A text analysis of “the 2007 commencement speech by bill gates at harvard university ” and “the 2014 commencement speech by bill and melinda gates at stanford university” on the de beaugrande framework

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

NGUYỄN LINH CHI

A TEXT ANALYSIS OF “THE 2007 COMMENCEMENT SPEECH BY BILL
GATES AT HARVARD UNIVERSITY” AND “THE 2014
COMMENCEMENT SPEECH BY BILL AND MELINDA GATES AT
STANFORD UNIVERSITY” ON THE DE BEAUGRANDE FRAMEWORK

(Phân tích văn bản “Bài phát biểu của Bill Gates trong lễ tốt nghiệp năm 2007 tại
Đại học Harvard ” và “Bài phát biểu của Bill và Melinda Gates trong lễ tốt nghiệp năm
2014 tại Đại học Stanford” bằng khung lý thuyết của De Beaugrande)

M.A. Minor Program Thesis

Major: English Linguistics
Code: 60220201

Hanoi - 2016


VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

NGUYỄN LINH CHI

A TEXT ANALYSIS OF “THE 2007 COMMENCEMENT SPEECH BY BILL
GATES AT HARVARD UNIVERSITY” AND “THE 2014

COMMENCEMENT SPEECH BY BILL AND MELINDA GATES AT
STANFORD UNIVERSITY” ON THE DE BEAUGRANDE FRAMEWORK

(Phân tích văn bản “Bài phát biểu của Bill Gates trong lễ tốt nghiệp năm 2007 tại
Đại học Harvard ” và “Bài phát biểu của Bill và Melinda Gates trong lễ tốt nghiệp năm
2014 tại Đại học Stanford” bằng khung lý thuyết của De Beaugrande)

M.A. Minor Program Thesis

Major: English Linguistics
Code: 60220201
Supervisor: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ngô Hữu Hoàng

Hanoi - 2016


DECLARATION
I declare that this thesis, entitled A text analysis of “The 2007 commencement
speech by Bill Gates at Harvard University” and “The 2014 commencement speech
by Bill and Melinda Gates at Stanford University” on the De Beaugrande
framework and the work presented in it is my own and has been generated by me as
the result of my own research.
I confirm that when I quoted from the work of others, the source was always
given and no part of this work has been published before submission.
Signature:

Date:

i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my
supervisor, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ngô Hữu Hoàng. This thesis could have probably not
completed without his patient, enthusiastic and instructive supervision and
encouragement.
I also would like to show my profound thanks to all of the lecturers and officials
in the Faculty of Graduate and Post-graduate Studies, University of Languages and
International Studies, Vietnam National University, Hanoi for tirelessly devoting
time and efforts to enrich, broaden and deepen my knowledge over the past two
years.
Besides, I am deeply indebted to my beloved family for their wholehearted
support and encouragement. I also would like to dedicate my special thanks to my
classmates, who have supported, cooperated and provided me with valuable
suggestions.
Finally, I cannot fully express my gratitude to all the people whose direct and
indirect support assisted me to accomplish my thesis in time.

ii


ABSTRACT
This study is conducted primarily to investigate whether and the two
commencement speeches in 2007 and 2014 addressed by Bill Gates satisfy the
standards of textuality built up by De Beaugrande. For the aforementioned goals to
be achieved, the text linguistics approach, as well as descriptive and qualitative
methods, is employed. In addition, the De Beaugrande framework on criteria of
textuality (1981) serves as the integral theory foundation of this investigation. All
evidence is extracted from the two texts and analyzed to illustrate the theory about
those criteria. After the author of this thesis has elaborately analyzed the sources,

the results of the study reveal that two speeches The 2007 commencement speech by
Bill Gates at Harvard University and The 2014 commencement speech by Bill and
Melinda Gates at Stanford University have fulfilled properties of textuality. As
examples taken from speeches corresponding to each criterion are examined and
explained, readers are able to understand how five selected standards of textuality
are satisfied in two specific texts, and it can be said that the research question has
been adequately answered.

iii


TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION ....................................................................................................... i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................................................................................... ii
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................. iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................ iv
PART A: INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................1
1.

Rationale of the study ....................................................................................1

2.

Aims of the study ............................................................................................1

3.

Research question ..........................................................................................2

5.

Design of the study .........................................................................................2

PART B: DEVELOPMENT.....................................................................................4
CHAPTER I: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ................................................4
1.

