Textual Coherence and the Reader's Attitude

Maria Renata Mayenowa

Textual Coherence and the Reader’s

Attitude

Literary Studies in Poland 14, 7-25

Articles

M aria R en a ta M ayenow a

Textual C oherence

and the R eader’s Attitude*

I do n o t intend to define the concept o f “a coherent tex t.” N evertheless, since the problem I wish to discuss at least requires the m ost general un d erstan d in g o f the range o f the te rm ’s m eaning I m ust sketch in the least p retentiou s m ann er the sense o f the term as I use it here.

A coheren t text is su p p o rted by three “u nities.”

It is a text form ulated by one person. But saying this I do no t claim th a t it m ust be form ulated by a biological individual. R ath er this u nity results from the ability to identify all the “ I ’s” in the textual m odal fr a m e .1

It is a text directed to one reader. T h at reader does no t have to be one person, it is ra th e r one type o f knowledge. As we shall see, m ore th an ju s t linguistic know ledge is required. Thus, this reader can be a sm all gro u p o f specialists; or a large one, such as an entire generation using the sam e language; o r even larger, such as an entire nation.

Finally, th e unity m ost difficult to fo rm u late : it is a text built so th at the m eaning o f all the sentences it contains, in the end

* T he d isc u ssio n s and stu d ies o f m y c o lle a g u e s h ave con trib u ted m uch in sp iration to m y w ork, esp e cia lly Irena B ellert and A n n a W ierzbicka. This paper is an im perfect a ttem p t to reform u late m any o f their v iew s and a n a ly ses for attack in g my o w n p ro b lem .

1 T he term “m o d a l fra m e w o rk ” is taken fro m A . W ierzbicka. It is c lo se in m ea n in g to B. R u ssel's p r o p o sitio n a l a ttitu d e and refers to the fact that each se n ten ce im p licitly c o n ta in s th e sp ea k er’s a ttitu d e to th e sta tem e n t, w hich could be fo rm u la ted “ Y o u sh o u ld k n o w th a t,” “ I w ant y o u to k n o w ,” “ I feel that” ; cf. A . W i e r z b i c k a , D o c iek a n ia se m a n ty c zn e (S e m a n tic Inquiries), W roclaw 1969.

8 M a ria R e n a ta M a y e n o w a

p rodu ce a description o f one object, a story a b o u t one object, or an argum ent su p p o rtin g one thesis. This can be as com plicated as you w ish —the appearance o f a m icrobe or the relation ship s within a m odern society; the life story o f a m o th or th e history o f the w orld; an argum en t provin g th a t the sum o f a tria n g le ’s angles is 180° or th a t the statem ent th a t w hat is good is beautiful and vice versa is false. C learly, this fo rm ula is far from being un equivocal; how ever, I think th a t it can be a plane for initial m utual un derstandin g.

The object o f my observations will be m ulti-sentence, w ritten te x ts 2 belonging to n arrativ e or expository w riting, texts th a t their au th o rs usually intended to be coherent. T he m echanism s o f coherence in spoken texts need special d o cu m en tatio n (recording o f voices and films illustrating situ atio ns and h u m an b eh avio r in com m u n icatin g with one anoth er) and analysis o f in to n atio n and paralinguistic resources. A t p resen t I have neither the d o cu m en ta tio n n o r the analysis.

It is no t always so sim ple to grasp unifo rm ly the coherence o f a m ultiple-sentence text. The experiences o f the read er o f b oth the newest and earlier literatu re include situ atio n s in which we say th a t we d o no t u n d ersta n d a text because we are unable to detect a relation between the successive sentences. W e are unab le to see how the sentences cocreate one object. G rasp in g the coherence o f a text is one o f the cond itio ns for u n d ersta n d in g a text, a necessary tho ugh n o t sufficient co nd ition.

1 accept as u n d o u b ted the prem ises I. Bellert introd uced in her pap er presented at the in tern atio n al sem iotic sem inar in W arsaw in A ugust 1968: 1) the au th o r co n stru c tin g a text assum es th at the reader u n d erstan d s the language and know s its gram m atical rules; the reader usually assum es the text is coh eren t an d form u lated

2 By m u lti-sen ten ce texts o n e u su a lly m ean s texts d iv id ed by p erio d s. I am , h ow ev er, c o n v in c e d that the sig n ifica n ce o f textu al c o h e r e n c e c a n n o t be m easured o n ly by d esc rib in g the rela tio n sh ip s b etw een su ch u n its, u su a lly k n o w n as senten ce^ u n d ersto o d as a se q u en ce o f w ord s from p eriod to p erio d . Even w ithin such a sim p le c o n str u c tio n as a su b ject and p red ica te, there m ay be or m ay n o t be co h eren ce . M a n y an alyses, esp e cia lly o f c o n ju n c tio n s, sh o w that th e lo c a tio n of a p eriod can be m islea d in g as regards co h e r e n c e . N e v e r th e le ss, in sp ea k in g of c o h e r e n c e o f m u lti-sen ten ce text, I h a v e taken su ch texts w ith this form into a cco u n t. I h ave m en tio n ed this in c o n siste n c y w ith o u t a tte m p tin g to exp lain i t .

T e x tu a l C o h eren ce 9

in accordance^w ith the well-defined rules o f a language; 2) grasping the coherence o f a text besides a co m m o n language also requires a certain know ledge o f the w orld no t encom passed by know ledge o f vocabulary and gram m ar.

T he c h a rac te r and level of know ledge requ ired to grasp the coherence o f different texts can vary greatly. H ere I consider the p roblem o f o rdering the degrees o f difficulty in detecting the coherence m echanism s in various texts to be the essential one. If it is possible, o rdering th e degrees o f difficulty could be crucial in pedagogy, social and academ ic. I w ould like to define the cond ition s a reader m ust m eet in order to grasp the coherence m echanism s in various types o f texts.

