The last in a series of three coordinated prepositional phrases is presented as a distinct orthographic sentence; it comes after a period. Whereas this surely has an impact on the informational weight of the constituent, it is hard to see that apart from its structural, linking function the coordinator And is applied for conjunctive, floor-holding purposes in the given case. Of course, if a coordinator does not link proper clauses but only elements of clauses this may quite generally lead to a lower degree of probability that a cohesive function is acknowledged. So, despite being a necessary condition to speak of a pragmatic function of a coordinator, preceding graphic finality is no sufficient condition for such an interpretation. 7.2.2.1.2 Asyndetic coordination Having discussed the guide function of punctuation in connection with syndetic clause coordination, there is a second type that needs mentioning. Meyer (1996: 32) writes: Although coordination is normally marked by clauses joined overtly by a coordinator, it is also possible for clauses to be conjoined by an implicit coordinator. Quirk et al. (1985) term such coordination ‘asyndetic coordination,’ and they note that it occurs when and could be inserted in a construction ‘with little alteration of meaning’ […]. On the whole, it seems problematic to support a too broadly based definition of asyndetic coordination because this would call into question the usefulness of the concept as such. That is, a coordinator such as and can most certainly be applied in a considerably high number of cases. Take into account an example from the ICE-GB used by Meyer (ib.: 33), here given as (42a): (42a) Wastewater entering anaerobic ponds is initially metabolised by a group of facultatively anaerobic heterotrophs. [AND] These organisms enzymically hydrolise polymeric material, such as protein, fats and carbohydrate, into their constituent monomers. Meyer’s (ib.) subsequent critical evaluation is as follows: Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 154 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="169"?> Punctuation in context 155 However, considering [such] clauses […] as coordinate would greatly expand the number of constructions admitted into the class of asyndetic coordination, and weaken the notion of asyndetic coordination to such an extent that it would become almost meaningless. Consequentially, a narrower definition appears useful. Following Esser (2006: 50), asyndetic coordination is not viewed as a syntactic notion in the present study: “Asyndetically conjoined clauses do not form a structural unit at the medium-independent level.” But rather, ‘asyndetic coordination’ refers to a medium-bound concept, which is defined on the basis of punctuation. That is to say, two clauses are taken as conjoined asyndetically if there is no overt structural linker, i.e. a coordinator, but if this function is fulfilled by a non-final punctuation mark such as the comma or the semicolon, cf. also Esser (ib.: 87). Against this background, one version of (42a) would not constitute a case of asyndetic coordination, cf. (42b), but possible adaptations would, cf. (42c). (42b) Wastewater entering anaerobic ponds is initially metabolised by a group of facultatively anaerobic heterotrophs. | f§ These organisms enzymically hydrolise polymeric material, such as protein, fats and carbohydrate, into their constituent monomers. | f§ (42c) Wastewater entering anaerobic ponds is initially metabolised by a group of facultatively anaerobic heterotrophs; OR , OR : OR - ~ f§ these organisms enzymically hydrolise polymeric material, such as protein, fats and carbohydrate, into their constituent monomers. | f§ Since there is neither a structure-expanding linking element at the mediumindependent level nor a punctuation indicator at the written level that signals a close relationship of the two clauses, (42b) yields two self-contained presentation units. Each of the versions in (42c), on the other hand, represents only a single presentation unit: The semicolon (or else) signals graphic incompleteness, functioning as a linker which combines the first and the second clause in one orthographic sentence and thus script unit. The non-final punctuation (coded ‘~’) is a transitional element for the reader, making up for the lack of a coordinator and bypassing the obtrusive syntactic boundary (‘f§’). (The intervening syntactic material such as protein, fat and carbohydrate has not been considered in terms of punctuation unit structure in both [42b] and [42c]; if taken into account it would not have influenced the present line of argument Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 155 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="170"?> 156 Exploring the guide functions of punctuation anyway.) Asyndetic coordination in short: two or more self-contained clauses (or clause complexes) not linked by a coordinator are presented in one orthographic sentence and are therefore perceived as parts of a single script unit. On these grounds, the term ‘punctuational coordination’, i.e. coordination realised through punctuation, may seem a viable terminological alternative. The discussion of structural opacity in the context of general punctuation principles in section 7.1.2.1 above has shown that the use of punctuation appears inevitable in cases of asyndetically conjoined material. That is, if juxtaposed, a graphic separator, i.e. punctuation mark, is necessary: in the first place, it functions as a decoding help for the reader. Contrary to instances of syndetic coordination, then, considerations on length or complexity most certainly do not play a role in the decision whether asyndetically coordinated clauses are punctuated. Hence, example (32) from section 7.2.2.1.1 above (renumbered below) would certainly be punctuated if its underlying constituents were conjoined asyndetically, i.e. if the coordinator and was left out between the two clauses. (43a) ? <The pizzas arrived they ate them straight out of the boxes.> (43b) <The pizzas arrived; they ate them straight out of the boxes.> (43c) <The pizzas arrived, they ate them straight out of the boxes.> (43d) <The pizzas arrived: they ate them straight out of the boxes.> (43e) <The pizzas arrived - they ate them straight out of the boxes.> (43f) <The pizzas arrived. They ate them straight out of the boxes.> Without elaborating on the individual versions, it is obvious that decoding is much more difficult if no punctuation is applied at all; consequentially, (43a) would be a problematic realisation, it would be communicatively objectionable. Examples (43b) to (43f), on the other hand, appear suitable. The last case (43f) does not constitute a case of asyndetic coordination anyway, but forms two consecutive major script units; see also (42b) above. (Besides facilitating mere processability, the combination of general presence plus specific type of mark, of course, contributes to the conceptualisation of a textual world through the reader.) Suggesting a medium-bound definition of asyndetic coordination, a medium-independent phenomenon like structure reduction, i.e. ellipsis, is no constitutive feature thereof in the present approach; see Meyer (1996) for a different view. But rather, a phenomenon like gapping is taken as a marker of structural dependency. Consider an example by Meyer (ib.: 33) under (44a), originally taken from the ICE-GB, and a possible written alternative under (44b): Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 156 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="171"?> Punctuation in context 157 (44a) Stendhal insisted on the relativity of beauty; ~ f Baudelaire [insisted] on its amorality and asymmetry. | f§ (44b) Stendhal insisted on the relativity of beauty. | f Baudelaire [insisted] on its amorality and asymmetry. | f§ In both examples, the relation of the clauses beginning with Stendhal and Baudelaire respectively may be described as ‘correlative’. Matthews (1992 [1981]: 221) notes about the term: On the one hand it implies a symmetry, which is marked by the paired [clause structures, …]. On the other hand it implies a positive relationship, which is more than a mere identity of function. The ‘positive relationship’, as Matthews calls it, lies in the ellipsis of the verbform insisted, which structurally links the syntagm captured in the second punctuation unit with that of the preceding one. In a way, the second syntagm is linked up to the first one; there is ‘structural asymmetry’, i.e. dependency. As a consequence, the interaction of the medium-independent and the graphic structure leads to the formation of a simple and a complex script unit, in that order: one self-contained syntagm is presented as a single sentence in (44a) and as two sentences in (44b). Nevertheless, the insertion of a punctuation mark after the word-form beauty is important from a presentational point of view because it indicates at the graphic level the obtrusive boundary between the two clauses which is not otherwise designated. On these grounds, the use of punctuation with then poses an interesting case. Consider the following examples from two contemporary novels, namely from Petersen’s (1999: 30) Let the Day Perish and from John Grisham’s (2007 [2000]: 135f.) The Brethren, respectively: (45a) <As we walk Greg quietly clears his throat, then hesitates.> (46a) <He pecked her on the cheek out of habit, then went to the basement where he locked a door and began to cry again.> In both (45a) and (46a), an elliptical clause is attached to a preceding self-contained syntagm within one orthographic sentence. Of course, each time the subject ellipsis in the second clause establishes a structural relation among the constituents - the material brought together in one sentence is not syntactically unrelated, cf. (44a) and (44b) above. Still, the transition from one clause to the other is not explicated at the medium-independent level. There is no structural element (such as a coordinator), but only a medium-bound graphic indicator that functions as a linking device. It is thus especially Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 157 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="172"?> 158 Exploring the guide functions of punctuation important. If there was a coordinator, like in (45b) and (46b), constituting a structure-expanding element, the use of punctuation would not be essential. The boundary between clause 1 and clause 2 would be sufficiently marked. (45b) <As we walk Greg quietly clears his throat [ , ] and [then] hesitates.> (46b) <He pecked her on the cheek out of habit [ , ] and [then] went to the basement where he locked a door and began to cry again.> (Of course, in their role as conceptualisation aids, the commas could be taken as graphic representations of a momentary pause that separates the successive actions in the b-versions of [45] and [46].) Aarts (1991), however, notices that writers are not unanimous as regards the use of punctuation with then implemented in the a-versions above - despite its usefulness. He (ib.: 53) adduces the example given as (47). (47) <It is better to train lightly then add to the training set as a text is being scanned.> Given the interpretation that there is no structural element that construes the clause boundary in (47), the lack of sentence-internal punctuation poses a problem for a potential reader: neither at the medium-independent structural level nor at the level of writing is there a cue, i.e. a coordinator or punctuation mark, which constitutes a point of orientation as to where material is attached to the constituent It is better to train lightly. To escape this predicament, Aarts concludes, therefore, that the adverb then may imply both a distinctive temporal aspect and an additive function typically associated with the coordinator and. (Note that also the coordinator and alone may be semantically marked for chronological sequence in certain contexts; hence the square brackets around then in the b-versions of [45] and [46] above.) If accepting then as a regular substitute for the coordinator-adverb combination and then, this goes to explain the lack of a sentence-internal punctuation mark in (47), cf. Aarts (ib.: 54); see also Meyer (1996: 34) who takes then as a possible structural indicator of coordination. The plausibility of this view can be substantiated by the observation that the bare use of then without punctuation is increasing in number in written English - albeit solely in connection with ensuing subject ellipsis, as it seems. (48) and (49) are two of many examples from a single author (Kitson 2008: 92, 94); (50) to (52) originate from fictional texts by Higgins Clark (1993: 133), Harrison/ Stover (1972: 90) and Worth (1997: 202), respectively; (53) was found in a tabloid - as one could have guessed (Sun, Newton 16 Feb. 2007: 15). Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 158 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="173"?> Punctuation in context 159 (48) <She wanders near the woman then begins to look casually into the glass displays.> (49) <She parks her car then walks inside as she always does.> (50) <She paused then looked up.> (51) <He waited until her voice had stopped then turned back.> (52) <He took her hand then kissed it, his lips warm and firm on her clammy skin.> (53) <You make a f***in’ crap album then want everyone to feel f***in’ sorry for you.> It is possible that the adverb only has the potential to function as a stand-in coordinator, too. It may replace the adversative coordinator but, although unpunctuated cases seem much rarer than shown for the element then in the examples above. Nevertheless, consider the one (non-elliptical) example under (54) from the memoirs of an Anglo-Indian woman (Lyons 2005 [1996]: 249): (54) <My hair was in a bun like Denzil wanted only this time it was not neat since Mum was not there to help me with it.> Again, the writer apparently assumes the reader to easily recognise the ‘linking, coordinating function’ of the adverb and therefore omits the expected punctuation mark between wanted and only. This section has emphasised once more that the joining of two syntactically unrelated constituents within one orthographic sentence calls for interjacent punctuation if only for reasons of processability; it provides a visual cue for the decoder. And consequentially, asyndetically coordinated elements are punctuated. Moreover, for the concept ‘asyndetic coordination’ the use of punctuation, non-final marks in particular, is a constitutive feature anyway. The requirement to use punctuation between two clauses is still a strong one if they are, in fact, structurally related in some way (by ellipsis, for example), but if there is no structure-expanding, syndetic element that explicates the clause juncture. However, there seem to be some examples, like those in (47) to (54), in which this demand is overridden. Apparently, they are perceived as cognitively less complex and, as a consequence, they are sometimes given without supplementary medium-bound cues like punctuation; that is, sentence-internal punctuation is optional rather than obligatory and a light punctuation style is possible, cf. sec. 7.1.1.2 above. All in all, i.e. combining the insights of the preceding two sections, the guide function of punctuation when applied to syndetic and asyndetic co- Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 159 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="174"?> 160 Exploring the guide functions of punctuation ordinate structures (possibly also to others) can be resolved by referring to Rohdenburg’s (e.g. 1996; 2003) ‘complexity principle’. Accounting for the degree of transparency of grammatical alternatives, he (2003: 205) explains it as follows: The complexity principle states that in the case of more or less explicit constructional alternatives […], the more explicit option(s) will tend to be preferred in cognitively more complex environments. While constituting an appealing concept to account for the relationship of cognitive complexity and the corresponding linguistic preferences of an encoder, Rohdenburg concentrates solely on those aspects which are observable at the medium-independent level; he focuses on constructional alternatives and their contribution to structural transparency. The role of a medium-bound device like punctuation is not discussed. Punctuating written text implies two main choices, which have been mentioned at various points in the present work: Firstly, there is the general choice ‘mark vs no mark’ in a certain position. And secondly, there is the type of mark that an encoder, i.e. writer, may opt for. Given the fact that punctuation is indispensable in cases of asyndetic coordination, but is also used regularly with relatively long and/ or complex constituents joined syndetically, the general presence of a mark is a marker of explicitness. In addition, the heaviness of a mark (e.g. period rather than comma) will increase further the explicitness of a written stretch in a cognitively complex environment. Hence there is a correlation between an increase in clause length and a heavier type of mark in connection with syndetic main clause coordination, cf. sec. 7.2.2.1.1 above. This substantiates the supposition that Rohdenburg’s focus on mediumindependent transparency factors is only one side of the coin. Not only do encoders attempt to increase the explicitness of their texts by choosing one of several syntactic alternatives, but they also use in similar fashion a mediumbound device like punctuation, which is independent of the medium-independent structural arrangement; a more explicit version that reduces the cognitive workload may therefore be exclusive to the written expression system. 7.2.2.2 Restrictive and non-restrictive modifiers Modifiers occur at phrase level. They are realised, as Quirk et al. (1985: 65) observe, […] for instance, by adjectives in the noun phrase, and by intensifying adverbs in the adjective or adverb phrase. Premodifiers precede the head [of a phrase, SP], and postmodifiers follow it […]. A distinction is usually being made with regard to the status of the modifiers, namely whether their presence is obligatory/ specifying or facultative/ Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 160 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="175"?> Punctuation in context 161 additive. A modifier is meant to be obligatory/ specifying in that it “[…] indicates a limitation on the possible reference of the head” (ib.: 1239f.). It may have a ‘restrictive role’, cf. Matthews (1992 [1981]: 229). Overall, it is thus more established to speak of ‘restrictive’ and ‘non-restrictive modifiers’. In usage manuals on writing and punctuation (but also in grammar handbooks), the punctuation of restrictive and non-restrictive modifiers is dealt with in a short and simple manner. Consider for example the entry in the influential Chicago Manual of Style (University of Chicago Press 2003 [1906]: 248): A [modifier] that is restrictive […] should not be set off by commas. A nonrestrictive [modifier], however, should be enclosed in commas or, if at the end of a sentence, preceded by a comma. Hannay (1987: 82) rightly criticises that apart from mentioning such plain ‘rules’, there are usually no reasons given as to the specific guiding role of punctuation in these contexts, i.e. as to “[…] what a writer actually does when separating two parts of a sentence […].” Or in other words: Why does he or she mark off non-restrictive modifiers whereas restrictive ones are supposed to remain unpunctuated? Hannay (ib.: 87) pointedly summarises the whole situation by bemoaning that “[…] one is left on one’s own to form some kind of picture […].“ As a consequence, the guide function of the punctuation of restrictive and non-restrictive modifiers will be given more room in the subsequent two sections. To narrow down the field of discussion, though, an implicit suggestion by Quirk et al. (1985) is taken up: stating that modifiers are regularly punctuated, they mention in particular adnominal relative clause and apposition, cf. Quirk et al. (ib.: 1628). That is to say, the use of punctuation seems most important in connection with certain postmodifying expressions. Section 7.2.2.2.1, therefore, touches on the role of punctuation with relative clauses and section 7.2.2.2.2 on that with appositive constituents. Of course, punctuation is also applied to other types of modifier, such as present/ past participle or infinitive clauses. However, since the present study aims at type-exhaustiveness in the description of punctuation, they do not need extra mentioning. In fact, it is reasonable to assume that the basic punctuational guide function of these types will be explicable by referring to some of the insights gathered from the following two sections. 7.2.2.2.1 Relative clause It is common ground that it is the description of relative clauses which is probably geared most stringently to the distinction between restrictive and non-restrictive modifiers in English. In order to improve descriptive precision in this context, the question of (non-) restrictiveness is sometimes also captured by the oppositions ‘defining vs non-defining’, or less often ‘integrated vs supplementary’, cf. e.g. Huddleston/ Pullum (2002: 1034f.). Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 161 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="176"?> 162 Exploring the guide functions of punctuation In linguistics, different criteria have been applied to keep apart the two kinds of relative clause, whatever the label. Firstly, there is the semantic aspect alluded to earlier; that is to say, a restrictive relative clause constitutes a necessary determination of its antecedent. On the other hand, a non-restrictive relative clause is dispensable: the overall understanding of the matrix clause is not put in jeopardy by omitting the modifier, cf. Lucas (1974: 85). With regard to the antecedent, “[…] the [relative] clause is non-defining or parenthetic” (Vallins 1957 [1956]: 74). Secondly, there is the type of clause introducer: it may either be (i) that or (ii) a wh-pronoun or (iii) ‘zero’, i.e. the relative clause is a so-called ‘contact clause’, cf. Lucas (1974: 84f.). Whereas that or ‘zero’ may only precede a restrictive relative clause, there is still a choice with a wh-word such as which or who; Quirk et al. (1985) give a more detailed in-depth account of these formal features, cf. Quirk et al. (ib.: 1247- 1260). Thirdly, it is regularly adduced that restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses are formally characterised by distinctive intonational properties. To these belong juncture, intonation and prominence, cf. e.g. Quirk (1957: 101) and implicitly also Sopher (1977: 309) and Fox/ Thompson (1990). Bearing in mind from chapter 2 above that language is, first of all, a formal conception, i.e. it is structure, Esser (2006: 47) understandably disapproves of deciding the status of a relative clause on medium-bound aspects - especially if these are classed erroneously as ‘formal’ (as under ‘thirdly’ above): A relative clause is restrictive or non-restrictive not by virtue of its intonational [or punctuational, SP] presentation but rather by its referential properties that can be deducted from the textual environment. Generally speaking, therefore, the canonical presentation of a relative clause in speech or writing is a question of decoder-orientation. As a matter of principle, it is an independent device that follows from the textual interpretation on the basis of the more abstract medium-independent word-forms (but does not belong to the formal level itself). Consequentially, only the first and the second criterion mentioned above can be regarded as relevant. Point three, on the other hand, i.e. the medium-bound findings (including punctuation marks for that matter), merely lists indicators of these formal, medium-independent factors. Contrary to this insight, the Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English (Biber et al. 2007 [1999]: 602) still uses the medium-bound feature of “[…] punctuation-separation as a working definition of non-restrictive modifiers.” For a written presentation of non-restrictive relative clauses, like in (55a) from Thomson/ Martinet (1987 [1960]: 89), the use of commas has become the generally acknowledged convention. (55a) <The travellers, who knew about the floods, took another road.> Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 162 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="177"?> Punctuation in context 163 The marks are paired unless the non-defining relative clause is located in sentence-initial or -final position: then only one comma is employed and the second one is conflated with either the sentence-initial capital letter or the final, terminating boundary marker. The absence of punctuation marks in the variant under (55b) interprets the relative clause as defining. It contains a confinement about the travellers who actually did take another road: not all of the travellers knew about the floods and only those who did took the alternative route. (55b) <The travellers who knew about the floods took another road.> The information in the relative clause constrains what is actually referred to by the antecedent, i.e. what can be its denotatum, cf. e.g. Morris (1970 [1938]: 5). The clause is essential to a correct decoding of the noun phrase it modifies, and it is therefore - by convention - not delimited by punctuation marks (or a single one if located in final position). The lack of a graphic separator is meant to reflect the close relation of the antecedent and its modifier. It may be noteworthy that this variable punctuation standard was established only at the end of the eighteenth century. Before that, relative clauses were punctuated throughout, regardless of restrictiveness - a category which had not yet been recognised, cf. e.g. Vallins (1957 [1956]: 138f.). This emphasises once more that a normalised medium-bound presentation of relative clauses is only a derived feature, and an applied mark is not a necessary condition of restrictiveness. At the same time, the obligation to mark off intervening syntactic material, formulated in section 7.1.2.2 above, is overridden when restrictive relative clauses are concerned. In its structure, a restrictive relative clause very much resembles the second clause in a cleft sentence; both are usually not separated punctuation-wise. They differ from each other, however, in that there are some constraints on the types of wh-words that may be used in the clause following the focused element in a cleft sentence. Besides, the latter may have an adjunct as its antecedent, realised by a prepositional phrase or a clause, which an adnominal relative clause may not, cf. e.g. Quirk et al. (1985: 1386f.). Exploring the relationship of the graphic and the spoken presentation of relative clauses, the second edition of the Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English (Hornby/ Gatenby/ Wakefield 1972 [1948]) suggests that a comma in writing before the relative pronouns that and which is analogous to an audible pause in speech, cf. Hornby/ Gatenby/ Wakefield (ib.: 1043, 1143). Yet in reality this has proven unsatisfactory at times. The deficiency is substantiated by the general awareness that (i) “[t]he ‘boundary’ between one clause and another is an analytic concept […]” (Halliday 1992 [1985]: 39), and that (ii) in spoken discourse it is not simply and always pauses that signal the transition from one tone unit to the next. Not surprisingly, the refer- Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 163 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="178"?> 164 Exploring the guide functions of punctuation ence to a parallel between comma placement and speech pauses in connection with relative clauses has been removed from later editions of the dictionary, cf. e.g. Crowther (1995 [1948]: 1181, 1296). Sopher (1977: 307) is still certain that an unpunctuated non-restrictive relative clause indicates “[…] that the writer does not wish the reader to pause.” See below for more on the potential motivation of not punctuating relative clauses according to the general conventions. In a spoken realisation, a different tone unit structure usually (though not necessarily) accounts for the referential distinction ‘non-restrictive vs restrictive’, cf. (55c) and (55d). See also Wode (1966) for the spoken realisation of relative clauses. He discusses at length the potential distribution and function of tone units, and their interaction with the syntactic structure, cf. Wode (ib.: 156-159). (55c) The travellers/ who knew about the [ floods ] [/ ] took another road\ (55d) The travellers who knew about the floods/ took another road\ Similar to punctuation practice, the degree of closeness between the relative clause and the modified noun phrase is either lessened or intensified by the presence or absence of a tone unit boundary. The bracketing in (55c) indicates an optional tone unit boundary (plus the resulting nucleus), which might be realised due to the medial position of the modifier. The first tone unit boundary in (55c) is more predictable, however. Interestingly, the precise written equivalent of (55d), i.e. the use of a single punctuation element that indicates only the right-hand boundary of a restrictive relative clause, is stigmatised in present-day English writing by style manuals and usage books, cf. (55e). (55e) ? <The travellers who knew about the floods, took another road.> With a medially located relative clause, there is either correlative or zero punctuation. That is, if the left-hand boundary of an interjacent constituent is not indicated by punctuation because the relative clause is considered ‘restrictive’, then its right-hand one is not marked either: if a single mark occurred, it could be misinterpreted as separating at the graphic level one of the main clause constituents S, V, O, C (but not A). This would interfere with the principle of structural integrity, cf. sec. 7.1.3 above. After all, the realisation of relative clauses is associated with specific medium-bound cues in both speech and writing. At the graphic level, which is most interesting for the purposes of the present study, this task is fulfilled by punctuation marks. Their application is based on an analysis of the underlying medium-independent structure, and not vice versa: non-restrictive relative clauses provide parenthetic information that is, strictly speaking, surplus Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 164 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="179"?> Punctuation in context 165 to requirements from a communicative point of view; it is “[…] outside the core message unit […]”, as Hannay (1987: 92) puts it. And Blühdorn (2007) mentions the ‘relative semantico-pragmatic distance’ here, cf. Blühdorn (ib.: 294). Accordingly, the marks form visual barriers which indicate this optionality and which allocate the supplementary information to a distinctive punctuation unit, in effect ‘detaching’ it from the rest of the structure. (55f) The travellers, ~ n who knew about the floods, ~ n took another road. | f§ From a presentational point of view, the effect of graphic non-finality, attained through the minimally separative commas in (55f), combines with the syntactic incompleteness at the first two punctuation boundaries. Hence, the parenthetic nature of the non-restrictive relative clause is not only a matter of semantics but also shows at the level of parasyntax. However, as Huddleston/ Pullum (2002: 1058) claim amongst others, […] punctuation is elsewhere not a wholly reliable guide: it is by no means uncommon to find clauses that are not marked off punctuationally even though the syntax and/ or meaning requires that they be interpreted as supplementary. Being a conventionalised decoding help, the punctuational properties of relative clauses constitute a significant tendency rather than a strict rule, cf. also Esser (2006: 47). Meyer (1987), for example, finds that 10% of non-restrictive modifiers remain unpunctuated if their status is already clarified by the surrounding co-text, cf. Meyer (ib.: 45). In his example, the reference of These women is contextually unambiguous (not least because of the deictic demonstrative), cf. (56); the relative clause is evidently non-restrictive - yet not punctuated. (56) <The League of Women Voters, 40 now and admitting it proudly, is inviting financial contributions in the windup of its fund drive... These women whose organization grew out of the old suffrage movement are dedicated to Thomas’ dictum that one must cherish the people’s spirit but “keep alive their attention”.> So, in cases in which the underlying medium-independent structure is particularly perspicuous, the signalling function of a punctuation mark may be felt to be dispensable. (Whether the omission of a mark is based on a writer’s wish to avoid a concurrent ‘pause’ [rather than on considerations about explicitness] is dubious; but see Sopher’s positive appraisal above.) And the proportion of punctuation versus no punctuation is even more balanced, i.e. 60% vs 40% respectively, if “[…] there is no clear difference Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 165 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="180"?> 166 Exploring the guide functions of punctuation in meaning between the restrictive and non-restrictive interpretations of the modifier” (ib.). Consider example (57), where the conceptual distinction does not seem to yield different interpretations of the relative clause which Robinson cut across to field and threw wide to first: (57) <Carey singled a slow-bouncing ball to short which Robinson cut across to field and threw wide to first.> (To avoid confusion, note that short, field and first stand for positions, i.e. bases, or regions on a baseball field.) While Meyer is somewhat unspecific as to the exact types of modifier that contribute to his data (his examples are only relative clauses, though), Sartoris (2003) specifically focuses on relative clauses with expressed pronoun. Her study is based on the prosodic and the orthographic versions of the Lancaster/ IBM Spoken English Corpus and her results, by and large, corroborate the above-mentioned insight. Esser (2006: 47) records one of the main findings: She [Sartoris, SP] found out that, contrary to the “rules”, restrictive relative clauses occurred in 63% with tone unit boundary and in 4% with comma; nonrestrictive relative clauses occurred in 6% without tone unit boundary and in 16% without comma. In effect, the indicators that signify (non-)restrictiveness in speech and writing are indeed reliable only to varying degrees. With the focus on punctuation in the present study, it seems feasible to suspect that the conventional practice is watered down if cognitive complexity is minimised. Seemingly, this holds at least for cases in which (i) the question of restrictiveness is answered explicitly by the context, cf. e.g. example (56); and in particular for cases in which (ii) there is no meaningful difference between non-restrictiveness and restrictiveness, cf. e.g. example (57). Again, therefore, punctuation functions as a marker of explicitness which contributes to the transparency of a medium-independent structural arrangement but which shows merely at the written level, cf. also sec. 7.2.2.1.2 above. Since, in general, the marks do not have a linguistically distinctive function if they signal the beginning or end of relative clauses, they provide paralinguistic information in the sense of section 2.3 above. Having mainly considered the general consequences of the presence or absence of punctuation marks in connection with relative clauses, a short concluding note on the specific choice of mark is in order. The reason that only seldom a mark other than the comma is used with non-restrictive relative clauses is probably due to the close syntactic relationship of antecedent and modifier. Any mark positioned higher on the punctuation hierarchy would visually disrupt this relation, which might be perceived as counterintuitive. Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 166 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="181"?> Punctuation in context 167 A common exception, however, can be observed in the use of the dash: ‘comma or dash’ seems to be a regular either-or-decision for the marking of non-restrictive relative clauses especially in modern journalism, cf. e.g. Todd (2001: 68). The sentence in (58), taken from The Daily Mirror (Mirror, Blackman 08 Sep. 2006-@), is a random example thereof: (58) <In a day of high political drama Chancellor Mr Brown - whose poisonous relationship with Mr Blair has dominated Labour’s nine years in power - spoke an hour earlier before his rival.> The obtrusive appearance of the dashes assigns greater prominence to the delimited constituents at the medium-bound written level and highlights them in terms of information management, cf. sec. 5.2.2.5 above. Their shape also gives them a forwarding function and so they seem most suitable for guiding a reader into and out of intervening syntactic material. It has to be taken into consideration whether an increasing substitutability of the comma for a dash in journalism might be explicable by changing reading habits among (newspaper) readers. The faster information has to be processed the more importance must be ascribed to its visual presentation. In this respect, the more prominent dash might contribute to greater perceptual clarity and might thus effect better processability of the text. If a period actually separates a finally located relative clause from the preceding matrix clause, this has the effect of raising not least the subordinate clause in terms of informational weight; see section 5.2.2.1 above for more on this. A case in point is provided under (59), as recorded by Hoffbauer (2003: 43). (59) <People suffer from gum disease caused by plaque. Which in turn can lead to tooth loss.> Besides informational raising, the presentation as a distinct orthographic sentence assigns the relative clause the role of an afterthought. Hence, a writer may employ the period to suggest that the modifying clause is to be read as an addendum. In this context it should be noted in passing that what might distinguish (59) from the examples discussed earlier is that for the relative clause, “[…] the antecedent is not nominal but clausal […]” (Quirk et al. 1985: 1245), cf. also sec. 3.3 above. Considering the overall structure, however, the interpretation as clausal is not apodictic in this case. All in all, also in connection with relative clauses, the choice of mark strongly affects the way a reader, i.e. decoder, conceptualises a stretch of writing. These are textual aspects which will be dealt with in section 7.2.3 below. Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 167 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="182"?> 168 Exploring the guide functions of punctuation 7.2.2.2.2 Apposition The category ‘apposition’ has already been referred to in section 7.1.2.1 above when the general punctuation principles were developed. There is dissent as to its precise definition. Under a strict view, only certain noun phrase structures are admitted into the class of appositives, cf. e.g. Fries (1973 [1952]: 187f.) and Francis (1958: 301f.). Other approaches criticise such a restriction as arbitrary and broaden the scope of the syntactic nature of the constituents, cf. e.g. Burton-Roberts (1975: 410; 1994: 184), Greenbaum/ Quirk (1995 [1990]: 383) and Meyer (1992: 30-34). And Seiler (1960), as a matter of principle, opposes the practice to ground the description of syntactic relationships and categories on word class criteria altogether, cf. Seiler (ib.: 7f., 35). The following examples, therefore, taken pairwise from Burton-Roberts (1975: 410; 1994: 184) in an adapted notation, instantiate cases of non-nominal apposition. (60) >he ran absolutely raced up the hill< (61) >you will not be totally alone that is to say there will be others to help you< (62) >he took it without permission filched it< (63) >it was at about seven o clock that they left just before sunset< In (60) the apposition is a premodified verb-form (absolutely raced), which follows, and thus paraphrases and specifies, the regular verb-form ran. In (61) this function is fulfilled by a whole clause, namely there will be others to help you. It is in apposition to you will not be totally alone. In (62) the finally located filched it (‘VP+NP’) is in apposition to the regular predicate of the clause took it without permission (‘VP+NP+PP’). Finally, in their function as adverbials, the prepositional phrases at about seven o’clock and just before sunset form an appositive structure in (63). On these grounds, it seems therefore reasonable that the concept of apposition is not restricted to noun phrases, but is structurally uncommitted. Based on the above remarks, it is concluded for the present study that two constituents are in an appositive relationship if both belong to the same form class and if the second item constitutes some sort of reformulation of the first one. The immediate consequences of this definition, and their implications for the punctuational guide functions, will be discussed more extensively below. Irrespective of considerations on scope, the label ‘apposition’ does not always stand unchallenged. The following sentence (64) from a collection of short stories by Bill Pronzini (1988: 206) provides a case in point. (64) <It was peaceful there, serene.> Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 168 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="183"?> Punctuation in context 169 Obviously, it cannot be concluded unequivocally from the underlying medium-independent configuration (nor from the graphic presentation) whether the two adjectives are truly in an appositive relation: serene ‘defines’ the first adjective peaceful; or whether they rather suggest two different referents as in coordination: [it was both] peaceful and serene. On the one hand, the line between both categories is a thin one. And the inserted comma is no disambiguating graphic feature. On the other hand, what actually distinguishes apposition from coordination is that an appositive constituent is always coreferential with the one it follows, cf. Quirk/ Stein (1990: 199). That is, of two constituents in apposition, the second constituent gives a different referential perspective on the referent of the first one. This allows for the conclusion that apposition signifies a copular (or equative) relationship as instantiated, for example, by the major clause pattern ‘SVC’, cf. also Quirk et al. (1985: 53-55, 1301) and Halford (1996: 72). And Burton-Roberts (1975: 409) says the following: Perhaps the nearest we can approach to the copulative expression of the relationship that holds between [items] in apposition would be, not X is Y, but to say X is equivalent to saying Y. What complicates the picture (but at the same time shifts the focus more squarely to the role of punctuation) is that coordinators, such as or, are sometimes indicative of appositives, cf. e.g. Quirk/ Stein (1990: 237). Sopher (1971) points out that this co-occurrence assigns the medium-dependent realisation a supportive role in differentiating between coordination and apposition. Take into account his example under (65a), cf. Sopher (ib.: 405) and originally Jennings (1963 [1933]: 63f.): (65a) <For example, though the franchise or electoral qualification is normally expressed, the machinery for elections and the boundaries of the constituencies are not.> In (65a) only the relatively late coming verb-form in the singular (is) indicates that the franchise and electoral qualification are not to be read as coordinated noun phrases. But rather, the latter is an apposition qualifying the first: to say ‘franchise’ is equivalent to saying ‘electoral qualification’ - both are synonymous; they are in a ‘naming relation’, cf. also Quirk et al. (1985: 1309). In this context, the inserted coordinator is a potentially misguiding structural element. However, the punctuated version (65b) would make a misinterpretation less probable. (65b) <For example, though the franchise, or electoral qualification, is normally expressed, the machinery for elections and the boundaries of the constituencies are not.> Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 169 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="184"?> 170 Exploring the guide functions of punctuation Presented in this way, the coordinator is commonly decoded as ‘also known as’. Hence, by allocating or electoral qualification to a distinct punctuation unit, the underlying medium-independent structure is clarified early on in the written expression system. (Inexplicably, Sopher [1971] does not seem to recognise the significance of the singular verb-form at all, but overstates the guide function of the omitted commas.) In turn, by omitting correlative punctuation marks around the string or electoral qualification, the reader is denied this metalingual comment at an early stage in the decoding of the written stretch and presumably at first misinterprets the syntactic relationship of the two noun phrases. The graphic presentation may provide or withhold context-dependent extra decoding aids in this case. The last-discussed point clearly hints at the guide potential of punctuation with appositions. Generally, two aspects seem central in this context and need mentioning (with both partially overlapping): Firstly, the punctuation of appositive structures is influenced by the distinction of restrictiveness and non-restrictiveness. Secondly, exploring the role of punctuation must take account of the awareness that appositions bring about multiple fillings of syntactic slots; if these reformulations are non-restrictive, one function of punctuation is to reflect them. As to the first aspect: the influence of restrictiveness and non-restrictiveness on punctuation usage was already addressed in the previous section 7.2.2.2.1 when the punctuational guide function with relative clauses was discussed. Transferred to apposition, Quirk et al. (1985: 1304) recognise the same motivation for the use of punctuation marks in cases of non-restrictiveness: In non-restrictive apposition, the two appositive units contribute relatively independent information, with the first appositive acting as the DEFINED expression, and the second appositive having a DEFINING ROLE (‘the definer’). The defining role is reflected in the fact that the second appositive is marked as parenthetic by punctuation […]. Nevertheless, as already observed for relative clauses, the presence or absence of punctuation marks is not always a reliable cue as to the (non-)restrictiveness of a unit in apposition. A sentence from Crystal’s (2005 [1995]: 67) Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language demonstrates this nicely, putting into perspective the general convention. (66a) <The American statesman and scientist, Benjamin Franklin (1706- 1790), had a keen interest in the English language, and especially in its typography (having been a printer in his youth).> According to the general convention, the correlative commas that mark off Benjamin Franklin and the parenthesised biographical data from the sur- Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 170 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="185"?> Punctuation in context 171 rounding written material might be regarded as somewhat misplaced; that is, especially the name gives information which is essential to the decoding of the subjectival noun phrase: if left out, the whole sentence would not make sense. It commences a distinct section and there is no given entity in any preceding discourse that could else be referred to by the determinate article The. In its entirety, the stretch Benjamin Franklin (1706 -1790) is therefore a defining, i.e. restrictive, apposition to the unit that precedes the first punctuation unit boundary, i.e. the first comma. It is essential to the ‘accommodation of the proposition’, cf. Blühdorn (2007: 297). The parenthetical, of course, provides non-restrictive information on the name again. As mentioned repeatedly, however, items that function as restrictive modifiers are conventionally not set off by punctuation marks. That is to say, they are not normally presented in a ‘separate information unit’, cf. also Quirk et al. (1985: 1303). So, the present commas in (66a) might provide a slightly misguiding metalingual comment by the author. If, as in the altered version (66b), on the other hand, Benjamin Franklin was preposed, forming the regular subject of the clause complex, the referent would be clearly denoted. Hence, the elaborating information on his role and occupation, being a statesman and scientist, would be non-defining/ nonrestrictive. (66b) <Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), the American statesman and scientist, had a keen interest in the English language, and especially in its typography (having been a printer in his youth).> Consequentially, the commas which create the third punctuation unit in (66b) do not attract particular attention. They reflect the mentioned non-restrictiveness as expected - by suggesting greater visual distance. As to the second aspect: appositions bring about double or multiple fillings of syntactic slots; to indicate these is also a function of punctuation as a medium-bound decoder-oriented cue (notably if the apposition is non-restrictive). The following examples, mostly from fictional texts, show this: (67) is from Walker (2009: 53), (68) from Rankin (2009 [2008]: 178); (69) originates from a Yes! car advertising campaign (without bibliographical reference), (70) from Sigler (2008: 339) and (71) from Townsend (2006: 155); (72) is taken from Grisham (2007 [2000]: 143) and (73) from Pronzini (1988: 210). In the examples, the dotted underlining indicates the constituents in apposition. (67) <Bruno drove back to the main road and on to the nearest neighbour, the mad Englishwoman.> (68) <Instead, he was about to hand it over to this monster, a monster who now had Mike’s name and would forever link him to the painting.> Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 171 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="186"?> 172 Exploring the guide functions of punctuation (69) <Driving a Yes! Roadster is a tightrope walk, something between controlling and being controlled.> (70) <For the first time, Malcolm’s death seemed insignificant, a small loss in comparison to the massive threat looming on the horizon.> (71) <To be a natural redhead was to be a social pariah, a target for the happy slappy gangs who patrolled the streets.> (72) <They managed to convey the image that Aaron Lake was a legitimate candidate, a man they knew and trusted. A man the nation needed. A man who could be elected.> (73) <And for the first time since Martha’s death and his own paralysis, he felt as he once had. Useful to others and to himself. Tenacious. Unchained.