In spite of the diversity of opinions on the question, most linguists agree that the basic textual categories are topical unity and semantico-syntactic cohesion. It is conditioned by the fact that the general idea of a sequence of sentences forming a text includes these two notions. On the one hand, it presupposes a succession of spoken or written utterances irrespective of their forming or not forming a coherent semantic complex. On the other hand, it implies a strictly topical stretch of talk, i.e. a continual succession of sentences centering on a common informative purpose. It is in this latter understanding of the text that is syntactically relevant. It is in this latter sense that the text can be interpreted as a lingual entity with this two features.

The cohesion of the text can be formal and semantic. To indicate formal-linguistic means of intratextual links in the linguistics of the text the term cohesion is used and to indicate semantic means the term – coherence. And different types of cohesion and cogeration are described. For cohesion:

1) Reference. Under reference we understand the references either to preceding context (retrospection) or to the following context (prospection) sometimes the retrospectual reference is also called anaphora and prospective reference – cataphora. The most evident means of reference in English is the article determination: the definite article usually serves as the marker of anaphoric link and the indefinite article as the marker of cataphoric link. For example, in the sentence The boy was pale. the definite article shows that the denotatum, indicated by the noun (boy) has already been mentioned in the previous context. The article just says “Remember saying earlier, refer to the previous abstract”. In the sentence I met once a boy the indefinite article serves to indicate that the noun boy is mentioned for the first time and that in the following context about denotatum the additional material will be given. The article determination isn’t, of course, the only means of reference. Thus, in the sentence I’ll tell you what … the pronoun “what” indicates that there will be the following announcement and serves in that сase the means of cataphoric link. A lot of English sententional adverbs (contrariwise, likewise, similarly, etc.) are the means of anaphoric link, indicating the presence of preceding context:

              Similarly, Jack didn’t know what to do.

2) Substitution. It presupposes the substitution of full-nominative element or elements preceding by half-nominative element or elements in the following context. The most evident and often used example of substitution is pronominalization – the use of pronouns instead of nouns: Jack could neither read nor write. He was illiterate. Other ways of substitution are described, for example, with the help of verbal word do: Who knows Mary? – I do or indefinite particle to: Would you like to go to the theatre? – I’d love to.  

3) Ellipsis. Under it we understand structure incompleteness of the sentence. The elliptical sentence, though, can always be built up to the completed. There are two principal types of ellipsis: a) paradigmatically filled in elliptical sentences; b) syntagmatically filled in elliptical sentences.

The first type is filled in to structurally completed analogues with the help of reference to linguistic competence of language speakers, i.e. to their knowledge of appropriate rules of sentence structure. Thus, the question Ready?  addressed to the listener can be easily restored to Are you ready? on the basis of knowledge of English grammar norms and doesn’t need the reference to the context of speech. This type of ellipsis isn’t viewed as the way of intratextual cohesion. On the contrary, syntagmatically filled in elliptical sentences can be restored to structurally completed analogues only because of the presence of the appropriate linguistic context; for example, in the question – response unity How was your journey? – Fine. The answer can be filled in to structurally completed analogue My journey was fine only because of the presence of the preceding context.

4) Conjunction. Under it we understand the usage of different connection elements between the sentences, mostly conjunctions (I was terribly angry. And Ann was too.) but also other ways, for example, adverbs (firstly, secondly, lastly) and also sententional formations of the type I mean.

5) Isotopia of the text. It is also named lexical cohesion and thematic net, it presupposes the usage of lexical units, as from the same means of link “subject sphere”. Thus, if in the abstract we observe such words as books, librarians, to read, reading halls, shelves, journals, it is clear that the description concerns the situation in the library or in the reading-hall. In conclusion we should point out the following. Sometimes it is very difficult to determine which means of cohesion is realized in the very concrete case. In the example, Would you like to go to the theatre? – I’d love to. the answer can be viewed as the demonstration of reference (to anaphorically sends to the preceding context) and substitution (to substitutes the phrase to go to the theatre) and ellipsis.

Coherence

    The text is not only structural but thematic unity, and it means that it is possible to point out content parameters which characterize it as the unit of the highest level. These are such parameters:

1. Intentionality is the aims, tasks and intentions, which has the author, generating the text.

2. Acceptability is the admissibility of a generated text for it recipient. Being complementary (i.e. binary notion) to the intentionality, it underlines the active role of the addressee of the text.

3. Informativeness is the degree of presentation in the text of the view, unknown, unexpected. It accentuates the primary feature of the text to be the bearer of certain information.

4. Situativity is the accordance of the form and content of the situation of communication. Situativity allows to fit the text into the format of communication, doing it relevant for these interlocutors.

5. Intertextuality is the connection of this text with other text. Thus, intertextuality differing from the rest means of cohesion and coherence, described above, studies not inside, but outer connections of the text and presents the process very interesting and important.

    Every new text – consciously or not – is generated by the author taking account of already created texts, the traits of which can be found in the text. These traits can have the form of citation, allusion, reminiscence, parody, burlesk, travesty, remake, the similarity of the plot, thematic, esthetic and idea community and so on. It should be especially noted in the sphere of such processes precedential texts – widely spread in this culture of texts, the separate fragments of which are regularly reproduced in the latest texts in the form of citations and references. As a rule, precedential texts – are texts of classical literature, cultured films and songs, widely known anecdotes and humour stories and so on.

