L e c t u r e 9. Text as an object of syntactic study

I. The inter-sentence connections in the text.

II. The textual linguistics: history of the textual linguistics, categories of

textuality.

I. The inter-sentence connections in the text.

Inter-sentence connections have come under linguistic investigation but recently. The highest lingual unit which was approached by traditional grammar as liable to syntactic study was the sentence. However , further studies in this field have shown that sentences in continual speech are not used in isolation, they are interconnected both semantically and syntactically.

The first scholars who identified a succession of such sentences as a special syntactic unit were the Russian linguists N.S. Pospelov and L.A. Bulakhovsky.

N.S. Pospelov called the unit in question a “complex syntactic unity”,

L.A. Bulakhovsky termed it a “super-phrasal unity”. M.Y. Bloch suggested the term the “supra-sentential construction”. In the course of study it has been stated that sentences in speech come under broad grammatical arrangements and combine with each other on strictly syntactic lines in the formation of the text.

The general idea of a sequence of sentences forming a text provides its two distinguishing features: semantic (topical) unity and semantico-syntactic cohesion. Semantic unity implies that a text as a succession of sentences centers on a common informative purpose. Semantico-syntactic cohesion interprets the sentences in a succession as syntactically relevant.

Sentences in a sequence can be connected either prospectively or retrospectively. Prospective connection is effected by connective elements that relate a given sentence to one that is to follow it. A prospective connector signals a continuation of speech: the sentence containing it is semantically incomplete, e.g.: And now let us switch onto the next topic. The environmental protection.

Retrospective connection is effected by connective elements that relate a given sentence to the one that precedes it and is semantically complete by itself. Retrospective connection is the basic type sentence connection in ordinary speech,

e.g.: The man hit the ball. The crowd cheered him on.

On the basis of the functional nature of connectors, sentence connection can be of two types: conjunctive and correlative. Conjunctive connection is effected by conjunction-like connectors: regular conjunctions (coordinative and subordinative) and adverbial or parenthetical sentence-connectors (then, yet, however, consequently, hence, besides, moreover, nevertheless). Conjunctive connection can be only retrospective,

e.g.: Carter was upset and angry. But remained firm.

The president emotionally declared that he was “glad to be home”. Then

he told the gathering what it had come to hear.

Correlative connection is effected by a pair of elements one of which refers to the other, used in the foregoing sentence. By means of this reference the sentences in a succession are related to each other. Correlative connection can be both retrospective and prospective. Correlative connection is divided into substitutional and representative.

Substitutional connection is based on the use of substitutes,

e.g.: There was an old woman who lived in a shoe.

She had so many children, she didn’t know what to do. (children’s rhyme).

A substitute may have as its antecedent the whole of the preceding sentence or a clausal part of it. Substitutes often go together with conjunctions, effecting the mixed type of connection, e.g.: As I saw them I thought that they seemed prosperous. But it may have been all the same just an illusion.

Representative connection is based on representative elements which refer to one another without the factor of replacement, e.g.: Soon he went home. None regretted his departure. Representative correlation is achieved also by repetition: e.g.: He has a lean and hungry look. He thinks too much. Thinks too much. Such men are dangerous.

M.Y. Bloch investigates the two important border-line phenomena between the sentence and the sentential sequence. The first is known as “parcellation”. The parcellated construction presents two or more collocations separated by a sentence-tone (in writing they are delimited by a full stop) but related to one another as parts of one and the same sentence, e.g.: … I realized his horse was the first to come. Again. I thought I was finished.

The second of the border-line phenomena in question is the opposite of parcellation and may be called fusion. It consists in forcing two different sentences into one, e.g.: She said that she was very glad to meet him and would he please join her company.