Notes on Discourse Types and Multimodality (Intro to Discourse Studies)

Page 1
4.1 The variety of functions and forms

Discourse serves many functions and hence comes in many forms.
Organon model (three functions of language):
- Symbol (reference to reality) → information
- Symptom (accented expression) → expression
- Signal (accented persuasion) → persuasion
Schematic mapping (Organon model):
- symbol → information
- symptom → expression
- signal → persuasion
- Types corresponding to functions: informative discourse, narrative discourse, argumentative discourse
Limitation of the three-function model:
- Too simplistic to cover all discourse varieties.
- Functions are rarely pure; texts often mix purposes (e.g., a story that persuades).
- Also, language can conceal information, give instructions, or instill camaraderie.
Jakobson’s six functions (1960) form a richer framework based on an extended communication model. Functions can co-occur and mix, not strictly separated.
- The six functions (in his model): referential, emotive, conative, poetic, phatic, metalingual.
The importance of the referential function (referencing the world) aligns with the symbol aspect of the Organon model; other functions relate to interactants (addresser/addressee) and to the message itself (poetic).
Key idea: a message travels from addresser to addressee via a code, through a channel, with a context refereed to by the referential function. The channel/contact is both physical and psychological.
The top function (referential) is about the world; emotive and conative are participant-related; poetic focuses on the message; phatic checks the channel; metalingual concerns the code.
The poetic function can appear in everyday language (e.g., puns, stylistic play) and is not limited to poetry. It involves the focus on form and the shaping of the message.
Phatic communion examples: greetings that establish/maintain contact (e.g., "Hello, you are still there?").
Metalingual (glossing) function: language about language, e.g., clarifying or querying the code ("I don’t follow you"; "Am I understood?").
Jakobson’s six-function framework is widely used for analyzing mixed discourse functions.
Discourse typology approaches (to categorize discourse types):
1) Based on the discourse situation and general characteristics; 2) Abstract forms as basis for general discourse types; 3) Co-occurrence of linguistic features with communicative functions.
Representative classifications (classic examples):
- Steger et al. (1974): classification for oral discourse based on discourse situations; six types: 1) presentation, 2) message, 3) report, 4) public debate, 5) conversation, 6) interview. Also distinguishes monologue vs. dialogue; rank (equal vs. unequal) and theme fixation (theme predetermined vs. not predetermined).
- Werlich (1982): five basic forms of discourse (Descriptive, Narrative, Explanatory, Argumentative, Instructive). Each basic form has subjective vs. objective presentation. Descriptive vs. technical descriptions; narrative uses past tense/time/place cues; instructive uses imperative; objective tends to use passive voice.
- Biber (1989): five dimensions (derived from large-scale lexicogrammar analysis of ~500 texts across 70 features):
  1) Involved vs informational production
  2) Narrative vs non-narrative concerns
  3) Elaborated vs situation-dependent reference
  4) Overt expression of persuasion
  5) Abstract vs non-abstract style
  These five dimensions yield eight text prototypes (e.g., intimate personal interaction, imaginative narrative, situated reportage). Biber shows that there is no single expository form; there are large differences across domains (scientific expository vs learned expository; intimate interaction vs business telephone conversations).
The three typologies (Jakobson, Steger, Werlich, Biber) are not exhaustive; contemporary discourse studies emphasize spoken vs written differences, dialogic aspects of written discourse, and increasingly multimodality.
The poetic function’s relevance to everyday discourse is highlighted; it needs deeper study to understand its role in non-literary discourse (advertising, graffiti, headlines, pleonasm, metaphor, personification).
Multimodality will be discussed later (Section 4.6).

Page 2

Discourse types
4.1 The variety of functions and forms (continued)

