168 Бортников Лингвистический анализ Обложка cdr
жүктеу/скачать 6,13 Mb. Pdf көрінісі
|
| Exercise 11.
Read the following passages from the book “Introduction to Text Linguistics” by R.-A. de Beaugrande and W. Dressler. How many parameters of textuality do the authors distinguish? Make a list of them and give examples of your own. A text will be defined as a communicative occurrence which meets seven 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. We shall outline the seven standards informally in this chapter and then devote individual chapters to them later on. The first standard will be called cohesion and concerns the ways in which the components of the surface text, i.e. the actual words we hear or see are mutually connected within a sequence. The surface components depend upon each other according to grammatical forms and conventions, such that cohesion rests upon grammatical dependencies. As linguists have often pointed out, surface sequences of English cannot be radically rearranged without causing disturbances. <...> The second standard will be called coherence and concerns the ways in which the components of the textual world, i.e., the configuration of concepts and relations which underlie the surface text, are mutually accessible and relevant. Coherence can be illustrated particularly well by a group of relations subsumed under causality. These relations concern the ways in which one situation or event affects the conditions for some other one. In a sample such as: [7] Jack fell down and broke his crown. The event of ‘falling down’ is the cause of the event of ‘breaking’, since it created the necessary conditions for the latter. <...> The third standard of textuality could then be called intentionality, concerning the text producer’s attitude that the set of occurrences should constitute a cohesive and coherent text instrumental in fulfilling the producer’s intentions, e.g. to distribute knowledge or to attain a goal specified in a plan. <...> The fourth standard of textuality would be acceptability, concerning the text receiver’s attitude that the set of occurrences should constitute a cohesive and coherent text having some use or relevance for the receiver, e.g. to acquire knowledge or provide co-operation in a plan. <...> 27 The fifth standard of textuality is called informativity and concerns the extent to which the occurrences of the presented text are expected vs. unexpected or known vs. unknown/certain. <...> Every text is at least somewhat informative: no matter how predictable form and content may be, there will always be a few variable occurrences that cannot be entirely foreseen. Particularly low informativity is likely to be disturbing, causing boredom or even rejection of the text. <...> The sixth standard of textuality can be designated situationality and concerns the factors which make a text relevant to a situation of occurrence. We saw in I.5 that one might treat the road sign [1] SLOW CHILDREN AT PLAY in different ways, but that the most probable intended use was obvious. The ease with which people can decide such an issue is due to the influence of the situation where the text is presented. In the case of sample [1], the sign is placed in a location where a certain class of receivers, namely motorists, are likely to be asked for a particular action. It is far more reasonable to assume that ‘slow’ is a request to reduce speed rather than an announcement of the children’s mental or physical deficiencies. Pedestrians can tell that the text is not relevant for themselves because their speeds would not endanger anyone. In this manner, the sense and use of the text are decided via the situation. <...> The seventh standard of textuality is to be called intertextuality and concerns the factors which make the utilization of one text dependent upon knowledge of one or more previously encountered texts. <...> Intertextuality is, in a general fashion, responsible for the evolution of text types as classes of texts with typical patterns of characteristics... Within a particular type, reliance on intertextuality may be more or less prominent. In types like parodies, critical reviews, rebuttals, or reports, the text producer must consult the prior text continually, and text receivers will usually need some familiarity with the latter. An advertisement appeared in magazines some years ago showing a petulant young man saying to someone outside the picture: [17] As long as you’re up, get me a Grant’s. A professor working on a research project cut the text out of a magazine, altered it slightly, and displayed it on his office door as: [17a] As long as you’re up, get me a Grant. 28 In the original setting, [17] was a request to be given a beverage of a particular brand. In the new setting, [17a] seems to be pointless: research grants are awarded only after extensive preparation and certainly can’t be gotten while casually walking across a room. The discrepancy is resolvable via one’s knowledge of the originally presented text and its intention, while the unexpectedness of the new version renders it informative and interesting. This interest effect offsets the lack of immediate situational relevance and the nonserious intention of the new text presenter. We have now glanced at all seven standards of textuality: cohesion, coherence, intentionality, acceptability, informativity, situationality, and intertextuality. These standards function as constitutive principles of textual communication: they define and create the form of behaviour identifiable as textual communicating, and if they are defied, that form of behaviour will break down. жүктеу/скачать 6,13 Mb. Достарыңызбен бөлісу:
|