From NONTEXT to TEXT What is text?

Silvia IRIMIEA, PhD TEXT According to Crombie Winifred (1985) a text represents an uninterrupted larger or smaller group of clauses and sentences, which are within the domain of an overall topic. Halliday and Hasan (1976: I) offered a definition of text, that may well serve as a point of departure for any prospective text exploration. They went further than Crombie in their definition of text, suggesting that a text is any passage (of language), spoken or written, of whatever length, that does form a unified whole. Therewith they overtly defined the text as a unified whole, introducing the concept of texture, i.e. the quality or the property that distinguishes a text from a nontext and holds the clauses together. Susanne Eggins (1996: 85) states that the discourse part of the discourse semantic label describes the different types of texture that contribute to making text: the resources the language has for creating text. TEXTURE In an attempt to clarify the concept of texture, Eggins supplies the following example of conversation: A: What time is it, love? B: Julie left her car at the station today. Despite the fact that the above quoted text makes little or no sense to others, it makes perfect sense to the interactants or participants in the conversations, as much of the text was omitted because of the participants familiarity with the topic discussed and the shared situational context that provides for the missing informational gap. Henceforth, Bs full answer would have made the text more intelligible: B: I know Julies late, but we shouldnt be worried because she left her car at the station today and caught the train, instead of driving in to work. Susanne Eggins quotes the ethnomethodologists (Schegloff and Sacks 1973/74, Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson 1974, and Schegloff 1981) interest in conversations, the claim that no empirically occurring utterance ever occurs outside, or external to some specific sequence. Whatever is said will be said in some sequential context (Atkinson and Heritage, 1984), and their notion of sequential implicativeness ((Schegloff and Sacks 1973/74), thus explicating that language is inexorably tied to linear sequence, whereby one part of a text (a sentence or a turn at talk) must follow another part of the text (the next sentence or turn at talk)(Eggins, 1991). This leads to the conclusion that each part of the text creates the context within which the next bit of the text is interpreted - thus, practically everything that is said/written will be interpreted against the background of what was said/written previously. A further example supplied by Eggins is intended to facilitate the readers understanding of why a text is a text as compared to a non-text. 1. Up road runs they. 2.To sign please form those page 3 on. 3. Three children Shirley have: boy two, girl. This example is clearly a non-text, - first, because each of the sentences composing the example is grammatically incorrect, and - second, because the sentences cannot be tied together to form a whole.

This sets forth a critical condition for a text to be a text, and that is its compliance with the standard rules of grammar. In other words, in order for a text to be a text, it must necessarily be grammatically coherent. According to Eggins the clauses of a text hang together by virtue of two kinds of paragraph -related properties: contextual properties that give to a text coherence and internal properties that give to text its cohesion. As defined by Halliday and Hasan (1976: 23) coherence refers to the way a group of clauses or sentences relate to the context. Since context can be further expressed in terms of two levels: context of culture(i.e. genre) and context of situation, i.e. register, there are two recognizable types of coherence: - situational or registerial coherence, and - generic coherence. A text has situational coherence when the sentences and/clauses of the text could or may occur within the framework of one thinkable or imaginable situation. Similarly, a text has generic coherence if or when it can be recognized as a particular genre, i.e. when the text itself displays a structure that is recognizably and commonly used as a standard structure, a schematic structure, and where each part/component of the text represents an element in the unfolding of the communicative (linguistic) event. Cohesion Eggins turns again to Halliday and Hasan, whom she quotes: Cohesion occurs where the INTERPRETATION of one element in the discourse is dependent on that of another. The one PRESUPPOSES the other, in the sense that it cannot be effectively decoded except by recourse to it. When this happens, a relation of cohesion is set up, and the two elements, the presupposing and the presupposed, are thereby at least potentially integrated into a text(1976: 4). This explanation states clearly that there are elements in a text that are semantically tied, and the existence of such semantic ties will certify that a text is a text. The presence of the tie makes at least one item in the text depend on another item for its interpretation. In the event the clauses are self-contained and such ties are unnecessary or nonexistent, the clauses or sentences that hang together represent a nontext. Despite its generic coherence, the example below is lacking both situational coherence and internal cohesion: 1. Once upon a time there was a little white mouse called Tiptoe. 2. The boys lived in a large, red -brick house with a thatched roof at the end of the longest street in town. 3. That morning, Mrs Smooks left her home in a great hurry. 4. But, too late, William realized that the car had no breaks. 5. So they ran and they ran them any more[]. Reversibly, the sentences display lexical links (cheese, dairy products, milk, calcium, vitamins), which generate a lexical chain: 1. The little white mouse sniffed the cheese carefully. 2. Camembert is a soft, French cheese. 3. The French consume a lot of dairy products. 4. Isnt milk an important source of calcium? 5. You know of course that vitamin deficiencies can lead to feelings of fatigue and listlessness. The unconnectedness of clauses in a supposed text is also accounted for by a few other factors as well, such as participants/interactants brought in the text and activities/actions recounted.

