81
of Narratology
(2012: 1-47). Pointing out some defining criteria of coherence
as a technical term, namely the generally accepted assumption that coherence
denotes those qualities in the structure of literary text that prompt the reader to
perceive the text as ‘making sense’ with all parts ‘fitting together well’, he reveals
an understanding of coherence as a textlinguistic notion. However,
as many text
linguists have shown, there is a tension in linguistic analysis of coherence rooted
in the high level of generalization of the rules for coherence in text linguistics.
More specifically, these rules are too general to reflect unique interfaces and
interplays between a particular text and its contexts. Also readers will assess
differently what is relevant information in the unique discoursal circumstances.
As Toolan (2012: 2) further points out this tension is often summarized as a
distinction between (purely linguistic) cohesion and (contextualized) coherence.
Specifically for methodological reasons, we may wish to distinguish clearly
between the two – the linguistic rules of text building (in linguistic analysis
of text) and contextualized messages (unfolding coherence in text). For the
reader, it is crucial to identify what to depict as a situation and
what to create
as a mental context for meaningful interpretation of a text (cf. Komlósi 2012:
22). The strained relation between the formal characteristics and elements of
texts on the one hand and their unique aesthetic qualities and implicit messages
on the other, have been discussed many times within the history of linguistic
studies and literary criticism. The immense effort of the representatives of the
Prague Linguistic Circle to avoid mechanical analyses of texts can serve as one
of many examples. Adding further dimensions to their text analyses, namely the
functionalist perspective, helped to defend their working methods (cf.
Jakobson
1960, Douthwaite 2000).
The importance of both cohesion and coherence has been recognized in text
linguistic studies. In their list of major text criteria de Beaugrande and Dressler
(1981) place cohesion and coherence on the top of their scale; both are described
as most contributory features and text creating properties. For instance, in
a framework of narrative text structures, coherence plays an important role.
Similarly to any text analysis, in the analysis of narrative it is common to include
linguistic description of language means used at any
language level in the form
of preliminary judgment of text qualities leading to more specifically focused
multi-layered analysis of expressive means and stylistic devices (Miššíková
2007: 51). Text-internal cohesive links are usually discussed within the syntactic
level of text, taking us further to larger syntactic units where text messages are
considered in broader contexts. Coherence, commonly defined as text-external
quality of text, thus becomes an important feature of narrative. In text linguistics
several subtypes of coherence are identified, such as
temporal, causal, and
thematic coherence as topic-maintenance and -furtherance (Toolan 2012: 4).
82
Following the discussion on typical features of narrative, such
as repetition
and near repetition, the tension between the concept of cohesion and coherence
is palpable. In classical works on language in literature and stylistics cohesion
“refers to all the linguistic ways in which the words of a passage, across
sentences, cross-refer or link up” (Toolan 1998: 23); it is viewed as text-internal
quality. More recently repetitions and cross-referencing
have been recognised
as features providing for coherence of text. Coherence is defined as text-
external quality aimed at the reader’s perception and making sense of a text.
Thus coherence is regarded as “the psychological interpretation of a text to
create a consistent schema, mental picture of world” (Goatly 2012: 318), while
cohesion is classified as a subtype of coherence based on particular types of
sense relations: “Coherence which depends upon features of the text such as co-
referring expressions or sense relations (synonymy, hyponymy, etc.) is cohesion”
(ibid.: 318). The quoted statements are just seemingly controversial and should be
perceived as corresponding and complementary: coherent narratives
commonly
involve a certain amount of repetition and cross-referencing, serving better unity
and (logical, chronological, psychological, etc.) continuity. In addition, making
sense of text in context involves a certain amount of intellectual work on saying
and implicating, i.e. deciphering implicit messages, working out implicatures
based
on conventional framework, background knowledge, familiar schemata,
etc. In this respect, coherence is now recognized as a concept with multiple
pragmatically-determined dimensions.
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: 