Text ..................................................................................................................4

1.1. Definition of a text ...........................................................................................4
1.2. Some major features of a text .......................................................................6
2.

Texture versus Text .......................................................................................6

3.

Standards of textuality...................................................................................7

3.1. Definition of textuality ...................................................................................7
3.2. Criteria of textuality ......................................................................................8
3.2.1.Intentionality .................................................................................................9
3.2.2.Acceptability..............................................................................................11
3.2.3.Informativity ...............................................................................................13
3.2.4.Situationality .............................................................................................15
3.2.5.Intertextuality ...........................................................................................16
CHAPTER II: METHODOLOGY ........................................................................22
1.Research approach and research methods .....................................................22
2.Data collection procedure ................................................................................23

iv


CHAPTER III: ANALYSIS OF TWO COMMENCEMENT SPEECHES BY
BILL GATES ON TEXTUALITY STANDARDS ...............................................24
1.A text analysis of “The 2007 commencement speech by Bill Gates at Harvard
University”.............................................................................................................24
1.1. Intentionality ................................................................................................24
1.2. Acceptability .................................................................................................25
1.3. Informativity .................................................................................................29
1.4. Situationality .................................................................................................30
1.5. Intertextuality ...............................................................................................32
2.A text analysis of “The 2014 commencement speech by Bill and Melinda
Gates at Stanford University”...............................................................................34
2.1. Intentionality ................................................................................................34
2.2. Acceptability .................................................................................................35
2.3. Informativity .................................................................................................38
2.4. Situationality .................................................................................................40
2.5. Intertextuality ...............................................................................................40
PART C: CONCLUSION.......................................................................................43
1. Conclusion ........................................................................................................43
2. Implications ......................................................................................................43
3. Limitation of the study ....................................................................................44
4. Suggestions for further study .........................................................................44
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................45
APPENDIX ................................................................................................................ I

v

PART A: INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale of the study
When someone forms a text they are often concerned with their text‘s effect in
practice; hence, there have been a number of theories that assist one in creating a
successful text. As an English linguistics researcher, the thesis writer realizes that
the framework by De Beaugrande (1981) is a reliable foundation on which she is
able to analyze a text, which significantly contributes to her Master‘s degree
accomplishment. In addition, that theory eventually helps the thesis writer improve
the capability of producing and evaluate invaluable texts in her teaching career and
devotes to the study of text linguistics in particular as well as English as an
international language in general. De Beaugrande and Dressler suggest ―Seven
Standards of Textuality‖ (cohesion, coherence, intentionality, acceptability,
informativity, situationality, and intertextuality) and hypothesized that, if any one of
them was not met, the text would not be communicative. Undoubtedly, those seven
criteria considerably contribute to the success of a text in general and two speeches
in particular - The 2007 commencement speech by Bill Gates at Harvard University
and The 2014 commencement speech by Bill and Melinda Gates at Stanford
University. They are considered to be the most profound, inspirational speeches at
graduation ceremonies presented by Bill Gates – one of the world‘s leading
individuals. Accordingly, the thesis writer felt the necessity to conduct a study in
respect of seven standards of textuality and employ theoretical background to shed
light on the reputation of The 2007 commencement speech by Bill Gates at Harvard
University and The 2014 commencement speech by Bill and Melinda Gates at
Stanford University.
2. Aims of the study
This study is designed to provide readers with crucial knowledge about seven
essential standards of textuality suggested by De Beaugrande. In addition, the
research will study how a specific text fulfills seven characteristics of text

1

linguistics. The selected text to be explored is two well-known commencement
speeches by Bill Gates at Harvard University in 2007 and at Stanford in 2014. This
research is expected to be useful for those who are interested in producing a
powerful and interactive text and an impressive commencement speech based on
seven standards of textuality.
3. Research question
In order for the aforementioned aims to be achieved, the research attempts to
answer the following question: How do the two commencement speeches addressed
by Bill Gates in 2007 and 2014 fulfill the standards of textuality in the De
Beaugrande framework?
4. Scope of the study
It is a common knowledge that there are numerous factors that make a speech
memorable such as non-verbal language, the tone of voice, the idea, the cadence of
the words and the rhythm of the sentences and so forth. However, this thesis
provides a very modest analysis on the success of two commencement speeches by
Bill Gates in 2007 and 2014, respectively, by employing De Beaugrande
framework. Since cohesion and coherence, which have been priorly discussed in
detail by many researchers, may require a more elaborate and extensive study, the
scope of this MA thesis is narrowed down to five instead of seven standards of
textuality, which are intentionality, acceptability, informativity, situationality, and
intertextuality.
This study is conducted with the hope that the readers will have a thorough
grasp of De Beaugrande framework which is concerned with seven criteria of
textuality. Practically, the thesis may assist someone to a certain extent in preparing
and delivering a persuasive speech to record considerable achievements in society.
5. Design of the study
The thesis, which reports the different stages of the study and its results, is
expected to consist of the following parts according to requirements of an M.A.

