ALLAMA IQBAL OPEN UNIVERSITY, ISLAMABAD

(Department of English Language & Applied Linguistics)

Course: Semantics and Discourse Analysis (5666)

Level: MA TEFL

Semester : Spring 2018

Assignment No.2

Topic 2:

Select suitable texts (two each) of the following genres of discourse. Analyze their discourse
in detail which may include linguistic as well as semiotic analysis. Compare and contrast
their discursive features. Present your findings in tutorial session/presentation.

a) Advertising Discourse

d) Religious Discourse
 Acknowledgement

In the name of Almighty Allah, the most gracious, the most beneficent by help of whom I am
able to complete my internship report. I am grateful to Allah almighty, for enabling me to fulfill
this tiring, but interesting job for the completion of my assignment.

No doubt Allah is the main source of knowledge and wisdom. It is a great blessing of Almighty
Allah, that He enables me because of His Holy Prophet (peace is upon him) I am presenting my
humble contribution for distribution of knowledge. I bow my head before Almighty Allah who
gave me courage, knowledge and confidence and to carry on assignment and enabled me to
accomplish it.

I would not be going to do justice in presenting this assignment without mentioning the people
around me who have been inextricably related with the completion of this assignment. I would
like to express my heartfelt thanks to our course teacher for his support and guidance, which he
rendered throughout the study to peruse this assignment. Finally, for any all too fallible errors,
omissions and shortcomings in the writing of the report only I am responsible for which we hope
that all concerning regards of this assignment will forgive us.
 1. Introduction:

The combination of discourse analysis and semiotic analysis brings together two disciplines
that have not traditionally been used by translators to deal with the transference of cultural
aspects in translation.

Much confusion still prevails amongst theorists regarding the exact definitions of discourse
and semiotics. Discourse is often seen as only referring to the spoken word. Stubbs (1983: 9)
differentiates between text and discourse: "one talks of written text versus spoken discourse".

Semiotics is often confused with semiosis. In both cases a distinct definition will be
presented for these terms to avoid any confusion or ambiguity. These two disciplines will be
discussed separately, starting with discourse.

Definitions of Discourse

Various views on the term "discourse" will be compared, as well as various views on discourse
analysis. Often theorists use text and discourse interchangeably; others define discourse as
spoken words only, and text as written words. In both instances context is seen as a separate
function. A distinction is made in this dissertation between these terms and their function, and a
working definition of the different terms will be formulated for use and application.

Traditionally, discourse has been treated as "a continuous stretch of (especially spoken) language
larger than a sentence…a discourse is a behavioural unit which has a pre-theoretical status in
linguistics…" (Crystal 1991: 106). According to this definition discourse is primarily seen as
spoken language (a language act: parole).

Discourse covers a vast field and definitions abound. This can be illustrated by the opinions of
various theorists. Yule and Brown (1987: 1) state that "the analysis of discourse, is necessarily,
the analysis of language in use. As such, it cannot be restricted to the descriptions of linguistic
forms independent of the purposes or functions which these forms are designed to serve in
human affairs".
It becomes clear that the production of discourse is a social act and therefore written discourse is
the representation of this social act. This social act implies that communication takes place. This
feature will be further discussed under the communicative function of discourse.

Some theorists distinguish between text and discourse as two separate terms and concepts, an
opinion that will be later refuted. Salkie (1995: ix) states that "text or a discourse is a stretch of
language that may be longer than one sentence. Text and discourse analysis is about how
sentences combine to form texts by means of cohesiveness and coherence".

Widdowson (1983: 9) also distinguishes "textual cohesion, recognizable in surface leixis,

grammar and propositional development, from discourse coherence which operates between
underlying speech acts".

Newmark’s (1988: 54) definition is similar to Salkie’s definition, in that he states:

The analysis of texts beyond and ‘above’ the sentence – the attempt to find linguistic regularities
in discourse…its main concepts are cohesion – the features that bind sentences to each other
grammatically and lexically – and coherence – which is the notional and logical unity of a text.

Two important aspects (standards of textuality), coherence and cohesion, are mentioned in the
above definitions. Coherence refers to those elements that make a text hang together, and refers
to textual and contextual aspects of discourse. A coherent text is "a text whose constituent parts
(episodes, sentences) are meaningfully related so that the text as a whole ‘makes sense’, even
though there may be relatively few markers…" (Fairclough 1992: 83).

