De Beaugrand and Dressler suggested an approach to help you find out.

They set out 'Seven Standards of Textuality' and hypothesised that, if any one of them was not met, the text would not be communicative:

The Seven Standards of Textuality 1. Cohesion 4. Acceptability 2. Coherence 5. Informativity 3. Intentionality 6. Situationality 7. Intertextuality 1, 2 and 3, are largely writer oriented 4, 5, and 6 are approximately the converse and depend on the reader 7. Is a special type of powerful 'wild card' or 'trump' which may have a meme effect; in short, it triggers an association with other well established ideas.

Key Cohesion: "sticky tape" semantic markers linking ideas (a set of verbal 'signposts' to guide the reader). Coherence: the writers text world and its relation to our experience of the phenomenal world depends less on overt markers, more on the ways situations are described and sequenced, issues of causality and time in the construction of the text worlds. E.g. No milk in the fridge. Have gone to the shops. Interpretation depends on assumptions about similar experiences. (Unity, harmony) Intentionality is reflected in the writers manipulation of rhetorical devices: commands, questions and s uggestions etc. The effect is literally to make some waves and movement in the text. Acceptability involves recognition on the readers part of 1 and 2. Informativity effects the readers beneficially e.g. new information. Situationality recognises that the appearance of a text at a given time or in a context will influence the readers in their interpretation. Intertextuality recognises that all texts contain traces of other texts. Writers may wish to emit echoes of certain texts, though, readers may pick up these or others that they have read. In my experience, texts that really communicate (although, inevitably, some aspects need to be constantly updated) do in fact meet de Beaugrand and Dressler's criteria. Why not try to make sure (this may require making some intuitive guesses) that each of the standards is met in your own text? Certainly, your text is likely to be much more poweful if you have considered these aspects. Ian 2. ANALYSIS OF THE TEXT The text Baucis and Philemon will be analyzed according to the seven characteristics of text linguistics given below: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Cohesion Coherence Intentionality Acceptibility Informativity Situationality

7.

Intertextuality

2.1. COHESION In a text , cohesion provides continuity at the grammatical level; here it will be studied in sub-items showing how the grammatical units help to form and give meaning to a text.

a. Recurrence: The repeated words in the same text. * ... Over this she hung a little kettle full of water and just as it began to boil (line 60)....Into the kettle(line 63) * ...great marvel(line3) ...great house(29) ...great help(56) * Presently he brought them cups of...(75)...to refill each cup...(81)...No matter how many cups...(86)... * We have a goose...(94)...To catch the goose(97) ...under the ashes...(58)...roasted in the ashes...(71) * ...whitest marble...(121)...the marble...(136) * ...so long together...(128)...die together...(130)...still they were together...(145) * ...Trembling old hands...(67)...trembling all over they begged...(93) * ...had always been happy...(53)...proud and happy...(79)

b. Partial recurrence: The repetition of the words; but within different word classes. * ....poorer than...We are poor folk...but poverty...poor stranger... * ...how hospitable...Hospitality...hospitality

c. Parallelism: Being a narrative, the text was written in the Simple Past Tense: *...there were...pointed out...came about... Also sometimes Past Perfect tense is used : *But when Both Philemon and Baucis had had to give up... When the narrater wants to flash back to today, she uses Simple Present Tense: * ...The story doesnt say whether they ever missed their ....

d. Paraphrase: * ...make comfortable... rest Synonyms: * ...grand...great * ...wept...cry...

e. Proforms: 1. Anaphora:

* ...there were once two trees which all the peasants near and far pointed out as a great marvel, and no wonder, for one was an oak and the other a linden, yet they grew from a single trunk. (lines 1-5)

Here firstly two trees are mentioned, and then these two trees are explained as one and the other. Following them, two trees are referred as they. * ...When Jupiter was tired...(line 10)...he would come down...(line 14) * ...Jupiter had determined to find out how hospitable the people of Phrygia...important to him...(20-3) * The two gods, accordingly, ...(26)...they made...(33) * ...a cheerful fire was burning. Over this...(59-60) * ...full of water...it began to boil...(61) * Baucis set the table with her trembling hands..(66)... One table leg was too short, but she propped it up...(67-8) Here there are two anaphoras; the first one is Baucis, her, she; the other one is one table leg, it.

