Dr. Muayyad Jassim Mohammed Hussein / College of Islamic Sciences – University of Karbala

The term “Text Linguistics” has not been unified either by its theorists or its translators¹, and its meanings have varied. Each has approached it from their perspective and defined it in their own way. Text Linguistics is based on the idea that the text is the main subject of linguistic analysis and description. Linguists recognized that the sentence, which was once considered the largest linguistic unit, is no longer sufficient for all methods of linguistic understanding. The true understanding of a linguistic phenomenon requires studying language as a text, as research remains confined to the structures and formulations of texts, while also encompassing their communicative, social, and psychological relationships². Therefore, the use of texts in textual studies must consider communicative conditions, as identifying these basic units requires other tools beyond those possessed by the linguistic branch. Van Dijk states: **”In reality, the most distinguishing characteristics of texts are that they primarily exist at the semantic level, as well as at the pragmatic level”**³.

Upon examining the sciences of rhetoric, one finds a close relationship between these sciences and Text Linguistics, and several researchers have stated that rhetoric is the historical precursor to textual linguistics⁴. Among them is (Van Dijk), who says: **”Rhetoric is the historical precursor to Text Linguistics if we take into account its general orientation, which is the description of texts and the identification of their multiple functions. However, we prefer the term Text Linguistics, as the word rhetoric is currently associated with specific stylistic forms, as well as general communicative functions and means of persuasion”**⁵. Similarly, (Bougrand) traced the origins of textual studies to the rhetorical sciences that prevailed during the classical ancient periods⁶. Dr. Salah Fadl also refers to (Van Dijk) as the founder of Text Linguistics⁷. The beginnings of this science can be traced back to the attempt of (Zelig Harris) in 1952, which is considered one of the most significant efforts leading to the emergence of this science when he presented a method for analyzing discourse, whether spoken or written, using descriptive linguistic procedures aimed at discovering the structure of the text, in two important studies titled **(Discourse Analysis)**⁸. In order to achieve this goal, Harris saw that two problems in linguistic studies (descriptive and behavioral) needed to be overcome⁹.

The first: The study was confined to sentences and the relationships between the parts of a single sentence.

The second: The separation between language and social context, which hinders proper understanding.

Linda Qais sees that despite Harris’ emphasis on the relationship between the text and its social context, the cultural context is more essential for understanding languages and cultures¹⁰. This idea was later developed by Firth¹¹, while Dr. Said Hassan Bahiri traces the beginnings of general textual studies to (I. Nye’s) doctoral dissertation, which she presented in 1912¹².

Afterwards, textual studies gained more development and methodological refinement, particularly by (Ton A. Van Dijk) in the 1970s, making him regarded by some linguists as the true founder of Text Linguistics. He included his ideas and concepts in the foundations and principles of this science in a book titled (Some Aspects of Text Grammar) (aspects of Text grammar), noting that Van Dijk did not distinguish between text and discourse in this book. This distinction was not addressed until 1977 in another work titled (Text and Context), where he proposed the establishment of a general grammar for texts, considering all dimensions related to discourse, including structural, contextual, and cultural aspects, which he later embodied in an important book titled **(Text Linguistics: An Interdisciplinary Introduction)**¹³.

Van Dijk was contemporaneous with many linguists who wrote about textual linguistics, such as Stempel, Glesserun, Harvich, Schmitt, Dresler, and Brinker¹⁴. However, textual studies did not reach their peak until the work of American linguist (Robert de Bougrand) in the 1980s¹⁵.

Text Linguistics was not, as most historians of the science claim, confined to a particular country, linguistic school, or specific direction, but the research trends in this field are connected with works across the field of linguistics¹⁶.

The most notable feature of this science is that it is closely intertwined with other disciplines, such as poetry, rhetoric, literature, style, sociology, psychology, and others¹⁷.

Research directions in this science have taken various forms **”sometimes relying on descriptive linguistics concepts with a new perspective added to them, sometimes based on functional linguistics, sometimes relying on syntactic linguistics (structural), sometimes relying on transformational linguistics, and other times depending on the study of the syntactic, semantic, and communicative properties of the studied text, which forms the core of textual research)”**¹⁸. Therefore, Text Linguistics or Text Grammar is a hybrid approach, according to Robert de Bougrand¹⁹, and textual studies did not emerge from nowhere, nor did they begin from scratch in the process of linguistic research, but rather started with sentence structure as its foundation²⁰. It can be generally said that by the mid-1960s, the sentence was seen as the primary unit of analysis, the largest unit that could be linguistically studied²¹. Grammar, in the past, **”did not go beyond the morpheme level downward, nor the single sentence level upward”**²².

