Obsah

First lesson: Introduction and Basic concepts ......................................................................................... 1

Lesson 2: Approaches to style, style and register (Halliday and Hasan) ................................................. 9
Third lesson: Functional approaches to style (Crystal and Davy).......................................................... 16
Fourth lesson: Self-study - Approaches to style (other schools and frameworks) ............................... 23
Fifth lesson: Intertextuality. Prior texts. Text types. Genres (Esser a neser) ........................................ 27
Sixth lesson: Structure / Organisation of text (HaH, Esser)................................................................... 34
Seventh lesson – Cohesion (HaH) .......................................................................................................... 40
Eighth lesson – Cohesive chains (HaH) .................................................................................................. 47
Ninth lesson: Thematic progression ...................................................................................................... 55
Tenth lesson: Types and build-up of paragraphs, segmentation into paragraphs ............................... 65
Eleventh lesson: Self-study – Coherence (however there is nothing about coherence in the essential
text…)..................................................................................................................................................... 73

First lesson: Introduction and Basic concepts

Course Requirements:

- if I miss seminar I can attend the later one, which is for English-only. It is bit different but better
than to miss seminar.

- In Bachelor degree we were taught rules, mostly the langue. From now on we will be focused on
Parole

- there are no rules in parole, there are just tendencies, possibilities

- Parole discipline

- Competence vs. Performance (N. Chomsky)

- Langue and Parole are independent of the user.

- Competence - Competent user – you have to be aware of how the language works to use
the language.

- It implies existence of user

 - Performance

Disciplines

- Text linguistics

- Text syntax

- Hypersyntax

- Theory of communication

- Stylistics

- Rhetorics

- Discourse analysis

- Pragmatics

- etc.

Common ground

- Parole

- Usage of language

- Tendencies, conventions and norms rather than rules

- Universal and language-specific

Communication

- Message (Topic) – what we want to tell the hearer

- Code – the language (way of telling)

- Context Setting

- Contact (Channel) (Noices – probably meant noises) – Speaking x writing, but there might also be
some interference (noises from the outside)
Roman Jakobson (1960???)

Speech event Functions of language

- Speaker - Expressive

- Addressee - Apelative

- Code - Metatextual

- Message - Poetic

- Contact - Phatic (social function)

- Contexts - Referential

Dell Hymes extended model (1962)

- Sender - Expressive

- Receiver - Directive

- Code - Metalinguistics

- ……..

Dell Hymes

- Communicative competence

- not just language competence, but the communication itself

- Children, for example, also learn competence of when to speak, when not, and what to talk
about with whom, when, where, in what manner.

Dell Hymes: Speaking (1974)

- S – setting (where, when)

- P - Participants

- E – End – the objective – why am I communicating, what are my goals

- A – Act (act characteristics, act sequences) – various sentences (banal definition – later we will
understand more deeply)

- K – Key (manner, tone, spirit) -

- I – Instrumentalities (channels); speech forms (lang, registr., dialect, speech style) – for example
spoken, written

- N – Norms (of situation and interpretation) – what it takes to be polite in one culture might not be
the same in the other culture

- G – Genres – prose, poetry

Communicative Competence (Dell Hymes, 1960, 1972)

- Enables users to make judgements about whether the particular use is:

- Possible (ling. Competence) gram. And lex. Correct)

- Feasible (decoded, processed? X amb (strateg.com) – whether it is understandable etc.

- Appropriate (to the situation, culture, etc.) (social) - if it is appropriate from the context, it
depends on the frequency of usage in specific context etc.

- Performed (to what extent st. actually done, patterned, frequent, etc.) (discourse comp)

- Chomsky would consider competent speaker the speaker that has language abilities (just the
Possible?) x Hymes

Communicative competence

- Linguistic competence (possible?)

- Strategic competence (feasible?)

- Sociolinguistic competence (appropriate?)

- Discourse competence (co-occurrence, unity performed?)

Processing

TOP-Down

- from global to local

- you begin the overall, you recognise the theme

- Example: “Oh this text has stanzas, so it will be poetry.”

BOTTOM-UP

- From local to global

- From the details to overall

Text vs Discourse

- Product (already finished) - Process (teacher is speaking, what will she say?)

- Typically written - Typically spoken

- Often monological - Usually dialogical

- Static - Dynamic

- Decontextualized - Set in context

Seven standards of textuality (Dressler, Beaugrande, 1981) – what makes a text a text

(Text-oriented, etc. Esser 2009)

Text-oriented

- Cohesion – glue that ties the messages together to produce one unit

- certain meaningful relationship that relates the messages

 - She starts with “Text linguistics” and later on uses “subject” and we are able to know what
she means by that

- Coherence – some sense in what has been said.

- It is believed cohesion promotes coherence. If there is cohesion in the text we understand it

better

Psychological

- Intentionality – some intention of the text, what it transfers

- Acceptability – it has to take in consideration how hard will it be to understand

- you cannot expect beginners to understand complex and specific words

Computational

- Informativity – we should increase the knowledge of the audience, inform them, value

- Computational

Social

- Intertextuality – this current lecture is referred to other lectures (Syntax, semantics, …) or authors
(Chomsky, Hymes)

- Situationality – everything is se tin particular situation, the product bares traces of its origins of
existence

Cohesion vs. Coherence

- Objective - Subjective

-Absolute/quantifiable - Approximate, graded

- Semantic relationships between elements of messages (Hasan) - continuity of senses

- Garmm. Or lexiacal features of sentences connect - Process of making sense

them to other sentences (Hey) - not inherent in texts

Cohesive devices exemplified

- I wouldn’t bother. I really wouldn’t_. (Ellipsis)

- These biscuits are stale. I’ll bring some fresh ones. (Substitution)

- Promise, then.” “I promise” (Repetition)

- You are really incredible. You are unbelievable. (Synonymy)

Coherence exemplified

- “The telephone is ringing.” - “I am in the bath.”¨

- there is no cohesion, but you understand it.

Spoken vs . Written

- Primary - Secondary

- More ephemeral - More permanent

- Immediate interaction (dialogue) - Mediated and delayed interaction

- Usually jointly constructed - Constructed, designed and recorded unilaterally

Context vs. Co-text

- Context of culture - Surrounding text

- Context of situation - verbal

- Context of other texts

Co-text is simply the textual context. The context means also the stuff around the text in reality.

Lesson 2: Approaches to style, style and register (Halliday and Hasan)

Introduction to style

- Diverse treatments, such as:

-Deviation from norm

- motivated choice

- ornament or dress of thought

- we can write in different ways

- personal stamp

- style might become your personal stamp

- point of view

- writing from your point of view??

- some overlap with Register, etc.

- some linguist believe that register is part of stylistic

- STYLE – “A recognizable and characteristic way of doing something” (Flower)

- “Register does some work of style, bzt can be defined more explicitly”

- “A distinctive use of language to fulfil a particular communicative function in a particular kind of

situation”

Halliday’s approach

- systemic- functional grammar

- Functionalist

- Systemic

-Providing options

- Hierarchized (ranks)

- Language in social context

- Language, context and text: aspects of language in a socia-semiotic perspective

- Major influences

- Malinowski

- Firth

- Hymes

- Bronislaw Malinowski

- Anthropologist

- South Pacific – Trobriand Islands

- Kiriwinian

- How to render text/discourse to English readers?