The above frameworks help in recognizing that different discourse types can co-occur in a single text; they are not mutually exclusive.
Contextual mapping (Jakobson’s model) vs. situational mapping (Steger) vs. form-based mapping (Werlich/Biber) illustrate different entry points for analysis.
Steger et al. (1974) details:
- In oral discourse, main division: monologue vs. dialogue.
- Dialogue can be symmetric (equal rights) or asymmetric (ranked, e.g., interrogations, classroom settings).
- Concrete discourse requires identifying the main type first, then the factors of the discourse situation (e.g., doctor-patient talk can be categorized as an interview; however, an interrogation is also a form of interview). The factors help distinguish differences among similar discourse types.
Werlich’s five basic forms (Descriptive, Narrative, Explanatory, Argumentative, Instructive) with two presentation methods each: subjective vs. objective. Subjective tends to use active voice; objective tends to use passive voice. The forms can be subdivided by channel (oral vs written) and then mixed within a single discourse (e.g., a story opening with descriptive impressions followed by another form).
Biber’s five dimensions (reiterated):
1) Involved vs informational production
2) Narrative vs non-narrative
3) Elaborated vs situation-dependent reference
4) Overt expression of persuasion
5) Abstract vs non-abstract style
Biber’s eight prototypes include: intimate personal interaction, imaginative narrative, situated reportage, etc. He emphasizes that general concepts like narrative/expository forms are vague; linguistic features differ across domains and interaction types.
Contemporary discourse studies acknowledge the diversity of discourse types and genres; there is ongoing debate about how best to classify them; the poetic function and multimodality are increasingly central.
4.2 Written language and verbal interaction
Core differences between oral and written discourse (Chafe, 1982):
1) Writing generally takes longer than speaking, which leads to integration in writing (e.g., use of subordinate conjunctions) vs fragmentation in continuous speech.
2) Writers do not have direct contact with readers, leading to detachment; speakers/listeners are more involved in the shared situation; this is reflected in more frequent passive voice in writing to de-emphasize the actor.
Additional consequences: shared situation in spoken discourse includes nonverbal cues (posture, intonation, gestures) that are absent in written discourse. This has consequences for cohesion, coherence, and interactional dynamics.
Despite differences, many issues (cooperation, politeness, cohesion, coherence, stylistic variation) are common to both forms; terms like addressee/receiver and producer/speaker can be used interchangeably depending on mode.
A key similarity: writers can anticipate probable reader reactions and tailor text accordingly (prospective reader expectations).
4.3 Everyday and literary language
Bakhtin’s dialogic approach: language is inherently dialogic; utterances are responses to other utterances within a given situation; polyphony (multivoicedness) describes how different voices (characters, speakers) interweave in a text (e.g., news reports citing multiple actors, judicial reports citing witnesses).
The dialogic view argues that written language should be studied as part of a single discipline of discourse studies with talk, not as a separate science.
Everyday vs literary language: discourse is not inherently literary, but literary elements appear in everyday language; poetry is not the only locus for the poetic function; everyday discourse (advertisements, headlines) can display poetic features.
Jakobson’s poetic function: adds focus on the axis of combination and the axis of selection (syntagmatic vs paradigmatic):
- Syntagmatic (horizontal) relates to how words combine in sequences governed by grammar.
- Paradigmatic (vertical) relates to substitution within a set of linguistic options (paradigm).
- In poetic language, the emphasis shifts toward the paradigmatic axis (selection) and displacement of the syntagmatic axis; projection (rhymes, parallelism) demonstrates equivalence across positions in a sentence or across lines of poetry.
Examples:
- (5a) John went the school. (ungrammatical)
- (5b) John went to school. (grammatical)
- Paradigmatic substitution: the word 'John' can be replaced by 'Pete' or another noun; but 'to' cannot be replaced by other direct objects here.
- (6) A set of lines showing poetic equivalence and related projections: a) Give me the car any day. b) Driving is nice. c) great to be behind the wheel. d) Alive when I drive.
- The most poetic is (6d), where rhyme and parallelism create a heightened effect; poetic language often uses multiple positions for equivalent elements.
Intertextuality and repetition: repeated grammatical constructions and cross-text parallelism contribute to the poetic effect in prose (examples like advertising copy).
This functional approach helps explain why poetic devices appear in non-literary discourse (ads, headlines, etc.).
4.4 Electronic discourse
Since the 1970s, electronic discourse (netspeak, e-language) has become a major mode of communication, with a potential impact comparable to telephone and television.
Computer-mediated discourse comprises different types of discourse that can be synchronous (e.g., chat) or asynchronous (e.g., email). A common distinction is Table 3: synchronous vs asynchronous.
a) Written speech or spoken writing? Electronic discourse blends features of speech and writing; chat groups resemble real-time conversation, but responses may be precomposed; emails resemble letters but are often less formal.
b) What is new in netspeak? Crystal (2001) uses Grice’s maxims to describe netspeak characteristics and their violations (e.g., lurking in a chat group violates Quantity; spam violates Quantity; truthfulness of online contributions questions Quality; relevance of posts is mixed; manner of communication is often less clear).
c) Electronic language use: three levels of medium influence on language use: graphics, formulation, structure. ASCII-based emoticons (smiley, wink), repetition for emphasis, abbreviations and numeronyms (bbfn, u2, icq) characterize electronic discourse.
Electronic discourse shows differences from speech and writing in modal verbs usage (field), pronoun usage (tenor), and in-interactivity patterns (Yates 1996). Table 4 highlights differences between speaking, writing, and electronic discourse across modal verb usage and pronoun usage.
A key constraint of computer-mediated discourse is screen-by-screen interaction; hyperlinks (footnotes/links) introduce non-linear structures (hypertext). Hyperlinks are central to the structure and usability of online documents and the non-linear reading experience.
GeM model (Delin & Bateman, 2002): Genre and Multimodality – a framework for analyzing multimodal documents by five structural levels: 1) Content structure – raw data and topics 2) Rhetorical structure – how content is argued and related 3) Layout structure – typography, placement of elements 4) Navigation structure – how the mode guides reading/viewing path 5) Linguistic structure – linguistic realization of layout and content
- Purpose: to analyze both textual and visual meaning; to identify slippage between content, rhetoric, typography, and navigation; to guide design decisions in multimodal documents.
An illustrative example: a bird book page (Gannet) analyzed with GeM shows how content, rhetoric, layout, and navigation interact to shape reader interpretation. The example page contains a taxonomy of content sections (name, appearance, behavior, feeding, etc.), the illustration, and a labeled information list; the GeM model helps reveal the relationships and potential discrepancies between content, presentation, and navigation.

