Rens Bod

Rens Bod has an extreme and radical functionalist position in the sense that his conception of lge is completely diff. From
the classical conception,i.e. Lge is an abstract system of ling units and rules and those units are combined to form
utterances on the basis of diff types of rules. As it is knowledge it is sth abstract, recorded in out memories.
Rens Bod proposes a completely different view of lge. He considers that this conception is obsolete. He sees lge as an
ensemble (a sort of collection or compilation of representations of linguistic experiences, concrete linguistic experiences,
real experiences, that is, the utterances or pieces of lge that we produce and receive from other speakers, these are our
linguistic experiences. Every time we use lge either to write or to understand, we are having a linguistic experience. This
ensemble is not just a compilation, it is a statistical ensemble, so it is a compilation which is organized in a probabilistic
way. Every time we use lge either by producing it or receiving it, our mind checks and matches the pieces that we
experience during our use of lge with that ensemble in our mind (like a computer does, and when it doesn’t find a match,
it lets you know so you can add or correct). The idea is that the lge kno. We have is sth that depends entirely on our
experience of using that kn., without lge use, there can be no statistical organization of anything in our mind, but there is
no system previous to that linguistic experience and this is where we see the principal difference with the traditional
conception of lge as a system, kn which is organized and ready to use. There is no system independent or previous to out
use of lge, every time we use lge, that system is affected by our experience of using the lge. We have a compilation of
chunks of lge, the mental representation of pieces of lge which are recorded in our memory as a consequence of our
social interaction and our use of lge (not only when we use it, but also when we receive it). It may be reinforced by our
use of lge, for instance we encounter pieces which are already represented in our memory: or it may be changed or
modified, depending on how we use the lge. Evidence of this is that if you acquire a given lge and don’t use it for a
period of time, you are likely to forget it, because our knowledge of lge depends on use.
This is a completely diff. Position and this is a functionalist one because the linguistic experiences occur with the
interaction with other people, which take place in a social context.

Schiffrin also approaches the topic of discourse, what is discourse? We have given a definition up to now, an
authentic piece of lge produced in a real, concrete communicative situation (general def.) Schiffrin begin by presenting a
structuralist definition of discourse and she explains that all structuralist linguists depending on the school t hey belong,
have diff. conceptions about discourse, but there is sth that all of them share: the idea that in a piece of discourse we have
interrelated elements. The most important aspect of discourse according to structuralists is the relationship of the
different linguistic elements that constitute a piece of lge produced in a communicative situation. Another imp thing is
that all structuralists focus on the sentence as the unit of analysis (sentential type of analysis).

The 1st to introduce or mention the notion of discourse was Zell Harris in 1951. he was the first to propose the notion of
discourse for the analysis of lge but his conception of discourse was a structuralist one, and therefore he was interested in
the analysis of sentences that constitute a text. For his a text is a collection of sentences which are related to one another,
how? Lexically, because if you analyze the diff. Sentences in a text you are likely to find synonymy, antonymy and
semantic fields. If you analyze a txt and its diff sentences you are likely to find a nominal form and a pronominal form, e.g:
Peter…. He. These are referential relations (anaphoric: anaphoric terms take us back to a previous part of a txt and
cataphoric: takes us forward). This is a typical structuralist analysis. Functionalists, on the other hand consider also social
elements:
 the relationship author/audience to which the piece of discourse is intended
 The author’s intention How the audience reacts to that message
that is, they do a pragmatic and social type of analysis, in doing this they see the illocutionary and perlocutionary force.
Structuralists’ analysis of discourse focuses on the microstructural level of analysis: phonological, lexical and grammatical
analysis. A systemic type of analysis because it focuses on the 3 subsystems of the system of lge. A macrostructural
analysis, which is done by functionalists, is one that considers the global meaning, the message communicated by a piece
of discourse. Functionalists include also another level of analysis called superstructural level of analysis: that of the global
architecture/organization of the text- setting, plot, moral, the basic parts.
The 3 levels are terms proposed by Dutch linguist Van Dijck .
Schiffrin mentions several disadvantages of the structuralist view of txts/discourse. She mentions
1) if we take a sentential approach, we are interested I the units of lge and how they are combined into sentences:
lexically, phonologically and semantically, this means that we’re interested in cohesive devices, how ws are connected. This
is a cohesive type of analysis and the problem or drawback is that although cohesion is necessary, it is not sufficient, a te xt
needs coherence to make sense. What defines a piece of lge as a text is precisely coherence.

2) Not appropriate to analyze everyday conversation and spoken lge in gral. In real life people generally don’t speak in
sentences. A sentential type of analysis is not able to account for those elements typical of spoken lge

3) circular type of analysis. If you consider a txt just as a combination of sentences, the idea is that a txt is nothing but a
big sentence that can be decomposed into smaller sentences.

4) The criterion for analysis is a syntactic criterion. It cannot account for deviant txts. When we find incorrect or deviant
sentences as in txts produced by a student, we cannot say that these are not texts, not pieces of discourse. These are
actually txts produced in a social context by students learning to use a lge.

5) It cannot account for non-canonical sentences (sentences with subject, verb, and complement), and in everyday life we
find non-canonical sentences in txts. A functionalist app can account for both canonical and non-canonical pieces of lge.

