Non Narrative Discourses |
ABSTRACT Defining modes of discourse is not viable. Discourse types, on the other hand, can be distinguished. Descriptions are discursive instructures rather than a mode or type of discourse. Ordinary descriptions include emotive, evaluative, and declarative elements. In contrast, descriptions in science to be counted as evidence do not include such elements. |
This section on “non-narrative” discourse includes three entries: description, declaration, and argument (editorializing). It should be noted that declarations are assertions. By themselves they are “opinions” or statements of “beliefs.” Descriptions are observations about experiences. They are sometimes considered to be “statements of fact.” Arguments relate declarations (claims) to facts (descriptions of data) linking them inferentially (warranting the claim by supporting it with facts). Thus non-narrative discourse is used to “inform,” “assert,” and “argue.” It’s most characteristic “instructures” are assertions, descriptions, and arguments.
Defining MODES OF DISCOURSE is not viable
There have been many attempts to classify the types of discourse. An early attempt is James Kinneavy’s A Theory of Discourse. He identifies four modes: narrative, informative, x, and y. In his section on “The General Characteristics of Informative Discourse,” he writes:
As with most of the other types of discourse, we implicitly trust our intuitions about informative discourse; most of us feel we know what is meant by an informative statement.
The classification of discourses is notoriously controversial. For Kinneavy,
The most obvious illustration of information derived strictly from the components of the discourse and their structuring can be seen in the typical news story in journalism. Here the order of occurrence is determined by the inverted-triangle principle of organization, as it is usually called in books on journalism. The most important components of the story come first, then those of secondary and tertiary importance, and so on. Knowing this convention, the reader derives information about the components of information from the mere placement order of the items.
This might be a good example of a written description. But as we have seen, discourses can have multiple instructures and journalism often includes narrative structures.
Kinneavy points to the importance of description in scientific discourse;
In practice, scientific statements of different kinds are made by many different disciplines. Geographers, geologists, sociologists, physicists, chemists, linguists, literary analysts, for example, all make descriptive statements detailing the characteristics respectively of South Africa, the Grand Canyon, Washington, D.C., slums, gravitational attraction, acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin) , the "k" sounds in Arabic, and the "gold" images in "Sailing to Byzantium" by Yeats. Biologists, linguists, and astronomers, for example, classify respectively floral genera and species, languages, and constellations; and they feel that these are scientific endeavors.
A few sentences later, he admits:
In practice, therefore, scientific assertions are sometimes descriptive, or classificatory, or evaluative, or narrative.
DISCOURSE TYPES, on the other hand, can be distinguished
In the C-CS web site, discourses are aligned according to the following matrix:
Written |
Spoken (conversation) |
Non-narrative |
Non-narrative |
Narrative |
Narrative |
This matrix results in four types of discourse: written non-narratives, spoken non-narratives, written narratives, and spoken narratives. The fact that spoken discourse (conversation) involves turn-taking distinguishes spoken narratives and non narratives from written ones. The advantage of this approach over a “modes” approach is that the different types of discourse are “marked.” Unless a record of a conversation, written discourse does not involve two “authors/speakers” taking turns. Unless a speech (performance of a written discourse), spoken discourse is conversational.
description is a discursive instructure
Descriptions are accounts of experiences of figure(s) against a ground. The figure/ground structure is one of the most common in the English language.
"The figure within a scene is a substructure perceived as 'standing out' from the remainder (ground) and accorded special prominaence as the pivotal entity around which the scene is organized and for which it provides a setting." "Figure/ground organization is a valid and fundamental feature of cognitive functioning. By the assumptions of cognitive grammar, the prevalence of figure/ground organization in conceptual structure entails it importance for semantic and grammatical structure as well. Indeed I will make extensive use of this notion. The profile/base, subject/object, and head/modifier distinctions are among those to be analyzed wholly or partially in these terms." [3.3.2.1] Langacker, Foundations of Cognitive Grammar
"Impressionistically, the figure within a scene is a substructure perceived as "standing out" from the remainder (ground) and accorded special prominaence as the pivotal entity around which the scene is organized and for which it provides a setting." [3.3.2.1] Langacker, Foundations of Cognitive Grammar.
Descriptions of a figure/ground experience in addition to the two main elements, also includes perspective—"The way in which a scene is viewed. Aspects of perspective include figure/ground alignment, vantage point, and subjectivity." [3.3.2] Langacker, Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. In addition, "focal adjustments can also be included--variation in how a situation is conceived, particularly variation pertaining to selection, perspective, and abstraction." [3.3] Langacker, Foundations of Cognitive Grammar
A good example of a figure/ground description is a real estate ad:
Main Features
7839 S SOUTH SHORE DR |
|
WOW! LOVE THIS GORGEOUS CORNER SOUTH SHORE MANSION ON HUGE 44 X 200 FT. LOT THAT LITERALLY BORDERS RAINBOW BEACH & PARK OUTSIDE: TOTALLY RESTORED W/ PRIVATE DECK, INSIDE: BOASTS GRAND FOYER, REMODELED KITCHEN W/ 42? CABINETS, GRANITE COUNTERTOPS, 2 GF HEATING UNITS, FIREPLACE, LRG MASTER BDRM 200 AMP C/B, STAINED GLASS WINDOWS, ORIGINAL WOODWORK, 2.5 BATHS, FULL UNFINISHED BSMT & ATTIC. 2-CAR GARAGE! HM. WA...
Ordinarily descriptions go beyond the "facts" of the situation, adding evaluations, emotions, or related facts. The descriptions of James Dolan's testimony in the Anucka Browne Sanders trail illustrate this point:
SANDOMIR, NY Times
Dolan … whose image projected on a large screen inside the federal courthouse in Lower Manhattan.DESTEFANO, Newsday.com
Dolan, wearing what appeared to be a dark turtleneck sweater for the December 2006 deposition, appeared unapologetic as he was questioned by attorneys representing fired executive Anucha Browne Sanders. Poker-faced throughout most of the 10-minute excerpt of the deposition played in court, Dolan cracked a smile only when asked to recall if he consulted anyone before deciding to fire Browne Sanders in early 2006.BAUMBACH, Newsday.com
When James Dolan's video deposition appeared in court yesterday afternoon on the oversized television, you couldn't help but take note of how large his head appeared on screen. Based on the arrogant way he conducted himself on tape, that's how he likes it. In the span of an 11-minute taped segment in which he was asked pointed questions by lawyers, Dolan ran the full gamut of emotions. He laughed out loud, even cracked a bad joke. He sighed at a question. He even slouched so far down in his chair at one point that it made you feel as if he was sitting courtside in the fourth quarter of a game the Knicks trailed by 40ZAMBITO, NY Daily News
Dolan, whose family empire is worth billions with assets that include Cablevision, the Garden, the Knicks, the Rangers and Radio City Music Hall, appeared on a big-screen TV dressed casually in a black sweater rolled up at the sleeves.
In these descriptions, the figure is James Dolan and the background is his videotaped testimony.
Scientific discourse is based on "statements of fact" (direct observations of experiential data), which are descriptions. For example, in "How is Abstract, Generative Knowledge Acquired?
A Comparison of Three Learning Scenarios"
Timothy J. Nokes and Stellan Ohlsson describe their experiment in the following way:
Participants One hundred and twenty seven undergraduate students from the University of Illinois at Chicago participated in return for course credit.
Materials The target tasks were two sequence extrapolation problems with a periodicity of six items for problem 1 and seven items for problem 2. Each task was instantiated as both a target and transfer problem; see Table 1. Target and transfer problems were related in that they contain similar over-arching pattern types but differed in the particular instantiation of the relations (i.e., manipulating some of the relations of the target pattern by a magnitude of 2 for transfer problems). To enable participants to detect the pattern, the given segments were 12 items long for task 1 and 14 items long for task 2. That is, they covered two complete periods of the underlying pattern. The extrapolation problems were created specifically for this experiment with a design similar to the problems used by Kotovsky and Simon (1973). ...
There were also three extrapolation training problems for each target task. The three training problems followed the exact same pattern as the associated target problem; see Table 2a for an example. Training problems were constructed so they do not overlap (i.e., do not share any of the surface features) with each other or the target problems. The single analog group was trained on the first of the three training problems and the multiple analog group was trained on all three.
In addition, there were 36 letter training strings consisting of 12 letters for task 1 and 14 letters for task 2, eighteen strings for each problem. The eighteen strings associated with each problem followed the exact same pattern as the given sequence for that problem; see Table 2b for an example. The low implicit participants were trained on six strings per task and the high implicit participants were trained on eighteen strings per task.
These experiments produced data to confirm their hypothesis: "the analogy training groups and one of the direct instruction groups performed significantly better than the other groups on problem solving performance." Descriptions in this instance provide the data to support their hypothesis and function as evidence in an argument.
In this scientific description, the figures are "one hundred and twenty seven undergraduate students" and the ground is a classroom where the experiment was conducted.jjs
← previous | next →
last revised:
June 13, 2007
Send comments to jjs.
copyright © jjs, 2007