Page 3

Discourse types
4.1 The variety of functions and forms (continued)

The study of discourse types includes a shift toward genres as conventionalized forms of discourse in recurring situations. Bakhtin’s dialogic view (1981) emphasizes the social and contextual nature of meaning; polyphony describes the presence of multiple voices within a text; discourse is not a simple mapping from form to function but a negotiation among voices in a given situation.
Everyday language vs literary language: the boundary is blurred; literary devices appear in everyday use. The poetic function is not confined to poetry; it can be realized in everyday discourse such as ads and headlines.
The syntagmatic (horizontal) vs paradigmatic (vertical) distinction (Jakobson) is essential for understanding how poetic language rearranges selection and combination to achieve its effect. Projection, alliteration, and parallelism contribute to poetic effects in prose and everyday discourse.

Page 4

Discourse types
4.2 Written language and verbal interaction

Key differences between written and spoken discourse (Chafe, 1982):
- Writing takes longer; writers are detached from readers, leading to integration (subordinating conjunctions) and detachment (passive voice).
- In spoken discourse, there is a shared situation with participants (speakers/listeners) plus nonverbal communication (posture, intonation, gestures).
Despite differences, many issues (cooperation, politeness, cohesion, coherence, stylistic variation) apply to both; the addressee/reader and producer/speaker terminology can be used across modes.
Writings can anticipate probable reader reactions; texts are crafted with potential responses in mind.
2.1 Bakhtin’s dialogic approach (brief): language is inherently dialogic; utterances are responses to other utterances; polyphony allows multiple voices within a single text. The genre distinction is tied to the interaction among voices in social situations.
The chapter emphasizes that both text and talk should be studied within the same discourse framework; the dialogic perspective is central to understanding written language and verbal interaction.

Page 5

Discourse types
(2)

Bakhtin’s ideas (revisited): the dialogic nature of discourse is a foundational principle for analyzing both spoken and written language. The dialogic view helps explain how meanings are shaped by interaction and context.
The dialogue example demonstrates how conversation can be simulated in written form by showing how the conversational partner’s contributions are omitted; questions between sentences reveal the dialogic structure even in prose.
The discussion on Bakhtin links to later chapters (Chapter 9 focuses on verbal interaction) but underlines that dialogic and polyphonic features apply across discourse types.
The text continues with examples and methods to illustrate dialogue aspects in discourse, including questions and answers and how questions can reveal the interactional structure of text.

Page 6

Discourse types
4.3 Everyday and literary language

The distinction between everyday and literary language is not absolute; the term discourse is not confined to one domain, but literary language often exhibits features that are also present in everyday discourse.
The “poetic function” (Jakobson) involves the axis of selection and combination; its effect is visible in both literary and non-literary contexts, including advertising language, slogans, and headlines.
The discussion introduces the syntagmatic (horizontal) and paradigmatic (vertical) axes and explains how poetry emphasizes the selection axis, leading to higher levels of equivalence and patterning.

