Cover not available

Article published In: English Text Construction
Vol. 16:1 (2023) ► pp.30–58

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

‘Narrative structure’, ‘rhetorical structure’, ‘text structure’

A conceptual complex meets text- and discourse‑world profiling shifts

ORCiD logo with link | Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski”
Published online: 17 November 2023
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.21016.tin
Abstract
The paper seeks to provide a cognitive-linguistic re-interpretation of the centuries-old notion of whole-text structure. The investigation presented here draws on 317 data sources selected through a scoping literature review. The paper demonstrates how text structure, narrative structure, rhetorical structure, etc. all represent metonymically one and the same multi-faceted underlying concept. That concept is argued to result from the amalgamated operation of conceptual metaphor and conceptual metonymy combined with the simultaneous and dynamic operation of (what are known in gestalt psychology as) profiling shifts. The paper further demonstrates how such shifts in profiling operate on text-worlds and discourse-worlds to bring about perceptions of a text’s ‘progression’ and of whole-text structure.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Data source selection
  • 3.Review and summary of the data sources
    • 3.1‘Rhetorical structure’
    • 3.2‘Narrative structure’
    • 3.3‘Text structure’
    • 3.4‘Macrostructure’, ‘superstructure’, ‘overall structure’
    • 3.5A generalization of the uses
  • 4.Constructing the conceptual complex of whole-text structure
    • 4.1whole-text structure, conceptual metaphor and conceptual metonymy
    • 4.2whole-text structure, conceptual metaphtonymy and Text World Theory
    • 4.3whole-text structure, conceptual metaphtonymy, Text World Theory and gestalt psychology’s shifts in profiling
    • 4.4Dataset evidence
  • 5.Conclusion
  • References
References (117)
References
Ansary, Hasan & Esmat Babaii. 2009. A cross-cultural analysis of English newspaper editorials: A systemic functional view of text for contrastive rhetoric research. RELC Journal 40(2). 211–249. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Aristotle. 1991. (trans. G. Kennedy). On Rhetoric. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Arksey, Hilary & Lisa O’Malley. 2005. Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology: Theory and Practice 8(1). 19–32. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bal, Mieke. 2009. Narratology: Introduction to the theory of narrative (3rd edition). Toronto: University of Toronto.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barcelona, Antonio (ed.). 2000. Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2011. Reviewing the properties and prototype structure of metonymy. In Reka Benczes, Antonio Barcelona & Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (eds.), Defining metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics. Towards a consensus view, 7–57. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barsalou, Lawrence. 2006. Ad hoc categories. Memory and Cognition 111. 211–227. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2016. Situated conceptualization: Theory and applications. In Yann Coello & Martin H. Fischer (eds.), Foundations of embodied cognition, Volume 1: Perceptual and emotional embodiment, 11–37. East Sussex: Psychology.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2020. Challenges and opportunities for grounding cognition. Journal of Cognition 3(1). 1–24. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barsalou, Lawrence, Ava Santos, W. Kyle Simmons & Christine Wilson. 2008. Language and simulation in conceptual processing. In Manuel de Vega, Arthur Glenberg & Arthur Graesser (eds.), Symbols, embodiment, and meaning, 245–283. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beaugrande, Robert de & Wolfgang Dressler. 1981. Introduction to text linguistics. Longman: London. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bolgün, M. Ali & Mangla Asham. 2017. A contrastive rhetoric analysis of English and Hindi editorials. Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics 21(2). 15–39. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bolognesi, Marianna & Paola Vernillo. 2019. How abstract concepts emerge from metaphorical images: The metonymic way. Language & Communication 691. 26–41. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Borghi, Anna & Lawrence Barsalou. 2021. Perspective in the conceptualization of categories. Psychological Research 851. 697–719. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bowdle, Brian & Dedre Gentner. 2005. The career of metaphor. Psychological Review 112(1). 193–216. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brewer, William & Edward Lichtenstein. 1985. The story schema: Universal and culture-specific properties. In David Olson, Nancy Torrance & Angela Hildyard (eds.), Literacy, language, and learning: The nature and consequences of reading and writing, 167–194. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Charteris-Black, Jonathan. 2005. Politicians and rhetorical. The persuasive power of metaphor. London: Palgrave. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cohn, Neil. 2013. Visual narrative structure. Cognitive Science 341. 