Assignments for text analysis in terms of textlinguistic categories

3.1. The Categories of Informativity and Presupposition

1. Which type of information is the publication in question characterised by?

2. Say into how many conceptual paragraphs the factual information of the text falls. Briefly summarize each of them, making up an outline, the items of it serving as key points of each part. Which conceptual paragraph coincides with the so-called lead and what information does it provide?

3. Are there any facts of socio-historical significance relevant in terms of the category of presupposition? Comment on the background information underlying them answering the questions that follow.

4. What do you know about the main figure in the scandal reported, David Blunkett, and the author of the revelatory report, Alan Budd?

5. What do the metonymic names Whitehall, Westminster and No 10 stand for?

6. Provide some information about the British newspapers the Guardian and the Spectator mentioned in the present publication.

7. What do you know about the British politicians Tony Blair and Gordon Brown? What positions did they occupy in 2005 and in what capacity are they working now?

3.2. The Category of Cohesion

9. What words can be treated as the chief key-words holding together the logical-semantic wholeness of the news report?

10. In what way does their recurrence make for the integrity of the text? What words and word-combinations are the key-words closely associated with?

11. What word-building means contribute to the lexical cohesion of the text? Comment on the role of affixation in the lexical cohesion of the text.

12. How do means of supraphrasal cohesion, i.e. different adverbial connectors, contribute to the perception of the news report as a logico-semantic whole?

13. Comment on the role synonyms proper and contextual synonyms play in the lexical cohesion of the news report.

14. How does antonymy reinforce the lexical cohesion of the newspaper writing in question?



• Compose and write a coherent essay summing up your observations on the linguostylistic and textlinguistic peculiarities of the news report “Blunkett resigns over visa for nanny” (The Guardian Weekly, December 24 – January 6, 2004 - 2005).

Unit 4

Linguistic Gaps in English Vocabulary

Why does English have no phrase like “Bon Appétit”? Has it ever occurred to you that there is no simple way of expressing your hope that someone will enjoy what he is about to eat? If you are entertaining, and say to your guest as you put his dinner before him “I hope you like it”, then he will probably think one of two things: either that there is an element of doubt about the meal, or that there is an element of doubt about him! – that the food is perhaps unusual, and he will not be enough of a gastronomic sophisticate to appreciate it. You can be certain of one thing – he will not interpret “I hope you like it” in the same way that the Frenchman interprets “Bon appétit” – as a wish that focuses itself on the eater, and not on what is to be eaten. Those opposed to English cooking ¹⁾ will no doubt explain the lack by pointing to the quality of food in this country; it’s so bad, they will say, that no one ever really believes that it could be enjoyed. Hence, no need for a phrase that enjoins enjoyment! But surely not even English food can be as bad as all that.

Anyway, it’s not only a matter of food. Have you never felt the need for a simple, universal and socially neutral expression to use when drinking with someone? The Spaniard has his “Salud”, the German his “Prosit”, Swedes say “Skaal”, and the Frenchman, simply and sincerely “Avotre sante”. But what about the unfortunate English? For most of them, “Good health” is impossibly old-fashioned and stuffy. It may be all right for lawyers and stockbrokers, doctors and dons, or for crusty colonels ²⁾ inside the four walls of a club; but in the boozer down the Old Kent Road ³⁾ it just sounds out of place. It is true that there is a whole string of vaguely possible alternatives that range from the mildly jocular through the awkward to the phrase-book bizarre ⁴⁾; and if you listen carefully you may just hear people still saying “Here’s mud in your eye”, “Here’s the skin off your nose”, “Down the hatch” or “All the best” as they sink their pints or sip their sherries. But mostly they take refuge nowadays in “Cheerio” or its truncated version “Cheers”. And even here, for some people there is a sneaking suspicion that the term is not quite right. That it is somehow a shade too breezy, and comes most easily from someone addicted to tweeds and the phrase “Old chap” ⁵⁾.

Even when taking our leave it seems we English are victims of some strange deficiencies in our valedictory vocabulary. The standard term “Goodbye” is both too formal and too final. It may be just the job for ushering someone out of your life altogether; but most leave-takings – for better or worse – are temporary affairs. Perhaps in an attempt to escape implications of finality, many people now say “Bye bye” instead; others try to make this particularly nauseating bit of baby-talk more acceptable by shortening it to “Bye”. And in place of those many leave-takings which so easily accommodate the idea of another meeting – “Au revoir”, “Auf wiedersehen”, “Arrivederci” and so on, we have, alas, only such sad colloquialisms as “So long” and “I’ll be seeing you”.

These examples by no means exhaust the areas in which the English language doesn’t exactly help social contact. They have been called “linguistic gaps” and tend to turn up in some way or another in most languages. But according to Mr. Daniel Kane – a lecturer at the University of Chester ⁶⁾ – there seem to be more of them in English than in other languages – at least other Western European languages. At the moment Mr. Kane is seeking funds to finance a small research project into the problem. He wants first of all to question a large number of people about their feelings on the matter. “After all, I must be certain that the man in the street is aware of these gaps in the same way that I think I am”, says Mr. Kane. And then he proposes to compare English with several other languages in this respect, and “Look for possible sociological reasons” for the differences he finds.

 Explanatory Notes

¹⁾ Those opposed to English cooking – English people have always been fond of jokes about English food. There is also a widely-held belief, half-serious, half-jocular that all foreigners disapprove of English food.

²⁾ It is being suggested that the kind of people here – all of them, incidentally, identified by reference to their time-honoured professions – are likely to be among the more staid, conservative sections of the community, both socially and linguistically.

³⁾ the Old Kent Road – a famous London street, where lots of ordinary people may be found drinking in ordinary pubs.

⁴⁾ the phrase-book bizarre – a reference to the fact that books of useful phrases for foreigners have acquired a reputation for sometimes containing oddly useless bits of language.

⁵⁾ someone addicted to tweeds and the phrase “Old chap” – i.e. a rather “upper-class” member of society. Tweeds is a reference to the type of clothing associated with the popular image of “the country gentleman”; and it is being suggested here that “Old chap” is to be regarded as a similar social marker, but of a linguistic kind. There are several greetings of this form in English, in which “old” is used not in its normal sense, but as a term of friendliness. These include “old man”, “old boy”, “old girl” etc., and all carry overtones of the public school and upper middle classes, and are perhaps generally thought of as being either slightly comic, or too bluff and hearty.

⁶⁾ the University of Chester – fictitious, as is the research project.