Studies in Text

and Discourse
Studies in Text
and Discourse
By

Azad Mammadov
Studies in Text and Discourse

By Azad Mammadov

This book first published 2018

Cambridge Scholars Publishing

Lady Stephenson Library, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2PA, UK

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Copyright © 2018 by Azad Mammadov

All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without
the prior permission of the copyright owner.

ISBN (10): 1-5275-0405-0

ISBN (13): 978-1-5275-0405-9
 To my beloved parents
Yahya Mammadov and Julyetta Mammadova
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface ........................................................................................................ ix

Unit I............................................................................................................ 1
Text and Discourse in the Context of Linguistic Studies
Learning Goals and Outcome ................................................................ 1
Content and Themes .............................................................................. 1
1.1. History ....................................................................................... 1
1.2. From sentence grammar to text grammar ................................. 6
1.3. Text and its definitions (structural and communicative) ......... 11
Image and Text Materials .................................................................... 21
Summary .............................................................................................. 27
Study Progress Questions .................................................................... 28

Unit II ........................................................................................................ 31
From Text Linguistics to Discourse Analysis
Learning Goals and Outcome .............................................................. 31
Content and Themes ............................................................................ 31
2.1. Text pragmatics ....................................................................... 31
2.2. Discourse and its structures .................................................... 38
Image and Text Materials .................................................................... 46
Summary .............................................................................................. 55
Study Progress Questions .................................................................... 56

Unit III ....................................................................................................... 57

Discourse and Society
Learning Goals and Outcome .............................................................. 57
Content and Themes ............................................................................ 57
3.1. Types and genres of discourse................................................. 57
3.2. Sociocognitive approach ......................................................... 64
Image and Text Materials .................................................................... 68
Summary .............................................................................................. 77
Study Progress Questions .................................................................... 78
viii Table of Contents

Unit IV....................................................................................................... 79
Discourse and Representations
Learning Goals and Outcome .............................................................. 79
Content and Themes ............................................................................ 80
4.1. Linguistic representations of concepts .................................... 80
4.2. Metaphoric representations of concepts.................................. 87
Image and Text Materials .................................................................... 91
Summary .............................................................................................. 97
Study Progress Questions .................................................................... 98

References ............................................................................................... 107

Appendix (Tests) ..................................................................................... 115

Author Index............................................................................................ 131

Subject Index ........................................................................................... 133

 PREFACE

The main goal of this textbook is to introduce to MA students of

linguistics and English language teacher education programmes the
foundations and advanced topics in the studies of text and discourse and
shed light on their role in verbal communication. Such a general issue in
text and discourse studies as the approach to this unique social interaction
from the perspectives of pragmatics and cognition is also in focus, as the
textbook plans to provide knowledge about contemporary text and
discourse theories.
Despite the numerous textbooks in this field, I have decided to revisit
this topic due to the recent researches in discourse that have reshaped our
understanding of its role not only in linguistics but also in humanities and
social sciences. There is a general consensus that the study of text and
discourse at universities (graduate programmes) is a matter of necessity
rather than prestige in most countries of the world due to the growing
demand in the studies of verbal communication in general. This is why it
is very hard to identify any specific university, country, or region that this
textbook will most appeal to.
There are some popular textbooks (Brown and Yule 1998; Johnstone
2007; Coulthard 2007; Widdowson 2007) that cover a broad range of
issues in the studies of text and discourse. The difference with my
textbook is that it provides a more introductory tool by offering a
theoretical framework and hands-on practical experience. The demand for
this has come mainly from those for whom a conscious awareness of
language is an integral part of being university students, lecturers, and
researchers, upon whom the influence of the studies of text and discourse
has also been making itself increasingly felt in linguistics in recent years.
x Preface

Since linguistics treats language as a social and psychological

phenomenon, and, in general terms, not merely as a means of
communication but also as a symbol of cultural identity, the theoretical
and practical aspects of the study of language gain momentum. It’s clear
that one can’t be a specialist or have language proficiency and a
competence to teach modern language without in-depth linguistic
knowledge. So, in order to educate future linguists in general and teachers
of TEFL in particular, a comprehensive teaching of different branches of
linguistics, including text and discourse studies, becomes a serious
challenge.
It should be taken into consideration that linguistics has a long and
contradictory tradition in the interpretation of text and discourse. For a
certain period of time, the term “discourse” was used in English-speaking
linguistics (Halliday and Hasan 1976; Warner 1980), whereas “text” was
preferred in the German-speaking and other continental linguistic
traditions (Dressler 1970; Galperin 1981). This period was characterized
by the intense use of both terms in order to identify the unit of grammar
beyond sentence. The provisions of its identification as discourse and text
were also given in the relevant researches, among which one is the most
important: text or discourse should be a formally and semantically
connected whole. The semantic connectedness is necessary for the use of
text in the process of human interaction, i.e. to realize certain pragmatic
intentions in the text. On the other hand, text can exist in isolation from the
outside world, and ancient written monuments are good examples of that.
But, of course, this is a rare case. Text should contain a pragmatic effect
and be socially motivated. Such an approach has been the leading one
since the 1980s, and introduced a new stage in the relationship between
text and discourse. In this regard, we are interested in the linguistic (De
Beaugrande and Dressler 1980), sociolinguistic (Fairclough 1995), and
sociocognitive (van Dijk 2008) approaches to text and discourse studies.
These issues have been extensively under focus for the last three decades.
 Studies in Text and Discourse xi