2.

Cataphora: Here his favourite companion refers to Mercury which is mentioned afterwards.(In anaphora Mercury

* His favourite companion on these tours was Mercury.(16-7)

would be mentioned before) * ...and the old woman threw ...Her name was Baucis.(48-9)

f. Ellipses: a) Sharing of structural components among clauses of the surface text:

* The two gods ...took...wandered...came...(26-9) b) Follow-up structure lacks the verb:

* ..for one was an oak and the other a linden( there is no was before a linden) * The story of how this came about is a proof of the immesurable power of the gods, and also of the way they reward. (proof isnt used for two times; the first one reflects also the way they reward) (line 6) * ...tired of eating...drinking...(tired of is used once) (line 10) * ...asking for food and a place...(26) * They had...had always..(they used once) (51) * ...was...proud and happy...(79) * ...were so pleased and excited (83) * ...will be punished but not you (it means you wont be punished; the sentence with its verb isnt repeated)(line 109)

g. Tense and Aspect 1. 2. Tense: Simple Past, Past Perfect, Simple Present. ( For the examples see Parallelism) Aspect: Starting with approximately conventional structure to the story (there were once...) and going on with the same structure and tense, the aspect of the text is well-built. Apart from this, coming back today while making explanation about the story (The story doesnt say whether they ever missed their ..) is the typical example of telling a story of a myth, folk tale,etc.

h. Junction: 1. Conjunction:

* The story of how this came about is a proof of the immeasurable power of the gods, and also of the way they reward... * The two gods ...took...and wandered...(26-9) ...(There are a lot of sentences exemplifying this item; but they all include and, so it will be enough to see the above ones)

2.

Disjunction:

* the story doesnt say whether they ever missed their cozy room...

3.

Contrajunction:

* ...yet they grew...(line5) * ...But here,...(37) Sentences including but: lines 37, 40,68, 117,96, 103, 135. * Philemon, however,...(79)

4.

Subordination:

* ...Hospitality was..imporatnt to him, since all guests...were under his especial protection.(23) * ...since we had lived so long together...(1289 * ...As they saw this...(88) * ...As the words passed their lipsthey became trees...(143)

i. Updating: When we think of Iliad by Homer, or Tacitus writings in ancient Rome, thsi new version myth was written in an updated language form. Since we dont have an old version, we don2t have opportunity to compare; yet we can understand it from the words that are used, which we dont force us to understand.

Note: Intonation and Keys cannot be studied here, naturally, since it is not a spoken text.

2.2.COHERENCE a) Concept: * The old man set a bench near the fire ( To learn more about the bench, we should see the rest of the paragraph- or sometimes preceeding of it.)

* ..a soft covering...( What kind of covering is it? Linen, paper, etc? We can understand it from the text; just one word or sometimes one sentence is not enough to understand the implied meaning of the word in the text.) *..reward...(In order to learn the reward we should read the rest of the text; otherwise it can be anything such as a car, a pencil, or a medal,etc. Who can guess that it is dying and being together without looking at the text as a whole.)

b) Decomposition:

god

Here the words are related with one another.

power

mortal

punish

temple

tree

The words are peculiar to the tree.

oak

linden

trunk

c) Spreading Activation: The words remind each other.

* temple, great, marvel, god, power, punish, mortal, shrewdest. * couple, married, life, husband, living together, happy. * fire, burning, coalsunder the ashes, fanned, boil, kettle. * cup, an earthenware mixing bowl, vinegar, water, supper, pour, mixing, bowl.

d) Use of Global Patterns: * As a pattern: Using once while starting to tell the myth; finishing it from and wide people came to admire the wonder are classical and global patterns that are used in such type of texts. * Looking at the concepts: Hospitality, power, protection, companion, poor folk, reward.(Global)

e) Procedural Attachment: 1.Frame: The aim of the myth is to give lessons in living and it is mentioned as an aim before text in the book. Acoordingly, the text pursues this goal. 2. Schema: The same structure that is used in literary text might be used here. To follow the structure given in the book that this text is given we should summarizethe situation as follows:

* Questioning: The title is questioned firstly. Who are they? For this purpose, some explanation should be made before reading the text as it is done at the beginning of that study; the characters are introduced to prevent discontinuity. * Prediction: Why were these two trees so important to people?(line 2) A reader tries to guess the rest of the text while s/he is reading it in terms of her/his stored knowledge. * Clarification: ...Jupiter had determined to find out how hospitable the people of Phrygian(lines19-21)... ...a kindly faced old man welcomed them...(42-3) ..you shall have your reward. This wicked country... will be punished but not you(108-110) ...Grant that we may die together...(110) ...The linden and the oak grew from one trunk.(146) As seen in the above sentences, the writer begins to make explanations and clarifies the things in readers minds. * Summary : The last paragraph here.

3. Plans: The text user pursues his/her goal by following the structure implied to him/her. If it had been an oral tradition this would have been diffrent; but here the writers hidden aim and logical procedure in line with the text users stored knowledge on this subject is succeede through a careful planning. 4. Script: This text here is aimed to teach; so it is included in a course book.

f. Discovery of control centres: 1.Primary Concepts: Object:Houses, two trees( in fact Baucis and Philemon), marbles, fire, goose, etc. Situation: In a house Event: Jupiter and Mercury visited many houses but they only see the hospitality in Baucis and Philemons house and rewarded them. Action: Two gods pretending to be poor wayfarers, serving the gods, rewarding, dying together.( For Giv ing lesson)

2. Secondary Concepts: State: Reward give- punishment Agent: It changes from sentence to sentence; where two gods are subject, the married couple is the agent; where the married couple is the subject, the two gods maybe the agent.(T his will be studied in detail in Informativity) Affected entity:The whole human beings; because it gives lessons to the people hearing or reading the myth. Relations: God-power, wife-husband(love), tree-trunk, oak,linden. Attribute: Myth including a story giving lessons Location: In an ancient Asia Phrygia. House, marble. Time: Ancient Roman. Motion: The whole things happened.

2.3. INTENTIONALITY The writers intention is mainly providing the readers with the ancient Roman myth by editing it from Ovids poem. The intention of the text is basically to give lesson; but the intention changes according to the users purposes. For instance, in that book, it is to introduce the students the myths and teaching them the characteristics of it by exemplifying such texts and providing the students with a reading material. For this reason, the question arises before the text: Look for the many ways in which Baucis and Philemon make their guests feel welcome. How do the gods show their appreciation? Also the pronunciation of the names of the characters and the vocabulary expected not known are given beforehand. Looking at the intention in a basis, we had better study it through GRICES four maxims: Quantity: The text is as informative as desired; there is no trivial knowledge. Almost all serves the aim. Quality: Giving its sources as Ovid and footnotes for commonly unknown names, it proves its truthfullness. Relation: The terms used, ongoing speech between the characters, the sequence of the events are all related to each other. Manner: The statements made by the writer and her reflection on the characters speeches are brief; there is no ambiguity. To give an example: Ask whatever you want and you shall have your wish; the message is clear, brief, far from being ambiguous in the conversation.

Conventional Implicatures:

* ...there were once...: Conventional beginning for an ancient story. * ...we have a goose...: Implication of the caharcter that they have something for them to serve. *...they had time only to cry...: the writers implicature is that they had little time; it was only for crying; nothing else *...From far and wide people came to admire the wonder...: Conventional ending of a story.

2.4. ACCEPTIBILITY

The writers intention is accepted by the reader by means of the schemas the readers have for such a text type and their stored world knowledge about the things told so far. If there is no such frames for this text type, then it should be made clear for the reader to provide acceptibility. When it comes to speculating upon the text, as far as we understand from conversations, they are accepted . To exemplify: * We are poor folk...But poverty isnt so bad when you are willing to own up to it...(53 -4) Here the producer of the sentence firstly states something and then explains it without giving way for the receivers to reject it or comment it. She makes her explanation to be accepted by the receivers by making herself clear. As the number of conversations are restricted in the text, it is difficult to exemplify it via conversations; however the structure of the text, which has nothing wrong with the communication, proves that the writers explanations and narration is so successful that we dont see any gap between these conversations; they are enough for us to understand what is going on.

