Volume 36, Issue 3

The present article takes the concept of textuality and textualization – as it was introduced in the beginning of textlinguistics as a subdiscipline of linguistics in the early 70s – as a starting point for discussing the relationship between linguistics and literature. Textuality is developed in a threefold way: There are textualization devices which can be related to different characteristics of textualization . Textualization devices themselves depend on different textualization resources : the situation of reading, the language of the text and the context of reading. Textualization devices can, therefore, draw upon perception, language and knowledge as different textualization resources. It is argued that textualization has to be traced back to textualization devices at the surface level of the text. This concept is illustrated by an empirical analysis of vacation picture postcards in order to demonstrate in an exemplary fashion the reconstruction of textualization devices. It is additionally shown that textualization devices can be seen as a fruitful intersection between linguistics and literature. Focusing on a text by G. Perec it is argued that both linguists and poets share an interest in textualization devices: While the linguistic interest in textualization devices is a cold and analytical one aiming at the improvement of knowledge, the poetic interest is a practial and sensual one aiming at the reader's entertainment.

Do linguistic concepts of text provide research approaches that are also suited to study literary texts? Can the category of text be applied for bridge building between linguistics and literary science in the current debate? To answer these questions, we need to first decide on one of the many text concepts developed by linguistics that is best suited to “act this problem out”. This paper therefore addresses the criteria of textuality postulated by Beaugrande/Dressler (1981), which, initially being accepted, were later criticized, but remain inspiring. These will be examined in the spirit of Adamzik, not as criteria per se but as “descriptive dimensions”. The need to expand these dimensions will be underlined in order to cover features that are text- and genre-constitutive and have not been included so far. This in particular refers to the integration of the nonverbal – categorized according to mediality, materiality, locality – as required elements for the existence of both the text sample and of some genres. A text concept that is expanded by the nonverbal is considered a better approach to meet the particulars of literary texts and to grasp the aesthetic practice of nonliterary texts.

Starting with some sceptical remarks on the idea that the relationship between linguistics and literary studies has broken down and that linguistics is primarily concerned with texts for daily use, the article proposes some elements of a text-linguistic approach covering notions, ideas and activities long since familiar to literary scholars, especially those preparing editions. The notion of virtual text is introduced to denote the abstract entity underlying different versions and copies of one and the same text. Following Ehlich's suggestion that a (prototypical) text is not necessarily a written sequence of signs, but a complex sign passed on by tradition, the importance of reproducing texts – and hence the role of members of the speaking community in producing textuality – is emphasized: Re-reading, reciting, reading aloud to others, reprinting, reediting, and even rewriting, resuming or referring to by allusions are different means of transmitting the text or elements of it to others, including the following generations. Some of them require a complete ‘cognitive copy’ of the text, but the longer the text is, the more probable it is that only fragments are part of the linguistic knowledge of (groups of) the community. Nevertheless, (fragments of) texts can be stocked in the individual memory, just as lexical items are. The last chapter presents the number and type of transmission authorities (commercial editors, scientific editors, lecturers, literary agents, and so on), as well as the number and type of versions and copies as criteria to differentiate texts for daily use, scientific and literary texts.

The reflection of the genre of the “Novelle” (short novel) offers one way for a productive interpenetration of scientific literary and linguistic discussions about the phenomenon of textuality. It is the genre of the “Novelle” whose characterization has always been very dissatisfying according to traditional genre definitions within the scientific discourse. Typical formal and structural features are often too unspecific and mostly remain on the surface, if their function for the (con)text is not reflected adequately. Furthermore all the different catalogues of typical features mostly appear as static schemes that cannot do justice equally well to all the various manifestations of the “Novelle” as to the historical change of the genre itself. Due to these facts the article by Christine Lubkoll tries to define the genre of the “Novelle” and its specific textual manifestations with regard to its historically changing contextual conditions. The thesis of the article is that the narration of short novels itself reflects the social and cultural changes and the changes of media within the process of narration as a cultural practice. This becomes evident through textual markers as well as through dynamically developing textual features; both, the textual markers and the textual features of the genre have led to a strong genre-intertextuality; a dialogue of different texts and different époques. The first part of the article by Christine Lubkoll illustrates the history of the genre of the “Novelle” and its specific social and cultural relevance within different literary époques. It is then followed by the second part, an analysis of Goethes “Unterhaltungen deutscher Ausgewanderten” and Musils “Die Amsel”.

Storytelling occurs in everyday conversation as much as in literary texts, where the commonplace is often a topic. This article focuses on both aspects: the ordinary as context and as subject matter of narratives. Generally, narrative research practices a division of labor: everyday narratives belong in the field of linguistics. Here, an example is provided for the analysis of an oral story within the scope of linguistic research that focuses on aspects of narratability and orientation. Literary narratives are treated within the framework of literary studies; the stories, however, are many times the object of textual linguistic research, out of which a few aspects will be sketched here. By way of example, a narrative from Franz Hohler that uses the everyday as its subject matter is analysed linguistically. In addition, the aspects of narratability and orientation are taken from research in conversation and linked to the textual analysis with the concept of textuality from text linguistics. On the basis of various criteria of textuality, this article shows how the commonplace becomes narratable through certain formal techniques in Hohler's texts. The essay advocates a stronger cooperation between linguistics and literary studies in narrative research.

This article analyses genre-specific methods of textual analysis that are considered to be elementary and ‘close’ to the surface level of literary texts. It focuses on two questions: How do these methods explicitly and implicitly make use of the concept of textuality? And what kind of knowledge do they presuppose? A linguistic model of textuality is taken as the frame of this analysis. The article argues for the utilization of linguistic concepts in literary studies, both in theory and practice. At the same time it is assumed that historical and genre-oriented studies of literary texts focussing on the prerequisites of textuality will contribute to a differentiated view of a prototypical concept of textuality.