The structure of this book is therefore designed to meet this challenge.

It is divided into four units. The first unit offers basic knowledge about the
key theoretical issues and concepts in the studies of text and discourse. It
covers the history of the topic and major approaches to text as a linguistic
phenomenon. The second concentrates on the transition process from text
linguistics to discourse analysis, highlighting the issues related to the
pragmatics of text and discourse. The third outlines the main concepts in
the study of discourse from the perspectives of its role in society, focusing
attention on the sociolinguistic (including the issue of type and genre
classification) and sociocognitive approaches to discourse studies. Finally,
the fourth unit discusses the ways that discourse helps to reveal various
linguistic and metaphoric representations across languages and genres.
Each unit also contains sections that include learning goals and
expectations, visual aid and data for analysis, and some questions for
further study. The list of references, the author and subject indices, and
multiple choice tests are at the end of the textbook.
In preparing the book, I have tried to present a brief survey of most of
these issues and problems in a reader-friendly manner. It is therefore
designed as a kind of reference work for those students and researchers
who are interested in this topic. The demand has come mainly from those
for whom a conscious awareness of language is an integral part of the
exercise of the profession, and upon whom the influence of the studies of
text and discourse has been making itself increasingly felt in recent years.
This characterization includes two main groups: the range of linguistics
and the range of teaching of English as a foreign language (TEFL).
This textbook underlines the significance and application of the study
of text and discourse with a view to shaping student’s perceptions and
understanding of the sociological, political, economic, and cultural
contexts during verbal communication. Thus, it will enable students to
understand better the nature of verbal communication and how text and
discourse studies can help learners to become effective communicators
through understanding their role in social life.
xii Preface

This textbook is expected to help students to develop their skills in

using theoretical literature to analyse and comment on linguistic theories
and hypotheses, to apply theoretical knowledge to practical activities, to
analyse empirical material using appropriate linguistic methods, as well as
to promote their creative and critical thinking.
I hope to expand it for a second edition, and I would welcome
suggestions, recommendations, and critical comments and views on its
improvement.

Azad Mammadov
Azerbaijan University of Languages, Baku
August 2017
 UNIT I

TEXT AND DISCOURSE IN THE CONTEXT

OF LINGUISTIC STUDIES

Learning Goals and Outcome

This unit aims to introduce to students the foundations and advanced

topics in the history of text and discourse studies, which have come to play
an important role in linguistics, partly because they represent intrinsic
subject matter and partly because they are a response to the limitations and
over-idealizations dominating other linguistic theories.
The unit will enable students to demonstrate knowledge in the
scientific developments of text and discourse studies and contemporary
text grammar theories and their links to other fields in text linguistics, and
to critically interpret the text under analysis in terms of functional style,
lexical and grammatical peculiarities, and sentence structures using
subject-related concepts.

Content and Themes

1.1. History
In the late twentieth century, numerous studies were conducted by Michel
Foucault, Michael Halliday, Teun A. van Dijk, Robert de Beaugrande,
Ernesto Laclau, Chantal Mouffe, Wallace Chafe, Norman Fairclough, and
other researchers on text and discourse, their nature and relations to the
individual, knowledge, and society, and their social, semiotic, pragmatic,
and cognitive aspects. In fact, by considering discourse as an object of
2 Unit I

study, those philosophers, semioticians, linguists, and sociologists fulfilled

a very important mission: they managed to secure the future development
of certain crucial aspects of each of these disciplines, sometimes even
leading to their survival, and ultimately laying out the foundation of two
new disciplines (discourse analysis and critical discourse analysis or
critical discourse studies). It should be noted that there is a terminological
difference between critical discourse analysis and critical discourse
studies, as is highlighted by van Dijk (2016, 63):

This chapter introduces the sociocognitive approach in Critical Discourse

Studies (CDS) more traditionally called critical discourse analysis (CDA).
I avoid the term CDA because it suggests that it is a method of discourse
analysis, and not a critical perspective or attitude in the field of discourse
studies (DS) using many different methods of humanities and social
sciences.