2.5. INFORMATIVITY Text type: Literary text Subtype: Narrative(Myth) Topic: Lessons in Living The Orders of Informativity: First Order Informativity: Grammar rules. They are clear and there is no need to specify in a text to make it informative. They are easy to spot as it is done here in Cohesion section. Second Order Informativity: It is the surface structure in the text which enables us to understand the text meaningfully. Third Order Informativity: They are generally unknown for some receivers; so it should be made explicit through footnotes, some explanations, etc. not to prevent the understanding of the receivers. If it is done so, the order of the text is downgraded. In the text: Sometimes when Jupiter was tired of eating ambrosia and drinking nectar up in Olympus and even a little weary of listening to Apollo s lyre and watching the Graces dance... (lines10-4) Here, Graces will be unknown for most of the readers and in case of lack of knowledge about it, the understanding of the text will be cut in. In order to prevent this, the writer here gives footnote explaining what Graces mean- three sister goddesses who were associated with pleasure, charm, and beauty. In that case the third order of informativity becomes second order by being downgraded through this explanation, which prevents discontinuity in the text. Agents: *...Not one would admit them(30) One of the Jupiter and Mercury(AGENT) Phygia people *...All treated them in the same way...(33) *A kindlyfaced old man and woman *She told the strangers(50) *Presently he brought them(75) *...they begged their guests(92) *While Jupiter and Mercury watched them(99-100) * They then escorted the two...told them...(110)

welcomed them(42-3) * The old man ...told them(47-8) Definiteness:

*...two trees...the other (4): One of the trees; not any trees seen. *...the gods...(7): Jupiter and Mercury *...the Graces...: mentioned in the footnote *...the most entertainig of all the gods, the shrewdest...(17): described one. *....the people of Phyrigia...(21): people living there *...The two gods...(26): Jupiter and Mercury *...the land(28): Phrygia *...the old man...(46):Philemon *...the old woman...(48): Baucis *...the strangers...(50): Jupiter and Mercury *...the kettle...(63): mentioned before as a little kettle *..the old man...(72): Philemon *...the supper...(80): the supper that they will be eating *...The old people...(125): the couple 2.6. SITUTIONALITY

*...The gods...(131): Jupiter and Mercury *...the story...(133): We all know which story the writer mentions. *...the marble(136): mentioned before, the is used *...the wonder...(148):the story is known to a reader; the reader knows what the wonder is.

Indefiniteness: *...two trees (2): firstly mentioned *...a single trunk (5):newly mentioned *...a cheerful voice(39):new *...an earthenware mixing bowl...(76)....the mixing bowl kept full.(85): firstly unknown; then explicit *...a goose(95)...to catct the goose(97):firstly

unknown; then when it becomes known the is used *...a great lake surrounded them(114):newly

mentioned

The story takes place in an ancient Rome between the gods and two people from the poor folk of Phrygia which was an ancient Asian country. Two gods named Jupiter, the king of the gods in Roman Mythology, and Mercury, his messenger, talk about a plan . The place where Jupiter is living is out of the Earth and is described as a paradise; he eats ambrosia, which is described in the footnote as the food enables gods to live forever and Apollo plays his lyre, Graces dance,etc. The picture drawn and providing readers to visualize is as if the gods lived in paradise. Suddenly, when Jupiter decides to come to the earth, this changes and poor folk comes into appearance. The scene goes on like that until the gods reward the couple and give them temple of whitest marble with a golden roof. The situation changes and they are also shown as if they were in paradise. When it comes to the characters, the gods are shown as the powerful ones, while the couple is poor but happy. The poor couple has only love to share and the gods have evrything to give. The conversations between them is worth emphasizing since the conversation between the couple and the gods is more relaxed when compared with the conversation after they learn that they are gods; yet it doesnt change very much because of the fact that this couple is shown as a good model for people to take lessons in life. To clarify, we had better see the examples: * We are poor folk... But poverty isnt so bad when you are willing to own up to it...(53 -4) Here the woman has no problem with having relaxed conversations with the gods when expressing herself. * we have a goose.the old man said... which we ought to give your lordships But if you wi ll only wait,it shall be done at once.(94-7) Here the man is more polite to his guests; he feels uncomfortable just because he tries to prepare the best food he can serve for his guests; the guests being gods doesnt change the things since he hasnt known it, yet. He does his best due to his well-mannered character.

