¡Descarga Text linguistic and text y más Resúmenes en PDF de Análisis funcional solo en Docsity!
UNIT 1
Text Linguistics and the Text
● What is Text linguistics? Discourse Analysis and Text Linguistics are two closely related terms. For many authors, they are two names for the same branch of linguistic analysis. For others, they are two different traditions. ✔ Text linguistics is the analysis of the lexicogrammatical elements that make up a text and give ‘texture’ to a piece of language. ✔ Dr. Richard Nordquist (2020): It is a branch of linguistics concerned with the description and analysis of extended texts (either spoken or written) in communicative contexts. In some ways, it overlaps considerably with discourse analysis. ✔ Spooren (2004): it is the study of how the S (speaker or writer) and the H (hearer or reader) manage to communicate via texts , that is, how they go beyond the text (words) they produce or have in front of them to see the relations between the sentences, the paragraphs, the sections, etc (to interpret it). ● What is a text? ✔ Karin Sterz (2018): etymologically, the term stems from the Latin noun textum (“woven fabric”) and from the verb texere (“to weave something”), suggesting a parallel between the structure of woven textiles and the elements of extensive linguistic structures. Hence, a text is something created by using different elements that are intertwined in a way that the final product is a whole, with its own texture and characteristics. ✔ De Beaugrande and Dressler (1981): a text is a naturally occuring manifestation of language, i.e., a communicative language event in a context. The surface text (= Halliday’s product ) is the set of expressions actually used, which make some knowledge explicit , while other knowledge remains implicit. This means that, while some things are explicitly mentioned in a text, there are others that are left implicit, and which the hearer/reader infers as they interpret (process) the information in the text. They consider that a text meets 7 standards of textuality. If any of these standards is not considered to have been satisfied, the text will not be communicative. Hence, non-communicative texts are treated as non-texts.
1. Cohesion : the ways in which the components of the surface text are connected within a sequence. Grammatical forms and conventions are adhered to by surface components and therefore cohesion rests upon grammatical dependencies (for example, the use of pronouns and proforms). 2. Coherence : the ways in which concepts and relations (meanings), which underlie the surface text, are used, linked and relevant , to achieve efficient communication , i.e., meaning. Each sentence conveys meanings, thus forming a continuity of senses , so that the reader/hearer of the message can follow the chain of information. 3. Intentionality : concerns the text producer's attitude and intentions as he/she uses cohesion and coherence to attain a goal specified in a plan. Without cohesion and coherence, intended goals may not be achieved due to a breakdown of communication. 4. Acceptability : related to the text receiver's attitude that the text should constitute useful or relevant details or information worth accepting. 5. Informativity : the extent to which the contents of a text are already known or expected as compared to unknown or unexpected. No matter how expected or predictable the content may be, a text will always be informative at least to a certain degree. The processing of highly informative text demands greater cognitive ability. The level of informativity should not exceed a point such that the text becomes too complicated and communication is endangered. Conversely, the level of informativity should also not be so low that it results in boredom and the rejection of the text.