- Free translation (no language and culture)

- it would perhaps be better to transmit the information, but the language would
vanish

- Literal translation (unintelligible)

- he tried literal translation but that did not work as it was too exotic

- Extended commentary (placing the text in its immediate living contest – CONTEXT OF
SITUATION)

- he described the situation as faithfully as possible

- CONTEXT OF CULTURE (total cultural history and background)

- John Rupert Firth

- London structuralist

- Elaborated on CONTEXT OF SITUATION

- Participants

- Actions (verbal and non-verbal)

- Other relevant features (surrounding objects, events)

- Effects (of verbal action)

- Further Inspiration

- Dell Hymes: Speaking formula

- Terrence Mitchell: context of buying and selling in Arabic

- we make predictions from the context of situation, we are never totally surprised

Text in Halliday

- functional

- semantic unit (made of meaning rather than units)

- he believes text is primary a matter of communicating some meaning

- Set in context (of situation)

- Written and spoken

- Product and process

- Product of the continuous process of semantic choices from the lang. system

- he believes we make choices from (lang.) system constantly

- which nouns, which verbs…

- The text is product of these choices

- we are not necessarily interested in the form, we want to convey the

meaning

- Product of environment

- “What has gone before creates the environment for what is coming next: this sets up
internal expectations”
 - co-text and context

- co-text? is everything that surrounds the text in question (textually?), preceding

passage creates the environment for the upcoming message

Context of situation

- Field (WHAT; type of action engaged in)

- what is being carried out

- it incorporates topic, discipline – the factual aspect

- Tenor (formerly STYLE; WHO, relationship between the participants)

- it is not about who interacts with whom

- it is about the relationships between the participants

- what are their roles, are they family?, gender, age, …

- MODE (HOW: role played by language)

- language not always necessary (IT specialist might just do some clicks)

Functions of language

- Ideational: Experiential

Logical

- Interpersonal: language as action

- whether you establish ties and relationships etc.

- Textual

- how we actually use language to produce the meaningful unit of discourse

Three Features of context of situation

- Field What? Play

(nature of social action)

- Tenor (style) Who? Players

(roles, statuses, relationships)

 - Mode How? Parts

(role of language)

Situation description

- Field (eg. Codification of property exchange/teaching/maintenance of beliefs, etc.;

- technical/semi-technical/non-technical, etc.)

- Tenor (eg. Authority/member to other member/s, to a novice/audience, etc. Audience

seen/unseen; known/unknown, etc.; institutionalized relationship, etc)

- Mode (eg. Written to be filled/spoken/read/aloud; public/private; letter/lecture/article, etc;

mono-/dialogical; persuasive/performative, etc.)

Situation and text – related

- Field realized by experiential meanings

- processes and their participants (transitivity), naming of objects and their features,
time reference, evaluation, etc.

- Tenor realized by interpersonal meanings

- speech roles (mood), discourse fces (various functions of language such as ordering
somebody, congratulating somebody, promising somebody something), person (1st
person, 2nd person – are they direct participants or are they talking about somebody
far away?, polarity (positive statements, negative statements) , etc.

- primary and secondary

- primary – you have 2 characters and you might observe their relationships
etc.

- secondary – the author conveys an idea through them to the reader

- Mode realized by textual meanings

 - theme, information structure (FSP), lexical and grammatical cohesion:
connectedness, patterns

- Therefore: We make inferences from situations to texts and from texts to situations

- we cannot guarantee, we only infer

Multifunctionality

- every sentence in a text is multifunctional

- Experiential, interpersonal and textual meaning strands are intervowen

- every chunk realizes all meanings at the same time

- every sentence is polyfunctional (multifunctional)

Register vs. Dialect

- Variety according to Variety according to

USE USER

- Say different things Say the same things differently

- Occupational Regional (north and south etc.)

- Technical Social (educated x uneducated etc.)

- Institutional, etc.

- Grammar features Phonology features

- Lexical features Grammar features

- (rarely others) Lexical features

Register

- variety according to use (influenced by tenor)

- Semantic notion

- Configuration of meanings

- Related to situational configurations (F,T,M)

- Meanings realized by language means, some are indexical features

- indexical meaning that if you see them then you realise quite fast the type of register?

- Scale from closed to open registers (creativity, individuality)

- the more open the more it motivates creativity in the user

- Scale from action-oriented to talk-oriented

- some registers do not require much talk?

Context

- Non-verbal context of a text

1. Context of culture (institutional and ideological background)

2. Context of situation

- Verbal context

3. Intratextual context (surrounding text. co-text?)

4. Intertextual context (connection to other texts)

- text creates the context and vice versa

-
Third lesson: Functional approaches to style (Crystal and Davy)
- Crystal, Davy: Investigating English Style

- 1969/2013

- Recommended sources: eg. Crystal, D., Davy, D.

- Read Chapter 3!

(From the chapter)

- Scale of utilisation (in literature total range of conceivable features might occur x very small
number of forms ever occur, for example heraldic language)
- There are strong tendencies for certain categories from different dimension to co-occur. At
least four types of interrelationship exist:
o Mutual dependence (ie redundancy), as between ‘legal’ and ‘formal’ language,
‘conversational’ and ‘dialogue’ language
o Probably co-occurrence, as between ‘conversational’ and ‘informal’ language
o Possible co-occurrence, as between ‘religious’ and ‘informal’ language
o Highly improbable co-occurrence, as between ‘legal’ and ‘colloquial’ language
- Situational variables
- Common core
- Point of view of attitude (whether they reflect a conventional orientation, a generally
accepted way of treating some aspect of the communication situation)
- ‘Literature’ and ‘humour’ are special as they need non-linguistic assessment (no set of
features will predict that the configuration will be called literary or funny)
- Linguists are not supposed to decide whether something is literary, they provide the relevant
linguistic variables for people that are
- “Apart from the message being communicated, what other kind of information does the
utterance give us?”
o Does it tell us which specific person used it? Individuality
o Does it tell us where in the country he is form? Regional dialect
o Does it tell us which social class he belongs to? Class dialect
o Does it tell us during which period of English he spoke or wrote it, or how old he
was? Time
o Does it tell us whether he was a speaking or writing? Discourse medium
o Does it tell us whether he was speaking or writing as an end in itself, or as a means to
a further end? Or simply was he writing his speech (written to later be spoken), or
speaking for transcription (spoken to be written)? Simple x Complex discourse
medium
o Does it tell us whether there was only one participant in the utterance, or whether
there was more than one? Discourse participation
o Does it tell us whether the monologue and dialogue are independent, or are to be
considered as part of a wider type of discourse? Simply said, it is a dialogue, but right
now I am telling a story or a joke, so it is temporarily a monologue. Simple x complex
discourse participation
o Does it tell us which specific occupational activity the user is engaged in? Province
o Does it tell us about the social relationship existing between the user and his
interlocutors? Status
o Does it tell us about the purpose he had in mind when conveying the message?
Textbook, article, commentary, novel, … Important to distinguish form province.
Modality
o Does it tell us that the user was being deliberately idiosyncratic? Singularity
o Does it tell us none of these things? Common-core (when normally common-core
features extremely frequent it might actually be Individuality or Singularity)
Crystal, D. 1987

- Distinguishes between the understanding of STYLE as

1. a characteristic of groups

2. a characteristic of individuals (preferred):

- “the set of language features that make people distinctive – the basis of their personal linguistic
identity”

-> forensic linguistics

- psychiatrists

- literary critics, etc.