Cohesiveness or cohesion refers to "how clauses are linked together into sentences, and how
sentences are in turn linked together to form larger units in texts" (Fairclough 1992: 77). This can
be achieved by repetition, conjunctive words, near-synonyms or vocabulary from a common
semantic field. Cohesion deals with the textual aspect of discourse.

The relevance of these two aspects is that they are important in text production, and thus in
discourse analysis. Should one or both of these features be absent, the text would not be able to
function as a meaningful whole. This in turn would have an impact on the context of the
discourse, and thus have many ramifications for the translator of the text who would have to
make sense of disjointed elements in the advertisement to be translated.
A shortcoming in Salkie’s definition is that it does not account for texts that are shorter than a
sentence and consist only of one or two words, or spoken language. In the case of
advertisements, especially print advertisements, there is often little or no text and the emphasis is
on the visual material supported by very little text. For instance, a print advertisement could
consist of only visual material and one word, such as a brand name or an exclamation. This
proves that discourse does not necessarily have to consist of lengthy sentences. The coherence
would be brought about by the interaction between the word(s) and the visual material, but there
would be very little or no cohesion due to the lack of text.

Newmark’s definition suggests that discourse is an all-inclusive term for the written and spoken
language used in a social act. Stubbs (1983: 1) points out "that language and situation are
inseparable". The situation forms the basis of the context. It follows thus that context and text are
two inseparable aspects that work together to constitute the discourse. Thus a working definition
for discourse as perceived in this dissertation can be formulated

Working definition of discourse

Text refers to all linguistic aspects in written or spoken natural language, i.e. the words used to
form the utterance or written text. It could be a word, a sentence, a paragraph, or a longer stretch
of language, in other words any length of words used to create text. In semiotic terms language
represents a sign system. In other words, language is a linguistic sign system creating meaning in
a given context.

The information provided by the text must be related to the discourse as a whole; that is with the
text as coherent collection of semantic relations, in other words "…the quality of perceived
purpose, meaning and connection…" (Cook 1994: 25).

The text takes place within a given situation or context. Context consists of various factors, not
all of which always appear at once in a given situation.

According to Cook (1992: 1) context includes:

 substance - the physical material which carries or relays text;

 music and pictures;
  paralanguage - meaningful behaviour accompanying language, such as voice quality,
gestures, facial expressions and touch (in speech) and choice of typeface and letter sizes
(in writing);
 situation - the properties and relations of objects and people in the vicinity of the text, as
perceived by the participants;
 co-text - text which precedes or follows that under analysis, and which participants judge
to belong to the same discourse;
 intertext - text which the participants perceive as belonging to other discourse, but which
they associate with the text under consideration, and which affects their interpretation;
 participants - they are described as senders, addressers, addressees and receivers; and
 function - what the text is intended to do by the senders and addressers, or perceived to
do by the receivers and addressees. (This element will be dealt with separately.)
 For the purposes of this dissertation this definition of context suffices and can be used as
such. In persuasive advertisements, usually more than one of these aspects works together
to form the context in which text production takes place. In semiotic terms, the different
aspects create or represent signs (context) that generate meaning to perform a persuasive
function together with the linguistic signs (text).
 Therefore, advertisement discourse is defined as text occurring within a specific context.

Discourse analysis

 It is vital for the translator to keep in mind that text cannot exist without context and vice
versa. The main assumption is that, in persuasive advertisements, the text (language) is
subject and sensitive to the context. Context includes knowledge of elements existing
outside the text (knowledge of the world) as well as how these elements contribute to
create a certain frame of reference and/or a cultural identity.
 The culture in which a certain advertisement is created forms part of the context.
Schiffrin (1987: 4) confirms this view by saying that "… language always occur(s) in a
context, but its patterns – of form and function, and at surface and underlying levels – are
sensitive to features of that context". When translating a persuasive advertisement, the
translator has to be sensitive to this because "language is potentially sensitive to all of the
 contexts in which it occurs, and, even more strongly, language reflects those contexts
because it helps to constitute them" (Schiffrin 1987: 5).
 Advertisements always rely on the relation between the text and its context; the one
cannot survive without the other. The receiver senses this relationship and decodes the
message accordingly. The context of the advertisement determines how the receivers will
perceive the message. The context is embedded in a specific culture, whether it is a
language-related culture or a sub-culture.
 The task of discourse analysis is to identify the cultural aspects and determine their role
in the persuasive advertisements in view of transferring them in the translation process.
 Knowledge of discourse analysis is important for the translator to:
 identify the text and context;
 isolate and describe the inherent elements in the text and context;
 determine how these elements interact in the discourse;
 identify cultural aspects; and
 determine how the above-mentioned points function in the communication process.