> In (67) the nominal constituent of the prepositional phrase, functioning as locative adverbial, is realised twice, namely by the nearest neighbour and the mad Englishwoman, and in (68) the same applies to that of the indirect (prepositional) object (this monster and a monster who…). In (69) to (73), it is the complement slot that is ‘overcrowded’ (a term Halford [1996: 71] uses). Relating to the copular verb-forms is and seemed respectively, it is filled by a tightrope walk and something between controlling and being controlled in (69); and by an adjective phrase (insignificant) and a heavily postmodified noun phrase (a small loss…) in (70). (In passing, note the deviant use of the exclamation mark in [69], which operates outside its usual role as a sentencefinal boundary marker, but rather functions at word-level, adding to the impact of the written realisation of the brand name.) In (71) it is not the whole complement slot that is filled twice but, strictly speaking, only the nominal part of the infinitive clause to be a social pariah (double filler: [to be] a target for the happy slappy gangs…). At last, (72) and (73) differ from the foregoing examples in that a single syntactic slot is assigned more than twice: the subject complement is expressed four times in (72) (starting with a legitimate candidate) and even five times in (73) (starting with as he once had). There are multiple fillings of syntactic slots. For Halford (ib.: 78), to speak of a structural relation among double or multiple fillers is questionable altogether; she rather recognises an indirect relation, which she calls ‘non-syntactic’: A non-syntactic relationship is one between items which are not directly syntactically related but enter indirect relationships through sharing identical syntactic ties with other syntagms. […] All the multiple fillings of syntactic slots […] stand in a non-syntactic relation to each other. They occupy the same slot in one syntagm, but are not tied to each other in any syntactic way. Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 172 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="187"?> Punctuation in context 173 For appositives, her view is based on the observation that they do not exhibit a formal indicator or connector at the medium-independent level, apart from the shared syntactic contact points of the double fillings, their juxtaposition and - formalistically less convincing - their logical relation. “The relationship is realised by the sequence alone, with no construction marker” (Matthews 1992 [1981]: 225). The structural configuration is inconclusive as far as the interrelatedness of its constituents is concerned, it is opaque, cf. sec. also 7.1.2.1 above. Indeed, the only visible ‘connecting piece’ in the examples (67) to (73) is an exclusive feature of the written expression system: the boundaries between the individual fillers are marked by punctuation. (If the apposition was located medially - as in [60], [65b] and [66b] - the punctuation would of course embrace the double filling, following the general principle to punctuate material that disrupts a current syntactic structure, cf. sec. 7.1.2.2 above.) As a consequence: whereas, for instance, syndetically coordinated units are locked in a syntagmatic bond, i.e. they are syntactically linked by a coordinator, it is difficult to approach apposition under any such analysis. Halford (1996: 72) summarises this as follows: Appositions seem very straightforward, but they actually pose severe problems for a syntactic analysis. […] We have a case of a paradigmatic (or choice) relation within a syntagm, which should only contain syntagmatic (or chain) relations. With the multiple fillings of appositions, either filling stands in a choice, i.e. paradigmatic, relation with the rest of the syntagm and would, structurally, replace the other rather than being appended to it. This might make a nonsyntactic interpretation of appositions favourable. Halford contrasts ‘nonsyntactic’ with what she calls ‘asyntactic relationships’: these “[…] cannot be described in syntactic terms at all […]” (ib.: 78). On the whole, the distinction between ‘non-syntactic’ and ‘asyntactic’, as suggested by Halford, does seem to be terminologically unambiguous. It is not self-explanatory, for example, why relations are labelled ‘non-syntactic’ although they can be described as sharing identical syntactic ties. As to the negative prefixes, in how far is ‘non-’ different from ‘a-’? The distinction ‘non-syntactic vs asyntactic’ is difficult to grasp intuitively. It seems more appropriate, therefore, to pick up the notion of an ‘indirect-syntactic (oblique) relationship’, or to speak of a ‘derived-syntactic relation’, when describing the correspondences among appositive constituents. In turn, either term can then be contrasted with the synonymous notions ‘non-/ asyntactic’. Of course, there are the specific markers (conjunctions), such as namely or that is, which may signify an appositive relationship at the medium-independent level. But yet, these elements correspond to metalingual comments by the encoder of how to interpret the subsequent unit rather than effecting a syntactic relation among the constituents. In a similar vein, Burton-Roberts (1975) considers apposition markers to indicate an ‘extralinguistic’, or ‘qua- Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 173 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="188"?> 174 Exploring the guide functions of punctuation si-metalinguistic’ relation, cf. Burton-Roberts (ib.: 409). After all, apposition markers may be primarily attributed a textual function, cf. also Halliday/ Hasan (1976: 248-250) and Fraser (1990: 387f.). This, too, can be regarded as evidence to hold up an indirect-syntactic interpretation of apposition in general. 10 Besides, the indirect-syntactic interpretation is a weighty argument for making a distinction between appositions and relative clauses; for approaches to this problem, the reader is for instance referred to McCawley (1998 [1988]: 467-478), Acuña Fariña (2000) and also Quirk et al. (1985: 1301, 1313-1315). At the syntactic level, indirect-syntactic, paradigmatic relations - unlike syntagmatic ones - cannot be accounted for in a satisfying way, cf. e.g. Halford (1996: 72). And considering the assumed paradigmatic relation of multiple fillers, it is more plausible to regard such cases as script unit phenomena in written language instead. In section 4.3 above, the script unit was defined as a descriptive unit, whose development builds on the awareness that besides the underlying syntactic structure, punctuation contributes independently to the message of a text. Hence, at the level of parasyntax, the script unit combines medium-independent syntactic with medium-bound graphic information, with punctuation. For convenience, Figure 7.4 summarises in brief form the three types of script units that have been distinguished. S CRIPT U NIT T YPE D ESCRIPTION (i) simple one self-contained syntagm coincides with one orthographic sentence (ii) complex one self-contained syntagm is presented as two orthographic sentences (iii) complex two self-contained syntagms are presented as one orthographic sentence Figure 7.4: Summary of script unit types distinguished in section 4.3 Esser (2006) argues that multiple fillings may be taken as part of mediumindependent allo-sentences, cf. Esser (ib.: 61f., 121). This seems plausible for 10 Meyer (1992) decidedly contends that apposition is a distinct grammatical relation and is thus describable in structural terms, cf. Meyer (ib.: 5, 25f.). He argues, for example, that some apposition markers - e.g. like, such as, particularly - “[…] are obligatory […] for semantic and syntactic reasons” (ib.: 26). Their omission as such would make the structural arrangement ungrammatical. According to Quirk et al.’s (1985) taxonomy, the apposition markers in question are indicative of the apposition type ‘inclusion’. Inclusion, however, is ranked ‘least appositive’ again on a scale of semantic relationships in noun-phrase apposition, cf. Quirk et al. (ib.: 1308). It is therefore suggested that Meyer’s view does not suffice to veto the insight that the category ‘apposition’ is difficult to capture syntactically. “Currently, the true structural nature of apposition […] remains obscure” (Acuña Fariña 2005: 20). Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 174 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="189"?> Punctuation in context 175 the case of apposition because the fillers have been described above as sharing indirect-syntactic ties with the syntagm in which they pack into a certain syntactic slot. Their relations are not entirely non-/ asyntactic, but show some form of systematic correspondence, cf. also Matthews (1992 [1981]: 222f.). Conceptually, though not terminologically, this partly complies with Seiler’s (1960) view, who considers an apposition to be in a satellite-relation to a related nucleus, cf. Seiler (ib.: 35-37). A satellite, i.e. an apposition, cannot occur on its own but requires the presence of a nuclear structure, (for example, the self-contained syntagm with which it is associated), cf. also Seiler (ib.: 8). Seiler’s approach is different, however, in that it conceptualises the relation of nucleus and satellite merely as one of ‘representative’ and ‘selector’. He (ib.: 9, 20) writes: Dasjenige Element eines Syntagmas, welches zur selben Substitutionsklasse gehört wie das ganze Syntagma (also den Repräsentanten), nennen wir den N u k l e u s [ … ] . […] [D]er Satellit des Syntagmas [the apposition, SP] hat […] die Funktion, aus der Klasse einen bestimmten Vertreter auszuwählen und zu den übrigen, andersgearteten Vertretern derselben Klasse in Opposition zu stellen. Wir sagen, der Satellit [the apposition, SP] habe in diesem Falle die Funktion eines S e l e k t o r s . Yet, in the present study, two constituents are considered in an appositive relationship if both belong to the same form class and if the second item constitutes some sort of reformulation of the first one. Once again: there are multiple fillings of syntactic slots. As a consequence, Seiler’s definition does not capture the paradigmatic relation of constituents in apposition, but overstates their asymmetric dependency. What is valuable, however, is his general suggestion to describe appositions on the basis of a nucleus-satellite distinction. From this it can be inferred that multiple fillings indeed form regular types of allo-sentences, and are not merely concatenated by graphic and punctuational presentation, cf. also Esser (2006: 121). Consequently, if an appositive structure is presented as a single orthographic sentence, this yields a simple script unit: script unit type (i), cf. e.g. (74a) (and originally [69] above). If, on the other hand, the second constituent comes as a self-contained graphic presentation unit, i.e. as a distinct orthographic sentence, it is perceived as part of a complex script unit: script unit type (ii), cf. e.g. (74b). (74a) Driving a Yes! Roadster is a tightrope walk, ~ f something between controlling and being controlled. | f§ (74b) Driving a Yes! Roadster is a tightrope walk. | f Something between controlling and being controlled. | f§ Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 175 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="190"?> 176 Exploring the guide functions of punctuation As both (74a) and (74b) show exemplarily, the first punctuation unit boundary separates the finally located appositive constituent from the rest of the syntagm. The mark - be it sentence-delimiting (‘|’) or sentence-internal (‘~’) - coincides with a syntactic boundary: to the left the syntactic status is complete (‘f’), but there are stranded elements to the right, which (in view of the above remarks) cannot be allocated to an incipient self-contained syntagm. Although there is no formal indicator that explicates the structural relation between the appositive and its head, a unit in apposition is not assigned the status of a self-contained syntagm, whose left-hand boundary correlates with a new syntactic beginning. If that were the case, (74a) would instantiate script unit type (iii) and, as a consequence, (74b) would have to be considered as a sequence of two simple script units. Especially the latter case does not seem very plausible, though, given the identical syntactic ties of the appositive and the preceding clause. To summarise, besides indicating non-restrictiveness, the punctuational guide function with appositions is equivalent to a metalingual comment of the following kind: in presenting the reader with a visual separator, he or she is made aware of the indirect-syntactic (and thus somewhat loose) relationship of the appositive constituent and the matrix syntagm (or at least the corresponding filler). Hence, if no apposition marker is applied, it is only the presence of a mark as such which functions as an important text-organising boundary marker (and here certainly also transition index) for the decoder. The medium-bound expression system is then more explicit than the medium-independent one. But even if the medium-independent arrangement produces an extra element (an apposition marker), the guide function of punctuation with appositive structures is still rated highly and taken advantage of. In the written component of the British National Corpus (BNC), for example, not a single case was found in two random samples of 100 instances each, in which the apposition markers that is and namely were devoid of a preceding punctuation mark. Even though this does not suggest a hard-and-fast rule for the presentation of apposition markers in writing, the communicative relevance of punctuation is unquestionable. The medium-bound graphic feature, i.e. the punctuation, combines with the medium-independent structural device, i.e. the apposition marker, to make double sure: ‘the following constituent is connected paradigmatically rather than syntagmatically, i.e. by a choice rather than chain relation’. What needs mentioning at this point is the guide function of punctuation in cases of ‘anticipated or postponed identification’. These constructions are comparable to appositive structures, but are prototypically only found in spoken English. In cases of anticipated identification (or left dislocation), a noun phrase is placed at the head of a structure and is then restated by a placeholder, i.e. a proxy, in the relevant position of the construction, cf. Quirk et Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 176 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="191"?> Punctuation in context 177 al. (1985: 1310). Consider an example by Esser (2006: 119) under (75), which he quoted from a short story: (75) <Money, luxuries: he could have both in India, too.> In addition, Pawley/ Syder (1983: 563) note that even though “[…] the topic NP is usually pronominalized, constructions in which the NP is simply repeated are fairly common […].” One example they provide is the following, cf. (76): (76) <The old man, they really gave the old man a hard time. The reverse case, i.e. postponed identification (or right dislocation), can equally occur. Here, the proxy marks the beginning of a construction and is substantiated by a referential noun phrase only later in the clause, cf. Quirk et al. (1985: 1310). Huddleston/ Pullum (2007 [2005]: 255) provide (77) as a case in point. (77) <He can be very judgemental, her father.> Although evoking an impression of orality, the traditional perception that the occurrence of dislocated structures is strictly limited to informal spoken language can no longer be adhered to. Gradually they make their way into writing, cf. Esser (2006: 119). Especially instances of the left-dislocation type do not seem to be out of the ordinary in present-day written English. Some examples are reproduced in (78) to (81), taken from novels by Scott Sigler (2008: 33), David Lodge (2009: 56) and Philip Roth (2004: 5), and from Simon Carr’s column in The Independent (Independent, Carr 28 Sep. 2006: 7), in that order. (78) <Murray understood that. Dew, he never did.> (79) <And Arthur Lane - trust Arthur - he opened the door of our carriage […].> (80) <A slender young woman of twenty-three with dark hair and a smile that is all robust delight, she is surprisingly on her own and wearing her floral-patterned kitchen apron at the intersection of the city’s two busiest thoroughfares […].> (81) <His flowing answers, his copulatory catchphrase, his indescribable hair, they were all very welcome on Celebrity Day of the Labour conference.> Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 177 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="192"?> 178 Exploring the guide functions of punctuation In all of the preceding four cases, noun phrases are detached from the rest of the construction and are fronted as some sort of topicalisation. In the first two examples, this concerns proper nouns, namely Dew in (78) and Arthur Lane in (79). Each time he is the subsequent placeholder. In (80) the complex noun phrase A slender young woman of twenty-three with dark hair and a smile that is all robust delight forms the dislocated constituent; it is taken up by she immediately afterwards. In the last example (81) several noun phrases are fronted: (i) His flowing answers, (ii) his copulatory catchphrase and (iii) his indescribable hair. Consequently, they (as the used proxy pronoun) has the function of taking up more than a single dislocated constituent. Cases of dislocation resemble those of apposition in that dislocated structures are likewise characterised by double (or multiple) fillings of syntactic slots. The dislocated noun phrase and its placeholder fulfil the same syntactic function in the clause, for example, that of object in (75) and (76), and that of subject in (77) to (81) above. While both constituents share identical syntactic ties, there is no overt formal indicator at the medium-independent level which explicates their structural relation. On this account, there is only an indirect or derived-syntactic relationship among the dislocated item and its placeholder in the clause; that is, they are connected paradigmatically rather than syntagmatically. In the words of Acuña Fariña (2000: 20): “Syntax is minimal here, if at all.” It is by virtue of punctuation - highlighted through grey shading in (75) to (81) - that a connection is established between the dislocated constituent and either the ensuing (left dislocation) or the preceding clause (right dislocation), containing its placeholder. As with appositive constituents, the punctuation thus represents an important text-organising boundary signal and transition index for the decoder. From this it follows that the parasyntactic status of examples (75) to (81) is uncontroversial: they instantiate simple script units because one self-contained syntagm is realised as one orthographic sentence. On this account, and given their highly visible parallels, it seems unnecessary to differentiate between dislocated and appositive structures altogether. Instead, it seems sufficient to recognise (somewhat universally) a recurring punctuational guide function if there are ‘multiple fillings of syntactic slots’. The latter then captures both syntactic phenomena: apposition and left or right dislocation. 7.2.2.3 Adverbials According to the Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language (Quirk et al. 1985), the class of adverbials (A) represents the third most frequent category of clause constituents after those of subject (S) and verb (V), cf. Quirk et al. (ib.: 478). In the Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English, Biber et al. (2007 [1999]: 762) define it as follows: Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 178 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="193"?> Punctuation in context 179 Adverbials are elements of clauses with three major functions: to add circumstantial information about the proposition in the clause, to express speaker/ writer stance towards the clause, or to link the clause (or some part of it) to some other unit of discourse. From a functional point of view, adverbials are traditionally divided into three groups, namely ‘adjuncts’, ‘disjuncts’ and ‘conjuncts’, cf. Quirk et al. (1985: 52). Terminologically this categorisation complies with Biber et al.’s (2007 [1999]) more recent, parallel classification of ‘circumstance adverbials’, ‘stance adverbials’ and ‘linking adverbials’, in that order, cf. Biber et al. (ib.: 763). The impetus to distinguish a fourth group, namely that of ‘subjuncts’, may arise from the insight that some mostly amplifying or diminishing adverbials “[…] have the peculiarity of extending the application of their meaning to units of varying size and position” (Quirk et al. 1985: 86). Hence, their status with regard to other clause elements is variable and they may thus appear to occupy a subordinate role, cf. e.g. Quirk et al. (ib.: 566). Following Biber et al. (2007 [1999]), however, who implicitly assign these adverbials to one of the three classes mentioned afore, they are not considered separately in the present study, cf. Biber et al. (ib.: 775f.). What is more, there appear to be no significant differences in the punctuation of adjuncts and so-called ‘subjuncts’ anyway, cf. Meyer (1987: 68). Besides serving distinct grammatical functions, the A-element is a relatively multi-faceted clause constituent in at least four other respects, too, cf. Biber et al. (2007 [1999]: 762f.) and Quirk et al. (1985: 478). Firstly, an adverbial may adopt a range of semantic roles, such as qualifying a proposition with regard to time, manner, place, condition, cause, etc. Secondly, it constitutes a very heterogeneous class as far as its possible realisation forms are concerned: an adverbial may be realised by, of course, adverbial phrases, but also by noun phrases, prepositional phrases, and by finite, non-finite and verbless clauses. Thirdly, a clause may contain more than one adverbial; in this context, there is a common distinction being made between obligatory and optional adverbials, with the valency of the main verb determining the obligation of an adverbial, cf. also Quirk et al. (ib.: 53). Fourthly, the position in which an adverbial may occur in a clause is less strictly predetermined than the positions of other clause constituents: the A-element may be located (i) clause-initially, i.e. before all other obligatory clause elements; it may be positioned (ii) medially, i.e. between the first and the last obligatory clause element; and/ or it may occur (iii) in final position, i.e. after all obligatory clause elements, cf. Quirk et al. (ib.: 490-501) and Stenström (1988: 224). On the basis of the functional distinction of adjuncts, disjuncts and conjuncts, the guide function(s) of adverbial punctuation are explored in the following three sections. The question that certainly suggests itself in this Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 179 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="194"?> 180 Exploring the guide functions of punctuation context is whether or in how far the above-mentioned parameters like grammatical function, syntactic form and position influence and motivate the punctuation of adverbials. 7.2.2.3.1 Adjunct An adjunct provides circumstantial information. Considering the punctuational presentation of sentence-initial adjuncts, the picture appears to be somewhat intricate. Whereas single-word adverbs are punctuated in only about one fourth of the cases, the ‘punctuated-unpunctuated relationship’ is almost balanced for other (more complex) phrases. This is expressed in Figure 7.5, composed and recalculated from Meyer (1987: 35f., 64). Figure 7.5: The punctuation of adjunct phrases and adjunct clauses in sentence-initial position (based on Meyer 1987) Figure 7.5 also reveals that unpunctuated adjunct clauses in sentence-initial position are encountered more sporadically; that is, they are regularly separated by a punctuation mark from the subsequent main clause and are thus allocated to a distinct punctuation unit, cf. Meyer (ib.). For the sake of accuracy it is conceded that Meyer does not make it entirely clear whether the 205 punctuated adverbial clauses actually comprise only adjunct clauses. Hence, the relevant frequency (205) is presented in italics in Figure 7.5. Nonetheless, the general conclusion that adjunct clauses in initial position are frequently punctuated complies with a similar suggestion by Quirk et al. (1985: 1626f.). For clarity, the punctuation of (i) phrases that function as adjuncts, and that of (ii) clauses which serve this purpose will be discussed consecutively. The punctuation of adjunct phrases is dealt with first. Adjuncts are closely integrated into the structure of a clause, cf. Quirk et al. (ib.: 440, 504f.) and Biber et al. (2007 [1999]: 763). Possible evidence for this is that adjuncts can be made the focus of a cleft-sentence, for example, but Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 180 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="195"?> Punctuation in context 181 disjuncts or conjuncts cannot. This may be one of the reasons why especially adjunct phrases are, time and again, unpunctuated in sentence-initial position. For Meyer (1987) this goes hand in hand with the observation that certain temporal and locative adjuncts like the adverbs today, yesterday, now, then, here and there are also frequently tonally integrated into the clause in which they occur, cf. Meyer (ib.: 75). This is supposed to be mirrored by the graphic, i.e. punctuational, integration of these adverbials: there is no comma. Take into account (82) from Meyer (ib.: 63) and (83) from the ICE-GB (W1A-008#036). (82) <Today Dogtown is the only deserted village in New England that I know of. There it sits, a small highland with towns like Gloucester near by….> (83) <Here the Devil is depicted in strong complementary colours green against a red background.> To base the punctuational presentation of these clause-initial adjuncts on their tonal integration is certainly a possible option. Yet the claim of tonal integration conflicts with the general principle that incipient adverbs normally receive separate tone units; see the overview in Esser (1992 [1979]: 83f.), for example. Therefore, it may be safer not to apodictically relate their integrative non-punctuation in writing to an allegedly parallel spoken realisation, but to focus also on the close structural relation between the sentence-initial adverb and the rest of the clause. A mark may be felt to visually disrupt this relationship. Besides, given the real-time production and reception of spoken language, clause-initial adjuncts may often fulfil the task of planning one’s utterance and/ or granting the hearer time to orientate himor herself. Hence their allocation to a distinct tone unit. Since writer or reader have more time to organise or decode a message, a similar practice of ‘deceleration’ is not essential at the written level. It is the argument of structural integration which also serves to explain the infrequent punctuation of adjunct phrases in sentence-final position. What is more: If separated punctuation-wise, this significantly accentuates the adverbial, cf. Meyer (1987: 14). Example (84) from the BNC (B1M: 288) illustrates this nicely. (84) <For your free colour brochure please telephone or send your coupon, today.> Since the medium-independent principle of end-focus states that the most important constituent is located at the end of a structure, cf. Quirk et al. (1985: 1365f.) and sec. 2.2.2.1 above, the comma before today functions as a medium-bound amplifier. It reinforces the final position of the adjunct vis- Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 181 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="196"?> 182 Exploring the guide functions of punctuation ually, allocating it to a distinct punctuation unit, and thus makes it more obtrusive for the reader. This effect can also be witnessed with adverbials that are realised by prepositional phrases. Examples (85) and (86) are taken from the BNC (A04: 99; GVU: 663), (87) and (88) from the ICE-GB (W1A-010#073; W1A-010#010); (89) originates from the Independent (Independent, Carr 30 May 2008-@). (85) <The title of the lecture in which these words appeared was Arthistory as an Academic Study, but those were early days for the subject in the British Isles; only in London was there undergraduate teaching, at the Courtauld Institute which opened in 1933.> (86) <This is in effect saying that the policy makers for the public sector were indeterminate, at that time.> (87) <The philanthropists delude themselves in their belief that really they are helping the poor, at the expense of the likes of Jo.> (88) <Literature reflects this, to a large extent.> (89) <He must be a multi-millionaire now, with his premium-rate phone lines.> In each of these cases, the inserted mark highlights the end-focal prepositional phrase by putting it in a more distant relation to the preceding text: there is visual detachment of what forms one grammatical unit, i.e. clause. Especially in a case like (88), the punctuational separation of the prepositional phrase leads to the impression of a belated addition, i.e. an afterthought, which restricts the proposition of the preceding statement. Note that the informational impact of punctuation is felt even stronger if the mark separates an obligatory finally located adjunct, as in the variation of the well-known example from Jackson (1985 [1980]: 85) under (90). (90) <The waiter put the soup - on the table.> Whereas the syntactic status is potentially final at the indicated punctuation boundaries in (85) to (89), it is not in (90). The prepositional phrase on the table cannot be omitted without rendering the clause ungrammatical: *The waiter put the soup. Certainly, the punctuational separation of a mandatory adverbial would be perceived as much more obtrusive and would create an augmented feeling of suspense or hesitation. Adverbials have been named an exception to the principle of structural integrity formulated in section 7.1.3 above: It is counterintuitive to mark off punctuation-wise one of the central clause constituents S, V, O, C (but not A). On the other hand, example (90) suggests that it might make sense Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 182 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="197"?> Punctuation in context 183 to extend the principle to obligatory adverbials (A OBL ) and to exclude only optional ones (A OPT ). More specifically, the principle can be formulated as follows: It is counterintuitive to punctuate an obligatory clause constituent (S, V, O, C, A OBL ). Eventually, the effect of punctuational accentuation is observable even if a prepositional phrase is not unambiguously decodable as an adverbial (optional or obligatory). Examples (91) and (92) are cases in point, found in the ICE-GB (W1B-019#146) and in a book on linguistics (Hawkins 1994: vii). (91) <I enclose a further copy of the current brochure, with an amended list of members for 1992.> (92) <This book is dedicated to my collaborators, with gratitude.> Although classified as an adjunct in the corpus, the prepositional phrase in (91) could be a postmodification of the head noun brochure. Yet the presence of the comma makes these interpretations unlikely: there is visual separation of what forms parts of a single phrase, i.e. noun phrase head plus postmodification. Consequentially, the guide function of the applied punctuation rather resembles the ‘look-back principle’ discussed later in the present section; similar cases are also dealt with in section 7.2.2.4.3 below. What has not been mentioned so far is the punctuation of adverbial phrases in medial position, i.e. between the first and the last obligatory clause element. Usually, however, this means between subject and verb (or after the subject and the operator - if there is one), cf. Quirk et al. (1985: 492). They (ib.: 493) mention further that “[…] the adverbials at M [medial position, SP] are for the most part rather short adverb phrases, especially solitary adverbs […].” If this is the case there is often no punctuation, cf. (93) from Biber et al. (2007 [1999]: 809). (93) <He abruptly pointed at Rick.> Yet if the adjunct becomes more complex or longer, correlative punctuation becomes more likely, (although it is not a must). Examples (94) and (95a) are from Quirk et al. (1985: 493). (94) <I have at all times indicated my willingness.> (95a) <I have not, by word or deed, betrayed your trust.> According to Meyer (1987), a longer medially positioned adjunct is only seldom tonally integrated into the rest of the clause. Thus, in a spoken realisation, by word or deed would potentially receive a separate tone unit, cf. (95b). Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 183 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="198"?> 184 Exploring the guide functions of punctuation (95b) I have not/ by word or deed/ betrayed your trust\ In writing, this is reflected by punctuation, cf. Meyer (ib.: 79). At the same time, the correlative marks assign the punctuated constituent the function of background information. Typically, this is a function of parentheses, cf. sec. 5.2.2.5 above. Especially a clausal adverbial in medial position is probably perceived as breaking up “[…] the flow of obligatory components of the clause” (Biber et al. 2007 [1999]: 808). Consequentially, their unpunctuated modal clause under (96) is an exception rather than the rule, cf. Biber et al. (ib.). (96) <The NCSC says the agreement may by effectively changing control of Bell without shareholder approval contravene the takeover code. By and large, the general principle to punctuate intervening syntactic material applies to these cases, cf. sec. 7.1.2.2 above: punctuation marks are often used to provide visual cues that bypass the (at least perceived) syntactic discontinuity. Consider (97) from Meyer (1987: 79): (97) <A reaction of her anxiety and guilt concerning the death of her parents, when linked up with her current feelings of loss, abandonment, and annihilation, produced further relief of tension.> Overall, adjunct clauses in medial position are relatively rare, cf. Biber et al. (2007 [1999]: 818, 831). The two last-discussed cases have already shifted the focus on the second aspect mentioned initially, namely that of clauses in the role of adjuncts. What is interesting in this context is that the punctuation of adverbials in general appears to be influenced by considerations on length and complexity again, cf. Meyer (1987: 36) and Quirk et al. (1985: 1626f.). This certainly explains why the frequency of punctuated complex adjunct phrases and especially that of adjunct clauses in initial position is significantly higher than that of single-word adverbs, cf. Fig. 7.5 above. The longer and more complex a preposed adverbial is, the more useful is its punctuational separation which provides the reader with a point of orientation. Take into account the comma in (98) from Townsend (2006: 345f.): (98) <When the kitchen door had been slammed shut, Freddie walked down the garden path and urinated against the last remaining winter cabbages.> Of course, both the subordinate adverbial clause and the subsequent main clause are structurally related, specified by the conjunction when. But due Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 184 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="199"?> Punctuation in context 185 to the left-branching adverbial clause, there is no overt linguistic element between shut and Freddie which marks the exact transition between subordinate and main clause, cf. also sec. 7.1.2.1 above. Hence, the punctuation mark assumes this function, i.e. it visualises the clause boundary. It yields a reduction of the complexity (or the slight inexplicitness) of the textual arrangement. With regard to the decoding of the proposition in a case like (98), Chafe (1984: 444f.) suggests that […] the adverbial clause in such sentences serves as a kind of “guidepost” to information flow, signaling a path or orientation in terms of which the following information is to be understood. The same function is served by expressions like “however”, “anyway”, “for example”, “on the other hand”, and the like. A guidepost par excellence is “meanwhile, at the ranch“. Preposed adverbial clauses, I am suggesting, do the same kind of thing, providing a temporal, conditional, causal, or other such orientation for the information in the upcoming main clause. […] This […] seems to be another manifestation of a more general strategy of providing a frame before providing the contents of the frame. A sentence-internal punctuation mark like the comma visualises the end of the guidepost constituent (‘the frame’), i.e. of the initially located adjunct clause. It therefore corroborates its ‘channelling function’ at the written level, cf. also Hannay (1987: 89-91). The ‘combination’ of punctuation mark and adjunct clause functions as a cataphoric organiser for the reader. From an informational perspective, “[…] the normal progression is one which moves from a main to an adverbial clause” (Chafe 1984: 440). The first usually provides familiar (or thematic), the second unfamiliar (or rhematic) information. Proceeding from given to new information represents the unmarked strategy to organise information: it is called an ‘objective order’ because it pays regard to the demands of the decoder, cf. sec. 2.2.1.2 above. A similar aspect is captured by Kreyer’s ‘principle of immediate textual integration’ which is, however, not elaborated upon in this context, cf. e.g. Kreyer (2006: 199; 2008: 142). Instead, consider (99), once more from Townsend (2006: 347), as well as (100) and (101) from the ICE-GB (W1B- 010#171; W2B-030#062); to prove that the information in the adverbial clauses is indeed not yet given, each example is presented with the relevant co-text (in italics) that immediately precedes the sentences under scrutiny: (99) Chantelle was hurt, her luscious lower lip trembled. Why was William showing her up in front of his half-brother? Charles said, ‘Wills, darling, Chantelle does a simply wonderful job, caring for Grandpa.’ Graham [Grandpa, SP] buried his face in his hands. <He remembered how kind the nurse had been to him when he sat by his adoptive mother’s bed as she lay dying from the terrible wounds that the lawnmower had inflicted on her.> Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 185 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="200"?> 186 Exploring the guide functions of punctuation (100) I’ve had 7 letters from Bob and have been able to phone him three times. I think he’s feeling the time going more slowly than I am since he’s the one left behind. However, he’s off to California on 10th August for 2 weeks which should help. I’m dying to see him again. <I really miss him not being around because I’m so used to seeing him every day.> (101) The production of seeds by a plant is dependent on three processes: first, pollination; then, fertilisation of the ovule (embryo sac) by fusion of the female gamete (egg cell) with a male gamete from a pollen grain to produce an embryo; and finally, development and maturation of the seed. <Sometimes plants have incompatibility systems that prevent pollination or fertilisation unless suitable sources of pollen can be found.> If, like in (99) to (101), an adjunct clause is postposed, i.e. located after the main clause, the need for punctuation is not directly obvious. That is to say, not only does new information follow given information, but also from a merely structural point of view, right-branching subordinate clauses are easier to digest than left-branching ones. Firstly, the boundary between main clause and adverbial clause is clearly indicated by a subordinator: when in (99), because in (100) and unless in (101). So, an extra graphic cue does not seem crucial. Secondly, the overall structure of the clause complex is more directly accessible for the reader due to the initial position of the matrix clause and the successive appending of dependent constituents. This is closely connected with a concept that Hawkins calls ‘recognition domain’, cf. e.g. Hawkins (2004: 42, 51). To put it plainly, the recognition domain is defined as the string of linguistic elements that must be handled until all the relevant (immediate) constituents of the overall structure can be accessed. Diessel (2008: 466) describes why the recognition domain is shorter for clause complexes in which the adverbial clause is located in final position (but not before the main clause): If the adverbial clause follows the main clause, the subordinate conjunction establishes the S complex -node right after the main clause has been processed and before the adverbial clause is accessed, which means that the two immediate constituents of the complex sentence can be attached to their mother node (i.e., S complex ) as soon as this node is constructed. In other words, the linear, right-branching structure of the ‘triggering input’, i.e. of the syntagmatic chain of medium-independent word-forms, allows the human parser to process the linguistic material item by item, cf. e.g. Hawkins (1994: 62; 2004: 9) and also Diessel (2008: 466f.). Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 186 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="201"?> Punctuation in context 187 By minimising parsing demands, the need for other decoding aids, for example medium-dependent ones, apparently subsides, too. This explains why there is no urgent call for supportive punctuation with finally located adverbial clauses. In this regard, even considerations on length appear secondary. Concerning this matter, English punctuation differs significantly from that of German, for instance, where - even in a right-branching structure - the boundary between a main and a subordinate clause is punctuated practically without exception. In his corpus analysis, Meyer (1987) finds that adjunct clauses with expressed conjunction in sentence-final position (but also infinitive clauses) are indeed punctuated in only about one fifth of the cases - despite their potential length. To account for possible reasons, he does not focus on question of processability, however. Instead, his line of argument is once more (i) that adjunct clauses are tightly integrated into the matrix structure in which they occur; and (ii) that they are also frequently tonally integrated into this structure, i.e. into their main clause, cf. Meyer (ib.: 63-65, 75). That is to say, since main and adverbial clause are supposed to form a single intonation unit in speech, they are also realised as a single punctuation unit in writing. In contrast, Meyer shows that adjuncts realised by absolute and/ or participle clauses in end position are almost universally punctuated. The motivation for punctuating them may be that they are usually presented as a distinct tone unit in speech. Examples (102a), adapted from Quirk et al. (1985: 1120), and (103a), taken from Meyer (1987: 65f.), instantiate two fortuitous examples of a verbless absolute and a participle clause, respectively. Given the validity of Meyer’s argumentation, the b-versions instantiate the corresponding spoken realisations. (102a) <The family was pent up with excitement, Christmas then only days away. (102b) the family was pent up with excitement/ Christmas then only days away\ (103a) <The old man near the corner let the shadow pass over him, sensing something portentous in it.> (103b) the old man near the corner let the shadow pass over him/ sensing something portentous in it\ With regard to the parallels between punctuation and tone unit boundaries, the writer seems to transpose his or her knowledge of the spoken expression system onto writing. Chafe (1984: 438), on the other hand, does not see the motivation of the (non-)punctuation of adverbial clauses in the spoken expression system: the Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 187 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="202"?> 188 Exploring the guide functions of punctuation modern way of punctuating “[…] tends to obscure the relationship between intonation units and punctuation by suppressing commas.” And aspects of processability are secondary for his line of argument, too. He rather emphasises the influence of the immediate effect of punctuation on the reader, and of the production conditions of written language in general. As a consequence, Chafe (ib.: 448) notes that a punctuated finally located adjunct clause, […] even when it is not strictly speaking an afterthought, nevertheless has the flavour of a separate, added comment. Afterthoughts, and these milder counterparts, are a natural consequence of the way spoken language is produced […]. Writers, on the other hand, have more time to think about what they are producing - about how to edit it and elaborate it - and they may not be as prone to afterthought-like creations. ‘Afterthought-like creations’ may certainly be intended by a writer, as in the phrasal examples (84) to (92) above, or as in (104) from the ICE-GB (W2F- 020#075) where a clausal adjunct is separated punctuation-wise. (104) <She made herself drink the rest of the coffee, though it was cold. The comma before though allocates the concessive adverbial to a distinct punctuation unit and - although exhibiting a low degree of separative force - may create the impression of a separate, appended qualification. Besides, punctuational separation makes the subordinate clause stand out more prominently. As it is the default case that the most important constituent comes at the end of a structure (principle of end-focus), the end position of the adverbial accounts for its informational importance. Yet the default case therefore is not to supply extra emphasis at the medium-dependent level through punctuation. On these grounds, it may be argued that finally located adjunct clauses (like adjunct phrases; see above) do not take punctuation by their very nature. With all due caution, it is put forward that their punctuation is a (marked) stylistic device to either deliberately create an afterthought and/ or to ostentatiously accentuate their end-focal status. This does not rule out that the comma certainly serves as a suitable means to reinforce the adversative nature of the conjunction in (104). That this does usually not apply to the punctuation of absolute and participle clauses as in (102a) and (103a) is no refutation of this line of argument. They are consistently punctuated. Along with tonal separation, a less explicit (or overt) syntactic bond with their main clauses may also be the reason for this, cf. e.g. Quirk et al. (1985: 1120). Once more this echoes Rohdenburg’s complexity principle: ‘the more explicit alternative will be favoured in a cognitively more complex environment’, cf. sec. 7.2.2.1.2 above. One inserts a punctuation mark as a decoding help in order to bypass the structural inexplicitness, i.e. the lack of a structurally relating conjunction, for example. For reasons of clarity (or reader-friendliness), the complexity principle may thus Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 188 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="203"?> Punctuation in context 189 override the general tendency not to increase the informational weight of a finally located constituent through punctuation. Complementing the principled claim that finally located adjunct clauses with expressed conjunction tend not to be punctuated, Ford (1992) paints a slightly more distinguished picture by looking at the intonation and punctuation of different adverbial types. Based on the insight that in spoken language some adverbial types regularly follow ‘continuing intonation’, whereas others are rather preceded by a final intonation pattern, she analyses whether a similar effect can also be observed at the written level, cf. Ford (ib.: 4f., 7f.). In this context, the absence of punctuation is regarded as a marker of continuity (or ‘boundness’) and its presence as one of discontinuity (or ‘separation’), cf. Ford (ib.: 8f.) and also Chafe (1984). Specifically, Ford looks at the writing exams of 131 first-year university students, and she analyses the punctuation of three types of finally located adverbial clauses with expressed conjunction: (i) temporal clauses, (ii) conditional clauses and (iii) causal clauses. In the data, temporal clauses are indicated by the conjunctions when, before, after, while, since, as, during and until; conditional clauses are signalled by if and unless; and causal adverbial clauses are introduced by because, ’cause and since. Her results (rounded up to the second decimal place here) are summarised in Figure 7.6 which has been taken and adapted from Ford (1992: 9). ± P CT . T YPE Unpunctuated Punctuated Temporal 37 97.37% 1 2.36% 38 100% Conditional 44 83.02% 9 16.98% 53 100% Causal 43 75.44% 14 24.56% 57 100% Figure 7.6: Punctuation of finally located adverbial clauses with regard to adverbial type (based on Ford 1992) Most notably, there appears to be a ‘continuum of boundness’ (as Ford puts it) in the punctuation of finally located adverbial clause types: while temporal clauses are punctuated only in a good two percent of the cases, the probability to find punctuation with conditional (16.98%) and causal clauses (24.56%) is significantly higher. Ford (ib.: 9, 14) concludes that temporal clauses play a key role in text interpretation: While the proportion of adverbial clauses that are separated in the written corpus is smaller than that in the spoken corpus, the tendency is the same Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 189 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="204"?> 190 Exploring the guide functions of punctuation […]. Temporal clauses in both [mediums] are the most tightly bound to their main clauses. This suggests that there is a greater connectedness of temporal qualification to associated assertions both cognitively and communicatively. Conditional and especially causal clauses show a lower frequency of intonational and orthographic connectedness to their main clauses as compared with temporal clauses. To understand and communicate information about an event or state, we seem to treat its temporal grounding as more crucial than its conditional or causal circumstances. This then may be mapped directly onto the system of signaling connection, be it punctuation or intonation. Consequentially, the lack of a graphic separator, i.e. of a punctuation mark, is meant to reflect the important textual function of temporal adverbial clauses. Any visual ‘obstacle’ in the flow of reading would be counterintuitive, as it would disrupt the conceptual integration of the temporal specification. Although the conjunction for does not occur in Ford’s data, Quirk et al. (1985) point out that finally located causal clauses introduced by for are always preceded by a punctuation mark. This is mainly to disambiguate the conjunction from the homonymous preposition, cf. Quirk et al. (ib.: 1628). A look at the written data of the British National Corpus confirms that this is indeed common practice; hence, (105) and (106) are just two random cases, cf. BNC (HGG: 1677; CCN: 1089). (105) <They began to shake, for this was too close to hell-fire and witchcraft.> (106) <This applies especially to the Queen of the Night, for by her very nature she is shadowy, changeable and deceptive.> On the whole, the punctuation of finally located adverbial clauses seems to be, at least in part, type-specific. As a restriction one must say that Ford’s small-scale corpus study does not state whether or to what extent the distinction between adjunct, disjunct and conjunct has a share in this. If, for instance, a causal clause is perceived as an adjunct in final position, it is not usually separated punctuation-wise, cf. (107); this changes, however, if it is a disjunct, cf. (108). Both examples are from Quirk et al. (1985: 1626). (107) <He’s at home because he’s not feeling well.