Global text organization: Top-down (expository)/ bottom-up (narrative)
1. Global text organization: Top-down (expository)/ bottom-up (narrative)
The first facet of discourse text production, global text organization, brings into consideration the overall “structure and content of the text” and its “rhetorical effect” as based on type of genre (2008 p.740-741). First discussed in Berman & Nir-Sagiv (2007), global text organization depends on the notion of “mental representations of schema and category […] anchored in the shared cognitive ability to interrelate parts and wholes” (2007: 91). Speaker-writers demonstrate well-formed global text quality when they produce narratives that organize isolated events (bottom-up) within an action structure schema (top-down). Expository texts, on the other hand, are centered around one core proposition (top-down) that is elaborated upon by specific instances and details (bottom- up) (2008: 741). “Structural well-formedness” in the domain of global text quality is achieved when speaker-writers integrate “top-down and bottom-up principles of discourse organization” (Berman 2008: 741).
As different genres instantiate different cognitive representations and organizational principles, a text is considered well-formed that meets the genre-canonic global organizational structure. Younger speaker-writers typically rely only on one organizational schema: either on top-down for expository texts, or on bottom-up for narratives. Yet, a higher, more sophisticated level of text construction ability is demonstrated by the synthesis both of top-down and bottom-up organizational schemas As different genres instantiate different cognitive representations and organizational principles, a text is considered well-formed that meets the genre-canonic global organizational structure. Younger speaker-writers typically rely only on one organizational schema: either on top-down for expository texts, or on bottom-up for narratives. Yet, a higher, more sophisticated level of text construction ability is demonstrated by the synthesis both of top-down and bottom-up organizational schemas
It is the integration of genre-specific features that marks a speaker-writer’s text as “effective” and being beyond well-formed—a departure from genre-typical structure and content and the inclusion, for example, of bits of narrative-like event reference into an expository discourse or vice versa. Effective (global) text construction in expository texts involves the “explicit marking of logical relations between discourse segments or explicit meta-textual commentary,” the cognitive abilities of critical thinking and creative thinking—elaborating on a topic with reference to personal experience, and organizing information in new ways (respectively) (2008: 742).
a. Measuring global text quality
Based on the ideas of global text quality, the cognitive representation of narrative/expository, and the varying levels of well-formedness and effectiveness, Berman devised four levels of text construction abilities (Berman & Nir-Sagiv 2007). The levels flow along three dimensions, “Defining rank, Criterial Properties and Characteristic Features” (2008: 742). These dimensions, elaborated in detail in Berman & Nir-Sagiv (2007: 97-99) are analogous to “Representation and cognitive processing,” “Structure and content,” and “Discursive features.” The four (sequential, standard-driven) levels are 1) minimal representation (level I), 2) partial extension (level II), 3) structural Based on the ideas of global text quality, the cognitive representation of narrative/expository, and the varying levels of well-formedness and effectiveness, Berman devised four levels of text construction abilities (Berman & Nir-Sagiv 2007). The levels flow along three dimensions, “Defining rank, Criterial Properties and Characteristic Features” (2008: 742). These dimensions, elaborated in detail in Berman & Nir-Sagiv (2007: 97-99) are analogous to “Representation and cognitive processing,” “Structure and content,” and “Discursive features.” The four (sequential, standard-driven) levels are 1) minimal representation (level I), 2) partial extension (level II), 3) structural
Speaker-writers at level I show limited representation and cognitive processing abilities, as their texts stick to either bottom-up or top-down principles of discourse organization only and contain only basic components. The discursive features observed at this level are comprised of detached units, that is, isolated, unanchored events arranged chronologically in narratives and uninvolved generalization using habitual present tense or generic future) in expository texts (Berman & Nir-Sagiv 2007: 97).