Another example given by Eggins shows how referential cohesion or reference patterns are achieved at the level of participants.

1. Michael took the book out of the glovebox and gave it to Jane. 2.It had a terrible smell about it. 3. He coughed and said: Thanks. 4.She asked if it was pretty. 5.Together they cooked. This example lacks lexical cohesion, as the lexical items used do not exhibit any closer ties: 1 book glovebox take give 2 smell terrible 3 coughed said 4 asked pretty 5 cook Referential cohesion or reference patterns, lexical links Referential cohesion or reference patterns Example Michael Jane the book it He it she they both lexical links Example 1. I had always wanted to see Paris. 2.However, you can imagine how excited I was once we got there. 3.We had to do some sightseeing. 4. And unfortunately it was cold and wet. 5. Meanwhile we went to the Louvre instead. 6. Prior to that it had fined up. 7. In addition we were exhausted by 6 o clock. Lexical links: Paris, sightseeing, the Louvre Existence of a realistic (social) purpose Eggins gives yet another example, which apparently fulfills all requirements the other examples have failed to meet. Mark offered Lisa the box of chocolates. 2. She took two out of the box. 3. Placing down one on her saucer, 4. she started eating the other. 5. These are delicious, she said. 6. Are they? he replied. 7. Then why dont you take another? he suggested. 8. I will, she replied. 9. And so she did. At the same time the example is defective in not having a (realistic) purpose.

(Participants: Simon, Diana, Stephen, George, Sue) Si: How how did- have you given blood before? Di: 36 times St: It makes me go all funny just thinking about it G: You have never done it, obviously St: Oh no Di: 1. No I do it because I had a daughter who when she was 2 days old needed blood transfusion cause she was getting sort of premature jaundice and things. 2. This was in Geneva. 3. And they rang me up on the Sat- this was Saturday night and said Youve got to come in and have your blood tested against donors. 4. And there were these wonderful Swiss men whod left their dinner you know 8 oclock at night and come in there to give blood to my daughter. 5. And I was really impressed and you know how. 6.I had to give blood to be tested to see if it was compatible with theirs. 7. And I had[]. 9. It was very exciting. 10. I stayed up all night and watched this um operation taking place. 11. And fortunately her umbilical artery hadnt closed so because I mean all the other things would have been minute! S: So tiny! Di: So they a could actually do it through the umbilical artery or whatever. 13. So I said OK, you know, be a blood doner after that. 14. but in Switzerland they give you a cognac. 15. Here they give you tea and bikkies. Texture