thesis:

2


Part A: Introduction
This part includes the rationale, aims of the study, research question, and scope of
the study as well as the structure of the thesis.
Part B: Development
Chapter I: Theoretical Background. This chapter deals with the theoretical
background that inspires the thesis. This chapter provides some related studies as
well as the thorough literature review of five standards of textuality in which each
of those criteria will be discussed in detail.
Chapter II: Methodology. This chapter discusses the research approach, research
methods of the study. Moreover, this chapter provides information about data
collection procedure.
Chapter III: The analysis of two speeches on De Beaugrande framework. This
chapter analyzes the collected data then withdraws the final conclusions of the
thesis. Further discussion on findings will be presented as well as the personal
interpretations and comments from the thesis writer.
Part C: Conclusion
The last part presents the summary of the thesis by providing answers to the
research questions presented. Finally, the thesis writer will review the limitations of
this study and make suggestions for further research.

3


PART B: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER I: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

The literature review of the thesis is the compilation of written and published
knowledge on the topic of De Beaugrande framework regarding some standards of
textuality. The review is drawn from previous studies done by famous linguists and
prior linguistic scholars.
1.

Text
1.1. Definition of a text
As Beaugrande and Dressler (1981, p.3) stated, a text is a ―naturally occurring

manifestation of language, i.e. as a communicative language event in a context.
The surface text is the set of expressions actually used; these expressions make
some knowledge explicit, while other knowledge remains implicit, though still
applied during processing.‖
Werlich (1976, p.23) defined that ―a text is an extended structure of syntactic
units [i.e. text as super-sentence] such as words, groups, and clauses and textual
units that is marked by both coherence among the elements and completion ...‖ He
also distinguished between ―a text‖ and ―a non-text‖ which consists of random
sequences of linguistic units such as sentences, paragraphs, or sections in any
temporal and/or spatial extension.
Halliday and Hasan (1976, p.1-2) claimed that ―text‖ is a term ―used in
linguistics to refer to any passage - spoken or written, of whatever length, that does
form a unified whole [….] A text is a unit of language in use. It is not a grammatical
unit, like a clause or a sentence; and it is not defined by its size [….] A text is best
regarded as a semantic unit; a unit not of form but of meaning.‖
In another definition presented by Fowler (1991, p.59), a text is ―made up of
sentences, but there exist separate principles of text-construction, beyond the rules
for making sentences.‖

4


Text linguists generally agree that text is the natural domain of language, but
they still differ in their perspectives of what constitutes a text. This variance is
mainly due to the different methods of observations of different linguists, and as
such, the definition of text is not yet concrete.
A text contains meaning which is open to interpretation and most discussions
of ―text‖ revolve around interpretation of ―texts‖, rather than a definition of the term
itself. However the word ―text‖ is exploited in linguistics to imply that the words,
phrases, lines or sentences of which it consists have not been arranged this way by
chance, but have been produced by a person and with certain kinds of intentions as
stated in Halliday and Hasan (1976). A text may be prose or verse, dialogue or
monologue. It may be anything from a single proverb to a whole play, from a
momentary cry for help to an all-day discussion on a committee. That is,
geographical length is not important for a text, for example:
-

a single word: ―DANGER‖ on a warning sign.

