Theme: The notion of text. Context and its types.

Aim: - to make an introduction of the subject, its aims and principles

    - to activate students’ to brainstorm on the questions

    - to provide a summary of key items

    - to link the students experience with learning

    - to make learning two-way process

 

Activity descriptions:

I. Speaking on the subject, its aims and principles, the object of investigation

II. Introduction of the list of basic and supplementary literature

III. Presentation of the themes of lectures, seminars, tutorials, individual work

IV. Presentation of the linguistic terms, notions, and the lecture

 

Questions for brainstorming:

1) What sciences deal with a text?

2) What is the role of text in communication?

3) Why does a text become the subject of most modern sciences?

4) What is the relation of context to text?

5) What is a text?

6) How is a text treated in other related disciplines?

7) What is the difference between traditional and modern notions of text?

8) What is a text in narrow and broad understanding?

9) What is text analysis?

10) What types of text do you know?

11) What is context?

12) What types of context do you know?

 

Problems to discuss:

- Definition of a text

- External and internal functions of a text

- Context, types of context, relation to a text

- Broad and narrow meaning of text

- Traditional and modern notion of text

- Main types of a text

The list of literature:

1. Валгина Н.С. Теория текста. Учебное пособие. Москва. Логос. 2003 г.

2. Тураева З.Я. Лингвистика текста. Москва «Просвещение» 1986 г.

3. ван Дейк Т.А. Язык. Познание. Коммуникация. Прогресс. 1989 г.

4. Филиппов К.А. Лингвистика текста. Курс лекций. Санкт-петербург. 2003 г.

5. Robert de Beaugrande and Wolfgang Dressler. Introduction to Text Linguistics. Longman. 1983

6. Brian Paltridge. Discourse Analysis. London. 2010

7. Barbara Johnstone. Discourse Analysis. USA. 2002

8. Selivanova E.A. The principles of the linguistic theory of the text and communication. – K.,2002

9. Tchirova I.A., Goncharova E.A. Multidimensionality of the text: understanding and interpretation. – S-Pb., 2007

10. Panchenko N.V. & al. Text theory. - M.,2010

11. Zimnaja I.A. Lingual psychology of speech activity.-M.-Voroneg, 2001

12. Kolshansky G.V. About linguistic method of text outcome// Linguistic questions-1983-No 3-P.44-51

13. Blokh M.Y. A Course in Theoretical English Grammar. – M., 2000. – p.229-236, 261-272

14. Гальперин И.Р. Текст как объект лингвистического исследования. М., 1981

15. Лотман Ю.М. Анализ художественного текста. – Л., 1972

1) Defining a text and a context

Despite the fact that there are many publications devoted to problems of text linguistics, there does not exist an adequate definition of the text that would find satisfaction with all researchers. The difficulties that arise when trying to work out a universally acceptable definition of the text can be explained by the fact that scholars study the text in its various aspects: grammatical, stylistic, semantic, functional and so on. The text can be studied as a product (text grammar) or as a process (theory of text). The text-as-a-product approach is focused on the text cohesion, coherence, topical organization, illocutionary structure and communicative functions; the text- as-a-process perspective studies the text production, reception and interpretation. Text can be understood as an instance of (spoken or written) language use (an act of parole), a relatively self-contained unit of communication. As a ‘communicative occurrence’ it meets seven criteria of textuality (the constitutive principles of textual communication): cohesion, coherence, intentionality, acceptability, informativity, situationality and intertextuality, and three regulative principles of textual communication: efficiency, effectiveness and appropriateness(cf. de Beaugrande and Dressler 1981, Malmjaer 1991) The text is a unit of language in use. The text is a unit consists of number of sentences, combined with variety of lexical, logic, grammar links, which are able to give definite organized and directed information; it is complete unit functioning as structured-semantic unity. (by Galperin)

Texts have both internal and external functions, according to the principals of text linguistics. Part of the internal function may be referred to as cohesion. This is how the actual words in the text are connected and flow together to create meaning at a sentence level. Texts use devices such as conjunctions, ellipses, and substitution to connect words so that they flow from one sentence to the next. This helps the reader create meaning within the text.

Coherence is another internal element of text linguistics. This is how the sentences are put together as a whole to create the meaning of the entire text. In other words, while cohesion may look at the individual elements of a sentence, coherence is about how each sentence, paragraph, and the overall text are constructed so that the reader can understand it. It also looks at how the text is arranged in time.

An external function of text linguistics is intertextuality. This concept is the study of the interconnectedness of different texts. In some cases, it may be necessary to have studied one text in order to understand another. For example, in order to understand a critical article, it may be necessary to have read the text that the article is about. In this way, many different texts may be connected.