Page 7

Discourse types
4.4 Electronic discourse

Electronic discourse (netspeak, e-language) emerges as a new mode of communication with characteristics distinct from traditional spoken and written forms.
It is typically analyzed as multimodal, with synchronous vs asynchronous communication types (Table 3):
- Synchronous: chat, groups, instant messaging, MUDs
- Asynchronous: email, discussion lists, websites
The medium blurs traditional boundaries between written and spoken modes; chat resembles speech in immediacy, but is constrained by the design of the platform, and email resembles written letters but often uses informal tone.
The place of computer-mediated communication between writing and speaking is not easily categorized; it blends features of both, with unique properties such as hyperlinks and non-linear navigation.
Netspeak often flouts Grice’s maxims (Quantity, Quality, Relevance, Manner), but these floutings may reflect different communicative goals (e.g., phatic contact, online identities, or interface-driven interaction) rather than a completely new communicative principle.
Crystal (2001) describes netspeak with Gricean maxims:
- Quantity: postings may lack information (lurking, spam) and still be meaningful in context
- Quality: uncertainty about truthfulness and identity online
- Relevance: many online messages serve phatic purposes or are tangential via hyperlinks
- Manner: online text can be disorganized despite best practices; brevity and clarity remain desirable
Electronic discourse shows three levels of influence from the medium:
1) Graphics (emoticons, layout cues)
2) Formulation (abbreviations, numeronyms, simplified orthography)
3) Structure (non-linear navigation, hyperlinks, menu-based interfaces)
The restriction of viewing only one screen at a time fosters the use of references and links; hypertext enables non-linear information retrieval and navigation.
The GeM model (Delin & Bateman, 2002) for multimodal analysis focuses on five structure levels and two to three additional constraints not discussed here:
1) Content structure
2) Rhetorical structure
3) Layout structure
4) Navigation structure
5) Linguistic structure
GeM helps analyze both text and visual elements to explain how typography, imagery, and layout relate to content and rhetorical aims, and why designers choose certain arrangements.

Page 8

Discourse types
4.5 Conventionalized forms for conventionalized occasions

When formal taxonomies fail to capture all nuances, a Bakhtin-inspired approach to genres is embraced: genres are conventionalized forms tailored to specific communicative situations (e.g., interrogations, doctoral theses, editorials).
Swales (1990) provides a widely cited genre theory: genre is a class of communicative events with shared recognizable purposes, leading to exploitable content-and-form constraints. Genres are not defined by lexical/grammatical features alone but by shared purposes that participants recognize.
- Shared purposes create content constraints (what is said) and form constraints (how it is said).
- Examples: a positive job-interview letter vs a negative rejection letter; both constrained by genre conventions but can be varied creatively within those constraints.
- A sentence such as: “In aquaculture, the relations among nutrients, stocking rate, water quality and weather are complex.” may fit a textbook opening better than a scientific article; genre awareness informs appropriate opening sentences.
The concept of genre is applied to analyze abstracts using a set of moves (Bhatia, 1993):
1) Introduce the purpose
2) Describe the methodology
3) Summarize the results
4) Present the conclusions
The abstract example (11) demonstrates these moves in sequence; the four moves provide a concise resolution of what was studied, how it was done, what was found, and what it means.
Four moves in a research article abstract (12):
1. Introducing the purpose
2. Describing the methodology
3. Summarizing the results
4. Presenting the conclusions
Figure 3 provides a schematic overview of how the four moves function in the abstract.
Swales’ genre theory and moves offer a practical method for analyzing written research genres (abstracts, articles) and for teaching effective academic writing.

Page 9

Discourse types
4.5 Conventionalized forms for conventionalized occasions (continued)

The discussion includes additional examples (11) and (12) illustrating how abstracts adhere to this move structure, and how genre-specific constraints guide writers in choosing wording, order, and emphasis.
The genre-based approach helps explain why certain openings are more suitable for specific genres and how writers can manipulate moves to align with shared purposes.
The GeM framework provides a tool to examine multimodal integration across textual and visual modalities within conventionalized genres.

Page 10

Discourse types
4.6 Multimodality

Multimodality asserts that contemporary discourse uses multiple modes (text, image, layout, color, typography) simultaneously to convey meaning.
A key example is the Bransford and Johnson illustration: a picture accompanying a caption or text can alter comprehension; the image provides essential context that shapes interpretation (e.g., a bird page with images and text).
The GeM model is used to analyze multimodal documents, including how content, rhetoric, layout, navigation, and linguistic choices interplay to create meaning.
The gannet page example demonstrates GeM’s utility for revealing how choices at different levels (content organization, rhetoric, typography, navigation cues) co-construct reader understanding.
The hierarchical content structure (Figure 6) shows topic segments and their relationships without considering linguistic form; the rhetorical structure (Figure 7) shows how content is connected textually; the layout structure describes typographic and visual arrangements; the navigation structure and linguistic structure complete the multimodal analysis.
The GeM model helps identify where design decisions may create “slippage” between intended meaning and reader interpretation, and it can justify design compromises.

Page 11

Discourse types
4.6 Multimodality (continued)

The GeM framework supports analysis of multimodal documents by considering content structure, rhetorical structure, layout, navigation, and linguistic structure.
The example of the gannet page illustrates how a reader’s interpretation can be influenced by the interplay of these elements.
The model also offers practical guidance for designers and writers: to align typography, imagery, and textual content with the intended rhetorical structure and navigational path.

Page 12

Discourse types
4.6 Multimodality (continued)

The GeM model’s five structure levels can be applied to a wide range of multimodal documents (books, websites, brochures, etc.).
The analysis of the gannet page shows how the layout (title, illustration, text blocks) and navigation (entry numbers) may misalign with content and rhetorical aims; the GeM framework helps diagnose and potentially correct such misalignments.

Page 13
Questions and assignments
4.3.1

Explain Jakobson’s poetic function by applying it to a banner phrase from a student protest: “Life is a disaster in spite of your master’s.” How does selection/combination drive the poetic effect in netspeak or political slogans?
How is “interactive” defined in conversation vs. hypertext or chat groups? Explain the differences.
4.1.1
Which of Werlich’s basic forms can occur in informative discourse?
4.1.2
Using Steger’s model, classify: sermon, radio news bulletin, oral exam.
4.4.1
Compare verbal interaction and written discourse using a newspaper article about bribery, with the conversation excerpt (b). Identify differences and the relevance to the Co-operative Principle and politeness strategies.
4.4.2
Is lurking in a chat group the same as eavesdropping in a face-to-face conversation? Indicate the extent to which Chafe’s differences apply.
4.4.3
In a study by Davis & Brewer (1997), chat group contributions relied on private verbs (think, feel, know). Explain this result and relate it to the use of personal pronouns discussed in Section 4.4.
4.5.1
What social rules underpin Swales’s concept of genre in relation to Swales’s moves? Discuss how social conventions influence genre practices.
4.6.1
Analyze Example (13) and Figure 4: Name three elements added by the text to the visual presentation.
4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6 Assignments
Additional tasks include: explore genres by comparing religious vs historical dimensions; analyze advertising texts for stylistic devices; relate Bakhtin’s dialogic approach to genres; investigate how modern websites implement genre conventions using Swales and the moves approach.

Page 14
Bibliographical information

Jakobson (1960) – foundational for the poetic function; multi-function models in discourse analysis.
Steger (1974), Werlich (1982) – classical classifications of discourse types and their structural characteristics.
Dimter (1981) – provides a broader view of discourse classification based on situational criteria.
Biber (1989) – large-scale empirical typology (multi-feature analysis) and eight text prototypes; emphasizes domain-specific linguistic features rather than universal expository forms.
Bakhtin (Dialogic/Polyphonic) – key influence for treating discourse as social interaction and multiple voices.
Jones (1995), Rouet/Levonen/Dillon (1996), Herring (1996) – early work on computer-mediated discourse and hypertext.
Crystal (2001) – Language of the Internet; netspeak characteristics via Gricean maxims.
Delin & Bateman (2002) – GeM model for multimodality; analysis of text-layout-graphics relationships.
Nielsen (1999), Price & Price (2002) – websites and online communication; practical references for website analysis.
Swales (1990), Bhatia (1993) – genre theory and moves-based analysis for academic writing.

Page 15
5 Structured content
5.1 Propositions

Building blocks of discourse are (written) sentences or (spoken) utterances.
Different formulations can convey the same content; evaluation often focuses on information content rather than discourse form.
A proposition is the basic content unit in a sentence; a sentence can contain multiple propositions.
Example set (1–4):
1. This butcher sells only steak.
2. Only steak is sold by this butcher.
3. If only this butcher sold steak!
4. This butcher only sells steak?
These sentences share a common proposition: that the butcher sells steak. The proposition is the meaning of a simple assertive sentence.
A more complex exclamation (5):
1. It is a pity that x.
2. The boy can't cope with the truth.
3. The boy is poor.
4. The truth is horrible.
The four propositions together express a richer meaning in the exclamatory sentence.

Page 16
Introduction to
Discourse Studies
Jan Renkema
University of Tilburg
John Benjamins Publishing Company
Amsterdam/Philadelphia