6. Situationality : concerns the factors which make a text relevant to a situation of occurrence. The situation in which a text is exchanged influences the comprehension of the text. 7. Intertextuality : the factors which make the use of one text dependent upon knowledge of one or more previously encountered text. If a text receiver does not have prior knowledge of a relevant text, communication may break down because the understanding of the current text is obscured. ✔ Halliday & Hasan (1985): In the simplest way, a text is language that is functional (that is doing some job in some context , as opposed to isolated words or sentences). ・A text is a semantic unit: although when we write it down it looks as if it is made of words and sentences, it’s really made of meaning. Hence, a text has to be considered from two perspectives at once: as a process (it is a continuous process of semantic choice ) and as a product (it is an output, having a certain construction that can be studied in systematic terms). ・In its process aspect, it is a social exchange of meanings , i.e, an interactive event. Then, the fundamental form of a text is the dialogue , the interaction among speakers, because every kind of text is meaningful because it is related to an interaction among speakers. ・Summing up: a text is an object in its own right, and an instance of social meaning in a particular context of situation (a process). It is a product of its environment, of a continuous process of choices of meaning (from all the possibilities their language provides speakers with). ✔ Spooren (2004): A text is a spoken or written evocation of an event or series of events. Communication takes place through three means of expression: verbal communication (by words, THE TEXT itself), paralinguistic communication (by paralinguistic elements, such as loudness, rhythm and speed) and non-verbal communication (gestures, facial expressions, body language, etc). In spoken communication, the text (the words) is only one means of expression, whereas in written communication, the text is almost all there because in writing we exclusively communicate by words. Spooren refers to the text as the verbal part of written or oral communication (the words we speak/write) as well as the interpretation the hearer/reader makes of those verbal elements (both aspects are equally important). The text itself never forms the whole picture, it is only one aspect of communication, so the paralinguistic and non-verbal aspects also need to be considered in order to make sense and interpret it. However, a text almost never has all the necessary paralinguistic and non-verbal elements to be processed, so we add a lot of meaning to it from our cultural or world knowledge and from our ideas/feelings. In other words, the meaning of the text does not only depend on the actual meaning of the words or sentences which make it up ( the verbal elements), but also on the interpretation the readers/hearers make of this text as a whole, based on the verbal and non-verbal elements, as well as on our world knowledge (our “ text representation ” *). Our interpretation will change depending on the social and cultural context in which the text occurs.
TEXT REPRESENTATION
(Spooren, 2004) ● Spooren states that the text is the verbal part of communication (only one aspect of it). The other two aspects are the paralinguistic and non-verbal parts. Spooren adds that “the text as such or the linguistic elements only make sense if they are interpreted by readers/listeners using their cultural or world knowledge. This interpreted text is the reader’s text representation , which goes far beyond what is said in the text. Communication , therefore, appears as a complex process that involves far more than the mere exchange of spoken or written texts. ● What is, then, the function of texts in communication? How do the linguistic expressions in the text make sense for the hearer/reader? How does the hearer/reader understand what is not explicitly mentioned in the text? ● In Gulliver’s Travels , Gulliver describes scientific projects at the Academy of Lagado, the second of which is intended to get rid of ‘words’: since words are only names for things , it would be more convenient for all men to carry with them the objects that are necessary to express something in particular, i.e, expressing one’s ideas through things rather than words. However, if a man’s business is very great, he would be obliged to carry a greater amount of things upon his back. This ironic view was supported at a scientific level by philosophers like Rusell, who based his support in the Misleading Form Hypothesis: natural language is not very well suited to formulate accurate descriptions of the world around us because it is ambiguous and misleading. Therefore, it should be emulated in a more exact mode of representing the world. This view of language is wrong : ✔ Firstly, it assumes that language has only an ideational function (it is only descriptive, it only represents certain states of affairs). In producing texts, people do other things than simply describe. Texts contain many indications as to the role of the speaker or writer and to the function of the sentences (the interpersonal function ), for example, we may have three different sentences with the same ideational information (same content) but with different interpersonal information (different indicators according to the intention, to the interlocutors and the situation). Texts may also contain information concerning the way they are structured (the textual function ). ✔ Secondly, it assumes that words are just names for things, and that each word stands directly for a thing in the world (ignoring the assumptions made and the context). Therefore, according to this view, the meaning of a conversation as a whole will be the sum of the individual objects’ meaning. Yet, a text is more than the sum of the interpretations of individual sentences. On the one hand, hearers rather add all sorts of information to the sentences in the text when they process it (ideas, feelings, cultural knowledge), information that is not explicitly mentioned. That is, they make implicit assumptions -called inferences - which are usually based on the H’s previous experience. So, to interpret a text readers/hearers don’t simply put together the meaning of isolated words and sentences. On the other hand, texts as a whole are interpreted and understood according to a context, which can resolve ambiguities present in isolated sentences. ● To conclude, a S has the intention of conveying a message to a H. In order to realize that intention, the S formulates a message consisting of linguistic expressions (the text, the verbal part, the ideational information). To successfully understand that text, one cannot only look at the linguistic information, but also at the paralinguistic, the non-verbal information and the S’s/H’s world. This is because it is a crucial property of natural language that there is not always a direct connection between communicative intentions and the linguistic expressions used, and therefore it is our text representation that meditates and gives coherence to the text. For example, we are continually taking part in conversations where a great deal of what is meant is not present in the text.