We can divide the history of the views and studies on text and
discourse into two formal periods: the first period starts with the
introduction of the langue vs. parole dichotomy by De Saussure (2000,
141) and ends with the views of Foucault on the relationship between
knowledge and discourse (Foucault, 1972); the second period, starting
with Foucault, is still underway. The first period is characterized by
researches of the French-speaking followers of De Saussure, as well as
works in the English-speaking linguistic tradition (Harris 1952). In
general, “discourse” and “parole” were used in the French-speaking
structuralist tradition (Benveniste 1954, Barthes 1970, etc.) to identify
speech.
Meanwhile, the approach to discourse in the English-speaking tradition
was quite different, as “discourse” was mostly used along with “text” to
identify a stretch of language larger than a sentence (Harris 1952). This
trend in the English-speaking linguistic tradition lasted until the late 1980s
and early 1990s.
 Text and Discourse in the Context of Linguistic Studies 3

Despite the differences in views regarding the role and importance of

text in discourse studies, not only linguists but also some philosophers and
psychologists consider text (from semiotic perspectives) as an important
element of discourse. (Barthes 1970). In text linguistics, a certain element
of confusion was clarified by Enkvist (1989, 372): “discourse means text +
context, where context contains a situational component.”
Thus, we can come to such simplistic conclusion that there is no
discourse without text and context. Despite the obvious difficulties in
identifying a clear difference between text and discourse (it sometimes
causes the synthesis of text linguistics and the grammar of text with
discourse analysis), the abovementioned definition helps to understand the
difference. Text is a final product or final result, whereas discourse is a
process of text construction. As we can see, text can be studied as the real
product of certain activity, while discourse is more complex. If we want to
study it we have to reveal the idea and intention of the sender, that is to
say it is necessary to define presuppositions hidden behind the explicit
linguistic form.
This trend of the treatment of text and discourse as two different
phenomena has thus gained momentum in text linguistics and discourse
studies. Any discourse implies the existence of text (linguistic or
belonging to different semiotic systems), whereas not all texts (for
example, ancient texts) can be treated as discourse.
The abovementioned issue of the terminological differences between
text and discourse caused the emergence of another serious problem that
requires an explicit answer to the following question: what is the
difference between text linguistics and discourse analysis?
Even within the brief history of text linguistics we can be wary of
simplistic definitions of successful textual functions or textual well-
formedness. Where some early studies in text linguistics (Dressler 1970)
set up discrete binary distinctions between well-formed and ill-formed
texts taking over one of the most crucial issues in generative linguistics
(Chomsky 1957), which was the dominating school of linguistics in this
4 Unit I

period, many linguists later tried to discuss text in a more pluralistic frame.
First of all, linguists have made attempts to define the place of text in the
syntactic system. Sentence was considered as the basic element of text
within functional sentence perspective studies (Halliday 1967). Meanwhile,
it also deals with text strategies in terms of the distribution of information
and the role of each text component being evaluated for its semantic
contribution to the whole text. The notion of “communicative dynamism”
has been introduced as an attempt to classify the different levels of
contribution within a text, particularly with reference to theme and rheme.
Halliday’s main principle includes the full supremacy of text over sentence
during the analysis of the properties of language as well as its use. He even
distinguishes the textual function of language among its metafunctions,
which implies the sender’s (speaker or writer) ability to construct a text.
In fact, when we use language to link other stretches of language or
help our ideas “come together,” we perform the textual function. Halliday
emphasizes that the “functional sentence perspective” plays a major role in
the actualization of the textual functions of language and is key in the
construction of a sentence as an instrument to convey information.
The dominance of the sender’s role in the functional sentence
perspective conditions its definition as the linguistic device for the
organization of a text (Halliday 1971). Enkvist suggests making a
terminological distinction between text linguistics and inter-phrasal
linguistics (although he admits some coincidence in this regard) (Enkvist
1973, 111). He characterizes the first one as the field of study dealing with
texts and the second as the field of study dealing with those properties of a
sentence requiring a reference beyond the sentence. Such an approach to
the grammar of the supra-phrase units has brought about a common
understanding that traditional grammar should go beyond sentence and
cover the issues related to the connecting or linking sentences within text.
As the categories of text cover the issues beyond clause and sentence,
the structure of text, text connexity, the functional perspective of text, the
distribution of information in text, and the pragmatics of text emerged as
 Text and Discourse in the Context of Linguistic Studies 5

