Text and textuality

The concept of text has been extensively defined by linguists. Halliday and Hasan (1976) maintain that a text is not a collection of sentences, but realized through sentences, and a text needs to form a ‘unified whole’ to be considered as text. They

note that most teachers are sometimes unsure about whether their students’

compositions can be regarded as texts or not, and stress the fact that “the distinction between a text and a collection of unrelated sentences is … a matter of degree” (p. 1-2).

What, then, is a text and what are the features and regularities through which textuality is achieved? Stubbs (1996) defines text as “an instance of language in use, either spoken or written: a piece of language behaviour which has occurred naturally, without the intervention of the linguist” (p. 4). Halliday and Matthiessen, on the other hand, consider “any instance of language, in any medium, that makes sense to someone who knows the language” (2004, p. 3) as text. For Nunan, text is

“any written record of a communicative event” (1993, p. 6) and for Widdowson,

“the product of the process of discourse” where, in written language, the writer is

“part of the communication” (1996, p. 132). Halliday and Hasan provide the following definition for text: “any instance of living language that is playing some part in a context of situation” (1985, p. 10).

The common element in all these definitions is that text is an instance of language, a record, or a product of language in use, making a distinction between ‘text’ and

‘discourse’, the process of language in use. According to Stubbs (Hoey et al., 2007), text is a static, fixed product, and discourse is a dynamic, interactive process (p.

146). Likewise, Beaugrande and Dressler refer to ‘text’ as an ‘occurrence’, implying some sort of completion. According to them, a text is a “communicative occurrence which meets seven standards of textuality” (1981, p. 3). These seven standards are

“the constitutive principles of textual communication and they define and create the

form of behaviour identifiable as textual communicating” (Beaugrande and Dressler, 1981, p. 11).

The first standard of textuality is cohesion, “the way in which the components of the surface text, i.e. the actual words we hear or see, are mutually connected within a sequence” (Beaugrande and Dressler, 1981, p. 3). According to Halliday and Hasan,

“typically, in any text, every sentence except the first exhibits some form of cohesion with a preceding sentence, usually with the one immediately preceding”.

That is, each sentence contains at least one anaphoric tie that links it with the previous one or ones (1976, p. 293). Nunan has a word of caution about cohesion.

He holds that “the cohesive devices themselves do not create the relationships in the text; what they do is to make the relationships explicit” (1993, p. 27). In a similar vein, Beaugrande and Dressler emphasize that cohesion by itself is not sufficient, and for efficient communication, there should be interaction with the other standards of textuality (1981, p. 4). They point out that cohesion “is the function of syntax in communication” (1981, p. 48) and it relies on grammatical dependencies which are

“major signals for sorting out meanings and uses” (1981, p. 3).

Coherence “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” (Beaugrande and Dressler, 1981, p. 4), and it is “the outcome of cognitive processes among text users” (Beaugrande and Dressler, 1981, p. 6). The foundation of coherence is the continuity of meaning among the knowledge stimulated by the expressions of the text (1981, p. 84). Stubbs refers to coherence as semantic unity or connectedness (1983, p. 9).

In addition to cohesion and coherence, which are text-centred notions, there are also

‘user-centred notions’ acting upon textual communication (Beaugrande and Dressler, 1981, p. 7). Two of these are ‘intentionality’ and ‘acceptability’. The text producer intends to produce a cohesive and coherent text in line with the objectives, and the text receiver accepts the text as cohesive and coherent and relevant for the objectives (Beaugrande and Dressler, 1981, p. 7). ‘Acceptability’ requires the text receiver to maintain cohesion and coherence by providing material, and tolerating disturbances as required (pp.7-8). Text receivers support coherence through inferencing, and therefore contributing to the sense of the text (p. 8).

‘Informativity’ is the fifth standard and “concerns the extent to which the occurrences of the presented text are expected vs. unexpected or known vs.

unknown / certain” (Beaugrande and Dressler, 1981, pp. 8-9). Low informativity causes boredom, and even rejection of text. On the other hand, very high informativity puts too much burden on the receivers’ processing and may endanger communication (Beaugrande and Dressler, 1981, p. 9).

“The factors which make a text relevant to a situation of occurrence” are known as

‘situationality’. Through this standard, “the sense and use of the text are decided”

and the situation helps to make sense of the text (Beaugrande and Dressler, 1981, pp.

9-10). ‘Intertextuality’, the seventh standard, “concerns the factors which make the utilization of one text dependent upon knowledge of one or more previously encountered texts”, and it is “responsible for the evolution of text types as classes of texts with typical patterns of characteristics” (Beaugrande and Dressler, 1981, p. 10).

Although there are certain features that are common to all texts to be considered as

texts, there are also texts that share some common characteristics that distinguish them from other texts.

Beaugrande and Dressler consider these 7 standards of textuality to be concerned with how occurrences are linked to others “via grammatical dependencies on the surface (cohesion), via conceptual dependencies in the textual world (coherence);

via the attitudes of the participants towards the text (intentionality and acceptability); via the incorporation of the new and unexpected into the known and expected (informativity); via the setting (situationality); and via the mutual relevance of separate texts (intertextuality)” (1981, p. 37).

In addition to these constitutive principles, there are also ‘regulative’ ones that

“control textual communication rather than define it” (Beaugrande and Dressler, 1981, p. 11). These are ‘efficiency’, ‘effectiveness’, and ‘appropriateness’ of a text.

Efficiency refers to the use of a text with minimum effort by the participants. The effectiveness of a text is “its leaving a strong impression and creating favourable conditions for attaining a goal”. “The agreement between its setting and the ways in which the standards of textuality are upheld” is the appropriateness principle that regulates and controls a text (Beaugrande and Dressler, 1981, p. 11). According to Beaugrande and Dressler, “acceptability and appropriateness are more crucial standards for texts rather than grammaticality and well-formedness” (1981, pp. XIV-XV).