* Let us be your priests, guarding this temple for you -and oh, since we have lived so long together, let neither of us have to live alone. Grant thet we may die together.(126 -130) Here, the couple has learnt that the guests are gods; so their way of talking is a bit changes. It can be seen better when we speculate upon the words and phrases used: Let us.., Grant that, ..oh, ...for you.... As it is seen, the state of the characters change the roles of them and the others in the situation; it even changes the situation and everything related with the situation.

2.7. INTERTEXTUALITY In a text, intertextuality covers all the things studied so far and goes beyond of these. Including all the things studied for this text, here more items will be dealt with to extend this analysis. Text type: Literary text. However it also includes the function of narration(sub-type) in this text. Text allusion: The way people use or refer to well-known texts. *...Sometimes when Jupiter was tired of eating ambrosia and drinking nectar up in Olympus and even a little weary of listening to Apollos lyreand watching the Graces...(10 -4) Here, Apollo and the Graces are characters known in mythology; Apollo is not explained in the footnotes here since the preeceding text in the book is about Apollo and his son; whereas Graces are explained in case some readers cannot follow what they refer to. Intertextuality supplies us such applications that are texts in the texts as it is the case here. Topic: In a text some topics are to discussed further; the decision about it is made with the help of the informativity,which is discussed above. According to this, it can be said that Jupiter and Mercury are more important characters and they are to be explained to the readers whereas Graces and Apollo are less important and lack of explanation about them raises less problem when compared with the main characters in the text. It is not only valid for the readers but also for the events taking place; the conversation about the reward is more important compared with the descriptions on houses or actions taking place in it. Discourse World Model: It includes beyond the linguistic structure of the text by focusing on the details about the text. Since most of them were studied in detail above(schema, events, states) here the points that have not been mentioned so far will be discussed. The effects of the schema: a. The replacing of the original concept under a variety of expressions: Instead of there was a time..., Once upon a time..., the writer starts with In the Phrygian Hill country there were once.... Here the conventional, lets say original, concept is replaced by an acceptable version, which provid es the readers to see the variety of expressions. b. The readers inclination to match text boundaries up with schema boundaries: It is accomplished by means of the variety mentioned above; schema boundaries are programmed to Once upon... or there was a time... whereas it is matched with the new one presented by the writer. c. The selecting and verifying of schemas contributes to comprehension. Here some dialogues are selected and omitted and not presented to the reader; yet again the reader is supplied with the knowledge by means of the explanations made and the comprehension is accomplished with these explanations and necessary conversations that give vividness to the text.

Inferencing and Spreading Activation: 1.Location: In written texts, location is visualized in readers minds through the language of the writer. Here the adjectives provide us to understand how the things look like or descriptions enable us to understand how the couple is lovely and proud, how Jupiter is powerful. Example immeasurable power of gods, lowly house, the tiny,lowly hut ...turned into a stately pillared temple of whitest marble with a golden roof. Furthermore, the sequence of the events are visuailzed by the mental imagery of the readers as I did below: Gods go to Phrygia ( it seemes as if they were dressed with a magic stick and turned out to the peasants in a second.), They visit houses, in a poor house with a devated couple, the poor house turns into a temple like amarvellous palace, in a bright weather, colorful and lovely tree. 2. Time: In the text when, then, at last, by this tiem, presently, at once provides the redaer with the time concept. 3. Apperception: Cause: Jupiters desire to visit the earth Purpose: Jupiter wants to see the people of Phrygia(which will give lessons to all humanity which is the aim of this myth basically) Agency: Jupiter, Mercury, Baucis, Philemon ( By changing the roles they all become agents in the text from time to time.)