> (108) <He’s at home, because I’ve just spoken to him.> It cannot be ruled out, therefore, that the more frequent punctuation of causal and conditional adjunct clauses in final position is influenced by the distinction between adjunct, disjunct and conjunct. Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 190 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="205"?> Punctuation in context 191 At last, two further aspects need mentioning which influence the punctuation of finally located adjunct clauses. Firstly, in some cases it must meet “[…] the requirements of look-back: a comma signals a look-back over a greater distance than if the comma is omitted […]” (de Beaugrande 1984: 196). A case in point is provided in (109a) from de Beaugrande (ib.). (109a) <Our coach gave an award to outstanding players, averaging four [awards] a season.> The inserted comma, which allocates the present participle clause in end position to a distinct punctuation unit, constitutes a medium-dependent cue: It signals the reader that averaging four a season functions as an adjunct that qualifies the proposition of the main clause. If there was no punctuation mark between players and averaging the present participle clause would be decoded as a postmodification of the head noun players. Consider the variant under (109b): (109b) <Our coach gave an award to outstanding players averaging four [touchdowns] a season.> Further cases in which punctuation has the potential to help the reader distinguish between different syntactic configurations will be discussed in section 7.2.2.4 below. Secondly, and finally, the distinction between restrictiveness and nonrestrictiveness is sometimes applied to the punctuation of adjunct clauses, cf. Quirk et al. (1985: 1075-1077) and sec. 7.2.2.2 above. Meyer (1987: 46f.) writes: In addition to distinguishing restrictive from non-restrictive modifiers, punctuation can be used to distinguish restrictive from non-restrictive adverbials occurring in end positions (EP) in a clause. [emphasis supplied] The incentive for using punctuation, indicating a restrictive or a non-restrictive adverbial, is supposed to be the same as for relative clauses and appositions. Again, punctuational integration signals that the adverbial clause is essential to the main clause meaning; it is restrictive. If there is a punctuation mark, this indicates that the adverbial clause is supplementary or nonrestrictive, cf. also Ford (1992: 11). Restrictive adverbial clauses, therefore, constrain “[…] the situation in the matrix clause to the circumstances described by the adverbial” (Quirk et al. 1985: 1076). Consider example (110a) from Quirk et al. (ib.: 1628), which was already used in a different context in section 2.3.2.1 above: (110a) <Betty will help you, when she has finished her own work.> Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 191 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="206"?> 192 Exploring the guide functions of punctuation The temporal adjunct clause provides a supplementary temporal qualification of the proposition ‘that Betty will help you’. This is meant to be reflected by the graphic separator, i.e. the comma. An unpunctuated version of (110a), on the other hand, would be perceived as signalling a ‘higher importance’ of the adverbial clause for the understanding of the matrix clause. That is, the lack of a punctuation mark suggests a particularly close relationship of main and subordinate clause, cf. (110b). (110b) <Betty will help you when she has finished her own work.> To establish a meaning difference between the punctuated, non-restrictive version (110a) and its unpunctuated, restrictive counterpart (110b), however, does not seem entirely straightforward. One may perhaps argue that (110b) differs semantically from (110a) in that the adverbial clause in (110b) can be interpreted as an important prerequisite for the announced help, i.e. ‘Betty will only help you when she has finished her work’. In this context when has more of a conditional than of a temporal meaning. It seems comparable to the two examples (111) and (112), in which the temporal meaning of when is certainly not primary, cf. BNC (H7R: 1040; G38: 629). (111) <This situation only arises when the motor is stationary; if the motor is moving the phases are excited in sequence and any one winding is excited for only a fraction of the cycle.> (112) <Advertising then moved on to emphasising the safety element of nablabs (as an alternative to alcohol for drivers), effectively saying to consumers ‘when you can’t have a proper drink, have this instead’.> On the other hand, it does not always seem clear in how far it is actually the aspect of (non-) restrictiveness that is reflected by punctuation. A case in point are the two subsequent if-clauses given by Meyer (1987: 46). (113) <Such support should not be difficult to come by if all the plans to be presented by the JNCTA are as attractive as this outline of express buses coming into the downtown area.> (114) <The positive Kohnstamm reactivity in condition 1…is not adequately explained by such a concept as suggestibility (if suggestibility is defined as the influence on behavior by verbal cues) .> Whereas the omission of a punctuation mark in (113) is supposed to be motivated by the restrictiveness of the adverbial clause, the parentheses in (114) are to be seen as reflecting its non-restrictiveness. Yet if one considers more closely the nature of the if-clause in (114), one might be tempted to regard its Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 192 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="207"?> Punctuation in context 193 status as different from the one in (113): instead of circumstantial information, the parenthesised clause in (114) provides a comment on the content of the preceding constituent. Whereas the if-clause in (113) is an adjunct clause, the one in (114) appears to be a disjunct clause, cf. sec. 7.2.2.3.2 below. Hence, some clauses seem to be punctuated in final position not because they are non-restrictive but because they fulfil a different function. 7.2.2.3.2 Disjunct When compared to adjuncts, disjuncts (or stance adverbials) occur significantly less often, cf. Biber et al. (2007 [1999]: 853). They “[…] have the primary function of commenting on the content or style of a clause or a particular part of a clause […]” (ib.). Given that also adjuncts may imply such comments, disjuncts are different in that they convey an encoder’s attitude in a much more explicit way. Compare Biber et al.’s (ib.) example of an adjunct (radically) and a disjunct (regrettably) in (115) and (116), respectively. (115) <The disease pattern has changed radically.> (116) <Regrettably, last night’s audience was a meagre one, but what they got was impressive.> Disjuncts - as compared to adjuncts - are always optional, cf. Biber et al. (ib.: 764). The sentence in (90) in the previous section gives an example of an obligatory adjunct. As far as the punctuation of disjuncts in sentence-initial position is concerned, only with the single-word adverbs the tendency is slightly more towards punctuational separation. Figure 7.7 is once more composed on the basis of Meyer’s (1987: 64) corpus analysis. Figure 7.7: The punctuation of disjunct phrases in sentence-initial position (based on Meyer 1987) In general, the figures suggest that the punctuation of initially located disjunct phrases is relatively balanced. (117) to (120) from Biber et al.’s (2007 Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 193 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="208"?> 194 Exploring the guide functions of punctuation [1999]: 764) written corpus data show that one finds punctuated and unpunctuated cases alike. (117) <More importantly, they do not provide information about the chemical composition of the substance.> (118) <From my perspective, it was a clear case of abuse.> (119) <Fortunately this is far from the truth.> (120) <To my surprise the space devoted to the kinetic sculptures had a lively and progressive atmosphere.> Meyer argues that especially disjuncts like certainly, perhaps and maybe do not receive a separate tone unit in clause-initial position in spoken language; therefore, they are often left unpunctuated at the written level, cf. Meyer (1987: 75). In fact, there is one problem with this argumentation, namely that it is generally acknowledged that disjuncts (as compared to adjuncts) show a “[…] greater potential mobility and prosodic separation from the rest of a clause […]” (Biber et al. 2007 [1999]: 854). It is therefore once more questionable whether the aspect of ‘tonal integration’ alone is actually tenable to explain a punctuational presentation, cf. sec. 7.2.2.3.1 above. What might explain more adequately the occasional non-punctuation of the clause-initial disjuncts mentioned by Meyer is that their position is often already indicative of their function. Stenström (1988: 224) notes, for example, that “[…] clearly, which serves as a content disjunct in initial position, changes into a process adjunct in final position […].” Take into account the example she (ib.: 225) gives in this context: (121) <Clearly I don’t believe it. I’ve made the point quite clearly.> Given that the position of clearly already suffices to assign it its function, an extra punctuational marking may be perceived as redundant in (121). Some adverbials seem to be distributed according to their function or - in turn - their distribution sometimes implies their function. Apparently, a writer can assume this to be part of a reader’s knowledge and, as a consequence, disjuncts can go without punctuation in sentence-initial position; see also section 7.2.2.3.3 below. Yet if one and the same adverbial can function as either adjunct or disjunct in the same context, the use of punctuation is crucial to reflect a writer’s intention. This holds for adverbials in initial, but also in end position for that matter. The aand b-versions in (122) and (123) are representative in this context. They are taken pairwise from Quirk et al. (1985: 1628) and, slightly adapted, from Greenbaum (1969: 183f.); see also Meyer (1986: 86). Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 194 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="209"?> Punctuation in context 195 (122a) <Again he felt hesitant.> [‘Once more he felt hesitant’ - adjunct] (122b) <Again, he felt hesitant.> [‘It should be added that he felt hesitant’ - disjunct] (123a) <Bournvita helps you relax naturally.> [‘Bournvita helps you relax in a natural way’ - adjunct] (123b) <Bournvita helps you relax, naturally.> [‘Of course, Bournvita helps you to relax’ - disjunct] Similarly, the punctuation of initial disjuncts is certainly helpful for the reader if it prevents temporary misinterpretation - even though the overall context is unambiguous. This can be illustrated using two examples from Quirk et al. (1985: 1626). (124) <Between you and me, he failed the exam.> (125) <Between you and me he put the chair.> Between you and me is an optional disjunct in (124), but an obligatory adjunct in (125); see also (90) in the preceding section on the obligation of an adverbial. The punctuation reflects the adjunct-disjunct distinction at an early stage in the course of reading. Please note that the acceptability of (125) is not postulated unreservedly by Quirk et al. Disjunct clauses, like in (126) and (127) below from Biber et al. (2007 [1999]: 861, 866), have not been considered in Figure 7.7. Meyer (1987), for example, does not find any unpunctuated disjunct clauses (finite or non-finite) in sentence-initial position in his corpus study, and there is reason to suggest that they are consistently separated punctuation-wise. (126) <Based on studies of crop plants and native species grown under controlled conditions, root growth often responds at least as much, and perhaps more, to elevated carbon dioxide than does shoot growth.> (127) <As you might expect, there are several groups for the various different application areas.> As has been explained in the section on adjuncts, it may be the channelling function of the adverbial clause which makes the additional use of a punctuation mark valuable. At the same time, complexity and/ or length may be further influencing factors of the punctuation of an initial disjunct clause. By providing a point of orientation for the reader, a punctuation mark serves to reduce the cognitive workload of the overall arrangement, cf. sec. 7.2.2.3.1 above. Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 195 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="210"?> 196 Exploring the guide functions of punctuation For the medial positioning of disjuncts, there is no consistent punctuation pattern. Especially short (single-word) disjuncts are regularly found both punctuated and unpunctuated, cf. Meyer (ib.: 74f.). Yet if the disjunct in medial position is complex (if it is clausal, for example), its punctuation seems more likely. Consider examples (128) to (130) from Biber et al. (2007 [1999]: 873). (128) <This, in my view, is totally wrong and contrary to my notions of natural justice.> (129) <The answer, it seems, is that next to nothing is known about it.> (130) <He came late and, according to Lizzie, had a bath and went straight to bed.> The prepositional phrase in my view in (128) makes it clear that the decided position expresses the encoder’s opinion and is not necessarily representative. And in (129) the comment clause it seems qualifies the propositional content as an educated guess rather than a matter of fact. Similarly, the participle clause in (130) provides a writer-based comment that the given information is merely known from hearsay. After all, it is suggested that the motivation for the punctuation of disjuncts in medial position is similar to that of adjuncts, cf. sec. 7.2.2.3.1 above. If the disjunct is perceived as disrupting the syntactic structure, its punctuational separation is favoured. This is more likely if the disjunct is long and/ or clausal as in (129) and (130). For some further remarks in this context, the reader is referred to the punctuation of conjuncts in the subsequent section. The punctuation of disjunct clauses in sentence-final position appears to be almost beyond question. Whereas only about one fifth of adjunct clauses is punctuated in final position, cf. sec. 7.2.2.3.1 above, it is the other way round for disjunct clauses: 76% of them are separated punctuation-wise, and only 24% are left unpunctuated, cf. Meyer (1987: 65). As has been mentioned for adjuncts, this only applies to disjunct clauses with expressed conjunction and infinitive clauses. Other, non-finite clauses are practically always punctuated, cf. Meyer (ib.) and also 7.2.2.3.1 above. The high frequency of punctuated disjuncts in final position suggests that punctuation is also indicative of the degree of integration of a constituent into the overall structure of a clause. And as alluded to at the beginning of the present section, disjuncts may be perceived as less integrated than adjuncts, for instance, cf. also e.g. Quirk et al. (1985: 52, 440). The subsequent example from the Independent (Independent, Carr 28 Sep. 2006: 7) is a case in point. (131a) <Of course they could easily use the tax system to encourage the right bulbs. If it really is that important? > Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 196 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="211"?> Punctuation in context 197 The general presence of a punctuation mark before the if-clause is redundant from a structural point of view. The expressed conjunction clearly indicates the structural progression; see the remarks on right-branching structures in section 7.2.2.3.1 above. Still the period may be interpreted as a help for the reader. This is predicated on the awareness that the subsequent adverbial clause is not applied to provide a circumstantial conditional restriction of the foregoing main clause. A possible if-clause that does the latter in (131a) might be, for example, If all concepts of voluntary self-regulation fail. Comparing this assumed adjunct clause with the actually attested if-clause in (131a), one finds that the proposition of the subordinate clause If it really is that important is no circumstantial condition for the proposition in the main clause, it is (only) an attitudinal one. Not least the relatively unusual question mark gets it unmistakably clear that the writer uses the subordinate clause to express his doubts about the feasibility and meaningfulness of the suggested means for environmental protection. On this account, the if-clause in (131a) can be regarded as being in a peripheral relation to the overall clause complex. It is rather loosely connected to the preceding matrix clause, from which it is therefore ‘set apart’ by a punctuation mark. The visual boundary is supposed to signify the low degree of integration. In the case at hand, what surely adds to this impression is that a strongly separating period comes between the two clauses. That this increases the perception of separation can be explained by comparing the mediumdependent written presentation of (131a) with its medium-independent syntactic structure, cf. (131b). (131b) Of course they could easily use the tax system to encourage the right bulbs. | f If it really is that important? | f§ Both graphic completeness (period; coded ‘|’) and potentially final syntactic status (‘f’) contravene the fact that there are stranded elements to the right of the main clause (structurally dependent constituents, that is). The period raises the informational value of these stranded elements, i.e. of the subordinate clause, and thus increases the impression of a deferred personal remark, of a disjunct, cf. also sec. 5.2.2.1 above. At the parasyntactic level, the script unit combines medium-independent structural and medium-bound written information, cf. sec. 4.3 above. Constituting an important presentational unit, it is defined by syntax plus orthographic sentence. And since syntactic and graphic finality coincide only at the end of the second punctuation unit, (131b) instantiates script unit type (ii): one clause complex is presented as two orthographic sentences. Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 197 04.04.13 11: 23 <?page no="212"?> 198 Exploring the guide functions of punctuation If a non-final mark (comma or else) formed the punctuation unit boundary after bulbs, there would be no discrepancy between syntactic and graphic status. This is shown in (131c) below. (131c) Of course they could easily use the tax system to encourage the right bulbs, ~ f if it really is that important? | f§ The non-final sentence-internal punctuation mark (‘~’) in (131c) matches the only potentially complete syntactic status at that point. There are stranded elements to the right and, eventually, the comma signals that there is more to come. One clause complex is congruent with one self-contained graphic presentation unit: script unit type (i). With regard to disjunct clauses, the weaker separative force of a non-final mark might not just as well reflect their non-circumstantial function. Nevertheless, the comma still forms a visual boundary in the above example (131c), diminishing the degree of integration of the adverbial clause into the clause complex (if only slightly). 7.2.2.3.3 Conjunct Conjuncts (or linking adverbials) “[…] state the speaker/ writer’s perception of the relationship between two units of discourse” (Biber et al. 2007 [1999]: 875). Their most important purpose, therefore, is to establish textual cohesion, rather than “[…] contributing another facet of information to a single integrated unit […]” (Quirk et al. (1985: 631). In this respect, conjuncts are fundamentally different from adjuncts. The relationships that are indicated by conjuncts include those of addition, summation, result and concession, for instance, cf. Quirk et al. (ib.: 634-640) and Biber et al. (2007 [1999]: 875- 880). Corresponding examples are given under (132) to (135) from the written data used in the Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English (ib.: 876, 877, 878). (132) <Further, a visible sign or physical indication was not essential.> (133) <To conclude, we may place the three notions of saliency in an ordered relation as follows: ….> (134) <Consequently, I now hardly listen to Bach.> (135) <Alternatively, there might be a threshold concentration of all nutrients.> The foregoing examples already suggest that conjuncts are frequently punctuated in sentence-initial position. This is confirmed by Meyer’s (1987: 64) corpus results, made available one last time in Figure 7.8. Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 198 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="213"?> Punctuation in context 199 Figure 7.8: The punctuation of conjunct phrases in sentence-initial position (based on Meyer 1987) At the medium-independent structural level, Quirk et al. (1985: 631) describe conjuncts as “[…] having a relatively detached and ‘superordinate’ role as compared with other clause elements.” This is certainly also the most important reason for their recurrent punctuation. That is to say, the graphic separation by punctuation reflects that a conjunct - such as further, to conclude, consequently or alternatively - is perceived as a constituent outside the actual clause structure to which it is attached. It makes sense, therefore, to place a visual boundary between the conjunct and the subsequent clause. As with disjuncts (and adjuncts), conjunct clauses in sentence-initial position are virtually always punctuated, and therefore Meyer does not give them special consideration; as a consequence they are not included in Figure 7.8. Note further that the clausal realisation of conjuncts (like in [133] above) is a rare phenomenon anyway. Biber et al. (2007 [1999]) find that in their corpus data single-word adverbs alone account for 80% of all conjuncts, cf. Biber et al. (ib.: 768, 770). They will be dealt with in the following. It is obvious from Figure 7.8 that, bucking the trend, single-word sentence-initial conjuncts are not punctuated in just under one third of the cases. What could once more conduce to an explanation is the close correlation between their position and their function. This has already been mentioned in connection with disjuncts in section 7.2.2.3.2 above when Stenström’s comment on the presentation of clearly was used as a case in point. In this context, she (1988: 224) writes: Now for instance, which is usually a transitional conjunct if it is placed at the beginning of a sentence, is a time adjunct if it occurs in medial or final position […]. And Stenström’s (ib.: 225) example is the following: (136) <Now would you believe it? He’s in China now.> In both orthographic sentences in (136), no extra internal punctuation is needed because the position of the time adverb now makes it clear for the Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 199 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="214"?> 200 Exploring the guide functions of punctuation reader which function, i.e. conjunct vs adjunct, is intended. In each sentence the other reading would be implausible. Any visual separator might be perceived as an obstacle in the course of reading, especially since the resulting punctuation units would be very short. Stenström’s position complies with Meyer’s (1987: 78) general observation that some adverbials in initial position […] are not punctuated for semantic reasons: none of these adverbs has a homonymous counterpart, a situation that would at least theoretically require them to be punctuated […]. By ‘homonymous counterpart’ he means that a single adverbial could fulfil more than one function in the same context. Such a parallel was observable with again or naturally in the a and b-versions of (122) and (123) in section 7.2.2.2.2 above. In both cases, the single-word adverbs could be interpreted as either adjunct or disjunct, and for reasons of processing ease the disjunct takes punctuation by convention. Conjunct examples where there is no such overlap of functions are given under (137) to (139) from the ICE-GB (W1A-006#061; W2A-017#080; W1A-003#009). (137) <Therefore the data may be divided into specific groups which are allocated to a particular colour or shading.> (138) <Similarly after Sadat’s visit to Israel, there was care in the communications between Egypt and Israel.> (139) <However it is impossible that all of Brittany submitted to him after only the seizure of Vannes.> The status of therefore, similarly and however as conjuncts is unequivocal - a punctuation mark would not contribute relevant information in this context. Hence the usual comma may well be omitted. It seems even safe to argue that therefore and however cannot assume the function of an adjunct or a disjunct in any context. Since conjuncts can be viewed as an encoder’s comment “[…] of how he views the connection between two linguistic units” (Quirk et al. 1985: 632), it is not very surprising that they most frequently occur in clause-initial position. It appears to be the unmarked slot to place a conjunct, cf. e.g. Biber et al. (2007 [1999]: 774, 891). In medial position, conjuncts are found almost exclusively in written texts. Biber et al. discover that in academic prose, for example, around 40% of all conjuncts are realised medially (compared to less than 2.5% in spoken conversation), cf. Biber et al. (ib.: 890f.). More specifically, medially here Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 200 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="215"?> Punctuation in context 201 means either (i) directly after the subject (and before the verb), (ii) after the operator or (iii) after the verb phrase. Using therefore and however as common examples, the following cases, once more from the International Corpus of English, illustrate their punctuation in the different medial positions: In (140) to (142) the conjunct is located (i) directly after the subject (ICE-GB W2A-038#035; W2B-019#071; W1A-011#052). (140) <Systems therefore have to be built by copying the text of Idas and activities into single compilation units.> (141) <Poplar, therefore, was contributing towards the costs of rich boroughs for certain common services but there was no similar pooling to help with poor relief costs which bore most heavily on Poplar.> (142) <Bunham however doesn’t agree with this view. In (143) to (145) it is placed (ii) after the operator (ICE-GB W2D-010#109; W1B-016#017; W1B-027#103). (143) <You should therefore ensure that DVLA has your current address […].> (144) <I have however reduced the amount to £50, which I hope will assist you in your budgeting.> (145) <It would, however, suit us if the work could start before the end of March.> Finally, in (146) to (148), therefore or however follow (iii) the entire verb phrase. More specifically, the conjunct is placed between the verbal constituent and the postponed clausal subject in (146); and in the ‘SVC’-structure in (147), it is inserted between the verb-form and the subject complement (ICE-GB W2E-008#038; W2B-028#012). (Note that the disjunct by no means, which follows the conjunct however in [147], is of no interest in this context.) (146) <It follows, therefore, that Heathrow is likely to hold a near-monopoly of flights westward.> (147) <Spix’s macaw is, however, by no means the rarest or most threatened parrot in the world.> In (148) the adverbial comes before a that-clause which is needed for semantic reasons, i.e. to understand the overall proposition of the clause complex. Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 201 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="216"?> 202 Exploring the guide functions of punctuation The matrix constituent There is little doubt functions as some sort of comment clause in this context (ICE-GB W2B-024#094). (148) <There is little doubt, however, that the psychological sequelae of disaster may result in a considerable increase in contact with the medical system.> Obviously, the above examples show that (short) conjuncts in medial position are not unanimously punctuated. Firstly, this may be based on how much emphasis they are to receive. By allocating a medial conjunct to a distinct punctuation unit, the punctuation flags it visually, making it more obtrusive - especially since conjuncts are perceived as detached from the rest of the clause structure anyway. In speech, a similar effect is achieved if an adverbial is realised in a separate tone unit. To describe this, Hartvigson (1969) uses the term ‘emphatic intonation’, cf. Hartvigson (ib.: 45f.) and also Meyer (1987: 76f.). Transferred to written language, it lies with the writer whether he or she wants to assign a certain adverbial ‘emphatic punctuation’. For completeness, it should be added that the concept of emphatic punctuation might also serve to explain the heterogeneous marking of especially disjuncts in medial position, cf. sec. 7.2.2.3.2 above. Their punctuation is omitted if they are not to be emphasised informationally. Such a broader scope shows that emphatic punctuation may be seen as a general stylistic device; its applicability is not restricted to the description of one group of adverbials, and similar aspects have already been addressed in section 7.2.2.3.1 above. Besides, the principle of informational weight, described in section 5.2.2.1 above, can be named as a parallel concept. Secondly, the motivation to punctuate medial conjuncts may be that their placement seemingly interferes with the anticipation on structural complementation or, in a broader sense, with the grammatical expectations raised. That this is reasonable follows from the repeatedly mentioned insight that conjuncts are only loosely integrated into the clause they occur in. Besides, they have more of a textual than a structural function. If a conjunct is therefore placed in medial position (especially after the full verb phrase), it is not seldom perceived as intervening syntactic material. And intervening syntactic material is regularly set off punctuation-wise, cf. also sec. 7.1.2.2 above. So, a mark that precedes a conjunct signals that there is a break in the current syntactic structure, and a mark that comes after it signals that the matrix structure is going to be resumed. From a presentational point of view, readers receive consistent information at two levels. At the medium-dependent level, the punctuation marks suggest graphic non-finality: the graphic presentation unit is incomplete. This complies with the information acquired at the medium-independent level: at the punctuation unit boundary, the syntactic status so far is incomplete. Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 202 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="217"?> Punctuation in context 203 After all, as a third factor, it is suspected that the type of conjunct exerts influence on its punctuation in medial position as well. Take into account (149) and (150) from the ICE-GB (W1B-020#156; W1B-015#034): (149) <I would like therefore to propose a solution which would enable you to store what [sic] farm machinery and other useful junk (whether for cannibalisation or sentimental value) but allow us to open up the view from our garden.> (150) <I would like, however, to check with you the matter of my dress (as in ‘clothing’).> In both cases, the conjunct is placed after the verb phrase and delays the fulfilment of the grammatical expectation that a transitive verb requires a direct object. Yet if the conjunct is adversative in nature - like however - punctuation may be helpful. In (150), for instance, the commas produce visual ‘obstacles’ in the course of reading by which they intensify the contrasting function of the conjunct at the medium-dependent written level. Since there is no relationship of incongruity between textual constituents linked by therefore (as in [149] for instance), punctuation marks appear less significant. Although a similarly mobile constituent, the adverbial ties in more neatly with the overall clause structure from a textual perspective. However, corpus data suggest that this is no fail-proof interpretation. Consistently, such a semantic influence can only be observed in the punctuation of coordinated clauses. Clauses linked by adversative but are punctuated considerably more often than those linked by and, cf. sec. 7.2.2.1 above. As a last point it should be noted that conjuncts hardly ever occur in sentence-final position in written texts. Meyer’s corpus analysis, for instance, does not produce corresponding examples at all. Quirk et al. (1985) only mention in other words as a conjunct that is relatively unmarked in end position, cf. (151) from Quirk et al. (ib.: 638, 643). (151) <He was exceedingly inebriated - hopelessly drunk, in other words.> According to the Longman Grammar (Biber et al. 2007 [1999]), there are some single-word conjuncts like anyway, then and though that are recurrently located at the end of a clause. Yet this is usually confined to spoken language since the conjuncts in question have the potential to create a fairly informal style, cf. Biber et al. (ib.: 850f., 891f.) and also Quirk et al. (1985: 643). If encountered in writing, the context is often one of reproducing direct speech. Example (152) is one of the rare written examples in which this is not the case (ICE-GB W2F-015#149). Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 203 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="218"?> 204 Exploring the guide functions of punctuation (152) <Those soldiers would not forget them, though.> It is typical to relegate a finally located conjunct to a distinct punctuation unit. This emphasises its ‘superordinate status’ which was mentioned earlier in the quotation by Quirk et al. (directly after Figure 7.8 above). That is, even when located at the very end of a structure, conjuncts refer back to preceding text and establish a textual, conjunctive relation. So, their punctuational separation reflects that “[…] in considering conjuncts, we find it necessary to look beyond the particular grammatical unit in which they appear” (Quirk et al. 1985: 631). This explanation might also have a share in the above-mentioned claim that if a conjunct comes relatively late in a given structure (for example, only after the entire verb phrase), there is a greater likelihood of it being punctuated. 7.2.2.4 Disambiguation of medium-independent structures 7.2.2.4.1 The linguistic function of punctuation It will be recalled from section 2.3 above that punctuation is a nonverbal feature of the written expression system. In contrast to a spoken nonverbal quality like intonation, however, the actual meaning of a punctuation mark surpasses a ‘completely abstract information-value’, i.e. there is no decontextualised denotation which fully accounts for its meaning. To illustrate this, an explanatory quotation by Mulder (1989: 149) is repeated from section 2.3.2.1 above. […] ‘to denote’ only refers to that part of the information provided which is wholly fixed conventional. Anything else belongs to the realm of ‘connotation’, a cover term for anything not wholly fixed conventional even though perhaps alluded to by context or imprecise conventions. Building mainly on what can be termed connotative aspects, punctuation marks have been classified as indices - or more specifically as a subclass of indices, namely as proper symbols. These convey paralinguistic information; that is, their communicative value is not (completely) predetermined by fixed conventions, but within a given framework, a reader (re-)establishes the full meaning of a punctuation mark each time it is used, cf. sec. 2.3.2.1 above. After all, the discussion of punctuation has supported this suggestion: the marks add supplementary information to a stretch of writing. Unlike a lexical item, for example, the communicative value of a punctuation mark is not normally accessible by reference to a predetermined denotation nor can it be reduced to a single denotative meaning (component). What has not been considered so far are the exceptions to this principle. Occasionally, punctuation may very well fulfil a linguistic, a distinctive function, cf. also Fig. 2.10 in sec. 2.3.2.2 above. That is to say, in some cases, a mark Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 204 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="219"?> Punctuation in context 205 may provide wholly fixed conventional, i.e. predetermined, pieces of information. There is a decontextualised denotation to which it refers (or to which it can be reduced). For the sake of argument, consider the two selected meanings expressed by the following examples (153a) and (153b). They were used as (49a) and (49b) in section 2.3.2.1 above and are repeated here for convenience. The layout is the same as in the earlier section; see also Esser (1975) for the original approach (which dealt with the description of intonation, however). (153a) <We had one problem: only Janet knew we faced bankruptcy.> (153b) <We had one problem only: Janet knew we faced bankruptcy.> CONDITION: syntagmatic chain of written word-forms <We had one problem only Janet knew we faced bankruptcy> INDEX: punctuation mark, e.g. colon (a) xxxx: xxxxxx (b) xxxxx: xxxxx INFORMATION: parsing of the syntactic configurations (a) [[[We had][one problem]][[[only][ Janet knew]][[we faced][bankruptcy]]]] (b) [[[We had][one problem][only]][[[ Janet knew]][[we faced][bankruptcy]]]] The stretch of word-forms that constitutes the basis of both (153a) and (153b) is ambiguous as to the syntactic configuration it represents, thus instantiating a case of structural homonymy or ‘polysyntacticity’, cf. e.g. Bussmann (1996: 19). Its medium-independent structure is able to encode more than one message, cf. Lyons (1977: 38, 169f.). In the cases at hand, this focuses on the question of whether the adverb only is assigned to the first or the second clause. If it were not for the punctuation, a reader would most certainly have problems to decide for one of the two readings in (153a) and (153b). Of course, the context might be revealing, but this is no fail-proof option. It is the punctuation which invokes a one-to-one relation between the mediumbound typographic and one specific medium-independent syntactic structure. Hence, if punctuation has a linguistic function this means that it disambiguates an inconclusive medium-independent arrangement. And Frazier (1987a: 563) gets to the heart of the situation, noting that […] if a string is locally disambiguated (e.g. by punctuation […]) then by definition there will be only one permissible analysis of the input and we would perceivers [readers, SP] expect to construct that analysis. Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 205 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="220"?> 206 Exploring the guide functions of punctuation In its disambiguating potential, punctuation resembles the prosodic feature of tonality in spoken language. The reader of the present study is reminded briefly that the guide function(s) of a punctuation mark are composed from both its position in a stretch of written word-forms and from the type of mark. The latter, however, does not contribute to whether punctuation has a disambiguating function in a certain context. That is to say, for the disambiguating function of the sentence-internal punctuation in (153a) and (153b) above it would be irrelevant if the colon was replaced by, say, a semicolon or a dash. That the marks have a disambiguating (and therefore a linguistically distinctive) function in these examples depends solely on where they are positioned. The type-specific information that pertains to the individual marks is undoubtedly important, but its information-value is not wholly fixed conventional. It is rather supplementary in nature and therefore in part situationally negotiable, cf. also sec. 2.3.2.1 above. It belongs to the field of paralinguistics which is of secondary interest in the present section. As a further proviso, take into account that a disambiguating function is recognised solely if the positioning of a mark keeps apart two (or more) different syntactic arrangements. This precludes, for example, the punctuation of restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses from being regarded as truly disambiguating, i.e. linguistically distinctive. In such cases, the absence or presence of a punctuation mark does not dissolve instances of (temporary) structural homonymy, but rather reflects whether a certain constituent - the relative clause, for that matter - is essential for a decoder to correctly identify the referent of the expression to which it is attached; see section 7.2.2.2.1 above for more on this. Punctuation conveys paralinguistic information. 7.2.2.4.2 Parsing strategies To explore the disambiguating function of punctuation requires an understanding of how a reader constructs the syntactic arrangement that underlies a piece of writing. The different levels of abstraction that play a role in this process have been dealt with in detail in the three-channel approach outlined in section 2.1.2 above. From this, it will be remembered that the most abstract level involves the recognition of syntactic patterns like phrases and clauses; that is, linguistic items are examined as to the functional role they occupy in a more extensive syntagm. To cut this short, if a decoder is confronted with a linguistic utterance, he or she needs to devise certain strategies to decode its syntactic patterning. The description of these so-called ‘parsing strategies’ has been a constant topic in (more recent) cognitive linguistic and psycholinguistic research, initiated among others by the work of Bever (1970), Kimball (1973), Fodor/ Bever/ Garrett (1974), Frazier (1979; 1987a; b) and Frazier/ Fodor (1978). Although Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 206 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="221"?> Punctuation in context 207 theories of parsing will always remain somewhat speculative, because “[…] we can never really be sure about what is going on in the head of the language user […]” (Kreyer 2010: 237), evidence suggests that parsing is guided by various factors. Kreyer (ib.: 244f.), therefore, draws a distinguished conclusion: On the whole, parsing does not seem to be autonomous, i.e. a process solely guided by abstract syntactic principles […]. Rather, the human parser seems to be biased by frequencies and semantic expectancies. Parsing proceeds word by word, and at each word the parser makes use of different kinds of information that this word provides. Yet, for the description of the disambiguating function of punctuation, where punctuation is ultimately correlated with syntactic structure (as shown in section 7.2.2.4.1 above), it is first and foremost the syntactic principles that need to be understood. To know about these principles is necessary to know about the way punctuation steps in to solve acute assignment problems. As a consequence, the influence of other aspects on parsing, such as frequency, semantic expectation and world knowledge, is not dealt with in detail in the present study, but will be referred to only if necessary. For the present purposes it is simplistically assumed that, using Frazier’s (1987a: 561) words, “[…] an initial syntactic analysis is assigned on the basis of purely structural information.“ Given that language input is usually encountered sequentially, i.e. from left to right if written, Frazier (ib.) further postulates that “[…] perceivers incorporate each word of an input into a constituent structure representation of the sentence, roughly as each item is encountered […].” In establishing the constituent structure representation of linguistic input, i.e. of a stretch of word-forms, a decoder has two (recurring) options. He or she must always decide whether either an item, i.e. a word (or phrase), can be integrated into the current syntactic structure, i.e. the phrase (or clause) last processed, or whether it forms the beginning of a new one. One important question, therefore, is that of syntactic closure. Psycholinguistic research into the processing of syntactic information suggests that there are two central syntactic parsing principles which guide the decoder in his or her decision, cf. e.g. Frazier (ib.: 561-565) and Gorrell (1995: 47): these are (i) the ‘principle of late closure’ and (ii) the ‘principle of minimal attachment’. The principle of late closure forms a pair of opposites with that of early closure. Early closure most adequately translates into a strategy that Kimball (1973), for example, simply calls ‘closure’, cf. Kimball (ib.: 36f.). In his seminal 1973 article, he suggests seven different parsing principles, and the principle of closure primarily deals with the removal of a certain structure from the working memory of a decoder; in other words, “[…] ‘as soon as a syntactic analysis makes sense, go for that analysis’” (Kreyer 2010: 239). For reasons that cannot be unfurled in the present study, Frazier (1979) highlights Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 207 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="222"?> 208 Exploring the guide functions of punctuation potential problems if Kimball’s principle of (early) closure is regarded as the default parsing strategy, cf. Frazier (ib.: 45-49). And Esser’s (1998b: 478) verdict is well-defined: Early and late closure are both structural properties and cognitive parsing strategies. With these, late closure is the default option. That is, as a first choice an attempt is made to integrate a new constituent into a current […] structure. Assuming that late closure is the default option, a decoder will normally try to integrate a constituent into the structure last processed. So, when reaching in Moscow in the string of medium-independent word-forms under (154a), adapted from the headline of a Times article (Times, Halpin 20 Nov. 2006-@), the first option will be to attach the prepositional phrase to the initial constituent (spy poisoning), i.e. to extend the noun phrase rightwards. (154a) >spy poisoning in moscow everything is grey< Interestingly, the original written version of the headline does not support this reading: in the actual newspaper text, a colon is placed after poisoning, suggesting early closure, cf. (154b). (154b) <Spy poisoning: in Moscow, everything is grey.> The interaction of punctuation and parsing is discussed more comprehensively in the next section 7.2.2.4.3. With regard to parsing, Frazier (1987a: 564) couches an evident advantage of late closure analysis: Late closure analysis permits earlier structuring of new unstructured items than would its opposite (i.e. early closure), since new items may be structured together immediately with already processed material. Hence, the structuring of the current item need not be delayed until subsequent items are received and processed. What is more, the principle of late closure also favours “[…] attachments to phrases lower in the phrase structure tree rather than to phrases higher up” (Frazier ib.: 567). This reflects most clearly that, although they are not congruent, the late closure strategy conceptually builds on Kimball’s (1973) ‘principle of right association’, cf. e.g. Frazier (1979: 51-53, 55). In a clause complex as in (155) below, a decoder is normally inclined to correlate the finally located out with the verb of the that-clause, i.e. take, and not with the main-clause verb figured (although, grammatically speaking, this would not yield an ill-formed structure: consider the phrasal verb to figure out), cf. Kimball (1973: 24). (155) >joe figured that susan wanted to take the cat out< Considering the constituent structure representation of (155), the verb-form take represents the lowest node that out can possibly be attached to, cf. also Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 208 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="223"?> Punctuation in context 209 e.g. Kreyer (2010: 239). And, to repeat it, the late closure principle predicts that a low structural assignment of an item is favoured, because it reduces the complexity of a structure. Not surprisingly, the late closure strategy certainly serves to explain in part the characteristic preference of English for right-branching structures. As a second central parsing principle, the strategy of ‘minimal attachment’ has been mentioned. Besides usually following the principle of late closure, i.e. appending new items to the structure last processed, Kennedy et al. (1989: 52) find that, additionally, “[…] attachment of words within a structure is invariably achieved in a way which minimises the number of nodes demanded […].” Or in the decided words of Frazier (1987a: 562): “Do not postulate any potentially unnecessary nodes.” To this end, the principle of late closure is sometimes overridden. The principle of minimal attachment can be illustrated with the following example, presented as a chain of medium-independent word-forms. (156a) >the man beat the boy with a stick< The clause is ambiguous as to the ‘possessor of the stick’. Did the boy hold the stick and was, although seemingly equipped for defence, beaten by the man? Or did the man cane the boy by means of a stick? Following the principle of minimal attachment, the default interpretation of the medium-independent structure of (156a) should indeed be the latter reading: ‘the man uses the stick’. This can be accounted for by the principle’s demand to postulate only the minimal number of nodes when parsing a syntactic structure. Examples (156b) and (156c) provide possible constituent structure representations of (156a); details have been omitted. It should be noted in passing that an account of the immediate constituents of a clause calls for the verb phrase to be defined in a broad sense. It thus comprises also ‘nonverbal’ elements in the following tree diagrams. (156b) paraphrase: ‘the man caned the boy by means of a stick’ the man beat the boy with a stick 1 NP VP the man beat the boy with a stick 2 VP PP beat the boy with a stick Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 209 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="224"?> 210 Exploring the guide functions of punctuation (156c) paraphrase: ‘the man beat the boy who was carrying a stick’ the man beat the boy with a stick 1 NP VP the man beat the boy with a stick 2 VP PP beat the boy with a stick 3 NP PP the boy with a stick In the first example (156b), the prepositional phrase with a stick can be integrated into the current phrase marker via two nodes. In the syntactic tree of (156c), on the other hand, a third node is required, cf. also Frazier (1979: 26) and Hill/ Murray (2000: 570f.). Since the maxim of minimal attachment demands that the syntactic tree with fewer nodes wins, the constituent structure representation underlying (156b) should be a decoder’s preferred initial parse. Frazier (1987a: 564) explains this preference in terms of (cognitive) parsimony: Minimal attachment analyses will be available earlier than nonminimal ones due to the relative number of phrase structure rules that must be accessed for the two analyses, assuming that accessing more rules takes more time […]. It must be remarked on a cautionary note that the preference for the principle of minimal attachment does not necessarily mirror the psychological reality. But as explained at the beginning of the present section, parsing is guided also by semantic expectation, world knowledge and frequency: it is not built on structural information alone (although this is what the present section focuses on). Not least on these grounds, it is obvious that a minimal attachment analysis, but also one of late closure, is not always a decoder’s sole (albeit supposedly favourite) option. Moreover, not only may there be (i) more than a single possibility to decode a medium-independent arrangement (like in [156a] or previously [154a]), but a ‘default’ minimal attachment or late closure analysis may sometimes also (ii) trigger erroneous parses: a decoder is ‘led up the garden path’. Here is how Kreyer (2010: 239) makes clear the metaphorical expression: Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 210 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="225"?