ADVERTISEMENTS AS DISCOURSE

 Advertisement discourse challenges the translator more than any other discourse because
of its very nature and the multitude of elements that constitute its existence. Cook (1992:
4) states that there are hundreds of discourse types "which merge into each other and defy
exact definition". This is particularly relevant to the nature of advertisements: an
advertisement could be several types at once. For instance, a persuasive advertisement
could display characteristics of a joke, a song and cartoon at the same time. In an attempt
to deal with the translation of cultural aspects in advertisements, the characteristics and
the function of this communicative event have to be discussed. However, it would not be
reasonable or justified to formulate one definitive meaning of what constitutes
advertisements: the definition would be limiting - a contradiction in terms.
 Characteristics
 The various characteristics of advertising as identified by Cook (1992: 214) apply to the
broad spectrum of advertisements, in whatever form. These characteristics cover the most
important characteristics inherent to all forms of advertising. The translator can use these
 guidelines to determine whether a discourse is an advertisement if it displays one or more
of these characteristics.
 The features below are prototypical of advertisements rather than definitive. (They have
been arranged in order of importance as viewed by the study. The characteristics from
number 26 are the author’s additions.)

They have the typical restless instability of a new discourse type.

They seek to alter addressees’ behaviour. (Persuasive advertisements are prime examples.)

They change constantly. (Advertisements for a specific product change intermittently.)

They are a discourse on the periphery of attention. (Advertisements are not regarded as being
"serious".)

They are unsolicited by their receivers. (Advertisements appear in the media, e.g. on television.)

They are parasitic: appropriating and existing through the voices of other discourse types. (In
magazines, newspapers and on television and radio.)

They merge the features of public and private discourse, and the voices of intimacy and
authority, exploiting the features common to both. (Private conversation and public addresses
can be used.)

They use various substances for discourse (e.g. a perfume strip in a magazine).

They are embedded in an accompanying discourse (e.g. in a newspaper).

They provoke social, moral and aesthetic judgements, either positive or negative.

They are often heard in many contradictory ways simultaneously.

Advertisements provoke controversy (e.g. Bennetton advertisements).

They are multi-modal and can use pictures, music and language, either singly or in combination
(e.g. television commercial).
They are multi-submodal, in their use of language and can use writing, speech and song (e.g.
radio advertisement).

They contain and foreground extensive and innovative use of paralanguage (e.g. body language
in a television commercial).

They foreground connotational, indeterminate and metaphorical meaning, thus creating fusion
between disparate spheres (e.g. Mercedes-Benz with luxury).

They make dense use of intra-modal and inter-modal parallelisms.

They use a heteroglossic narrative.

They make extensive use of intra- and inter-discoursal allusion.

They are presented in short bursts (e.g. television commercial of 30 seconds).

They follow a principle of reversal, causing them to change many features, as soon as they
become established, to the opposite.

They are identified by their position in an accompanying discourse.

They use their space and time to give pleasure.

They use code-play.

They answer a need for display and repetitive language.

Advertisements, as verbal art, are detrimentally constrained by the need to fulfil the wishes of
their clients.

They infiltrate new technology and media (e.g. on the Internet).

They (unnecessarily) create need.

They sell a lifestyle. (Fun-loving people smoke Peter Stuyvesant cigarettes and visit exotic
holiday destinations.)

They are a form of mass communication.

A persuasive advertisement could contain one, all or a combination of these characteristics.
There are no set rules which determine that persuasive advertisements that use a specific medium
should display certain characteristics. Advertisements are in a constant state of flux. Although
the message of two products might be the same, different mediums could change the
characteristics of the two advertisements.

Function

In the broadest sense advertisements either persuade or inform receivers in terms of their
functionality. The main function of a persuasive advertisement is to persuade the receiver
to take a specific action, in other words the receiver is directly manipulated to change or
modify his/her (consumer) behaviour. Elements of information can also be present. The
intended function can only take place if the discourse fulfils its communicative role.