413–452. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2019. Visual narratives and the mind: Comprehension, cognition, and learning. Psychology of Learning and Motivation 701. 97–127. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coleman, Linda & Paul Kay. 1981. Prototype semantics: The English verb lie. Language 571. 1–16. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coulson, Seana. 2008. Metaphor comprehension and the brain. In Raymond W. Gibbs (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought, 177–194. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coulson, Seana & Vicky Lai. 2016. Editorial: The Metaphorical Brain. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 91. 699. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cumming, Susanna & Tsuyoshi Ono. 1997. Discourse and grammar. In Teun A. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse as structure and process, 112–137. London: Sage. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dalrymple, Kirsten, Alexander Gray, Brielle Perlel, Elina Birmingham, Walter Bischof, Jason Barton & Alan Kingstone. 2013. Eyeing the eyes in social scenes: Evidence for top-down control of stimulus selection in simultanagnosia. Cognitive Neuropsychology 30(1). 25–40. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Devitt, Amy. 2015. Genre Performances: John Swales’ Genre Analysis and Rhetorical-Linguistic Genre Studies. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 91. 44–51. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dijk, Teun A. van. 1980. Macrostructures. An interdisciplinary study of global structures in discourse, interaction, and cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(ed.). 1997. Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction. London: Sage. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dirven, René. 2002. Metonymy and metaphor: Different strategies of conceptualisation. In René Dirven & Ralf Pörings (eds.), 75–112. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dirven, René & Ralf Pörings (eds.). 2002. Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dymock, Susan. 2005. Teaching expository text structure awareness. The Reading Teacher 59 (2). 177–181. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eggins, Suzanne & Diana Slade. 1997. Analysing casual conversation. London: Cassell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eggins, Suzanne & J. R. Martin. 1997. Genres and registers of discourse. In Teun A. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse as structure and process. Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary Introduction Vol.1, 230–256. London: Sage. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Emmott, Catherine. 1997. Narrative comprehension: A discourse perspective. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Emmott, Catherine & Marc Alexander. 2009. Schemata. The living handbook of narratology. [URL]
Eubanks, Philip. 2010. Metaphor and writing: Figurative thought in the discourse of written communication. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Feldman, Martha, Kaj Sköldberg, Ruth Nicole Brown & Debra Horner. 2004. Making sense of stories: A rhetorical approach to narrative analysis. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 14(2). 147–170. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Felluga, Dino. 2011. General introduction to narratology. Introductory guide to critical theory. [URL]
Fludernik, Monika. 2002. Towards a ‘natural’ narratology. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. Narratology in the twenty-first century: The cognitive approach to narrative author(s). Publications of the Modern Language Association of America 125(4). 924–930. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gavins, Joanna. 2007. Text World Theory: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gavins, Joanna & Ernestine Lahey (eds.). 2016. World Building: Discourse in the Mind. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk. 2016. Prospects and problems of prototype theory. Diacronia 41. 1–16. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W. 1994. Signalling in discourse: A functional analysis of a common discourse pattern in written and spoken English. In Michael Coulthard (ed.), Advances in Written Text Analysis, 26–45. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2011. Evaluating conceptual metaphor theory. Discourse Processes 48(8). 529–562. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2022. Looking for metaphor in the natural world. In Alexandra Bagasheva, Bozhil Hristov & Nelly Tincheva (eds.), 43–61. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Glucksberg, Sam. 2008. How metaphors create categories – quickly. In Raymond W. Gibbs (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought, 67–83. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Glucksberg, Sam & Matthew McGlone. 1999. When love is not a journey: What metaphors mean. Journal of Pragmatics 311. 1541–1558. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goossens, Louis. 1990. Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. In René Dirven & Ralf Pörings (eds.), 349–377. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. & Ruqaiya Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1985. Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective. Melbourne: Deakin University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Herman, David. 2009. Basic elements of narrative. Oxford: Wiley. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2018. Narratology beyond the human: Storytelling and animal life. New York: OUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Herman, David, James Phelan, Peter Rabinowitz, Brian Richardson & Robyn Warhol (eds.). 2012. Narrative theory: Core concepts and critical debates. Ohio: Ohio State University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoey, Michael. 1994. Signalling in discourse: A functional analysis of a common discourse pattern in written and spoken English. In Michael Coulthard (ed.), Advances in Written Text Analysis, 26–45. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoskins, Suzanne. 1986. Text superstructure. Journal of Reading 29(6). 538–543.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hudson, Alida, Karol Owens, Julie Moore, A. Karol, Kacee Lambright & Kausalai Wijekumar. 2021. “What’s the Main Idea?”: Using Text Structure to Build Comprehension. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Iversen, Stefan. 2014. Narratives in rhetorical discourse. In Peter Hühn, Jan Christoph Meister, John Pier & Wolf Schmid (eds.), 575–587. Handbook of Narratology, Berlin: Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kearns, Michael. 1999. Rhetorical Narratology. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Khan, Khalid, Regina Kunz, Jos Kleijnen & Gerd Antes. 2003. Five steps to conducting a systematic review. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 96(3). 118–21. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koffka, Kurt. 1935. Principles of gestalt psychology. London: Lund Humphries.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltan. 2002. Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2020. Extended Conceptual Metaphor Theory. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Labov, William. 2010. Oral narratives of personal experience. In Patrick Hogan (ed.), Cambridge encyclopedia of the language sciences, 546–548. New York: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Labov, William & Joshua Waletzky. 1967. Narrative analysis. In June Helm (ed.), Essays on the verbal and visual arts, 12–44. Seattle: University of Washington.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 2007. Cognitive models and prototype theory. In Vyvyan Evans, Benjamin K. Bergen & Jörg Zinken (eds.), The Cognitive Linguistics reader, 132–168. London: Equinox.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014. Mapping the brain’s metaphor circuitry: metaphorical thought in everyday reason. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 81. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1999. Philosophy in the flesh. London: Basic Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar Vol. I: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2008. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levac, Danielle, Heather Colquhoun & Kelly K. O’Brien. 2010. Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science 51. 69. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Littlemore, Jeannette. 2015. Metonymy: Hidden Shortcuts in Language, Thought and Communication (Cambridge Studies in Cognitive Linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mann, William C. 2005. Rhetorical structure theory. [URL]
Mann, William C., Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen & Sandra A. Thompson. 1992. Rhetorical structure theory and text analysis. In William C. Mann & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Discourse description: Diverse linguistic analyses of a fund-raising text, 39–78. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McKinley, Jim. 2014. The impact of Western criticisms of Japanese rhetorical approaches on learners of Japanese. Language learning in higher education 4(2). 303–319. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Medhurst, Martin J. 1987. Eisenhower’s “atoms for peace” speech: A case study in the strategic use of language. Communication Monographs 54(2). 204–20. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mitrović, Jelena, Cliff O’Reilly, Miljana Mladenović & Siegfried Handschuh. 2017. Ontological representations of rhetorical figures for argument mining. Argument & Computation 8(3). 267–287. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Munn, Zachary, Micah D. J. Peters, Cindy Stern, Catalin Tufanaru, Alexa McArthur & Edoardo Aromataris. 2018. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology 181. 143. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Musolff, Andreas. 2006. Metaphor scenarios in public discourse. Metaphor and Symbol 21(1). 23–38. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nicholson, Tom & Sue Dymock. 2018. Writing for impact: Teaching students how to write with a plan and spell well (Vol. 1 & 21). Wellington, New Zealand: NZCER.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Linda L. Thornburg. 2007. Metonymy. In Dirk Geeraerts, René Dirven & Hubert Cuyckens. (eds.), 236–263. Handbook of cognitive linguistics, Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Phelan, James. 