6? It cannot account for the social aspects of texts. It does not account for the interpretation the reader/hearer. It
considers only half of the process which is necessary to analyze and understand the text, for without interpretation all we
have is a potential text, not a text proper. Somebody other than the author has to interpret a text for it to become a text
proper.
John Lyons
John Lyons (British linguist) he made the attempt to solve the problem of formalism when dealing with text analysis and
the sentence as the unit of analysis. He proposed the notion of text-sentence as opposed to the system sentence. A
system sentence is a sentence taken as an isolated term -a grammatical unit of analysis and a string of lexico-grammatical
elements organized in such a way that they have a hierarchical order, typically SVO. A text-sentence, according to Lyons is
sth diff, a sentence whose value depends on its relationship with the other sentences in the text. It makes sense only as
part of a group of sentences in a text. This proposal was not enough to solve the problem because in both cases we are
dealing with a sentential analysis and the social aspects used by the author of that text are not taken into account. There
is still no analysis of the pragmatic aspects of lge. So, why mention this? Because in fact, there is a diff between txt
sentences and system sentences.
The formalist perspective proposes the idea that discourse is lge above the sentence and that we must go beyond the
limits of each sentence to see how they are related to the others in a piece of discourse, it is a sentential and
intrasentential type of analysis.
The actual solution is the functional approach, which proposes to consider discourse as lge use not just as lge above the
sentence. To consider not only the micro-structural aspects, but also the macro and super-structural and pragmatic
aspects as well.

Fairclough discourse as lge use. In the late 80s (1989) he explained that lage is a social phenomenon because it is part of
social life and society. Even if you keep silent, lge is there all the time in our thoughts. This is an imp assertion by
Fairclough. So, the analysis of lge as an autonomous system would be a contradiction since the analysis of lge necessarily
intersects with elements outside of lge. He rejects the formalist view of discourse. Another important point that he stresses
has to do with the notion of GENRE. The world of discourse is lge use and lge use is organized into genres. His definition
of genres is

“They are socially and culturally organized ways of speaking and writing through which particular communicative
purposes are realized”
e.g. a short story fulfills aesthetic, entertaining, teaching purposes.

Roy Harris
what you find in this text and in the following one is an analysis according to which the term idealization is a bit confusing
and ambiguous.
We cannot say that these idealizations are unsound or inadequate. Roy Harris does not reject the use of idealizations.
They are theoretically essential and they are also theoretically legitimate and those who object them simply fail to
understand their role of idealizations in scientific inquiry in general, not only of linguistics. He clarified that all scien ces
resort to idealizations and that it would be unreasonable to say that these idealizations are unsound or inadequate just
because they are not based on observable facts. For example, in idealizations related to the process of calculation; in the
humanities the purpose of idealizations is to create or establish prototypical models stereotypes which are useful for the
purpose of analysis (they are prescriptive stereotypes, prototypical models). He is clearly in favor of idealizations, yet he
opposes their use in the field of linguistics. In linguistics the 3 idealizations are mere steps in the process of explanation.
The first paragraph of the text introduces a very severe piece of criticism because he ends up saying that these
idealizations make it impossible for a linguist to come with any linguistic analysis at all because we are not analyzing lge
as it really is in everyday life. Notice that he is careful enough to conceive the good side of idealizations, he acknowledge s
that they are useful, necessary, legitimate and reasonable but not for the analysis of everyday lge, particularly the one
about homogeneity, because in lge we have heterogeneity and diversity. It is evident, from this article, that Harris is a
functionalist.