the most important issues for exploration in the 1970s and 1980s. In this
period, the researchers focused mainly on the approach that considered
text as the product of speech. Under this approach, the term “text” was
used in two ways: (1) to identify a stretch of language consisting of one or
more sentences reflecting the sender’s intention; (2) to identify a story, a
novel, an article, or a similar product of speech. But the common view was
that text is a specific structure of connected meaningful and internally
organized units. There are linguistic and logical factors ensuring the
internal and external wholeness of text. Lexical repetitions, formal
grammatical elements (conjunctions, particles, articles, pronouns, etc.),
and the development of ideas (theme, rheme) are among the most
important linguistic factors.
Traditionally, text is considered in two ways: propositionally and
communicatively. The first approach is based on the view that any
(written) text minimally consists of two sentences, linked through different
explicit devices. It implies the application of those features that have
already been defined for sentence analysis (the name of the approach
originating from that) to the study of text. Of course, such an exploration
might have positive results. In order to ensure the solid linguistic status of
text, as well as focus on the linguistic nature of many textual issues, text
requires a sentence-based approach. The second approach is functional,
which implies the study of a text as well as the distinction of its immanent
features without using the homogenous syntactic structures. Such an
approach conditions strict differentiation of the specific features of text as
a whole. According to the second approach, a sender constitutes a
communicative unit of some specific and definable type in the process of
communication.
These two research aspects might be considered as two approaches that
complement each other. They are included in the research of the invariant
text type or textema in terms of finding out the common rules of text
organization, as well as of the “actualization” of textema, that is to say the
focus of the studies was on the identification of a stretch of speech as text
6 Unit I

of different types: literary, media, or scientific. Concurrently, there were

discussions about the principles and criteria used to define text and the
possibilities to distinguish models and types of text.
When we consider the linguistic units from the communicative angle,
the pragmatic and cognitive factors dominate other factors. It is due to the
simple fact that language as a whole and all its elements fulfil an important
social task to ensure communication among the members of social groups
by the exchange of information through the conventional signs.
In modern functionalism, it has come to be applied to the study of
language from the point of view of the participants of the communication
process, especially in the choices they make, the constraints they
encounter in using language in social interaction, and the mutual effects
the participants have during communication. The field focuses on an area
between pragmatics, semantics, sociolinguistics, and extra-linguistic
context, including the aspects of text linguistics and discourse analysis.
All these issues have been under focus for the last two decades within
discourse analysis (Coulthard 2007; Widdowson 2007), critical discourse
analysis (Fairclough 1995; Teubert 2010), and the sociocognitive approach
to discourse (van Dijk 2008; 2009; 2014). Hence, discourse as an object of
intertextual study represents a special interest to linguists, philosophers,
sociologists, psychologists, and other researchers in humanities and the
social sciences.

1.2. From sentence grammar to text grammar

Structural analysis, as one type of the descriptive approach, has
traditionally been used to study the linguistic units in a hierarchy (Harris
1951). This analysis has made a great contribution at all levels, including
that of syntax. According to Enkvist, “Syntax is by nature hierarchic. In
sentence we cannot say or write two things at the same time. The
sentences have to be presented one after the other, in linear order.
Therefore the problem is how to signal hierarchies through linear
presentation” (Enkvist 1989, 370). One such attempt was made by the
 Text and Discourse in the Context of Linguistic Studies 7

representatives of the Prague School of Linguistics (Vachek 1970, Firbas

1972). The Praguean influence has been widespread and long-lasting. Its
main emphasis lay on the analysis of language as a system of functionally
related units. The notion “unit” recalls in some way the Saussurean
influence (De Saussure 2000). In particular, it led to the distinction
between the phonetic and phonological analysis of sounds, the analysis of
the phoneme as having distinctive features, and the theme-rheme or
communicative structure of the sentence.
There has been much work on the theme-rheme or communicative
structure of the sentence. Here one major point is that this phenomenon
directly indicates that languages are designed not just as abstract systems,
but as tools for human communication, a point of view underlined in the
functional approaches to language structure. This notion has led to a new
stage in the Prague School studies with reference to the stylistics,
semantics, and pragmatics of the English and Slavic languages. The most
important issue here is the formulation of a theory of the functional
sentence perspective, which considers sentence analysis as a complex of
functionally contrastive constituents. It also deals with text strategies in
terms of the distribution of information in it and of the role of each text
component being evaluated for its semantic contribution to the whole text.
The notion of “communicative dynamism” was introduced as an attempt to
classify the different levels of contribution within a text, particularly with
reference to theme and rheme.
The functional sentence perspective examines the arrangement of the
elements of a sentence in the light of its linguistic and extra-linguistic
(situational, social, and cultural) contexts. What is known, or may be
inferred, or is the starting point of a communication (the communicative
basis), is to be regarded as the theme of a clause. The theme is used in
linguistics as part of an analysis of the communicative structure of a
sentence. It refers, not to the subject matter of a sentence, but to the way
the sender identifies the relative importance of their subject matter, and is
defined as the first major constituent of a clause. The elements that convey
8 Unit I