- Very close to Prague linguistic teaching

- Structuralist

- Functional - person who tries to see some meaning behind the certain features of words
etc.

- Appreciated and quoted by Vachek

- For a long period one of the most influential and comprehensive accounts of style

- Revisited by Crystal (1994), etc.

- Preliminaries I.

- Majority of linguistic features have little predictive power

- Language-situation predictability is a scale (X is highly probably, Y is possible, etc.)

-> degree of predictability

- Stylistically neutral common core features – i.e., vast majority – not stylistically
relevant

- X Unique features relatively rare

- Common core features may be stylistically relevant only due to unusual frequency
or distribution

- specific pattering of those features

- just as Halliday they say that there is a clear connection between the
parameters of the situation and the linguistic features (how you read in the
book situation might hint to the features used?)

- Preliminaries II.

- Cline (scale) from restricted language (limited number of forms) to literature/fiction

(total range of linguistic means)

- unlike common-core features, all the others are situationally restricted in some way
 - the notion of SITUATION broken down into DIMENSION OF SITUATIONAL
CONSTRAINT (i.e., situational variables)

- three broad types of dimensions

- if you have choice you have style, and you have style only when there is a choice

- eight dimensions of situational constraint

- they are grouped (into 3 groups)

- Individuals only A1 and C4, others are related to groups

- A1-A3 is relatively limited for stylistic research, B is

- As you go down the list you see more and more stylistically relevant
features

- A1. Individuality

- A2. Dialect

- A3. Time

- B Discourse:

- B1. Medium

- B2. Participation

- C1. Province

- C2. Status

- C3. Modality

- C4. Singularity

- A1-3. Features

- relatively permanent background features

- mostly not susceptible to variation

- mostly predictable from situation

- Rarely manipulated

- A1. INDIVIDUALITY: identifying features of a personality, relatively permanent

idiosyncratic features – of speech/writing habits: recognizability

- A2. DIALECT: regional, social

- A3. TIME: temporal provenance (diachronistic information (period in language

history) + language ontogeny (has this been produced by a child or adult?)

- B (1-2.) Features

- DISCOURSE (essentially non-linguistic)

 - clear co-occurrences and functional similarities btw Medium and
Participation

- B1 MEDIUM

- Speech (phonetic/phonological level)

- Writing (graphetic/graphological level)

- Complex (spoken to be written or vice versa)

- B2 PARTICIPATION

- Monologue (no expected response)

- Dialogue (alternating participants)

- Complex: drama (written monologue as spoken dia-/multilogue of

characters)

- C 1-4. Features

- Relatively temporary or localized features

- Central to style

- C1 Province

- all linguistic features (lx, gr) suggesting occupation or professional activity

engaged in (exceeding Field); Conversation as well; Subprovinces: eg.
Advertising, TV advertising, TV advertising of detergents, etc.

- even face to face conversation is a type of province

- C2 Status

- linguistic variations corresponding with variations in the relative social

standing (formality, politeness, deference, kinship, etc.

- can be vaguely related to tenor

- what is their relative status, what is their hierarchy etc.

- C3 Modality

- features associated with specific purpose of discourse; resulting in

conventionalized, patterned formats; suitability of form to subject matter +
tradition (synchronic relevance may be lost)

- relates to genres

- prose, poetry, drama, etc. (Hasan even transaction?)

 - C4 Singularity

- occasional, idiosyncratic personal features; short, temporary, manipulable;

may give special effect

- can be loosely related to the A1, however A1 is not occasional it is stable

and people may be recognised by them, while C4 is special

- people for some reason may overuse or underuse something they might not
usually use or use a lot

- for example people are sleepy? (not sure whether I heard her right)

- (Stylistic) Variety

- Dimension of description (eg. Province)

- it can be described through various dimensions

- (Situational) categories of description (eg. Legal)

- categories withing the dimensions

- Linguistic features (eg. Phon, lex, gr)

- variety is unique configuration of linguistic features, each of which is referable to

one or more dimensions of description

- Within each dimension, numerous situational categories (for example withing

modality prose, poetry drama)

- A switch in categories produces a different variety

- Stable formal-functional correspondence

- a scale of dependency between something ___??

- Mutual dependence (i.e. redundancy) eg. Between legal and formal

language

- Probably co-occurrence: E.g., between conversation and informal language

 - you can chose to interact in more formal way

- Possible co-occurrence: E.g. Between irreligious and informal language

- it is at least possible

- Highly improbable Co-occurrence: E.g., legal and colloquial language

- it is probably not gonna happen

- Crystal, Davy: “Languages”

- word language in a very narrow sense – typical features of some some ugh ugh

- 5 major languages (elaborated)

- Conversation

- Unscripted commentary

- Religion

- Newspaper reporting

- Legal documents

- Other language varieties suggested:

- TV and press advertising

- Public speaking

- Written instructions

- Broadcast …

- ??

- ??

- ??

- Crystal – Revised

- D. Crystal (1994) Refining Stylistic Categories

 - Available online

- eg. Participation: mono, dia, multilogue

- Medium mixing, speaking in sotto voce (when you talk to a small baby), etc.

Fourth lesson: Self-study - Approaches to style (other schools and

frameworks)

Jan Renkema
Elena Semino and Jonathan Culpeper¨

- Literary x General stylistics (One of the main differences is that Literary one often wants to
appreciate the value of the text)
Fifth lesson: Intertextuality. Prior texts. Text types. Genres (Esser a
neser)
Introduction

- text/discourse classification – challenging task

- different taxonomies, frameworks, traditions, schools of thought

- classes and categories of texts/discourses facilitate production as well as comprehension

- Established on intertextuality

- One of seven standards of textuality (Beaugrande, Dressler - intertextuality)

- Relationships between texts (syntagmatic/paradigmatic)

Intertextuality

- Observed already by Ferdinand de Saussure, Mikhail Bakhtin, Roland Barthes

- Coined by J. Kristeva in her essay “Word, Dialogue and Novel” (1966) when analysing Bakhtin

- Relationships between texts which shape interpretation of texts and add new layers of meaning

- Any text is an “intertext”, a place of intersection of numerous text, existing only through its
relation to other texts

- A text is made up by other texts by means of citations, allusions, paraphrases, parodies, and more;

- not only physically, all kinds of inspiration

- after all we are all part of the same language and literary tradition

- Raises question of originality and authorship

- A text is “a mosaic of quotations; any text is the absorption and transformation of another.”
(Kristeva)

- texts are not self-contained, hermetic units

Rather culturally fashioned discourses or institutional ways of speaking and saying; authors complie?
the from existing texts

- Norman Fairclough: manifest intertextuality (eg. Quotation) interdiscursivity (i.e. constitutive

intertextuality, - discourses are more or less alike, when reading letter we access the letters we have
read to write something similar) (eg. Structure, genre)

- The concept of intertextuality points to the productivity of texts, to how texts can transform prior
texts and restructure existing conventions (genres, discourses) to generate new ones. (___)

Text classifications
- Esser (2009)

- Text-external vs. Text-internal classifications

- Text external (genre)

- comply with

- Text-internal ones: Medium dependent vs Medium independent (register, text-type)

- According to Esser: progress of sophistication from Genre to Register to Text Type.