> Punctuation in context 211 The term [‘to be led up the garden path’, SP] itself evokes a nice image: garden paths do not lead anywhere so you have to go back from where you started if you want to go somewhere. Something similar happens when processing this kind of sentences. We are led to believe that the first analysis that we take is the correct one but find out towards the end of the sentence that it is not, and we have to redo the analysis. Examples to which the foregoing explanation applies are the by now famous sentences given under (157) and (158), cf. Bever (1970: 316) and Kimball (1973: 38) in that order. (157) <The horse raced past the barn fell.> (158) <The boat floated on the water sank.> A late closure analysis decodes both raced and floated as main clause verbs: by default, they are attached to the top S-node of the structure last processed. The same is predicted by the principle of minimal attachment, cf. e.g. Frazier (1979: 27). Yet, when a decoder reaches the last item of each string, i.e. fell or sank, he or she finds that the previous analyses appear to be incorrect. Reviewing the structural configurations of (157) and (158), raced and floated turn out to be past participle forms of dependent clauses, and it is the finally located fell and sank which constitute the main clause verbs. Without going into further detail at present, this goes to show that the default parsing strategies do not always provide unequivocal results for the structural decoding of a syntagm. This is the point where punctuation eventually steps in, whose disambiguating potential has already been called up in the previous section 7.2.2.4.1. In particular, punctuation must have the linguistic potential, firstly, to mediate between competing configurations (structural homonymy); and, secondly, to ‘redirect’ the default parsing process to avoid a misassignment (garden-path structure). The following section provides some examples which illustrate this. 7.2.2.4.3 Punctuation as a guide to ambiguous medium-independent structures: some examples In structurally homonymous configurations, punctuation serves as an indicator of which configuration is actually intended by the encoder, i.e. the writer. The following example is from the International Corpus of English (ICE-GB W1A-001#011). (159a) <The Britons took up arms and fighting for themselves, freed the cities from the barbarian pressure, expelling the Roman officials and setting up their own administration as well as they could.> Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 211 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="226"?> 212 Exploring the guide functions of punctuation The written presentation of (159a) yields the interpretation of fighting as a coordinated element; that is to say, the verbal noun is taken as part of the object that is required by the transitive phrasal verb: to take up something. This interpretation accommodates the principle of late closure because fighting is integrated into the current structure, an aspect which matches a decoder’s default parsing strategy. The corresponding presentation of The Britons took up arms and fighting for themselves as a single punctuation unit (at the end of which the syntactic status so far is potentially final) supports this insight, cf. (159b). (159b) The Britons took up arms and fighting for themselves, ~ f freed the cities from the barbarian pressure, ~ f expelling the Roman officials and setting up their own administration as well as they could. | f§ On the other hand, if one considers merely the medium-independent wordforms that underlie (159a), at least one different structural arrangement is also possible: fighting could be read as the non-finite verb-form of an intervening present participle clause ( fighting for themselves). Clearly, this would not be the preferred parse of a reader because it deviates from the default late closure strategy; that is, the item in question is not attached to the structure last processed but commences a new one. In order to prompt this particular reading, and to make a reader actually construe it, punctuation marks are needed. Take (159c) as a possible variant: (159c) <The Britons took up arms and, fighting for themselves, freed the cities from the barbarian pressure, expelling the Roman officials and setting up their own administration as well as they could.> Although communicating only a low degree of separative force, the commas form visual boundaries. As a consequence, when a reader comes upon the first comma in (159c), he or she will tend not to attach subsequent items directly to the structural arrangement that has been constructed before the mark was reached. Based on the interplay of graphic and syntactic information, the string fighting for themselves is regarded as intervening syntactic material, cf. (159d). (159d) The Britons took up arms and, ~ n fighting for themselves, ~ n freed the cities from the barbarian pressure, ~ f expelling the Roman officials and setting up their own administration as well as they could. | f§ Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 212 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="227"?> Punctuation in context 213 The first comma signals that the current syntactic structure is suspended; this is substantiated by the incomplete syntactic status at that point. The second comma is then an indicator that the suspended structure is going to be resumed - all the more because after the reflexive pronoun themselves the syntactic status so far is still incomplete, cf. also sec. 7.1.2.2 above. Hence, subsequent linguistic material is to be attached to the dangling matrix clause, not the - now closed - dependent participle construction. The situation is similar in (160a), which has been adapted from Huddleston/ Pullum (2002: 1730) and is presented here as a sequence of medium-independent word-forms. (160a) >liz recognised the man who entered the room and gasped< The verb-form gasped will commonly be considered part of the relative clause that postmodifies the head noun man. It is the man who entered the room and it is also the man who gasped. This follows, for example, from the principle of late closure, which predicts that incoming material will be integrated into the structure last processed, and that it will also be attached to the lowest possible node. To be precise, in the given example, a decoder takes and gasped as coordinated with entered. This interpretation is certainly corroborated by a written presentation without any sentence-internal punctuation, cf. (160b). (160b) <Liz recognised the man who entered the room and gasped.> On the other hand, if the reader was provided with a punctuation mark before and, this would affect his or her parsing of the coordinated verbal constituent gasped. Take, for instance, the use of a comma in (160c): (160c) <Liz recognised the man who entered the room, and gasped.> At the written level, the comma in (160c) is supposed to indicate that, structurally speaking, the subsequent constituent belongs to a unit higher up in the phrase structure tree: the verb-form gasped is coordinated with the matrix clause verb recognise. It is Liz who recognised the man and it is she who (therefore) gasped. The reason for this interpretation certainly lies in the separating potential of punctuation, which makes a low, right-branching attachment as demanded by the parsing principle of late closure seem counterintuitive. This punctuational potential has already been recognised in section 7.2.2.3.1 above: using a punctuation mark in a certain position sometimes signals a ‘look-back’ over a greater distance than if the relevant mark was omitted, cf. also de Beaugrande (1984: 196). The ‘look-back principle’ explicitly Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 213 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="228"?> 214 Exploring the guide functions of punctuation builds on the fact that the use of punctuation provides some kind of visual boundary in the written expression system. Constituting such a boundary, the comma in (160c) signals that the current structure is closed (the relative clause in the present example) and that subsequent linguistic items (gasped in the present example) must be syntactically linked with prior, or rather superordinate, structures, i.e. the ‘foregoing’ matrix clause. The disambiguating function of the look-back principle is less relevant for ambiguities which concern the structural assignment of prepositional phrases. Nevertheless, there are parallels. Omitting any sentence-internal punctuation (again most probably a comma), a decoder will normally follow the parsing principle of minimal attachment in a case like (161a) from Frazier/ Fodor (1978: 299f.). (161a) <Joe bought the book for Susan.> Reaching the prepositional phrase for Susan, the default case is to decode it as attaching to the verb phrase and not as a postmodification of the preceding noun phrase the book. The structural decoding of the latter would require the postulation of more nodes (three vs two) in the phrase structure tree, which is not appreciated by a decoder; consider the remarks on (156a) in section 7.2.2.4.2 above. If a comma was placed before the clause-final prepositional phrase, this would certainly corroborate the improbability of a postmodifier analysis. The prepositional phrase for Susan would be visually separated from the preceding noun phrase the book, making their immediate syntactic linkage unlikely, cf. also sec. 7.2.2.3.1 above. (161b) <Joe bought the book, for Susan.> Regardless of its convenience, a comma like in (161b) does not have a truly linguistic, disambiguating function. This is supported by experimental eyemovement data, cf. e.g. Hill/ Murray (2000: 573). That is to say, as it is somewhat uncommon to parse the prepositional phrase for Susan as a postmodification of the book (if one’s parsing hinges on structural information), the preceding comma apparently only reinforces a particular syntactic configuration which is read into the stretch of word-forms ‘by default’: ‘Joe bought the book on behalf of Susan, i.e. as a favour to her’. It is sometimes claimed that the preference for verb-phrase attachment “[…] should prevail even when plausibility or other factors ought to provide an advantage to the NP analysis […]” (ib.: 570). Example (162a) from Hill/ Murray (ib.) may be taken as a case in point that such a view is problematic. (162a) <Alan observed the girl with the short skirt.> Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 214 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="229"?> Punctuation in context 215 Not surprisingly, a sweeping claim to decode any such prepositional phrase as attaching to the verb phrase (decided on purely structural grounds) does not stand uncontested in a case like (162a). The resultant meaning would be absurd if with the short skirt was seen as an adjunct rather than as a nounphrase postmodifier. Instead of only adopting structural information, parsing largely depends on contextual or world knowledge and on semantic expectancy in the given example; remember in this context the quotations by Kreyer in section 7.2.2.4.2 above. In contrast to (161a) and (161b), the prepositional phrase in (162a) is most likely attached to the noun phrase. Still, what is analogous is that punctuation does not seem to influence (or change) this decision, cf. (162b). (162b) <Alan observed the girl, with the short skirt.> Although the comma visually separates with the short skirt from its head noun, a reader does not normally refrain from assigning it the status of a postmodifier in the given example. The ‘non-syntactic’ parsing information just mentioned is too influential, making punctuation ‘take a back seat’. The result is that punctuation apparently entails merely supplementary, extra information in the b-versions of both (161) and (162). It is paralinguistic in the sense of section 2.3 above. By making the prepositional phrase stand out more prominently, the comma in (162b) might be regarded as bringing out the sexual connotations that the sentence allows for, namely that Alan’s interest in the girl is primarily carnal. The sole punctuation that would clearly classify for Susan and with the short skirt as postmodifications of noun phrases would be to place a colon after the verb-forms bought and observed, cf. (161c) and (162c). (161c) <Joe bought: the book for Susan.> (162c) <Alan observed: the girl with the short skirt.> A colon has a cataphoric function: what follows to its right explicates what precedes it, cf. sec. 5.2.2.3 above. Hence, the colon indicates in (161c) that the book for Susan denotes the entity purchased by Joe and, more specifically, for Susan serves to identify one specific item from a generic class of books. A similar interpretation, obviously, applies to (162c). Interestingly, other punctuation marks in the relevant positions would not have the same function, but would rather be perceived as disturbing the flow of reading, separating the verb from its object. (One exception is the dash which might be equally acceptable in the relevant position. Yet, this does not influence the present line of argument.) The postmodifier-analysis of the prepositional phrase is to a large extent the consequence of the type of mark, i.e. of the colon, and it therefore draws on paralinguistic information. Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 215 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="230"?> 216 Exploring the guide functions of punctuation Despite its obvious potential, punctuation is no universal remedy to distinguish between two different syntactic arrangements. This has already been observed at the very beginning of the present study, cf. ch. 1 above. The example that was referred to in the introductory chapter is repeated here under a new numbering, cf. (163a). (163a) <They called Susan a waitress.> Most significantly, the sentence allows for two syntactic structures, which can be paraphrased as (i) ‘They called a waitress for Susan’ (‘SVOO’) and (ii) ‘They said that Susan was a waitress’ (‘SVOC’). The graphic presentation structure is inconclusive, however: whether a waitress is to be decoded as a direct object or as an object complement is not resolvable by adding punctuation marks. Only a third meaning, namely to decode the noun phrase as a double filling of the object slot, can be disambiguated through the addition of a punctuation mark. This is shown in (163b). (163b) <They called Susan, a waitress.> The insertion of a comma separates the finally located noun phrase from the rest of the sentence and thus assigns it an appositive function at the medium-independent level: (iii) ‘They called Susan, who was a waitress’; see Esser (1984: 80) for a similar example. On the whole, it seems as if such instantiations of multiple structural homonymy do not occur too often in the performance data of a language. As a result, it is suggested that there has been no presentational pressure to develop punctuational disambiguation for all the rare cases that do exist. Their meanings will probably still be comprehensible from the respective contexts. The linguistic, disambiguating function of punctuation can be (and is) fully exploited, on the other hand, in (164a) and (164b) from the January 2007 edition of a magazine aimed at foreign learners of English (Spotlight, Stock Jan. 2007: 72). This seems useful all the more because the structural inconclusiveness does not occur in isolation, but rather applies to several successive clauses (or clause complexes). (164a) <Dear Thomas, I want a man who knows what love is all about. You are generous, kind, thoughtful. People who are not like you admit to being useless and inferior. You have ruined me for other men. I yearn for you. I have no feelings whatsoever when we’re apart. I can be forever happy - will you let me be yours? Maria> Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 216 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="231"?> Punctuation in context 217 (164b) <Dear Thomas, I want a man who knows what love is. All about you are generous, kind, thoughtful people who are not like you. Admit to being useless and inferior. You have ruined me. For other men, I yearn. For you, I have no feelings whatsoever. When we’re apart, I can be forever happy. Will you let me be? Yours, Maria> Both examples feature the same (medium-independent) wording, but their punctuation varies, implying that the propositional content of (164a) is entirely different from that of (164b). To take but one example, the punctuation of (164a) suggests that I yearn for you (‘SVO’) forms a self-contained clause with no stranded elements to its left or right. Proposition-wise it is (therefore) a declaration of love. The written presentation of (164b), on the other hand, communicates the opposite: For other men, I yearn (‘OSV’). The different punctuation structure suggests that I yearn is linked up with the prepositional phrase to its left (For other men) and not with the one to its right ( for you). Naturally, this entails a completely dissimilar meaning. That the sentence-internal punctuation marks can be used as a means of disambiguation seems equally crucial in the sample under (165a), given the special status of the indicated construction. (165a) <They departed, the gods, on the day of the strange tide.> Taken from John Banville’s (2005: 3) novel The Sea, the clause structure that is signalled by the correlative commas is still making its way into written English. To explain, the punctuation suggests that (165a) instantiates a case of postponed identification, or right dislocation: a proxy pronoun marks the beginning of a construction and is substantiated by a referential noun phrase only later in the clause; the reader is referred to section 7.2.2.2.2 above for more on the punctuation of such structures. It is the sentence-internal punctuation which signals that, at the medium-independent level, the noun phrase the gods must be understood as a restated subject (already instantiated by They earlier in the clause) and not as a direct object, as the principle of late closure would suggest. The status of the noun phrase is designated as peripheral to the rest of the structure, and the interrelatedness is one of ‘eitheror’ rather than of syntagmatic connection. By this, the sentence-internal punctuation in (165a) takes advantage of the fact that the verb to depart cannot be used only transitively but also intransitively (as it is in the given example). Hence, the commas are not applied in violation of the general principle that none of the central clause constituents S, V, O, C and A OBL should be separated punctuation-wise, cf. sec. 7.1.3 and 7.2.2.3.1 above (esp. p. 182f.). Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 217 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="232"?> 218 Exploring the guide functions of punctuation Given that dislocated structures originate from spoken language, it may be imagined that the uncommonness of example (165a) in a written text requires a reader to read it out aloud, unless he or she immediately recognises the applied commas as visual signals. To account fully for the function of punctuation in (165a), one may thus add that the punctuationally separated noun phrase serves as some sort of ‘amplificatory tag’. Based on the initial coreferential pronoun, this is mainly due to its ‘given’ status, cf. Quirk et al. (1985: 1417). It would usually be presented with a rising tone in spoken language, and the doubled focus on both the predrawn pronoun and the restated noun phrase subject will be achieved most likely by a fall-plus-rise contour in speech, cf. Quirk et al. (ib.: 1372f.). This is illustrated in (165b). (165b) They departed\ the gods/ on the day of the strange tide\ Without doubt, a reader’s intonational awareness is part of the punctuational guide function in this context. The insight that the punctuational guide functions may be somehow linked to a reader’s inner voice is also relevant if a construction is only temporarily ambiguous. In the previous section, such cases have been described as ‘garden-path structures’. The erroneous assignment of structural properties is an immediate issue for the sequential decoding of linguistic utterances, in particular when certain syntactic boundaries are not clear-cut, cf. e.g. Mukherjee (2001: 25f.). The following example was found in a student’s examination script, recorded in the written data of the ICE-GB (W1A-011#033). (166a) <When sons marry fathers must give them a proportion of his [sic] herd.> The late closure strategy requires that the noun-form fathers is decoded as part of the initial temporal adverbial clause: it is to be read as an object of the verb-form marry. At the written level, the applicability of this strategy is certainly supported by the uninterrupted written presentation, seemingly accommodating a reader’s expectations concerning the syntactic buildup (and continuation). However, in implementing late closure, a decoder is inevitably led up the garden path in (166a). He or she gets caught in an ‘intonation trap’, as Esser (1977; 1998b; 2006) describes the resulting effect, cf. Esser (1977: 140-142; 1998b: 478; 2006: 106). Upon reaching must, the reader realises that the initially preferred object-reading is structurally untenable. To interpret fathers as an object would leave the subsequent complex verb phrase must give without a structural node to attach to. (Not to mention the slightly unorthodox meaning that materialises.) Structurally, therefore, the adverbial clause must be closed before fathers is reached and the noun phrase itself must be decoded as the subject of the following main clause; similar as- Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 218 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="233"?> Punctuation in context 219 pects were touched on when discussing examples (157) and (158) in the previous section 7.2.2.4.2. Arguably, syntactic information that resolves the ambiguity in (166a) occurs only late in the structure and will therefore not prevent a reader from misreading it in the first place. Yet, this is highly inefficient because the required reanalysis undeniably pushes up a decoder’s processing costs, cf. e.g. Hawkins (2004: 53). With a medium-dependent boundary signal this dilemma could be avoided, cf. (166b). (166b) <When sons marry, fathers must give them a proportion of his [sic] herd.> The intransitive use of the verb is explicated through the applied punctuation, namely by visually separating the verb-form from subsequent constituents. There is a signal of early closure and, at the same time, the boundary of the adverbial clause is clearly indicated. Both these aspects notably contribute to an improvement in reading performance, cf. e.g. Hill/ Murray (2000: 571f.) and Adams/ Clifton/ Mitchell (1998: 266). On the whole, the placement of punctuation in (166b) fulfils a metalingual purpose in a temporarily ambiguous arrangement. It serves to append a linguistic analysis to a piece of writing and thus reduces the risk of momentary disruption and of costly reanalysis: “The comma presumably makes the minimal change in the sentence that serves the purpose of disambiguation” (Adams/ Clifton/ Mitchell ib.: 266). 11 Similarly, the clause complex that underlies (167a) is temporarily ambiguous because the reduction of the that-clause may at first sight ‘conceal’ the status of the noun phrase the answer, cf. Frazier (1987b: 298). (167a) <John knew the answer to the physics problem was easy.> It might therefore help to have a punctuation mark before the object clause, i.e. after knew. At the level of parasyntax, an extra punctuation unit boundary would provide a reader with a possibility to assess the syntactic status of the structure so far and to anticipate its intended progress, cf. (167b). He or she will be made aware of the latent problem. 11 Arguably, the severity of a garden path may vary. This largely depends on syntactic considerations (and on lexis and frequency), but also on world and/ or contextual knowledge, cf. Hawkins (2004: 14, 59). It cannot be ruled out, therefore, that the garden path effect in (166a) is perceived as only little prominent by both writer and reader: the resultant meaning would be nonsensical anyway. In effect, punctuation may have been regarded as dispensable in (166a). Eye-tracking studies have indeed shown that serious implausibility might make the recovery from a garden path easier, cf. e.g. Pickering/ Traxler (1998: 941f.). On the whole, however, it is debatable in how far such aspects directly affect the distribution of punctuation marks. Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 219 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="234"?> 220 Exploring the guide functions of punctuation (167b) John knew, ~ f the answer to the physics problem was easy. | f§ The syntactic status at the first punctuation unit is potentially final (coded ‘f’), but there are stranded elements to the right. This is corroborated at the written level where the comma suggests graphic non-finality (‘~’). Besides providing a reader with a possibility to assess the syntactic status so far, the comma also supplies him or her with an opportunity to modify provisional, potentially erroneous syntactic expectations. The punctuational and the syntactic configuration interrelate, and this notably affects the accessibility of the written stretch. Mukherjee (2001) makes a similar suggestion for the presence of a tone unit boundary in the relevant position, cf. Mukherjee (ib.: 26). Despite this intuitive advantage of punctuation, one must not lose sight of the fact that a punctuated version as presented in (167b) would interfere with the (repeatedly mentioned) standard not to mark off a central clause constituent like the object in English. Arguably, both writer and reader experience a conflict here. In other garden-path examples, the use of punctuation marks also prevents initial misassignments. This applies to (157) and (158) from section 7.2.2.4.2 above. Both are repeated here in a punctuated version, cf. (168) and (169). (168) <The horse, raced past the barn, fell.> (169) <The boat, floated on the water, sank.> For Hill/ Murray (2000: 570), the disambiguating effect […] is obtained by physically [typographically, SP] ‘chopping’ the sentence into its primary constituents. Delineating the clausal boundaries with commas is just such a possible […] mechanism of textual segmentation. Whereas the syntactic arrangement is disambiguated by the commas, a side effect of their use is that they are commonly taken as indicators of non-restrictiveness (coupled with a slight change in meaning). This paralinguistic information may be felt to conflict with a writer’s intention or to be contextually inappropriate. Whether the past participle clauses in (168) and (169) are non-restrictive, however, depends on the contextualisation of the medium-independent sequence of word-forms and on the respective co-text. The presence or absence of punctuation is secondary here: it may be an indicator of non-restrictiveness but not its cause; see the exemplary discussion of relative clauses in section 7.2.2.2.1 above for more on this. Given the evident advantage of punctuation marks in examples (167b) to (169), it is argued that both (i) the general desistance from marking off certain Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 220 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="235"?> Punctuation in context 221 clause constituents and (ii) the common punctuational treatment of (non-)restrictiveness are not always beneficial for a reader. Instead, punctuation principles can (and should) be disregarded if occasion demands, or: to contravene existing conventions is tolerable if the overall comprehensibility of a written stretch is thereby improved, cf. also sec. 7.2.3.1.3 below. Should a writer not feel comfortable with this practice, he or she needs to alter the text at the medium-independent level to make the structural arrangement more explicit, cf. e.g. (170) to (172). This ‘expansion’ makes punctuation superfluous as a means of disambiguation. (170) >john knew that the answer to the physics problem was easy< (171) >the horse which was raced past the barn fell< (172) >the boat which was floated on the water sank< Lastly, what needs mentioning when the linguistic potential of punctuation is explored is its disambiguating function in connection with vocative structures. Arguably, vocatives are frequent in spoken language, especially (spontaneous) conversation, but they occur at the written level as well; see also Leech (1999) for more on their distribution and function. Quirk et al. (1985: 773) suggest the following broad definition: A vocative is an optional element, usually a noun phrase, denoting the one or more persons to whom the sentence is addressed. It is either a CALL, drawing the attention of the person or persons addressed […], or an ADDRESS, expressing the speaker’s [or writer’s, SP] relationship or attitude to the person or persons addressed […]. Quirk et al. (ib.) illustrate their explanation with the examples under (173) to (175), which have been stripped of intonational details and are reproduced as written sentences. (173) <John, dinner is ready.> (174) <And that, my friends, concludes my speech.> (175) <My back is aching, doctor.> As to the written presentation of vocatives, there is a general tendency to set them off punctuationally - regardless of whether they occur in initial, medial or final position in a clause. The above examples already suggest this practice. Huddleston/ Pullum (2002: 1745) go as far as to postulate a definitive view: “With […] vocatives delimiting punctuation is required.“ Punctuation is indeed distinctive in sentences like under (176) to (178) from Baldwin/ Coady (1978: 364, 371, 375). Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 221 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="236"?> 222 Exploring the guide functions of punctuation (176) <Why can’t we eat, John? > (177) <Mary is going to trip, John! > (178) <I think that on the count of three we should all burp, Jim.> In each of the three (most likely concocted) examples, the underlying chain of medium-independent word-forms has the potential to realise different syntactic structures. And without punctuational separation of the names, i.e. no comma before John or Jim, the written sentences in (176) to (178) would indeed communicate quite dissimilar (and partly humorous) meanings. That a minor change in the presentational form, i.e. the omission of the commas, suggests a major change in the syntactic interpretation builds largely on the idea of a so-called ‘canonical-clause concept’, cf. e.g. Baldwin/ Coady (ib.: 364f.) and Fodor/ Bever/ Garrett (1974: 344-348). The canonicalclause concept assumes that the constituents of an ‘NP+VP+NP’-structure are habitually assigned the functions of subject, verb and object (‘SVO’) respectively. This inclination complies with the default parsing principle of late closure that has been described above: try to integrate constituents into the structure last processed. On this basis, the proper nouns John and Jim would normally be decoded as direct objects in (176) to (178) if one left out the medium-bound information, i.e. punctuation, that suggests otherwise. Yet, as observed with previous examples, the function of punctuation is once more to rule out the default case. The commas form visual boundaries and signal a reader that late closure is not intended in (176) to (178): in each case, the current structure is supposed to be closed early, namely at the position of the punctuation marks and before the final noun phrases are reached. The clausal configurations are non-canonical; see also Limaye (1983) for more on the interaction of canonical-clause concept and punctuation. Whereas punctuation thus has a linguistic function, signalling that a finally located noun phrase does not belong to a canonical ‘SVO’-pattern, it is not distinctive in other cases. In a way, this puts a different complexion on the initially reported claim that vocatives require punctuation. Consider (179) to (181), once more from Baldwin/ Coady (1978: 364, 375, 371): (179) <John, why can’t we eat? > (180) <Jim, I think that on the count of three we should all burp.> (181) <Mother, look at me.> Of course, in a sequential, left-to-right parsing, all three examples might at first seem ambiguous because initially located noun phrases canonically function as the subject in a clause. Accordingly, the proper nouns John, Jim and Mother could, on the face of it, occupy the subject slot in the claus- Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 222 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="237"?> Punctuation in context 223 es in which they occur. However, Baldwin/ Coady do not see this as a genuine parsing problem for the type of example under scrutiny. They (ib.: 365) write about (179), for instance: Some readers would initially interpret “John” as the sentence subject, but they are less likely to miss the clause boundary because the canonical expectation for a verb is not confirmed by the following word “why”. From this it follows that the ‘subject’-interpretation is no viable option; it is not endorsed by the sequence of medium-independent word-forms that underlies the orthographic sentence in (179). It can thus be concluded that the inserted comma does not have a truly disambiguating function; it is not linguistically distinctive in the sense of section 2.3 above because the structure itself (to whose written realisation it is applied) is not syntactically ambiguous, cf. also sec. 7.2.2.4.1 above. The same applies to the sentence-internal punctuation in (180). If Jim was initially perceived as the subject of the clause, to encounter the personal pronoun I would block this interpretation along with any corresponding grammatical expectations (yet to be fulfilled). In (181) the rejection of the subjectinterpretation is no outcome of selectional restrictions, but of the missing subject-verb agreement between the would-be subject Mother and the corresponding (imperative) verb-form look. This rules out a canonical ‘SVO’interpretation. Evidently, there are syntactic cues in (179) to (181) which inform the reader how to parse the sentences in question, cf. Baldwin/ Coady (ib.: 371). At the written level, the function of the commas (or any other punctuation mark) is merely to corroborate the preferred readings at the earliest opportunity. Hence, although punctuation is by no means ineffective in these cases, its communicative value is, linguistically speaking, redundant rather than decisive. The correct structural decoding of (179) to (181) does not rely on the presence of punctuation and, obviously, the punctuation conveys paralinguistic information in these sentences. As a corollary, Huddleston/ Pullum’s dictum that vocatives require punctuation seems to be too general from a presentational point of view. What cannot be denied, however, is that the punctuational information implies that every vocative constitutes a structurally peripheral constituent. It is outside the actual clause structure. After all, this makes punctuational separation a helpful indicator for a reader. And that it is so helpful might, in turn, serve to explain the almost universal practice to actually punctuate vocatives - even though this is not always required linguistically. Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 223 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="238"?> 224 Exploring the guide functions of punctuation 7.2.3 Punctuation units and text In the previous section 7.2.2, punctuation has been examined by and large against the background of the relationship between medium-bound written and medium-independent linguistic structure. The guide functions of punctuation were approached with regard to certain syntactic categories typically associated with punctuation marks above word-level; hence the headline ‘punctuation units and syntax’. It was particularly interesting in this context whether a punctuation mark was present or absent in a certain position (or where exactly this position was), but not so much which mark was actually chosen (although this was never entirely ignored). It could be shown that punctuation assumes a decoder-oriented role in facilitating the decoding of a written linguistic message. To round off the present approach to punctuation, it is important, however, to look not only at its guiding role with certain predominantly syntactic categories, but to explore its full potential as a feature of textual structure, offering a more general perspective on the interaction of punctuation and written text, cf. also ch. 6 above. Obviously, this must mean to consider aspects such as the type of mark and the overall punctuational structure of a written stretch. And possibly also what might have guided the selection of the marks in the first place. After all, this should satisfy the working hypothesis formulated at the end of section 5.3 above, namely that the distribution of punctuation marks appears to be co-occurring with grammatical but also with prosodic and ‘other’ patterns. To avoid undue verbosity, the subsequent discussion will be limited to illustrating those prosodic and ‘other’ aspects that are supposed to complement the findings of the previous sections, and which help on the desired ‘type-exhaustiveness’ in the conceptualisation of the punctuational guide functions, cf. ch. 1 and 6 above. Yet, as the present section does not get along without recourse to previously made observations, occasional repetition and cross-references cannot be avoided. 7.2.3.1 Punctuational variability 7.2.3.1.1 Light and heavy punctuation In section 7.1.1.2 above, a distinction has been made between two styles or modes of punctuation: A light punctuation mode sees relatively few marks being inserted in positions in which their presence is optional. A heavy punctuation mode stands for the opposite. The effect of minimal, i.e. extremely light, punctuation appears especially remarkable in this context; see also example (6) in section 7.1.1.2 above. Another case is shown in (182), taken from James Joyce’s (1991 [1916]: 19) semi-autobiographical novel A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. There are no sentence-internal marks. Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 224 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="239"?> Punctuation in context 225 (182) <Once upon a time and a very good time it was there was a moocow coming down along the road and that moocow that was coming down along the road met a nicens little boy named baby tuckoo.> Halliday (1992 [1985]) assumes that the written presentation of such and similar cases leaves the reader breathless since there are no visual cues that can be correlated with, say, a tone unit boundary, or which can be used to take time off in order to breathe, cf. Halliday (ib.: 38). In the example under scrutiny, no form of visual structuring has been carried out by the author but, on the contrary, there is a single punctuation unit which comprises a relatively intricate clause complex. The impression of intricacy is not least characterised by repetitions of similar sounds, words and structures. Overall, it is self-evident that the decoding process is aggravated by the omission of punctuation marks. On the other hand, Halliday (ib.) sees the following advantage of a punctuational presentation as in (182): In other kinds of text, the effect of ‘hurrying the reader along’ that is created by the absence of sentence-internal punctuation is a positive feature that may reflect an intention, conscious or unconscious, on the part of the writer. Together with the preceding example, Halliday’s quotation makes it clear that the presence (or absence) of punctuation is not limited to functioning as a mere decoding help, but that it may also assume the role of a significant writer-generated conceptualisation aid. It is obvious that both functions may conflict in certain contexts. Consider the following example from de Beaugrande (1984: 200): (183a) <A good VW motor exchanger can go up to a parked Volkswagen, and a few rachets of the old wrench here and there and it’s up and out and he has a new motor.> Punctuation is again minimal in (183a) although it is not completely omitted. There is a single sentence-internal punctuation mark, namely the comma after Volkswagen. Quite generally, a reader might find some additional marks useful in order to ease the decoding of the written construct with its recurring instances of coordination; (183b) would be a possible variation. (183b) <A good VW motor exchanger can go up to a parked Volkswagen, and a few rachets of the old wrench here and there, and it’s up and out, and he has a new motor.> The commas in (183b) are most likely what has been described as ‘reading commas’ in the present study; their purpose is to guide the mind in seeing through a grammatical construction, cf. sec. 7.1.1.2 above. Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 225 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="240"?> 226 Exploring the guide functions of punctuation The advantage of de Beaugrande’s version, i.e. with only a single comma, lies in the fact that the reduction of sentence-internal punctuation suggests, as he (ib.) puts it, “[…] a hurried tempo [appropriate] for depicting a rapid event sequence […].” That is to say, the underlying wording suggests that it is mere child’s play for a trained mechanic to change the motor of a Volkswagen car. It only takes a few simple touches to complete the task. And this effortlessness is probably conceptualised best in (183a), where the written stretch after Volkswagen is presented as a single punctuation unit (as an integrated whole, so to speak), omitting any possibly disruptive punctuation. A look at the script unit structure of (183a) supports this view, cf. (183c). (183c) A good VW motor exchanger can go up to a parked Volkswagen, ~ f and a few rachets of the old wrench here and there and it’s up and out and he has a new motor. | f§ The co-occurrence of graphic non-finality (‘~’) and potential syntactic finality (‘f’) at the first punctuation unit boundary is particularly effective in this context: the comma is first of all a plain indicator that there is more to come. But together with the potential syntactic completeness, it contributes to some sort of ‘decelerating-accelerating effect’ of the written stretch. The reader is confronted with a visual boundary, i.e. the comma, which is coterminous with a minor break in the course of reading. The term ‘pause’ - instead of ‘break’ - is avoided in this context because it usually refers to the articulatory process and would limit reading to an oral practice, excluding silent reading. Directly after the decelerating comma, the written stretch depicts a rapid sequence of events, i.e. the engine change, without any punctuational separation. An effect of acceleration arises. After all, there is a contrast for which the overall punctuation structure is responsible and which not least the single sentence-internal mark makes particularly effective. Considering the sparse punctuation in (183a), or (183c) for that matter, the single comma may be termed a ‘speaking comma’. Given a comma’s low degree of separative force, the ‘deceleration-acceleration contrast’ might be even more obtrusive if there was, for example, a dash instead of the comma. The dash is higher up on the punctuation hierarchy and carries a medium degree of separative force; and since it is commonly assumed that dashes also emphasise the written material they enclose (or precede), a dash would create some ‘extra suspense’ in the given example. The rapid sequence of events that is depicted afterwards would thus be accentuated further, cf. sec. 5.2.2.5 and 5.2.3 above. Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 226 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="241"?> Punctuation in context 227 (183d) <A good VW motor exchanger can go up to a parked Volkswagen - and a few rachets of the old wrench here and there and it’s up and out and he has a new motor.> Although the script unit structure of (183d) would be identical with the one reproduced in (183c), it is the type of mark (comma vs dash) which seems to make a small but noticeable difference with regard to the achieved effect. Arguably, this is subject to personal taste. If the absence of sentence-internal punctuation may create an effect of acceleration, heavy sentence-internal punctuation, or the choice of relatively strongly separating marks, may certainly achieve the opposite, i.e. an effect of deceleration. As a first example, take (184) from Julian Barnes’s (1990: 229) novel A History of the World in 10½ Chapters, where a character ponders the words I love you: (184) <For a start, we’d better put these words on a high shelf; in a square box behind glass which we have to break with our elbow; in the bank.> Apart from representing an instance of multiple filling - multiple fillings have been discussed in section 7.2.2.2.2 above - example (184) is most notable for the two semicolons that are used to structure the orthographic sentence internally. (The comma that separates the sentence-initial adjunct is disregarded for the present purposes.) Instead of using, for instance, lowkey commas to mark off the multiple fillings of the adverbial slot, the writer has opted for stronger boundary markers, i.e. <; >. These reduce the closeness between the juxtaposed punctuation units and increase the weight which is attributed to the individual text portions, achieving an air of graveness and/ or solemnity. Naturally, this is equivalent with the mentioned deceleration of the reading flow. In speech, a similar effect would most certainly be obtained through variation in pause length (or by realising a pause instead of a simple tone unit boundary); see also Petit (2003) for a short account of the stylistic potential of the semicolon. Similarly, in example (185a), provided by Buchholz (1979: 227), punctuation is one means to reduce the reading rate and thus creates an impression that complies with the contents of the sentence. (185a) <Refrain from analysis; turn your attention inward to meditation; and, behold, the solution will become, almost unawares, steadily more clear.> What is striking about (185a) from the outset is that a chain of no more than 20 written word-forms is split up into seven punctuation units; evidently, Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 227 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="242"?> 228 Exploring the guide functions of punctuation these are relatively short, namely just under three words on average, and punctuation is clearly a very prominent feature. This may initially seem disadvantageous as it is normally assumed that too many punctuation marks disrupt the flow of visual movement and render a text tedious to read, cf. also sec. 7.1.1.2 above. Yet, a closer look at the script unit structure of (185a) shows that this is just one side of the story, cf. (185b). (185b) Refrain from analysis; ~ f turn your attention inward to meditation; ~ f& and, ~ n behold, ~ n the solution will become, ~ n almost unawares, ~ n steadily more clear. | f§ To begin with, the semicolon after meditation is potentially most obtrusive: it is redundant from a functional perspective since the structural configuration is clearly indicated at the medium-independent level by the subsequent coordinator (and). In effect, the applied <; > (like any other mark in this position) is only corroborative. It is a reading semicolon in the style of the above-mentioned reading comma. To the left, the mentioned semicolon (second punctuation unit boundary) bounds a potentially self-contained clause (turn your attention inward to meditation), which is itself preceded by a potentially complete clause (Refrain from analysis). Like the second, the first clause also ends in a semicolon in writing which, however, is not followed by a structural element at the medium-independent level. (This also explains the difference in syntactic coding, i.e. ‘f’ and ‘f&’.) Unlike the second semicolon, the one forming the first punctuation unit boundary in (185b) hence assumes a crucial function in effecting a relationship between two clauses conjoined in a single orthographic sentence. There is a case of asyndetic coordination; see section 7.2.2.1 above for more on the punctuation of coordinated constituents, i.e. clauses. There are four additional sentence-internal punctuation marks in (185b), all of them commas, which break down the remainder of the orthographic sentence. Deserving special mention is the fact that each comma coincides with a non-final syntactic status with later completion (‘n’); this refers to punctuation unit boundaries three to six in (185b). Syntactic non-finality with later completion is also assumed for the only doubtful case, namely after behold in the fourth punctuation unit. Obviously, the commas are used ‘pairwise’ to mark off intervening syntactic material, an aspect that has already been addressed in connection with a general punctuation principle outlined in section 7.1.2.2 above. Whereas the first comma in (185b) suggests a sus- Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 228 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="243"?> Punctuation in context 229 pension of the matrix structure [and] the solution will become steadily more clear, the second one indicates the end of this suspension, i.e. of the intervening (interjection-like) constituent behold. The pending structure is going to be resumed. The same signalling function applies to commas three and four in (185b); they also signal ‘suspension plus resumption’. Here, the constituent almost unawares breaks up the mentioned clause structure (once more indicated punctuation-wise) and the rest of the clause follows to its right (announced punctuation-wise as well). As a consequence, the initially suspected overload of punctuation marks turns out to be an important decoding and conceptualisation device for the reader in (185a). (Still, the line may be a fine one between effective punctuation and overpunctuation.) Firstly, the marks provide visual cues which bypass instances of structural discontinuity that are observable at the mediumindependent level; and on these grounds, secondly, they tie in nicely with the overall textual structure, but also with the contents of (185a). In forming visual obstacles, punctuation is a key feature in reducing the reading rate, and the two instances of intervening syntactic material have their share in this. In this respect, the strongly separating semicolons suggest especially significant breaks and raise the informational weight of the juxtaposed punctuation units - similar to what has been observed for (184) above. This certainly reduces the flow of reading further and the overall punctuational structure of (185a) has quite the opposite effect of the nonexistent or sparse punctuation encountered in (182), (183a) and (183d) above. After all, it is not least the medium-bound punctuational information which allows the reader to actually participate in the gradually unfolding cognition process (with all its twists and turns) that is attributed to meditation exercises in (185a). 