In modern times, over the past half-century or so, developments in Europe have appeared in new critical forms and multiple theories that have emerged rapidly²³. After most linguistic research had focused on the sentence and considered it the primary unit of analysis, linguistic research developed, proving the limitations of this approach and its insufficiency for analyzing language²⁴.

Van Dijk observed that the sentence only achieves its identity when placed alongside other sentences and structures. Therefore, trying to describe speech by analyzing individual sentences is not a reliable method, and the subject of study must be a larger linguistic unit, namely the text²⁵. This shift from the sentence to the text is not merely a quantitative change from a smaller unit to a larger one, but a transformation in method, its procedures, and tools²⁶.

Several factors contributed to the development of linguistic research from sentences toward texts²⁷:

1. The emergence of linguistic studies in Europe and America focusing on the text as a holistic structure, rather than just the sentence as a substructure. Thus, texts attracted Text Linguistics because they care about the text, its context, and its associated dimensions, as well as considering the recipient’s background, culture, and other aspects surrounding the text.
2. Many syntactic phenomena were not adequately explained within the framework of the sentence, but their explanation might change if described within the context of a larger unit, the text. Linguistic research on texts is more comprehensive than sentence-based analysis.
3. The strong sense of the social function of language. Linguists realized that isolating sentences turns living language into fragmented pieces or artificial constructs. This contradicts the essence of Text Linguistics.
4. The rebellion of some linguists against the sentence because analyzing it represents partial analysis, ignoring the holistic nature of the text. The text, as a whole, is an independent entity and requires a broader analysis than individual sentences.
5. Sentences in texts cannot be understood in isolation but contribute to the understanding of others. This idea became central to Michel Meyer’s view on sentences, as there is no existence for a sentence apart from its actual use in language. It is always contained in a discourse context. Hence, a sentence achieves its identity only in the framework of discourse or context. To study linguistic activity in humans, one must move beyond the sentence and focus on the various types of textual networks that speakers create in their communicative practices.
6. Psychological factors are more closely related to texts than to individual sentences.
7. Social norms apply more to texts than to individual sentences.
8. The text is dynamic, while the sentence is a unit of a static system.
9. The sentence is purely a syntactic entity defined solely in terms of grammar, while the text must be understood according to comprehensive textual norms.
10. Texts refer to other texts differently than sentences refer to other sentences.
11. The text is seen as a sequence of events and information, emotional, social situations, subject to change, whereas sentences are seen as elements of an idealized, static system, detached from development.
12. The text reflects human effort, where a person intends to produce a text and directs the listeners to establish various relationships based on it. A sentence, on the other hand, is not such a process.
13. The search for ways to expand the field of linguistic study, as studying language in isolation and excluding meaning, context, and other aspects led researchers to feel restricted and motivated to seek broader approaches.
14. The interdisciplinary nature of linguistic studies, opening up to sociology, psychology, arts, media, and more.
15. The crisis in critical approaches, leading to a turn toward linguistics for solutions.

It can be concluded that Text Linguistics is a branch of linguistics that focuses on studying the text as the largest linguistic unit, examining various aspects such as coherence, cohesion, text context, and the roles of participants (sender and receiver). This study includes both spoken and written texts.

Here is the translation of the references as requested:

([1]) For further information on the different terms in Text Linguistics; see: “The Linguistic Term and the Establishment of the Concept” by Dr. Khalifa al-Misawi, Dar Al-Aman, 1st edition, Rabat, Algeria, 1434 AH – 2013 AD, p. 196. Also, “Towards the Text: A New Approach in Syntactic Studies” p. 32.

([2]) See: “Linguistics and Literary Studies – Stylistic Study – Rhetoric – Text Linguistics”, translated by Mahmoud Jad al-Rab, Dar Al-Fanniyah for Publishing and Distribution, 1st edition, Cairo, 1991 AD, p. 184. Also, “Introduction to Text Linguistics” p. 21.

([3]) “The Structures and Functions of the Text, An Introductory Approach to Text Linguistics” by Van Dijk, translated by Dr. Muhammad Al-Omari, Africa East, Casablanca, 1997 AD, p. 55.