Dell Hymes
He was the first to introduce the concept of communicative competence. This text connects with that of Harris since in
both of them, the authors object to the appropriateness of idealizations in the field of linguistics. The
objection=intertextuality – both texts refer to the very same topic. The “we” at the beginning is the one of scientific
discourse convention, not an inclusive we. ‘irrevocably’ - He does not mitigate, his position is very different from th
position of those linguists who consider that lge is a system in which all we have is meaning and sound and rules linking
meaning and sound. By referring also to the combination of meaning and sound he also refers to the linguistic sign in
which we have a concept and a sound image. The idea is that we reject categorically this orthodox idea that all we have in
lge is a system in which we combine meaning and sound by means of rules, there is much more than this in lge.
He presents a very categorical assertion at the very beginning and then he elaborates his initial explanation. He illustrates
the multiplicity of purposes for which we can use lge in communication. Then, he refers to the functions of lge: emotive,
directive, phatic, referential.
In essence, the message of this first paragraph is that lge is much more than sound and meaning, lge is also
communicative conduct = behavior and social life. There are social aspects of lge that cannot be ignored.
Hymes stresses that a good model of lge in addition to sound and meaning, also includes social aspects of lge,
linguistic kn is not enough to use lge in an appropriate way because there are also social rules that should be
considered s part of lge. The social context imposes restrictions on the use of lge (e.g. using “usted” instead of “vos” when
speaking to an elderly person who is unknown to us).
Speech acts: this notion was introduced by J. Austin and J. Searle (important philosophers of lge of the 20 th c) . they
developed a whole theory known as speech act theory, which is based on the idea that every time we use lge, in speech
or in writing, we perform a speech act. There is always an act implicit in the use of lge, an action implicit in our words.
There is no limit to the number of actions (invite, persuade, describe, etc, etc) any piece of lge in which you see an
intention, there is a speech act. This theory is connected with the pragmatic forces of lge and the notions of illocutionary
force and perlocutionary force. They also introduced the concept of locution.
At the beginning this theory was applied to the study of conversation and spoken lge, but nowadays it is used for written
lge too.
In the second paragraph, Hymes says that rules of speech acts imply? enter? As a controlling factor for linguistic form and
as whole (…) the paragraph ends up with these suspending dots, with which he is inviting the reader to look for more
information (or that this is not the moment to develop these topics). These 3 dots are performing a speech act.
The most important idea in this second paragraph is that there are rules of use, rules related to social interaction and
social life, without which the use of grammar would be useless. And in connection with those social rules, we have the
notion of speech act.
3rd paragraph: our ability to use grammar is as important as our ability to use lge in an appropriate way, because “use” in
the text means social use.
“within the developmental matrix” means the process through which lge kn is acquired, it is a developmental process
because the kn of lge grows over time. So, in the lge acquisition process, the child not only learns the grammar of the lge
in question but also how to use the lge in an appropriate way, that is, he acquires kn of how to use lge fro effective
communication (appropriately, effectively, efficiently). People who can build up correct sentences but cannot use them
appropriately do not have communicative competence, only a certain level of grammatical competence. And knowledge
of social rules is not taught but is acquired tacitly by interacting with others. For example, nobody teaches us to interpret
rhetorical questions such as can you open the door?.
4th paragraph: communicative competence has several components, of which grammatical competence is only one and,
according to the passage, the other component of communicative comp are socio-cultural kn and grammatical kn.
One implication of this article is that the important things in lge are “what” we say and “how” we say it.
What has to do with our choice of words, our choice of vocabulary, of syntactic structures, with the idetional context, our
pronunciation, our spelling, use of punctuation, use of grammar, etc. The how we use lge has to do with whether we are
polite, impolite, communicative, respectful, that is with appropriateness (if we say sth appropriate for the situation and the
interlocutor) and appropriateness refers to the social domain: the who -interlocutors, when – social context, why? -
purpose behind words.
Last line in human behavior there is always some message communicated because behavior always manifests some kind
of message. In addition to the ideational content the what the message is about, we interpret the how.
Being competent in a lge means having communicative competence. Nor only grammatical kn, but also kn of social rules,
of how to use lge appropriately = What we communicate and how.

Atkinson, Kilby and Roca

There is an abstract first so we can see the connection between this text and the previous one.
So what? Discourse hook/an attention seeking device: a way of attracting and inviting the reader to read the article
because this will developed later.
Discussion about the metaphor of the car. There is a comparison between lge competence and a car, the diff components
of lge competence compared to th parts of a car. The system of lge the engine communicative compt the rest of the car.
These two components are essential, one of them is not enough to guarantee an effective process of verbal
communication.
First lines they are not going to discuss the proposal by Hymes, there are no objections to that, it is just a point of
departure for the metaphor they want to discuss. Form the proposal they take 2 things
Grammaticality: whether the sentence is well-formed, lexically, phonologically accurate.
Appropriateness: pragmatic elements, the force of that sentence or piece of lge.
There is more to lge than mere linguistic competence, but what follows from this? (they anticipate this question that the
readers probably have made, and also write it so as to make the text more vivid). That they do not imply that linguistic
competence is not important, it is vital, and those who study it and focus on it are also vital. They should not stop
studying it just because it is only part of communicative competence. The authors acknowledge the imp of linguist comp.
“It might, of course, be the case...”at the same time our message is that grammarians and phoneticians would enrich their
work by considering social aspects of lge and viceversa. But this is not what we find in real life, this is only a proposal.
Grammarians concentrate on grammar and the tendency in general terms is not to pay attention to sociocultural aspects.
The tendency in general is to give linguistic competence a secondary place and we shouldn’t do that.

There is another metaphor, it compares lge with a fruit, communicative competence with a fruit. The seed of the fruit
would be linguistic competence and the flesh would be kn of how to use linguistic competence in an effective way, this
comparison is very useful particularly to see why linguists such as Chomsky and formalists considered we have more
elements to study the flesh of the fruit scientifically. Both parts (core and flesh) can be studied scientifically, but there are
more e to study the see because the sciences that focus on the flesh are younger and because social, pragmatic and
cultural aspects are much more elusive than grammatical, phonological and lexical aspects.

The notion of text

this is a complex notion just one definition by one author is not enough. The right thing to do is to consider several
definitions by several authors.
Our idea of text so far: it is a piece of discourse that meets certain conditions: that it should make sense as a whole, it
should have continuity of senses.