3. CONCLUSION As it is aimed at the beginning, the text, Baucis and Philemon has been studied in detail in terms of the seven standards of textuality. By means of this study, the importance of such a detailed study has been proved to be essential and necessary to understand the text by considering not only the linguistic elements as it has been done in Cohesion part only, but more detailed one as it has been extended through other six items. With Coherence the importance of the relations between the concepts, in a text words, is comprehended; with Intentionality the necessity of the leadership of the aim and the intention of the text attributed to it by its writer; with Acceptability getting and accepting the message as a receiver as it is attributed by the writer(producer) of the text, with Informativity the vitality of getting the new message correctly and being capable of differentiating the order of the importance of these messages, with Situationality, maybe the primary one, the context of the text, and finally with Intertextuality, the importance of interrelationships of all, the importance of the participants(receivers, producers) knowledge of other texts in order to produce and to receive the texts correctly and effectively has come into existence while analyzing the texts. King Saud University College of languages and Translation Text-linguistics for students of translation The English Program Hand-out No.2 The Seven Standards of Textuality Text has been defined as a communicative occurrence/event which meets seven standards of textuality (cohesion, coherence, intentionality, acceptability, informativity, situationality, and intertextuality). Linguists confirm that if any of these standards of textuality is not to have been satisfied, the text will not be communicative. 1. Cohesion The first standard of textuality is called cohesion. Cohesion is the network of lexical, grammatical, and other relations that provide links between various parts of a text.

These relations or ties organise a text by requiring the reader to interpret words and expressions by reference to other words and expressions in the surrounding sentences and paragraphs. Moreover, cohesion is seen as a non-structural semantic relation, as for example, between a pronoun and its antecedent in a preceding sentence, expressing at each stage in the discourse the point of context with what has gone before. A cohesive device is the interpretative link between, for example, a pronoun and its antecedent, or two lexically linked NPs, and a series of such ties (ha ving the same referent) is referred to as a cohesive chain. Halliday and Hasan (1976) establish five cohesion categories: reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunctions, and lexical cohesion. In clarifying the notion of cohesion and cohesive device, Halliday and Hasan (1976: 1) present the following examples: a. Wash and core six cooking apples. Put them into a fireproof dish. b. My axe is blunt. I have to get a sharper one. c. Did you see John? - Yes . d. They fought a battle. Afterwards, it snowed. Here, the two sentences, in each example, are linked to each other by a cohesive link; in each instance a different cohesive item is implemented. In example (a), the two sentences are linked by the pronoun them, in the second sentence, which refe rs anaphorically to the noun phrase six cooking apples, in the first sentence. In (b) this relation is established by 11 the presence of the substitute one in the second sentence, which is a counter of the noun axe in the first sentence of the same e xample; in (c) the cohesive relation is achieved by the omission of some element in the second sentence that presupposes the first sentence. In example (d) none of the above relations exist; the conjunction or conjunctive adjunct afterwards is not an anaphoric relation like the previous ones; it does not instruct the reader to search for the meaning of the element to interpret it as in reference, or the replacement of some linguistic element by a counter or by a blank, as are substitution and ellipsis, but a specification of the way in which what is to follow is systematically connected to what has gone before (Halliday and Hasan, 1976: 227). As for the main cohesion category called lexical cohesion, Halliday and Hasan present the following examples: There is a boy climbing the tree a. The boys going to fall if he does not take care. b. The lads going to fall if he does not take care. c. The childs going to fall if he does not take care. d. The idiots going to fall if he does not take care. In example (a), there is a repetition of the same lexical item: boy, in (b), the reiteration takes the form of a synonym or nearsynonym lad; in (c), of the superordinate the term child; and in (d), of a general word idiot. All these instances have in common the fact that one lexical item refers back to another, to which it is related by having a common referent. 2. Coherence Like cohesion, coherence is a network of relations which organise and create a text: cohesion is the network of surface relations which link words and expressions to other words and expressions in a text, and coherence is the network of conceptual relations which underlie the surface text. Both concern the way stretches of language are connected to each other. In the case of cohesion, stretches of language are connected to each other by virtue of lexical and grammatical dependencies. In the case of coherence, they are connected by virtue of conceptual or meaning dependencies as perceived by language users. Hoey (1991: 12) sums up the difference between cohesion and coherence as follows: 12 "We will assume that cohesion is a property of the text and that coherence is a facet [i.e. side] of the reader's evaluation of a text. In other words, cohesion is objective, capable in principle of automatic recognition, while coherence is subjective and judgements concerning it may vary from reader to reader." We could say that cohesion is the surface expression of coherence relations, that it is a device for making conceptual relations explicit. For example, a conjunction such as 'therefore' may express a conceptual notion of 'reason' or 'consequence'. However, if the reader cannot perceive an underlying semantic relation of 'reason' or 'consequence' between