- you do not have to be expert to tell genres apart, but probably have to be to tell the Text
types apart

General notions

- genre: Text-external; entire text, determined largely by its purpose

- Register: Text-internal: situational parameters linked with co-occurrence of ling. Elements (Halliday)

- Text-type: Text-external (e.g., Werlich) as well as Text-internal (e.g., Biber); entire texts or passages;

- Discourse-type (mode): Text-external, determined by the overall global function/producers’s

intention (e.g., Smith); Esser: global text function

Ancient Greek literary genres

- genres: Poetry, prose, drama

- Subgenres: Lyrical, epic; tragedy, comedy; etc.

Genres (Esser)

- Field (subject matter/topic)

- Participation (monologue/dialogue/multilogue)

- Medium (originating in speech/writing)

- Corpus: Survey of English Usage (ORIGIN IN W-printed, non-printed, for spoken delivery; ORIGIN IN
S – monologue/dialogue)

- he used that to prove his point I guess

- Printed:____ ?

Genres (Douglas Biber)

- Folk categories, recognizable by mature speakers X heterogeneous in linguistic features

 - they are text-external but not text-internal categories

- they can embrace various different features but seem to fit genre anyway (genre
does not have such a good meaning?)

- Examples:

- Editorial

- Newspaper article

- Novel

- Radio broadcast

- Public speech

- Academic article, etc.

Genres (Vijay BHATIA)

- textual artefacts

- Conventionalized and institutionalized

- Constantly developing

- Serve particular social purposes

- we have many genres because they fulfil a purpose in society

- Sometimes cross-disciplinary variaton

- Cross-cultural variaton

- Hierarchy: subgenres, embedded or mixed genres

- E.g., Genres in Mass Media: news report, review articles, advertisements, …

Register (M.A.K. Halliday)

- Variety according to use

- ???

- ???

Karel HAUSENBLAS

- TEXT TYPES:

- Written vs. Spoken (or combined)

- Simplex vs Complex
 - simplex text represents one producer (one voice) and are very easy in interpretation
(their purpose is self-evident), complex ones mix more voices (different characters,
…) or you have to work out the message (for example parody – not in the face
meaning)

- Verbal vs Non-verbal

- Non-verbal – pictures, tables, graphs

- Monolingual vs. Multilingual

- Multilingual – e.g. textbook of English for Czech students might include both
languages

Jozef Mistrík

- Objective (e.g., academic, administrative)

- Objective/subjective (e.g essay, …??)

- Subjective (e.g. ???)

Michail Bachtin

- short vs long

- if you have a long text you can express yourself a lot better and deeper)

- Written vs Spoken Texts

- Fiction vs Non-fiction

Egon Werlich

- Narration (perception in time)

- Description (perception in space)

- Exposition (comprehension)

- you try to make the reader comprehent

- Argumentation (judging, answer. – probl.)

- Instruction (planning)

- anticipates certain actions in some imaginary future

Robert LONGACRE

- UNIVERSAL ?DEEP? STRUCTURE GENRES (not SURFACE STRUCTURE GENRES, tied to a lang):
 - NARRATIVE: 1/3 pers (ich x er form), agent oriented, accompl. Time, chronological linkage

- EXPOSITORY: no necess. Pers. Reference, subject matter oriented, time not focal, logical
linkage

- PROCEDURAL: non-specific person, patient oriented, projected time, chronological linkage

- BEHAVIORAL (Hortatory): 2 person, addressee oriented, mode, not time, logical linkage

- ??

Edward Smith

- Narrative + +

- Procedural + -

- Behavioral - +

- Expository - -

- 2 criteria “contingent temporal succession” and “agent orientation”

- (DEEP STRUCTURE GENRES need not agree with TEXT-TYPES)

- Chomsky - Deep structure is shared across many languages (intentions etc.) while surface
structure differs across the languages (different word order, grammar etc.)

Tuija Virtanen

- Employs Werlich’s classification on two levels

- DISCOURSE TYPE (higher-order, superordinate pragmatic intention)

- deep order??

- TEXT TYPE (lower-order level, linguistic features, prototypical realizations; results from particular
text strategy or textualization)

- surface order category

- Match or mismatch: Argumentative DT realized by Narrative TT (e.g., Biblical parables);

- Teacher might use the Narrative TT (use personal story) to reach the Exposition DT

- NARR TT flexible (the most flexible of all) and can indirectly realize any DT (X ARG)

TEXT TYPES (Finegan, Biber)

- Text-internal

- Co-occurences of linguistic (esp. morphological and syntactic) features along several dimensions

- Multivariate computer programmes

 - based on Factor analysis

- Factor analysis

- Co-occuring linguistic forms indicate common communicative functions

- Three-dimensional Approach

- Interactive -> Edited (1)

- Abstract -> Situated (2)

- Reported -> Immediate (3)

Features of factors 1-3

- Factor 1 (Interactive->Edited): ?, contractions, I/you X long words, varied vocab (more edited)

- Factor 2 (Abstract->Situated): nominaliz., conjuncts, passives X 3rd pronouns, place and time
adverbs, relative pronoun deleted

- Factor 3 (Reported->Immediate): past, 3rd pers pronouns, perfect aspect X present, adjectives

- Exemplification 1 2 3

- is in Esser I guess…

Genres Along Factors

- arrangement of genres along each Factor according to mean factor score

- FACTOR (Dimension) 1 (Interactive->Edited)

- Telephone conversation (high score - interactive)

- Interview

- Prepared speech

- Fiction

- Press (low score - edited)

Carlota SMITH (2003)

- MODES OF DISCOURSE

- Narrative

- Descriptive

- Argumentative

- Report
 - Information

- Texts are seldom monolythic

- A mode may appear in various genres

- Differ according to the entity introduced and the type of semantic progression; they affect the
interpretation e.g., of tenses

- Ex. Narrative Mode introduces events/states, temporarily related, tense conveys continuity;
Sixth lesson: Structure / Organisation of text (HaH, Esser)
Text structure/organization

- Halliday, Hasan (1985), Esser (2009)

Structure (Aristotle)

- Introduction / Beginning

- Body / Middle

- Conclusion / End

- Segmentation, elements, arrangement, linearity

Text unity (Halliday, Hasan)

- Unity of Texture

- semantic point of view, damn I should have written that

- Unity of Structure

- they are linked, interdependent?

Organization (Hoey)

- Organization – “any combination of elements that is perceived by a user to form a pattern. If certain
combinations of elements can be shown to be impossible, the pattern is ?rule-bound? and is a
structure. If, on the other hand, there is no way of predicting impossible combinations – if, for
example, a pattern of elements is conventional only then the pattern is regarded… as reflecting
organization but not structure.”

Situation and structure

- Features of context may predict some elements of structure

- Contextual Configuration (CC): specific values of F, T, M

- eg. Employer praising employee in writing

parent praising child in speech

Contextual configuration

- configuration of the values of the three variables, i.e., features of the context of situation, F, T, M

- “It is the specific features of the CC – the values of the variable – that permit statements about the
text’s structure.” (Hasan)
- CC can predict Obligatory, Optional elements, their Sequence and Iteration (or recursiveness)

CC and Text structure

- mutually related

- CC features can be made to make predictions about text structure:

- What elements must occur

- What elements can occur

- Where must they occur

- Where can they occur

- How often can they occur

- Hence CC =/= text structure (CC is a prediction, not the structure itself?)