Dirven and Verspoor (functionalists linguists) 1998

“a text is the linguistic expressions used in communication by people and the interpretation the hearer or reader makes of
them.”
Linguistic expressions means the verbal elements, the wording of the text, paralinguistic elements (prosodic e like
intonation, stress) and non-verbal e like gestures, attitudes towards the interlocutor and the topic of discussion. The
notion of linguistic expressions is very dense. Non-verbal e can be seen both in spoken or written texts through the
process of interpretation (the process by which we find meaning in the wording of the text in question and also in non-
ling e related to that piece of lge).
Consciously or unconsciously we perceive linguistic e and non linguistic e, the ideational and pragmatic content through
the process of interpretation.
The question is, if I write sth and don’t let anyone see it, is it a text? It is potentially a text; someone else has to interpret it
for it to become a text proper. Social interaction is inherent in verbal communication and the primary function of lge is
communication and lge enacts out social life. So, the text emerged from a social interaction, as texts do, even if you keep
it to yourself. The ideational content of that text in one way or another is based on a social interaction or in some sort of
relationship between you and life.
Good and mature writers produce texts that are receiver oriented: that is, those that take into account the process of
interpretation by the receiver and put themselves in the place of the receiver and try to facilitate the process of
interpretation. others produce sender-oriented texts. In a pedagogical setting texts that are not clear enough are texts in
the process of being improved.
Linda Flowers (linguist and discourse analyst) makes this distinction between a reader-oriented and a sender-oritented
text.
There are 3 elements encapsulated in the notion of linguistic expressions, but there are 2 parts in this definition of text 1.
the linguistic expression and 2 the interpretation by the receiver (reader, hearer). The definition of these authors focuses
on the verbal interaction between producer and receiver. An interaction in which each one contributes sth which is very
important: the producer contributes the means of expression or the linguistic expressions which constitute the cues on the
basis of which the receiver will interpret the message communicated. The contribution by the receiver id the process of
interpretation for which he/she uses what we call the interpretation basis: the pretext ( previous experiences, kn of the
world, kn of how to interpret a text, lge competence, attitudes, expectations, feelings, emotions, etc)

Christie (American) (1999)

“A text is the linguistic expressions produced by somebody In a communicative situation for some social purpose”
Christie emphasizes the notion of social purpose. For a piece of lge to be considered a text, it has to have a social
purpose, it should have a social purpose. It has to do with the author’s intention, with his or her goal what they want to
fulfill in producing that piece of lge, it has to do with the pragmatic side of the piece of lge, in this case with the
illocutionary force or intention behind the text. There is another important implication in addition to this interaction: the
fact that lge as a semiotic system is closely connected with social context, which is another semiotic system and this is the
basis for the funtionalist approach. We can infer that Christie is a functionalist because he emphasizes the importance of
social purpose which implies a social interaction and social context, and this is also implied in the phrase communicative
situation, which in turn, has another implication , that it has to be an authentic piece of lge not an invented piece ofr
pedagogical purposes. It must be likely to be produced. Texts with social purpose imply the interaction of sender/receiver.
This passage is related to the previous definition by Dirven and Verspoor. The elements in common are the notion of
linguistic expressions, the idea that it should be produced in an actual communicative sit, also the emphasis in the
interaction, implied in the phrase social purpose ad in the phrase communicative situation. And we also have the
emphasis on the intention behind the text.

Van Dijk (Dutch)(1983)

“A text is a sequence of sentences that has a macrostructure”
Here the term macrostructure has the implication of continuity of senses and in turn continuity of senses implies sth
outside the verbal material: it has to do with the process of interpretation, people perceive continuity of sense through
the process of interpretation, so if there is continuity of sense this implies that the text conveys the process of
interpretation by a receiver, although this is not said explicitly, it is implicit in the word macrostructure. At the beginning
the definition you can take or have the impression that this is a structuralist linguist because of the sequence of sentences
( the sentence is the u of a for functionalists). But this sequence of sentences is not an ordinary sentence, but one th at has
a global meaning, a macrostructure with a continuity of senses and therefore one that is likely to be interpreted. This
definition is rich in implication. Why do you have that instead of saying a piece of lge that has a macrostructure? Why
does he use sequence of sentences, because sentences are more connected with written lge so one observation could be
that this definition seems to refer mainly to written texts? Van Dijk focuses on a sequence of sentences that has a
macrostructure, he focuses on meaning and we cn infer that this implies the interpretation of meaning, for meaning is
communicated effectively in so far as there is a clear superstructure and in so far as there is a clear use of microstructural
elements, so everything is connected with everything else. He is a functionalist linguist but here we have a combination of
a formalist and functionalist perspective. From a formalist point of view, we focus on the importance of sentences. But
then we have this ‘that” clause preventing us from the interpretation that this could be a formalist perspective, so the
notion of macrostructure is more connected with a functionalist view as it focuses on meaning, which implies
interpretation and therefore social interaction. The definition highlights the fact that in lge we should consider both,
linguist and non-ling elements.
When we say sequence of sentences, and also macrostructure, we are talking about the verbal material: the wording of
the text and this is linguistic elements, so again we are dealing with the linguist parts of texts but we also have the other
connotation of macrostructure which are connected with the social side of lge, not ling elements.
Passage by Brown and Yule: Yule works at the univ. of Louisiana and Brown at the university of Cambridge, both are
Georges. “the analysis of discourse necessarily the analysis of lge in use. As such, it cannot be restricted to the descripti on
of linguistic forms independent of the purposes or functions which these forms are designed to serve in human affairs.
The three previous definitions agree with this definition. The 3 consider both linguistic and non-lin elements: the 1st
focuses on the interaction between the sender and the receiver, the 2 nd one focuses on the social aspects of texts and the
3rd one on meaning and both on ling and non-ling w. In the 1st the ling w are present in the phrase ling expressions, but
then you have non-ling e in the process of interpretation.