Types of contexts

The theory of text usually presupposes the investigation of problems concerning the context. In linguistics there are a lot of types of context but we’ll speak about two: horizontal and vertical.

    Under horizontal we mean the context describing the series of events, immediately changing one another in the frame of dynamically developed in time situation. For example,  A boy entered the room. He came up to the window and opened it. Looking out the window, he saw a girl crossing the street. Having crossed the street the girl disappeared behind the doors of a nearby café.

Under vertical we understand the context, which describes the situation or situations, preceding or being simultaneously with that which is given in the initial sentence of the context; the time in such context freezes or gets the regressive features, for example:

    A boy entered the room. He was dressed poorly but neatly. He was thin and pale and looked very tired. It was obvious that he had not eaten for days as he was very weak. He was standing in the doorway ready to faint.

    The main differential features of two studied types of contexts are semantics and tense-forms of predicates. If in the contexts of the first type the actional type of predicate prevails (to enter, to come up, to open, to look out, to cross, to disappear), than in the contexts of the second type – statal predicates (to be poorly dressed, to look pale, to be weak).

    It is common for the contexts of the first type to use the predicates of the past simple and for the second type the forms of past continuous (was standing) and past perfect (had eaten) tenses to indicate the actions simultaneous with the actions indicated by the predicate in the initial sentence of context or preceding it. We may even say that tense-forms of the English forms are one of the means of cohesion.

    In the real texts these contexts can be found in combined form. The combination of contexts means that the horizontal context and include the characteristics of the vertical and vice versa. The example of a horizontal context with the aspects of vertical is: A boy entered the room. He looked pale and exhausted. He came up to the window and opened it. Having had nothing to eat for days he found it difficult to move. Looking out of the window he saw a girl crossing the street. He thought that he had already seen the girl somewhere. Having crossed the street the girl disappeared behind the doors of a nearby café.

    The example of the vertical context with the elements of horizontal is: A boy entered the room. He was dressed poorly but neatly. He said that three years before his parents had been killed in a car-crash and he was then adopted by a family who did not care much about him. His stepparents made him do all the work about the house and look after their own two babies. The boy had to quit school and do odd jobs earning money for his family. One day he met a friend who persuaded him to run away from his new family and was standing in the doorway of a police station asking for food and shelter.

Text and discourse

    For the last several years there develops the theory of discourse along with the theory of text. Text and discourse are the notions interrelated but not identical. Under the text most researchers understand the example of written speech literally, stylistically organized according to a particular genre and that’s why it is characterized by thought up composition, relevance, syntactical correctness and structural completeness. Discourse isn’t bounded by such parameters. First, it cannot be summed to the written form. Second, it is spontaneous, and it isn’t from the point of the form, ideal, structurally changeable, stylistically not completely correct. Discourse is a verbal reaction of a man to the communicative situation; it is speech “absorbed in life”, it’s the type of activity which exist along with other activities. The text is characterized by the presence of its own categories and parameters. The formal feature of the discourse is the presence of discourse lexicon (discourse markers, discourse operators) – the adequate interpretation of such verbal elements can be only when they are engaged in speech structure. To such discourse words the grammarians ascribe interjections (oh, aha), the formation of sentential type (you know, you see), particles (even, only) and some others.

It should be noted that the investigation of discourse words in isolation, without speech context reveals their meaning only as intensifiers.

Thus, the text began to be considered by many linguists as the highest lingual unit having its own categories and elements, and also rules of organization, i.e. having its specific grammar. In the grammar of the text it is said that the text has powerful integral potential and, therefore, structurally and communicatively it is the unity, the features of which can not be summed up to the features of constituent sentences.

References

1. Blokh M.Y. A Course in Theoretical English Grammar. – M., 2000. – p.229-236, 261-272

2. Гальперин И.Р. Текст как объект лингвистического исследования. М., 1981

3. Лотман Ю.М. Анализ художественного текста. – Л., 1972

Заключение

Теоретическая грамматика английского языка в связи с переходом от описания структурных особенностей естественного человеческого языка к исследованию его функционально-семантических и прагматических характеристик представляет особый интерес, поскольку в ней в значительной степени нашли свое отражение и реализацию различные методы лингвистического анализа. Интегративное представление морфологии и синтаксиса как единой системы речеобразования представлены в учебном пособии в теории уровней языка, оппозиционной теории грамматических категорий с раскрытием контекстного поведения грамматических форм, проблематики парадигматического синтаксиса с его выходом в грамматику текста.

Теоретическая грамматика первого изучаемого языка один из наиболее сложных обобщающих курсов в цикле теоретических дисциплин изучаемого языка. Данная дисциплина дает на основе новейших методов анализа возможность теоретического осмысления строя языка как системы взаимосвязанных явлений; обеспечивает теоретическую базу для практического изучения иностранного языка в целом. Знания и умения, полученные в рамках данной дисциплины, помогают студенту сформировать в свете современной науки систематизированное представление о грамматическом строе английского языка; получить, расширить и углубить системные знания по специальности; видеть явления языка в их целости, взаимосвязи и взаимозависимости. Наряду с информированием студентов о достижениях и проблемах в области теоретической грамматики первого изучаемого языка (английского) большое внимание уделяется выработке у них навыков многопланового лингвистического анализа и самостоятельного критического суждения о грамматических явлениях и их интерпретациях в научной литературе.