Article published in:Cross-Linguistic Perspectives on the Development of Text-Production Abilities in Speech and Writing. Part 2
Edited by Ruth A. Berman and Ludo Verhoeven
[Written Language & Literacy 5:2] 2002
► pp. 219–253
Text openings and closings in writing and speech
Autonomy and differentiation
The differentiation of text segments to fulfil specific discourse functions (e.g. to introduce a topic, or to state the time and place of a story), along with the definition of clear textual boundaries that set the text apart from the situational context, are two aspects of the configuration of a text as an autonomous semantic unit. This paper analyzes the opening and closing elements of narrative and expository texts to determine whether they function as well defined boundaries, and fulfil a specific discourse function with respect to the text as a whole. The population for this study consisted of 120 participants, 10 at each of the Age levels of grade school, junior high, high school, and university, yielding 40 participants in each of three target Languages: English, Spanish, and Swedish. The database included 480 texts divided by Modality (written vs. spoken) and Genre (narrative vs. expository). All text openings and closing were coded for positioning, i.e. the framework used by speaker/writers to introduce or conclude the topic developed in their texts, and for functioning, i.e. the role these elements play in the text. Results showed that, as texts become more “detached” from the situation in which they are produced, their component parts become more functionally differentiated. This process is described first in the openings of narrative and expository texts, and later in the closings of expository texts; narrative closings remain a problematic area of text construction for most speaker/writers in this study, in every Age group. These processes of detachment and internal functional specification of text components occurred earlier in writing than in speech. The cross-linguistic differences found in the study are related to different teaching practices, rather than to language specific features.
Published online: 10 January 2003
Cited by 25 other publications
Bar-Ilan, Laly & Ruth A Berman
Berman, Ruth A.
BERMAN, RUTH A.
Berman, Ruth A.
Berman, Ruth A. & Irit Katzenberger
Berman, Ruth A. & Bracha Nir-sagiv
Berman, Ruth A. & Bracha Nir-Sagiv
Jisa, Harriet & Anne Viguié
Nir, Bracha & Irit Katzenberger
Perera, Joan, Melina Aparici, Elisa Rosado & Naymé Salas
Ravid, Dorit & Ruth A. Berman
Ravid, Dorit, Dina Naoum & Suheir Nasser
Reilly, Judy & Lara Polse
Reilly, Judy, Anita Zamora & Robert F. McGivern
Reilly, Judy S., Sophie Wasserman & Mark Appelbaum
Stavans, Anat, Batia Seroussi & Sara Zadunaisky Ehrlich
Tolchinsky, Liliana & Elisa Rosado
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 11 november 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.