T he p roblem o f textual coherence, the ch a rac te r o f the coherence m echanism s b o th used and avoided is o ne o f u n d o u b ted im portance for descriptive an d historical poetics. M y reflections, w hich m ust tou ch upo n this problem , are cond u cted from an o th er p o in t o f view, from th a t o f the sociology o f the reader.

In ord er to detect at least the m ost essential q uestions connected w ith the coherence o f m ultiple-sentence texts, it w ould be necessary to analyze selected texts in their entirety. A t present, however, such analyses are no t possible b o th because o f their length and the sea o f problem s th a t would have to be considered in even the m ost tentative, ex p loratory ones such as the one we propose.

Texts are usually divided into p arts. A u th o rs divide them into b ooks, chapters, p arag rap h s, strophes. W e will co nd uct o ur analysis w ithin the confines o f tw o p arag ra p h s, or even m ore frequently w ithin those o f one p arag rap h .

We can assum e in advance th a t the coherence will be m ost easily grasped in texts intended fo r a very b ro a d audience, such as th e readers o f the daily press, o r for n o n -ad u lt readers. We will a tte m p t then to show the m ost com m on schem es o f textual coherence, analyzing the text o f a news-agency rep o rt and a text from a textb oo k intended for fifteen-year-olds. In analyzing the agency re p o rt we will use the m etho d proposed by M ath esiu s.3

3 V . M a t h e s i u s , “O tak zw an ym a k tu a ln y m r o z c z ło n k o w a n iu z d a n ia ” (On th e S o -c a lle d F u n ctio n a l S en te n c e P ersp ectiv e), [in:] O sp ó jn o śc i te k stu , ed. by M . R. M a y e n o w a , W roclaw 1971 (further O S P ).

10 M a ria R en a ta M a y en o w a

We qu ote the text o f the P olish Press Agency re p o rt o f 24 July 1969 th a t Trybuna Ludu titled “ M eeting o f the Leaders o f the U SSR and CSSR in W arsaw .”

On the 23rd a frien d ly m eetin g o f the party and sta te lea d ers o f the S o v iet U n io n and the C z e c h o slo v a k S o cia list R ep u b lic, w h o w ere p a rticip a tin g in the 25th anniversary celeb ra tio n o f P e o p le ’s P o la n d , to o k p la ce in W arsaw .

P a rticip a tin g in the m eetin g w ere the G en eral-S ecretary o f the C C o f the C P S U L e o n id B rezhnev, th e P resident o f the P resid iu m o f th e S u p rem e S oviet o f the U S S R N ik o la i P o d g o r n y , the P resid en t o f the C S S R L udvik S v o b o d a and the First S ecretary o f the C C o f th e K P C G u sta v H u sak .

T he p a rticip a n ts in the m eetin g ex ch a n g ed view s on the current p ro b lem s in the further d ev e lo p m e n t o f frien d ly rela tio n s b etw een the C P S U and th e K P C and betw een the S o v iet U n io n and the C z e c h o slo v a k S o cia list R ep u b lic.

T he co n v e r sa tio n s o f the S o v iet and C z e c h o slo v a k ia n lea d ers w ere c o n d u c te d in an a tm o sp h e re o f sin cerity and fraternal frien d sh ip .

The first sentence verbalizes the situation for all o f the follow ing sentences o f the th ree sm all p aragrap hs. Specifically, it establishes th a t a m eeting o f the p arty and state leaders o f the U SSR and C SSR took place. The second sentence picks up the inform atio n ab o u t the m eeting as a know n action and details the nam es o f the p articip an ts, and it repeats the w ord “m eeting.” The third sentence tu rns to the fo rm u la “the p articip an ts in the m eetin g,” which is a p arap h ra se o f the form ula in the second sentence “p articip atin g in the m eeting” and which the read er can replace w ith the nam es. The third sentence also introduces new in fo rm ation ab o u t the exchange o f views on the problem s in the fu rther developm ent in friendly relations. The last sentence rep eats the inform ation a b o u t the exchange o f views and adds to it new inform ation ab o u t the atm o sph ere in which the m eeting was held. The repetition contained in the final sentence is not a form al repetition. The final sentence substitutes the w ord “co n v ersatio n s” for “exchanged view s.” Everyone w ho know s the language sufficiently well, every Pole w ho com pleted elem entary school, possesses the vocabulary to recognize the expression “exchanged views” as a synonym for “conversatio n s.”

The text then is built as a series o f sentences, each o f which repeats p a rt o f the in fo rm atio n in troduced by the previous sentence and adds new inform ation to it. T he repetition o f the inform atio n is either an exact repetition o f w ords previously used or a simple

T e x tu a l C o h eren ce 11

tran sfo rm atio n o f previously used expressions, or sub stitu tio n o f a synonym . T o establish th at the info rm ation introd uced is repeated, only one, at m ost, analytic op eratio n m ust be m ade. I regard p arap h ra se as such an o p eratio n : “exchange o f views” = “conversa­ tio n ” ; “p artic ip a tin g in the m eeting” = “ the p articip an ts in the m eeting,” etc.

We will now qu o te an o th er fragm ent intended for a definite reader. T he text is tak en from a history tex tboo k for the first-year class o f a general secondary school. 4 The section is titled “ Egyptian A g ricu ltu re.”

T h e c h ie f o c c u p a tio n o f the E gyp tian p e o p le w as cu ltiv a tin g the land. Farm ers co n stitu te d th e m ajority o f the so ciety . B ut the land they w ork ed did n o t b elo n g to them . In itia lly , the ow n er o f all the land in the sta te w as th e king. Each year the farm ers paid rent for the right to w ork the royal lands. T he king a lso rew arded the secu lar cou rt d ign itaries, priests, and w arriors w ith large grants o f lan d . T h e farm ers w o rk in g on these lan d s, b esid es p a y in g the taxes due the k in g, a ls o p a id tribute to their lan d lord .