● COHERENCE VS COHESION:
○ Coherence : ✔ Spooren (2004): Well-formed natural texts are coherent: a text is coherent if it’s possible to construct a coherent representation of that text. Coherence is not a property of the linguistic expressions (words) in the text itself, but of the representation (interpretation) the S and H make of that text. What makes a text semantically meaningful includes the linguistic expressions used in the text as well as the connections the hearer/reader can make between the text and their world knowledge. Coherence is what makes a text semantically meaningful. It is the property that distinguishes texts from arbitrary sets of sentences. Each sentence conveys meanings, thus forming a continuity of senses , so that the reader/hearer of the message can follow the chain of information. According to him, coherence is not mainly based on the linguistic expressions in the text (r eferential coherence ), but mainly on conceptual links between the entities, concepts and events referred to in the text ( relational coherence ). Then, there are two types of coherence, both of which have clear linguistic indicators:
1. Referential coherence: units are connected by repeated reference to the same object. The linguistic indicators are anaphoric devices, such as pronouns. 2. Relational coherence: text segments are connected by establishing coherence relations like cause-consequence between them. These relations can, but need not, be made explicit by linguistic markers, such as connectors and other lexical markers of relations. ✔ De Beaugrande and Dressler (1981): The ways in which concepts and relations (meanings), which underlie the surface text , are used, linked and relevant, to achieve efficient communication, i.e., meaning. Each sentence conveys meanings, thus forming a continuity of senses , so that the H of the message can follow the chain of information. This configuration of concepts and relations is the “ textual world”, which may or may not agree with the established version of the “real world” , i.e, that version of the human situation considered valid by a society or social group. However, the textual world contains more than the sense of the linguistic expressions in the surface text, which is understood thanks to the commonsense knowledge derived from the participants’ expectations and experience. Thus, a textual world which does not have to comply with the real world is created, but within this world the arguments have to be connected logically so that the reader/hearer can produce coherence. A “ senseless ” or “ nonsensical ” text is one in which text receivers can’t discover such continuity, usually because there is a serious mismatch between the configuration of concepts and relations expressed and the receivers’ prior knowledge of the world. ✔ Yule (2010): “the key to the concept of coherence (“everything fitting together well”) is not something that exists in words or structures, but something that exists in people. It is people who ‘ make sense ’ of what they read and hear.”