THE ACT OF COMMUNICATION

Advertisements are marketing tools used in a communication process to send a message to

receivers (consumers), who will react or respond in a certain way.

Communication is derived from the Latin word communis,which means common.

Communication is the process of commonness of thought between a sender and a receiver of a
message:

Both sender and receiver must be active participants in the same communicative relationship in
order for thought to be shared (Dunn, Barban, Krugman & Reid 1990: 51).

Meaning can thus only be achieved when the sender and receiver share a thought or idea. In
persuasive advertisements it is assumed that both parties share this thought.

In order to understand the communication of advertisements, three basic concepts have to be

taken into account: field of experience, meaning and signs and symbols (Dunn et al 1990: 51-
52). These aspects will be elaborated upon in the section on semiotic analysis.

The field of experience refers to the receiver’s total life experiences. Contextual and textual
elements are used by the advertiser to refer to a specific group of receivers’ experiences. This is
closely linked to culture and cultural identity where certain elements such as customs or
idiomatic language are used to send a message to the receiver.

Meaning is created by signs that evoke certain meanings. Again cultural orientation plays a role
here. Stubbs (1983: 8) states that "the general vision is of culture as comprising interlocking
systems of meaning". These signs can either be textual or contextual elements such as a poem or
music. One can distinguish between connotative, contextual and denotative meaning. Denotative
meaning refers to the literal association with objects or words. Connotative meaning refers to the
derived connotations of the individual towards a concept or word. Contextual meaning refers to
the surroundings in which the advertisement’s message takes place (Dunn et al 1990: 54).

Religious Discourse

Every community is awash in words. Religious communities are no exception. Sermons, prayers,
singing, creedal recitations, and discussion groups make up the very being of such communities.

In recent years the flow of religious discourse has spilled into the public arena with increasing
intensity. Religious broadcasts fill the airwaves and direct-mail solicitations fill our mailboxes.
Bishops issue statements on social issues such as nuclear disarmament and economic justice. A
pope stumps the country delivering homilies. Preachers become presidential candidates. And
media specialists try to make sense of it all.

Social scientists have in recent decades developed a fairly standard way of studying the relations
between religion and public affairs. Opinion polls are the method of choice, supplemented by
occasional applications of content analysis, in-depth interviews, and discussion of broader social
developments to provide context. As a result of this often valuable research, we have a good
sense of the public’s tolerance for religious leaders making statements about various kinds of
social issues. We also have some data about the issues clergy say they speak about. And we have
many studies of the ways in which religious beliefs and attitudes toward social issues correlate
— fundamentalism and bigotry, parochialism and conservatism, conservatism and views of the
priesthood, moralism and attitudes toward abortion, religious preference and voter orientations,
to name a few. We even have frequency counts of the kinds of themes that are expressed on
religious television shows or in religious books.
But on religious discourse as discourse we have virtually nothing. It is as if our standard methods
have trained us to think of religious communities (and not just religious communities) as silent
worlds. People have religious beliefs, convictions, and sentiments. They harbor predispositions,
orientations, and commitments. They behold religious symbols, and these symbols give meaning
to their lives, help them construct reality, and provide them with security and a sense of
belonging. But they do not speak.1

Or if they do speak, our standard methods register only the surface features of their discourse.
For instance, we may cull through the transcripts of religious broadcasts to see how many of
them touched on abortion, school prayer, the Supreme Court, or politics in general. We may scan
the titles of religious books to see how many fall into various preconceived categories: theology,
family, self-improvement, sexual relations, and the like. Or we may ask church and synagogue
members or clergy whether they have discussed topics such as personal crises, moral issues,
politics, or the federal budget with fellow parishioners. But none of this gives us any indication
of the ways in which religious discourse is actually put together.

It may, of course, require more than a leap of religious faith to argue that the actual composition
of religious discourse is itself important. To someone trained in the social psychology of opinion
research, discourse is likely to be relevant only as a means of tapping into the deeper attitudinal
predispositions that supposedly govern behavior. Discourse is in this view ephemeral,
unpredictable, superficial; only the underlying mindsets are meaningful. We want to discover
how personalities are put together, not to invest time in the study of meaningless chatter.