-

a stretch of language even though not a sentence: ―NO SMOKING‖ printed on a

wall.
-

plays or novels: Hamlet, Great Expectations, etc.
A text is a unit of language in use. It is not a lexico-grammatical unit like a

clause or a sentence, and it is not defined by size. We cannot mathematically count
that a text has two or three or how many sentences. A text does not consist of
sentences. It is realized by, or encoded in sentences.
A text is best regarded as a semantic unit, a unit not of form but of meaning.
Thus it is related to a clause or sentences not by size but by realization, the coding
of one symbolic system in another.
Nowadays, readers and critics alike use the word ―text‖ to signify any piece
of written or spoken discourse, especially when they want to avoid giving value
judgments such as ―literary‖ or categorizing something, such as calling it a ―novel‖.
Therefore, text is seen as a neutral term.

5


The thesis writer is in favor of the definition by De Beaugrande & Dressler
(1981, p.3) in which a text ―... will be defined as a communicative occurrence which
meets seven standards of textuality‖. The seven standards referred to are cohesion,
coherence,

intentionality,

acceptability,

informativity,

situationality

and

intertextuality.

1.2.

Some major features of a text

A text is a stretch of language which seems appropriately coherent in actual
use. That is, the text ―coheres‖ in its real-world context, semantically and
pragmatically, and it is also internally or linguistically coherent. Quirk et al. (1985,
p.1423) mentioned some features of a text in their work ―A Comprehensive
Grammar of the English Language‖ as the following:
-

Text is defined as language in use, i.e. in terms of function and situation

-

Text is internally structured

-

A text must display a ―cohesive harmony‖ and logics (make sense with
respect to the outer world)

-

The basic unit of a text: sentence

-

No structural patterns as in sentences (e.g. an interrogative sentence but not
an interrogative text)

-

A text – unlike sentence – is not a grammatical unit but rather a semantic and
even a pragmatic one

2.

Texture versus Text
According to definitions of text, particularly that of Halliday and Hasan
(1976), it can be inferred that there must be, beyond the intuitive level, a linguistic
distinction (at least in principle) between a text and non-text, and that distinction is
based upon meaning. A text makes sense, whereas a non-text may be nonsensical.
The difference lies in the presence (or absence) of what is called ―texture‖.
Texture – the quality that makes a text ―hang together‖ as a text – is a key
focus of investigation in discourse analysis. Halliday and Hasan (1976, p.2) say that
―texture is the property that distinguishes text from non-text. Texture is what holds

6


clauses of a text together to give them unity.‖ According to two linguists, texture
involves the interaction of two components: coherence or the text‘s relationship to
its extra-textual context (the social and cultural context of its occurrence, and
cohesion, the way the elements within a text bind it together as a ―unified whole‖.
The result of the interaction of these two dimensions is a piece of language which is
using linguistic resources in a meaningful way within a situational and cultural
context.
The concept of texture is entirely appropriate to express the property of
―being a text‖. This characteristic of a text distinguishes it from something that is

not a text. The fact that a text functions as a unity with respect to its environment
derives from this ―texture‖. If a passage of English containing more than one
sentence is perceived as a text, there will be certain linguistic features present in the
passage which can be identified as contributing to its total unity and giving it
texture.
For example, if we find the following instructions in the cooking book:
―Wash and core six cooking apples. Put them into a fireproof dish.‖
It is clear that ―them‖ in the second sentence refers back to the ―six cooking apples‖
of if first sentence. This anaphoric function of them gives cohesion to the two
sentences, so that we interpret them as a whole; the two sentences together
constitute a text. So it is the texture which makes these two sentences a text.
3. Standards of textuality
3.1. Definition of textuality
In their Introduction to Textlinguistics (1981) de Beaugrande and Dressler
attempt to provide an answer to the issue of textuality. They state that: ―‘[...] a
language is a virtual system of available options not yet in use, the text is an actual
system in which options have been taken from their repertoires and utilized in a
particular structure (relationship between or among elements). This utilization is
carried out via procedures of actualization‖ (1981, p.35).

This

definition is

similar to the thesis writer‘s point of view in the way that it stresses the fact

7


that a text is a singular realization of a particular discourse, and any text

production is conditioned by its immediate nonverbal context. In other words, any
speaker makes his linguistic choice based on non-linguistic circumstances.
De Beaugrande and Dressler (1981, p.3) also state that any text is a
communicative occurrence that is supposed to meet certain standards of textuality in
order to be communicative (non-communicative occurrences are treated as nontexts by them). It is not fully explicit in their discussion whether partially
communicative occurrences (e.g. messages directed for particular receivers, as for
instance gang graffiti) could be regarded as texts. They enlist seven standards of
textuality:

cohesion,

coherence,

intentionality,

acceptability,

informativity,

situationality and intertextuality. They call them after Searle (1969, p.33)
constitutive principles of textual communication, for the reason that: ―(...) [t]hey
define and create the form of behaviour identifiable as textual communicating, and
if they are defied, that form of behaviour will break down‖ (De Beaugrande and
Dressler, 1981, p.11). They also adopt Searle‘s notion of regulative principles
(i.e. the principles of efficiency, effectiveness and appropriateness) that are not so
much as to define, as to control textual communication. The thesis writer will
briefly describe their textuality standards, or to use a more appropriate
expression:

―the

principles

of

communication‖,

for

even

though

the

constitutive principles of textual communication are also called by the authors
―standards of textuality‖, their concepts evidently transcend the notion of text
and it seems that at least some of them should rather be researched as
contextual processes influencing text composition.
3.2. Criteria of textuality
Text has been defined as a communicative occurrence or event which meets
seven standards of textuality. Linguists confirm that if any of these standards of
textuality is not to have been satisfied, the text will not be communicative. Due to
the aforementioned scope of the study, in this part, the author will examine five
broad characteristics of texts which combine to produce the complex property

8


of textuality. The five features are: intentionality, acceptability, informativity,

situationality, intertextuality (De Beaugrande, Introduction to text linguistics,
1981).
3.2.1. Intentionality
A characteristic feature of textuality is called intentionality. A text-producer
normally seeks to achieve a purpose or goal (e.g. persuasion, instruction,
request, information, etc.) based on a given plan. Obviously, cohesion and
coherence are taken into consideration while planning and executing one's
plan. Speakers or writers vary in the degree of success in planning and
achieving their purposes. While cohesion and coherence are to a large extent
text-centred, this standard of textuality in line with acceptability and
informativity can be called (with informativity to a lesser degree) ―usercentered notions‖.
Intentionally concerns ―the text producer‘s attitude that the set of
occurrences should constitute a cohesive and coherent text instrumental in
fulfilling the producer‘s intentions, e.g. to distribute knowledge or attain a goal
specified in a plan‖ (De Beaugrande and Dressler, 1981, p.7). To some degree,
cohesion and coherence could themselves be regarded as operational goals without
whose attainment other discourse goals may be blocked. However, text users
normally exercise tolerance towards products whose conditions of occurrence make
it hard to uphold cohesion and coherence altogether, notably in casual conversation.
A hybrid structure such as this:
Well where do which part of town do you live?
did not disturb communication because it still served the superior goal of finding
out someone‘s address, although the subordinate goal of maintaining cohesion did
not fully succeed. But if a text producer intended to defy cohesion and coherence,
communication would be slowed down for negotiation and could break down
altogether.

9

Is intentionality really such a fundamental textual property that its
absence would destroy the textuality of a text? Can it be said that in order for
communication to occur, the intentions of the sender must always be fully
understood? Such a statement would not be realistic. An author‘s productive
intentions should be distinguished from the indications of intentionality realized
in the patterned sequence of linguistic signs at the textual surface. The writ er's
intentions are ephemeral, but they leave a mark or trace on the text. When the
writer's intentions were active, they helped to shape the text. They were critical
factors at the early stages of the text production process when overall plan and
ideational sequence were formulated. At the time of writing or speaking, the
sender wanted to do something, to achieve certain results which had been
projected. This desire to have "effect," to achieve something with the text,
shapes the profile of the text. Linguistic sequences which assert, question,
enjoin, insult, persuade, report, convince, or instruct are constructed in order to
do something. There are many highly conventional texts where format and
sense clearly indicate the underlying purpose. Texts like formulaic greetings,
socially sanctioned signs and announcements, and ritualized messages are
examples. Instruction manuals, patents, and legal contracts likewise clearly
indicate their underlying intentionality. At the other end of the spectrum are
difficult poetic texts whose intentions are more obscure.
The notion of textually realized intentionality cannot include the entire
complex set of particular intentions underlying the communicative interaction.
Indeed, sometimes the intentionality perceived in a text is not necessarily the
same as the author's intentionality. Text comprehenders can only retrieve from
the text what they recognize as having been put in. In addition, the reader's
purposeful orientation to the text is a reflection of receptive intent. From the
reader's point of view, intentionality is connected with relevance, a measure of
the importance he or she attaches to the information. A text in a technical
journal intended for experts has a very specific intentionality. Readers of the

10


text judge it from their own interactional perspective. They attend to and care
about only those elements which relate to their communicative purposes in the
exchange. In pragmatic texts, author intent and receiver intent are usually a
close match. These two types of intent diverge only when the execution of the
text is faulty. In these cases the text (or portions of it) does not do what it is
supposed to do. Intentionality and relevance are a sender-receiver pairing.
3.2.2.