Contextual configuration

- Field (selling etc.)

- Tenor (Agent roles

Dyad (to what extent is power involved, Hierarchic vs Non-Hierarchic);

Social Distance)

- Mode (Role of Language;

Process Sharing (passive, active – the perspective important);

Medium;

Channel)

Contextual Configuration

- Social activity

- Agent Roles: (e.g., vendor vs customer)

- Dyad: Hierarchic vs Non-Hierarchic (control)

- Social Distance: Maximal vs Minimal (famil)

- Role of Language: Constitutive vs Ancillary

- Process Sharing: Active vs Passive (in creation)

- Medium: Written vs Spoken (the patterning or the means that is typical of speech or written)

- in Emails we use Spoken patterning in graphic channel

- Channel: Graphic vs Phonic

- (Non)congruence between Medium + Channel

- Noncongruence when these two do not match (email)

Structure

- so far we have been looking at CC which draws information from the situation, these are important
for making predictions of the actual structure of the text. The structure is composed of several
consideration (obligatory, optional, Iteration, linearity)

- Obligatory elements

- Optional elements

- Iteration (OBL + OP may be iterated; X iteration always optional)

- not the same words, the same unit that turns up again

- it is always optional, but you might iterate both the OBL or OP

- Linearity

Structural elements

- “Element is a stage with some consequence in the progression of a text.” (Hasan)

- functional perspective, it is based on the function, not length

- in discourse the length is not limited

- Obligatory

- elementary for Genres (in broad sense), without them the genres do not exist

- Optional (wider applicability)

- they are not defining for a specific genre, they might appear in more genres

- Iterated
- Functionally defined (in terms of semantic property, job they do in CC)

- the minimal amount of elements is TWO or more, distinct

- Varied realizations (e.g., clause, sentence, etc.)

Structure of genres

- Genre: Generic structure potential

- is an abstraction of items, elements, that have to turn out, might turn out, the order in
which they might happen, and iteration

- it is potential, not everything has to actually turn out

- recognized by a set of obligatory elements; if they do not arrive, or if their realization is

inadequate – strategies adopted: Probe, Repair, Reallign

- Actual structure (diverse actualizations)

- the child developing his writing skill might not always apply the skills properly

Strategies (mentioned before)

- remember the selling example

- Probe: to bring about the oblig. Element

- you bring up the element (ask what they want to buy)

- customer might hang around and the cashier initiates by probing: “Can I help you?” – this
way the customer has to take on the role of a looker-on or make a sale inquiry

- Repair: ob. Element realized, but not adequately

- you might check whether it is the right one, you might reiterate, etc.

- if the particular element was brought up, but not properly

- “I want some oranges” – the cashier does not know how much, which ones… Repair:
“Would a 3kg bag be enough?”

- Re-allign: when social distance minimal: intended to bring the wandering participant back

- if there is some leaving topic, you bring back to the topic

- happens a lot when the two know each other

- you want to buy something, but you know the cashier and he starts talking about his family,
so you bring him back into the transaction topic
Extensions – other approaches

Narrative structure (Labov)

- Abstract: What has happened/ what is the story about? Signal that the story is about to begin

- Orientation: Who / what is involved in the story? Where? When?

- Complicating action: What happened?

- Resolution: What happened in the end?

- Evaluation: So what? What’s the point? Why is it of interest?

- Evaluation does not necessarily follow order! It goes from Abstract -> Coda, but
Evaluation might be anywhere

- "this component tends to permeate the other categories and can occur throughout a
narrative"

- Coda: What’s the lesson? Signals that the story has ended.
Argumentative structure (Hatch)

- Introduction

- Explanation of the case under consideration

- Outline of argument

- Proof

- Refutation

- Conclusion

- Argumentative structure – comments (Hatch)

- Many variants exist, eg:

- Zig-Zag pattern (pro-con-pro-con-…)

- Problem-refutation of opponent’s view-solution

- One-sided argument (no refutation)

Argumentative structure (Schiffring)

- Position

- disproof

- support (of what you have adopted at the very onset)

Iconicity

- in narrow sense: “ordering within a text which reflects experience of the physical world”

- In broader sense: a number of principles, eg. “old information first, crucial information before less
important information, socially prestigious referents before less prestigious referents”, etc. (se
Enkvist in Tárnyiková, 2002)

Structure/organization

- Linear

- Relationship to outline, graphic layout (convention)

- Clearly marked units (at least TWO) (obl., opt.; order, iteration)

- Genre-specific (cf. Intertextuality)

- you can only arrive at a specific structure of genre if you compare it to different examples
(intertext.)
- Culture-specific (Engl X CZ)

- Predictability (expectation)

- if you are familiar with the specific genre, you can make predictions of what follows

- from the producer point of view you might structure your work as it to be convenient and
more likely adopted by public (you know what is expected in your genre)

- Patterned: Deviations recognized

- Facilitates interaction between S + H; WR + R

- Speech more versatile than WR

Relevance of structure

- Related to texture

- Relevant to production

- Relevant to comprehension

- Relevant to recall

- structure is not only formal issue, lacking structure effects comprehension, affects later recall

Seventh lesson – Cohesion (HaH)

Text unity

- Unity of structure

- Unity of texture

Texture

- related to context of situation

- Semantic relationships between messages

- Lexico-grammatical realizations

Cohesion: Definitisons

- Text-oriented standard of textuality… Cohesion deals with actual word-forms; C. exists

within a sentence and between sentences (Esser)

- Cohesion withing a phrase, a clause, or sentence is more direct and obvious (Beaugrande,
Dressler)

- A certain way certain words or grammatical features can connect that sentence to its
predecessors and successors in a text (Hoey)
 - Semantic relations are the basis of cohesion (Hasan)

- .. cohesion refers to the means (PHONOLOGICAL, GRAMMATICAL, LEXICAL, SEMANTIC) of

linking sentences into larger units (PARAGRAPHS, chapters, etc.), i.e., making them “stick
together” (Wales)

Cohesive tie/link

- Established on meaning relationships

- Conjoins twoelements of the same text sample

- Facilitates coherence

- Diverse frameworks and classifications

- if you want to identify a cohesive tie you have to link two units (“the United Nations” – the “tie” is
not a link because it is an article, but it is not tied to anything, if I get this correctly then “a bear ->
THE animal” should be a cohesive tie??)

Three types of tie relationships

- Co-Referentiality (identity)

- pointing to the very same referent more than once

- Co-Classification (member of class, set)

- two different issues relate to the very same class

- they are integrated as members of the same class

- Co-Extension (general field of ?meaning?)

- the items share some general

- typically opposites (antonyms) that share a lot of meaning even through there is some
contrast (different agenda)?

- do not forget, they have to connect two units!

Exemplification

- Co-Referentiality: Tell students to read the review again, paying particular attention to layout. They
must number the paragraphs 1-4 in the order they appear.

- Co-classification: Get students to mark the sentences T(true) or F (false). Remind them to correct
those that are false.
 - it is not sentences as a whole, but those that are false, yet they are still part of the
“sentences”

- Co-Extension: the “True” or “False”

- two units, antonyms, but you get the gist.

Realizations

- Co-Referentiality: Reference (pron, art, dem;

Lexical (instantial)

- Co-Classification: Reference (compar)

Substitution

Ellipsis

Lexical (gen, inst.)

- Co-Extension: Lexical (gen.)

Cohesive devices (Hasan)

- Grammatical vs Lexical

- Componential vs Organic

- componential ones point out constituents, components, elements of the sentences

(phrases, clauses) ?

- “detail of a message to detail of a message”?

- organic ones look at how a whole message is linked to a whole message

- Structural vs Non-structural

- Non-structural does not start at sentence

- Structural starts at sentence level

- General vs Instantial

- General: systemic, it applies in general

- Instantial: ad hoc, only in this particular text, in this particular discourse

- for example the main protagonist is names somehow and we can then use “the
hero” but the name of the protagonist will not be considered as “a hero” in general,
in different texts
Grammatical devices

- componential:

- reference (Pronom, Demon, Def. Art., Comp.)

- substitution (Nom., Verb., Cl.)

- ellipsis (Nom., Verb., Cl.)

- organic

- conjunction (Add., Adver., Caus., Temp.)

- adjacency pairs (e.g., quest-answ.)

Reference

- Exophoric (contextual, situational)

- Pronom.

- Dem.

- it links it with reality, text external

- Endophoric (co-textual, ling. Environment)

- Def. Art.

- Comp.

- (i) anaphora

- (ii) cataphora

(Pers., dem., comp.;

Simple – item to item – “Name to pronoun”,

extended – a longer passage to an item “something long…. “That was wise”,

textual – longer, no idea though something with joke and “That was funny” but the impact
somehow)

Substitution

- Nominal: One, the same

- Verbal: Do, do so (Go on, do so – as you said, substitutes the said thing)

- Clausal: So (I believe so), not (I believe not)

Ellipsis
- Nominal 0 (relies on the understanding of a text, replaces by nothing)

- Verbal

- Clausal

Conjunctives (conjunction – phenomena of linking, not the morphological meaning of conjunction

seems to relate to the essay “linking devices”)

- Additive and, also, moreover, in addition, first

- Adversative but, however, nevertheless, on the contrary, yet

- Temporal finally, then, meanwhile, at the same time, next

- Causal so, hence, therefore, as a result, …

Adjacency pairs

- ORGANIC RELATIONS, eg.:

(- Question Answer

- Offer Acceptance

- Offer Refusal

- Order Compliance

- Greeting Greeting)

Lexical devices

General Instantial

- Repetition Equivalence (aging American – Marlon Brando)

- (only content words, not “the…the…the”)

- Synonymy Semblance (Simily – something like something else)

- Antonymy Naming (Proper name…? film – “Last Tango In Paris”)

- Hyponymy (– an item is more general than a more specific one)

- Meronymy – whole body relationship – it constitutes the ?upper? unit and can be separated (finger
– body) (chair does not constitute furniture, while finger and body)

………………………………..

(Reiteration, Organic: Continuatives

Collocation?)
Structural Devices

- Parallelism

- operates on structures

- when two different passages (phrases, clauses, parts of sentences) display structural
similarity, some patterns

- it might be repetition, it might be similarity in patterning

- like two ?reason clauses? in succession

- FSP:

- Theme-Rheme Development

(- There is also a different approach (Hasan?) where Theme is anything at beginning)

- Given-New Organization

Other Cohesive Devices

- Place relators (Esser)

- Time relators (Esser)

- Morphological categories (tense, voice, mood, etc. – Tárnyiková)

- Punctuation (Tárnyiková)

- Phonological patterns (e.g., Alliteration – Wales)

- Etc.

Cohesion: Language-Specific

- The cohesion is universal across languages but the means are different

- e.g. Articles, substitution in E vs CZ

Cohes. Devices & Frequency

- the frequency differs

- in legal documents it is unthinkable to use pronouns too much

- Articles

- Conjuctives (conjunction)

- Ellipsis, substitution

Cohesion: Register-Specific

- Pronominals

- Conjunction (e.g., so, then, etc. – short likely in speech, more likely in informal

therefore, hence, etc. – long likely in writing, more likely in formal)

- Adjacency pairs

Cohesion vs Coherence

- Coherence is more important. Cohesion can be dispensed with, but it is helpful for coherence.
Having cohesion does not mean coherence, and coherence has more than cohesion to do

- Standards of textuality

- Cohesion and coherence: related?

- Cohesion does not…

- ???

- ???
Eighth lesson – Cohesive chains (HaH)
Texture – Cohesive Chains

- Halliday, Hasan (1985/5)

Type vs Token

- Introduced by Pierce (begin 20 cent)

- Type (lexeme, item of a system, general or abstract category or class)

- Token (instantiation, specimen, particular occurrence in actual use)

- Example: coherence

- even a grapheme is a type, and in this word there is token of it, represented twice

- Is every single realisation a token? Probably

- Type is a category (abstract) while token is its realization (particular)

Paradigmatic vs Syntagmatic (Saussure)

- Paradigmatic relationships – associative, contrastive

– opposition, replacement

- Syntagmatic relationships – chaining, concatenative

– combination

- Example: Pay attention

Give attention

Turn attention

- bold items stand in mutual opposition, they are paradigmatic. Syntagmatic

is the combination and order

Cohesive chains - STAGE 1

- identifying individual cohesive chains in samples

- minimal number of elements is 2 (same as the tie)

- there is an overlap with cohesive tie

- 2 is an extreme case

- Within the co(n)text of a particular text

- composed of 2 or more text items

- Treads of semantic relationships

- Co-referentiality: (same referent)

- Co-classification: (same class)

- Co-extension (related classes)

Cohesive chains (Hasan)

- Paradigmatically established

- Componential relationships

- (Structural, organic & instantial disregarded)

- Exophic reference included

- but it must be clear that it is the same referent

- basically we do not need to know the (linguistic) referent but have to be sure of the tie
- Focus on lexical devices (explicit)

- grammatical may also be in chains, however for her lexical are more telling

Types of chains

- Identity chains: co-referentiality

- Hasan stresses the sameness of the context of situation

because if we use two “he’s” it needn’t point to the same

referent if the situation changes

- Similarity chains: co-classification

Co-extension

Types of chains and CC (still Hasan)

- Identity chains: accidental from the viewpoint of CC (X not unimportant)

- Similarity chains: genre-specific

- thus more important from this point of view

Hierarchy of chains (still Hasan)

- Text exhaustive: run from beginning to end

- Focal: interact with many chains

Cohesive chains - STAGE 2

- Identifying mutual relationships between cohesive chains (i.e., tracing chain interaction)

- chain interaction

Types of tokens

- Relevant: All tokens that enter into identity or similarity chains

1. Central: those relevant tokens that interact

2. Non-Central: those relevant tokens that do not interact

- Peripheral: do not enter chains

Chain interaction I

- Two vectors of unity

Chain interaction II

- Two vectors of unity

1. Components of messages in chains (P)

2. Relationships between 2 or more chains (S):

- At least 2 members of a chain stand in the same semantic relationship with 2 members of
another chain (the two vectors of unity are basically the reasoning behind this requirement of
the same relation interaction of 2 and 2 + the second reason: that only one member with one
would make almost every clause an interaction)

- “People say similar things about similar phenomena” (Hasan?)