7.2.3.1.2 Punctuation as an indicator of suband superordinate boundaries Another aspect that deserves mentioning in the present section on punctuational variability is that sentence-internal punctuation may assume a structuring function that is partly independent of the textual effects just described. That is to say, it can be helpful to apply more than a single type of mark in order to visually distinguish suband superordinate syntactic boundaries in writing. Although the expression ‘suband superordinate boundaries’ makes explicit reference to the medium-independent expression system, a differentiated marking of syntactic boundaries is no aspect that can be assigned unequivocally to any of the syntactic phenomena discussed in the previous section 7.2.2. Instead, it is a more complex facet which depends on the choice of mark and on more comprehensive textual concerns. Hence, it is included in the present section 7.2.3, titled ‘punctuation units and text’. Huddleston/ Pullum (2002: 1740) give the following example: Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 229 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="244"?> 230 Exploring the guide functions of punctuation (186) <After the war, the United States produced half of the world’s goods; our manufacturers had no peers; and our military, bolstered by the atomic bomb, had enemies but no equals.> The sentence shows that a superordinate syntactic boundary is preferably marked by a punctuation mark higher up on the punctuation hierarchy than a subsidiary boundary, cf. also Quirk et al. (1985: 1623) and Meyer (1987: 28). There is stronger separation of superordinate boundaries, and these are accordingly marked by semicolons in (186). The commas, on the other hand, separate syntactic constituents which operate at the lower levels of any of the three main clauses that are coordinated in (186). In a sentence from a natural history book (ICE-GB W2B-028#082), punctuation works similarly: it assists the reader in decoding different levels of syntactic relation, cf. (187). Again, the distinction is ‘semicolon vs comma’. (187) <Hurricanes are an ever present threat, and have already wiped out one population; and the relentless conversion of primary forest into banana plantations has brought the numbers to a dangerously low level.> The example deals with the Imperial Amazon, a highly endangered species of tropical parrots, and with the problems of guaranteeing its protection and conservation. Without any sentence-internal punctuation, or if only commas were applied (or only semicolons for that matter), the syntactic relations among the constituents, listing some of the major threats to the birds, might not be accessible at first sight. To have both a comma and a semicolon in (187) is helpful. First of all, the comma delimits two constituents that are brought into a coordinative relationship: Hurricanes are an ever present threat is syndetically conjoined with have already wiped out one population. From a structural point of view, this instantiates a case of elliptical coordination, cf. also sec. 7.2.2.1.1 above. As the second conjunct lacks a subject, the reader must refer to the subject (Hurricanes) of the first clause to establish a syntactic link. There is structural dependency and, strictly speaking, what is coordinated are only the two predicates. Like the comma, the following semicolon introduces a case of syndetic linkage. Being non-elliptical, however, the appended clause is not dependent on any of the previous constituents. It features a distinct subject and is in a paratactic relationship with the entire clause complex that precedes it (Hurricanes are…, and…population). Hence, the punctuation in (187), i.e. <,> and <; >, makes the reader aware of the fact that the cases of elliptical and non-elliptical coordination are instantiated at different hierarchical levels. The decoding process is clearly facilitated. Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 230 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="245"?> Punctuation in context 231 Incidentally, to distinguish between different syntactic levels by means of punctuation is not only particularly efficient, but is sometimes regarded as a presentational essential. The so-called ‘single level constraint’ lives up to the practical demand that especially “[t]wo colons or semicolons may not occur at different levels within a single construction […]” (Huddleston/ Pullum 2002: 1737). If this principle is applied consistently, an example like (188) should not occur (ib.). (188) <A new policy has been instituted: the evaluation will be made by groups that will have only one responsibility: to prepare the year-end reports.> The initial colon separates two main clauses, effecting a case of asyndetic coordination. The second colon marks off a finally located constituent that belongs to the second clause itself and is an apposition (double filling) to one responsibility. Consequently, there are two colons in (188) which operate at different syntactic levels but ‘within a single construction’ (as Huddleston/ Pullum put it). Indeed, this doubling does not appear helpful for a reader because it blurs the boundaries of what actually goes together. Terminologically, it seems slightly problematic to speak of ‘constructions’ when describing the scope of the single level constraint, because ‘construction’ echoes a merely syntactic unit. In fact, the connection between the constituents under (188) is a consequence of both syntactic and punctuational information. Consider the mentioned case of asyndetic coordination, for example, which is a written phenomenon: there is no structurally linking element, cf. sec. 7.2.2.1.2 above. It seems more appropriate, therefore, to apply the single level constraint to a parasyntactic presentation unit, i.e. to a script unit: ‘two colons or semicolons may not occur at different levels within a single script unit’. Interestingly, according to the same authors, a multilevel application of commas is nonetheless admissible, cf. e.g. Huddleston/ Pullum (ib.). That is, the single level constraint is no obligation for the employment of the weakest punctuation mark, i.e. the comma. Huddleston/ Pullum’s (ib.) example (189) is therefore generally accepted - even though the commas mark off constituents that function at different levels in the syntactic tree. (189) <I wouldn’t recommend it, but he can certainly take part, provided he’s eighteen.> It can only be hypothesised that the general acceptance of a case like (189) may be a consequence of the relatively unmarked nature of the comma. Avoiding discretionary punctuation rules in the present study, it is suggested that, on the one hand, the single level constraint is a helpful punctu- Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 231 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="246"?> 232 Exploring the guide functions of punctuation ational tool (or principle) for the reader to see through and conceptualise a written stretch. This is evident. On the other hand, the principle is not a must as the case of the comma shows. And that also an example like (188) above allows a reader to eventually grasp the intended meaning is probably not too far-fetched either. Still, however, a general suspension of the single level constraint seems truly practicable only if the written stretches are relatively short and are thus sparsely punctuated - just like (188) or (189). If not, a decoder’s cognitive workload will increase significantly, and this might make reading the tedious activity mentioned in the previous section. 7.2.3.1.3 Deviant punctuation It has been discussed elsewhere that style manuals and usage books have adopted a mostly normative stance towards the use of punctuation. Punctuation is depicted as a feature governed by clear-cut rules. Given the arbitrariness, inflexibility and partly also irrelevance of these rules, however, it has been suggested that it seems much more realistic to act on the assumption of three relatively general punctuation principles. In section 7.1 above, they have been discussed under the following headlines: ‘punctuation as a style marker’ (sec. 7.1.1), ‘obligatory sentence-internal punctuation’ (sec. 7.1.2) and ‘punctuation and structural integrity’ (sec. 7.1.3). These principles guide the use and interpretation of punctuation marks. On the whole, they account for the flexibility of punctuation as a writer’s means of presentational choice; but they also guarantee a sufficient degree of regularity in the use of punctuation to make it a generally decodable cue system. As far as regularity is concerned, principles two and three seem particularly important: the insight that there is supposedly obligatory sentence-internal punctuation and the insight that punctuation should maintain the structural integrity of a clause at the written level, cf. sec. 7.1.2 and 7.1.3 above. Granting their usefulness, what if a writer’s punctuation does not conform to these principles? (The other principle, capturing that punctuation marks function as style markers, is not considered in this context.) The first principle that is relevant, namely that of obligatory sentence-internal punctuation, covers cases of structural opacity, for example. Structural opacity applies if there are no medium-independent linking elements which make explicit a formal relation between two constituents, cf. sec. 7.1.2.1 above. The linking function has to be assumed by punctuation. The most prominent example in this context is the joining of two syntactically unrelated clauses (or clause complexes) in a single orthographic sentence by means of a sentence-internal punctuation mark. This yields asyndetic or punctuational coordination, cf. e.g. sec. 7.2.2.1.2 above. In actual writing practice, deviations from this principle are rare - because they are not very reader-friendly as the following examples show. Esser Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 232 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="247"?> Punctuation in context 233 (2006: 87) provides an excerpt from a private letter in which the omission of any punctuation marks seriously aggravates its understanding, cf. (190a). While the original handwriting has been retyped, the macrosetting of the text, i.e. line breaks, is retained. Note that the excerpt begins in the middle of a line which explains the initial white-space. (190a) < I am enclosing his blood results it is so good of your sister to look at them and of you to go to so much trouble he was at the nurse yesterday about the diabetes and she seemed pleased the average for the 2 week period was 6.4 so the diet must be working> At the medium-independent level, (190a) consists of several structurally unrelated clause complexes. This unrelatedness is not compensated for by punctuation in the four indicated positions; that is, there are no punctuation marks which could take over the function of medium-independent relators, such as conjunctions, and bring about a relationship among the juxtaposed clause complexes. Please note that the average for the 2 week period was 6.4 could be parsed as a reduced that-clause. It is therefore an optional decision to term it ‘syntactically unrelated’ and to call for preceding punctuation. This option is ignored at this point, however. On the whole, the communicative acceptability of (190a) is questionable. To change this, it could either be presented as a single orthographic sentence with obligatory sentence-internal punctuation marks in the indicated positions. Or it could be written as a sequence of several orthographic sentences, which would likewise do away with any immediate decoding difficulties. One possible version of the latter strategy is suggested by Esser (ib.: 88), cf. (190b). (190b) <I am enclosing his blood results. It is so good of your sister to look at them and of you to go to so much trouble. He was at the nurse yesterday about the diabetes and she seemed pleased. The average for the two-week period was 6.4, so the diet must be working. > In effect, to bypass structural inexplicitness by means of punctuation is highly relevant in actual writing practice. But clearly, it also poses an intellectual challenge to every writer: it requires him or her to abstract from the written substance and to perform a syntactic analysis. Without doubt, writers do not always master this challenge equally well. On the other hand, to ignore this punctuation principle may be a writer’s conscious decision. One of the few but vehement dispraisers of punctuation Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 233 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="248"?> 234 Exploring the guide functions of punctuation was the American author Gertrude Stein. Her inclination to omit even particularly helpful punctuation marks is evident in the following example (191). As luck would have it, (191) is taken from a short essay by Stein (1988 [1935]: 217) in which she comments on the subject itself: on punctuation. (191) When I first began writing, I felt that writing should go on, I still do feel that it should go on but when I first began writing I was completely possessed by the necessity that writing should go on and on and if writing should go on what had colons and semi-colons to do with it, what had commas to do with it, what had periods to do with it what had small letters and capitals to do with it to do with writing going on which was at that time the most profound need I had in connection with writing. Without commenting on (191) in detail, what is especially obtrusive is the absence of punctuation marks in the two highlighted spots. Although syntactically unrelated, there is no connecting mark between the clauses what had periods to do with it and what had small letters and capitals to do with it. Likewise, the transition between the latter clause and the ensuing elliptical structure to do with writing going on… is not clarified by punctuation (or by a medium-independent element, of course). It is argued here that Stein’s decision to leave out these punctuation marks activates the seminal distinction between ‘automatisation’ and ‘foregrounding’, which is a key feature in the functional approaches of Prague School linguistics. One of its most influential members, Havránek (1964: 9, 10), writes: By automatization we […] mean such a use of the devices of the language […] as is usual for a certain expressive purpose, that is, such a use that the expression itself does not attract any attention […]. By foregrounding, on the other hand, we mean the use of the devices of the language in such a way that this use itself attracts attention and is perceived as uncommon, as deprived of automatization, as deautomatized […]. On the basis of these definitions, the absent punctuation of (191) may be regarded as fulfilling a foregrounding function. Punctuation would be clearly beneficial for the reader in the two cases of structural opacity mentioned. Its absence is therefore perceived as uncommon and attracts attention; the reader is required to read more carefully and, accordingly, the decoding process of (191) is deautomatised. Deautomatisation, i.e. foregrounding, is a crucial device in assigning language its ‘poetic function’. Jakobson (1960: 356) gives the most incisive definition: “The set (Einstellung) towards the MESSAGE as such, focus on the message for its own sake, is the POETIC function of language.” A ‘focus on the message for its own sake’ is only possible by using language (or its devic- Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 234 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="249"?> Punctuation in context 235 es) in an uncommon way, i.e. by foregrounding an utterance or at least part of it. As a consequence, to foreground means to deviate from a generally accepted norm or principle; this is the fundamental precondition for an automatised, unmarked usage. In the case of (191), the guiding principle would be to punctuate syntactically inexplicit material. And the writer’s non-punctuation in the relevant positions is deviant in comparison to this background knowledge of a reader. Consequentially, it is especially its deviant punctuation structure that assigns the sentence in (191) a somewhat poetic function. That is, the punctuation, to use Muka ř ovský’s (1964: 19) words and to replicate Jakobson’s statement, “[…] is not used in the services of communication, but in order to place in the foreground the act of expression, the act of speech itself.” Accordingly, there is a close interdependence between form and content in (191). Since the author, Stein, philosophises about her compulsion to make writing an everpresent, ongoing process, the sporadic omission of visual boundaries, i.e. of punctuation marks, is only logical. It creates an immediate impression, evoking images of flowing and merging. The overall presentation of (191) as a single, long orthographic sentence certainly contributes to this impression. The complexity principle is not followed, cf. sec. 7.2.2.1.2 above. The other principle which is of interest for the present section states that punctuation should maintain the structural integrity of a clause at the written level. It is counterintuitive to place a punctuation mark between any of the central clause elements S, V, O, C and A OBL , because their punctuational separation might impede the decoding for the reader, cf. sec. 7.1.3 and 7.2.2.3.1 above (esp. p. 182f.). Although grammar and usage books formulate this principle as a downright rule, actual writing practice shows that deviations are no singular cases. One such deviation has already been discussed in earlier sections, namely the visual separation of a single self-contained syntagm into two or more orthographic sentences, cf. e.g. sec. 4.1 and 5.2.2.1 above. For example, the advertising slogan in (192), taken from Hoffbauer (2003: 43), falls into this category. The subject of an ‘SVOC’-structure is separated from the remainder of the clause by punctuation. Under strict punctuation rules, this would be inadmissible. (192) <The AT&T Calling Card. Makes calling the States easy and inexpensive.> The achieved effect has been described by the principle of informational weight: suggesting graphic completeness, the period stands for maximal distance between two punctuation units and on this account, it is functionally comparable to a falling tone movement in spoken language. In syntagm-internal position, it therefore places an additional focus on the separated con- Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 235 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="250"?> 236 Exploring the guide functions of punctuation stituent, i.e. the subject in (192). That is, given the adherence to the principle of end-focus, normally only the elements placed at the end of a clause are regarded as informationally prominent. In (192), on the other hand, the punctuational presentation makes The AT&T Calling Card an additional focal element; see section 5.2.2.1 above for an in-depth discussion of this principle. Arguably, the punctuational division of a self-contained syntagm into several orthographic sentences is the most prominent of cases that belong to the category ‘[+] authentic, [-] correct, [+] acceptable’ as illustrated in chapter 6 above; see Figure 6.1 in particular. Or related to the current example: (192) is attested in real-language data ([+] authentic), it is communicatively purposeful ([+] acceptable), but it is not in line with the standards of correctness laid down in the style manuals on punctuation usage, for example ([-] correct). Examples like (192) may be associated with the ‘poetic function’ explained earlier. Beyond that, Quirk et al. (1985) draw attention to the fact that the ‘error’ to violate the principle of structural integrity may be triggered by a tone unit boundary. This mainly concerns the placement of commas between subject and verb. Example (193) is mentioned by Monschau (2004: 163), who found it in a linguistic text by Wichmann (2000: 34). The sample in (194) is taken from de Beaugrande (1984: 200) and that in (195) from Chafe (1988a: 11). Example (196) is listed by Danielewicz/ Chafe (1985: 218). (193) <The logic of this particular performance, is to separate the description from the ‘dialogue’ (assuming that ‘sulky looks’ can be counted as a contribution to the conversation).> (194) <A young person getting out of high school today, should go on to college.> (195) <Two cups of Quaker 100% Natural Cereal mixed with a little of this and a little of that, make the best cookies you’ve tasted in years.> (196) <Something that must be understood when attempting to clarify the reason for a lack of universal communication, is neither practical nor responsible.> In all four examples, there is a comma where, according to the principle of structural integrity, there should not be punctuation at all, namely after the subject. What is remarkable, however, is that each subject is instantiated by a heavily modified noun phrase. In (193) the noun phrase is postmodified by a relatively long prepositional phrase, in (194) by a present participle clause, and in (195) by a prepositional phrase plus a past participle clause. Finally, in (196) the subject is a noun phrase (indefinite pronoun) that is postmodified by a relative clause which includes an embedded temporal adverbial clause. On these grounds, all cases would probably qualify as ‘lengthy sub- Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 236 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="251"?> Punctuation in context 237 jects’, which Quirk et al. (1985) consider to be especially prone to separation by comma, cf. Quirk et al. (ib.: 1619). In spoken language, the subject of a clause often occupies a distinct tone unit, and therefore writers may feel the need to reproduce this ‘break’ also in the written expression system: by using punctuation. While this explanation cannot be dismissed as such, it should be borne in mind that punctuation is first of all a feature of written language. Consequentially, correlations with the spoken expression system should not be overrated or made into an absolute. Not least because there is no regular one-to-one mapping between syntactic, intonational and punctuational boundaries, cf. also Esser (1999: 253). To this, Sopher (1977: 306) adds a strong argument which implicitly elaborates on the general disparity of the visual and the acoustic channel. Part of the quotation has already been used in section 7.1.1.2 above. In writing we do not require a comma after a short subject (since the eye, that takes in large units of text at a glance, requires fewer signals than the ear that receives the message piecemeal), but we do require a comma after a long (and often complex) subject. Given that each of the subjects in (193) to (196) is considerably long and/ or complex, it is suggested that the guide function of their punctuational separation is no immediate (and exclusive) effect of prosodic considerations. But rather, each comma helps the reader maintain (or regain) orientation in the course of reading. That is to say, a punctuation mark placed (more or less intentionally) between subject and verb may function as a kind of ‘refocusing element’. In (193) to (196), the commas are ‘refocusing’ in that they serve to extend a reader’s attention after the processing of a very intricate clauseinitial constituent, which may be even felt to violate the principle of endweight, cf. sec. 2.2.1.2 above. Apparently, and despite forming a well-established system, the full guide potential of punctuation lies in its context-sensitive applicability. This corroborates the insight that punctuation (for the most part at least) conveys paralinguistic information. In this context, it can only be supported that Sopher, for example, opposes arbitrary, merely conventionalised punctuation rules that fail to appreciate the occasional benefit of deviant punctuation. Consider the sentence under (197) from an article in the Modern Language Journal, which Sopher (ib.) lists as supporting evidence; it has been slightly abridged for the present purposes: (197) <[…] [T]he very imprecision which this theory maintains is characteristic of emotive language makes it highly unlikely that the emotive paraphrase is going to be pointing in exactly the same direction as the poetic language.> Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 237 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="252"?> 238 Exploring the guide functions of punctuation Without a punctuation mark in the highlighted position, i.e. after language, it requires considerable effort to make out where the postmodification of the subjectival noun phrase imprecision ends and where the verb of the matrix ‘SVOC’-clause follows. In effect, although in strict terms disrupting the structural integrity of the clause complex, a deviant punctuation mark would have been helpful in guiding the reader through the intricate passage in (197). Evidently, as far as the punctuation of subject and verb is concerned, violations of the principle of structural integrity occasionally support a reader in grasping the structure and meaning of a piece of writing. It seems slightly more difficult to determine what may have guided Aarts (1991: 55) in placing a comma between the verb and the clause that acts as the subject complement in the sentence in (198). (198) <The question is, on what grounds such decisions can be based.> As a matter of principle, the comma placement before the subordinate whinterrogative clause would be once more disapproved under the principle of structural integrity. Still, it must have had some relevance for the writer in the first place and might not be entirely useless for the reader either. What is first of all possible therefore is to look at the already mentioned prosodic correlations. The comma in (198) might be motivated by a tone unit boundary in spoken language. Upon encountering the mark, a reader reproduces this boundary as part of his mental image of sound, as it would have to be assumed. While such a prosodic motivation of the comma is possible (or may be one facet), it is no entirely satisfying option. Without overestimating its importance, it seems equally conducive to regard the comma in (198) as some kind of cataphoric organiser. Situated between verb and complement, the comma suggests that there is more to come, figuring as a reference point at which the reader may assess the progress of the syntactic configuration. Given the relatively long constituent that follows, the comma in (198) may thus be termed a ‘preparatory break’ rather than a ‘refocusing element’. In the broadest sense, however, its function is comparable to a punctuation mark after a lengthy subject, cf. (193) to (196) above: it reduces processing costs for the reader. A random Google search for the string ‘The question is on what grounds *’ shows that sentence-internal punctuation appears to be a more frequent phenomenon if the wh-clause (introduced by on what grounds) has subject-operator inversion, i.e. if the indirect question gives way to a direct one. In writing, the question mark is employed to mark these cases. One typical instance, taken from a book on social sciences (Guinn 2006: 86), is quoted as (199a). (199a) <The question is, on what grounds is value to be assessed? > [emphasis supplied] Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 238 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="253"?> Punctuation in context 239 The subject-operator inversion (emphasised) in the complement clause creates a structure which very much resembles the reproduction of direct speech. A classic written example of direct speech would be the variation in (199b). (199b) <I ask, “On what grounds is value to be assessed? ”> As is common practice, the stretch of direct speech is set off from its immediately preceding co-text by a comma; a colon would also be possible. The presence of such a mark (together with the application of quotation marks and a word-initial capital letter) helps to distinguish between the different contexts in which the language of the adjacent punctuation units has been produced. There is the reporting clause which refers to the speaker and the act of communication: I ask. And there is the unmodified stretch of language as it is supposed to have been uttered by a language user: On what grounds is value to be assessed, cf. e.g. Quirk et al. (1985: 1020f.). Hence, punctuation has a signalling function. If this distinction is applied to (199a), the word-forms to the left of the comma might be taken as a form of a reporting clause. They state the act of communication (or proposition) ‘that there is a question’. The word-forms to the right of the comma would then resemble a stretch of direct speech. They give the wording of the question that has been announced in the reporting clause. The absence of quotation marks and the word-initial capital is neglected in this context. Under this interpretation, the punctuational separation of the wh-questions in (199a) and (199b) is also a matter of emphasis. The interrogative clauses are perceived as prominent because they are presented as distinct punctuation units. This, in turn, suggests a looser connection with the preceding constituents, which is corroborated by the medium-independent fact that the wh-questions could feature as independent clauses, i.e. as self-contained syntagms. Perhaps it is this aspect of emphasis which has led the author of the initial sentence to (unintentionally) insert a punctuation mark before the subject complement clause in (198) above. Even though it neither features characteristics of direct speech nor has it the potential to function as a self-contained syntagm, punctuational separation makes the wh-clause a more prominent constituent. The preceding subject-verb combination receives a merely introductory function, and the reader focuses primarily on the subsequent complement. Besides a prosodic correlation and/ or its role as a cataphoric organiser, this last-mentioned aspect could be a third alternative to explain the potential motivation, and therefore also guide function, of the comma in (198). It has already been shown in section 7.2.2.4.3 above that also the punctuational separation of verb and object may be communicatively advan- Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 239 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="254"?> 240 Exploring the guide functions of punctuation tageous. The relevant example (167b) is repeated here for convenience, cf. (200). (200) <John knew, the answer to the physics problem was easy.> If not punctuationally separated, the reduction of the that-clause may at first sight ‘conceal’ the status of the noun phrase the answer in (200). That is, to deviate from the principle of structural integrity in the given example means to disambiguate: the comma provides an early signal for the reader that the answer is not the full object in the ‘SVO’-structure ‘John knew X’, but only forms part of a longer clausal constituent, namely the answer to the physics problem was easy. It is this structure which occupies the object slot of the matrix clause, and the item under scrutiny (the answer) only constitutes the subjectival head-noun of this object clause. To mark off the object as a central clause constituent (and thus to deviate from the principle of structural integrity) may also be a deliberate device to create dramatic emphasis. Esser (1999: 257) mentions a case in point, taken from the autobiographical novel Angela’s Ashes by Frank McCourt. It is reproduced here as (201). (201) <It’s quiet in the lane and I can hear her crying even though she pulls an old coat over her face and I can hear in the distance, my father.> Esser (ib.) finds that, effect-wise, the comma before my father […] is a particularly strong device since at the level of medium-independent presentation structure my father is already in end-focus position (and also the last item in an orthographic paragraph). If located at the end of a clause structure, i.e. if end-focal, a constituent is perceived as informationally prominent by default, cf. also sec. 2.2.2.1 above. In (201) this is emphasised by adding an indicator at the graphic level. The punctuation mark decelerates the flow of reading and by its appearance makes my father seem more distantly related to the rest of the text. And greater distance is coterminous with greater weight. The same effect has been observed for adjuncts in section 7.2.2.3.1 above. That the separated object is a central clause constituent makes the punctuational emphasis of my father even more conspicuous in (201). The especially light punctuation of the example under scrutiny suggests that the single comma might as well be considered a speaking comma, similar to the one described in (183a) in section 7.2.3.1.1 above. Hence, prosodic correlations can never be ruled out completely. Incidentally, the impression of emphasis (or suspense or hesitation) that is created by the punctuation of obligatory clause constituents has already been Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 240 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="255"?> Punctuation in context 241 recognised in sections 7.2.2.3.1 and 7.2.2.4.3 above. Without reviving this discussion, the two most relevant examples are repeated here as (202) and (203). They illustrate the sentence-internal separation of an obligatory adjunct and of an object, respectively. (202) <The waiter put the soup - on the table.> (203) <Joe bought: the book for Susan.> Having mentioned prosodic correlations, one last aspect that needs mentioning in this section is the potential to deviate deliberately from the principle of structural integrity to mirror spoken features. A preferably realistic creation of fictional worlds or contexts is certainly one of the key issues in the production of literary text. This includes the precise imitation of stretches of direct speech. To achieve this, punctuation can be applied almost iconically to depict certain qualities of the spoken language, cf. (204). (204) <But they stopped, all of a sudden; and then he heard the loud clock in the hall still gravely inquiring “how, is, my, lit, tle, friend, how, is, my, lit, tle, friend”, as it had done before.> In the sentence in (204), from the critical edition of Charles Dickens’s (1974 [1848-68]: 149) Dombey and Son, the author playfully uses commas to evoke a subliminal ticking in his readers’ imagination. The ticking is supposed to accompany the clock’s words and to form a characteristic trait of the clock’s ‘voice’. Similar effects are usually only achieved by using onomatopoetic expressions. It is obvious that in the above stated case, punctuation is inextricably linked to the spoken expression system and that there are no repercussions on the medium-independent level. The time of origin of the writing is irrelevant in this context. A similar effect is aimed at by the presentation of one clause complex as a sequence of six one-word sentences in David Lodge’s (2009: 201) novel Deaf Sentence, cf. (205). The example has already been referred to in chapter 6 above. (205) <What. Do. You. Think. You’re. Doing. > Unlike (204), it is no effect of ticking that is brought to mind in (205), but one of slowness, seriousness, loudness. These attributes are supposed to reflect the air of reproach that seems to be resonating with the wh-question. The strongly separating periods assign each word a high amount of informational weight and thus yield the desired effect. Note also the uncommon omission of the question mark after Doing, which may be taken as further Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 241 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="256"?> 242 Exploring the guide functions of punctuation evidence that the enquiry in (205) is a rhetorical one and does not really seek information. It has a persuasive effect. In both cases (204) and (205), the principle of structural integrity is violated in a way which once more results in a ‘focus on the message for its own sake’. Consequentially, the punctuation in the two previous examples can be attributed a poetic function as defined above. The further contribution of punctuation to the (realistic) illustration of spoken features in writing is not examined in the present study. On the whole, the cases described in the present section show that punctuation is highly flexible when it comes to structuring written language. Admittedly, the general punctuation principles ensure a certain degree of decidedness in its use: without them, punctuation would have no meaning for someone other than the writer, cf. also sec. 3.3 and 7.1 above. This does not alter the fact, however, that some deviations from these principles are still communicatively relevant. Punctuation is a partially ‘open capacity’, cf. Cordeiro (1988: 64). After all, this openness to flexibility and deviation is fully in line with a claim made at the end of section 7.1.3 above: Every general punctuation principle can be overridden by specific contextual considerations if these fulfil better the communicative goals of a writer and/ or if they simplify decoding, cf. also Cruttenden (1990: 71). 7.2.3.2 The specifying function of punctuation 7.2.3.2.1 Punctuation as a marker of separative force Punctuation is used to separate and specify. Accordingly, chapter 5 has yielded the insight that the individual marks cannot be divided unequivocally among these functions. It rather seems as if all punctuation marks serve the dual function ‘separation plus specification’ (bar quotation marks perhaps). Whereas the separating function of punctuation lies in the ‘physical appearance’ of the marks, i.e. their segmental nature, the specifying function has been described as consisting of two interrelated aspects. One of these aspects is that punctuation marks function as markers of separative force, cf. sec. 5.2.3 above. The other aspect of the specifying function will be referred to in section 7.2.3.2.2 below. The claim that punctuation marks function as indicators of separative force, i.e. that they signal the relative closeness of juxtaposed material, has led to the insight that every punctuation mark can be assigned a certain degree of separative force. This allows for their arrangement on a punctuation hierarchy. The hierarchy concept has been dealt with in detail in chapter 5 above; see section 5.2.3 in particular. The period occupies the highest position on the punctuation hierarchy. Hence, it creates the maximum degree of separation between two adjacent text portions. It will certainly be remembered that this distance is particular- Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 242 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="257"?> Punctuation in context 243 ly evident if a period separates what forms a structural whole. A case in point is the presentation of one self-contained clause (complex) as more than a single orthographic sentence. Example (206a) is similar to those discussed in sections 4.1 and 5.2.2.1 above (Newsweek, Underhill 28 Feb. 2000: 45). (206a) <Big Brother is best friend. For now.> The discrepancy of medium-independent structure and written presentation (and the raised informational weight of both sentences) is a punctuational effect. That is, the prepositional phrase For now that is captured by the second orthographic sentence can be decoded as a dependent constituent of the clause that forms the first written sentence. The presentation of For now as a distinct orthographic sentence in (206a) contradicts this dependency relation, however. On their quest for a high-quality style in written presentation, editors of style manuals continue to regard these instantiations as a thorn in their sides, cf. e.g. Peck/ Coyle (1999: 3f.). Their fundamental creed is that “[a] sentence is a grammatically complete unit, a group of words that makes sense” and that “[i]t has a subject and a main verb” (ib.: 5, 7). Evidently, this prescriptive view fails to take into account that the basic unit of written description is the orthographic sentence, not some medium-independent unit. To keep apart different levels of linguistic description is a key argument of the present study. Without re-entering this largely theoretical discussion, it has been shown repeatedly that the non-identity of clause (complex) and orthographic sentence is a feature regularly exploited by writers of English. And in the present example (206a), this seems particularly effective because it is through the strongly separating period that the clause fragment For now is perceived as a belated addition. To the reader, it seems as if “[…] two different assertions are being made” (Quirk et al. 1985: 912). In the possible variation (206b), on the other hand, there is a one-to-one relationship between medium-bound written and medium-independent syntactic structure, i.e. one orthographic sentence concurs with one clause. It will certainly be remembered that the principle of structural integrity, last referred to in section 7.2.3.1.3 above, does not apply to the punctuational separation of optional adverbials, cf. also sec. 7.1.3 above. (206b) <Big Brother is best friend, for now. Still, the end-focal for now is accentuated in (206b) because it comes as a distinct punctuation unit. There is still an aspect of belated addition to it. Due to the comma’s low degree of separative force (in comparison to the period in the original example), however, the emphasising effect is perceived as less conspicuous; see section 7.2.2.3.1 above for similar comma examples. This Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 243 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="258"?> 244 Exploring the guide functions of punctuation reduction in prominence is therefore equivalent to greater closeness between the written stretches in the two adjacent punctuation units. Closeness would be greatest if there was no punctuation at all, and any effect of focus or emphasis would be merely a consequence of the medium-independent structural arrangement, cf. (206c). (206c) <Big Brother is best friend for now. Information-wise, the prepositional phrase for now is once more perceived as the most important constituent: its end-focus position is retained. But without any medium-bound cues (such as punctuation) which could function as informational amplifiers, (206c) is the least obtrusive way of presenting the underlying wording in the written expression system. There is no extra emphasis of the focal constituent. Even if the punctuational separation of a finally located constituent may be a special case, the cursory look at the three variants (206a) to (206c) has once more sharpened the argument that, in principle, the separative force of a punctuation mark contributes significantly to the overall impression of a piece of writing. Besides, the choice of one punctuation mark over another in the same position may also contribute significantly to the way a written stretch is understood. In section 7.1.2.1 above, the importance of the sentence-internal punctuation of example (9) has been discussed, cf. also ch. 1 above. It is repeated here as (207a). (207a) <Order your furniture on Monday; take it home on Tuesday.> The semicolon is crucial in the indicated position because it adopts the role of a structural element such as a coordinator, e.g. and or but, cf. also 7.2.3.1.3 above. There is a case of asyndetic coordination. For the present discussion, however, it is not only important that there is a mark between Monday and take, but rather that also the actual choice of mark counts. Punctuation may function as a case-specific indicator of how to interpret a sequence of written word-forms. Since a stronger mark tends to be perceived as indicating syntactic self-containedness, cf. also sec. 5.2.2.1 above, a weaker mark, in turn, might signify the opposite - especially if the underlying syntactic structure of the two adjacent punctuation units is equivalent. Compare the use of the semicolon in the above version (207a) with that of a comma in the b-version below: (207b) <Order your furniture on Monday, take it home on Tuesday.> Strictly speaking, example (207b) is not different from the a-version as it may likewise be decoded as an instantiation of asyndetic coordination. On the Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 244 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="259"?> Punctuation in context 245 other hand, there is room for an alternative view. Whereas the greater distance conveyed by the semicolon in (207a) may serve as an indicator of selfcontainedness and therefore of a paratactic (coordinative) relation of the adjacent punctuation units, the low separative force of the comma in (207b) may be taken as a signal of a hypotactic relation; see also Quirk et al. (ib.: 918f.) for a note on syntactic and corresponding semantic inequality. This might explain why (207b) is possibly read as an elliptical conditional structure, whereas (207a) denotes two self-contained main clauses and hence a string of two commands, cf. also ch. 1 above. Corresponding, yet more explicit written versions of (207a) and (207b) would be (207c) and (207d), in that order. (207c) <Step 1: Order your furniture on Monday. Step 2: Take it home on Tuesday.> (207d) <If you order your furniture on Monday, you can take it home on Tuesday.> Obviously, it is not always and only the position of a punctuation mark that is responsible for a change in meaning, cf. e.g. sec. 7.2.2.4 above, but also the specific choice of mark can be highly relevant in written communication. In view of that, the perceived closeness among punctuation units plays an important role in the guide functions of punctuation. 7.2.3.2.2 Punctuation and discourse structure In addition to indicating different degrees of separative force, the specifying function of punctuation comprises another aspect. The association of certain punctuation marks with a specific semantic value has raised the question of “[…] what roles punctuation plays within discourse structure” (Say 1998: 15). That punctuation might indicate or establish relations among parts of written text has been first claimed by Dale (1992: 110), who finds that […] punctuation marks occupy an interesting middle ground between overtly linguistic phenomena like cue words [e.g. conjuncts or conjunctions, SP], and overtly layout-oriented phenomena such as indentation and spacing. The following discussion deals with the rhetorical function of punctuation marks alone. Their possible interaction with features of macrosetting, i.e. with the layout-oriented phenomena that Dale speaks of, is not considered. What might be interesting in this context is the interaction of punctuation and paragraphing; of punctuation and sense lining (as in liturgical texts); the function of punctuation in poetry, cf. e.g. Levenston (1992: 77-86); and the role of punctuation in a hybrid phenomenon like the ‘stretched sentence’, cf. e.g. Peters (2002: 85-89). It goes without saying that the overall function Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 245 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="260"?> 246 Exploring the guide functions of punctuation of punctuation may amount to more than merely indicating rhetorical relations in these contexts. There is indeed reason to suggest that some punctuation marks may be a reliable key to the rhetorical relations that hold among certain textual constituents. Amongst others, consider the use of the colon and of parentheses. By carrying a specific semantic value, these marks belong to a small group of marks that seem to be primed to specify semantic bonds as they hold among juxtaposed punctuation units, cf. sec. 5.2.3 above. The following two examples (208) and (209) are taken from the repeatedly quoted novel Queen Camilla by Sue Townsend (2006: 123, 372). (208) <She was the perfect wife: she could weld an oxyacetylene torch, pull a horse out of a ditch, intervene in a dogfight and mend a burst pipe, and she never minded if his boots were filthy.> (209) <Sandra had crossed ‘salad’ off the suggested menu: Arthur never touched rabbit food and considered those who did to be communists and cranks.> In (208) the colon after wife indicates that the material to its right is going to explain why the woman referred to was the ideal spouse. The colon is an (early) organiser for the reader what to expect. A similar interpretation applies to (209). Here, the colon expansion, i.e. the written material that follows the colon, provides information on what has brought Sandra to drop the dish of vegetables from the bill of fare. That any such explanation is almost certain to follow is already implied in the mere presence of the colon after menu. In both examples (208) and (209), the textual function of the colon may be described as ‘introducing elaborative content’ (to keep it most generally at this point). Typical examples of parentheses are given by Say (1998: 39, 44), originally found in the British National Corpus, cf. (210) and (211). Punctuation marks other than parentheses are not considered. (210) <The jury will be “death qualified” (in the case of Alabama capital law) : all jurors have to believe in capital punishment, and be prepared to sentence someone to death.> (211) <To wit, my maiden voyage (and novitiates are referred to as virgins) began at dawn on a dew-sodden fairway and ended at noon in a soggy field.> In (210) the parenthetical contains a prepositional phrase which constrains the applicability of the expression ‘death qualified’; it is restricted to the jurisdiction of one specific state in the United States (in the given example). Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 246 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="261"?