Acceptability

Intentionality is associated with acceptability. The author's original
goals in writing the text cannot be achieved if the reader cannot figure out
what the text is supposed to do. For a text to be received as a piece of purposefull-linguistic communication, it must be seen and accepted as a text.
Acceptability does not necessarily imply that the receiver believe the specific
contents of the text. It does require that the addressee be able to identify and
extract those contents. Even though listeners and readers have become
accustomed to a wide variation in the form of texts, there are limits. The
receiver must be able to determine what kind of text the sender intended to
send, and what was to be achieved by sending it. There is no single norm for
acceptability. All texts are subject to constraints; otherwise they would not be
recognizable as texts.
The fourth standard of textuality – acceptability – concerns ―the text
receiver‘s attitude that the set of occurrences should constitute a cohesive and
coherent text having some use or relevance for the receiver, e.g. to acquire
knowledge or provide co-operation in a plan‖ (De Beaugrande and Dressler,
1981, p.8). This attitude is responsive to such factors as text type, social or cultural
setting, and the desirability of goals. Here also, we could view the maintenance of

cohesion and coherence by the text receiver as a goal of its own, such that material
would be supplied or disturbances tolerated as required. The operation of
inferencing strikingly illustrates how receivers support coherence by making their
own contributions to the sense of the text.

11


If acceptability is restricted, communication can be diverted. It is accordingly
taken as a signal of non-cooperation if a text receiver raises questions about
acceptability when the text producer‘s intentionality is obviously in effect:
―What we require, sir, is a probe of this here.‖ ―Probate, my dear sir,
probate,‖ said Pell. ―Well, sir,‖ replied Mr. Weller sharply, ―probe and
probe it is very much the same; if you don‘t understand what I mean, sir, I
daresay I can find them as does.‖ ―No offence, I hope, Mr. Weller,‖ said
Pell meekly.
Text producers often speculate on the receivers‘ attitude of acceptability and
present texts that require important contributions in order to make sense. The Bell
Telephone Company warns people:
(a) Call us before you dig. You may not be able to afterwards.
People are left to infer that digging without asking might lead to cutting off a
ground cable and hence to losing the wiring needed in order to call; or even, to
sustaining bodily injury and being incapacitated. It is intriguing that this example
is more effective than a version would be that made everything more explicit
such as:
(b) Call us before you dig. There might be an underground cable. If you
break the cable, you won‘t have phone service, and you may get a
severe electric shock. Then you won‘t be able to call us.
Apparently, text receivers are readily persuaded by content they must supply
on their own: it is as if they were making the assertion themselves.

The receiver's attitude is that a text is cohesive and coherent. The reader usually
supplies information that is missing or unstated. Acceptability is very much
sensitive to the social activity the text is fulfilling. A legal contract does not leave
much room for inference. It contains what, otherwise, is called redundancies. Poetic
language will be viewed as such because it calls on for inferences.
Acceptability is very much affected by the reader's social and cultural
background. The joke of the priest who, on shaving his beard in the morning cut his

12


chin because he was thinking of the sermon he was about to give, and the advice his
fellow priest gave him, "Cut your sermon and concentrate on your beard", was not
very much appreciated by some students belonging to different culture.
3.2.3. Informativity
A communication situation is a context where information transfer occurs. A
text has to contain some new information. A text is informative if it transfers
new information, or information that was unknown before. Informativity
should be seen as a gradable phenomenon. Informativity concerns ―the extent
to which the occurrences of the presented text are expected vs. unexpected or
known vs. unknown/certain‖ (De Beaugrande and Dressler, 1981, p.9). The
degree of informativity varies from participant to participant in the
communicative event. Situationality contributes to the informativity of the text.
For instance, a book written in 1950 has an informativity that was high
appropriate then.
In sample (a), the assertion that ―you will not be able to call‖ is much more
unexpected than it is in (b). The processing of highly informative occurrences is
more demanding than otherwise, but correspondingly more interesting as well.
Caution must be exercised lest the receivers‘ processing become overloaded to the
point of endangering communication.