T h e E gyp tian farm er w ork ed very hard. In order to p rotect the agricultural land from the desert from w hich th e land had been taken he had to lu g th o u sa n d s o f b u ck ets o f w ater to the higher fields. In the su b eq u atorial heat he p lo u g h e d

the so il w ith a w o o d e n p lou gh . T he royal a d m in istra to rs' orders a lso dragged him to m a in te n a n c e w ork; c le a n in g ca n a ls and rein fo rcin g d am s. D u rin g the m o n th s w h en the N ile flo o d e d , on the other h and, the farm ers w ere driven to oth er w ork , such as b u ild in g roads, royal p a la ces, tem p les.

In P olish the w ord “farm ers,” app earin g at the beginning o f the second sentence, m eans “people who cultivate the lan d .” In fact, n o t only the relationship between the expression “ work the la n d ” in the first sentence and the w ord “farm ers” in the second establishes the conn ection between these two sentences; the entire second sentence is an explication o f the first. Saying th at som ething is the ch ief o ccupation o f the people m eans at least in p art that the m ajority o f the people does precisely th at som ething. The m an n er in which the third sentence is joined to the previous ones is interesting. The po int is not only th a t the phrase “w orking the la n d ” in the third sentence is a tran sfo rm atio n o f “cultivating the la n d ” o f the first sentence, and sem antically a p a rt o f the m eaning o f the w ord “ farm er” in the second sentence, or th at the double

4 J. D o w i a t , H isto ria . P o d rę c zn ik d la k l. I lic e ó w o g ó ln o k szta łc ą c y c h , W arszaw a 1962.

12 M a r ia R enata M a y e n o w a

rep etition o f the personal p ro n o u n (they, them ) refers to the farm ers o f the previous sentence, but w hat the co n ju nctio n “b u t” beginning the third sentence provides. F ollow ing Jadw iga W ajszczuk’s -suggestion, I believe th a t this conjunction is an ab b reviation for a text such as “G iven the first tw o sentences, you m ight think th a t th e land belonged to the farm ers. Y ou should n o t think it belonged to them . Y ou should know it did n o t.” In this m an ner, the third sentence is jo in ed to the previous te x t.5

It is a sim ple m atter to show how the follow ing sentences o f the p arag ra p h are jo in ed together and how the jo in in g results from elem entary know ledge o f the language and the ability to p arap h rase, “the lord o f the lands was the k ing ,” “royal la n d s,” etc.

The situation is som ew hat different in the second p arag ra p h , which is based prim arily on elem entary know ledge o f the actual living conditions. The p arag ra p h con stitutes a coh erent whole, for all o f the sentences after the first one detail the fa rm e rs’ w ork, which can be considered hard. The coherence created by th e purely linguistic dim ensions (the hidden subject “fa rm er” represented by the verb endings in the second a n d th ird sentences and the p ro n o u n o f the fo urth ) is n o t sufficient to m ake the p arag ra p h coherent.

A ccording to I. B ellert’s thesis which we have ad o p ted , if the activities described in the second, third, fo u rth , and fifth sentences o f the second p arag ra p h were com pletely unk now n to the reader,

the read er expecting the text in h an d to be coh erent could acknow ledge

a priori th at the activities described are h ard work. If the reader

knew the activities described, how ever, and if by chance he knew th a t they were easy, he w ould have to acknow ledge the p arag ra p h as incoherent. Im agine th at after the first sentence the text continued ‘‘in the evening hours when the s u n ’s heat abated, the farm ers played football in the cool evening a ir.” T hen, despite the repetition o f “farm ers,” the text would cease to be coherent. The relationships betw een the second, th ird, fo u rth , etc., sentences and the first sentence o f the p arag ra p h is n o t explicit in any p a rt o f the text, and could be expressed by phrases such as “nam ely,” “for exam ple,” even a colon w ould suffice.

5 C f. J. W a j s z c z u k , “P rzeciw sta w ien ie ja k o struktura w ła ściw a szerok im k o n te k s to m ” (A n O p p o sitio n as a Structure P rop er to B road C o n te x ts), [in:] O SP.

T e x tu a l C oh eren ce 13 If we u n d e rto o k a detailed analysis o f the w ords in the second parag rap h o f o u r tex tb oo k, we w ould find indicators in the sem antics o f the individual w ords th a t w ould lead us to think th a t the labors en um erated are regarded by the a u th o r as h ard . The phrases “taken from the d esert” m eans “tak en by force,” n o t necessarily with effort, b u t frequently with effort. All the m ore so since the taking is from the desert. The w ord “lu g ” speaks o f m oving from place to place with effort. O ne does n o t say a p erson lugs a fly; he lugs a heavy load. But the sem antic equivalents o f the w ord “heavy,” “h a rd w o rk ” d o n o t ap p ear in all o f the sentences o f the text. T hey are only an addition.

Analysis shows th a t a text does no t have to use all the resources for achieving coherence. O ur p arag ra p h could easily exploit explicit m eth ods o f indicating the connections betw een the first sentence and each successive sentence. It did n o t d o this in the p ro p er belief th a t the re a d e r’s elem entary know ledge o f the w orld would perm it him to fill in the gaps. O ur text could substitute the phrase “desert p artially changed into fertile fields” for “tak en from the desert” or “c a rry ” for “lug” and one could still expect easy com prehension o f the coherence o f the p arag ra p h u nd er analysis.

N ow we m ove to texts addressed to ad u lt readers w ho have at least an average education. We will discuss a special type o f text, an essay:

L ascaux d o e s n o t appear on any official m ap. O n e co u ld say that it d o es n o t exist in th e sa m e sense as L o n d o n or R a d o m d o . O ne w o u ld h ave to ask in the P aris m u seu m o f m an to find o u t w h ere it a ctu a lly is.

I went there in early spring. T h e v a lley o f the V ezere w as ju st a w a k en in g in its fresh, u n fin ish ed greenery. F ragm en ts o f the la n d sca p e seen fro m the w in d o w o f my bus su g g ested a c a n v a s by B issière. A w eb o f se n sitiv e green.