This extract represents a text because it has texture, which in turn is recoverable through: 1. an identifiable narrative/recount structure on the pattern Abstract(once upon a time I had a sick daughter), Orientation(it happened in Geneva), Action(I had my blood tested, the Swiss doners came and gave blood), Complicating action(they had to operate on this tiny baby), Resolution(but they could still do the operation), Evaluation(so I decided to be a blood doner), Coda(but its different in Switzerland. 2. situational coherence 3. cohesion accomplished through: participants, same lexical items that form lexical links, semantic links or reference ties, logical relations expressed through adequate conjunctions 4. the text has been assigned an entertaining function, suggested and indicated by the participants conventionalized remaining silent and listening to the speaker until the Coda is reached, which signals the end of the recount. At the end of the argumentation, Eggins admits that text is not a black-and-white category, but rather a hardly definable one. In this respect she suggests a continuum of textness along which any stretch of language/text/discourse to be examined should be positioned. text +texture COHESION Types of COHESION IN TEXTS Sentences hang together= cohesive Types of cohesion Semantic cohesion: ties Lexical cohesion: lexical ties- chains = semantically related words that run through the text (skin, soap, cleansing lotion, cleanser, water, aftercleansing astringent) + synonyms (fresher, cleaner) + antonyms (dirt- clean, under control-out of control) + substitution by one/ones COHESION Types of COHESION IN TEXTS Grammatical cohesion: Reference: In the text Outside the text Take it from us. Use Johnsons Clean and Clear as a one-step cleanser.. (reference to Johnsons) It actually tingles on your skin to tell you its working (refers to the reader) The technical name for language that makes direct connection to the material world= deixis (adjective: deictic) Substitution of clause elements, substitution-by-zero Substitution: And whats even better, it does this without drying. (removes more of the dirt, oil, and make-up that can lead up to spots) so and not- substitute for whole clauses, as in: Will it rain?- I Think so. (I think it will rain) Will it rain?- I Think not. Substitution can operate at the level of individual words as well: one/ones- stand for nouns or noun phrases So- clause substitution: Is it important that a gin comes from London? The ones that dont, seem to nontext -texture

think so. (The gins that dont come from London seem to thin that it s im portant that a gin comes from London.) Substitution-by-zero= ellipsis (leaving out elements that can be retrieved from elsewhere) It actually tingles your skin to tell you its working. Not that it needs to. (the reader is supposed to fill in the blank) Linkers (conjuncts) Comparatives: And whats even better..(presupposes a previous mention-direct or indirect) Tense: consistency in the use of tense Rhetorical cohesion Question-answer Parallelism= where sentences echo one another (repetition) Its not your music. Its not your handshake. Its not your clothes. Its your watch that says most about who you are. Contrast: in literary texts (three lines contrast with the last line-subversion) ANALISING COHESION IN TEXTS Reference Reference refers to how the writer/speaker introduces participants and then keeps track of them once they are in the text. I had a daughter who needed a blood transfusion when she was 2 days old cause she was getting premature jaundice and things. Whether known or not the presence of participants in a text must be signaled by the writer/speaker. Therefore the participants in a text are either presented(introduced as new to the text) or presumed (in which case we need to presume their identity from somewhere in the text) through: the definite article: the demonstrative pronouns: that , these, those pronouns: he, she, it, they The identity of a presuming reference item may be retrievable from a number of contexts: a) the general context of culture. This is retrieved from shared context homophoric reference b) the immediate context of situation exophoric reference c) from within the text endophoric reference anaphoric reference (the referent has appeared at an earlier point) cataphoric reference (the referent will be provided subsequently) esphoric (the referent appears in the phrase immediately following the presuming referent item (within the same nominal group/noun phrase) Nominalization The use of certain nouns= nominalization Nouns that are typically used to nominalize actions and events include processes, situation, and way. Ideas can be referred to by using words like idea, theory and viewpoint. In addition, words like: explanation, criticism, proposal, suggestion etc are used to refer to what has been said or written.

Since we had come across the idea together we decided to write it together. Much of that process seems vague now, but I remember the day before we started. Lexical relations The cohesive resource of lexical relations refers to how the writer/speaker uses lexical items(nouns, verbs, adjectives , adverbs) to relate the text to its area of focus Lexical relations analysis derives from observing that there are certain expectancy relations between words. LRA is a way of systematically describing how words in a text relate to each other, how they cluster together to build up lexical sets or lexical strings LR represent an important element in creating text cohesion Lexical relations They operate between open- class items(nouns, main verbs, adverbs, and adjectives) closed-class items (prepositions, pronouns, articles, auxiliary verbs etc) There are two main kinds of lexical relations that may exist between words: 1) taxonomic relations between class/subclass, part/whole - words that are taxonomically related may be related either through classification or meronymy - classification the relationship between a superordinate term and its members, I.e. hyponyms co-hyponomy- when two(or more) lexical items are both members of the same superordinate class class/subclass subclassification contrast- two or more items encode a contrast relationship similarity- the lexical items express the same meaning similarity through: synonymy(when two words restate each other) repetition(when an item is repeated) - meronymy (=composition) is the part/whole relationship between lexical items which are: - meronyms: meronymy (whole part relationship/part- co-meronyms: co- meronymy (part-part relationship) 2) expectancy - relations between the process verb and the doer/ affected participant LOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS: Conjunctive relations Halliday(1985: 302-9): Elaboration a relation of re-statement or clarification My daughter had jaundice. I mean she was as yellow as butter. Extension - a relation of either addition or variation I have a daughter. And I have 3 sons. Enhancement ways by which one sentence can extend over the meaning of another, in terms of time, comparison, cause, condition, concession. Diana donated blood. Whereupon her daughter recovered rapidly. Enhancement relationships Comparative conjunctions: likewise, similarly, in a different way Causal conjunctions: so, then, therefore, consequently, hence

whole)

Conditional conjunctions: in that case, otherwise, under the circumstances, if not Concessive conjunctions: yet, still, though, despite this, however, even so, all the same, nevertheless Explicitly expressed relationships Implicitly expressed relationships(through the juxtaposition of sentences) Diana donated blood. She wanted to help her daughter. External logical relations- they may refer to external(real world) logical relations Internal (rhetorical) organization of events of the writer in the text Martin(1992): conjunctive relations in a text form a conjunctive reticulum LOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS: Conjunctive relations LOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS: Conjunctive relations According to Scott Thornbury there are
st

Additive: the second sentence gives details or specifies the statement in the 1 sentence, as in 3-A Adversative: the second sentence claims to solve the problem: 4-F, 5-B Causal: 1-D, 7-E Temporal: 2-G, 6-C LOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS: Theme/topic- rheme/comment Example: 1. Each part is called a gene. 2. The genes carry all the information needed to make a new plant or animal. 3. They decide its sex and also what characteristics it inherits.

The topic -becomes the launch pad of the message -is typically realized by a noun phrase(grammatical subject) The comment= the new information -the tendency to place new information at the end= end-weight Conversational structure Spoken texts display texture Patterns of lexical relationships Conjunction(conjunctive relationships) Reference Conversational structure Conversational structure= how the interactants negotiate the exchange of meanings in dialogue - it involves: - The choice of speech functions - The type of exchange structure Speech functions Speech= Sequence of moves Each move performs a speech function or a speech act Basic initiating speech functions are: Offer (as in Would you like another chocolate?) Command (Pass the chocolates, please.) Statement (I love chocolates.) Question (Which chocolates do you like best?)

Responding speech functions either support or confront the initiating SF SF are: accepting vs declining complying vs refusing to comply acknowledging vs disagreeing answering vs disavowing Would you like another chocolate? Yes, please No, thanks. Pass the chocolates, please Here you are. Get them yourself. I love chocolates. Do you? I bet you dont really Which chocolates do you like best? Dark ones. Wouldnt have a clue. Exchange structures Offer accept Decline command Comply Refuse Statement Acknowledge disagree Question Answer disclaim

Sequences of speech functions constitute negotiated exchanges The minimal exchange = two speech functions: offer- accept, question- answer several move-structures - include: preparatory moves following-up moves Some exchanges move directly to completion Others include dynamic moves: clarifications and challenges Speech acts theory Speech acts Joan Mulholland(1991) every time someone speaks three events take place: an utterance is made(a locution), a speech act of discursive power or intended influence over others occurs(with illocutionary force); and an effect on the listener is generated(perlocutionary effect) Locution: contributors: rhythm+ prosodic features(tone, pitch, loudness, pacing and pauses) related to the speakers personality and attitude illocutionary force= the combination of the denotative value of the words used use of garmmatical forms

circumstances of the act roles and status of the speaker and hearer prosodic features