Discourse Rediscovered

There has for some time been a movement in the social sciences to bring discourse back into the
picture. In addition to the contributions of small coteries of ethnomethodologists and
conversation analysts who have always studied discourse, we now have the formidable (and
often forbidding) legacy of Foucault’s decentered poststructuralism, Habermas’s borrowings
from speech-act theory, Derrida’s language-focused deconstructionism, and a more scattered
array of empirical investigations focusing on public discourse.

We need not become camp followers of the esoteric theoreticians to appreciate the importance of
understanding religious discourse, however. Much of this discourse is highly codified in sacred
traditions. Its practitioners gain competence in its use through long years of training and
experience. Homiletics and hermeneutics are required features of most pastoral educations. How-
to books abound — for preaching, leading discussions of religious texts, proselytizing. Even the
sacred traditions themselves recognize the importance of the word, the kerygma, as the vehicle of
creation, reconciliation, and community.

That much we could discern by immersing ourselves for any length of time within a religious
tradition. Any competent practitioner of the faith could testify to the importance of discourse.
But when religious discourse enters the public sphere — when it becomes public rhetoric — we
confront another, perhaps equally compelling, reason for trying to understand it. Some of it
seems to affront common sensibilities so deeply that we find it difficult even to focus on what is
being said; in other instances this is less of a problem. For example, I usually spend some time
having students look at direct-mail solicitations from religio-political organizations in a
sociology of religion course I teach. Sometimes I also ask them to sample a few religious
broadcasts on television or to watch a short video of fundamentalist dialogue in class.

Generally the reaction from my privileged, sophisticated, tolerant, upper-middle-class white

juniors and seniors is repulsion. They find fundamentalist discourse so alien to what they are
used to thinking that their processing capacity breaks down. Why?

Put the same students in an upper-middle-class white Episcopal church or Jewish synagogue and
the response, of course, is quite different. But why "of course"? Close inspection of the content
of the discourse in these different settings may reveal a great deal of overlap: talk of God, love,
forgiveness, faithfulness, and so on. Apparently the discourse is packaged — framed, structured
— in a more meaningful way in one context than in the other.

This, it seems to me, is the heart of the matter when we consider religious discourse as public
rhetoric. Is it that Jerry Falwell’s ideas are so alien to the American democratic tradition that
thoughtful intellectuals dismiss them on rational grounds after careful consideration? Or does the
structure of Falwell’s discourse itself lead them to dismiss his ideas out of hand? We may be
correct in saying that FaIwell’s ideas are indeed alien to the ways in which most academics
think. But I suspect there is more to it than that. The reason we know they are alien is probably,
in part, because of the way in which his discourse is put together. By the same token, we may
find the U.S. Catholic bishops’ statement on nuclear disarmament much more compelling (my
students do), and part of the reason is probably that it contains a discursive structure with which
we are more comfortable.

BRIDGING THE GAP/MEETING POINT: DISCOURSE AND SEMIOTICS

Norman Fairclough (1992: 65) states that:

Discursive practice …contributes to reproducing society (social identities, social relationships,

systems of knowledge and belief) as it is, yet also contributes to transforming society.

This statement sums up the role of discourse analysis in the translation of cultural aspects in
persuasive advertisements. It can be inferred that society, as defined by Fairclough, points to
cultural identity. Discursive practice, like a persuasive advertisement, changes or manipulates the
receivers in a society or culture to alter their behaviour or "transform society".

But the same can be said for semiotics, where verbal and non-verbal signs produce meaning,
which lead to the creation of social relationships, systems of knowledge and thus cultural
identity. The individual signs and their combinations are manipulated to perform a persuasive
function in advertisements (in the text and context), which alters the behaviour of the receivers
accordingly.

Introduction to semiotics

Humans, like most animals, are able to communicate verbally and non-verbally. Humans use
language in verbal communication and signs, symbols, sound or paralinguistic means to
communicate a message. However, humans, unlike animals, have cultural identities. The
semiosis (sign processing) takes place within this cultural orientation.