M o n tig n a c . A v illa g e w here there is n o th in g m ore to see than a m em orial ta b le t h o n o r in g a d ese rv in g m idw ife.

“ Ici vécu M a d a m e ...” 6

T he first p a ra g ra p h does not differ from the previously analyzed ones as regards coherence m echanism s. The first tw o sentences o f the second p arag ra p h are coherent if we m ake an add ition , inserting betw een the second and th ird sentences “the ro ad ran th ro u g h the valley o f the V ezere.” If o u r know ledge o f the w orld

6 Z. H e r b e r t , B a rb a rzy ń c a w o g ro d zie (T h e B arbarian in th e G arden ), W arszaw a 1962.

14 M a ria R enata M a y e n o w a

does not co n tra d ict this statem ent, then this ad d itio n is relatively simple. The next sentence, “ Fragm ents o f the lan d scap e” is jo in ed to the previous one in tw o directions. The fresh, unfinished greenery m entioned previously is a p a rt o f the “fragm ents o f the lan d sca p e.” But it is not so sim ple to place an equivalence sign betw een these tw o phrases. The explication o f the m eaning “fresh, unfinished greenery” does no t necessarily co n tain any th in g o f the m eaning o f the “fragm ents o f the landscape.” W hether we relate the p h rase “fragm ents o f the lan d scap e” to greenery or to “the valley o f the V ezere,” the phrases have different levels o f generality. If som eone dem anded an explanation o f what “landscap e” m eans, we w ould say th a t landscape is a p a rt o f the outside w orld no t enclosed by a structure, a p a rt th a t a person can encom pass at a glance. “ L andscape” can be opposed to w hat we see in a house or co u rty ard . “ G reenery” seen from the bus w indow = “p la n ts ,” can be opposed to buildings, people, anim als. “L an d scap e” is, thus, a different degree o f generalization th an “greenery.” The co nn ection between the tw o phrases is th at one can be an in terp re tatio n o f the other. “I see greenery” can be replaced by “ I see a p lan t landscap e.”

P roceeding in the o th er direction, not b ackw ards but forw ards thro ug h the text, we learn som ething ab o u t the w riter’s situ atio n. The writer is in a bus and sees fragm ents o f the valley o f the Vezere. The co n tin u atio n o f the text requires reco nstru ction o f such a situ atio n : “ the ro u te to Lascaux runs th ro u g h the village M o n tig n ac” ; the bus stops, he gets off, and notices the only interesting trait o f the village, a m em orial tablet ho no rin g a m idw ife; all this m ust be added to m ake the text explicitly coherent. The last sentence o f the second p arag ra p h can be treated as a coherent section o f the text only if the reader know s the description o f pictures th a t frequently use such m etapho rical form ulas as “A web o f sensitive green.” Only such stylistic experience allows one to relate the elliptic and m etaphorical fo rm ula to the phrase “a canvas by Bissiere” in the previous sentence and thus to the fragm ents o f the landscape seen from the bus w indow on the Way to Lascaux.

If we do not know B rissiere’s canvas, we are p rep ared to conclude from the text whose coherence we have assum ed th at

T e x tu a l C o h eren ce ₁₅

he painted landscapes. R elating the p hrase “the web o f sensitive green” to B rissiere’s canvas, how ever, requires a p artic u la r cultural baggage, in p articu lar a know ledge o f the styles for describing art works. T h a t know ledge could be replaced in p a rt by know ledge o f the reality; o f B rissiere’s paintings. In either case we m ust go beyond a basic know ledge o f the language o r elem entary know ledge of the situation u nder analysis. T he en tire text consciously erases the link betw een the individual sentences, elim inates repetition o f w ords th at could ap p ear as sim ple repetitio ns on the surface or as sem antic ones, such as “driv e” and “ro a d .” It cou nts on the re a d e r’s energy and ability.

N ow an o th er fragm ent from an essay:

R ich a rd II I fo retells H a m let. R ich a rd I I is a tragedy o f co m p r e h e n sio n . T he

king w h o se cro w n is k n o ck ed from his h ead for a m o m en t b efo re b ein g throw n in to the a b y ss a ch iev es the grea tn ess o f K in g Lear. F or K in g L e a r like H a m le t is a lso the tragedy o f S h a k esp ea re’s co n te m p o r a r y , the p o litica l tragedy o f R en a issa n ce h u m an ism . A tragedy in w h ich the w orld has its illu sio n s rem o v ed . K in g Lear slo w ly d esc en d s the great stairs, o n e step at a tim e, to total c o m p reh en sio n o f the cru elty o f the w orld he had ruled but did not k n o w , to drink the cup o f b ittern ess dry. R ich ard II is b ru ta lly , sh arp ly p u sh ed in to the abyss. But the fo u n d a tio n o f the en tire feudal w orld c o lla p se d w ith him . N o t just R ichard w as d eth ro n ed . T he sun a lso cea sed to orbit arou n d the earth.

N ote the basic asyndetic ch a racter o f the sho rt sentences in the text. In only tw o cases d o co njun ctio ns ap p e ar th at could indicate the relationships between the sentences (for, but). H ow can a relation ship betw een the first and second sentences be established? K now ledge o f the entire chap ter, to which the p arag ra p h belongs (it appears on the tenth page o f the ch ap ter) does not aid in finding these connections. T he first sentence seems to be a rem inder and a sum m ation o f w hat has been said ab o u t R ichard III, and it is not directly connected to the sentence a b o u t R i­ chard II. C ertainly, the sentence can be u n d ersto o d as a p art of a whole ab o u t S h akesp eare’s histories. The second is connected to the third only by the equivalence “the k ing ” = R ich ard II, b u t the sentence does not develop the p redicate o f the previous one. The “fo r” beginning the fo urth sentence is enigm atic; it requires som e addition to the text which is n o t im plied unequivocally. The connection betw een the sentence beginning with “fo r” and the previous one, which is m ade evident in a form ally com prehensible m anner, is

