Chapter two theoretical framework for the study of cohesion

2.0 Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to lay the theoretical cornerstone for what follows, by suggesting that cohesion is a central text property; and that the analysis and the description of cohesive markers in text may not be accurately acquired without reference to other surrounding text features (i.e. linguistic and non-linguistic) which singly or jointly constrain and influence the selection of cohesive features as well as their deployment in text.

After the emergence of the text-linguistic approach, many text analysts readily acknowledge that a particular property of discourse cannot be thoroughly described without attention to other properties. Van Dijk (1977c) acknowledges that textual structure is partially determined by pragmatic, referential, and non-linguistics communicative factors. Halliday and Hasan (1976) admit that although texture is produced primarily by cohesion, particular discourse genres or registers also gain their textuality through structure. Moreover, Hatim (1997a), who regards the notion of text as an ultimate linguistic unit in any activity to do with communicating in language, maintains that “there is hardly a decision taken regarding any element of language in use at whatever level of linguistic organisation, without constant reference being made to the text in which that element is embedded” (Hatim, 1997a: 4).

In order to do this, an attempt will be made first to establish what is meant by ‘text’ as defined by some linguists (Section 2.1); and secondly to review the work on text of two contemporary linguists (Sections 2.2 and 2.3). The notion “cohesion” is presented in Section 2.4. This is followed by a short review of three well-known models of cohesion (Section 2.5).

2.1 The notion ‘text’

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. Within this context, Silverstein (1984) says:

For linguistics in recent years, the sentence has been the hero for the orthodox, where functional and formal autonomy are to be celebrated.

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 is 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.

Many attempts have been made by various linguists and rhetoricians to define the notion ‘text’. These are quoted as follows:

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. (Quoted in full in Section 2.2 below)

Halliday (1985: 10) defines 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.

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 different kind of unit from a sentence. A text is made up of sentences, but there exist separate principles of text-construction, beyond the rules for making sentences.

Hatim (1984) defines text as “a stretch of linguistic material which maps on to the surface a set of mutually relevant communicative intentions”.

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.

Longacre (1979: 258) suggests:

The problem we face in trying to define text is that of defining a primitive. The text is the natural unit of language…[and further] essentially then the matter revolves into a conception of texts as being of two sorts: dialogue text and monologue text.

The preceding discussion demonstrates that there has been no consensus among scholars who have tried to define the notion ‘text’. This widely differing definition of text is mainly due to the fact that a text is a multidimensional unit and as such it 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. However, the present study identifies two general views of the concept in the current state of art; namely: Halliday and Hasan’s (1985) and (1976) work, and Beaugrande and Dressler’s (1981) work.