the new or important piece of information (the communicative nucleus)

constitute the rheme.
In the Prague School approach to linguistics, the rheme is
distinguished from the theme. The rheme is defined as the part of a
sentence that adds most to the advancing process of communication (it has
the highest degree of communicative dynamism). It expresses the largest
amount of extra meaning in addition to what has already been
communicated. But the theme carries the lowest degree of communicative
dynamism. As we can see, the theme is opposed to the rheme.
The elements that belong to neither theme nor rheme in a clause are
transitional. In general, the thematic elements are communicatively less
dynamic, and therefore carry a smaller amount of communicative
dynamism than the rhematic elements.
As alternative terms, new and old or given information, topic and
comments, focus and presupposition, as well as background and
foreground are also used (Givon 1990; Tomlin 1995). Prague School
linguists identify sentences as being ordered on the basis of theme and
rheme, but do not distinguish theme from given (old) or new information.
The further analysis of the communicative structure is complex and
controversial: a common next step is to distinguish between old (given)
and new information. Researchers who use this approach usually
distinguish between information structure and grammatical structure
(Halliday 1967; Chafe 1971). Of course, this varies from language to
language. For example, in the English sentence one normally proceeds
from the known to the unknown: one begins with the rheme and therefore
the new elements with the highest degree of communicative dynamism
come last in a sentence. Chafe wrote about this phenomenon, emphasizing
the communicative role of the predicate in sentences like “Box is empty.”
Here, “box” is regarded as the theme and “empty” is the rheme (Chafe
1971, 275).
This was developed with a new approach in systemic functional
linguistics (SFG) through the contrast of new and old or given, and theme
 Text and Discourse in the Context of Linguistic Studies 9

and rheme. Bloor and Bloor suggest that there are in fact two structures
that operate at the level of the clause that should be clearly differentiated
(Bloor and Bloor 2004, 65):

In SFG, we recognize two parallel and interrelated systems of analysis that

concern the structure of the clause with regard to organizing the message.
The first of these is called information structure and involves constituents
that are labeled Given and New. The second is called thematic structure
and involves constituents that are labeled Theme and Rheme.

Bloor and Bloor also differentiated between spoken and written

language (2004, 79–80):

In spoken English, we can use special emphasis and intonation to indicate

that we are presenting New information in the Theme position instead of
the more normal Rheme position. We can make a contrast, for example,
between The kettle’s boiling, which has New at the end, and The kettle’s
boiling (not the milk) which has New in the initial position.

In written English prose, however, it is more difficult to vary the

relationship of Theme and Rheme to Given and New respectively.

Every language has not only various phonetic (prosodic), but also
grammatical, lexical, stylistic, and punctuation (italics or inverted
commas) devices for highlighting new and important information. The
structure we impose during the process of communication is something
that is built into the grammar of the language and happens at the level of
the clause and the sentence. All clauses and sentences have structures, and
we make use of these in spoken as well as written language.
The rheme in English is often signalled by the indefinite article,
particles, time adverbs, determiners, and words like “one” or “some.” The
theme is signalled by the definite article, personal and demonstrative
pronouns, and a determiner. Another important signal of the rheme in
English is word order. As word order is relatively fixed, for example, in
English it can stylistically distinguish rheme, thus imposing pragmatic
10 Unit I

communicative dynamism. In fact, every language has various

grammatical devices for certain communicative strategies. Thus, the theme
and the rheme can be marked in a sentence by particles, definite and
indefinite articles, personal and demonstrative pronouns, time adverbs, and
word order. The use of all these grammatical elements and phenomena is
motivated by the pragmatic intentions of a sender.
Various particles can indicate the importance of any part of a sentence,
thus imposing communicative dynamism (Konig 1991). The rheme is
mentioned by only and also stressing additional communicative value in
these sentences (see examples 1 and 2). When the sender forms a sentence,
they think about what kind of information to supply first and how to do it.
Chafe (1971) suggests that for a normal English sentence theme comes
first, but if new or important information should be focused on then the
abovementioned rheme signals are commonly used.
The indefinite article helps to identify an object or an event as a new
one with a high degree of functional contribution (see example 3). The
same role is played by the indefinite determiner some (see example 4). The
element one has a similar function (see example 5). Some linguists (Quirk
et al. 1985) believe that time adverbs like now also deliver new
information in a sentence (see example 6), which is shown more clearly in
advertisements (see example 7). As we csn see, the time adverb now helps
the receiver to focus attention on the fact of introducing a new stage in the
flow of thought.
Another important linguistic device to mark something new or
important is the word order in a sentence. Traditionally, it is believed that
every language has its own mental and unmarked word order, and many
linguists have written about specific word order for every language
(Greenberg 1963; Mithun 1992). It is a well-known fact that the subject-
verb-complement order in an English sentence is relatively fixed or strict.
However, the Prague School tradition insists on the pragmatic motivation
of word order, which can easily be changed in Slavic languages like
Russian by the sender’s intention. In other words, the normal theme-rheme
 Text and Discourse in the Context of Linguistic Studies 11