Texts may also be better understood by looking at the contexts i n which they were written. This context may be historical and may include looking at the events that were happening in the world at the time the text was written. Text linguistics may also look at the social context, which includes the social aspects of a culture at the time the text was written. Studying these contexts may help readers understand the meaning of the texts more clearly.

Context is the minimal stretch of speech necessary to determine individual meanings of the word. A full understanding of the semantic structure of any lexical item can be gained only from the study of a variety of contexts in which the word is used, i.e. from the study of the intralinguistic relations of words in the flow of speech. That is why the main types of linguistic contexts which serve to determine individual meanings of words are lexical, grammatical, the extra-linguistic or context of situation, common contextual associations or thematic groups.

In lexical contexts the main importance are the groups of lexical items combined with the polysemantic word under consideration. F: the verb to take in isolation has primarily the meaning “lay hold of with the hands, grasp, seize” when combined with the lexical group of words denoting some means of transportation (e.g. to take the tram, the bus, train) it acquires the meaning synonymous with the meaning of the verb go. This can be also proved that when we want to describe the individual meaning of a polysemantic word, we find it sufficient to use this word in combination with some members of a certain lexical group. F: handsome + man, person; size, reward, sum. The meaning “good looking” and “considerable, ample” are illustrated by the contexts. The meanings determined by lexical contexts are sometimes referred to as lexically (or phraseologically) bound meanings which implies that such meanings are to be found only in certain lexical contexts.

In grammatical contexts the grammatical structure serves to determine various individual meanings of a polysemantic word. F: one of the meanings of the verb make is “to force, to induce” is found only in the grammatical context possessing the structure to make smb do smth or in other terms this word’s meaning is “to become”. “to turn out to be” is observed in the contexts of a different structure. i.e. make followed by an adjective and a noun (to make a good wife, a good teacher). A different syntactic function of the verb, e.g. that of the predicate (to make machines, tables) excludes the possibility of the meaning “to become, turn out to be”. The lexical and grammatical contexts are also called linguistic or verbal contexts.

In extra-linguistic contexts (context of situation) the meaning of the word is determined not by the linguistic factors but by the actual speech situation in which this word is used.

In common contextual associations (the thematic groups) the meaning is based on the coocurrence of words in certain repeatedly used contexts. Words in thematic groups are joined together by common contextual associations within the framework of the sentence and reflect the interlinking of things or events. Words making up a thematic group belong to different parts of speech and do not possess any common denominator of meaning. Contextual associations formed by the speaker of a language are usually conditioned by the context of situation which necessitates the use of certain words. F: journey-train-taxi-bags-ticket; shopping – it is usual to speak of the prices, of the goods we buy, sell.

Extra-linguistic and common contextual associations are also called extra-linguistic or non-verbal contexts.

The theory of text usually presupposes the investigation of problems concerning the context. In linguistics there are a lot of types of context but we’ll speak about two: horizontal and vertical.

Under horizontal we mean the context describing the series of events, immediately changing one another in the frame of dynamically developed in time situation. For example, A boy entered the room. He came up to the window and opened it. Looking out the window, he saw a girl crossing the street. Having crossed the street the girl disappeared behind the doors of a nearby café.

Under Vertical we understand the context, which describes the situation or situations, preceding or being simultaneously with that which is given in the initial sentence of the context; the time in such context freezes or gets the regressive features, for example:

A boy entered the room. He was dressed poorly but neatly. He was thin and pale and looked very tired. It was obvious that he had not eaten for days as he was very weak. He was standing in the doorway ready to faint.

The main differential features of two studied types of contexts are semantics and tense-forms of predicates. If in the contexts of the first type the actional type of predicate prevails (to enter, to come up, to open, to look out, to cross, to disappear), than in the contexts of the second type – statal predicates (to be poorly dressed, to look pale, to be weak).

It is common for the contexts of the first type to use the predicates of the past simple and for the second type the forms of past continuous (was standing) and past perfect (had eaten) tenses to indicate the actions simultaneous with the actions indicated by the predicate in the initial sentence of context or preceding it. We may even say that tense-forms of the English forms are one of the means of cohesion.

In the real texts these contexts can be found in combined form. The combination of contexts means that the horizontal context and include the characteristics of the vertical and vice versa. The example of a horizontal context with the aspects of vertical is: A boy entered the room. He looked pale and exhausted. He came up to the window and opened it. Having had nothing to eat for days he found it difficult to move. Looking out of the window he saw a girl crossing the street. He thought that he had already seen the girl somewhere. Having crossed the street the girl disappeared behind the doors of a nearby café.