Patrick Vyncke (1996: 2) describes this phenomenon as follows:

Nu is er recent een wetenschap tot ontwikkeling gekomen die zich in het bijzonder, en op een
bijzondere manier, met deze communicatie- en cultuurprocessen inlaat. Het bijzondere van deze
wetenschap schuilt hem onder meer hierin dat zij…deze communicatie- en cultuurprocessen
zondermeer als vergelijkbare fenomenen bestudeert, namelijk als betekenisprocessen: processen
waarbij betekenissen worden gecreërd en/of geïnterpreteerd, processen via dewelke betekenissen
worden overgedragen tussen mensen en via dewelke betekenissen circuleren binnen een
cultuurgemeenschap, processen waarbij we m.a.w. aan onszelf en onze leefwereld betekenis
toekennen.

Semiotics analysis provides the translator with means to deal with signs in a persuasive
advertisement which reflect a cultural identity.

Winfried Nöth (1990: 476) emphasises the usefulness of semiotics by saying:

…semiotics provides the theoretical tools for the analysis of signs and communication process in
advertising…semiotics expands the analytic horizon from the verbal message in the narrower
sense to the multiplicity of codes used in persuasive communication.

By analysing the signs and semiosis in the source culture, the translator can identify their
functions and transfer them into a target language (and culture) by finding equivalents in the
target culture. This section will focus on the theories of Charles Peirce and Ferdinand de
Saussure regarding signs and semiosis that will enable the translator to apply aspects of discourse
analysis in conjunction with semiotic analysis in dealing with cultural aspects in persuasive
advertisements during the translation process.

It should be noted that Peirce provides insights and theories that serve as theoretical background
information, but are difficult to "translate" into practical ideas. De Saussure provides one with
more tangible and applicable information and theory that can be used to examine an
advertisement semiotically and then translate it.

Conclusion:-
In this study an effort was made to illustrate the relationship between discourse analysis and
semiotics, two seemingly divergent disciplines. By combining elements from both disciplines,
the translator can approach cultural elements in persuasive advertisements in conjunction with a
suitable translation theory that fulfils the requirements set by the synthesis of discourse and
semiotic analysis.
Internationally the trend is towards minimizing linguistic and maximizing non-linguistic
elements. There are numerous reasons for this. One very prominent reason is that advertisers are
moving towards global campaigns. One campaign is used in various countries because it is
cheaper than changing the advertisements into different languages.

The second reason could have social implications. The Italian clothing
manufacturer Bennetton uses shock tactics to bring about social awareness in the world and
consequently to market their products. They associate themselves and their product with such
issues as Aids, poverty and violence. The emphasis is usually on the non-linguistic elements,
such as a shocking photograph with little or no text.

Cigarette companies, for instance the manufacturers of Peter Stuyvesant, sell a lifestyle. Their
advertisements concentrate on "beautiful" people in exotic places doing exciting things that
normal mortals would not usually do. This approach assumes that all people aspire to this
glamorous lifestyle and that this would transcend language and culture. As a result many of these
advertisements are kept in English and not translated.

However, this trend is most prevalent among multinational companies. There is still a need for
culture-specific advertising. According to unconfirmed statistics on the Internet, the growth of
Websites in languages other than English is much larger than that of English Websites. One can
surmise that there is a move towards acknowledging different cultures and languages in
technology-driven media.