or subject-verb-complement structure is only a basis for possible

communicative changes. It is also the case for the English sentence, where
the last word of the sentence is the rheme’s natural position and therefore
the communicative dynamism lies on it (see example 8).
Any unusual change in word order has a pragmatic effect and signals
that emphasis has been switched to another part of the sentence. In the
normal theme-rheme or subject-verb-complement sentence, the
communicative dynamism will be on the complement or the last word (see
example 9).
If, however, any component of a sentence is “abnormally” put at the
head of a sentence, that component will carry a heavy communicative
dynamism as part of the rheme, engulfing the theme (see examples 10 and
11). The way in which elements within a sentence are ordered can give
weighting to one or more aspects and reduce, or remove, others (e.g. “for
the past fifty years” and “came the boldest move”).
It should be stressed that particles, articles, adverbs, inversions, and
other abovementioned grammatical elements and phenomena not only
mark something important or may even be considered as deviations, but
also fulfil the task of the text connexity markers (Weinrich 1971;
Klammer, Schulz, and Volpe 2007).
The aspects of syntax that were discussed in some detail here related to
relationships that exist between elements in a clause. The relationship
between elements has a fundamental role in a sentence and, in fact, creates
communicative dynamism. The communicative dynamism indicates the
importance of correctly preserving emphasis in a sentence. There is always
at least an argument for retaining a theme-rheme or rheme-theme order
through sacrificing syntax and even lexis. In general terms, syntax is an
important factor in the way text creates meaning.

1.3. Text and its definitions (structural and communicative)

A number of linguists have attempted to define the place of text in the
syntactic system. Danes (1966) distinguished the level of text as being
12 Unit I

separate within syntax (alongside phrases and sentences). Halliday’s main

principle includes the full supremacy of text over sentence during the
analysis of the properties of language as well as its use. He even
distinguishes the textual function of language among its metafunctions,
which implies the speaker’s or writer’s ability to organize a text. In fact,
when we use language to link other stretches of language or help our ideas
“come together,” we perform the textual function. Halliday emphasized
that the “functional sentence perspective” plays a major role in the
actualization of the textual functions of language and is key in the
construction of the sentence as an instrument to convey information. The
dominance of the sender’s role in the functional sentence perspective
conditions its definition as the linguistic device for text construction
(Halliday 1971). Enkvist (1973, 111) suggested making a terminological
distinction between text linguistics and inter-phrasal linguistics (although
he admits some coincidence in this regard). He characterized the first as
the science dealing with texts and the second as the science dealing with
those properties of the sentence requiring a reference beyond the sentence.
Such an approach to the grammar of the supra-phrase units has made it
apparent that the traditional grammar should go beyond the sentence and
cover the issues related to the linking sentences within text.
However, as texts consist of sentences, their units and structures can be
used to construct texts. For example, Enkvist writes that “the information
structure (theme-rheme or topic-comment structure) of the clause and
sentence are exponents of text strategies governing text connexity” (1989,
379). In sentence grammar, the structure of the sentence is demonstrated in
analysing the parts of a so-called declarative sentence. Grammarians
traditionally analyse it in this way because this type of sentence is
employed for making statements in discourse and it exceeds the other
types (interrogative, exclamatory, imperative) in frequency of use.
In the event of our recognition of the declarative sentence as a normal
and typical sentence, or, in other words, as an invariant or neutral type,
then we may assume that an invariant or neutral type of text can also be
 Text and Discourse in the Context of Linguistic Studies 13

found in the area of statements. And if we accept that frequency as a

criterion, we can find typical texts in media, fiction, everyday
conversations, etc. Moreover, there is another issue regarding the
difference between planned vs. unplanned texts that correlates with the
difference between written and spoken texts. Therefore, another important
issue that has traditionally caused discussions was whether text can be
written or spoken, given the fact that the prosodic elements are usually
considered as the integral parts of text. From this perspective, the
definition of text given by Halliday and Hasan is quite interesting (1976,
56): “The word text is used in linguistics to refer to any passage, spoken or
written, of whatever length, that does form a unified whole.”
Rudolph has a similar approach (1989, 53):

a written or spoken utterance or a sequence of utterances for which the

following formal characteristics can be formulated. In written language, a
text is constituted as a whole by optical means such as a heading, a new
page or free space separating it from other texts. In spoken language a text
is to be found between pauses or between utterances performed by other
persons.