1996. Narrative as rhetoric: Technique, audiences, ethics, ideology. Ohio: Ohio State University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pragglejaz Group. 2007. MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol 22(1). 1–39. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Radden, Günter. 2002. How metonymic are metaphors? In René Dirven & Ralf Pörings (eds.), 407–434. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ritchie, David L. 2013. Metaphor. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rosch, Eleanor. 1973. Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology 41. 328–50. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1975. Cognitive reference points. Cognitive Psychology 71. 532–47. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rubin, Edgar. 1921. Visuell wahrgenommene figuren: Studien in psychologischer analyse. Kobenhaven: Gyldendalske boghandel.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco J. 2000. The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy. In Antonio Barcelona (ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads, 109–132. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2020. Understanding figures of speech: Dependency relations and organizational patterns. Language & Communication 711. 16–38. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2022. Resemblance dimensions in figurative language use. In Alexandra Bagasheva, Bozhil Hristov & Nelly Tincheva (eds.), 15–41.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco J. & Lorena Pérez-Hernández. 2011. The contemporary theory of metaphor: Myths, developments and challenges. Metaphor and Symbol 261. 161–185. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rumelhart, David. 1975. Notes on a schema for stories. In Daniel G. Bobrow & Allan Collins (eds.), Representation and understanding: Studies in cognitive science, 211–236. New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rumelhart, David & Andrew Ortony. 1977. The representation of knowledge in memory. In Richard Anderson, Rand J. Spiro & William Montague (eds.), Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge, 99–135. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sanford, Anthony J. & Catherine Emmott. 2012. Mind, brain and narrative. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Semino, Elena. 2008. Metaphor in discourse. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sharifian, Farzad. 2017. Cultural linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sinclair, John & Malcolm Coulthard. 1975. Towards an analysis of discourse. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Smith, Edward E. & Douglas E. Medin. 1981. Categories and concepts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Steen, Gerard, Aletta G. Dorst, Berenike J. Herrmann, Anna Kaal, Tina Krennmayr & Tryntje Pasma. 2010. A method for linguistic metaphor identification: From MIP to MIPVU. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stockwell, Peter. 2020. Cognitive Poetics: An Introduction (2nd edn.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Swales, John. 1990. Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Swales, John & Christine Feak. 1994. Academic writing for graduate students. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taboada, Maite & William C. Mann. 2006. Rhetorical structure theory: Looking back and moving ahead. Discourse Studies 8(3). 432–459. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a cognitive semantics Vol. 1 & 2. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taylor, John R. 2003. Linguistic categorization (3rd edn.). Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tincheva, Nelly. 2015. Text structure: A window into discourse, context and mind. Sofia: POLIS.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2021. Blurring the boundaries between real worlds, discourse worlds and text worlds. Slavia Meridionalis 211. Art. 2381. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ungerer, Friedrich & Hans-Jörg Schmid. 2006. An introduction to cognitive linguistics (2nd edn.). London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wang, Yuemin, Hongyun Wu & Gang Cui. 2020. Rhetorical structure analysis of prepared speeches and argumentative essays by Chinese advanced English learners. Text & Talk 40(2). 219–240. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Werth, Paul. 1999. Text worlds: Representing conceptual space in discourse. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wertheimer, Max. 1938. Laws of organization in perceptual forms. Psycologische Forschung 41. 301–350. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Winter, Eugene. 1994. Clause relations as information structure: Two basis text structures in English. In Malcolm Coulthard (ed.), Advances in written text analysis, 46–68. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Tincheva, Nelly
2025. Conceptual re-contextualizations and re-(re-)-contextualizations: The story of ‘sglobka’. Studies in Linguistics, Culture, and FLT 13:2 ► pp. 8 ff. DOI logo
Tincheva, Nelly
2025. Political language gaffes and the importance of Hearer’s meaning. Pragmatics and Society 16:3 ► pp. 357 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 9 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue