- •Functional analysis of a text
- •2. The Model of Functional Analysis of a Text Table 1
- •3.1 Model Description: The Informative Function
- •3.2.Text to demonstrate how functions work:
- •3.3. Free interpretation and sharing stage:
- •3.4. Systematization of realia:
- •3.5. Allusions, intertextuality
- •3.6. Linguistic Information
- •3.6.1. Sound Level
- •3.6.2. Word Level
- •3. 6.3. Sentence and Text Levels
- •3.7. Preliminary Conclusion
- •4.The communicative function
- •4.1. Communicative triangle
- •4.2.1. Genre Properties: theoretical background
- •4.2. The Markers of the Communicative Function and Communicative Properties of the text from “Ulysses”
- •4.3. Chronotopal triangle
- •4.4. Chronotopal relations in the passage from “Ulysses”
- •4.5. Conclusion:
- •5. The emotive function of the text
- •5.1. Theoretic background
- •5.2. The Markers of the Emotive Function in the Passage from “Ulysses”
- •5.3. Conclusion
- •6. The aesthetic function of the text
- •6.1. Theoretical background
- •6.1.1. Subjective Essence of the Category of the Beautiful
- •6.1.2. Objective Essence of the Category of the Beautiful
- •6.2. The Contents and the Markers of the Aesthetic Function in the mfat
- •6.2.1. Integrity
- •6.2.2. Harmony:
- •6.2.3. Clarity
- •7.Conclusion
6.2.2. Harmony:
To analyse textual harmony it is necessary to shift attention to the surface level of the text, to the space between the margins, to the interrelation between the parts of this space. Actually, logical presentation of the text will be scrutinized. If we take dictionary definitions of the terms harmony and logics we can notice the correspondence of their main meanings – the interrelation between parts and the whole, a coherent whole.
V.N.Toporov, Russian semiotician, insists that high organization level subjected to the rules of cohesion is the main characteristic of the space between the margins. Thoughts, ideas, even events may be confused and chaotic, but filling in of the space could not be performed any other way but following the rules [Топоров, 1995:617]. These rules, in their turn, depend upon (1)a language requirements and (2) an author’s intention.
Usually we consider two levels of cohesion (a) surface (without intertextual and hypertextual links) and inner. We scrutinize the following markers of the surface cohesion:
grammatical means (conjunctions, sentence openings, expressed by participial, gerundial and other phrases and constructions, grammatical parallelisms);
lexical parallelisms (repetition of words);
substitution;
logical hooks (to sum it up, etc.);
punctuation marks.
When we consider inner cohesion we scrutinize the following markers:
smooth theme and rheme development that turns a new information of the previous sentence into an old one in the following sentence.
Associative development of ideas;
Semantic fields.
As the analysis of a number of texts revealed semantic fields can be regarded as constant (invariant) marker of inner cohesion while theme and rheme development or associative one can be regarded as a variable marker. Narrative texts, for instance, are generally marked by smooth theme and rheme development, while dramatic soliloquies or “stream-of- consciousness” texts are marked either by absolute associative development or by a fusion of associative and theme and rheme development.
The three interlinked semantic fields of nature, love and natural behaiviour harmonize the text under analysis. As it is both a soliloquy and a stream-of- consciousness text associative development serve as a means of inner cohesion. Thus a phrase “God of heaven” turns into the description of a paradise garden, the word heaven being the starting point of associations. After several lines the word God takes its turn (It is for them saying there is no God). These “zigzag-like” associations include theme-and-rheme development. If we consider a passage (1) It is for them saying theres no God (2) I wouldnt give a snap of my two fingers (3) for all their learning why dont they go and create something I often asked him atheists or whatever they call themselves go and wash the cobbles off themselves (4) first then they go howling for the priest and they dying and why why because theyre afraid of hell on account of their bad conscience..., we shall take the first part (1) as a theme, the next part (2) as a rheme, including another theme(3). Besides we can observe here cause-and-effect logical development (because theyre afraid of hell on account of their bad conscience). These constant fusion of the two types of cohesion is characteristic for Joyce’s “stream-of-consciousness” texts.
Turning our eyes to the markers of surface cohesion in this text we should note such cohesive means as occasional (invented by the author) punctuation marks, grammatical parallelisms that are constructed of participial phrases, repetition of separate words and their synonyms as well as conjunctions and phrases that render cause and effect relations.
On the whole the harmony of the text (taken as the space between the margins) rests upon grammatical means of expression. On the one hand, such expression seems paradoxical, on the other, inconsistency between the contents of the category of the beautiful (as the semantic basis of the Aesthetic function of the text) and grammatical means of expression only seem to be present. This conclusion goes close together with Roman Jakobson’s point that grammatical parallelisms serve as linguistic expressions of the poetic (aesthetic) function.
QUESTIONS AND ASSIGNMENTS: