Lexical signalling

In this book so far, words have been divided into open and closed classes with the latter class containing a finite number of what have been termed grammatical words. In a seminal article for the analysis of lexis in discourse, Winter (1977) abolishes any easy division between open and closed items, segmenting a finite set of lexical and grammatical words into three main groups which he calls Vocabulary 1, Vocabulary 2, and Vocabulary 3. Each group is distinguished by its clause-relating functions. The first group includes ‘subordinators’ (e.g. by, after, unless, whereas, except that, although, as far as); the second group includes what are termed the ‘sentence connectors’, that is, lexical items which ‘make explicit the clause relation between the matrix clause and the preceding clause or sentence’ (Winter, 1977, p. 15) (e.g. alternatively, in any case, anyway, therefore, generally, hence, Lexis and discourse 89

for example, thus, yet, etc.). The difference between both groups can be illus-trated in the following examples:

(1) By appealing to scientists and technologists to support his party, Mr Wilson won many middle-class votes in the election. (Vocabulary 1) (2) Mr Wilson appealed to scientists and technologists to support his

party. He thus won many middle-class votes in the election. (Vocabu-lary 2)

In the case of clause relation through Vocabulary 1, one of the clauses is subordinated to the other; in the case of Vocabulary 2, the connection allows the two sentences to remain independent. The most interesting of these sets of words is Vocabulary 3 – a group of words which serve to establish certain semantic functions in the connection of clauses or sentences in discourse.

Here are examples of lexical items from Vocabulary 3 in operation:

(1) I chose wood rather than aluminium or steel for the structure.

(2) There is a difference between George and David’s respective characters.

(3) One condition for the success of the team is obvious.

Each of the italicized words here fulfils what might be termed an anticipatory function. They project the reader forward by creating expectations of what is to ensue in the next part of the discourse. The words have their own intrinsic meanings but they also function in the formation of intersentential relations.

In (1), for example, the word chose points to a following clause in which an explanation will be given. The sentence sets up a question ‘why’ to which an answer should normally be provided. In (3) we are forced into expecting a further clause or sentence in which a fulfilment of the condition will be logically formulated. Winter’s examples and analysis cannot be summarized simply but it is important to note that there are a limited number of Vocabu-lary 3 items (Winter postulates 108) and that although these may be ‘open’ or

‘content’ words in one context, in the discoursal context they represent a closed system and can perform a ‘semantic’ and grammatical function simultaneously. Though closed in one sense, Vocabulary 3 words are unlike Vocabulary 1 and 2 in that they can be modified and qualified, for example,

‘One obvious condition. . .’ or ‘I wisely chose. . .’. (See also Winter (1982) for further consideration of the linguistic context in which grammatical and discourse relations are lexically realized.) Here is a short selection of Winter’s Vocabulary 3 items:

action condition expect

cause contrast fact

compare differ kind

conclude event manner

point result specify

problem situation thing

reason solution way

Winter’s work has been lucidly developed by Hoey (1983) and Crombie (1985), the latter of whom argues for the construction of second-language-teaching pedagogies and syllabuses based on explicit attention (1) to the signals of what is coming, what is present or what has gone in relation to other parts of a discourse, and (2) to the lexicalizations of intersentential semantic relationships in texts.

Valuable though Winter’s work has been in showing some ways in which readers process texts as dynamically related semantic constructs, there are still some important questions to be raised for the analysis of lexis in discourse. These range from relatively minor observations that certain items overlap categorically (e.g. because simultaneously signals a reason relation, operates as a subordinator and thus functions as Vocabulary 1 and Vocabulary 2) to more substantial questions concerning the relationships between propositions. For example: how is it that readers read relationships between different parts of a text when there are no explicit lexical signals of those relations?; how do we know, in the absence of signals, what relationships are intended in a particular text?; do certain kinds of text signal more explicitly than others?; how is it that texts both containing the same lexical items and including explicit lexical signals, can be interpreted differently?

Analysis of the kinds of textual relations and patterns realized by vocabulary remains a major lexical research goal, and there have been several notable recent attempts to explore the questions raised by and about Winter’s work. They all, in their different ways, challenge the notion that vocabulary might be best described in a dictionary or lexicon. For example, Hoey (1991) shows that much of the coherence, as well as the cohesion, of text is created by the lexical ties of individual words with one another. Hoey is less interested in itemizing cohesive features than in describing how they combine to organize text, and proposes a methodology for the summariza-tion of texts that is capable of some degree of automasummariza-tion. Stainton (1997) develops the notion of metadiscourse (discourse about discourse) and proposes frameworks for establishing relative degrees of success in a wide range of types of writing or ‘genres’ (see Section 4.9) in relation to the uses of metadiscourse by writers. Metadiscourse involves use by a writer of words and phrases such as to summarize, as we have seen, as a result, however, therefore, the main point is and in the next section which establish a relationship with the reader by previewing, highlighting, evaluating and summarizing the rhetorical and organizational planes of the text. Crismore (1990) gives a particularly useful account of metadiscourse in relation to discourse and text organization.

Lexis and discourse 91