Types of semantic relationships between chain members

- Essentially grammatical:

- Actor – action (agentive+)

- Action – acted upon (+affected)

- Action and/or actor – location (+locative)

-Saying – text (+ /type/effected)

(- she demonstrates on narrative passages, that is why this is included)

- Attribute – attribuand (current, resulting att+)

(HaH Chapter 5)
Cohesive harmony

- Can the listener’s perception of varying degrees of coherence… be correlated with the differences in
texture? (Hasan)

- is there a link between cohesion and coherence?

- Linguistic correlates of variation in coherence

- Lower proportion of Peripheral to Relevant tokens -> more coherent text (1)

- Higher proportion of Central to Non-central tokens -> more coherent text (2)

- Fewer the breaks in the interaction -> more coherent text (3)

Cohes. Harmony: Comments

- Three features – ordered:

1. Particular referential domains – most tokens in chains

2. not just components;

- to stay with same/similar things:

- to show how similar the states of the things are

- to say similar kind of things about similar phenomena

- (you should show how similar the ?states? are)

3. gradual progression, no clear boundaries or complete breaks

„Thus cohesive harmony is an account of how the two functions (the textual – chains and
interactions; and the experiential – what interaction is built upon;) find their expression in one
significant whole.“
The three features (ordered)

- “Identity and similarity should not be limited to message components alone – such identity and
similarity underlie chain formation; the notions of identity and similarity should also be extended to
the content of the message as message….”

- you should have this kind of similarity and identity also syntagmatically

- Stay with the same thing long enough to show how similar the states of affairs are in which these
same or similar things are implicated.” (Hasan)
Pictures of interaction

- text exhaustive

Cohesive harmony Impact

- Cohesion and coherence (two text-oriented standards) are explicitly related

- “Variation in coherence is the function of variation in the cohesive harmony of a text.” (Hasan)

- Lexical and grammatical cohesive devices brought together (Support one another)

- Textual and experiential functions harmonized

- “The incoherence of discourse is often a pointer to an inability to organize the relevant meanings in
relation to each other.” (Hasan)
Ninth lesson: Thematic progression
Unit ten: FSP and Thematic progressions (Mathesius, Firbas, Dušková, Daneš)

History

- Henry weild – psychological subject and psychological predicate

- Vilém Mathesius

- theme and the rheme

- Jan Firbas

- František Daneš

- Petr Sgall, Eva Hajičová

- Libuše Dušková, etc.

Frameworks

- Bipartition (TH-RH) (for example Daneš)

- Tripartition (TH-TR-RH)

- subtleties withing the sentence

- Theme, varieties of the theme

- Transition

- Rheme

- Potentiality also subtleties within that

Communicative Dynamism (CD) (Firbas)

- property of unit to push the information further

- there are degrees that can be posited, we posit that each unit contributes to further the
knowledge in a particular interaction/discourse

- Theme (THP DT?) vs Non-Theme (TRP TR RH RHP)

- rising CD

- Non-theme – Transition proper (TRP – typically within verb form) and TR (lexical
something in verb form?), Rheme and Rheme proper

Functional sentence perspective (FSP) – Firbas

- Factors:

- Linearity (linear modification)

 - the (linear) arrangement of units, the word order, in particular sentence

- Semantic factor

- meaning factors?

- some prvky of language are predisposed to denote something

- the indefinite article by definition marks something relatively new

- basically things that somehow hint or denote meaning?

- Contextual factor

- things that are mentioned for the first time, or surprising, would be rather dynamic,
likely to be rhematic. While the deducible ones from the situation will be rather
thematic

- Intonation

(- you can highlight through intonation, even if grammatical word)

- the outcome is actually the interplay of the factors

Linearity / Linear modification

- WO (CZ vs. E)

- EN WO: grammaticalized

X methods of changing the WO

- Cleft, Pseudo-cleft, Inverted cleft sentences

- Anticipatory it + extraposition of S,O

- There is/are

- Passivization

- Discontinuities

- Ditransitive verbs

- Inversion

- etc.

Semantic factor(s)

(- languages with not fixed word order mostly show the dynamism ?)

- The English has other means than WO to show the Theme and Rheme

- Word classes (Articles

 Pronouns,

Quantifiers, etc)

- Articles and pronouns point at familiarity of the information

- Clause elements (S vs O, A, C)

- Rhematizers

- e.g. “particularly, especially”

- they turn the following item into rheme

- Conversives

- Focussing adverbs

- etc.

Intonation

- Rhythmical Principle

- Pride and Prejudice; bed and breakfast

- dictated by prosody

- End-focus and End-weight Principles

- Stress on the last stressed syllable

- More important units tend to be expressed more fully

- These involve substitution of a sound

- Prosodic tail

- There were three apples in it.

- the unit after the last stressed element

Contextual Factor

- there are items that are contextually dependent and independent (some prefer the term “bound”
as there is no actual dependence involved)

- Contextually dependent (bound)

- it has been mentioned before, it was implied already

- Contextually independent (unbound); e.g. First mention

Objective vs. Subjective Order (Mathesius)

- two different orders/arrangements

 - The objective prevails, while subjective is relatively rare

(- Subjective is typical for emotional situations?)

- A child could do it!

- Objective? I dunno

- This could be done by a child!

- Subjective? I dunno

Presentation vs. quality scale (Firbas) (I)

Presentation scale

- PH = phenomenon

- Pr = presentation verb (“to appear”, “to come”, “to arrive” – appearing on the scene)

- some are explicit some are regular verbs that just take on the role

- Set = Setting

-When I was nearing the house, I did not see anybody, but before I reached it,

Alice had appeared on the doorstep

- Phenomenon (Alice) Presentation verb (had appeared) Setting (on the doorstep)

- Quality scale highlights the quality

- B = bearer (of the quality) (“Alice” in the example)

- Q = Quality

- Sp = Specification (in the case of an example the location)

- I wondered whether Alice had already left for London or was still staying with her parents in
the old house. But when I was walking past the house the other day,

Alice appeared on the doorstep.

- Bearer (Alice) quality verb (appeared) Specification (on the doorstep)

Presentation sentences -patterns

- she skipped ahead

- there are more patterns than PH PR Set

Theme vs Rheme

- Rheme: more important communicatively

 - in narrow sense it is our intention in communicatively

- the stuff we want to “enrich” someone through conversation

- Theme: more important in text build-up

- the starting point

(Hasan: Structural cohesion)

- core x starting point

- In his (Mathesius’) weIlknown paper from 1939 he defines the "starting point of the
utterance (vychodisko)" as "that which is known or at least obvious in the given situation and
from which the speaker proceeds", whereas "the core of the utterance (jadro)" is "what the
speaker states about, or in regard to, the starting point of the utterance".”

Thematic progressions (F. Daneš) (I)

- a different approach, he decided to cancel the “transition” and keep to the bipartition

- Where do the themes of a continuous passage come from? (Contextual factor)

- Based on meaning relationships (cohesion)

Thematic progressions – criteria

- What gets thematized (syntagmatic or paradigmatic links)

- Reiteration or derivation

- Reiteration (constant theme for example) – we use the same theme again, we do not derive

- derivation in the text-build up sense (something with richer context???)