2. Reference (relatedness of reference): they refer to it as co-reference as both items refer to the same thing. Co-referential forms are forms that instead of being interpreted semantically in their own right, make reference to something else for their interpretation. They identify different types of co-reference: a. Exophoric : it plays no part in textual cohesion as the interpretation of these forms lies outside the text, in the context of situation. Eg: “Look at that (the sun)” b. Endophoric : where the interpretation of these forms lies within the text and do form cohesive ties within the text. In turn, they can be: - Anaphoric: when the forms look back in the text for their interpretation. Eg: “Look at the sun. It ’s going down quickly”. “ Ro said she would have to take Sophie to the doctor” ( Pronominal reference ). - Cataphoric: when the forms look forward in the text for their interpretation. Eg: “ It ’s going down quickly, the sun”. c. Homophoric (Paltridge, 2012) : where the identity of an item can be interpreted from our cultural knowledge, rather than from the specific context of the text. It occurs when a generic phrase obtains a specific meaning through knowledge of its context. Eg: in “the Queen”, “the president” or “the US”, we know from our cultural knowledge which queen, which president or which United States, is being referred to in the text. d. Comparative (Paltridge, 2012): the identity of an item can be interpreted not because it has already been mentioned or will be mentioned in the text, but because the item with which is being compared has been mentioned. Eg: In “Tearful women called it ‘the Bible’, others declared it had changed their lives” the author assumes we will know which others she is referring to. e. Bridging (Paltridge, 2012): when an item refers to something that has to be inferentially derived either from the text or the situation. Eg: “‘I was hopeless’, he says with a laugh. ‘I’m not one of those blokes that finds approaching women easy”. 3. Ellipsis: an essential element (a noun, noun group, verb, verbal group or clause) is omitted from the text and can be recovered by referring to a preceding element in the text. The omitted element is not necessary for understanding as the content can be built on from what has been said before. Eg: “Jules has a birthday next month. Sophie has too”. 4. Substitution and clausal substitution: a substitute form is used for another language item, phrase or group. It can involve substituting an item for a noun (“try reading this book. That one is not very good”) , verb (“A: has he had dinner yet?. B: He must have done it_._ There’s no food in the fridge”) or clause (“A: It’s great to hear you’re still happy. B: Oh yes, very much so ”). ★ Note: ellipsis and substitution involve a kind of referential relationship, but rather than involving relatedness of reference, they involve relatedness of form (the substituted or ellided item has the same form, but they refer to different things). ★ Difference between ellipsis/substitution and reference: Reference Ellipsis and substitution ● Can reach a long way back in the text. ● Largely limited to the immediately preceding clause. ● There’s a meaning of co-reference : both items typically refer to the same thing. ● There’s always some difference between the first instance and the second. They refer to different things.
5. Lexical cohesion: relationships in meaning between lexical items, in particular, between content words. a. Repetition and partial repetition: words that are repeated in the text, more precisely, these words are inflected for tense or number and words which are derived from particular items. Eg: “The Prime Minister recorded her thanks to the Foreigner Secretary. The Prime Minister was most eloquent”; “Dr. E. C. R. Reeve chaired the meeting. Dr. Reeve invited Mr Phillips to report on the state of the gardens”; “Stuart …Stu”. b. Synonymy / Lexical replacement: words in a text which are similar in meaning, such as “date” and “go out”, “blokes” and “men”. c. Antonymy: words in a text with opposite or contrastive meanings, such as “shy” and “forward”. d. Hyponymy: words in a text which are in a ‘general-specific’ or a ‘kind of’ relationship with each other ( superordination ). The specific item is a hyponym of the superordinate/general item ( hypernym ) , and hyponyms of the same hypernym are co-hyponyms. Eg: The relationship between ‘flower’ and ‘daffodil’ is that of hyponymy. e. Part-whole / Meronymy: words in a text which are in a ‘whole-part’ relationship with each other ( composition ). Eg: ‘Jen’ and ‘Stuart’ are in a meronymy relationship, in relation to the term ‘couple’. ‘Jen’ and ‘Stuart’ are co-meronyms. ★ Note (d and e): the understanding of one item may depend on the understanding of other items. Thus, if someone doesn’t know the relationship between the mentioned items, it could be hard to make complete sense of the text. f. Collocation: associations between vocabulary items which have a tendency to co-occur, like some adjectives and nouns ( real-estate agent, the right direction ), verbs and nouns ( love the book , waste your time ) and nouns ( men and women, love and hate ). - Expectancy relations: related to collocations. It occurs where there is a predictable relationship between a verb and its subject/object. This includes the link between an action and its participant ( ask someone ) or an event and its location ( dating sites ). It also includes the relationship between lexical items and the group they form ( art classes, online dating ). - Lexical bundles: three or more words that occur in fixed or semi-fixed combinations that are repeated without change for a set number of times in a particular corpus ( multi-word combinations ). They
PRACTICE
Activities:
(Note: these activities are not to be handed in, but for you to start practicing possible exam
questions. We’ll discuss them when we go back to face-to-face classes)
1. Make sure you can explain Table 1 above (Spooren’s representation of communication and the
part played by the text).