It is clear that if we approach a literary work or newspaper as a text or

its fragment then the prosodic elements can’t function as the integral parts
of text structure. The consideration of the issues related to prosody focuses
attention on the manifestation of a code and the organization of text.
Under such view, spoken or written texts become the variants of that
manifestation and text is considered as the fragment of speech activity.
We also have to note that the study of the prosodic factors in text
linguistics as the distinctive elements of text can be explained by the
attempts to apply structural-semantic analysis to the study of syntactic
relations. This is very obvious in the studies of the theme-rheme structure
of text. Both sentence and text can vary depending on intonation. The
theme-rheme alternation of accents changes not only the proportion
between the integral parts of the semantics of text but also the integral
14 Unit I

parts themselves. It is clear that this important factor can be actualized

only in spoken text. As a device of text construction, prosody became
important when the communicative perspectives gained momentum in the
studies of text.
Thus, a growing number of linguists have started to consider text
boundaries as being quite variable, extending from one utterance up to
works of several volumes. The analysis of the investigations in this aspect
suggests that the approaches to the nature of the structural criterion of text
are quite disputable. On the other hand, text is regarded as the unit beyond
or above sentence and rather different in its features, while on the other
hand the structure of text is defined as a whole of the connected sentences.
If text is considered as a unit with a specific structure, then, first of all,
its nature and difference from the structure of sentence should be
distinguished. Otherwise, we will have not a real text but a flow of connected
speech through various formal linguistic devices. It is obvious that each
linguistic category has its own sphere of use. The definition of the units of the
linguistic categories belonging to the “lower level” of the hierarchy is rather
simpler than the definition of the “upper level” units of the hierarchy.
But what is the structural criterion for defining text? Some researchers
indicate the linear nature of a text, defining it as a linear sequence of
linked sentences via various connectors in line with certain rules
(Weinrich 1971; Halliday and Hasan 1976). Cohesion, which is regarded
as a formal means of unity of text, is manifested thanks to a number of
factors. In fact, each level of the structure of language makes a
contribution to the cohesion in text. From this perspective, the definition
of text given by Weinrich is quite interesting (1971, 225): “Text as the
ordered succession of minimum two and maximum infinite morphemes is
the constant alternation of lexical and functional morphemes.”
It is necessary to identify two common sets of connections: one is the
connection of a linear sequence between the components of text, and the
second is the connection of multiple references between the components of
text, i.e. the existence of explicit or implicit repetitions within the structure
 Text and Discourse in the Context of Linguistic Studies 15

of text. Other linguists stress that text seems to be a linear sequence only
covertly, but is actually a multidimensional phenomenon (Enkvist 1989).
They believed that the definition of text as a sequence of linked sentences
is not sufficient. Despite mentioning all relevant features of the text
structure during the description of the various links between the fragments
of text, some necessary prerequisites for defining a string of sentences as a
meaningful sequence or text are not clear. Such a demand for a
comprehensive study neglects views about the linear nature of text and
concludes that a text is a very complex multidimensional whole composed
of mutually connected factors and elements.
The studies show that text includes some fragments with a range of
structural features. In fact, the study of the sentence based on its parts can
be formally applied to text analysis as well. However, we can’t define the
functional-stylistic and compositional features of text or its stylistic and
pragmatic settings by analysing a single sentence because its structure and
its features do not reveal the specifics of a text in various functional styles
as well as the strategies of the uses of various linguistic devices within a
text. Despite these difficulties with defining text (such as one word, one
sentence, two sentences, or a big novel), there is a general understanding
that the most important issue is whether it communicates or not regardless
of its size.
The basic structure of an invariant text is simple. It is composed of
three sections: beginning or introduction, main part, and the end. This is
similar to school or university devices for essay writing or other academic
writing. These three parts in written texts are normally planned and
elaborated in detail, while they are also typical for unplanned spontaneous
texts.
The following scheme of the structure of text is widely accepted:

(1) Theme
(2) Main part
(3) Conclusion
16 Unit I

The theme is usually given in the first sentence of the text, if it is not
mentioned in a headline. It may be followed by some arguments or
descriptions varying it or showing the general context.
The main part is the elaboration of the theme and this can have a
number of subdivisions. The only factor that ensures their coexistence is
the theme.
The conclusion does not necessarily offer results but merely has to
make clear that the end is near.
The following article from The Guardian clearly illustrates this classic
structure (see example 12). The author constructed this newspaper text
based on the abovementioned structure. The headline “Why vaping is a
disaster for smokers?” ideally reflects the theme vaping and e-cigarettes,
which is introduced in the first sentence and then developed in the main
body of the text. The concluding remarks do not include the result but
rather raise new questions about the future of electronic or otherwise
“traditional” smoking. In addition, various lexical (zone-zone, e-cigarette-
e-cigarette, etc.) and grammatical (the zone, but, and, etc.) cohesive
devices were also used by the author to construct this text.
Texts form cohesive and coherent units of language that are
constructed to operate in units larger than the single sentence or clause. To
speak about cohesion and coherence, we should know where the border
between micro-units and macro-units of texts runs. There is a case for
arguing that every device signalling the cohesion and coherence of text
defines its own text unit and paragraph. Enkvist (1989, 380) suggests that
“a paragraph might consist of a topic sentence, a support sentence
supporting the topic sentence, a support sentence supporting the first
support sentence, and so forth. As long as such a hierarchy can be
interpreted as supporting one single sentence (the topic sentence), the
paragraph can be said to constitute one text unit.”
It should also be taken into consideration that Halliday and Hasan
identify the textual component of the grammar of English as consisting of
the features associated with two groups of resources: the structural and the
 Text and Discourse in the Context of Linguistic Studies 17

cohesive. The first is subdivided into the two areas: information structure
and theme-rheme structure. The second is subdivided into four areas:
reference, ellipsis and substitution, conjunction, and lexical cohesion
(Halliday and Hasan 1976). The term “reference,” as used by Halliday and
Hasan, is an extension of the term as used in philosophy and some types of
semantics to mean an act of referring to entities outside the text but within
the discourse. Reference in this sense is not necessarily textually cohesive.
A characteristic of cohesive reference is that, on second and
subsequent mention, instead of being named, the person or thing referred
to may be indicated by means of the personal or demonstrative pronouns
he, she, this, these, etc. The repetition of nominal may also have a
cohesive function, but there is a special characteristic that is produced by
the use of unnamed reference. When receivers come across a pronoun or a
determiner, they have to mentally identify the linked nominal in order to
make sense of the text. This has a very strong cohesive force. Take a look
at the following advertising discourse (see example 13). The personal
pronoun we and the demonstrative pronoun that are employed in this
advertising text to refer to Rolex and the slogan will never change the
world, respectively. Various types of repetitions based on references are
among the most explicit cohesive devices in text. In this connection, the
following text is quite symptomatic (see example 14). The author (Ernest
Hemingway) constructed this fictional text focusing on the explicit
repetitions of the word circle at the beginning and the end. Other
repetitions, fish-fish-fish, he-he-he-he-he, and too far-too far, are also very
important construal elements in this discourse.
Conjunctions and adverbs are also very important cohesive elements in
text. Some authors, such as Hemingway, frequently use them to construct
their literary texts. According to Gibson (1966), the usage of the
conjunction and to mark additive and temporal relations is very typical for
the style of Ernest Hemingway. It is interesting to note that some
researchers even call such frequent usages of grammatical elements over-
cohesive (Simpson 1992). Take a look at the following literary text (see
18 Unit I

example 15). Although Hemingway builds this text through various

grammatical and lexical devices, the conjunction and is the key cohesive
element, which marks the additive relations. This conjunction, as well as
the adverb then, are also very important tools to mark the temporal
sequence in discourse (see example 16). This piece of narrative text clearly
demonstrates how conjunctions and adverbs can function to construct text
based on a temporal sequence. Another important signal of the temporal
sequence in text is the enumerative adverb. The usages of these adverbs
are quite common in different text types as they are very effective tools in
the process of text construction (see example 17). This piece of text from
US President Trump’s Address to A Joint Session of Congress clearly
shows the potential of the enumerative adverbs First, Secondly, Thirdly,
Fourthly, and Finally in the construction of text.
Conjunctions and adverbs are also used to construct text based on
contrast and cause-effect relations. It should be stressed that the usage of
these grammatical devices is common as they are very instrumental tools
to build cohesion and coherence in text (see example 18). The sender of
this political text (the former UK Prime Minister David Cameron)
constructs it through various cohesive devices in order to deliver his
arguments, and the conjunction and is one of the most powerful and
convincing tools in this political text.
It is necessary to stress that some grammatical elements are used in
text for different functions that cannot easily be separated. Therefore, we
have to take note that some confusion can emerge during the analysis of
the textual functions of those grammatical elements. For example,
sometimes the indefinite article is used not for the purpose of signalling
new information, but for the classifying the object, thing, or notion it
refers to. The same is true for the definite article, which classifies,
identifies, and indicates uniqueness, or the time adverb now, which signals
time. But the major part of the information contained in the use of the
grammatical elements exists within the basic structure of text. A sender is