Textuality and human reasoning

In this article an attempt is made to treat 'textuality* from the viewpointof 'inferential processing'. To this end, text Interpretation is conceived of in terms of comtructive processes based on different types ofinference (lexical inferences, syntactic inferences, semantic-logical inferences, and actionoriented inferences). These inferences contribute to the construction of textual coherence relations in a way which is accounted for by eight hypothetical principles, Ηρι~Ηρ%. Furthermore, the specific role that knowledge resources play is clarified by applying some of these hypothetical principles to a segment of text. In this way a rational basis is suggestedfor the concrete assigmnent of meaning where there are inferential gaps and where the recipient's psychological characteristics, such s interest, intelligence, attention, expectation, sensitivity, etc., may come into play. The article also aims at extending the domain of inference to the domain of grammar. It will be made clear that a method which places exclusive reliance on rules of grammar cannot do justice to the main semantic properties of texts. Some issues arising out of this position (2.1-4.3) are elaborated further in van de Velde(1981). 1. Introductory remarks Many flelds in both the sciences and the humanities have to rely on Information present in discourse and other occurrences of 'textual phenomena'. The main issue which arises here is how the Information present in textual phenomena is processed. This question leads to a number of others, namely, 0165-4888/81/0001-385 $2.00 Text l (4) (1981), pp. 385-406 © Mouton Publishers, The Hague 386 Roger G. van de Velde what conditions have to be fulfilled in order to achieve optimal degrees of Interpretation? In what way are different knowledge sources involved? What kinds of knowledge result from the reception of textual phenomena? The present article will consider these questions from the specific angle of human reasoning. That is, the assumptions and principles guiding our approach are based on the view that the very existence of textual phenomena is mainly dependent on the functioning of human reasoning. In order to make our central viewpoint both acceptable and clear we shall present the argument in five stages. The first stage (1.1-1.3) attempts to sketch the main features to be taken into account in studying textual phenomena. In the second stage (2.1-2.2) we shall clarify our view that the construction of text meaning takes place on the basis of different types of inference. The third stage (3.1-3.2) relates these different types of inference to a set of hypothetical principles ! 8, which account for the conditions for constructing coherence relations in textual phenomena. In the fourth stage (4.1-4.3) we shall put into practice some of the hypothetical principles Hp! -Hp8. In so doing we shall illustrate the different roles that knowledge has to play both äs the basis for inferential processing and äs the outcome of inferential processing. In the fifth part of this paper (5.1-5.2) some far-reaching consequences are derived from the present approach and some further perspectives are sketched for the fields of research which have to do with 'texts', 'discourse', 'sequences of sentences', 'multi-sentence combinations', etc. 1.1. Approaches to textuality Textuality' and related terms and concepts have a special Status among the properties of human natural language. Some text linguists, text theorists, and semioticians are willing to treat 'textuality' äs a mere analogue to common notions like 'grammaticality', 'well-formedness', 'acceptability', 'appropriateness', and the like. They thus set themselves the task of distinguishing between 'texts' that belong to one specific human natural language HNLj and those verbal phenomena that do not qualify äs 'texts' of HNLj. Some workers in the theory of literature, poetics, and literary aesthetics are disposed to relate 'textuality' to notions like Tictionality', thereby stressing that literary 'fictionality' can be realized in textual phenomena. Some grammarians, semanticists, philosophers, workers in AI, and logicians Textudity and human reasoning 387 have shown a growing interest in 'textuality'. The main issues with which they have been concerned are paragraphs äs grammatical units, the flow of thought, the thread of discourse, thematic progression, chains of inference, and similar topics, which are all bound to textual aspects of human natural language. We could, of course, extend the list of those who are particularly interested in 'textuality' by also mentioning cognitive psychologists, neurolinguists, theologists, sociologists, anthropologists, etc., who have recently become involved in a multidisciplinary approach to textual phenomena. However intense the interest in 'textuality' might be, there is a lack of generally accepted criteria that would enable us to explicitly specify the intuitive notion of 'textuality'. It also seems highly questionable to define related terms like 'text', 'discourse', 'paragraph' and 'multi-sentence combination'. (For further remarks concerning controversial issues in text linguistics we refer the reader to Ballmer, 1981: 165-169; de Beaugrande, 1981: 113-122.) l . 2. On the consensus about textuality Regardless of this lack of clarity and notwithstanding the controversial nature of the issues, some degree of unanimity has been reached concerning the following points: (a) Textuality' should not be accounted for merely by an isolated treatment of surface characteristics (concerning proforms, tense, deictics, etc.), which can mainly be detected by studying the sequential order of textual phenomena. (b) Deep characteristics of textual phenomena should lead to the investigation of different hierarchical structures present in the semantic properties and relations of textual phenomena. (c) A knowledge of both deep and surface characteristics mentioned in (a) and (b) is a prerequisite for any further investigation of textual phenomena denoted by terms such äs 'grammatical cohesion', 'coherence', 'macrostructure', 'global structure', 'global plan', 'isotopia', 'propositional content', 'ideational content', 'text basis', 'thematic networks', 'thematic progression', 'underlying logical form', 'semantic-logical structure', and the like. (d) Textual phenomena denoted by the preceding terms may be identified, (re)constructed, and represented by reference to certain Systems of logic. 388 Roger G. van de Velde l . 3. Textuality and its rules With respect to (d) it is beyond question that logical rules govern the production and reception of textual phenomena. But some questions remain, namely: How do logical rules play a governing role? Also, can logical rules play an independent part or are there reciprocal roles to be defmed for logical rules and other leading principles? How do logical rules interact with the rules of grammar? In what way are both logical and grammatical rules in their turn interactive with psychological strategies, with communicative maxims, with cooperative principles, and with sociocultural conventions? With regard to all these questions, research in text linguistics has only made a very modest start . The treatment of one question results in partial and tentative answers or gives rise to an increasing number of new questions and problems. As far äs the increasing number of questions and problems is concerned, this article will treat only a very limited area of research without intruding in the related flelds. Our main aim is to sketch some guidelines concerning the intricate role which human reasoning plays in the comprehension processes of HNL macrophenomena. Comprehension of HNL macrophenomena is, of course, not only dependent on human reasoning. There are some other psychological factors involved, which at present cannot be systematized in a precise and complete way because the main conditions of empirical research concerning these particular factors are not fulfilled in current psychological work. Moreover, these factors are so different from those that mainly interest workers in AI that no attempt has been made to relate them to research on understanding machines. In this respect we might mention just a few factors which are in need of further empirical investigation. Individuais vary greatly in tbe amount and kind of background knowledge which they have at their disposal. They may not be equally gifted with intellectual abilities, capacities of concentration, sensitivity, and working memory. They might furthermore be influenced in their comprehension processes by heterogeneous contextual and sociocultural settings. Psychological variables such äs intentions, attitudes, beliefs, wishes, desires, expectations, etc., might determine in very intricate ways the assignment of meanings. Moreover, connotations, associations, synaesthesia, empathy, and simüar determinants might be involved. This is to mention only a few factors, which are of a highly subjective nature. It is, of course, not the aim of the present article to underrate the degree of subjectivity which might be present in interpretative actions. The Textudity and human reasoning 389 acceptance of subjective factors, however, does not prevent us from striving for some degree of objectivity by laying down the main rational steps a recipient has to take in comprehending textual phenomena. In specifying these rational steps we shall assume that human reasoning belongs to logic, äs far äs the rules and normative devices of argumentation and validity are concerned, and that the actualized processes of reasoning performed by individuals reside in the domains of cognitive psychology. In the later stages of our approach we shall refer to human reasoning using the technical terms 'inference', 'drawing inferences', 'making inferences', 'inferential processing', and the like. Actualized inferences include mainly those cognitive processes which relate (fragment