16 M a r ia R e n a ta M a y e n o w a

the sam e as the relatio n betw een the second and third sentences: achieves the greatness o f K ing Lear. F o r K ing L ea r [the work, whose hero is K ing Lear] like H a m l e t b u t this sentence does no t develop anything said previously a b o u t K ing L ear in any obvious m anner. We ca n n o t say w hat the relatio n sh ip is betw een the phrase “the greatness o f K ing L e a r” an d the expression “ tragedy o f S h akespeare’s c o n te m p o ra ry ” or “ the political tragedy o f R enaissance hum an ism ,” or “the tragedy in which the w orld has its illusions rem o v ed .” The last p h rase can be in terp reted as follow s: “the w orld th a t has its illusions rem o v ed ” = “ the world as it is,” “the w orld co m p re h en d ed ” ; in this m an n er it can be indirectly connected with the sentence ‘’'’R ichard I I is a tragedy o f co m p reh en sio n .” T he sentence beginning “K in g L ear slow ly” expands the previous one and m akes it concrete. It co n tain s new inform ation a b o u t the slowness o f com prehension, which takes place in K ing L ear. T hus, the next sentence is connected with it by o ppositio n (in this regard). The co n ju n ctio n “b u t” at the beginning of the follow ing sentence requires th a t the o rd e r o f sentences be chan g ed : “P erhap s you th in k th a t only R ich ard was d eth ro n ed . Y ou should know th a t the sun ceased to o rb it aro u n d the earth , th a t together with him the fo u n d a tio n o f th e feudal world co llapsed.” Y et such reordering th a t fills out the m eaning o f the co n junction “b u t” is possible only if the reader k n o w s —or

the text being analyzed has inform ed him —th a t the thesis th at the sun orbits the ea rth is in som e way connected with the existence o f the feudal order.

The essay presented here requires great effort on the re a d e r’s part. The coherence m echanism s develop, at least in p a rt, not in the n atu ra l order o f readin g bu t back w ard s — from the end to the beginning. T he reader m ust com plete a series o f o peration s in order to establish the connections betw een the sentences, and these op eratio n s do n o t fall w ithin the realm o f sim ple linguistic know ledge. They requ ire a p artic u la r cultu ral baggage th a t enables the reader to connect the su n ’s o rb it w ith the feudal order.

T he sentence sequence can be such th a t it m isleads the re ad er:

C leo p a tra can rem ain w ith A n th o n y . B ut C le o p a tr a lo v e s A n th o n y , w h o is o n e o f th e p illars o f the w orld , w h o is an u n v a n q u ish e d leader. A n th o n y w h o has lo st, an d b een d efea te d is n o t A n th o n y .

T e x tu a l C oh eren ce ₁₇

Before we read the third sentence we ca n n o t u nd erstan d the connection betw een the first and the second. Only in the third sentence do we learn th a t the second should re a d : “B ut C leo p atra loves only th e A n thony w ho is one o f the p illars,” or m ore explicitly: “B ut C leo p atra will no t rem ain with A nthony, because she loves only the A n th o n y who i s . . . ”

The are an infinite n um b er o f exam ples o f essay texts th at avoid explicit coherence m echanism s. We cite ju s t one m ore:

T he w orld is sm all, for you c a n n o t run aw a y from it. T h e w orld is sm all, for an a ccid en t, an o b lig in g h and, a qu ick b lo w suffice to b eco m e num ber one. T here are three w h o have d ivid ed the w orld a m o n g th e m selv es. T he fourth w anted to resist them ; he has already h u m b led h im self. H e g iv es a b a n q u et, invites the triu m virate to his ga lley . T hey drink. F irst L e p id u s b e c o m e s dru n k . H e c o lla p se s on the d eck . T he servant th ro w s him over his sh o u ld er and carries aw ay a pillar o f the w orld."

Let us characterize how the coherence „ m echanism s in our exam ple are cam ouflaged. T he successive “fo rs” in the text have exactly the sam e function as the one analyzed by A. W ierzbicka.8 The full m eaning o f these “fo rs” can be expressed by the follow ing; “ I can say the w orld is small, for I know th a t you can n o t run aw ay from it. I can say the w orld is sm all, for you can co n q u e r it. I can say the w orld is small for I know t h a t ... suffices to becom e nu m ber one.” F rom the sentence “there are th re e ” to the ph rase “invites the triu m v ira te ” the text is a puzzle unconnected to the previous sentences ab o u t the world. If the read er know s the history o f A n th o n y ’s tim e, he can foresee the solution. The pillar o f the w orld throw n over the serv an t’s shoulder, Lepidus, appears in a constru ctio n sim ilar to the syllable th at eats b o o k s .9 “P illar o f the w orld” can only be used as a q u o tatio n here. A nd w hat is the connection betw een the sentences abo u t the w orld and the history o f the b an q u et on P o m p ei’s galley?

7 T he a m b ig u ity o f th e w ord “w o r ld ” in the fra g m e n t under an alysis is a se p a r a te p ro b lem , a lso o n e o f co h e r e n c e , that I am le a v in g aside for the m o m e n t.

8 C f. A . W i e r z b i c k a , “ M etatek st w te k śc ie ” (M eta tex t in T ext), [in:] O SP. 9 I am referring here to the early, p ro b a b ly M ed iev a l, e x a m p le o f lo g icia n s w h o w arned again st treatin g e x p ressio n s from the la n g u a g e o f th in g s and ex p ressio n s fro m m eta la n g u a g e (exp ression s o f n orm al su p p o sitio n and m aterial su p p o sitio n ) on th e sam e level.