the propositions connected by 'therefore', he will not be able to make sense of the text in question; in other words, the text will not 'cohere' for this particular reader. Generally speaking, the mere presence of cohesive markers cannot create a coherent text; cohesive markers have to reflect conceptual relations which make sense. Enkvist (1978b: 110-11) gives an example of a highly cohesive text which is nevertheless incoherent: I bought a Ford. The car in which President Wilson rode down the Champs Elysees was black. Black English has been widely discussed. The discussions between the presidents ended last week. A week has seven days. Every day I feed my cat. Cats have four legs. The fact that we cannot make sense of stretches of language like the one quoted above, in spite of the presence of a number of cohesive markers, suggests that what actually gives texture to a stretch of language is not the presence of cohesive markers but our ability to recognise underlying semantic relations which establish continuity of sense. The main value of cohesive markers seems to be that they can be used to facilitate and possibly control the interpretation of underlying semantic relations. The coherence of a text is a result of the interaction between knowledge presented in the text and the reader's own knowledge and experience of the world, the latter being influenced by a variety of factors such as age, sex, race, nationality, education, occupation, and political and religious affiliations. Even a simple cohesive relation of co-reference cannot be recognised, and therefore cannot be said to contribute to the coherence of a text. Coherence can be illustrated by causality, as in: (A) Jack fell down and (B) he broke his crown. Here, (A) is the cause of (B). Coherence can be illustrated by enablement or reason, as in: Jack (A) spent two days working on the problem and he (B) found the solution. (A) enabled (B) or (A) is the reason that led to (B). 13 3. Intentionality While cohesion and coherence are to a large extent text-centred, intentionality is usercentred. A text-producer normally seeks to achieve a purpose or goal (e.g. persuasion, instruction, request, information, etc.) based on a given plan. Obviously, cohesion and coherence are taken into consideration while planning and executing one's plan. Speakers or writers vary in the degree of success in planning and achieving their purposes. 4. Acceptability The receiver's attitude is that a text is cohesive and coherent. The reader usually supplies information that is missing or unstated. Acceptability is very much sensitive to the social activity the text is fulfilling. A legal contract does not leave much room for inference. It contains what, otherwise, is called redundancies. Poetic language will be viewed as such because it calls on for inferences. Acceptability is very much affected by the reader's social and cultural background. The joke of the priest who, on shaving his beard in the morning cut his chin because he was thinking of the sermon he was about to give, and the advice his fellow priest gave him, "Cut your sermon and concentrate on your beard", was not very much appreciated by some students belonging to different culture. 5. Informativity A text has to contain some new information. A text is informative if it transfers new information, or information that was unknown before. Informativity should be seen as a gradable phenomenon. The degree of informativity varies from participant to participant in the communicative event. Situationality contributes to the informativity of the text. A book written in 1950 has an informativity that was high appropriate then. 6. Situationality A text is relevant to a particular social or pragmatic context. Situationality is related to real time and place. Communicative partners as well as their attitudinal state are important for the text's meaning, purpose and intended effect. Scientific texts share a common situationality, while ideological texts have different situationalities across languages and cultures. 14 7. Intertextuality The seventh standard of textuality is called intertextuality. A text is related to other texts. Intertextuality refers "to the relationship between a given text and other relevant texts encountered in prior experience." (Neubert and Shreve, 1992: 117). These include textual conventions and textual expectations. Some text features have become more and more international, e.g. medical texts. They exhibit many features that are English-like, even they are written in Arabic. There is a fine line between plagiarism and intertextuality.