The example of the vertical context with the elements of horizontal is: A boy entered the room. He was dressed poorly but neatly. He said that three years before his parents had been killed in a car-crash and he was then adopted by a family who did not care much about him. His stepparents made him do all the work about the house and look after their own two babies. The boy had to quit school and do odd jobs earning money for his family. One day he met a friend who persuaded him to run away from his new family and was studying in the doorway of a police station asking for food and shelter.

The P hysical Context The physical context includes the actual location of the interactants

indoors or outdoors, crowded or quiet, public or private, close together or far apart, warm or

cold, bright or dark.

The Social Context The social context refers to the widely shared expectations people have about the kinds of interactions that normally should occur given different kinds of social events. Of course we realize that communication at funerals differs from that at a party; the social context of a classroom makes us expect certain forms of communication that differ from those at a soccer game. However, there is often a great deal of difficulty in understanding the soc ial contexts for communication events that involve other cultures, as the common expectations about what behaviors are preferred or prohibited may he very different.

The Interpersonal Context The interpersonal context refers to the expectations people

have about the behaviors of others as a result of differences in the relationships between

them. Communication between teachers and students, even outside the classroom

context, differs from communication between close friends. Communication among

friends differs from communication among acquaintances, coworkers, or family members.

As people get to know each other and develop shared experiences, the nature of their interpersonal relationships is altered. This change in the interpersonal context is

accompanied by alterations in the kinds of messages created and in the interpretations

made about the meanings of the messages exchanged.

Other aspects of text linguistics include studying the purpose of the text, which would include studying why the author composed the writing. This is connected to audience, another aspect of text linguistics. In order to understand the intention of the text, it is important to understand who wrote it and who it was written for.

The common feature of all presented above definitions is an attempt to single out a separate trend within linguistics, a trend that investigates speech unities and their fragments (parts, sections, units). The question whether speech unities/texts may be treated as language signs of real value equal to phonemes, morphemes, words and sentences, is solved differently in each separate case depending on the scientific position of the scholar.

Конец формы

In focusing on the TEXT itself, as an object of study, it overlaps in many ways with aspects of DISCOURSE ANALYSIS, STYLISTICS, PRAGMATICS, SOCIOLINGUISTICS and NARRATOLOGY.

1. Etymologically, text comes from a metaphorical use of the Latin verb textere 'weave', suggesting a sequence of sentences or utterances 'interwoven' structurally and semantically.

As a count noun it is commonly used in linguistics and stylistics to refer to a sequential collection of sentences or utterances which form a unity by reason of their linguistic COHESION and semantic COHERENCE. e.g. a scientific article; a recipe; poem; public lecture; etc.

However, it is possible for a text to consist of only one sentence or utterance or even one word, e.g. a notice or road-sign (Exit; Stop), which is semantically complete in itself, and pragmatically tied to a specific situation.

2. COHESION and COHERENCE referred to above are not the only features that make a text a text, although they are the most significant: The famous text linguists Beaugrande & Dressler (1981) have seven criteria of what they call textuality, the others being INTENTIONALITY (having a plan or purpose); ACCEPTABILITY (having some use for the receiver); SITUATIONALITY (relevance to the context); INFORMATIVITY (degree of NEW INFORMATION); and INTERTEXTUALITY (relations with other texts).

3. Text is not easily defined, or distinguished from discourse:

Some text linguists (e.g. Van Dijk 1972) see the relations between text and discourse in terms of deep vs. surface structure, or abstract vs. physical: Text as deep and abstract whereas discourse as surface and physical.

Some discourse analysts (e.g. Coulthard 1977) would reserve text for written language, and apply discourse to spoken communication.

Other discourse analysts usually define the word "discourse" as language beyond the sentence such as conversational exchanges or written texts.

But very common now discourse is used in a very comprehensive way for all those aspects of the SITUATION or CONTEXT of communication, not only the MESSAGE (written or spoken), but also the relations between ADDRESSERS and ADDRESSEES. In this sense, discourse would subsume the text, as comparable to the 'message'. For example, a sermon can be regarded as a discourse, involving the speaker's awareness of an audience, and containing a text, the sermon is written to be orally delivered in a specific situation or context.

4. From the same root as text, and meaning literally 'the arrangement of threads in a fabric', texture as a metaphor applied to a text involves not only unifying features, but also IDIOLECTAL features: the choices in STYLE which distinguish one text or oeuvre from another, e.g. different kinds and densities of IMAGERY and devices of RHETORIC.