At level II, a speaker-writer’s representation and cognitive processing shows partial extension, with initial integration of bottom-up and top down organization becoming evident in their texts. In expository texts, speaker-writers at this level add further information beyond top-down generalities, while still maintaining prescriptive attitudes on topics. In terms of structure and content, texts show an initial reliance on genre-typical features. The discursive features of texts at this stage show initial anchoring so that, in narratives, speaker-writers might begin anchoring their past events to generalized states of affairs and, in expository texts, reference to causes or solutions and to past events may be demonstrated (Berman & Nir-Sagiv 2007: 98).
Speaker-writers make a developmental leap in level III, which is characterized by their texts demonstrating a full integration of top-down and bottom-up discourse organization principles in the dimension of representation and cognitive processing. Expository texts show “a top-down superordinate topic of conflict elaborated by specific bottom-up categories,” but the problem remains that such generalizations are “unanchored in specific references to past events, nor are there meta-cognitive or meta- textual comments to guide the reader” (2008: 744). The structure and content of texts at this stage is overt, yet still showing features that are schematic or categorical to the genre of the text. A typical level III discursive feature is when speaker-writers make a relation between the opening and ending, the introduction and conclusion, of the text. Narratives at this stage are genre-typical, showing schematic organization within a top-down action structure. Also, the first signs of evaluative interpretation of the events begin to emerge in level III. In expository texts, there begins to surface more alternation between the general and the specific and the inclusion of “culturally shared knowledge or […] past events illustrating the topic” as well as a clear conclusion (Berman & Nir-Sagiv 2007: 98).
At the most advanced stage of text construction abilities, level IV, the representation and cognitive processing of speaker-writers allows for the creative synthesis of parts into a whole. The structure and content dimension of the global text quality sees the inclusion of genre-external material: speaker-writers shifting from one discourse stance to another and alternate between subjective and objective stances toward reality (2008: 745). Also, meta-cognitive, inter-textual, and/or meta-textual commentary is characteristic of this stage’s discursive features involving the explicit marking of text segmentation with discourse markers. Here, narratives show more atemporal At the most advanced stage of text construction abilities, level IV, the representation and cognitive processing of speaker-writers allows for the creative synthesis of parts into a whole. The structure and content dimension of the global text quality sees the inclusion of genre-external material: speaker-writers shifting from one discourse stance to another and alternate between subjective and objective stances toward reality (2008: 745). Also, meta-cognitive, inter-textual, and/or meta-textual commentary is characteristic of this stage’s discursive features involving the explicit marking of text segmentation with discourse markers. Here, narratives show more atemporal
b. Development of global‐level content and structure
There is strong empirical support for the criteria Berman proposed for evaluating global text quality (Berman 2008: 745, Berman & Nir-Sagiv 2007). In middle childhood, speaker-writers show the presence of a narrative schema as most nine- to ten-year-old subjects reached beyond level I and all older subjects reached level IV. Yet, for expository texts, only adolescents demonstrated a grasp of the principles underlying global-level expository text construction; plus, there was a generally lower score across all age groups for expository than narrative global text quality (2008: 745). Berman & Verhoeven (2002) found differences specifically in the (English) linguistic forms used in narratives versus expository texts, including active/passive voice, verb structure, subject noun phrases, and modals (2008: 746). This rigid dichotomy between the linguistic devices used in the different genres was maintained until high school-age, so that only adolescents and adults included linguistic elements that were less genre-typical, such as the habitual present in narratives and specific past event reference in expository texts.
The mixing of these features within narratives was observed only at 7 th grade and up, and even these were confined to story-linked evaluative codas. Yet, as age increased, there
was a shift from dichotomy to divergence, as story-external generalizations increasingly appeared in places other than the openings and closings of the narratives (2008: 746).
Discourse texture diversification increases with age, which is attributed to “general socio- cognitive development, on the one hand, combined with increased exposure to and experience with a range of different types of discourse, on the other” (Berman & Nir- Sagiv 2004: 375). Still, in expository texts, this diversification is much less prevalent and takes place later on than feature-diversification within narratives does. The global text qualities of well-formed narratives are achieved earlier than those of well-formed expository texts.