> Punctuation in context 247 In (211) the parentheses enclose a clause which gives presuppositional information “[…] that must be explicitly stated for the majority of the readers […]” (ib.: 43). With regard to the rhetorical structure of a text, the parentheses enclose explanatory background information so that a reader comprehends fully the medium-independent configuration rendered in writing. (Note that from a functional perspective, the information enclosed in parentheses is often comparable to that placed between dashes - even though dashes are usually perceived as creating a more emphatic impression, cf. also sec. 5.2.2.5 above.) On the whole, it may be argued that colon and parentheses indicate or introduce informational ‘satellites’ which, in the broadest sense, provide clarifying information. The concepts of satellite and, as a counterpart, nucleus are part and parcel of Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST), which has been introduced in section 2.2.1.1 above when medium-independent presentation strategies have been considered. In Rhetorical Structure Theory, to put it in a nutshell, the nucleus-satellite distinction is the basis for a description of the functional dependencies that hold among textual units in natural discourse (here: written text), cf. e.g. Mann/ Thompson (1988: 243). That is, once a text is divided into units, these units can be functionally classified as (i) nuclei, i.e. key elements; and as (ii) satellites, i.e. units that contain some sort of additional information. The final step then involves the more specific description of the rhetorical interaction between these units, cf. e.g. Mann/ Thompson (ib.) and also Mann/ Thompson (1987). To avoid a false impression, it should be pointed out that every RST-analysis is only a matter of plausibility. Different analysts may arrive at different results, allowing for multiple analyses. A closer look at the interaction of punctuation and discourse structure reveals a mismatch, however. Obviously, a single punctuation mark can be used with several different rhetorical relations, cf. also Dale (1992: 115f.) and Say (1998: 16). In other words, the rhetorical structure of a text seems to be ‘underdetermined’ by punctuation. Say, for instance, analyses the role of colons and parentheses and also of dashes and semicolons in the signalling of discourse structure, and finds numerous one-to-many correlations in selected corpus data, cf. Say (ib.: ch. 3). Without getting immersed in a detailed discussion of this issue, the use of the colon may serve as a case in point: A brief search of the written printed material of the International Corpus of English yields, amongst others, the examples in (212) to (215). Each time, a colon separates two text portions which can be conceived of as textual units in the sense of Rhetorical Structure Theory. In all four examples, the unit to the left of the colon can be conceived of as the nucleus, the one to the right as the satellite (W2A-004#079; W2C- 010#082/ 083; W2F-016#097/ 098; W2E-008#068/ 069). (212) <Extremes meet: unity disperses into multiplicity.> Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 247 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="262"?> 248 Exploring the guide functions of punctuation (213) <Hopes for peace in Lebanon have never been so high: international détente and Syrian determination to prevail in Lebanon, new agreement among the Lebanese on their Arab destiny, the high price of war that is no longer waged with small arms, and overwhelming war-wariness have already forged national and international agreement on a peace plan to rebuild state authority and end the traditional dominance of Lebanon’s Maronite Christian Community.> (214) <The night of the accident she’d been upset, distracted - no, upset: after dinner, she hadn’t been able to settle to anything.> (215) <The arguments are fully understood in Beijing: it is just that they are being wilfully disregarded.> Although the colon is commonly considered an indicator of elaborative content, it is used also outside this relation. The rhetorical relations that hold among the textual units in the above examples are by no means merely elaborative. The relation definitions applied in the following are based on Thompson/ Mann (1986) and Mann/ Thompson (1988), cf. Thompson/ Mann (1986: 438) and Mann/ Thompson (1988: 254f., 273, 275f.). To start with, there actually is an ‘elaboration relation’ in (212), as it is commonly expected with a colon. Following the colon, the satellite (unity disperses into multiplicity) provides additional detail on the nuclear unit (Extremes meet), performing a move towards specification. (An ‘elaboration relation’ is observable for [208] as well.) In (213), on the other hand, the extremely long satellite (international détente…) is in a ‘(non-volitional) cause relation’ to the preceding nucleus (Hopes for peace in Lebanon have never been so high). The passage to the right of the colon provides circumstantial information in the broadest sense, explaining why there is a reasonable cause for hope, i.e. what led to the current level of optimism. (A ‘cause relation’ can also be assumed for example [209] discussed earlier.) In (214) the satellite unit (after dinner, she hadn’t been able to settle to anything) comprises the result of the situation depicted in the nucleus (The night of the accident she’d been upset, distracted - no, upset). Hence, the colon is used with what is conceptualised as a ‘(non-volitional) result relation’ in Rhetorical Structure Theory. Finally, in (215) the units are in a ‘concession relation’ from a rhetorical perspective. There is an incompatibility between the nucleus (The arguments are fully understood in Beijing) and the satellite (it is just that they are being wilfully disregarded) and, as a result, a reader develops a positive stance towards the information given in the former part. After all, there are no definite oneto-one mappings of punctuation and rhetorical structure. Furthermore (and beyond the use of the colon), not only can one specific type of mark be used in connection with several different rhetorical relations, but a single rhetorical relation can also be announced by (or can occur Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 248 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="263"?> Punctuation in context 249 with) several different punctuation marks. This is evident in examples (216a) to (216f). The wording is adapted from Quirk et al. (1985: 1628). (216a) <He’s at home, I’ve just spoken to him.> (216b) <He’s at home: I’ve just spoken to him.> (216c) <He’s at home - I’ve just spoken to him.> (216d) <He’s at home (I’ve just spoken to him) .> (216e) <He’s at home; I’ve just spoken to him.> (216f) <He’s at home. I’ve just spoken to him.> In all six versions, the same sequence of word-forms is segmented into two punctuation units, namely into He’s at home and into I’ve just spoken to him. Incidentally, in the case at hand, each punctuation unit translates into a textual unit as conceptualised by Rhetorical Structure Theory. Arguably, the first punctuation unit is most important from a textual perspective. Comprising the kernel information, it forms the textual nucleus. And in providing supplementary information, the second unit constitutes a rhetorical satellite. What is most important in this context is the observation that the rhetorical relations of a text seem to be independent of what is suggested by the punctuational structure. Rhetorical relations are medium-independent. For instance, although the semantic value associated with parentheses has been given as ‘backgrounding’, cf. e.g. (210) and (211) above, this does not necessarily (and automatically) imply that I’ve just spoken to him is in a ‘backgrounding relation’ in the parenthesised version (216d). Instead, an ‘evidence relation’ between the second clause (I’ve just spoken to him; satellite) and the first one (He’s at home; nucleus) is more convincing. Mann/ Thompson (1988: 251) say that in an ‘evidence relation’ the satellite is “[…] provided to increase the reader’s belief in the claim expressed in [the nucleus].” This applies also to example (216d) - despite a punctuation that may initially suggest otherwise. (Admittedly, the functions of evidence and backgrounding are highly compatible.) Given the assumed independency of rhetorical structure and punctuation, the other written versions listed in (216a) to (216f) above should have just as little immediate effect on how the rhetorical structure of the underlying wording is conceptualised. Each time, the assumed ‘evidence relation’ should remain unaffected. This certainly selective look at the interaction of punctuation and discourse structure allows for the insight that punctuation lacks specificity and is highly context-dependent as far as the signalling of rhetorical relations is concerned, cf. also Dale (1992: 116). This complies with a claim by Mann/ Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 249 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="264"?> 250 Exploring the guide functions of punctuation Thompson (1988: 250), who observe a lack of surface structure indicators that reliably predict the rhetorical relations in a text. The definitions do not rely on morphological or syntactic signals. Recognition of the relation always rests on functional and semantic judgements alone. […] We have found no reliable, unambiguous signals for any of the relations. Apparently, the observed unspecificity does not only affect medium-independent aspects (as thought of by Mann/ Thompson), but also medium-bound ones like punctuation. Although providing potentially helpful information, punctuation marks are no consistent indicators of the exact rhetorical structure of a text (as conceived of by Rhetorical Stucture Theory). Further research would certainly be desirable in this context. The variable relationship of punctuation and discourse structure is another piece of evidence that readers decode information from two expression systems at the same time, cf. also sec. 4.3 above. On the one hand, there is the medium-independent information which, in the present context, is that on discourse structure. It is derivable from the medium-independent wording, and perhaps from its coand context. On the other hand, there is the medium-dependent graphic information to which punctuation belongs. Both may complement each other for the benefit of the reader. The RST-approach, however, is not specific enough to accommodate both aspects; it focuses on the illustration of the medium-independent rhetorical organisation, which may (but does not have to) comply with punctuational information. Of course, this is not to be understood as criticism of Rhetorical Structure Theory, whose development is the result of a specific research interest. Instead, it is important to note that the decoding of written text is a multi-dimensional activity, and that punctuation marks (as observed for colon and parentheses) can suggest certain ‘overtones’ by organising the upcoming material for the reader in various ways. These overtones, however, are not (necessarily) accounted for by RST-analyses; they must be regarded as additional information that comes with the presentational form of written text. All in all, the insights of the present and also of the previous section on the specifying function of punctuation support its paralinguistic status. That is, the communicative value of punctuation is, for the most part at least, not describable in terms of a predefined, decontextualised denotation, cf. sec. 2.3 above. Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 250 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="265"?> 8 The guide functions of punctuation: theoretical and functional synopsis The present study aims at a functional description of punctuation. In order to capitalise on the multifaceted observations that have been made so far, this chapter recapitulates the main findings in an attempt to tie up the loose ends, so to speak, and to eventually specify the initially assumed global guiding role of punctuation, cf. ch. 6. As a start, the central theoretical insights of the present study are formulated in terms of three brief abstracts. This is done in maximally general fashion in section 8.1. After that, the varied insights about the communicative value of punctuation, as derived from the qualitative analysis in chapter 7 above, are condensed into nine relatively abstract guide functions. They are assorted in section 8.2 and are supposed to summarise (and contextualise) what is actually meant when speaking of the communicative value, i.e. guiding role, of punctuation. They are its manifestations. A decided conclusion is then drawn in the subsequent chapter 9. 8.1 Synopsis I: theoretical insights The initial observation of the present study had been that punctuation was not implemented sufficiently in linguistic theory. In a first step, therefore, punctuation has been integrated into a comprehensive and theoretically plausible model of linguistic description and presentation structure (based on the design feature of medium-transferability), as developed by Esser (2006). Additionally, the approach to classify punctuation marks theoretically has taken advantage of Mulder/ Hervey’s (1971) and Mulder’s (1989) taxonomy of indices and semiotic systems, and of the concomitant insight that the communicative value of punctuation marks cannot be reduced to one specific denotative meaning (component). The decoding of their indexical qualities relies on connotations, cf. ch. 2 above. A brief historical account of punctuation has proven that its modern concept is closely linked to specific advancements in written language (e.g. development of the orthographic sentence, invention of printing). Although often neglected, this must be taken as another keystone of the functional description of punctuation, serving to avoid its undue amalgamation with the syntactic and/ or the spoken expression system, cf. ch. 3 above. The aforesaid can be captured in the following abstract. Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 251 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="266"?> 252 The guide functions of punctuation: theoretical and functional synopsis T HEORY A BSTRACT 1: L INGUISTIC S TATUS OF P UNCTUATION Punctuation is a presentational device that a writer has at his or her disposal when encoding a particular proposition. Technically speaking, punctuation is a nonverbal medium-dependent graphic feature that is transmitted via the visual channel and which, for the most part, communicates supplementary paralinguistic information (based on connotations). On some occasions, a punctuation mark may also assume a distinctive linguistic function that shows on the basis of oppositions (reference to a specific denotation). Therefore, the communicative value of punctuation is not limited to indicating medium-independent structural categories, and it cannot be reduced to a written marker of mediumbound spoken features. Punctuation has been described as a constitutive feature of the orthographic sentence. Orthographic sentences form the building blocks of written language and permit a quick and effective decoding of medium-independent syntactic structures. Written sentences are information units. Clearly, their frequent internal segmentation into smaller punctuation units supports this view. However, the lack of a consistent one-to-one relation between written sentences and syntactic clauses has strengthened the awareness that readers decode information on at least two channels at the same time. To account for this observation, the innovative script unit model, as proposed by Hoffbauer (2003) and Esser (2006), has been introduced as an essential descriptive tool. It provides a systematic framework for the analysis of stretches of written language in general and of the function of punctuation marks in particular. The script unit subsumes aspects of both text production (encoding) and text processing or interpretation (decoding), cf. ch. 4 above. The importance of the script unit model for the analyis of punctuation is recorded in the following abstract. T HEORY A BSTRACT 2: P UNCTUATION AND THE S CRIPT U NIT The script unit is defined as the unit of orthographic plus syntactic completion. There are three types of script units. Type (i): one orthographic sentence concurs with one clause complex. Type (ii): one clause complex is presented as more than one written sentence. Type (iii): two or more self-contained syntagms are conjoined within one orthographic sentence. A punctuation mark is therefore a complex marker of information status that gives the reader the opportunity to gather information on two aspects, namely on the current graphic status and on the syntactic status ‘so far’. The graphic status at a punctuation unit boundary may be either ‘final’ (signalled by an external punctuation mark) or ‘nonfinal’ (signalled by an internal punctuation mark). Similarly, the syntactic status ‘so far’ is assessed as either ‘complete’ or ‘incomplete’ at a punctuation unit boundary. Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 252 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="267"?> Synopsis II: functional insights 253 The concept of punctuation itself has been narrowed to non-alphanumeric characters that operate at or above word-level, excluding special characters with lexicalised meanings (such as the logogram <&>) and also suprasegmental features (like italicisation) or layout devices. What has been considered in the present study are apostrophe and hyphen as word-based punctuation; and the marks of the set p = {. , ; : - ? ! () “”} that create punctuation units. Besides interpreting the interaction of graphic and syntactic closure information at a punctuation unit boundary, a reader also evaluates the information that comes with the type of mark that he or she finds in a text. More specifically, the type of mark is crucial with regard to the degree of separative force it communicates and the bearing this might have on the relative importance of adjacent punctuation units, but also on the interpretation of a written stretch as such. The latter aspect is also influenced by the special role of three marks in particular (<: > and <-> and <()>), cf. ch. 5 above. The following abstract summarises the previous remarks. T HEORY A BSTRACT 3: P UNCTUATION H IERARCHY Punctuation separates and specifies. Each mark (bar quotation marks) occupies a position on a punctuation hierarchy which reflects its degree of separative force and documents its relation to the orthographic sentence (final vs non-final graphic status). This satisfies the assumption that the marks correlate in such a way as to communicate different degrees of semantic integration (or separation, for that matter) between parts of a text. They specify. Portions separated by marks high on the hierarchy are prone to carrying a greater amount of informational weight than those marked off by lower punctuation marks. What is more, some marks seem to carry a specific semantic value; this mainly applies to the colon, the dash and to parentheses, but is not related to their hierarchy positions. The theoretical insights mentioned in the present section, no matter how trivial they might seem, have turned out to be part and parcel of a linguistically adequate description of punctuation. Without continuously keeping them in mind, any comprehensive attempt to explore the function of punctuation is destined to fail from the outset. Taken together, they also warrant a certain degree of decidedness in the use and functionality of punctuation without which it would have no meaning for someone other than its originator, i.e. for the writer. It is suggested that the theoretical insights are part of knowledge that is (at least implicitly) shared by both writer and reader. 8.2 Synopsis II: functional insights Before compiling a synopsis of the main functional insights, two explanatory remarks are in order. Firstly, given the heterogeneity of the discussed aspects, the results presented in this section have been reduced to only the most Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 253 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="268"?> 254 The guide functions of punctuation: theoretical and functional synopsis generally observable purposes of punctuation. Otherwise, it would certainly be a presumptuous undertaking to offer a feasible and coherent description. Besides, the repeatedly mentioned aim of the present study is to yield type-exhaustiveness in the functional description of punctuation; hence, a too detailed, token-related overview of every single instance of punctuation usage is not intended. (Note that word-level punctuation, briefly touched upon in sections 7.2.1.1 and 7.2.1.2 above, is not explicitly reconsidered in the following sections.) Secondly, having distinguished a dominant paralinguistic but also a possible linguistic, i.e. distinctive, function of punctuation, the findings will be ordered along these two lines. Section 8.2.1 summarises the guide functions that fall in the category ‘punctuation as a paralinguistic device’; this is the largest part. Section 8.2.2 records what is essential to note about ‘punctuation as a linguistic device’. 8.2.1 Punctuation as a paralinguistic device: guide functions 1 to 8 (GF 1-8) 8.2.1.1 Reducing cognitive complexity (GF 1-4) The first field in which punctuation shows paralinguistic qualities refers to its potential as a medium-bound device that reduces cognitive complexity for the reader. Cognitive complexity is understood in the broadest sense in the present study. A given linguistic input is cognitively complex if its understanding raises the workload that must be handled by the decoding capacities of a decoder. At the end of section 7.2.2.1.2 above, it has been argued that writers seem to follow a so-called ‘complexity principle’ as far as punctuation usage is concerned. The definition of the principle, as originally suggested by Rohdenburg (2003: 205), is repeated here for convenience: The complexity principle states that in the case of more or less explicit constructional alternatives […], the more explicit option(s) will tend to be preferred in cognitively more complex environments. The analysis of punctuation examples has shown that efforts to reduce a decoder’s cognitive workload are not restricted to the medium-independent level. Not only do encoders prefer certain syntactic alternatives (as brought up in the quotation), but they also use a medium-bound device like punctuation to increase the explicitness of their texts. One facet of the communicative value of punctuation is therefore rooted in the complexity principle. Four guide functions (GF 1-4) can be formulated in this context, accounting for the ways in which punctuation contributes to this principle and makes a piece of writing more explicit. Each guide function is associated with aspects (or examples) discussed in chapter 7 and with more detailed explanatory guidelines derived thereof. This is supposed to show the practical rele- Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 254 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="269"?> Synopsis II: functional insights 255 vance of each function. It should be kept in mind, however, that the aspects and guidelines are not to be understood as forming a complete list and that they may occur with more than one guide function. For ease of reference, page numbers are given in parentheses. 8.2.1.1.1 Guide function 1 (GF 1) The initial three guide functions refer - most openly perhaps - to the evident potential of punctuation to act as a reading aid. In other words, they account for a use of punctuation that is primarily motivated by considerations about decoding, i.e. about trouble-free reading, describing facets of what is commonly referred to as ‘reading punctuation’; see also sections 7.1.1.2 and 7.2.3.1.1 above for the more specific concept ‘reading comma’, for example. G UIDE F UNCTION 1 (GF 1): P UNCTUATION AS G UIDE TO S YNTACTIC S TATUS OR T EXTUAL R OLE Punctuation guides the reader in assessing the syntactic status or the textual role of certain constituents - information which is, strictly speaking, inferable from the coand context. Instances of reading punctuation, as conceptualised in the first guide function, have been observed in connection with (1.i) suband superordinate syntactic boundaries, with (1.ii) vocatives, (1.iii) restrictive and non-restrictive constituents and with (1.iv) finally located adverbial clauses. The punctuation of (1.i) suband superordinate boundaries has been treated in section 7.2.3.1.2 above (p. 229ff.). The parameter that largely influences reading punctuation in this context is whether in a written presentation constituents at different syntactic levels can be (but do not have to be) kept apart (for example, at clause or at phrase level). The functional guidelines are as follows. (1.i) suband superordinate syntactic boundaries - Variable punctuation is favourable if constituents at different syntactic levels can be distinguished. It is reasonable that constituents that operate at lower levels are punctuated by marks that convey a lower degree of separative force (or zero) than constituents that operate at higher levels. These are accordingly punctuated by stronger marks. - There is the pragmatic requirement that one type of mark should not occur at different syntactic levels within a single script unit (‘single level constraint’). Excepted from this constraint is the use of the comma. The punctuation of (1.ii) vocatives has been brought up in section 7.2.2.4.3 above (221ff.). The parameter that influences the use of punctuation in this Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 255 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="270"?> 256 The guide functions of punctuation: theoretical and functional synopsis context is the structurally peripheral status of vocatives. The subsequent guideline conceptualises this awareness. (1.ii) vocatives - The punctuation of a vocative is favourable because the resulting visual boundary supports the reader in concluding that (irrespective of its position) the separated constituent is outside the actual clause structure. Punctuation may thus serve as an early indicator to distinguish the vocative from a regular clause constituent like the subject or the object. The latter aspect might suggest a link between GF 1 and GF 2. The punctuation of (1.iii) restrictive and non-restrictive constituents has been discussed at length for relative clauses in section 7.2.2.2.1 above (161ff.); the subject has then been touched on again in section 7.2.2.2.2 (appositions, 168ff.) and at the end of section 7.2.2.3.1 above (adjunct clauses, 191ff.). The dominant parameter that influences the use of punctuation in these contexts is whether a constituent is recognised as essential for the communication of a proposition. Of course, punctuation is once more only a derived feature. The relevant guidelines are given below. (1.iii) restrictive and non-restrictive constituents - Punctuational separation is favourable if a constituent is labelled as ‘non-restrictive’. The reader is thus suggested that the relevant constituent communicates supplementary information, being visually dissociated from the rest of the clause (complex) to which it belongs. If coand context do not permit an interpretation other than ‘non-restrictive’, the conventional punctuational marking may be dispensable. - A restrictive constituent, on the other hand, is required from a propositional point of view, and it is therefore advantageous not to separate it punctuationwise. In this way, its presentational form, i.e. no visual boundary, corroborates its close connection with the clause (complex) of which it forms part. The punctuation of (1.iv) adverbial clauses has been analysed repeatedly in section 7.2.2.3 above (184ff., 195ff.), and it appears to be a useful indicator of their degree of structural integration. More specifically, punctuation seems to be especially helpful as a reading aid if an adverbial clause is located finally, i.e. at the end of a clause complex. (1.iv) finally located adverbial clauses - A punctuation mark that separates a main clause from a following adverbial clause is favourable if the adverbial clause is only loosely integrated into the matrix structure. A punctuation mark may thus be interpreted as a guide that gives away information on the textual role of the adverbial. Punctuational separation of a finally located adverbial clause suggests its peripheral status Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 256 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="271"?> Synopsis II: functional insights 257 and might therefore be used to depict the adverbial as a disjunct. The absence of a mark before the adverbial clause would, mutatis mutandis, guide the reader to decode it as an adjunct, however. The lack of a punctuation mark reflects the adjunct’s higher degree of integration into the matrix structure. Interference with the aspect of (iii) (non-)restrictiveness is possible in this context. All in all, the guidelines listed under (1.i) to (1.iv) imply that the first punctuational guide function (GF 1) benefits from the fact that there are largely conventionalised instances of punctuation practice, and that knowledge about these conventions is harnessed by the writer of a text and, most importantly, is interpreted accordingly by its reader(s). 8.2.1.1.2 Guide function 2 (GF 2) The second guide function (GF 2) emphasises the insight that punctuation marks may be used as visual devices that help readers find their way through a piece of writing, i.e. to hold on course while navigating through a text (to use a figurative comparison). G UIDE F UNCTION 2 (GF 2): P UNCTUATION AS O RGANISER Punctuation provides useful points of orientation for the reader by offering him or her visual reference points. This includes cases in which the application of punctuation occasionally violates the generally assumed principle of structural integrity. In some cases, a punctuation mark thus constitutes a ‘refocusing element’ or a ‘cataphoric organiser’. Instances of this guide function are found in connection with (2.i) syndetic clause coordination and (2.ii) obligatory clause constituents in particular. The punctuation of (2.i) syndetic clause coordination has been dealt with in section 7.2.2.1.1 above (p. 145ff.). Parameters that influence the use of punctuation as a reading aid are the length and/ or complexity of the linked conjuncts and also the type of the coordinator (especially and vs but). Thesubsequent guidelines are therefore of particular importance in this context. (2.i) syndetic clause coordination - A punctuation mark that conveys a high degree of separative force is favourable if the length and/ or complexity of the syndetically coordinated clauses increases. Hence, the strength of the applied mark is often linked to the length and/ or complexity of the clauses. - A punctuation mark is more favourable if the coordinator that links two clauses is adversative in nature (e.g. but) than if it is additive (e.g. and). The visual boundary created by the punctuation corroborates and possibly rein- Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 257 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="272"?> 258 The guide functions of punctuation: theoretical and functional synopsis forces the opposition expressed by the adversative coordinator but. The first guideline remains unaffected. The punctuation of (2.ii) obligatory clause constituents has been referred to in section 7.1.3 above (138) and has afterwards been discussed more extensively in sections 7.2.2.4.3 and 7.2.3.1.3 above (217ff., 235ff.). Quite generally, there is the general punctuation principle of structural integrity: ‘Do not punctuate an obligatory clause constituent’, cf. also sec. 7.2.2.3.1 above (182f.). However, in compliance with the second punctuational guide function (GF 2), deviations from this principle may fulfil an important purpose of (re-)orientation for the reader. Parameters that make punctuation a special but useful device with obligatory clause constituents are, firstly, the length and/ or complexity of certain constituents (especially subjects) and, secondly, the occurrence of temporary ambiguities. This leads to the following guidelines. (2.ii) obligatory clause constituents - Punctuation can be advantageous if it is positioned after a lengthy and/ or complex clause constituent, especially after a subject of this kind. A punctuation mark between subject and verb, for example, can be interpreted as a ‘refocusing element’ - ‘refocusing’ in that it serves to extend a reader’s attention span after the processing of a very intricate clause-initial constituent, which may be even felt to violate the principle of end-weight. - Punctuation is also helpful before an obligatory clause constituent if the absence of a mark would leave the reader with a temporarily ambiguous structure, causing him or her to be led up the garden path. This applies, for example, if the parsing principle of late closure erroneously suggests that a noun phrase is the object (O) of a current clause rather than the subject (S) of a subsequent one; or if the default parsing strategies make the reader momentarily fail to notice the true proportions of the object slot (e.g. that it is clausal, not phrasal). A punctuation mark supplies the reader with an opportunity to modify provisional, potentially erroneous syntactic expectations. It functions as an ‘early indicator’ or a ‘cataphoric organiser’ in these cases. The second guide function (GF 2) implies that the general punctuation principle of structural integrity can be overridden by perception-related considerations that are ranking higher from a communicative perspective. For the communicative relevance of other deviations from the general punctuation principle of structural integrity, see guide functions five and six (GF 5/ 6). 8.2.1.1.3 Guide function 3 (GF 3) Similar to what has been formulated in the previous two functions (GF 1/ 2), the third guide function (GF 3) makes it clear once again that punctuation is an important device to reduce cognitive complexity for the reader. Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 258 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="273"?> Synopsis II: functional insights 259 G UIDE F UNCTION 3 (GF 3): P UNCTUATION AS G UIDE TO I NTERVENING S YNTACTIC M ATERIAL Punctuation serves to ‘keep (parts of) a structure on hold’ while the reader is processing other constituents or is dealing with intervening material. Punctuation thus compensates for the fact that forms and properties of a matrix structure need to be held active in the working memory until (supposedly) intervening material is processed. At the punctuation unit boundaries, the suspended, i.e. usually incomplete, syntactic status of the matrix clause and the non-final graphic status (if a sentence-internal punctuation mark is chosen) complement each other from a parasyntactic point of view. Intervening syntactic material (or what comes across like intervening material) occurs if a syntactic configuration is perceived as spreading over two (or more) non-neighbouring punctuation units, i.e. if the integrity of a structure is (or seems to be) disrupted by interfering constituents. In fact, this is a common phenomenon especially in written language, occurring in many different contexts. For the present modelling purposes the third guide function (GF 3) is illustrated by using only a single example: (3.i) medially located adverbials. Most notably, the punctuation of (3.i) medially located adverbials has been considered at various points in section 7.2.2.3 above (p. 183f., 196, 201ff.), in which the complex aspect of adverbial punctuation has been discussed, i.e. that of adjuncts, disjuncts and conjuncts. What has proven to be relevant in this regard is the general principle to punctuate intervening syntactic material, cf. sec. 7.1.2.2 above (136ff.). On this basis, there are two guidelines which elucidate the third guide function and shed further light on the role of punctuation with medially located adverbials or, more generally, with intervening syntactic material. (3.i) medially located adverbials - Punctuation is a helpful device when relatively long and/ or complex optional clause constituents come somewhere between the first and the last obligatory clause element of the matrix clause, i.e. typically between subject and verb, after subject plus operator or after the full verb phrase, cf. sec. 7.2.2.3.1 and 7.2.2.3.3 above. Punctuation marks are common, for example, with long and/ or complex phrasal/ clausal adverbials in clause-medial position. Such constituents put a strain on the decoding capacities of a reader. The reader must keep activated those parts of the matrix clause that he or she has already parsed until the long and/ or complex unit is processed. Correlative punctuation marks are hence recommended as signposts, signalling both the beginning (disruption) and the end (continuation) of the interfering material. In the signpost function, there is an evident connection between GF 3 and GF 2. - Punctuation is equally recommended if an optional medial constituent is only loosely integrated into the current clause structure. Again, it may be per- Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 259 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="274"?> 260 The guide functions of punctuation: theoretical and functional synopsis ceived as disrupting the decoding process and thus as seemingly interfering with grammatical expectations. This applies to disjunct or conjunct phrases/ clauses, for instance. As a consequence, their punctuational separation is an organising aid for the reader and, at the same time, a suitable indication of their peripheral status. Length and complexity of the medial constituents are influencing factors here as well, i.e. the first guideline remains unaffected. In addition, conjuncts and disjuncts in medial position often receive distinct tone units in spoken language, creating a link between GF 3 and GF 6. All in all, the previous remarks on guide functions one to three (GF 1-3) have shown that punctuation guides the reader in seeing through a grammatical construction even if the marks may be regarded as superfluous from a medium-independent syntactic perspective. Punctuation marks constitute decoding aids, i.e. reading aids, that provide supplementary points of orientation and thus fulfil an important purpose in minimising the cognitive workload for the decoder, i.e. the reader. 8.2.1.1.4 Guide function 4 (GF 4) The fourth guide function (GF 4) is clearly related to the purpose of ‘workload reduction’, as it adopts a crucial linking function that is normally carried out by elements of the medium-independent structural expression system. It is therefore evident that the presence of punctuation gains in importance in this guide function: its redundancy decreases. G UIDE F UNCTION 4 (GF 4): P UNCTUATION AS C ONNECTOR Punctuation functions as a medium-dependent linking element in cases of structural opacity, i.e. where there is no overtly observable syntactic relationship between adjacent portions of a text. Punctuation, as it were, bypasses structural inexplicitness. Instances in which punctuation functions as a linking device in a structurally inexplicit (or opaque) environment are regularly found with cases of (4.i) asyndetic clause coordination, (4.ii) multiple fillings of syntactic slots and supposedly also (4.iii) initially located adverbial clauses. The punctuation of (4.i) asyndetically coordinated clauses has been explored in section 7.2.2.1.2 above (p. 154ff.). The crucial parameter for the use of punctuation in this context is the lack of a medium-independent element that could possibly realise a structural relationship between two (or more) clauses. The subsequent guideline is therefore of particular importance. (4.i) asyndetic clause coordination - Punctuation is indispensable if two (or more) independent clauses are juxtaposed and if there is no element at the medium-independent level, such as Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 260 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="275"?> Synopsis II: functional insights 261 a coordinator, that marks the transition between the clauses. Consequently, the linking function is fulfilled at the medium-dependent level: by a punctuation mark. If a sentence-internal punctuation mark thus joins two (or more) syntactically unrelated clauses within a single orthographic sentence, this instantiates a case of asyndetic coordination. Asyndetic coordination can be described as a parasyntactic presentation structure: it exploits the co-occurrence of graphic incompleteness and syntactic finality at a punctuation unit boundary. Cases of asyndetic coordination instantiate complex script units. Likewise, punctuation adopts an important guide function if there are (4.ii) multiple fillings of syntactic slots. This has been put forth in section 7.2.2.2.2 above (appositions, including dislocated structures, 171ff.). Once more influential is the lack of a structural relator that signals a syntagmatic relationship between two constituents. Considering the fourth guide function (GF 4), the following more specific guideline is important for the punctuation of multiple fillings. For obvious reasons, it resembles the one formulated under (4.i) above. (4.ii) multiple fillings of syntactic slots - Punctuation is required if a syntactic structure is inconclusive about the syntagmatic relation of some of its constituents. In cases of multiple fillings, for instance, two (or more) constituents are in an ‘indirect-syntactic (oblique)’ or ‘derived-syntactic relation’; they share identical syntactic ties. However, there is no structural element that indicates this relationship. Consequently, at the written level, the linking function needs to be adopted by a punctuation mark. More specifically, if the multiple filling is, for example, separated by a sentence-internal mark, this suggests more to come (graphic incompleteness), often relativising a potentially final syntactic status ‘so far’. That way, punctuation contributes to a presentational unit whose significance as a means of decoder-orientation is accounted for at the parasyntactic level. If a multiple filling is integrated into an existing orthographic sentence, this instantiates a simple script unit. Finally, the punctuation of (4.iii) initially located adverbial clauses has been dealt with repeatedly in section 7.2.2.3 above (184f., 195, 198f.), namely in connection with adjuncts, disjuncts and conjuncts. Again, it is the perceived structural inexplicitness that seems to be a decisive factor in capturing the guide function of punctuation after initially located adverbial clauses. However, punctuation may also fulfil a more general organising function in this context. Two guidelines put this into words and explain this further. (4.iii) initially located adverbial clauses - A punctuation mark is favourable after a left-branching adverbial clause because there is no overt linguistic element that marks the exact transition be- Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 261 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="276"?> 262 The guide functions of punctuation: theoretical and functional synopsis tween the subordinate and the ensuing main clause. A punctuation mark visualises the clause boundary, yielding a reduction of the complexity (or the slight inexplicitness) of the textual arrangement. This facilitates decoding for the reader. - In addition, punctuation is also useful after left-branching adverbial clauses because the latter often fulfil a kind of guidepost role in a clause complex; they provide the background against which the subsequent main clause information can be understood (especially adjuncts). A punctuation mark corroborates this channelling function at the written level by visualising the end of the guidepost constituent. Consequently, the ‘combination’ of punctuation mark plus initially located adverbial clause may constitute a cataphoric organiser for the reader. This observation creates a close relationship between GF 4 and GF 2. 8.2.1.2 Contributing to the conceptualisation of a piece of writing (GF 5-8) The previous section has, by and large, accounted for the fact that punctuation facilitates the decoding process: it reduces cognitive complexity. The present section, on the other hand, provides for the fact that reading goes beyond a mere analysis, i.e. decoding, of the medium-independent arrangement that underlies a written stretch. Instead, reading normally means to form in one’s mind a more complex idea (or an entire textual world) of a piece of writing. A second paralinguistic facet of punctuation is thus to be found in the communication of specific effects and pieces of information. Another four guide functions (GF 5-8) are proposed. Each is once more substantiated by examples, which have proven to be relevant in the discussions of chapter 7 above, and by clarifying guidelines derived thereof. 8.2.1.2.1 Guide function 5 (GF 5) The hierarchy concept is of central importance for a description of punctuation. A writer has to choose from a range of marks which vary with regard to their separative force; this affects the perceived closeness between portions of text. Of course, the mere position of a mark still remains an important guide factor. The hierarchy concept has already been mentioned as an important theoretical insight in section 8.1 above (theory abstract 3). As a result, the next guide function (GF 5) does not come unexpectedly. G UIDE F UNCTION 5 (GF 5): P UNCTUATION AS S PECIFIER Punctuation specifies the degree of integration that holds between adjacent text portions, i.e. punctuation units. It may thus bring about a close or a more distant relation between two punctuation units. Additionally, a punctuation mark can be applied to emphasise an element or a part of a clause at the written level, raising its informational weight with regard to the immediately preceding or ensuing part(s). Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 262 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="277"?> Synopsis II: functional insights 263 The punctuation of (5.i) syntactically unrelated material and the implementation of (5.ii) the principle of informational weight provide insightful examples of the potential that is inherent in this guide function (GF 5). The punctuation of (5.i) syntactically unrelated material has been a constant topic in the present study. Most prominently, it has been discussed in section 7.2.2.1.2 above on asyndetic coordination (p. 154ff.). The latter, in turn, has already been offered as a case in point to illustrate the fourth guide function (GF 4), cf. sec. 8.2.1.1.4 above. In the context of the fifth guide function (GF 5), the following guideline exemplifies how punctuation can be used to not only establish, but to specify the relationship of syntactically unrelated material. (5.i) syntactically unrelated material - A separating punctuation mark is required if syntactically unrelated material (e.g. two independent clauses) is juxtaposed at the written level, cf. GF 4. The full communicative value of the mark is however linked to its position on the punctuation hierarchy. That is, a mark that conveys a low degree of separative force, i.e. that is low on the hierarchy, is favourable if a particularly close relationship of the material is to be expressed. This mainly applies to the use of sentence-internal marks. Hence, cases of asyndetic clause coordination, for example, suggest particular closeness. Conversely, a punctuation mark that conveys a high degree of separative force is indicative of a more distant relationship between the syntactically unrelated elements. This applies to sentence-external marks such as the period. Despite communicating a considerable amount of distance, the latter may also be termed the ‘unmarked’ way of punctuating syntactically unrelated material (especially independent clauses): graphic finality complies with syntactic self-containedness. The (5.ii) principle of informational weight has first been recognised in section 5.2.2.1 above where the terminal period has been introduced (98ff.). The leading thought is that a punctuation mark in syntagm-internal position, notably a period, has a significant influence on the informational weight that is attributed to the resulting punctuation units. The relevance of the principle has later been recognised repeatedly in the present study: for example, in sections 7.2.2.1.1 (syndetic coordination, 151ff.), 7.2.2.2.1 (relative clauses, 167), 7.2.2.3.1 (adjuncts, 187f.) and 7.2.3.1.3 (deviant punctuation, 235ff.). If the principle of informational weight is regarded as an example that instantiates the fifth guide function (GF 5), the subsequent guidelines are crucial. (5.ii) principle of informational weight - A sentence-external punctuation mark (e.g. a period) in syntagm-internal position is favourable if a constituent shall be perceived as informational- Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 263 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="278"?> 264 The guide functions of punctuation: theoretical and functional synopsis ly prominent although it is, from a medium-independent perspective, not in end-focus position. Because of its high degree of separative force (signifying graphic finality), the insertion of a period creates a second point of informational prominence - despite the incomplete syntactic status at that point. Conceptually, this builds on the at least projected congruence of orthographic sentence and clause (complex), and on the sometimes assumed functional similarity of the period and a falling tone movement. - A sentence-internal punctuation mark (e.g. a comma) may have a similar function in syntagm-internal position. If it is applied before a constituent which is medium-independently located in end-focus position, the mark functions as a medium-bound amplifier, reinforcing the final position of the constituent visually. The written stretch that is allocated to a distinct punctuation unit becomes more conspicuous and its informational weight is often perceived as maximised. As a matter of course, to punctuate end-focal constituents may bring about violations of the principle of structural integrity. In this, GF 5 captures certain aspects that have already been adressed earlier in GF 2. 8.2.1.2.2 Guide function 6 (GF 6) The sixth guide function (GF 6) that can be distilled from the comprehensive analysis of punctuation in chapter 7 above emphasises the insight that punctuation is a stylistic device; it may create specific local effects which are based on information from different sources. (That punctuation is a versatile stylistic feature can already be deduced from the fifth guide function [GF 5], cf. sec. 8.2.1.2.1 above.) G UIDE F UNCTION 6 (GF 6): P UNCTUATION AS E FFECT Punctuation creates a calculated local effect that reflects the contents of a piece of writing and/ or that draws on a reader’s inner voicing of a written stretch, i.e. on his or her ability to reconcile the punctuation with information from the spoken expression system. The latter aspect of the guide function describes what is commonly referred to as ‘speaking punctuation’. Amongst others, the sixth guide function (GF 6) refers to instances of punctuation which can be described as (6.i) light and heavy punctuation and (6.ii) speaking punctuation. The fact that a writer may adopt (6.i) a light or a heavy punctuation style has been explained in section 7.1.1.2 above (p. 129ff.). In a nutshell, a light punctuation style sees relatively few marks being inserted in positions in which their presence is optional; and the situation is quite the opposite for a heavy punctuation style. Possible textual effects of either style have been exemplified in section 7.2.3.1.1 above. On the whole, both a light and a heavy punctuation mode can be applied as a mere reading aid, i.e. to facilitate the decoding process. This, however, is disregarded at this point and belongs to the aspects discussed in section 8.2.1.1 above. In fact, three guidelines are of in- Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 264 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="279"?