18 M a ria R en a ta M a y e n o w a

So far a perceptive reader can see the elim ination o f Lepidus as a concrete exam ple, sup p o rtin g the logic o f the th ird sentence (L epidus’ quick reaction to the wine consum ed is an accident). U ncovering the full connection betw een the sentences a b o u t the w orld an d the re p o rt o f concrete events is left to the re a d e r’s energy, historical and literary knowledge. The sentences establish a general tru th . O ne m ust so rt th ro ug h those a b o u t p articu lar events and persons to m ake declarative sentences. X w anted to, bu t did n o t run aw ay from the w orld; Y co n quered the w orld; Z becam e num ber one with the aid o f a quick b lo w ...

C am ouflaging the coherence m echanism s is a p rinciple o f the essay, which in m any respects is close to poetic language. But we are no t concerned with th a t aspect o f the pro blem . We would like to use the analyses given so far for tw o purposes.

1. We w ould like to sum m arize these analyses as follows. C oherence m echanism s have a varying ch a rac te r; they are m ore or less ap p a ren t on the surface, m ore or less hidden.

They can require m ore or less activity from the reader.

They can dem and varied types o f know ledge to com plete the gaps and expose the coherence.

T he degree o f effort required to com prehen d the text as a coherent w hole can be m easured, and the ch aracter o f the know ledge required can be defined.

I regard elem entary language know ledge as the m o st com m on. The least com m on is know ledge o f art w orks th a t are n o t the direct object o f the text, o f philosophical systems, and stylistic form s in which those w orks are expressed.

I would grade the energy required in co m p reh end in g a text according to tw o criteria. The energy decreases as the text introduces explicit, surface coherence m echanism s, correctly o rientin g the reader in the given te x t’s sem antic relations. The energy decreases as the read er has to perform fewer o p eratio ns to expose the coherence m echanism s. By these o perations I m ean explication o f the m eaning o f w ords, filling in m issing elem ents o f the text, verbalizing p resu pp osi­ tions, restru ctu rin g the sentence order, etc.

2. The second item th at I w ould like to discuss is connected with restru ctu rin g the sentence order.

T e x tu a l C o h eren ce 19 approxim ately connected by equivalences betw een its d atu m and novum . T he sim plest texts outline a basic situation which the succeed­ ing sentences develop, in tro d u cin g freely and w ithout reservation new elem ents th a t fit in to the outlined situ atio n in accord with our know ledge o f the w orld, im agine som eone building this text:

In July o f la st year o n e b ea u tifu l a fte r n o o n , I d ro v e to village X in an o p en car. T h e L in d en trees gave o f f a p articu larly p o w erfu l scen t after the rain.

We have no difficulty re co n stru ctin g the te x t’s coherence by interp o latin g the in fo rm atio n : “T he ro a d on which I was driving was lined with L inden trees,” or sim ilar in form ation placing Linden trees near the ro ad . The ease o f the ad d itio n here is connected with p o p u la r know ledge o f the reality o f the geographical area, culture, etc., and it frequently establishes the feeling o f com m unity and u n d ersta n d in g am ong people.

Im agine such a text:

O n e July a fte r n o o n in a c o u n tr y gard en , the b u zzin g o f b ees broke the silen ce. A b reeze b en t the grass, m ix in g the sh a d es o f green. T h e birds fell silent. Z in ias sto o d straigh t in the fiery varied c o lo r s o f red.

T he coherence o f this text, like th a t o f the one a b o u t the Egyptian farm ers, does no t depend on a chain o f p artial repetition o f inform ation. T he coherence o f the description inheres in the object nam ed in the first sentence. Im agine the sam e text, but with the first sentence now last. O r im agine it w ithout the first sentence, which is the g u a ra n to r o f the coherence o f the other sentences, since it presents the whole, whose p arts the following sentences describe.

T he first case, in which the integ rating sentence describing the global situ atio n is at the beginning, is the least d em an d in g on the reader. T he second case is th e m ost provocative to the reader. T he third case, when th ere is no in tegrating sentence, is the m ost difficult. T he read er him self m ust create the superposed object w hose p a rts are presented in the sequence o f s e n te n c e s.10

Im agine such a text:

Just an y m o m e n t now .

She d o e s n o t carry a sc y th e; she d o e s n o t grin s h o w in g her y e llo w teeth; she d o es n ot rattle her b leach ed b o n e s at the d o o r . She is in sid e; sh e grow s 10 H ere I am fo llo w in g A . W i e r z b i c k a , “O sp ó jn o śc i te k stu ” (On T extu al C o h e r e n c e ), [in:] P ra c e z p o e ty k i, W ro cla w 1968. T h e third ca se is o n e in w hich th e “p a sto ra l sc e n e ” m u st be d e d u ced .

20 M a ria R en a ta M a y e n o w a

inside m e like a ch ild in its m oth er, she fills m e and p asses b e y o n d m e; she is 1.

H o w well y o u lo o k to d a y , M ikhal E vg ra fo v ich , m y c o n g r a tu la tio n s.

In th e next r o o m , the sa lo n , th e ca v a lry m en flirt w ith their h ips. O n the p ia n o they are p la y in g a so n g : H ey, h o , w here w ere y o u , on F o n ta n k a d rin k ing v o d k a , d rin k in g v o d k a , d rin k in g v o d k a , d rin k ing v o d k a , d rin k ing v o d k a . 11

Ignoring the fact th a t we have the beginning o f a novel before us, let us treat the text as a w ritten one and apply the sam e m eth od o f interp reting it as a coh erent text we applied to th e history-textbook example.

Im agine we know neither the au th o r n o r the circum stances in which it was w ritten, n o r the function it was to serve. C an we perform the perm issible tran sfo rm atio n s and in terp o latio n s to in ter­ pret it as a coherent text? A nd if so, how ?

P roceeding from the beginning, the sentences co n stitu tin g the second p arag ra p h are the sim plest. The p ro n o u n “she” can be replaced by the w ord “d e a th .” The basis o f this su b stitu tio n is the widely know n fact th a t d ea th carries a scythe, grins show ing its yellow teeth and rattles its bleached bones. T his know ledge is docum ented in folklore, church art, and p o p u lar sayings and em blem s.