Definition by Grave and Kaplan: 1996

“a text occurs when the discourse segment has a topic and can be identified as possible, feasible, appropriate and
performed in some communicative situation”

William Grace and Robert Kaplan are very famous in the field of discourse analysis and particularly in what refers to the
analysis of written lge. Both are American. Graves works at the university of northern Arizona and Kaplan at the univ of
southern California.
The discourse segment: a text is a piece of discourse, but not just any piece, but one that meets the following conditions:
in the foist place, it should have a topic: a piece of lge is text when you can identify an ideational content. If a piece of lge
does not have a clear topic, it is not a text.
Possible: ( a technical term) it means that it should conform to the rules and principles that govern the lge system,
involved, for example, if the lge is English, the piece of lge should conform to the grammatical, phonological and lexical
rules of the English lge, therefore you ate not going to find a sentence without a subject because this is one of the rules
principles of the Eng lge: the subject of sentences cannot be dropped. For example, no word in the English lge begins
with a velar nasal sound, lexically: Eng has no infixes, only suff and prefixes. Grave and Kaplan consider pieces of lge as
texts only when they are grammaticl, phono, and lexically well-formed. It is an imp principle for them. In a piece of lge
produced by a learner we have to be tolerant.
Feasible: implies possible, likely to occur in an actual communicative sit. The same observation in the other definitions, the
importance of an authentic piece of lge. For example, the sentence created by Chomsky for the purpose of analysis
(grammatical and semantic) “colorless green ideas sleep furiously” semantically unacceptable but grammatically accurate.
Chomsky created this sentence for a pedagogical purpose because he wanted to illustrate the independence of grammar
with89 respect to meaning.
An important observation on the notion of text by Grave and Kaplan “a text is a multidimensional construct (a theoretical
device in this case “construct” means concept) since no uni-dimensional analysis can offer an adequate interpretation of
its nature. “Any attempt to reduce a text to a single type of elements or to a single plane of analysis is bound to fail” they
are very severe because they conclude is bound to fail. To complement this observation, they also wrote “a text is created
out of identifiable components (vocabulary, syntax, significant parts for ex the diff sections of an essay) but this is to
reinforce the previous idea. They propose an exhaustive analysis for it considers as many elements as possible which
agrees with one of the principles governing the scientific study of lge/disc: that any ling analysis should be clear, explicit,
exhaustive and likely to be publicly tested and verified.

Robert De Beaugrande and W. Dressler. 1983

“a text is a discourse segment in which lexicogrammatical elements are used for 2 purposes
to signal: to meet the demands of:
 intentionality efficiency
 acceptability effectiveness
 informativity appropriateness
 situationality
 intertextuality
This definition has been very influential and is much more complex and dense than the previous one.
Intentionality: it refers to the producer’s attitude that the words used should constitute a coherent whole able to attain a
goal. They speak of the producer’s intention so by saying the word producer they convey up both spoken and written text
and in the definition we also have able to attain a goal, to fulfill a social purpose (see Christie’s definition). This idea is also
connected with the fact that lge is a goal oriented activity because whenever we speak or write, normally we do it for a
purpose, even if it is just to pass the time. In a text, every element is goal oriented. The most imp thing about
intentionality is that it has to do with attitude. They speak of an attitude. This means that they pay att to pragmatic
aspects of lge, here the producer’s intention in creating a coherent piece of lge.
Acceptability: refers to the receiver’s attitude that the set of verbal occurrences, words, in question should constitute a
coherent body of elements having use or relevance, this is so because in normal circumstances human being strive for
coherence.. as receivers, if we are before a text our attitude should be to try to make sense of that piece of lge, if it is a
text we will ding sense in it. , if not, we will see whether it is a text proper or not. The notion of acceptability is responsive
to text type. As part of our process of interpretation we identify the text type/genre. As receivers we are also responsive to
social setting, that is, we also in our process of interpretation identify the context of configuration or social setting, the
process of interaction/comm situation from which the text emerged. There is always a context of production. Acceptability
is also related to tolerance (of mistakes), which is connected to whether lge disturbances are tolerated, with the material
not supplied by the author too (like sts that don’t include all the necessary info).
Acceptability is also related to inferencing as a process that supports coherence: the meaning is that in any text we
consider not only what is said but also what is implied. We realize sth which is implicit in a text by making inferences, e.g.
“John’s mother was talking to the teacher an hour ago” we can infer that john has a mother and that she is alive.
The notion of intentionality and the notion of acceptability are 2 sides of the same coin. On the one hand we have the
producer’s attitude and on the other the receiver’s att complementing each other and here we have the 2 fundamental
parts of the text that all the authors we have seen mention i.e. the linguistic expressions produced by a producer and the
interpretation by the receiver.
Informativity: it has to do with the ideational content and it has to do with the info provided buy a text and of course it
has to do with the referential function. We expect relevant into and informative text (one that is not redundant), one in
which there is a good balance between new and old info. But repetition as a discourse strategy is very important and we
need to repeat ideas just to reinforce a concept, but there are diff types of repetition and they should be used
productively. They consider repetition can be used for 3 principal purposes:
to reinforce or stress an idealization
to keep the reader focused on the topic of discussion (not excessive)
to keep our shot term memory active during the process of interpretation.
They call repetition recurrence and divide the types of repetition into: plain : the repetition of a given word or phrase.
Partial: when a given word is repeated but shifting it to a diff word class or with slight changes in its form (e.g. the verb
use and the noun use; or a verb with diff forms or diff pronunciations). Parallelism: occurs when the very same format is
repeated but with at least one diff element or expression. (facebook fatigue, facebook friendship). Paraphrase: when we
use synonyms or near synonyms (the famous writer Borges, the prestigious writer, the author are all related and we know
this because we have an antecedent)
Situationality: this has to do with the idea that a text should be an authentic piece of lge, one actually produced in a
comm sit.
Intertextuality: the relationship between 2 or more texts, when you take a text and find a phrase or a piece of info which
connects that text with another one then you say that it is intertextuality. Typically, not solely, the phrases that signal
intertextuality are quotations either in reported and direct speech. There are 2 senses to intertextuality:
a. In any text that we consider we can say that there is intertextuality in the sense that each text follows a given format
and certain characteristics of some text type or genre. The idea is that any text falls in one way or another into a given
genre. Thus, texts are naturally related to those that fall into the same genre. b. some-times there are elements in a text
that explicitly or implicitly signal a relationship with other texts, a phrase for example.