References

 Andersson, Greger (2009). Untamable Texts. Literary Studies and Narrative Theory in
the Books of Samuel. New York: T. & T. Clark.
 Brahier, Gabriela & Dirk Johannsen, eds. (2013). Konstruktionsgeschichten.
Narrationsbezogene Ansätze in der Religionsforschung. Würzburg: Ergon.
 Conermann, Stephan, ed. (2009). Modi des Erzählens in nicht-abendländischen
Texten. Narratio Aliena? Berlin: EB-Verlag.
 Culpepper, R. Alan (1983). Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel. Philadelphia: Fortress P.
 Ebner, Martin & Bernhard Heininger (2005). Exegese des Neuen Testaments. Ein
Arbeitsbuch für Lehre und Praxis. Paderborn: Schöningh.
 Eisen, Ute E. (2006). Die Poetik der Apostelgeschichte. Eine narratologische Studie.
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
 Finnern, Sönke (2010). Narratologie und biblische Exegese. Eine integrative Methode der
Erzählanalyse und ihr Ertrag am Beispiel von Matthäus 28. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
 Hauschild, Eberhard (1996). Alltagsseelsorge. Eine sozio-linguistische Analyse des
pastoralen Geburtstagsbesuches. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
 Hofheinz, Marco & Frank Mathwig et al., eds. (2009). Ethik und Erzählung.
Theologische und philosophische Beiträge zur narrativen Ethik. Zürich: Theologischer
Verlag.
 Kähler, Martin (1892). Der sogenannte historische Jesus und der geschichtliche, biblische
Christus. Leipzig: Deichert.
 Kingsbury, Jack Dean ([1986] 1988). Matthew as Story. Philadelphia: Fortress P.
 Markschies, Christoph & Jens Schröter, eds. (2012). Antike christliche Apokryphen in
deutscher Übersetzung. 1. Band: Evangelien und Verwandtes (2 Teilbände). 7. Aufl.
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
 Mauz, Andreas (2009a). “In Gottesgeschichten verstrickt. Erzählen im christlich-
religiösen Diskurs.” Ch. Klein & M. Martínez (eds.). Wirklichkeitserzählungen. Felder,
Formen und Funktionen nicht-literarischen Erzählens. Stuttgart: Metzler, 192–216.
 Mauz, Andreas (2009b). “Theology and Narration. Reflections on the ‘Narrative
Theology’-Debate and Beyond.” S. Heinen & R. Sommer (eds.). Narratology in the Age
of Cross-Disciplinary Narrative Research. Berlin: de Gruyter, 261–85.
 Meinhard, Isolde (2003). Ideologie und Imagination im Predigtprozess. Zur
homiletischen Rezeption der kritischen Narratologie. Leipzig: Evang. Verlagsanstalt.
 Meyer-Blanck, Michael (2011). Gottesdienstlehre. Neue theologische Grundrisse.
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
 Nicol, Martin ([2002] 2005). Einander ins Bild setzen. Dramaturgische Homiletik.
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
 Patte, Daniel & Aline Patte (1978). Structural Exegesis. From Theory to Practice.
Exegesis of Mark 15 and 16. Hermeneutical Implications. Philadelphia: Fortress P.
 Peseschkian, Nossrat (1979). Der Kaufmann und der Papagei. Orientalische Geschichten
in der Positiven Psychotherapie. Frankfurt: Fischer.
 Rhoads, David & Donald Michie (1982). Mark as Story. An Introduction to the Narrative
of a Gospel. Philadelphia: Fortress P.
 Rose, Christian (2007). Theologie als Erzählung im Markusevangelium. Eine
narratologisch-rezeptionsästhetische Untersuchung zu Mk 1,1–15. Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck.
 RRENAB [Réseau de Recherche en Narratologie et Bible]. Bibliographie du
RRENAB.http://www2.unil.ch/rrenab/bibliographie.html [Accessed 31 Oct. 2013].
 Schmitz, Barbara (2008). Prophetie und Königtum. Eine narratologisch-historische
Methodologie entwickelt an den Königsbüchern. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
 Schneider-Flume, Gunda (2005). “Dogmatik erzählen? Ein Plädoyer für biblische
Theologie.” G. Schneider-Flume & D. Hiller (eds.). Dogmatik erzählen? Die Bedeutung
des Erzählens für eine biblisch orientierte Dogmatik. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener,
3–18.
 Scholz, Stefan & Volker Eisenlauer (2010). “Narrativität und Bibeldidaktik.” Praktische
Theologie45, 46–56.
 Schultze, Quentin J. & Robert H. Woods, eds. (2008). Understanding Evangelical
Media. The Changing Face of Christian Communication. Downers Grove: InterVarsity P.
 Sternberg, Meir (1985). The Poetics of Biblical Narrative. Ideological Literature and the
Drama of Reading. Bloomington: Indiana UP.
 Streib, Heinz (1998). “Alltagsreligion oder: Wie religiös ist der Alltag? Zur
lebensweltlichen Verortung von Religion in praktisch-theologischem
Interesse.” International Journal of Practical Theology 2, 23–51.
 Vette, Joachim (2010). “Narrative Poetics and Hebrew Narrative: A Survey.” H. Liss &
M. Oeming (eds.). Literary Construction of Identity in the Ancient World. Winona Lake:
Eisenbrauns, 19–61.
 Weinrich, Harald (1973). “Narrative Theologie.” Concilium (D) 9, 329–34.

…………………………………………………………………………………