N ow let us rew rite the text substituting for the p ro n o u n the only w ord which we could identify on the basis o f the predicates.

“Ju st any m om ent n o w .”

“D eath does no t carry a s c y th e ;... D eath grows inside” etc. The effort to restructure o u r text into a coheren t one leads to an o th er add itio n in the first sentence. “Ju st any m om ent now death will co m e” or “Ju st any m om ent now I will die.”

The next p arag ra p h beginning with the words “ H ow well” brings us up short. W ho is speaking? Is it the sam e person who said, “Just any m om ent n ow ” ? W hat is the relationship between this sentence and the previous and follow ing ones? The polite fo rm u la in this sentence ca n n o t be interpreted as a fragm ent o f a co herent text in which som eone relates the app ro ach of

11 W . W o r o s z y l s k i , S n y p o d śn iegiem (D re a m s under Sn ow ), W arszaw a 1963. T h e q u o ta tio n is the b eg in n in g o f the n o v el. I realize the title o f the n ovel is an in terestin g asp ect o f th e b eg in n in g o f it for my p rob lem . I w ill, h o w ev er, a v o id this issue.

T e x tu a l C o h eren ce 21

his own death. We ca n n o t conclude th at the sam e person u t­ tered both p arag rap h s. We ca n n o t show any rep etition o f previous inform ation supplem ented with new inform ation in our polite form ula. We ca n n o t disclose the textual coherence. The text in this form, even with the best o f intentions and even som e k no w ­ ledge on the p art o f the reader, is incoherent. N o solid whole can be woven from the im m ediately w ritten m eanings.

Suppose we know th at it is the beginning o f a letter from a person w hom we left no t long ago in good health and spirits. The incoherent letter would frighten us. We w ould trea t the text as an index un intention ally inform ing us o f the w riter’s co ndition.

This inform ation, u n intentionally conveyed to us by the a u th o r th ro u g h our in terp retatio n o f the text, could be very im p o rtan t to us. B ut it w ould be indirect inform ation, neither fulfilling the direct intent to com m un icate n or co n stitu tin g the p ro p e r subject o f the message as intended by the writer. The text does not contain the intended in fo rm atio n : “ I feel th at I am dying, and I am incapable o f w riting a coherent tex t.” It contains only the first p a rt of o u r inform ation. The text allow ed us to form ulate an hypothesis a b o u t the co n d itio n and psychological state o f the w riter. T he basis for such an hypothesis was only p artially provided by o u r tran sfo rm atio n o f the first tw o p a ra g ra p h s; the basis was above all our observation o f the te x t’s structu re, its deviation, its incoherence.

The first sentence o f the text is deviant, if we wish to treat it as the first sentence th a t is supposed to inform us a b o u t som e state o f which we can neither kn ow n or guess anything. The first sentence is deviant because it is elliptic. The con tin u atio n , as we know, is incoherent. The basis o f our fright is prim arily then o u r observation o f the stru ctu re itself and o ur know ledge o f w hat can cause psychological states th at m ake us incapable o f creatin g coherent texts.

It is not necessarily so, and p erhap s in o ur case this is not so th a t the im m ediate con ten t o f the sentences has no m eaning in reconstructing the sp eak er’s co ndition and state. But the structure itself is at least equally im p o rtan t. P erhaps am o ng all the possible in terp retatio n s o f the sp eak er’s condition , we would not select the one explicitly expressed: death is in me. P erhaps we would

22 M a r ia R e n a ta M a y e n o w a

choose ano ther, one indicating m ental instability. The th ird and fo u rth p a rag ra p h s could lead us in this direction, especially if we used n o t academ ic know ledge, b u t com m on sense, which assum es th a t in a dying person there is no ability to co n stru ct such lengthy sentences.

N ow suppose the text is the beginning o f a novel, a fragm ent o f a text whose coherence is assum ed a priori and in which all o f the inform ation is intentional. It is intended n o t by its hypothetical hero M ikhal Evgrafovich b u t by its au th o r, who writes the w ords o f the hero, including the info rm ation th a t from the h e ro ’s poin t o f view could n o t be intended. T he text has been placed in q u o tatio n m a r k s .12 W ithin q u o tatio n m arks, the text becom es an iconic sign, a p o rtra it o f som ething which we m ust discover. If the sem antic stru ctu re o f the text was revealed explicitly, the iconic sign (the p a rt o f the text in q u o tatio n m arks) w ould have been preceded by an ex planatory sentence and a colon. T he text w ould re ad : “th ro u g h the consciousness o f a dying m an passed the follow ing th o u g h ts; ‘Ju st any m om ent n o w ...” ’ This version w ould n o t free the read er w ho wishes to ex tract the m axim um am o u n t o f inform ation from the text in q u o ta tio n m arks, from m aking his own efforts at in terp retatio n , b u t it would facilitate his first, m ost difficult step and provide him with guidance in u n d erstan d in g the incoherent fragm ent o f text in q u o tatio n m arks. Such an explicit version o f the text provides the essential fram ew ork o f the situation into which the text in q u o tatio n m arks leads us. Such explicit versions are n atu ra l in tro d u ctio n s to cues for the heroes o f classical novels, whose texts include a series o f fragm ents in q u o ta tio n m arks.

All o f the indirect inform ation in the text within q u o tatio n m arks belongs to the literary text, and the in form ation is in­ tended by the au th q r. B ut it is no t intended from the p o in t o f view o f the fictional hero or n a rra to r. The reader m ust uncover it using

12 W ord s in q u o ta tio n m ark s are d iscu ssed in m y a rticles “ Les E xp ression s g u ille m e te e s,” [in:] To H o n o r R om an J a k o b so n , M o u to n , 1968, and “O różn icy m ięd zy p o jęciem z n a czen ia a in fo r m a cją ” (On the D ifferen ce b etw een the C o n c e p tio n o f M ea n in g and In fo rm a tio n ) in the b o o k to h o n o r P rof. C z e ż o w sk i, W arszaw a 1969.