A text is to meet the following demands:

Efficiency/effectiveness: they are similar . “Effectiveness is the quality of doing sth in a way that produces the result that
was intended” def by De Beaugrande. That is, without waste iof time and energy, so an effective text is one which
succeeds in communicating a message and also one which does not force the receiver to waste time, effort, energy.
Appropriateness: the quality or capacity of being adequate, acceptable for a particular sit or purpose, for a particular
social domain.

Similarities between the definitions

a. Dirven and Verspoor
b. Grave and Kaplan
c. De Beaugrande and Dressler
d. Christie
e. Van Dijk

1. all of them emphazice communication in real like, except Van Dijk. He refers to a sequence of sentences--- it can be
applied toa n authentic piece of lge and to a non-authentic one.
2 all of them highlight the imp of the ideational content, although none of them use explicitly that phrase.
Dirven/Verspoor and Grave and Kaplan refer to linguistic expressions, De Beaugrande and Dressler refer to the
lexicogrammatical e and Van Dijk refers to sentences. All these phrases refer to the wording of the text. 3 in all of them a
process of interpretation is explicitly or implicitly mentioned. ( see Van Dijk’s macrostructure)
4 implicitly we have the norion of social purpose and we mentioned the desirability of goals. This has to do with the social
purpose. In Christie, Dirven/Ver they mention a process of interpretation. The linguistic expression In a text have the aim
of communicating sth which is interpreted by sb else and there we have the social purpose implicit. In grave/kaplan they
emphasize the notion of appropriateness and theis has to do with a social purpose and the def by Van Dijk with its
macrostructure entails a process of interpretation. If the piece of lge is to be interpreted there must be a purpose
implicitly or explicitly.
5 all of them consider both linguistic and non-lin e. all of them take up an extravagant or comprehensive perspective.
Differences
1, Dirven and Verspoor, Grave and Kaplan, De Beaugrande and Dressler, and Christie refer to both spoken and written
texts, while Van Dijk is more easily applicable to written texts
2. Dirven and Verspoor focus on the process of verbal interaction between the producer and the receiver. We said that a
text which is not read by anybody is potentially a text.
3. Grave and Kaplan focus on ling and pragmatic aspects of texts
4. De Beaugrande and Dressler focus mainly on pragmatic aspects. They highlight efficiency and effectiveness.
5. Christie emphasizes social aspects
6. Van Dijk emphasizes meaning and the ling aspects of texts, the global meaning
 The classification by De Beaugrande and Dressler of linking elements in a text: they call them junctive elements, they
speak of junction or junctive expressions. Elements whose aim is to link diff parts of the text/to establish connections
between parts of the text.
They identify first all conjunctions, here we do not mean the grammatical term but sth having to do with discourse
analysis. Conjunctions link things which have the same status, for example two ideas which are both true or both
acceptable, etc. Typically, there are coordinating conjunctions such as the classical and, also. And terms indicating
addition like in additions, besides.
Sometimes we have disjunction, so we speak of junctive elements, there link things which have alternative status, for
example 2 ideas or things of which only one is true, or acceptable. Typically, we have or, and we also have complementary
expressions such as, either ...or, whether or not.
They also distinguish contrajunction, which link things which appear as incompatible or incongruous in the textual world,
like but, however, nevertheless, yet.
Subordination links things when the status of one depends on that of the other, for example you can have a relative
clause which depends on the matrix clause, and they use all sorts of adjuncts: disjunct adj, time adjunc, cause, etc, linkers
such as if in conditional clauses, or because, or since.
Finally, they distinguish temporal markers: elements indicating time such as then, next.