Texture can thus be distinguished from textuality (although it is often not, as in Halliday & Hasan 1976), in that whereas textuality is a characteristic property of all texts, texture is a property of individual texts.

A lot of emphasis has been placed on the sentence as a self-contained unit, thus neglecting the ways a sentence may be used in connected stretches of language; hence the presentation of language as sets of sentences. Nevertheless, many examples of text linguistics demonstrate awareness of the shortcomings, and recognition of the text as an obvious tool of communication has developed.

The notion ‘text’ has helped to extend the system of linguistic levels put forward by modern linguistic theories that are based on the sentence. This extension has facilitated the understanding and explication of a number of textual issues such as cohesion and coherence and their relevance to such problems as text typology. It has also made it possible to shed better light on a number of problems that have suffered certain shortcomings in treatment when based on analyses at the sentence level. These problems include issues related to translation theory and practice, foreign language teaching, etc.

Text i s one of the main elements that play a significant role in communication. People communicating in language do not do so simply by means of individual words or fragments of sentences, but by means of texts. We speak text, we read text, we listen to text, we write text, and we even translate text. Text is the basis for any discipline such as law, religion, medicine, science, politics, etc. Each of these is manifested in its own language, i.e. it has its special terminologies. A text is above all a multidimensional unit and as such is not liable to a simple unifying definition. The sum of parameters used to define text differs from linguist to linguist so that the list of definitions could be very long. Bearing this in mind, the following selected definitions shall be considered:

We generally express our needs, feelings, etc. by using text whether orally or in writing. Cultures are transferred to other people via texts. One may agree with Neubert (1992) who says:

Texts are used as tools and, at the same time, they reveal the tool-user. They communicate something and about someone.

Werlich (1976: 23) defines text as follows:

A text is an extended structure of syntactic units [i.e. text as super-sentence] such as words, groups, and clauses and textual units that is marked by both coherence among the elements and completion…. [Whereas] A non-text consists of random sequences of linguistic units such as sentences, paragraphs, or sections in any temporal and/or spatial extension.

For Beaugrande and Dressler (1981: 63), the notion ‘text’ is defined as:

A naturally occurring manifestation of language, i.e. as a communicative language event in a context. The SURFACE TEXT is the set of expressions actually used; these expressions make some knowledge EXPLICIT, while other knowledge remains IMPLICIT, though still applied during processing.

For Halliday and Hasan (1976: 1-2), the notion ‘text’ is:

[A term] used in linguistics to refer to any passage- spoken or written, of whatever length, that does form a unified whole [….] A text is a unit of language in use. It is not a grammatical unit, like a clause or a sentence; and it is not defined by its size [….] A text is best regarded as a SEMANTIC unit; a unit not of form but of meaning.

For Kress (1985a), text is “manifestations of discourses and the meanings of discourses, and the sites of attempts to resolve particular problems”.

Fowler (1991: 59) defines text as:

A text is made up of sentences, but there exist separate principles of text-construction, beyond the rules for making sentences.

Hatim and Mason (1990) define text as “a set of mutually relevant communicative functions, structured in such a way as to achieve an overall rhetorical purpose”.

Although nearly all text linguists are in agreement that the notion ‘text’ is the natural domain of language, they vary in their views on what constitutes a text. This variance is mainly due to the fact that different linguists have observed this notion from different angles depending on the approaches adopted. This has resulted in the loose definition of the notion and left it to some extent obscure. Nevertheless, these attempts formulate the bases for such studies. Many suggestions have been put forward for the identification of the text such as looking for the properties of the proper text. However, here too, there has been disagreement.

A very comprehensive study of text is displayed in Halliday and Hasan’s (1976) treatment of features of English texts, and Halliday, in Halliday and Hasan (1985). In their work Cohesion in English, Halliday and Hasan (1976: 2; already quoted in section 2.1 above, but repeated here for convenience) define the notion ‘text’ by saying:

Text is used in linguistics to refer to any passage, spoken or written, of whatever length, that does form a unified whole […]. A text is a unit of language in use. It is not a grammatical unit, like a clause or a sentence; and it is not defined by its size. A text is sometimes envisaged to be some kind of super-sentence, a grammatical unit that is larger than a sentence but is related to a sentence in the same way that a sentence is related to a clause, a clause to a group and so on […]. A text is best regarded as a SEMANTIC unit; a unit not of form but of meaning.

Halliday and Hasan (1985: 10) define text as:

[A] language that is functional. […] Language that is doing some job in some context, as opposed to isolated words or sentences […]. So any instance of living language that is playing some part in a context of situation, we shall call it a text. It may be either spoken or written, or indeed in any other medium of expression that we like to think of.