As mentioned above, every text is at least somewhat informative: no
matter how predictable form and content may be, there will always be a few
variable occurrences that cannot be entirely foreseen. Particularly low
informativity is likely to be disturbing, causing boredom or even rejection of the
text. The opening stretch of a science textbook runs like this:
(c) The sea is water
The fact asserted here is so well known to everyone that there seems to be no
point in saying it here. The stretch of text is clearly cohesive and coherent, and
undoubtedly intended to be acceptable as such. But it is nonetheless a marginal

13


text because it is so uninformative. Not until the readers look at the continuation
does the text‘s status seem more sound:
(d) The sea is water only in the sense that water is the dominant
substance present. Actually, it is a solution of gases and salts in
addition to vast numbers of living organisms ...
The assertion of the obvious fact in (c) functions as a starting point for asserting
something more informative. The surface cue ―actually‖ signals that the wellknown ―substance-of‖ relation is not strictly accurate. The ensuing correction of
a common view is less expected, so that the informativity of the whole passage is
upgraded.
Beaugrande and Dressler (1981, p.9) also classify occurrences into three
orders of informativity:
-

The first – order is the lowest and refers to predictable information and
obvious facts, which receive little attention from the receiver.

-

The second – order refers to probable and frequent information, i.e.
common facts.

-

The third – order, the highest, refers to less probable information, unusual
and infrequent occurrences at least from the receivers‘ point of view.
Utterances of the third – order are more interesting than those of the other
orders, but require much attention and laborious processing from the
receiver, who has to be able to establish the meaning continuity of the text
and the continuity between the content of utterances and his knowledge of
the world.

With regard to the above textuality standards one must note that they may
be transgressed. The standard of intentionality can be violated by means of
false starts, instances of retardation, etc., which occur in the course of
narration, but the communication will not be disturbed, even though the Grice
maxim of quantity is often not fulfilled. De Beaugrande and Dressler (1981,
p.7) say that ―users normally exercise tolerance towards products whose

14


conditions of occurrence make it hard to uphold cohesion and coherence
altogether, notably in casual conversation‖. In other words, people simply
behave verbally in this way paying no attention to Grice‘s principle of
cooperation or De Beaugrande and Dressler‘s ―intentionality standard‖, which
does not mean that they are not communicative. It is not certain whether
partially non-communicative occurrences are texts or non-texts for the authors.

One can deduce that they would rather see all of them fulfilled to call some
linguistic occurrence a text. Nevertheless, we have previously said that a text
can occur regardless of its hearer, addressee or receiver (in some instances the
speaker becomes the receiver/hearer of his/her texts) (see also Grice, 1975). If
there is no receiver to ―acquire knowledge‖ of the developed text, it still fulfills
its representative function and does constitute a text even breaking the
―acceptability standard‖. A very similar occurrence may take place when, as
De

Beaugrande

and

Dressler

(1981, p.9)

say

―receivers‘

processing

becomes overloaded to the point of endangering communication‖, or in other
words the Grice‘s maxim of quality is broken, thus the standard would not be
properly fulfilled, communication would be severely disturbed, however it
does not seem that we would not be faced with a text. The text would be
hardly communicative, but we would not refuse to call it a text, because it still
could be meaningful in certain embeddings.
3.2.4. Situationality

Texts are always situated in discrete communicative and social settings.
The situationality of texts is a major component of their textuality.
Situationality is the location of a text in a discrete sociocultural context in a
real time and place. Situationality ―concerns the factors which make a text
relevance to a situation of occurrence‖ (De Beaugrande and Dressler, 1981,
p.10). For instance, one might treat the road sign
(e) SLOW
CHILDREN