> Synopsis II: functional insights 265 terest if the dichotomy of heavy and light punctuation is considered against the background of the above-mentioned guide function (GF 6). (6.i) light and heavy punctuation - A light punctuation style, i.e. to insert few optional marks, is favourable if the low number of visual obstacles results in a higher reading rate and if this, in turn, complies with the contents that are depicted in the written stretch under scrutiny (e.g. a rapid sequence of events). This effect might also be achieved if a writer chooses less strongly separating marks in a given context than are possibly expected by the reader (e.g. the use of commas between syntactically unrelated independent clauses, cf. also GF 5 above, esp. aspect [5.i]). - On the other hand, a light punctuation style may be equally advantageous if a deceleration of the reading process is intended, for example, as a foregrounding effect. If there are fewer marks, there are also fewer points of orientation for the reader. And if there are fewer points of orientation, this might result in aggravated accessibility. Both the first and the second guideline may clearly complement each other. - A heavy punctuation style, i.e. to insert many optional marks, is favourable if this results in a slower reading rate and if this, in turn, complies with the contents that are depicted in the written stretch under scrutiny (e.g. seriousness and solemnity or an intricate sequence of events). This effect can also be achieved if a writer chooses more strongly separating marks in a given context than are possibly expected by the reader. The concept of (6.ii) speaking punctuation (or, to be precise, at first only of the speaking comma) has been introduced in section 7.1.1.2 above (128ff.). Specific instances of speaking punctuation have been recorded in section 7.2.3.1.1 above (224ff.) and at the end of section 7.2.3.1.3 above (240ff.). Punctuation draws on information from the spoken expression system, and is thus in line with the sixth guide function (GF 6) when the following two guidelines are considered. (6.ii) speaking punctuation - The employment of a single punctuation mark is favourable if its presence is intended to be explicitly reproduced when voicing, either mentally or aloud, the written stretch in question. Punctuation may have a premeditated effect on the reader that draws on information from the spoken expression system. The vocal reproduction of a single punctuation mark can be achieved by a tone unit boundary or an obtrusive pause, for example. Without doubt, a single ‘speaking mark’ is most effective if there is an otherwise light punctuation style and if it somehow deviates from the common expectations about punctuation usage. There seems to be a connection between speaking punctuation and the function of a mark before an end-focal constituent; this creates a link between GF 6 and GF 5. - Punctuation is equally advantageous if a writer wants to convey certain qualities of the human voice. For example, the repeated placement of periods at Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 265 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="280"?> 266 The guide functions of punctuation: theoretical and functional synopsis different points within the same syntagm may be taken as an indicator of loudness and/ or of a slow speech rate (graphic finality coincides with syntactic incompleteness). If, on the other hand, every word-form (or parts thereof) in a sentence is separated by a sentence-internal mark (e.g. a comma), a reader may be inclined to decode the punctuation as suggesting a staccato-like speech rhythm. Further context-dependent variation is, of course, possible. Since speaking punctuation may instantiate a particularly heavy punctuation style, it may be conducive to violations of the principle of structural integrity; GF 6 is therefore related to GF 2, cf. also GF 5. After all, correlations between punctuation and the spoken expression system are not restricted to cases in which the use of punctuation forms a deliberately created ‘speaking effect’. Whether prosodic information is actually deduced from the punctuation of a text is, in the last resort, dependent on the reader. Regardless of such concerns, the sixth guide function (GF 6) also captures the potential of punctuation to be used in a creative way, as it were, ‘off the beaten tracks’. That is, it accounts for the fact that punctuation may bring about effects which contribute to a poetic function of written language: Due to a potentially unconventional usage, punctuation itself can attract attention, which makes the reader ‘focus on the message for its own sake’, cf. sec. 7.2.3.1.3 above. 8.2.1.2.3 Guide function 7 (GF 7) The seventh guide function (GF 7) reflects the insight that in its assumed conceptualising role, punctuation may guide the reader in assessing the functional purpose of certain textual segments, i.e. of parts of a text. G UIDE F UNCTION 7 (GF 7): P UNCTUATION AS G UIDE TO T EXTUAL OR R HETORICAL F UNCTION Punctuation raises certain expectations about the textual (or rhetorical) function of upcoming or enclosed material. In principle, it appears as if this concise guide function applies to various instances of punctuation usage. A case in point is the sentence-internal separation of an end-focal constituent or even its allocation to a distinct orthographic sentence, cf. also sec. 8.2.1.2.1 above (GF 5). Punctuated that way, the textual function of this constituent is likely to be conceptualised as that of an ‘afterthought’. Most straightforwardly, however, the present guide function can be observed in connection with the mere occurrence of (7.i) colon or parentheses, for instance. The guide potential of (7.i) colon or parentheses has been explored primarily in section 7.2.3.2.2 above (p. 245ff.) where the contribution of these marks to the rhetorical structure of a text has been critically reviewed. Before Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 266 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="281"?> Synopsis II: functional insights 267 that, the individual marks had been introduced in sections 5.2.2.3 (103f.) and 5.2.2.5 (106ff.) respectively. Two guidelines are of interest if the use of the colon and of parentheses is considered against the background of the present guide function (GF 7). (7.i) colon or parentheses - The use of any of the marks is recommended if the writer has a clear notion of how certain parts of a text shall be conceptualised in terms of their textual functions and if he or she wants to guide the reader in accomplishing this goal. For example, part(s) of a text can be presented either as having an elaborating function (colon) or as being informationally backgrounded (parentheses). Of course, this insight relates GF 7 to GF 2 which accounts for the role of punctuation as an organising device. - On the other hand, although the occurrence of the mentioned marks is often associated with clearly defined functions of punctuation units, it seems most appropriate to regard them as communicating (only) certain ‘functional overtones’ that help to organise the written material in various ways. The limiting term ‘overtones’ is chosen because the information which the marks provide is not necessarily concomitant with the actual functional categories that form, for example, the rhetorical structure of a text, cf. also sec. 7.2.3.2.2 above. These remarks give only a very selective insight into the working method of the seventh guide function (GF 7). Nevertheless, they provide support for the present argument that punctuation may adopt a supportive role in conceptualising the functions of certain text elements. Clearly, this is especially based on the assumed special semantic value (or status) of particular punctuation marks, which has already been put on record in section 8.1 above (theory abstract 3). 8.2.1.2.4 Guide function 8 (GF 8) The last guide function (GF 8) that illustrates in how far punctuation contributes to a reader’s conceptualisation of a piece of written language can possibly be described as ‘operating more in the background’ than the previous ones. At the same time, it is the last guide function that accounts for the paralinguistic qualities of punctuation. Of course, in the following function, ‘linguistic’ does not imply ‘distinctive’ (as opposed to ‘paralinguistic’), but it simply means ‘language-related’. G UIDE F UNCTION 8 (GF 8): P UNCTUATION AS G UIDE TO L INGUISTIC V ARIATION Punctuation indicates certain one-dimensional parameters of linguistic variation. Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 267 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="282"?> 268 The guide functions of punctuation: theoretical and functional synopsis The general observation that punctuation can function as an indicator of certain dimensions of linguistic variation has not been considered explicitly in the analysis of the punctuational guide function at work in section 7.2 above. However, it has been recognised as a general punctuation principle in section 7.1.1.1 above (p. 126ff.). From this it follows that the punctuation of a text may give away information on at least some of the dimensions of linguistic variation. In the context of the eighth guide function (GF 8), four of these co-occurrences are recapitulated briefly, cf. (8.i) to (8.iv). To shorten things, any further preliminary information is waived. (8.i) time - Punctuation may be indicative of the time of origin of a written text. If, for example, a particularly heavy punctuation style dominates, the reader may be inclined to classify the text as a piece of pre-twentieth-century writing, cf. also sec. 7.1.1.2 above. In a similar vein, obtrusive combinations of punctuation marks that can be decoded as so-called ‘emoticons’ (e.g. : / ) are a fairly reliable signal of a modern text; see also section 2.2.2.2 above for more on this and on the related concept of textspeak. (8.ii) region - Punctuation may be indicative of the regional provenance of a writer or at least of the writing conventions to which he or she submits. The way in which certain marks are sequentialised can be significant in this context. If, for instance, the sentence-final mark (e.g. the period) comes before the closing quotation mark, this is a viable indicator of a text produced in the tradition of British English. If, on the other hand, the sentence-final mark comes after the closing quotation mark, the text seems to be penned by an author who follows the American English tradition. (8.iii) field of discourse - Punctuation may be indicative of the field of discourse in/ for which a text has been written. If, for example, a particularly light punctuation style dominates, the reader may be inclined to classify the text as a piece of legal writing, cf. also ch. 6 above. For written legal English, it may still be common practice to mark only sentence ends but to omit sentence-internal punctuation. In a similar vein, if a text abounds in unconventional uses of punctuation marks (concerning their positions and types), this may hint at fictional and/ or poetic language. (8.iv) attitude - Punctuation may be indicative of the relative formality between the encoder of a text, i.e. the writer, and his or her recipients, i.e. the readers. If, for example, a text is riddled with multi-applications of marks (e.g. <? ? ? > or <! ! ! >), this is usually a reliable indicator of a fairly informal relationship between the originator of a text and the conjectured readership. Of course, other possible guide functions of the marks remain unaffected. Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 268 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="283"?> Synopsis II: functional insights 269 On account of these guidelines, it seems reasonable to suggest that the eighth guide function (GF 8) does not depict a dominant motivation of punctuation usage, but that it rather accounts for some kind of undercurrent that can be observed in a text. This refers back to the opening comment, namely that it ‘operates more in the background’. With few exceptions, writers hardly apply punctuation to distribute information about the communication situation and/ or about the referential content. Instead, this is (or can be) an informative and thus beneficial side effect or by-product of punctuation usage. As a result, the last-mentioned guide function (GF 8) is probably the most obvious one to cut across (or co-occur with) other guide functions. 8.2.2 Punctuation as a linguistic device: guide function 9 (GF 9) Whereas the previous guide functions (GF 1-8) account for the paralinguistic qualities of punctuation, cf. sec. 8.2.1 above, the last function (GF 9) meets the intuitionand observation-based claim that punctuation can also be linguistically distinctive, cf. sec. 2.3 (incl. Fig. 2.10). In section 8.1 above, this has already been recorded as a theoretical insight of the present study (theory abstract 1). The placement of a punctuation mark may disambiguate an inconclusive medium-independent arrangement, cf. also sec. 7.2.2.4.1 above. As a result, the guide function that captures the linguistic potential of punctuation reads as follows. G UIDE F UNCTION 9 (GF 9): P UNCTUATION AS G UIDE TO D ISAMBIGUATION Punctuation disambiguates syntactic arrangements for which two (or potentially more) competing parses exist. If punctuation is applied to a written stretch that is based on an inconclusive medium-independent arrangement, the parses are directly accessible on the basis of oppositions. Consequentially, if one regards only its position, the communicative value of a punctuation mark may be reducible to one specific denotation. In other words, the position of a punctuation mark may provide wholly fixed conventional, i.e. predetermined, pieces of information. In general, the linguistic function of punctuation is not restricted to specific syntactic categories or phenomena, but relies on the potential to apply more than a single parse to a chain of medium-independent word-forms; there has to be (9.i) structural homonymy. The correlation between punctuation and (9.i) structural homonymy has been exemplified in section 7.2.2.4.3 above (p. 211ff.). From this, two guidelines can be derived which specify the information that is inherent in the linguistic function of punctuation (GF 9). Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 269 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="284"?> 270 The guide functions of punctuation: theoretical and functional synopsis (9.i) structural homonymy - The employment of punctuation is advantageous if its absence would leave the reader with several possible parses to choose from and/ or would favour a reading of the written stretch in question that is not intended by its encoder. By providing a visual boundary, a mark indicates that a current structure is closed or interrupted and that subsequent linguistic items must be attached to a different structural node. Punctuation thus guides the reader in assuming early closure (as opposed to the default parsing strategy of late closure) or non-minimal attachment (as opposed to the preferred strategy of minimal attachment). - The effect of disambiguation can also be achieved if a writer chooses marks of differing degrees of separative force in a given context. In a homonymous structure, this creates a ‘punctuational asymmetry’ which keeps apart suband superordinate syntactic boundaries for the purpose of disambiguation: Constituents which operate at lower syntactic levels are punctuated by marks that convey also a low(er) degree of separative force (or zero); constituents at higher levels are accordingly punctuated by stronger marks. Suband superordinate syntactic boundaries have already been dealt with in GF 1; at that point, a disambiguating role of punctuation has not been assumed, however. Since the ninth guide function (GF 9) refers to the linguistically distinctive potential of punctuation, and thus only takes effect if a written stretch is based on homonymous medium-independent structures, cases of temporary ambiguity are excluded in this context. In the latter cases, the inserted punctuation does not have a truly disambiguating function because the structure (to whose written realisation it is applied) is not syntactically ambiguous. The role of punctuation in cases of temporary ambiguity is covered by the second guide function (GF 2), cf. sec. 8.2.1.1.2 above. Of course, there are parallels between this and the ninth guide function (GF 9) discussed in the present section. On the whole, punctuation is no universal remedy to distinguish structurally homonymous configurations at the written level - despite its obvious potential. Some ambiguities cannot be resolved by applying punctuation marks, cf. sec. 7.2.2.4.3. A concise overview of the nine guide functions (GF 1-9) that have been discussed in the previous sections will be given in the course of the subsequent chapter 9, cf. Fig. 9.1. At the same time, this chapter provides further explanation of the actual significance of the guide functions, considering the objective of the present study. Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 270 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="285"?> 9 Conclusion: punctuation and the reader The main objective of the present study has been to paint a complete picture of those general aspects of punctuation which actually influence and facilitate the decoding and/ or conceptualisation of written text, and thus to describe the abstract underlying types which motivate and explain the use and the interpretation of punctuation. Considering the different guide functions (GF 1-9) that have been defined in the previous chapter 8, it seems safe to argue that they implement the desired type-exhaustiveness in the functional description of punctuation. Each function may be taken as a specific functional type of the communicative value, i.e. of the guiding role, of punctuation, cf. also ch. 6 above. The functions - or functional types - constitute abstract classes which are, in turn, instantiated by the actually occurring marks in written text. The discussion of the guide functions with the explanatory, yet not too specific punctuation instances and guidelines has supported this view. As a corrollary to these remarks, it can once more be emphasised that punctuation marks stand for something else (aliquid stat pro aliquo). This observation has already been made on a theoretical basis in section 2.3.2 above, cf. also sec. 2.2 above. Punctuation marks have been assigned indexical qualities because they convey information that exceeds those pieces of information which are inherently characteristic of the marks themselves, i.e. of the index-constituting entities. To put it differently, the marks refer to something outside themselves. There is an implicational relation between a punctuation mark (‘P’) and the information which it communicates (‘that X’) in a given condition, i.e. context. This implicational relation can be rendered formally as ‘P → that X’ (with ‘ → ’ translating as ‘implies’); see section 2.3.2 above for a more detailed account. On these grounds, the nine guide functions (GF 1-9) are, in a sense, based on indexical relations. Each function comprises a certain type of information that is implied in, i.e. indicated by, the presence of a punctuation mark. Figure 9.1 gives an overview of the types of indexical relations into which the individual guide functions can possibly be translated, using the above-mentioned formula ‘P → that X’. Note that in the figure ‘or’ denotes ‘inclusive disjunction’ (inclusive-OR), except for the first and the third guide function (GF 1/ 3). With these guide functions, ‘or’ stands for ‘exclusive disjunction’ (exclusive-OR). Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 271 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="286"?> 272 Conclusion: punctuation and the reader Punctuation as a paralinguistic device (GF 1-8) Reducing cognitive complexity (GF 1-4) Contributing to the conceptualisation of a piece of writing (GF 5-8) GF 1 (8.2.1.1.1) GF 2 (8.2.1.1.2) GF 5 (8.2.1.2.1) GF 6 (8.2.1.2.2) P → SYNTACTIC STATUS or TEXTUAL ROLE P → REFOCUSING ELEMENT or CATA - PHORIC ORGANISER P → DEGREE OF INTEGRATION or EMPHASIS P → DELIBERATE LOCAL ( SPEECH - RELATED ) EFFECT GF 3 (8.2.1.1.3) GF 4 (8.2.1.1.4) GF 7 (8.2.1.2.3) GF 8 (8.2.1.2.4) P → DISRUPTION or CONTINUATION P → LINKING ELEMENT ( IN CASE OF STRUC - TURAL OPACITY ) P → TEXTUAL or RHETORICAL FUNCTION P → COMMUNICATION SITUATION or REFER - ENTIAL CONTENT Punctuation as a linguistic device (GF 9) GF 9 (8.2.2) P → STRUCTURAL READING : PARSING STRATEGY FOR PURPOSE OF DISAMBIGUATION (e.g. EARLY vs LATE CLOSURE / NON - MINIMAL vs MINIMAL ATTACHMENT ) Figure 9.1: Overview of the indexical relations that are inherent in the punctuational guide functions (GF 1-9) It is important to note that neither the overview nor the previous sections on the guide functions represent an irrefutable instruction of how punctuation is or has to be read (or of how it is inevitably applied). Instead, it is frankly acknowledged that sometimes there may be no generally accepted agreement on the function of punctuation in a given context. Or several functions may co-occur or even overlap. Or an originally assumed function may turn out to be overridden by interfering aspects. Not surprisingly, therefore, the individual functions (GF 1-9) are closely related and complement each other, implicating that a single punctuation usage may provide information that cannot be summarised unequivocally by referring to only one particular guide function. The functions, especially those which account for punctuation as a paralinguistic device (GF 1-8), are not mutually exclusive. A punctuation mark that can be associated with the reduction of cognitive complexity may, at the same time, have a share in the conceptualisation of a piece of writing (and vice versa). This has already been addressed at different points in sections 8.2.1 and 8.2.2 above, and is supposed to be hinted at by the only broken lines that separate the cells in the upper part of Figure 9.1 above. In their apparent adaptability, the status of the punctuational guide functions may be assessed against the old dichotomy ‘rules vs principles’, which is an important topic in linguistics in general and in the field of pragmatics in particular. Without going into unnecessary detail, in most cases, the Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 272 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="287"?> Conclusion: punctuation and the reader 273 difference between rules and principles boils down to the assumption that the former, i.e. rules, are taken as subsuming constitutive features of the language-system. Principles, on the other hand, account for regulative aspects of language use, cf. e.g. Leech (1995 [1983]: 8). Pragmatic principles, for example, are regulative in that they, in the words of Leech (ib.: 16), “[…] socially constrain communicative behaviour in various ways […]”, but “[…] apply in variable degrees, rather than in an all-or-nothing way” (ib.: 8). Arguably, this applies to the punctuational guide functions (GF 1-9) as well; they show typical characteristics of pragmatic principles. Provided that in a communication every participant is constantly interested in its progress and that every utterance is geared towards this goal (Grice’s ‘cooperative principle’), the guide functions regulate what a reader may expect from punctuation marks. They represent possible face-value or default interpretations. Yet, the default interpretations are not necessarily applicable to every context: “The expectations of [readers] will vary according to situation, so that what may be a default interpretation in one context will not be so in another” (ib.: 43). Taken together, the proposed guide functions (GF 1-9) comprise what is communicatively favourable or plausible. Plausibility, however, does not mean ‘immutability’. Communication is always a process of negotiation that takes place between the encoder and the decoder or between the writer and the reader, for that matter. Mey (2004 [1993]: 70) summarises this nicely: Given that I want to communicate, what I do communicate depends on what I can communicate, given my circumstances, and on what I must communicate, given my partner’s circumstances. Communication is not a matter of logic or truth, but of cooperation. The fact that punctuation belongs to the field of written language implies that it is tied to the production conditions that are characteristic of this medium. These, in turn, give a writer every opportunity to carefully choose punctuation and to adjust it to the aims he or she wants to achieve. Obviously, the use of punctuation involves the general stylistic dictum ‘form follows function’ (‘aims/ ends-and-means model’), which is a key concept of the functionalist approaches in Prague School linguistics; see Doležel (1968: 148f., 152), for instance, and also Esser (1993: 33) and Mukherjee (2001: 4). After all, this complies with the general classification of punctuation as a writergenerated and decoder-oriented medium-dependent means of presentational choice, cf. sec. 2.2.2.2 above. That being said, the basic aim of punctuation usage is, in the most general terms, to communicate meaning at the earliest possible point in a text, having - in some way or the other - the reader in mind. In most cases, the application of punctuation seems to be part of a writer’s general strategy to create a ‘well-behaved’ utterance, “[…] being one which anticipates and facilitates [the reader’s] task in decoding, or making sense, of the text” (Leech Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 273 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="288"?> 274 Conclusion: punctuation and the reader 1995 [1983]: 60). Possible output constraints which may guide the writer in achieving this aim in a communication process are, for example, covered by Leech’s concept of ‘textual rhetoric’, cf. Leech (ib.: 63-70). Hence, from a stylistic point of view, the global guiding role of punctuation must be regarded as some kind of potential that is made available, i.e. is utilised or activated, by the encoder, i.e. by the writer. The actual effect of this potential, however, depends on the decoder, i.e. on the reader. In other words, it is the reader who represents the decisive factor in an assessment of the communicative value of a punctuation mark, merging different pieces of information and thus allowing punctuation to assume a guiding function at all. The reader interprets what he or she is provided with by the encoder of a written text and from this construes the specific punctuational guide function(s). Of course, to speculate about the motives of a writer (or to take pains in distilling them from the text) is part of the reader’s decoding and conceptualisation process. From a pragmatic point of view, the interpretation of punctuation may be analysed as part of the same problem-solving task that a decoder faces when interpreting a linguistic utterance. To find a solution, he or she needs to devise a heuristic strategy. Leech (ib.: 41) writes: A heuristic strategy consists in trying to identify the pragmatic force of an utterance by forming hypotheses and checking them against available evidence. If the test fails, a new hypothesis is formed. The whole process may be repeated cyclically until a solution (a hypothesis which is successful, in that it does not conflict with evidence) is arrived at. If focusing merely on punctuation (and not on the analysis of linguistic utterances in general), the potentially cyclic nature of the problem-solving process may be sketched as in Figure 9.2. The structure of the figure is inspired by a similar, yet more general illustration given by Leech (ib.). Note that the figure is supposed to give an account of the reader’s task when construing the punctuational guide function(s). It is therefore not to be confused with the ‘methodological cycle’ depicted in chapter 6 above which describes the modus operandi of the present study. Figure 9.2: Heuristic problem-solving process when construing the guide function(s) of punctuation Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 274 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="289"?> Conclusion: punctuation and the reader 275 To form hypotheses and to check their plausibility against available evidence, i.e. to merge pieces of information, implies that in construing the guide function(s) of punctuation on-line, the reader employs knowledge from different sources. This includes, inter alia, - knowledge about the punctuation system (e.g. inventory of marks, hierarchy concept and general punctuation principles); - medium-independent information deduced from the co-text (e.g. syntactic status ‘so far’ plus syntactic expectations, propositional content); - knowledge about non-linguistic contextual aspects (e.g. encyclopaedic knowledge); - assumptions about the mental posture of the writer (e.g. goals and intentions); - awareness of pragmatic/ conversational principles (e.g. ‘cooperative principle’). A punctuation mark does therefore not bear a specific, decontextualised meaning. The subtleties that can be communicated with the help of punctuation marks, i.e. the aspects they contribute to a piece of writing, are not (fully) inherent in the individual marks themselves, “[…] but they are part of construed meaning in context […]” (Croft/ Cruse 2005 [2004]: 99). It seems a fitting image to assume that punctuation marks do not encode or embody meaning but, metaphorically speaking, adopt the role of contextually applied ‘building instructions’. They are cues for the context-sensitive construction of meaning and, as a result, they are accessible only in a process of dynamic construal. To assume dynamic meaning construal is a central tenet of cognitive semantics, for example, where it has thus far been applied primarily to words and grammatical structures. It aims at superseding the supposedly naive, objectivist view held in formal semantics that meaning arises merely from predetermined, collated knowledge, cf. e.g. Evans/ Green (2011 [2006]: 365-370). Cognitive semanticists, as Evans/ Green (ib.: 371) note, regard words and grammatical constructions as “[…] underdetermined prompts for processes of rich meaning construction […].” It is argued in this study that a medium-dependent feature like punctuation fulfils a similar role and should hence be judged comparably. The aforesaid ties in with the theoretical claim that punctuation marks predominantly convey paralinguistic information. And clearly, this is where the present approach to punctuation comes full circle. To repeat it, the communicative value of punctuation marks is not (completely) predetermined by fixed conventions, but within a given framework, a reader (re-)establishes the full meaning of a punctuation mark each time it is used, cf. also sec. 2.3.2.1 above. It provides supplementary information that contributes to the formation of what could be termed ‘mental spaces’, “[…] unique and temporary ‘packets’ of conceptual structure, constructed for purposes specific to the ongoing discourse” (ib.: 369). And this is also what even a linguistically distinctive punctuation mark in a homonymous structure contributes to. Excluding Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 275 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="290"?> 276 Conclusion: punctuation and the reader the denotative, i.e. predetermined, information that is communicated by the mere position of the mark (GF 9), its full value, not least influenced by the choice of mark, is a matter of context-dependent reader interpretation. In a schematic manner, Figure 9.3 summarises the aspects that contribute to the dynamic construal of punctuational information (‘that X’), given that a reader encounters a mark (‘P’) in a syntagmatic chain of written word-forms (‘condition’). Note that the figure does not intend to depict actual psychological processes (e.g. from top to bottom). Figure 9.3: Schematic outline of the dynamic construal of punctuational information The illustration incorporates that the information implied in the co-occurrence of a punctuation mark and a sequence of written word-forms can be classified as ‘paralinguistic’ and, additionally, in some well-defined cases also as ‘linguistic’. The relatively abstract guide functions (GF 1-9) and the indexical relations they comprise specify the assumed purpose of a mark, Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 276 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="291"?> Conclusion: punctuation and the reader 277 cf. also Fig. 9.1 above. However, which guide function is (or which functions are) actually instantiated by a punctuation mark is not least contingent upon further knowledge that a reader retrieves when coming across a mark. These resources are accessed context-dependently and may come from various sources. Examples are listed in the text box that is enclosed by the dotted line in Figure 9.3. It is possible, of course, that also the guide function types (GF 1-9) themselves become gradually entrenched in this knowledge. In the figure, this is suggested by the contorted arrow on the right. After all, the communicative value of punctuation, i.e. its abstract guiding role, shows as meaning potential that is (or rather can be) associated with the individual marks. This potential can be approached in systematic fashion by abstracting nine different types of function which - together with other pieces of information - flow into the interpretation of an actually occurring punctuation mark. On this basis, the actual communicative value of punctuation can and has to be reconstrued each time a mark is encountered. Most significantly, therefore, the present approach moves away from a static, rule-based description towards a more dynamic, context-based interpretation of punctuation. Surely, this guarantees a more adequate assessment of both its linguistic status and its communicative value, i.e. its guide function(s). Punctuation is a highly versatile medium-dependent means of presentational choice. To accept this view is a significant step towards closing the gap that still exists between punctuational theory and the actual usage of punctuation. As a result, it is hoped that the present linguistic study has opened up a new perspective on punctuation and that, contrary to Baron’s (2000: 196) rather pessimistic view, the marks will no longer “[…] continue to play a schizophrenic role in the minds of readers, writers, and learners.” Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 277 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="292"?> Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 278 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="293"?> References Aarts, Jan (1991): “Intuition-based and observation-based grammars”, English Corpus Linguistics: Studies in Honour of Jan Svartvik, eds. Karin Aijmer & Bengt Altenberg. London & New York: Longman. 44- 62. Abbott, Gerry (1988): “Mascaraed and muumuu-ed: the spelling of imported words”, English Today 14, 43-46. Abercrombie, David (1965): Studies in Phonetics and Linguistics (Language and Language Learning 10). London et al.: Oxford University Press. Abercrombie, David (1967): Elements of General Phonetics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Acuña Fariña, Juan Carlos (2000): “Reduced relatives and apposition”, Australian Journal of Linguistics 20 (1), 5-22. Acuña Fariña, Juan Carlos (2005): “Aspects of the relationship between theories of grammar and theories of processing”, Atlantis 27 (1), 11-27. Adams, Beverly C.; Charles Clifton, Jr & Don C. Mitchell (1998): “Lexical guidance in sentence processing”, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 5 (2), 265-270. Agee, James (2006 [1957]): A Death in the Family (republication; with an introduction by Blake Morrison; Modern Classics). London et al.: Penguin Books. Arndt, Horst & Richard W. Janney (1987): InterGrammar: Toward an Integrative Model of Verbal, Prosodic and Kinesic Choices in Speech (Studies in Anthropological Linguistics 2). Berlin; New York & Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter. Babcock Gove, Philip (ed.) (1993): Webster’s Third International Dictionary of the English Language (unabridged). Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, Inc. Baldwin, R. Scott & James M. Coady (1978): “Psycholinguistic approaches to a theory of punctuation”, Journal of Reading Behavior 10, 363-375. Banville, John (2005): The Sea. London; Basingstoke & Oxford: Picador (an imprint of Pan Macmillan Ltd.). Barnes, Julian (1990): A History of the World in 10 1/ 2 Chapters. London; Basingstoke & Oxford: Picador (an imprint of Pan Macmillan Ltd.). Baron, Naomi S. (2000): Alphabet to Email: How Written English Evolved and Where It’s Heading. London & New York: Routledge (an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group). Bauer, Laurie (1984 [1983]): English Word-Formation (reprint; Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics). Cambridge et al.: Cambridge University Press. Beaugrande, Robert de (1984): Text Production: Toward a Science of Composition (Advances in Discourse Processes 11). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Beckett, Samuel (1966 [1959]): Molloy (first British edition, second impression; translated from the French by Samuel Beckett & Patrick Bowles; Jupiter Books). London: Calder & Boyars. Bever, Thomas G. (1970): “The cognitive basis for linguistic structures”, Cognition and the Development of Language, ed. John R. Hayes. New York et al.: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 279-362. Biber, Douglas (1985): “Investigating macroscopic textual variation through multifeature/ multidimensional analyses”, Linguistics 23, 337-360. Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 279 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="294"?> 280 References Biber, Douglas (1986a): “On the investigation of spoken/ written differences”, Studia Linguistica 40 (1), 1-21. Biber, Douglas (1986b): “Spoken and written textual dimensions in English: resolving the contradictory findings”, Language 62 (2), 384-414. Biber, Douglas (1988): Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge et al.: Cambridge University Press. Biber, Douglas & Edward Finegan (1986): “An initial typology of English text types”, Corpus Linguistics II: New Studies in the Analysis and Exploitation of Computer Corpora, eds. Jan Aarts & Willem Meijs (New Series 47). Amsterdam: Rodopi. 19- 46. Biber, Douglas et al. (2007 [1999]): Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English (sixth impression). Harlow: Longman (an imprint of Pearson Education). Bloomfield, Leonard (1979 [1933]): Language (fourteenth impression). London; Boston, MA & Sydney: George Allen & Unwin. Blühdorn, Hardarik (2007): “Zur Struktur und Interpretation von Relativsätzen”, Deutsche Sprache 35, 287-314. [BNC]. Burnard, Lou (ed.) (2000): British National Corpus World Edition (CD-ROM; data extracted by means of SARA, eds. Tony Dodd & Lou Burnard). Oxford: University of Oxford. Bolinger, Dwight L. (1959): “The intonation of ‘Received Pronunciation’; Review Maria Schubiger, English Intonation: Its Form and Function (Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1958)”, American Speech 34 (3), 197-201. Bolinger, Dwight L. & Donald A. Sears (1981 [1968]): Aspects of Language (third edition). New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Bowdre, Paul H., Jr (1971): “Eye dialect as a literary device”, A Various Language: Perspectives on American Dialects, eds. Juanita V. Williamson & Virginia M. Burke. New York et al.: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc. 178-186. Bringhurst, Robert (2005 [1992]): The Elements of Typographic Style: Version 3.1 (third edition, revised & updated, second impression). Point Roberts, WA & Vancouver: Hartley & Marks Publishers. Brown, Emerson, Jr (1986): “The knight’s tale, 2639: guilt by punctuation”, The Chaucer Review 21 (2), 133-141. Buchholz, William J. (1979): “Punctuation: the dynamics of obscure marks”, The Phi Delta Kappan 61 (3), 226-227. Burton-Roberts, Noel (1975): “Nominal Apposition”, Foundations of Language 13 (3), 391-419. Burton-Roberts, Noel (1994): “Apposition”, The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, eds. Ronald E. Asher & John M. Y. Simpson. Oxford et al.: Pergamon Press. 184-187. Bussmann, Hadumod (1996): Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics (based on Lexikon der Sprachwissenschaft [second, completely revised edition], 1990; translated and edited by Gregory Trauth & Kerstin Kazzazi). London & New York: Routledge. Chafe, Wallace (1984 [1982]): “Integration and involvement in speaking, writing and oral literature”, Spoken and Written Language: Exploring Orality and Literacy, ed. Deborah Tannen (second impression; Advances in Discourse Processing 9). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. 35-53. Chafe, Wallace (1984): “How people use adverbial clauses”, BLS 10, 437-449. Chafe, Wallace (1986): “Writing in the perspective of speaking”, Studying Writing: Linguistic Approaches, ed. Charles R. Cooper (Written Communication Annual: An International Survey of Research and Theory Series 1). Beverly Hills, CA et al.: Sage Publications. 12-39. Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 280 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="295"?> References 281 Chafe, Wallace (1988a): “What good is punctuation? ”, National Writing Project: The Quarterly 10 (1), 8-11. Chafe, Wallace (1988b): “Punctuation and the prosody of written language”, Written Communication: A Quarterly Journal of Research, Theory, and Applications 5 (4), 395-426. Chafe, Wallace (1992): “Information flow in speaking and writing”, The Linguistics of Literacy, eds. Pamela Downing; Susan D. Lima & Michael Noonan (Typological Studies in Language 21). Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 17-29. Chafe, Wallace & Jane Danielewicz (1987): “Properties of spoken and written language”, Comprehending Oral and Written Language, eds. Rosalind Horowitz & S. Jay Samuels. New York: Academic Press. 83-113. Chappell, Warren & Robert Bringhurst (1999 [1970]): A History of the Printed Word (second edition, revised & updated). Point Roberts, WA & Vancouver: Hartley & Marks Publishers. Chomsky, Noam & Morris Halle (1968): The Sound Pattern of English (Studies in Language). New York; Evanston, IL & London: Harper & Row. Clemoes, Peter (1980 [1952]): “Liturgical influence on punctuation in late Old English and Early Middle English manuscripts”, Old English Newsletter: Subsidia 4 (originally printed as “Occasional papers: number 1 for the department of Anglo-Saxon, Cambridge”), 1-22. Cordeiro, Patricia (1988): “Children’s punctuation: an analysis of errors in period placement”, Research in the Teaching of English 22 (1), 62-74. Croft, William & D. Alan Cruse (2005 [2004]): Cognitive Linguistics (third impression; Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cronnell, Bruce (1980): “Punctuation and capitalization: a review of the literature”, Southwest Regional Laboratory for Educational Research and Development SWRL- TW-2-80/ 27 (report for the National Institute of Education, Washington, D.C.), 1-27. Crowther, Jonathan (1995 [1948]): Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English (fifth edition). Oxford et al.: Oxford University Press. Cruse, D. Alan (1997 [1986]): Lexical Semantics (sixth impression; Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics). Cambridge; New York & Melbourne: Cambridge University Press. Cruttenden, Alan (1986): Intonation (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics). Cambridge et al.: Cambridge University Press. Cruttenden, Alan (1990): “Intonation and the comma”, Visible Language 25, 54-73. Crystal, David (1976 [1969]): Prosodic Systems and Intonation in English (first paperback edition; Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 1). Cambridge et al.: Cambridge University Press. Crystal, David (2004): A Glossary of Netspeak and Textspeak. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Crystal, David (2005 [1995]): The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language (second edition, third impression). Cambridge et al.: Cambridge University Press. Crystal, David & Randolph Quirk (1964): Systems of Prosodic and Paralinguistic Features in English (Janua Linguarum: Studia Memoriae Nicolai van Wijk Dedicata 39). London; The Hague & Paris: Mouton & Co. Dale, Robert (1992): “Exploring the role of punctuation in the signalling of discourse structure”, Workshop on Text Representation and Domain Modelling: Ideas from Linguistics and AI (Technical University of Berlin, 9-11 October 1991; KIT-Report 97), eds. Susanne Preuß & Birte Schmitz. Berlin: Projektgruppe KIT. 110-120. Daneš, František (1964): “A three-level approach to syntax”, Travaux Linguistiques de Prague 1, 225-240. Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 281 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="296"?> 282 References Daneš, František (1974): “Functional sentence perspective and the organization of the text”, Papers on Functional Sentence Perspective, ed. František Daneš (Janua Linguarum: Studia Memoriae Nicolai van Wijk Dedicata 147). The Hague & Paris: Mouton. 106-128. Danielewicz, Jane & Wallace Chafe (1985): “How “normal” speaking leads to “erroneous” punctuation”, The Acquisition of Written Language: Response and Revision, ed. Sarah Warshauer Freedman (Writing Research: Multidisciplinary Inquiries into the Nature of Writing 4). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. 213-225. Dawkins, John (1995): “Teaching punctuation as a rhetorical tool”, College Composition and Communication 46 (4), 533-548. Dickens, Charles (1911): “The Tattlesnivel Bleater” (All the Year Round, 31 December 1859), Miscellaneous Papers & Plays and Poems, Vol. 2 (The Centenary Edition of the Works of Charles Dickens in 36 Volumes). London & New York: Chapman & Hall and Charles Scribner’s Sons. 210-217. Dickens, Charles (1974 [1848- 68]): Dombey and Son (critical edition, ed. Alan Horsman; The Clarendon Dickens). Oxford: At the Clarendon Press. Diessel, Holger (2008): “Iconicity of sequence”, Cognitive Linguistics 19 (3), 465-490. Dijk, Teun A. van (1980): Textwissenschaft: Eine Interdisziplinäre Einführung (original title Tekstwetenschap: Een Interdisciplinaire Inleiding, 1978; translated by Christoph Sauer). München: Deutscher Taschenbuchverlag. Doležel, Lubomír (1968): “Russian and Prague School functional stylistics”, Style 2 (1), 143-158. Eggins, Suzanne (2004 [1994]): An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics (second edition). New York & London: Continuum Publishers. Enkvist, Nils E. (1973): Linguistic Stylistics (Janua Linguarum: Studia Memoriae Nicolai van Wijk Dedicata 5). The Hague & Paris: Mouton. Esser, Jürgen (1975): Intonationszeichen im Englischen (Linguistische Arbeiten 29). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. Esser, Jürgen (1977): “Zum Begriff der Normalintonation”, Kongreßberichte der 7. Jahrestagung der Gesellschaft für Angewandte Linguistik, Trier 1976, Vol. 3, eds. Wolfgang Kühlwein & Albert Raasch. Stuttgart: Hochschulverlag. 133-143. Esser, Jürgen (1984): Untersuchungen zum Gesprochenen Englisch: Ein Beitrag zur Strukturellen Pragmatik (Tübinger Beiträge zur Linguistik 228). Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. Esser, Jürgen (1988): Comparing Reading and Speaking Intonation (in cooperation with Andrzej Polomski). Amsterdam: Rodopi. Esser, Jürgen (1992 [1979]): Englische Prosodie: Eine Einführung (third edition; Tübinger Beiträge zur Linguistik 122). Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. Esser, Jürgen (1993): English Linguistic Stylistics. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. Esser, Jürgen (1998a): “Lexical semantics and medium-transferability in English and German”, Contrastive Lexical Semantics, ed. Edda Weigand (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science: Series IV: Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 171). Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 173-186. Esser, Jürgen (1998b): “Syntactic and prosodic closure in on-line speech production”, Anglia 116 (4), 476-491. Esser, Jürgen (1999): “Medium-dependent and medium-independent presentation structures”, Form, Function and Variation in English: Studies in Honour of Klaus Hansen, eds. Uwe Carls & Peter Lucko. Frankfurt/ Main: Peter Lang. 247-260. Esser, Jürgen (2000): “Corpus linguistics and the linguistic sign”, Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory: Papers from the Twentieth International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora (ICAME 20), eds. Christian Mair & Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 282 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="297"?> References 283 Marianne Hundt (Language and Computers: Studies in Practical Linguistics 33). Amsterdam & Atlanta, GA: Rodopi. 91-101. Esser, Jürgen (2002): “Is Netspeak a ‘third medium’? Presenting speech and writing in old and new media”, Language: Context and Cognition: Papers in Honour of Wolf- Dietrich Bald’s 60th Birthday, eds. Sybil Scholz et al. München: Langenscheidt- Longman GmbH. 83-97. Esser, Jürgen (2006): Presentation in Language: Rethinking Speech and Writing. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. Esser, Jürgen (2009): Introduction to English Text-linguistics (Textbooks in English Language and Linguistics 2). Frankfurt/ Main et al.: Peter Lang. Esser, Jürgen (2011): Rhythm in Speech, Prose and Verse: A Linguistic Description. Berlin: Logos Verlag. Euler, Bettina (1991): Strukturen mündlichen Erzählens: Parasyntaktische und sententielle Analysen am Beispiel des englischen Witzes (ScriptOralia 31). Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. Evans, Vyvyan & Melanie Green (2011 [2006]): Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction (fourth impression). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Fillmore, Charles J. (1992): “‘Corpus linguistics’ or ‘computer-aided armchair linguistics’”, Directions in Corpus Linguistics: Proceedings of Nobel Symposium 82, Stockholm 4 - 8 August 1991, ed. Jan Svartvik (Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 65). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter (a division of Walter de Gruyter & Co.). 35- 60. Flick, Uwe (2005 [1998]): An Introduction to Qualitative Research (second edition, fourth impression). London; Thousand Oaks, CA & New Delhi: Sage Publications. Fodor, Jerry A.; Thomas G. Bever & Merrill F. Garrett (1974): The Psychology of Language: An Introduction to Psycholinguistics and Generative Grammar (McGraw- Hill Series in Psychology). New York et al.: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Ford, Cecilia E. (1992): “Variation in the intonation and punctuation of different adverbial clause types in spoken and written English”, The Linguistics of Literacy, eds. Pamela Downing; Susan D. Lima & Michael Noonan (Typological Studies in Language 21). Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 4-16. Fowler, Henry W. & Francis G. Fowler (1949 [1906]): The King’s English (third edition, seventh impression). Oxford: At the Clarendon Press. Fox, Barbara & Sandra A. Thompson (1990): “A discourse explanation of the grammar of relative clauses in English conversation”, Language 66 (2), 297-316. Francis, W. Nelson (1958): The Structure of American English (with a chapter on American English dialects by Raven I. McDavid, Jr). New York: The Ronald Press Company. Fraser, Bruce (1990): “An approach to discourse markers”, Journal of Pragmatics 14, 383- 395. Fraser, Bruce (1999): “What are discourse markers? ”, Journal of Pragmatics 31, 931-952. Frazier, Lyn (1979): On Comprehending Sentences: Syntactic Parsing Strategies. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club. Frazier, Lyn (1987a): “Sentence processing: a tutorial review”, The Psychology of Reading, ed. Max Coltheart (Attention and Performance 12). Hove; London & Hillsdale, IN: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 559-586. Frazier, Lyn (1987b): “Theories of sentence processing”, Modularity in Knowledge Representation and Natural Language Understanding, ed. Jay L. Garfield. Cambridge, MA & London: The MIT Press. 291-307. Frazier, Lyn & Janet D. Fodor (1978): “The sausage machine: a new two-stage parsing model”, Cognition 6, 291-325. Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 283 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="298"?> 284 References Fries, Charles C. (1970 [1925]): “Shakespearian punctuation”, Studies in Shakespeare, Milton and Donne, ed. Eugene S. McCartney (reprint; University of Michigan Publications: Language and Literature 1). New York: Phaeton Press. 67-86. Fries, Charles C. (1973 [1952]): The Structure of English: An Introduction to the Construction of English Sentences (new impression). London: Longman. Gleason, Henry A., Jr (1970 [1955]): An Introduction to Descriptive Linguistics (revised edition). London et al.: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc. Gorrell, Paul (1995): Syntax and Parsing (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 76). Cambridge et al.: Cambridge University Press. Greenbaum, Sidney (1969): Studies in English Adverbial Usage (Miami Linguistics Series 5). Coral Gables, FL: University of Miami Press. Greenbaum, Sidney (1991): An Introduction to English Grammar. Harlow: Longman. Greenbaum, Sidney & Randolph Quirk (1995 [1990]): A Student’s Grammar of the English Language (ninth impression). London: Longman. Grice, H. Paul (1975): “Logic and conversation”, Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3, “Speech Acts”, eds. Peter Cole & Jerry L. Morgan; general ed. John P. Kimball. New York; San Francisco & London: Academic Press (a subsidiary of Harcourt Brace Jovanovich). 41-58. Grisham, John (2007 [2000]): The Brethren (reissue). London: Arrow Books. [Guardian]. Kelso, Paul: “Record contract ends top-flight playing career”, The Guardian 12 January 2007, 3. [Guardian]. Laville, Sandra: “Forest Gate inquiry condemned as ‘whitewash’”, The Guardian 13 February 2007, accessible at http: / / www.guardian.co.uk/ terrorism/ story/ 0"2012042,00.html; last access 26 July 2011. [Guardian]. MacAskill, Ewen & Julian Borger: “Isolated Bush faces rebellion over Iraq”, The Guardian 12 January 2007, 1. [Guardian]. Newham, Gavin: “Trying to pull off trick that eluded Pele, Best and Cruyff”, The Guardian 12 January 2007, 3. Guinn, David E. (2006): Faith on Trial: Communities of Faith, the First Amendment, and the Theory of Deep Diversity. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books (a division of Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.). Haigh, Rupert (2009 [2004]): Legal English (second edition). New York: Routledge- Cavendish (an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group). Halford, Brigitte K. (1996): Talk Units: The Structure of Spoken Canadian English (ScriptOralia 87). Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. Halliday, Michael A. K. (1961): “Categories of the theory of grammar”, Word 17, 241- 292. Halliday, Michael A. K. (1967): Intonation and Grammar in British English (Janua Linguarum: Studia Memoriae Nicolai van Wijk Dedicata 48). The Hague & Paris: Mouton. Halliday, Michael A. K. (1992 [1985]): Spoken and Written Language (second edition, third impression; Oxford English). Oxford et al.: Oxford University Press. Halliday, Michael A. K. (2004 [1985]): An Introduction to Functional Grammar (third edition; revised by Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen). London: Hodder Education (part of Hachette UK). Halliday, Michael A. K. & Ruqaiya Hasan (1976): Cohesion in English (English Language Series 9). Harlow et al.: Longman (an imprint of Pearson Education). Halliday, Michael A. K.; Angus McIntosh & Peter Strevens (1966 [1964]): The Linguistic Sciences and Language Teaching (third impression; Longmans’ Linguistic Library). London: Longmans, Green & Co. Ltd. Hannay, Mike (1987): “English comma placement: a functional view”, One Hundred Years of English Studies in Dutch Universities: Seventeen Papers Read at the Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 284 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="299"?> References 285 Centenary Conference Groningen, 15-16 January 1986, eds. Gerrit H. V. Bunt et al. (Costerus New Series 64). Amsterdam: Rodopi. 81-92. Harris, Roy (2001): Rethinking Writing. London & New York: Continuum Publishers. Harrison, Harry & Leon Stover (1972): Stonehenge. London: Peter Davies. Hartvigson, Hans H. (1969): On the Intonation and Position of the So-called Sentence Modifiers in Present-day English (Odense University Studies in English 1). Odense: Odense University Press. Havránek, Bohuslav (1964): “The functional differentiation of the standard language”, A Prague School Reader on Esthetics, Literary Structure, and Style, ed. Paul L. Garvin (selected and translated from the original Czech). Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. 3-16. Hawkins, John A. (1994): A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 73). Cambridge et al.: Cambridge University Press. Hawkins, John A. (2004): Efficiency and Complexity in Grammars. Oxford et al.: Oxford University Press. Herbst, Thomas & Susen Schüller (2008): Introduction to Syntactic Analysis: A Valency Approach (Narr Studienbücher). Tübingen: Narr Francke Attempto Verlag. Higgins Clark, Mary (1993): A Cry in the Night. New York et al.: Pocket Books (a division of Simon & Schuster, Inc.). Hill, Robin L. & Wayne S. Murray (2000): “Commas and spaces: effects of punctuation on eye movement and sentence parsing”, Reading as a Perceptual Process, eds. Alan Kennedy et al. Amsterdam et al.: Elsevier. 565-589. Hockett, Charles F. (1965 [1958]): A Course in Modern Linguistics (eighth impression). New York: The Macmillan Company. Hoffbauer, Brigitte (2003): Text-Constructional Units: Exploring Written Communication (doctoral thesis, University of Freiburg i. Br.). Freiburg i. Br.: Unpublished Manuscript. Holschuh, Albrecht (2002): “Poetische Zeichensetzung”, The German Quarterly 75 (1), 51-70. Hornby, Albert S.; Edward V. Gatenby & Harold Wakefield (1972 [1948]): The Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English (second edition, seventh impression). Oxford et al.: Oxford University Press. Hornby, Nick (2000): About a Boy. London et al.: Penguin Books. Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey K. Pullum (2002): The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge et al.: Cambridge University Press. Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey K. Pullum (2007 [2005]): A Student’s Introduction to English Grammar (third impression). Cambridge et al.: Cambridge University Press. Hughes, Rebecca (1996): English in Speech and Writing: Investigating Language and Literature (The Interface Series). London & New York: Routledge. Huppé, Bernard F. (1970): The Web of Words: Structural Analyses of the Old English Poems “Vainglory”, “The Wonder of Creation”, “The Dream of the Rood”, and “Judith”. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. [ICE-GB]. Survey of English Usage, University College London (ed.) (1998): International Corpus of English: British Component (CD-ROM; data extracted by means of ICECUP 3.1ß: The Corpus Utility Program for the ICE, ed. Sean Wallis). London: University College London. [Independent]. Carr, Simon: “The sketch: Energy saving? We all reached for the switch”, The Independent 28 September 2006, 7. [Independent]. Carr, Simon: “Why knock something that gives us comfort? ”, The Independent 30 May 2008, accessible at http: / / www.independent.co.uk/ opinion/ commentators/ simon-carr/ simon-carr-why-knock-something-that-gives-us-comfort-836711.html; last access 26 July 2011. Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 285 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="300"?> 286 References Irmscher, William F. (1979): Teaching Expository Writing. New York et al.: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Jackson, Howard (1985 [1980]): Analyzing English: An Introduction to Descriptive Linguistics (second edition, second impression; Pergamon Institute of English: Language Courses). Oxford et al.: Pergamon Press. Jakobson, Roman (1960): “Closing statement: linguistics and poetics”, Style in Language, ed. Thomas A. Sebeok. New York & London: The Technology Press of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 350-377. Jennings, W. Ivor (1963 [1933]): The Law and the Constitution (fifth edition, fourth impression). London: University of London Press. Jones, Bernard (1994): “Exploring the role of punctuation in parsing real text”, COLING-94 15, 421-425. Jones, Bernard (1995): “Exploring the variety and use of punctuation”, Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society 17, 619- 624. Jones, Bernard (1996): What’s The Point? A (Computational) Theory of Punctuation (doctoral thesis, University of Edinburgh). Edinburgh: Accessible at http: / / hdl.handle.net/ 1842/ 519; last access 26 July 2011. Joyce, James (1991 [1916]): A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man (the definite text, corrected from the Dublin holograph by Chester G. Anderson; with an introduction by Hugh Kenner). New York: Signet Classic. Kennedy, Alan (2000): “Attention allocation in reading: sequential or parallel? ”, Reading as a Perceptual Process, eds. Alan Kennedy et al. Amsterdam et al.: Elsevier. 193-220. Kennedy, Alan et al. (1989): “Parsing complements: comments on the generality of the principle of minimal attachment”, Language and Cognitive Processes 4 (3/ 4), 51-76. Kimball, John P. (1973): “Seven principles of surface structure parsing in natural language”, Cognition 2 (1), 15-47. Kitson, Keith (2008): Amber’s Revenge: A Christian Novel. Mustang, OK: Tate Publishing & Enterprises. Krapp, George P. (ed.) (1961 [1932]): The Vercelli Book (second impression). New York: Columbia University Press. Kreyer, Rolf (2006): Inversion in Modern Written English: Syntactic Complexity, Information Status and the Creative Writer (Language in Performance 32). Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. Kreyer, Rolf (2008): The Nature of Rules, Regularities and Units in Language: A Network Model of the Language System and of Language in Use (post-doctoral thesis, University of Bonn). Bonn: Unpublished Manuscript. Kreyer, Rolf (2010): Introduction to English Syntax (Textbooks in English Language and Linguistics 3). Frankfurt/ Main et al.: Peter Lang. Kreyer, Rolf & Joybrato Mukherjee (2007): “The style of pop song lyrics: a corpus-based pilot study”, Anglia 125 (1), 31-58. Küster, Marc W. (2006): Geordnetes Weltbild: Die Tradition des Alphabetischen Sortierens von der Keilschrift bis zur EDV: Eine Kulturgeschichte. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. Labov, William (1972): “Some principles of linguistic methodology”, Language in Society 1 (1), 97-120. Lakoff, Robin T. (1984 [1982]): “Some of my favorite writers are literate: the mingling of oral and literate strategies in written communication”, Spoken and Written Language: Exploring Orality and Literacy, ed. Deborah Tannen (second impression; Advances in Discourse Processing 9). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. 239-260. Leech, Geoffrey N. (1995 [1983]): Principles of Pragmatics (ninth impression; Longman Linguistics Library). London & New York: Longman. Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 286 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="301"?> References 287 Leech, Geoffrey N. (1999): “The distribution and function of vocatives in English and American conversation”, Out of Corpora: Studies in Honour of Stig Johansson, eds. Hilde Hasselgård & Signe Oksefjell (Language and Computers: Studies in Practical Linguistics 26). Amsterdam & Atlanta, GA: Rodopi. 107-118. Leech, Geoffrey N. & Michael H. Short (1981): Style in Fiction: A Linguistic Introduction to English Fictional Prose (English Language Series 13). London & New York: Longman. Leech, Geoffrey N. & Jan Svartvik (1994 [1975]): A Communicative Grammar of English (second edition, second impression). London & New York: Longman. Leech, Geoffrey N.; Paul Rayson & Andrew Wilson (2001): Word Frequencies in Written and Spoken English: Based on the British National Corpus. Harlow et al.: Longman (an imprint of Pearson Education). Levenston, Edward A. (1992): The Stuff of Literature: Physical Aspects of Texts and their Relation to Literary Meaning. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Levinson, Joan P. (1985): Punctuation and the Orthographic Sentence: A Linguistic Analysis. New York: City University of New York. Levinson, Joan P. (1989): “The linguistic status of the orthographic sentence”, CUNY forum 14, 113-117. Limaye, Mohan R. (1983): “Approaching punctuation as a system”, The ABCA Bulletin 3, 28-32. Lipka, Leonhard (2002): English Lexicology: Lexical Structure, Word Semantics and Word-Formation (Narr Studienbücher). Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. Lodge, David (2009): Deaf Sentence. London et al.: Penguin Books. Long, Ralph B. (1965 [1961]): The Sentence and its Parts: A Grammar of Contemporary English (third impression). Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press. Longacre, Robert E. (1976): An Anatomy of Speech Notions. Lisse: The Peter de Ridder Press. Longacre, Robert E. (1979): “The paragraph as a grammatical unit”, Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 12, “Discourse and Syntax”, ed. Talmy Givón; series ed. Jerrold M. Sadock. New York; San Francisco & London: Academic Press (a subsidiary of Harcourt Brace Jovanovich). 115-134. Lucas, Michael H. (1974): “The surface structure of relative clauses”, Linguistics 139, 83-120. Lucas, Peter (1971): “Sense-units and the use of punctuation markers in John Capgrave’s ‘Chronicle’”, Archivum Linguisticum 2, 1-23. Lyons, Esther M. (2005 [1996]): Unwanted! Memoirs of an Anglo-Indian Daughter of Rev Michael DeLisle Lyons of Detroit, Michigan: An Autobiography (republication). Richmond, Victoria: Spectrum Publications Pty. Ltd. Lyons, John (1969 [1968]): Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics (third impression). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lyons, John (1975 [1972]): “Human language”, Non-Verbal Communication, ed. Robert A. Hinde (second impression). Cambridge et al.: Cambridge University Press. 49-85. Lyons, John (1977): Semantics (2 volumes). Cambridge et al.: Cambridge University Press. Lyons, John (1999 [1981]): Language and Linguistics: An Introduction (fourteenth impression). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mann, Nancy (2003): “Point counterpoint: teaching punctuation as information management”, College Composition and Communication 54 (3), 359-393. Mann, William C. & Sandra A. Thompson (1987): “Rhetorical Structure Theory: a framework for the analysis of texts”, IPRA Papers in Pragmatics 1, 1-22. Mann, William C. & Sandra A. Thompson (1988): “Rhetorical Structure Theory: toward a functional theory of text organization”, Text 8 (3), 243-281. Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 287 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="302"?> 288 References Marchand, Hans (1969 [1960]): The Categories and Types of Present-Day English Word- Formation: A Synchronic-Diachronic Approach (second, completely revised and enlarged edition; Handbücher für das Studium der Anglistik). München: C. H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung. Marckwardt, Albert H. (1942): Introduction to the English Language. New York et al.: Oxford University Press. Mathesius, Vilém (1975): A Functional Analysis of Present Day English on a General Basis (ed. Josef Vachek; original title Obsahový rozbor sou č asné angli č tiny na základ ě obecn ě lingvistickém, 1961; translated by Libuše Dušková; Janua Linguarum: Studia Memoriae Nicolai van Wijk Dedicata 208). The Hague & Paris: Mouton. Matthews, Peter H. (1992 [1981]): Syntax (sixth impression; Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics). Cambridge et al.: Cambridge University Press. Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M. & Sandra A. Thompson (1988): “The structure of discourse and ‘subordination’”, Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse, eds. John Haiman & Sandra A. Thompson (Typological Studies in Language 18). Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 275- 329. McCawley, James D. (1998 [1988]): The Syntactic Phenomena of English (second edition). Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press. McCormick Calkins, Lucy (1980): “When children want to punctuate: basic skills belong in context”, Language Arts 57 (5), 567-573. McEnery, Tony & Andrew Wilson (2001 [1996]): Corpus Linguistics: An Introduction (second edition; Edinburgh Textbooks in Empirical Linguistics). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Melville, Herman (1994 [1851]): Moby Dick (republication; Penguin Popular Classics). London et al.: Penguin Books. Mey, Jacob L. (2004 [1993]): Pragmatics: An Introduction (second edition, third impression). Malden, MA; Oxford & Carlton, Victoria: Blackwell Publishing. Meyer, Charles F. (1986): “Punctuation practice in the Brown Corpus”, ICAME News 10, 80-95. Meyer, Charles F. (1987): A Linguistic Study of American Punctuation (American University Studies 13 [5]). New York et al.: Peter Lang. Meyer, Charles F. (1992): Apposition in Contemporary English (Studies in English Language). Cambridge et al.: Cambridge University Press. Meyer, Charles F. (1995): “Coordination ellipsis in spoken and written American English”, Language Sciences 17 (3), 241-269. Meyer, Charles F. (1996): “Coordinate structures in English”, World Englishes 15 (1), 29-41. Miller, Jim & Regina Weinert (1998): Spontaneous Spoken Language: Syntax and Discourse. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Mindt, Ilka (2001): Intonation im Lancaster/ IBM Spoken English Corpus: ‘Falls’ und ‘Fall-Rises’, Sprecherwechsel, ‘Paratones’, ‘Declination’ (Language in Performance 23). Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. [Mirror]. Blackman, Oonagh: “Blair says sorry - Clarke calls Brown ‘stupid’”, The Daily Mirror 08 September 2006, accessible at http: / / www.mirror.co.uk/ news/ topstories/ 2006/ 09/ 08/ blair-says-sorry-clarke-calls-brown-stupid-115875-17707030/ ; last access 26 July 2011. Mitchell, Bruce (1980): “The dangers of disguise: Old English texts in modern punctuation”, The Review of English Studies XXXI (124), 385-413. Moffett, James & Betty Jane Wagner (1976 [1968]): Student-Centred Language Arts and Reading, K-13: A Handbook for Teachers (second edition). Boston, MA et al.: Houghton Mifflin Company. Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 288 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="303"?> References 289 Mönnink, Inge de (2000): On the Move: The Mobility of Constituents in the English Noun Phrase: A Multi-Method Approach. Amsterdam & Atlanta, GA: Rodopi. Monschau, Jacqueline (2004): Input and Output in Oral Reading in English: The Interaction of Syntax, Semantico-Pragmatics and Intonation (doctoral thesis, University of Bonn). Bonn: Accessible at http: / / hss.ulb.uni-bonn.de/ 2004/ 0347/ 0347. htm (URN: urn: nbn: de: hbz: 5-03472); last access 26 July 2011. Monschau, Jacqueline; Rolf Kreyer & Joybrato Mukherjee (2003): “Syntax and semantics at tone unit boundaries”, Anglia 121 (4), 581- 609. Morris, Charles (1970 [1938]): Foundations of the Theory of Signs (twelfth impression; Foundations of the Unity of Science: Toward an International Encyclopedia of Unified Science I [2]). Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press. Muka ř ovský, Jan (1964): “Standard language and poetic language”, A Prague School Reader on Esthetics, Literary Structure, and Style, ed. Paul L. Garvin (selected and translated from the original Czech). Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. 17-30. Mukherjee, Joybrato (2000): “Krisis at Kamp Krusty - deviant spellings in popular culture as examples of medium-dependent graphic presentation structures”, Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik 25 (2), 161-172. Mukherjee, Joybrato (2001): Form and Function of Parasyntactic Presentation Structures: A Corpus-based Study of Talk Units in Spoken English (doctoral thesis, University of Bonn; Language and Computers: Studies in Practical Linguistics 35). Amsterdam & Atlanta, GA: Rodopi. Mukherjee, Joybrato (2003): “From corpus data to a theory of talk units in spoken English”, Extending the Scope of Corpus-Based Research: New Applications, New Challenges, eds. Sylviane Granger & Stephanie Petch-Tyson (Language and Computers 14). Amsterdam & New York: Rodopi. 121-134. Mulder, Jan W. F. (1968): Sets and Relations in Phonology: An Axiomatic Approach to the Description of Speech. Oxford: At the Clarendon Press. Mulder, Jan W. F. (1989): Foundations of Axiomatic Linguistics (Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 40). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Mulder, Jan W. F. & Sándor G. J. Hervey (1971): “Index and signum”, Semiotica 4 (4), 324-338. Mulder, Jan W. F. & Sándor G. J. Hervey (1972): Theory of the Linguistic Sign (Janua Linguarum: Studia Memoriae Nicolai van Wijk Dedicata 136). The Hague & Paris: Mouton. Müller, Rudolf W. (1964): Rhetorische und syntaktische Interpunktion: Untersuchungen zur Pausenbezeichnung im antiken Latein. Tübingen: Eberhard-Karls-Universität. Nevalainen, Terttu (1992): “Intonation and discourse type”, Text 12 (3), 397-427. Newman, Stanley S. (1946): “On the stress system of English”, Word 3 (2), 171-187. [Newsweek]. Underhill, William: “Big Ben or Big Brother? ”, Newsweek (Atlantic Edition) 28 February 2000, 45. Nunberg, Geoffrey (1990): The Linguistics of Punctuation (CSLI Lecture Notes 18). Leland Stanford Junior University: CSLI. Obendorfer, Rudolf (1998): Weak Forms in Present-Day English (Studia Anglistica Norvegica 8). Oslo: Novus Press. Ong, Walter J. (1944): “Historical backgrounds of Elizabethan and Jacobean punctuation theory”, PMLA 4, 349-360. Orwell, George (1971 [1945]): Animal Farm: A Fairy Story (authorised reprint). London: Secker & Warburg. Orwell, George (1989 [1949]): 1984 (authorised reprint; with an afterword by Erich Fromm). New York: Signet Classic. Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 289 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="304"?> 290 References Parkes, Malcolm B. (1992): Pause and Effect: An Introduction to the History of Punctuation in the West. Aldershot: Scolar Press. Partridge, Eric (1998 [1953]): You Have a Point There: A Guide to Punctuation and its Allies (sixth impression; with a chapter on American practice by John W. Clark). London & New York: Routledge. Pawley, Andrew & Frances Hodgetts Syder (1983): “Natural selection in syntax: notes on adaptive variation and change in vernacular and literary grammar”, Journal of Pragmatics 7 (1), 551-579. Pechner, Dunja M. & Michael Fuchs-Gamböck (2004): Popstars Backstage: Das offizielle Buch zur emotionalsten Real Life Show (Rockbuch). Schlüchtern: Rockbuch Verlag Buhmann & Haeseler. Peck, John & Martin Coyle (1999): The Student’s Guide to Writing: Grammar, Punctuation and Spelling (Palgrave Study Guides). Basingstoke & New York: Palgrave. Peters, Pam (2002): “Textual morphology from Gutenberg to the ebook”, Text Types and Corpora: Studies in Honour of Udo Fries, eds. Andreas Fischer; Gunnel Tottie & Hans M. Lehmann. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. 77-90. Peters, Pam (2004): The Cambridge Guide to English Usage. Cambridge et al.: Cambridge University Press. Petersen, Christian (1999): Let the Day Perish. Vancouver: Porcepic Books (an imprint of Beach Holme Publishing). Petit, Angela (2003): “The stylish semicolon: teaching punctuation as rhetorical choice”, The English Journal 92 (3), 66-72. Pickering, Martin J. & Matthew J. Traxler (1998): “Plausibility and recovery from garden paths: an eye-tracking study”, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 24 (4), 940-961. Pickering, Michael (1995): “The textual function of typeface in a narrative poem”, Anglicana Turkuensia 14, 439-447. Plag, Ingo (2008 [2003]): Word-Formation in English (fourth impression; Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics). Cambridge et al.: Cambridge University Press. Poole, Millicent E. & T. W. Field (1976): “A comparison of oral and written code elaboration”, Language and Speech 19, 305-311. Popper, Karl (2009 [1959]): The Logic of Scientific Discovery (reprint; Routledge Classics; original title Logik der Forschung, 1935; translated by Karl Popper, with the help of Julius Freed & Lan Freed). Abingdon & New York: Routledge (an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group). Preisler, Bent (1992): A Handbook of English Grammar on Functional Principles. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press. Pronzini, Bill (1988): Small Felonies: Fifty Mystery Short Stories. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Quirk, Randolph (1957): “Relative clauses in educated spoken English”, English Studies 38 (1- 6), 97-109. Quirk, Randolph & Gabriele Stein (1990): English in Use. Harlow: Longman. Quirk, Randolph et al. (1985): A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London & New York: Longman. Rankin, Ian (2005 [2004]): A Question of Blood (reissue). London: Orion Books Ltd. Rankin, Ian (2009 [2008]): Doors Open (first paperback edition). London: Orion Books Ltd. (part of Hachette UK). Ritter, Robert M. (ed.) (2003): The Oxford Style Manual. Oxford et al.: Oxford University Press. Roberts, Paul (1956): Patterns of English. New York et al.: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc. Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 290 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="305"?> References 291 Robins, Robert H. (1990 [1964]): General Linguistics: An Introductory Survey (fourth edition, second impression; Longman Linguistics Library). London & New York: Longman. Rohdenburg, Günter (1996): “Cognitive complexity and increased grammatical explicitness in English”, Cognitive Linguistics 7 (2), 149-182. Rohdenburg, Günter (2003): “Cognitive complexity and horror aequi as factors determining the use of interrogative clause linkers in English”, Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English, eds. Günter Rohdenburg & Britta Mondorf (Topics in English 43). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 205-249. Rösner, Dietmar & Manfred Stede (1993): “Zur Struktur von Texten: Eine Einführung in die Rhetorical Structure Theory”, Künstliche Intelligenz 7 (2), 14-21. Roth, Philip (2004): The Plot against America. New York: Vintage International (a division of Random House, Inc.). Salmon, Vivian (1962): “Early seventeenth-century punctuation as a guide to sentence structure”, The Review of English Studies 13 (52), 347-360. Samara, Timothy (2004): Typography Workbook: A Real-World Guide to Using Type in Graphic Design. Gloucester, MA: Rockport Publishers. Sampson, Geoffrey (1985): Writing Systems: A Linguistic Introduction. London et al.: Hutchinson. Sanders, Annie (2008): The Gap Year for Grown Ups. London: Orion Books Ltd. (part of Hachette UK). Sartoris, Eva (2003): Relative Clauses with Expressed Pronoun in Spoken and Written English (Schriftliche Hausarbeit im Rahmen der Ersten Staatsprüfung für das Lehramt für die Sekundarstufe II, University of Bonn). Bonn: Unpublished Manuscript. Saussure, Ferdinand de (1978 [1915]): Cours de Linguistique Générale (critical edition, ed. Tullio de Mauro; first edition, eds. Charles Bally & Albert Sechehaye). Paris: Payot. Say, Bilge (1998): An Information-Based Approach to Punctuation (doctoral thesis, Bilkent University). Ankara: Unpublished Manuscript. Schäpers, Uta K. E. (2009): Nominal versus Clausal Complexity in Spoken and Written English: Theory and Description (English Corpus Linguistics 8). Frankfurt/ Main et al.: Peter Lang. Seiler, Hansjakob (1960): Relativsatz, Attribut und Apposition. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Sigler, Scott (2008): Infected: A Novel. New York: Crown Publishers. Simpson, John A. & Edmund S. C. Weiner (eds.) (1989 [1928]): The Oxford English Dictionary, Volume 17, “Su-Thrivingly” (second edition). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Smith, Edward L., Jr (1985): “Text type and discourse framework”, Text 5 (3), 229-247. Sopher, Hayeem (1971): “Apposition”, English Studies 52, 401-412. Sopher, Hayeem (1977): “The problem of punctuation”, English Language Teaching Journal 31, 304-313. [Spotlight]. Stock, Wolfgang (ed.): “Why English teachers are important”, Spotlight January 2007, 72. Stein, Gertrude (1988 [1935]): Lectures in America (second edition; with a new introduction by Wendy Steiner). London: Virago Press. Stenström, Anna-Brita (1988): “Adverbial commas and prosodic segmentation”, Corpus Linguistics, Hard and Soft: Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora, eds. Merja Kytö; Ossi Ihalainen & Matti Rissanen (Language and Computers: Studies in Practical Linguistics 2). Amsterdam: Rodopi. 221-236. Stoker, Bram (2000 [1897]): Dracula, ed. Kathy Casey (unabridged, unaltered republication; Dover Thrift Editions). Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, Inc. Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 291 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="306"?> 292 References Stubbs, Michael (1980): Language and Literacy: The Sociolinguistics of Reading and Writing (Routledge Education Books). London; Boston, MA & Henley: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd. Summey, George (1949): American Punctuation. New York: The Ronald Press Company. [Sun]. Brenner, Steve: “Psycho killers! ”, The Sun 30 June 2009 (2), 50-51. [Sun]. Cole, Doug: “Play, learn and get dirty”, The Sun 06 July 2005, ‘Persil’ 2. [Sun]. Newton, Victoria: “I’m not sorry for Robbie says Liam”, The Sun 16 February 2007, 15. [Sun]. Payne, Gary: “United fans’ anger at ticket rise”, The Sun 16 December 2006, 85. [Sun]. Russell, Andy: “This stinks! ”, The Sun 09 January 2007, 4. Swift, Graham (2002 [1984]): Waterland (revised edition, second impression). London; Basingstoke & Oxford: Picador (an imprint of Pan Macmillan Ltd.). Thompson, Sandra A. & William C. Mann (1986): “A discourse view of concession in written English”, Proceedings of the Second Annual Meeting of the Pacific Linguistics Conference, eds. Scott DeLancey & Russell S. Tomlin. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon. 435-447. Thomson, Audrey J. & Agnes V. Martinet (1987 [1960]): A Practical English Grammar (fourth edition, fourth impression). Oxford et al.: Oxford University Press. [Times]. Halpin, Tony: “Spy poisoning: in Moscow, everything is grey”, The Times 20 November 2006, accessible at http: / / business.timesonline.co.uk/ tol/ business/ law/ article643019.ece; last access 26 July 2011. [Times]. Hume, Mick: “Hey kids, just say ‘no’ to rehab”, The Times 23 February 2007, 16. [Times]. Maxwell, Dominic: “Hyphenator”, The Times 29 November 2006, ‘Times2’ 17. Todd, Loreto (2001): Cassell’s Guide to Punctuation. London: Cassell & Co. Townsend, Sue (2006): Queen Camilla. London: Michael Joseph (an imprint of Penguin Books). Trask, Robert L. (1997): The Penguin Guide to Punctuation (Penguin Reference). London et al.: Penguin Books. Trnka, Bohumil (1982): “On the linguistic sign and the multi-level organization of language” (1964), Selected Papers in Structural Linguistics: Contributions to English and General Linguistics Written in the Years 1928-1978, ed. Vilém Fried (Janua Linguarum: Studia Memoriae Nicolai van Wijk Dedicata 88). Berlin et al.: Mouton. 86-93. Truss, Lynne (2003): Eats, Shoots & Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation. London: Profile Books Ltd. Uldall, Hans J. (1966 [1944]): “Speech and writing”, Readings in Linguistics II, eds. Eric P. Hamp; Fred W. Householder & Robert Austerlitz (originally published in Acta Linguistica 4, 11-16). Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press. 147- 151. University of Chicago Press (ed.) (2003 [1906]): The Chicago Manual of Style (fifteenth edition). Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press. Vachek, Josef (1948): “Written language and printed language”, Recueil Linguistique de Bratislava 1, 67-74. Vachek, Josef (1974): “The primacy of writing? ”, Special Issue of IRAL on the Occasion of Bertil Malmberg’s 60th Birthday, ed. Gerhard Nickel. Heidelberg: Julius Groos Verlag. 121-130. Vallins, George H. (1957 [1956]): The Pattern of English (republication; The Language Library). Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Virtanen, Tuija (1992): “Issues of text typology: narrative - a ‘basic’ type of text? ”, Text 12 (2), 293-310. Walker, Martin (2009): Bruno, Chief of Police. London: Quercus. Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 292 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="307"?> References 293 Waller, Robert H. W. (1980): “Graphic aspects of complex texts: typography as macropunctuation”, Processing of Visible Language, Vol. 2, eds. Paul A. Kolers; Merald E. Wolstad & Herman Bouma (NATO Conference Series III: Human Factors 13). New York & London: Plenum Press (published in cooperation with NATO Scientific Affairs Division). 241-253. Waller, Robert H. W. (1982): “Text as diagram: using typography to improve access and understanding”, The Technology of Text: Principles for Structuring, Designing, and Displaying Text, Vol. 1, ed. David H. Jonassen. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications. 137-166. Waller, Robert H. W. (1985): “Using typography to structure arguments: a critical analysis of some examples”, The Technology of Text: Principles for Structuring, Designing, and Displaying Text, Vol. 2, ed. David H. Jonassen. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications. 105-125. Waller, Robert H. W. (1987): The Typographic Contribution to Language: Towards a Model of Typographic Genres and their Underlying Structures (doctoral thesis, University of Reading). Reading: Accessible at http: / / www.robwaller.org/ RobWaller_thesis87.pdf; last access 26 July 2011. Wasow, Thomas (1997a): “End-weight from the speaker’s perspective”, Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 26 (3), 347-361. Wasow, Thomas (1997b): “Remarks on grammatical weight”, Language Variation and Change 9, 81-105. Wasow, Thomas (2002): Postverbal Behavior. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Werlich, Egon (1976): A Text Grammar of English (Uni-Taschenbücher 597). Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer. Whitehall, Harold (1967 [1958]): Structural Essentials of English (fourth impression). London: Longmans, Green & Co. Ltd. Wichmann, Anne (2000): Intonation in Text and Discourse: Beginnings, Middles and Ends (Studies in Language and Linguistics). Harlow et al.: Longman (an imprint of Pearson Education). Willard, Rudolph (1950): “The punctuation and capitalisation of Ælfric’s homilies for the first Sunday in Lent”, Studies in English XXIX, 1-32. Wode, Henning (1966): “Englische Satzintonation”, Phonetica 15, 129-218. Woolf, Virginia (2000 [1941]): Between the Acts (with new introductions by Jackie Kay and Lisa Jardine; Vintage Classics). London: Vintage. [World and Press]. Hoge, Warren: “In a farewell address, Annan urges America not to go it alone”, World and Press 02 January 2007, 1. [World and Press]. Reid, Tim: “Well, you’ve run 50 marathons in 50 days. One more won’t hurt”, World and Press 01 November 2006, 15. Worsnip, Glyn (1990): Up the Down Escalator. London: Michael Joseph Ltd. Worth, Lenora (1997): The Wedding Quilt. New York: Steeple Hill Books. Wray, Alison & Aileen Bloomer (2006 [1998]): Projects in Linguistics: A Practical Guide to Researching Language (second edition). London & New York: Hodder Arnold (a member of the Hodder Headline Group). Yaggy, Elinor (1953): “Let’s take the guesswork out of punctuation”, College Composition and Communication 4 (4), 128-131. Zimmermann, Clara (2008): Interpunktion in Werbetexten für Automobile: Ein diachroner Vergleich im amerikanischen Englisch (Schriftliche Hausarbeit im Rahmen der Ersten Staatsprüfung für das Lehramt für die Sekundarstufe II, University of Bonn). Bonn: Unpublished Manuscript. Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 293 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="308"?> Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 294 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="309"?> Index abbreviation period; see punctuation mark acceptable punctuation usage; see punctuation usage adjunct 180-193 clausal ~ 180, 184-193, 256-257, 261- 262 restrictive vs non-restrictive ~ 191-193 phrasal ~ 180-184, 194-195, 199-200 adverbial 178-204 adjunct 180-193; see also adjunct conjunct 198-204; see also conjunct disjunct 193-198; see also disjunct allo-sentence 30 apostrophe; see punctuation mark apposition 133-134, 168-178 indirect-/ derived-syntactic relationship 172-176 restrictive vs non-restrictive ~ 170-171 asyndetic coordination (coordinated constituents) 154-160, 244-245, 260-261 punctuational coordination 156 authentic punctuation usage; see punctuation usage automatisation 234 blending 143-144 boustrophedon writing 70 canonical-clause concept 222-223 clause 28-29 clause complex 33-34, 75-76, 82-84 clause types, major 30 clipping 143-144 colon; see punctuation mark comma; see punctuation mark comma-splicing 105-106 communicative value of punctuation; see punctuation complexity principle 159-160, 188-189 conjunct 198-204 clausal ~ 198-199 phrasal ~ 198-204 connotation 64-65, 67 constituency 29-30 constituent length; see syndetic coordination construal of guide function(s) of punctuation; see guide function(s) of punctuation coordinative vs conjunctive coordination 151-154 corpus 122 correct punctuation usage; see punctuation usage dash; see punctuation mark definition of punctuation; see punctuation denotation 63-65, 67-68; see also information-value denotative synonym 63 denotative synonym; see denotation deviant punctuation; see punctuation diacritics 97 dimensions of linguistic variation 126-128, 267-269 discourse structure 245-250 disjunct 193-198 clausal ~ 195-198, 256-257 phrasal ~ 193-195, 196 dual function of punctuation mark; see punctuation mark elocutionary tradition of punctuation (OE/ ME); see punctuation emphatic punctuation; see punctuation exclamation mark; see punctuation mark foot; see phonological units foregrounding 234-235 forerunners of punctuation; see punctuation form 18-19 form follows function; see style Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 295 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="310"?> 296 Index garden-path structure; see parsing strategies general punctuation principles; see punctuation global text-organising properties 37-40 encoding perspective 37 global textual properties 37-40; see also global textual properties global textual properties 37-40 discourse-type/ -framework 37 macrostructure 38-40; see also macrostructure text-type 37 thematic progression 38; see also thematic progression grammatical and lexical choices 42 grammatical function of punctuation; see punctuation grammatical units 28-30, 34 graphic status; see script unit graphological units 32-34 letter 32 orthographic sentence 33-34, 75-76, 81-83, 85-86 orthographic word 34 page 32-33 paragraph 33; see also paragraph sub-sentence 33, 97 graphology 31 guide function(s) of punctuation 115, 206; GF 1-9: 255, 257, 259, 260, 262, 264, 266, 267, 269 construal of ~ 273-277 homography 22-23 homonymy 25-26, 216-217, 269-270 homophony 22-23 hyphen; see punctuation mark iconicity 41-42 image acoustique 17-19 image écrite 17-19 index 60-61, 271-272 indirect-/ derived-syntactic relationship; see apposition information-value 62, 64-65; see also denotation intervening syntactic material; see obligatory sentence-internal punctuation intonation 43-47 focus 44-45 nucleus 44-45 tonality 43-44 tone 45-47 tonicity 44-45 left dislocation; see multiple fillings of syntactic slots letter; see graphological units lexeme 20-21 lexical item 20-21, 28 light and heavy punctuation; see punctuation linguistic function of punctuation; see punctuation linguistic sign 16-20 look-back principle 183, 191, 213-214 macrosetting 48 layout 48 macrostructure 38-40 Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST) 38- 40, 246-250 superstructure 38 major script unit; see script unit medium 12-13 medium-dependent expression-system/ level 16, 26-27, 30-35 medium-independent expression-system/ level 16, 26-27, 28-34 medium-dependent choices; see presentation structure medium-dependent expression-system/ level; see medium medium-dependent word-form 21-24 orthographic (written) word-form 21- 24 phonological (spoken) word-form 21- 24 medium-independent choices; see presentation structure medium-independent expression-system/ level; see medium medium-independent word-form 20-26 microsetting 48-58 capitalisation 49-51 compound spelling (spacing) 48-49 punctuation 55-56, 58; see also punctuation type face, font, type size 54-55 variation in orthography 51-54; see also variation in orthography minor script unit; see script unit morpheme 28, 30-31 Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 296 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="311"?> Index 297 multi-method approach to descriptive linguistics 120-122 multiple fillings of syntactic slots 171-178, 261; see also script unit left dislocation 176-178 right dislocation 176-178, 217-218 multiple sentence; see sentence natural relation 61 nonverbal information 58-59, 66-67 paralinguistic information/ features 46- 47, 59-60, 66-68, 166; see also punctuation (optional vs obligatory ~) personal information/ features 59-60 prosodic information/ features 59-60, 66-68; see also punctuation (linguistic function of ~) objective vs subjective order 40 obligatory sentence-internal punctuation 132-138 intervening syntactic material 136-138, 202, 259-260 structural opacity 132-136, 156, 232- 234, 260-262 obligatory vs optional punctuation 98-99 paralinguistic function of ~ 66-68; see also nonverbal information orthographic sentence; see graphological units orthographic word; see graphological units orthographic (written) word-form; see medium-dependent word-form page; see graphological units paragraph 33 notional paragraph 33 written paragraph 33 paralinguistic information/ features; see nonverbal information parasyntax 83-84 parentheses; see punctuation mark parsing strategies 206-211 garden-path structure 210-211, 218- 221, 239-240, 258 principle of late closure 207-209, 212- 213, 218-220 principle of minimal attachment 209- 210, 214-215 vocative 221-223, 255-256 period; see punctuation mark personal information/ features; see nonverbal information phoneme; see phonological units phonological function of punctuation; see punctuation phonological units 32 foot 32 phoneme 32 phonological word 32 syllable 32 tone unit 32, 43-44, 84 phonological word; see phonological units phonological (spoken) word-form; see medium-dependent word-form phonology 31 phrase 29-30 poetic function (of language) 234-235, 241-242 presentation 35-36 presentation structure 35-58 medium-dependent choices 42-58; see also spoken choices and written choices medium-independent choices 36-42; see also iconicity and global-text-organising properties and grammatical and lexical choices and objective vs subjective order and principle of endweight and theme vs rheme (given vs new) principle of end-weight 41, 237 principle of informational weight 99-102, 167, 227-229, 235-236, 242-244, 263- 264 principle of late closure; see parsing strategies principle of medium-transferability 16 principle of minimal attachment; see parsing strategies principle of resolution 100-102; see also principle of informational weight principle of structural integrity 138, 164, 182-183, 220, 235-242, 258 prosodic information/ features; see nonverbal information punctuation communicative value of ~ 65, 67, 251- 252, 277 definition of ~ 91-94, 252 deviant ~ 232-242 elocutionary tradition of ~ (OE/ ME) 73-74, 76-77 Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 297 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="312"?> 298 Index emphatic ~ 202 forerunners of ~ 69-71 general ~ principles 125-139, esp. 125- 126 grammatical function of ~ 6-9 light and heavy ~ 129-132, 224-229, 264-266 linguistic function of ~ 62, 68-69, 204- 206, 269-270; see also nonverbal information obligatory vs optional ~ 98-99; see also obligatory vs optional punctuation phonological function of ~ 3-6 structural approach to ~ (OE/ ME) 73 styles of ~ 129-130 punctuation as a rhetorical tool 9 punctuation hierarchy 110-112, 262, 263- 264 punctuation mark abbreviation period 96-97 apostrophe 96, ex.140-141, 143-144 colon 103-104, 246, 266-267 comma 104-106; see also serial comma and reading comma and speaking comma dash 106-108, ex. 167 dual function of ~ 109-112 exclamation mark 102-103 hyphen 95-96, ex. 142-143 parentheses 106-108, 246-247, 266-267 period 98-102 question mark 102-103 quotation marks 108 semicolon 103-104 separative force of ~ 99, 109, 110-111, 242-245, 262-264 ~ as preparatory break 238 ~ as refocusing element 236-237, 258 word-spaces 70, ex. 144-145 punctuation mark as preparatory break; see punctuation mark punctuation mark as refocusing element; see punctuation mark punctuation unit 87, 97 punctuation usage acceptable ~ 117 authentic ~ 117-118 correct ~ 116-117 punctuational coordination; see asyndetic coordination primary marks (termination points) 87, 102, 112 question mark; see punctuation mark quotation marks; see punctuation mark rank and unit 29 reading comma 131, 225 relative clause 161-167 restrictive vs non-restrictive ~ 162-166 reporting clause 136, 239 restrictive vs non-restrictive apposition; see apposition restrictive vs non-restrictive relative clause; see relative clause right dislocation; see multiple fillings of syntactic slots rules vs principles 272-273 script unit 85-90, 252 graphic status 87, 89-90 major ~ 88-89 minor ~ 88-89 multiple fillings of syntactic slots 171- 178 syntactic status 87-88 scriptio (lingua) continua 70, 144-145 secondary boundary markers 103, 112 semicolon; see punctuation mark semiotic system 60-61 sentence 28-30 multiple ~ 30 simple ~ 30 sentence-partial 136-137 separative force of punctuation; see punctuation mark serial comma 146-147 sign 64 signum 61 simple sentence; see sentence speaking comma (speaking punctuation) 131, 226, 240, 265-266 special characters 98 spoken choices 43-47 intonation 43-47; see also intonation stand-in coordinator (then) 158-159 stranded element 88, 90 structural approach to punctuation (OE/ ME); see punctuation structural opacity; see obligatory sentenceinternal punctuation structure 28-29 style 35 form follows function 83-84, 273 well-behaved utterance 273-274 Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 298 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="313"?> Index 299 styles of punctuation; see punctuation subject ellipsis; see syndetic coordination sub-sentence; see graphological units substance 18-19 suprasegmental features/ properties 43, 92- 94 syllable; see phonological units symbol 64-65 syndetic coordination (coordinated constituents) 145-154, 257-258 constituent length 147-148 subject ellipsis 149-150 type of coordinator 148-151 syntactic status; see script unit talk unit 84 thematic progression 38 Functional Sentence Perspective (FSP) 38 theme vs rheme (given vs new, textual level) 38 theme vs rheme (given vs new, clause-level) 40-41 three-channel approach 20-26 tone unit; see phonological units type of coordinator; see syndetic coordination type-exhaustiveness 119-120 type-token relation 21-22, 31 variation in orthography 51-54 emoticons 54 eye dialect 53 graphological minimalism 50-51 standard deviance 53 textspeak 53-54 verbal information 58, 66-67 vocative; see parsing strategies well-behaved utterance; see style word 28-29 wording 35 word-spaces; see punctuation mark written choices 48-58 macrosetting 48; see also macrosetting microsetting 48-58; see also microsetting Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 299 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="314"?> Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 294 04.04.13 11: 24 <?page no="315"?> Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 294 04.04.13 11: 24 Narr Francke Attempto Verlag GmbH+Co. KG ! "# $ www.narr.de JETZT BES TELLEN! Daniela Elsner / Jörg-U. Keßler (eds.) Bilingual Education in Primary School Aspects of Immersion, CLIL, and Bilingual Modules %&$ '( ) * % +, - ( .* ( ISBN 978-3-8233-6782-6 / & $& % " "0 0 1" % $ % "& "&% 0& % & 2& "3 "% % 3 0 4 $ " $ 4 "" 5 ""6 "! ! " $ $ ! $ 4 % "$& % " %" & % $ % 3 0 4 "" 5 7% 3 "5 $ % % "! % % "5 5 "! & % 33 " ( & ( & % ( $ % 3 % "! & $& % " % 3 0 4 "" ""6 %% 4 " $ 3 % % 8 $ "! & $& % " $ $$ & 5 %4 %& $ % ( % % 5 % 7% & $ ! " ! %&$4 3& 3" ! " & 5 %4 0 &% " ! " & " " ( $ "! % % % " "! & % $ 3 " 00 & 9: 7: ( 700 " ( " / & ; "$& 5 $ $ 3 % " % $ 0 % "! & ""0 $ 2 3% &$ " % % "$& % " ( 3 $ 3" % $ % 5 % ( & % " ! " 5 ( < % " ( $ " "! % %"3 $ "03 $ 4 ! & % $ & % " ""6 "03 % $ 4 " 4( & 03 0"$& ( $ % $ " 3 4( $ & 1 % $ <?page no="316"?> Patt_V-299End_neu.indd 294 04.04.13 11: 24 Narr Francke Attempto Verlag GmbH+Co. KG • Dischingerweg 5 • D-72070 Tübingen Tel. +49 (07071) 9797-0 • Fax +49 (07071) 97 97-11 • info@narr.de • www.narr.de JETZT BESTELLEN! Anne Schröder On the Productivity of Verbal Prefixation in English Synchronic and Diachronic Perspectives Language in Performance, Band 44 2011, 375 Seiten, €[D] 68,00/ SFr 91,00 ISBN 978-3-8233-6587-7 One of the most far-reaching changes that has been observed for the English language was its progressive transformation from a highly inflectional language to a more analytic one. As a case in point, the postposition of the particle in particle verbs, as in to go out , has been interpreted to have triggered the unproductivity of the synthetic verbal prefix system, i.e. of verbs such as the now obsolete to outgo . Nevertheless, neologisms such as to upskill seemingly suggest a revival of this morphological pattern. Some of the questions which arise are thus: Is prefixation really an unproductive pattern of English verb-formation? Do the recent creations therefore indicate a revival of this pattern? Why has this type of verb-formation possibly been revived lately? To answer these questions, this study investigates the morphological productivity of prefix verbs by using different methods of measurement: on the basis of the OED, on the basis of various diachronic and synchronic corpora, and on the basis of elicitation tests. <?page no="317"?> Despite its everyday relevance, the reputation of punctuation is tarnished. Actually, modern English punctuation is often considered not more than a necessary evil. For many people, punctuation usage follows seemingly arbitrary and unmotivated rules. The present approach moves away from a static, rulebased description towards a more dynamic, contextbased interpretation of punctuation. Punctuation is a highly versatile medium-dependent means of presentational choice. To accept this view is to take a significant step towards closing the gap that still exists between punctuational theory and the actual usage of punctuation. Punctuation adopts a guiding role for the reader and the present study explores this guide potential, providing a thorough analysis of both the linguistic status and the communicative value of punctuation.