Genre
“They are socially and culturally organized ways of speaking and writing through which particular communicative
purposes are realized”

Fairclough. In a genre or text type we have a way of speaking or writing. A way of using lge for a given social
/communicative purpose and this way of speaking or writing is socially and culturally accepted. We use lge in accordance
with the genres which are socially accepted in the context in which we live, for instance 20 years ago e-mail messages did
not exist so it was not a text type then. Genres are socially accepted, that is they serve specific functions in diff social
groups because they are solutions to communicative problems.
Genres are also historically accepted, they change and develop over time. We use those genres which are socially
accepted. But this is part of our tacit kno of lge, nobody teaches us which is the inventory of text types available in ou r
speech community. Just by living and interacting in social life, we acquire kn of the genres at use in our speech
community. So, this kn is part of our communicative competence. Any piece of discourse we hear or receive necessarily
falls into a text-type or genre, so they are predictable.
The definition also refers to both spoken and writt texts. And it states that in all genres a given communicative purpose is
fulfilled.
In close connection with this, Fairclough stresses that there are 2 aspects of texts/discourse that we need to consider
when we analyze them:
the verbal material (microstrustural level of anal) analyzing the verbal context, which is not the same as the social context.
This is inside the text, the verbal material. You can work anaphorically or cataphorically, look for referential chains,
synonymy, lexicon, grammar, phonolo. Within this verbal context you can also speak of the internal purpose of the text,
but then you need to go outside the text and concentrate on the situational context, this is the distinction Fairclough
makes, he distinguishes the verbal context and the situational context.
On the situational context you analyze the interpretation of the text, the social aspects of life reflected in the text, you can
also say that you consider the social values. Within the sit context you also need to see the social interaction from which
the text emerged, we need to analyze the contextual configuration (1 aspect of sit context) of the text, what motivates the
text, from what kind of social interaction the text emerged, like when you are given a composition as assignment by your
teacher. (2nd aspect) the verbal context: when analyzing it, we apply the structuralist view , the microstructural level of ana.
It is also important to consider the functions of lge the text serves. We can adopt Jackobson’s classification (the most
practical classification)
 Referential
 Directive
 Phatic
Halliday’s
 Ideational
 Interpersonal
 Textual
Brown and Yule’s
 Transactional
 Interactional
Fairclough pointed out the necessary and natural connection between lge and social context and in this observation, he
sustains that it would be a contradiction if lge were an autonomous system because it is closely connected with social
context, in any text you consider (writt/spoken) you will have linguistic and non-ling elements to analyze.
The 3 levels of analysis: the global structure or macrostructure: the global meaning or message communicated. This is
related with the author’s intention and with the reaction of the audience, that is social and pragmatic elements. The global
architecture or superstructural level: the organization, the significant parts. Now, these significant parts have a double
function:
o a global one: that is its contribution to the global meaning of the text: eg. setting of story, to
contextualize, provide background necessary to interpret the story.
o a local one, the concrete function the part plays: provide info about when, where the story took place
and the characters.

You can also consider the genre into which the text falls, it is important to identify the type of text and also the type of
discourse. They are diff.
Text type of discourse (whether it is descriptive, explanatory, argumentative, conversational, narrative. These are the
traditional types of discourse) in authentic pieces of discourse we have a combination of 2 or more types of discourse: in
an expository text we can have a combination of description, explanations, definitions.
Of course the division we make into levels of analysis is for the sake of analysis because the line dividing the diff. levels is
very subtle.
Gunther and Knoblauch
“Historically and culturally specific, pre-patterned and complex solutions to recurrent communicative problems”
The head of the noun phrase of their definition is SOLUTIONS, genres are solutions, whether in speech or writing, to
problems which arise frequently in our everyday life.
There are important adjs in the definition= pre-patterned, complex and specific, and then we have 2 advs modifying
specific: historically and culturally.
Historically and culturally: genres are specific in a certain cultural and historical context, each cult. From each historical
period must have its own repertoire of genres.
Pre-patterned: they are already available, so we don’t have to create one to solve our communicative problems. They are
also predictable, you know what genre to expect when engaging in social interaction, e.g. medical prescription when
going to the doctor.
The process of creation of genres is tacit and part of the natural wat in which social groups live.
Complex: in that they are not easy to explain, they are multidimensional concepts, so just one definition is not enough to
exhaust all the implications of the term genre.

The notion of genre is complex that the whole chapter is somehow an elaboration of it. Passage by Bakhtin is related to
the def by G and K.
Bakhtin explains the concept very clearly: we guess genres from the very first words, we predict the length in speech and
writing, and also certain compositional structure. We have from the very beginning a sense of the speech whole, which is
only later differentiated during the speech process. And this is sth we are able to do from childhood.
Genres are not devoid of social interaction, they are kept alive through it, if people stop telling fairy tales, these will
disappear over time. They are solutions to communicative problems that arise in the everyday life of all socio-cult groups.
Moreover, our repertoire of genres always follows patterns which derive from the ideologies of social groups involved,
e.g. in our culture we have the need for fairy tales. Our ideology involves customs, traditions, expectations, interpretations
of life and needs.
Can we say that outside genres there is no communication? There is no communication outside genres because we
naturally have a tendency to express ourselves following the
patterns of our communicative budget or our communicative repertoire. Even when talking to a baby there are some
expectations as to how a baby will communicate.
What about inner dialogues? These escape the typical conventions of other verbal interactions.
There is always sth which is pre-patterned in our verbal interactions, in one way or another, we always follow existing
pattern even though we are not able to explain what that pattern is.