T ex tu a l C o h eren ce 23

his k n o w led g e .13 T he shape which the read er gives the inform ation, can lead to the creatio n o f a coherent text, one com pletely different from the initial text.

Before tu rn in g to the know ledge th a t can be form u lated on the basis o f the beginning o f the novel q u oted above, we should ask what is needed to form ulate the essential in tro d u cto ry sentence: “through the co n sc io u sn e ss... th o u g h ts.” It m ight seem th a t it was elem entary know ledge, derived from psychology or from life itself, th a t the ability to form ulate coh erent texts d uring a fatal illness disintegrates. Y et we saw above th a t this elem entary know ledge could lead to an o th er version explaining the quoted text. M oreover, life itself should w arn us against such introductory sentences as the one we have proposed, which the rem aind er o f the text conform s. In o rd er to begin with this in tro d u cto ry statem ent, we m ust a d o p t the convention th a t there is an ap p a ratu s registering conscious tho u g h t, and it is a convention to which a rt has accustom ed us. Life does n o t provide such experiences.

Thus it is n o t experience from life b u t linguistic-reading experience which m oves to the fore. The reader o f novels is accustom ed to receiving signals indicating th a t the sentences he w ould have to treat as deviant if he wished to assign them the function o f conveying in fo rm ation a b o u t an objective world should be u n d ersto o d as a signal forcing him to interp ret those sentences as the tho ughts o f the speaker.

A. W ierzbicka’s article m entioned above discusses the linguistic m eans th at clearly indicate the presence o f fragm ents o f a text co n tain in g info rm ation to which the new inform ation refers. These linguistic devices ca n n o t ap p ear at the beginning o f a text. If we read, “A gain the ra b b it b linked,” we should find earlier in the tex t inform ation th a t the ra b b it blinked. If, however, a co n tem p o rary novel deviates and begins with a phrase containing “ag a in ,” usually it is a signal th a t the repetition o f the event occurs in so m eon e’s consciousness.

T he co n tem po rary novel has accustom ed us to such deviant

13 I will n o t d iscu ss h o w k n o w le d g e from d a ily life is in tertw in ed w ith im a g in a tio n . We rather im agin e than k n o w w hat h a p p en s in the m ind o f a d y in g m a n .

24 M a r ia R enata M a y e n o w a

beginnings th a t in them selves signal to us the d irectio n for our inquiries into the in tro d u ctio n o f the ph rase in q u o ta tio n marks.

From the po in t o f view o f the co n ten ts o f th e sentences enclosed in q u o ta tio n m arks, the text is incoherent. A s a quoted expression, it constitutes a specific entity, which som e would Ike to co m pare to the u nity o f a m aterial object. The inform ation su rro u n d in g the text is a m etalinguistic in fo rm ation . A m o n g othfcr things, it says th a t the verbalized th o u g h ts o f a dying m an have this form .

W hat inform atio n does o ur text in q u o ta tio n m ark s provide or w hat assum ptions based on it are we willing to m ak e? Someone is dying and senses his ap p ro ach in g death . P erh ap s he is M ikhal E vgrafovich or he heard or rem em bers he was called that. He is a R ussian or lives within the R ussian cu ltu ral sphere. P robably he is a noblem an or b u re au crat. T he action p ro b a b ly takes place in a city in C zarist R ussia. In the salon there are guests; som e o f whom are cavalrym en. He im agines how they are behaving, how they are flirting with the wom en. The gam es are shallow. He looks dow n on those enjoying them selves in the salon. The trivial m elody irritates him . H e has no t enough strength or desire to form ulate his perceptions. Perhaps, the duplicity o f the polite fo rm u la angers him.

F urth er, if the text is the beginning o f a novel, a co n tem p o rary one, perhaps the a u th o r w anted us to experience the duplicity and shallow ness o f the polite form ula in relatio n to the h e ro ’s actual condition.

T he first sentence-inform ation com plex easily becom es coherent, ju st like the Egyptian farm er text. We are dealing with sentences, sym bols o f situations, judgm en ts. T he text, how ever, is a result o f our activity. The au th o r gave us an o th er, different text.

T o locate a startin g p oint in this series o f sentences for co n stru ctin g a coherent text, we m ust recognize the series as a whole in the sense th a t it expresses one consciousness during one tim e period. This recognition is equivalent to enclosing the sentences in q u o ta tio n m ark s and preceding them w ith an in trod uctory statem ent saying they belong to one definite consciousness.

O ne can im agine a text in q u o tatio n m arks whose im m ediate layer o f m eaning is coherent. T here are m any such texts in

T ex tu a l C oh eren ce 25 19th-century novels and also in great novels o f the 20th cen­ tury. N evertheless, the text m ust im plicitly co n tain inform ation th a t it is the w ork o f one consciousness in one tim e period, and a sensitive read er m ust kn ow how to add an in tro d u cto ry sentence with a colon.

T oday it is a truism th at a first-degree “tra n s la tio n ” o f an in co h eren t text into a coherent one does no t co n tain the sam e in fo rm atio n as the original. In p ro d u cin g the explicitly form ulated info rm atio n we lose som ething essential, prim arily the inform ation th a t a direct m odel o f the processes o f consciousness has such a form . A ny yet w henever we en co u n ter a text th at we w ant to tre a t as an iconic sign o f som e reality, we m ake such a first-degree tran slatio n , at least in p art, if we co m p reh end the text. Such tran slatio n s are an integral p art o f com prehension. The basic step is the fo rm u latio n o f an in tro d u cto ry sentence. L iteratu re th at does w ith o u t such sentences creates serious difficulties for the reader, for it requires from him deep know ledge o f literary conventions.

A co h e ren t text is the p ro d u c t o f the re a d e r’s intellectual activity focused on the in form atio n object as the result o f a com pleted cognitive process. The in form atio n object is cleansed o f the very m odel o f the cognitive process. The m ore a text attem p ts to m odel the cognitive process, the less coh eren t it is.