2. Explain briefly how the seven standards of textuality can be related to the following letter to
the editor, published on The Washington Post online on April 22, 2020.
To the Editor Reading the April 18 front-page article on protests erupting over business closures, “Trump fomenting defiance of strictures,” I was sickened by the absence of a national leader with the ability to pull together all sides in our current disaster. A strong president would show an understanding of both the public health fears and the fears of economic disruption. It is sad that we are stuck with a president who, like a rebellious teenager, thinks it’s cute to tweet “LIBERATE” Michigan, Minnesota and Virginia, as if he forgot that he was elected to the highest leadership position in our country and he is expected by all of us, regardless of political party, to find solutions to getting us back to work in a healthy environment. It is sad and frightening to have a president who is too immature and incompetent to do the job he was elected to do. Diane Ellis , Brunswick
Text representation, cohesion and coherence
You should have read Spooren's sections on ‘Text representation’ and on ‘Coherence vs.
cohesion’ before you can analyze the following texts.
You will find three short texts below. For each one, answer the following questions:
1. Is cohesion explicitly marked in this text? How? (Provide examples).
2. Is the text coherent (does it make sense?)? Why/why not?
3. If the text is coherent but there are no cohesive marks, how can the reader make a successful
representation of it?
Text 1
My father bought a Lincoln convertible. The car driven by the police was red. That
color doesn’t suit her. She consists of three letters. However, a letter isn’t as fast as a
telephone call.
1. No, it isn't.
2. No, it isn't coherent. The sentences do not make sense as a single unit of meaning. Even
though there are “cohesive links” such as word repetition, there is no coherent interpretation of
that text.
Text 2
HER: That’s the telephone.
HIM: I’m in the bath.
HER: O.K.
1. No, it isn’t.
2. Yes, it does make sense because the reader can infer in order to interpret the text.
3. Even though there are no cohesive marks, the reader add the missing links from its cultural
knowledge in order to provide meaning to the text.
Text 3
My father once bought a Lincoln convertible. He did it by saving every penny he could. That car
would be worth a fortune nowadays. However, he sold it to help pay for my college education.
Sometimes I think I’d rather have the convertible.
1. Yes , it is. There are several cohesive links such as word repetition (e.g “convertible”), the
use of pronouns (e.g “he”, “that car”).
2. Yes, it is coherent. It does make sense because the text constructs a particular meaning as a
unit.
ACTIVITIES: COHESION
Exercise 1: Conjunctions
Analyze the extract from Winnie-the-Pooh below in terms of conjunction:
Here is Edward Bear, coming downstairs now, bump, bump, bump, on the back of his
head, behind Christopher Robin. It is, as far as he knows, the only way of coming downstairs,
but sometimes he feels that there really is another way, if only he could stop bumping
for a moment to think of it... And then he feels perhaps there isn’t.
Anyhow, here he is at the bottom, and ready to be introduced to you, Winnie-the-Pooh.
When I first heard his name, I said, just as you are going to say, ‘But I thought he was
a boy?’
Exercise 2: Reference and lexical chains
Analyze the extract from Winnie-the-Pooh above in terms of reference chains and lexical
chains (as in the sample analysis you saw in Paltridge’s chapter).
KEYS: winnie-the-pooh
Winnie-the-Pooh analysis
Exercise 1: Conjunctions
- but sometimes he feels.
.. - if only he could stop
- And then he feels...
- Anyhow
- and ready to be
introduced - When I first
heard…
- But I thought….
comparison (adversative,
contrast) consequence
(condition)
addition
addition
addition
temporal
comparison (adversative, contrast)