let’s go more deeply into this notion of complexity. Genres are complex solutions also because they have a complex
structure. This means, following these authors that in any text type that we analyze there are 3 levels of structure for us to
analyze:
the internal structure
the external structure
the situative level

Internal structure: the authors mean the verbal material of the text, the wording and if it is oral, we also include the
prosodic e (stress, intonation, pauses, gestures, stress). What aspect of the wording? All aspects. Here in fact, we can
resort to the notions of microstructure and superstructure proposed by Van Dijck. In this level we analyze the micro and
macro structure.
The external structure: this refers to the social occasion on which the test is produced, e.g. political speech – the social
occasion pol meeting.
It includes the when, where, who the participants are (all about them) and the relations of power or relations of solidarity.
The notion of power and solidarity is a very important sociolinguistic notion which is useful to analyze how people
establish relations among themselves, so we have power (asymmetric or symmetric) and solidarity. They play roles. This
structure also includes the elements (props) necessary in that particular social occasion for the process of communication.
e.g blackboard, cd player, etc.
The situative level: in any text there are interactional e, e which indicate the particular relationships among the actors
involved, for instance, suppose that it is a written text, you can find expressions which appeal directly to the reader, such
as “as you know” or the use of “you” as an impersonal you appealing directly to the reader, or the inclusive we, so all e
indicating that the sender of the message is perfectly aware of the audience that he/she is addressing at that moment.
Pictures in a text are part of this level.

Fairclough and other related authors state that the world of discourse is organized into genres, whereas Hymes and other
authors consider that communication is possible outside genres.
One question that remains, considering the info in this chapter (tribble): Whether context creates genre or genres create
context. Both, e.g. the context of University creates the genre of final exams, but at the same time we can also say that
genres create a context, because the rapport (atmosphere) is affected by a genre. Telling a joke creates a social rapport
diff from the one created by a formal lecture.

Tribble’s chapter includes info about the perspective on genre by one author, a contemporary functionalist linguist, John
Swales (famous in disc analysis). The long definition was proposed in 1990and Tribble analyses it part by part.

“A genre comprises a class of communicative events the members of which share some set of communicative purposes,
so the idea is that any communicative event involves a communicative purpose and members.

A communicative event occurs when people use lge in an agreed (tacit agreement) way to get sth done. The components
of this event are:
The context of production and context of reception of that piece of discourse, and also the the historical and cultural
associations.
The cont of prod has to do with the sender of the message, for example in this context of situation I am in the role of
teacher, I am creating this lesson as a text. It includes all the process of preparing the lesson, the books I’ve learned, the
pieces selected, th wording of the text I create, my commitment,
Cont of recep includes the receiver’s expectations, interests, previous experience, pretext
The hist and cult associations: the wider social context, because in addition to this particular context (the lesson) you have
a wider one (the lesson is part of the learning program, part of the university). This classroom and lesson is in a place and
a specific time connected to the institution. This is what Tribble means by hist and cult associations, the wider social
context that includes all the polit, cult,, social aspects of life (in this case, connected to the life in which we prepare to
become professionals)
Communicative problem: implies there is a social need and therefore a social purpose.

“…these purposes are recognized by the expert members of the parent discourse community and they constitute the
rationale for the genre…”

So, there is a comm purpose which constitutes the rationale of the genre, the reasons.

Parent disc. Community: virtual group of people who share vocabulary items which are typical of their profession or
occupation. The members belong tacitly and there is one comm for any area of activity, even housewives.
Discourse community because it concentrates on the way in which that group of people use lge typically: discourse
conventions, jargon
Parent meaning typical, a prototypical. A comm that includes expert members. Expert because they are the ones who set
the rules and conventions the rest follow.
The conventions of each disc comm. constitutes the reasons why we have those genres within our repertoire within our
social life. Any text type can be associated to a virtual disc. Comm.
In addition, the rationale of the genre shapes the schematic structure (glob org,, significant parts) of the disc and
influences and constraints the choice of content and style (vocab, synt structures, and also pragmatic e because we need
to consider the intended audience)
Exemplars of the genre exhibit various patterns of similarities in terms of structure, style and content and intended
audience and of course they are similar in their communicative purpose.
The notion of intertextuality (De Beaugrande and Dressler) is related to this idea. A text from a particular genre shares
common features with all the texts from that genre. i.e. exemplars of a genre are prototypical to a greater or lesser extent.
Functions of lge
Brown and Yule distinguish two functions of lge: the interactional/interpersonal to stablish and keep social relationships as
for example the relationship student/teacher. In close connection with this we have the transactional function of lge: to
communicate/transmit knowledge. We also use lge when we read and understand lge, that is, lge use means writing,
reading, and understanding not only speaking.

Other authors
Halliday ideational metafunction: through lge we conceptualize reality and express ourselves. We bring the world into
being
Interpersonal: among people, we take roles in our daily lives.
Textual: by means of lge we create texts which are of 2 types spoken or written. These are the 2 media, substances in
which we realize lge. This function is important because communication succeeds only if we say meaningful, if someone
understands us.
Jackobson
Phatic: to open, close and maintain the channel of comm open, or not. (greetings)
Emotive: when we express our feelings, emotions, beliefs. To express ourselves