Iv - University of Salford Institutional Repository

however, are subject to critical evaluation and theoretical
reconsideration. No specific type of text can be assumed to possess
equally specific linguistic, stylistic, or rhetorical attributes. A
political discourse, for instance, can be as equally persuasive as an
argumentative text, and vice versa. Likewise, an expository text can
be as equally impressive as a religious sermon. All texts/discourses
have a common share of stylistic devices though they employ
distinctive and unique terminologies.
Though standards of textuality, as outlined above, distinguish a
text from a non-text, one standard ie. cohesion, falls within the
domain of linguistics proper. However, the text is not only langauge-
centred. It is, as de Beaugrande defines it, "a communicative
manifestation in a social and psychological context." (1980, p40).
Other standards of textuality draw upon cognitive psychology,
ethnomethodology, sociology, anthropology, semiotics, philosphy,
neuroscience and artificial intelligence studies.
We have pointed out that text/discourse is the proper vehicle for
communication in a speech community. Isolated words, phrases or
sentenced do not serve communication purposes. Discourses, whether
written or spoken, are genuinely communicative both in character and
function. They are bound to language which is basically a means of
communication. Designating the type of discourse, however, is not a
sufficient guarantee for its proper translating. Textlinguistics
and/or discourse analysis are expected to help in the dismantlement of
the phonological, grammatical, syntactic, and semantic structures of
58