([4]) See: “Text Linguistics: An Interdisciplinary Introduction” by Ton A. Van Dijk, translated by Said Hassan Bahiri, Dar Al-Cairo, 2nd edition, Cairo, Egypt, 2005 AD, p. 23. Also, see: “Cohesion in the Sajjadiyyah Document” p. 19.

([5]) “Rhetoric of Discourse and Text Linguistics” pp. 252 – 253.

([6]) See: “Text Linguistics: Theory and Application” p. 50.

([7]) See: “Rhetoric of Discourse and Text Linguistics” p. 325, and “Towards the Text: A New Approach in Syntactic Studies” p. 33, and “Cohesion in the Sajjadiyyah Document” p. 19.

([8]) See: “Introduction to Text Linguistics: Problems of Text Construction” by Ztsislav Worziniak, translated by Prof. Dr. Said Hassan Bahiri, Al-Mukhtar Foundation, 2nd edition, Cairo, 1431 AH – 2010 AD, p. 62, and “Towards the Text: A New Approach in Syntactic Studies” p. 33, and “Introduction to Text Linguistics and Its Fields of Application” p. 62.

([9]) See: “Badi’ Between Arabic Rhetoric and Text Linguistics” p. 65, and “Cohesion and Coherence in Surah Al-Kahf” (Master’s Thesis): Mahmoud Busta, University of Hajj Khodr Batna, Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Algeria, 2006 AD, p. 8.

([10]) See: “Text Linguistics: Theory and Application” p. 54.

([11]) See: The same reference p. 54.

([12]) See: “Text Linguistics: Concepts and Directions” p. 18, and see: “Cohesion in the Sajjadiyyah Document” p. 19.

([13]) See: “Towards the Text: A New Approach in Syntactic Studies” p. 33, and “Introduction to Text Linguistics and Its Fields of Application” p. 62.

([14]) See: “Towards the Text: A New Approach in Syntactic Studies” p. 33.

([15]) See: “Introduction to Text Linguistics and Its Fields of Application” p. 63.

([16]) See: “Text Linguistics: Concepts and Directions” p. 1.

([17]) See: The same reference p. 100.

([18]) “Towards the Text: A New Approach in Syntactic Studies” p. 34.

([19]) See: “Text, Discourse, and Action” p. 300.

([20]) See: “Towards the Text Between Authenticity and Modernity” by Dr. Ahmad Muhammad Abdul Raziq, Dar Al-Thaqafah Al-Diniyah, 1st edition, Cairo, 1429 AH – 2008 AD, p. 32.

([21]) See: “Introduction to Text Linguistics” translated by Faleh Bin Shabeeb Al-Ajmi p. 19.

([22]) “The Origins: An Etymological Study of Linguistic Thought Among Arabs – Syntax – Jurisprudence of Language – Rhetoric” by Dr. Tammam Hassan, Al-Alam Al-Kutub, Cairo, 2009 AD, p. 237.

([23]) See: “Reading the Text and Aesthetics of Reception Between Western Modern Schools and Our Critical Heritage, A Comparative Study” by Dr. Mahmoud Abbas Abdul Wahid, Dar Al-Fikr Al-Arabi, 1st edition, Cairo, 1417 AH – 1996 AD, p. 69.

([24]) See: “Text Linguistics: Theory and Application” p. 9.

([25]) See: “Opening the Novel Text, Text and Context” p. 16, and “In Linguistics and Towards the Text” by Dr. Ibrahim Mahmoud Khalil, Dar Al-Maysarah for Publishing and Distribution, 1st edition, Jordan, 1427 AH – 2007 AD, p. 196.

([26]) See: “Text Linguistics: Theory and Application” p. 53.

([27]) See: “Towards the Text: A New Approach in Syntactic Studies” by Ahmed Afifi pp. 37 – 40, and “Text, Discourse, and Action” pp. 89 – 94, and “Principles in Linguistics” by Khawla Talib Al-Ibrahimi, Dar Al-Qasbah for Publishing, 2nd edition, Algeria, 2006 AD, p. 168, and “Introduction to Text Linguistics and Its Fields of Application” pp. 64 – 65, and “Text Linguistics Between Origin and Concept” by Taghreed Al-Shammari, an article on the information network, Al-Iwan website, 2010 AD.