15


AT PLAY
in different ways, but that the most probable intended use was obvious. The ease
with which people can decide such an issue is due to the influence of the situation
where the text is presented. In the case of sample (e), the sign is placed in a location
where a certain class of receivers, namely motorists, is likely to be asked for a
particular action. It is far more reasonable to assume that ‗slow‘ is a request to
reduce speed rather than an announcement of the children‘s mental or physical
deficiencies. Pedestrians can tell that the text is not relevant for themselves because
their speeds would not endanger anyone. In this manner, the sense and use of the
text are decided via the situation.
Situationality even affects the means of cohesion. On the one hand, a text
version such as:
(f) Motorists should proceed slowly, because children are playing in the
vicinity and might run out into the street. Vehicles can stop more readily
if they are moving slowly.
would remove every possible doubt about sense, use, and group of intended
receivers. On the other hand, it would not be appropriate to a situation where
receivers have only limited time and attention to devote to signs among the other

occurrences of moving traffic. That consideration forces the text producer toward a
maximum of economy; situationality works so strongly that the minimal version (e)
is more appropriate than the clearer (f)
3.2.5. Intertextuality
The seventh standard of textuality is to be call intertextuality and ―concerns
the factors which make the utilization of one text dependent upon knowledge of
one or more previously encountered texts‖ (De Beaugrande and Dressler, 1981,
p.11). A driver who has seen road sign (e) is likely to see another sign further down
the road, such as:
(g) RESUME SPEED

16


One cannot ‗resume‘ something unless one was doing it at an earlier time and then
stopped it for some reason. The ‗speed‘ at stake here can only be the one maintained
until (e) was encountered and a reduction was made. Clearly, the sense and
relevance of (g) depends upon knowing about (e) and applying the content to the
evolving situation.
Intertextuality is, in a general fashion, responsible for the evolution of text
types as classes of texts with typical patterns of characteristics. Within a particular
type, reliance on intertextuality may be more or less prominent. In types like
parodies, critical reviews, rebuttals, or reports, the text producer must consult the
prior text continually, and text receivers will usually need some familiarity with the
latter. An advertisement appeared in magazines some years ago showing a petulant
young man saying to someone outside the picture:
(h) As long as you‘re up, get me a Grant‘s.
A professor working on a research project cut the text out of a magazine, altered it
slightly, and displayed it on his office door as:
(i) As long as you‘re up, get me a Grant.

In the original setting, (h) was a request to be given a beverage of a particular brand.
In the new setting, (i) seems to be pointless: research grants are awarded only after
extensive preparation and certainly can‘t be gotten while casually walking across a
room. The discrepancy is resolvable via one‘s knowledge of the originally presented
text and its intention, while the unexpectedness of the new version renders it
informative and interesting. This interest effect offsets the lack of immediate
situational relevance and the non-serious intention of the new text presenter.
In the thesis writer‘s opinion both the abovementioned surpass the
notion of text. Situationality seems to be more of an outside-text notion than of
a text-dependent one. It is due to the situation that people create texts and not
vice versa. It is often the case that ―the sense and use of the text are decided via
the situation‖ (De Beaugrande and Dressler, 1981, p.11). This is, however, of
secondary importance, and concerns the addressees of the text, who are

17


supposed to understand it, or in other words, the addressee must use his own
knowledge to bring textual elements into a meaningful whole. ―This operation
involves supplying reasonable concepts and relations, to fill in a gap or
discontinuity in a textual world‖ (De Beaugrande and Dressler, 1981, p.101).
But one ought to keep in mind that it is primarily the speaker/producer of the
text that happens to be in a particular situation or knows of such a situation and
other characteristic features of the other elements of the context, which allows
him to prepare an appropriate text. The text is prepared owing to the
―intertextuality standards‖: ―the ways in which the production and reception
(...) depends upon the participants‘ knowledge of other text‖ (De Beaugrande
and Dressler, 1981, p.182). In other words, it depends also (among other
elements) on the social stratum of his speaker and even more so on the social
stratum of the hearers/addressees. One must also remember that there are many

social groups within social strata. This issue becomes very important in
situations when speakers are face to face with their addressees who are
expected to react in a particular way after having heard the text. The usage of
particular (and appealing) texts is essential in discourses where verbal means
are the only way of influencing the addressees‘ behaviour (for example during
election campaigns). Norman Fairclough (1992, p.85) notes that: ―the concept
of intertextuality sees texts historically as transforming the past – existing
conventions and prior texts – into the present‖. In this way it is to be seen that
also intertextuality is in a way an outside-text notion, since it can be examined
only with reference to other, already existing texts (known to the addresser and
the addressee), whose elements have been used to create a new one. Both
situationality and intertextuality are considered to be very important elements
in discourse research.
In order to illustrate the above principles of textual communication,
even though the thesis writer does not totally adhere to all of them, she
would like to use the example of three particular texts located by Polish

18