- Contact (immediate) vs distant tie

Thematic progressions – comments

- Thematization – employ as a theme (of already mentioned?)

- Theme, rheme, sentence/utterance, passage (can be thematized)

-Semantic relationships – co-referentiality and other semantic relationships (eg. Whole – part)

- Distant: at least one sentence (clause) in between

Thematic progessions (F. Daneš)

- CT - Continuous or Constant theme (same referent is theme)

- DCT - Derived constant theme (point to something related to referent?)

- TR - Thematization of rheme

- DTR - Derived thematization of rheme

- ST - Split theme (something mentioned in the theme or rheme?)

- TDH – Theme derived from hyper theme (themes have an umbrella)

- TU – Thematization of utterance

- TJ – Thematic Jump (insert a reconstructed link of which the rheme is thematized ??? – Can you pick
up the phone? I‘m in the bath.)

- dunno, did not have time to write it down – dunno which Daneš she read, but some of hers are not
there…
- Syntagmatic v paradigmatic

---> |

| V

V |

---> V

- the syntagmatic arrows also include the connections between rhemes

Additional cases

- Condensed sentences with complex theme

- Condensed sentences with complex rheme

- Compound sentence

- composed at least of two main clause

- Sentences with multiple theme

- theme that corresponds to a cluster to syntactically equal structures

- Sentences with multiple rheme

- same but with rheme

- Composed and Condensed U (“utterances”). Complex Theme and complex rheme
¨

-still split rheme

Tenth lesson: Types and build-up of paragraphs, segmentation into
paragraphs
Paragraph Build-up

- Daneš (1994/5); Chaplen;

Paragraph

- Primarily unit of written text

- Secondarily – relationship to spoken units

- Passages of varied lengths: field-/ genre-specific; even less than sentence (rare)

- Usually comprises several sentences

- Direct relationship to structure (P. Groups); to TP; cohesive chains, etc.

- Daneš

- Enhances coherence;

- if you are successful in segmenting the text in an appropriate way, it might promote the
perception of coherence

- Impact on style

- -||- of style

- Graphic segmentation X episodes (unit of content)

- (Notional paragraphs) – they might not agree with the graphic segmentation

Paragraphing

- Clarity

- Coherence

- Expectation

- Cooperation

- Motivation

- Pace of processing

- longer slows, shorter accelerates

- Aesthetic aspect

- if you remove paragraphs the meaning might change (because of pronouns, etc.) (coherence?
Expectation? Coherence? Dunno)
Graphic aspect

- Written language

- Graphic mark on the margin (symbol Zobrazit vše)/antiquity

- the graphic mark was to signal the beginning of logical chunk

- breaks marked by indentation (probably the space before first letter?) vs. (vs American?)

- American paragraphing

- Leaving one line

- Potential mismatch between graphic and content articulation (notional p.)

- Paragraphing rhythm, eye-paragraphs

- paragraphing rhythm – how the paragraphs vary across the page (similar sizes, different
sizes, … we should consider this in final analysis)

Paragraph-inner structure/organization (Chaplen)

- Controlling idea

- each paragraph is governed by controlling idea which is implied and is what the paragraph is
about – why it was written, what is its purpose

- sometimes written next to the paragraph (in Hassan for example)

- Topic sentence

- might or might not be there

- usually in initial position, it informs the reader what they ought to expect from this
paragraph

- explicit (vs controlling idea which is only implied)

- Major Support sentence/s)

- directly develops the controlling idea or the topic sentence (if there is one)

- Minor Support Sentence/s)

- can be eliminated if the paragraph is to be shortened

- directly develops the major support sentence, indirectly the controlling idea (or top.
Sentence)

- sometimes is irrelevant – diverges from the idea

Methods/patterns of paragraph development

- Rhetorical tradition: e.g. Troyka (1986): main point developed

- the topic in the narrow sense might be developed by:

- By narration

- By description

- By analysis (ind/ded) and classification

- By comparison and contrast

- the ideas that are equal in many senses

- By exemplification

- By definition

- By cause and effect

- By process

- By analogy

- analogy is usually explaining something complex by use of something more down to

earth

Theme

- U-theme – (FSP)

- P-Theme – (Hypertheme)

- how the individual U-theme … to the … ??

- Hypertheme is the theme of article, monography, …

Paragraph typology Mathesius (1942/82)/Daneš (1994/5)

- Mathesius did not use “p-theme)

- Stable P-Theme paragraph

- Unfolding P-Theme paragraph

- Content frame P-theme paragraph

- Daneš’s own innovation

- are that is much less clear…… I have no idea honestly

- Developing P-theme paragraph

Daneš: Par. Typology

- Hierarchy between
 - Paragraph themes (P-Themes)

- FSP/Utterance Themes (U-Themes)

- U-Themes enter/constitute TPs

- Typology established on relationship between P-Theme and Uthemes

- Typlogy-solely tendencies, Imperfect instances

Paragraph typology

- Stable P-theme paragraph

- Unfolding P-theme paragraph

1. Aspects

2. Split

- Content frame P-Theme paragraph

1. Dynamic (Particularization)

2. Static (Exemplification)

- Developing P-Theme Paragraph

Typical thematic progressions

- SP: CT

- In stable, very likely constant theme (CT)

- U Split: TSR, (D)CT

- (derived) Constant theme ([D]CT), thematization of the split rheme (TSR)

- U Aspects: DCT, TDH

- theme derived from the hyper-theme (TDH), derived constant theme

- CF Dynamic: (D)TR

- the most striking feature: (derived) thematization of rheme

- CF Static: TDH, DCT, O

- there might be paradigmatic thematic progression

- Or no thematic progression at all

- D: (D)Tr, (D)CT

- on the onsent you present a topic and it will change into something else by the end

- start with the P-theme 1 (you believe this will be what the author will talk about),
then another P-theme will be announced at some point (and stay there)

- sometimes you need to transition

Hierarchy of hyperthemes

- depends on the length of the text, genre etc.

- Global Theme

- Chapter Theme

- Section Theme

- Paragraph-Group Theme

- Paragraph Theme

- in very long paragraph you can even recognise paragraph hypo-themes

- something slightly different from hyper-theme

Rhetorical structure theory

-Compositional relationships between paragraph sentences

 - Thesis

- Antithesis

- Specification

- Contrastive specification

- Exemplification

- Consequence

- Contrastive corollary

- etc.

- one sentence might provide thesis, another one antithesis to that

- one sentence might provide a thesis, the another one some sort of specification?

- Daneš?

Contrastive Rhetoric (Kaplan)

- “Cultural thought patterns in inter-cultural education” 1966

- the different cultures not only “tolerate” but “expect” the different structure

- organization of paragraphs in expository essays by ESL students

- different types of paragraphs

- For English the paragraphing is way more important than for the different cultures

- Russian means that at the beginning and at the end the idea is basically the same, however it
tolerates (or expects) much more deviation

Záverečná práce odevzdat šestého

Aktivita na kohizivni úrovni žáka, transformovat, nevyužívat terminologii, pokud poslouchac není z
univerzity Poslali jste Musí to být ready to use - čas, recipient, obsah...
Eleventh lesson: Self-study – Coherence (however there is nothing
about coherence in the essential text…)

Last lesson

- she also marks the language proficiency