The textual texture seems to many something quite complex. Sometimes ideas don't flow, or if they do, we don't know how to organize them, in order to make the speech clear and precise. Anyway, such setbacks tend to arise, however we must be aware that practice leads to improvement. In other words, the more we train in writing, the more we will be able to practice it concisely and correctly.
However, the purpose of this article is to address the importance of textual review. Therefore, we will assume that clarity represents the starting point of our discussion, even because it presents itself as one of the essential characteristics of the written modality of language. In this way, our daily interactions only take place due to the materialized understanding between us (post that we assume the role of issuers) and the people with whom we maintain contact (now playing the role of interlocutors). This occurs in any type of communication, whether oral, through symbols, writing, among other modalities.
In all these modalities we have an objective to fulfill through the speech we deliver. But this intent will only materialize if we manage to be clear in what we are saying, otherwise the dialogue will be impaired. Thus, after organizing ideas and transposing them to paper, there will always be something to be rectified, sometimes suppressing, sometimes adding and so on. Taking as an example the case of essays present in competitions and entrance exams, the need for the candidate to organize in order to list the ideas to be discussed and, in the meantime, the time factor prevails over the procedures performed, preventing the issuer from passing their eyes on what wrote.
In this sense, when we put ourselves in the place of interlocutors (referring to our own productions) we always perceive something that could be improved. A comma here, another there, that pronoun that perhaps caused unnecessary ambiguity in the speech, not to mention that word that could be replaced by another one, because the combination of sounds among others already said is not fulfilling the effect wanted... Finally, there are many flaws that we can correct by reviewing what we produce.
Saying that, I have an alert for you, dear user: whenever possible, try to review your text, paying attention to some aspects, such as:
* Are the ideas clearly and precisely arranged?
* Are the paragraphs well constructed, harmoniously linked by mechanisms which give the text the cohesion and coherence that are indispensable to it?
* Were the grammatical aspects properly checked, taking into account spelling, concordance, conducting, among others? Were logical-semantic aspects also prioritized? As you know, and as said before, there will always be this or that word that doesn't “fit” so well. Thus, there is nothing better than making use of synonymy, in order to make textual aesthetics present itself in the best possible way.
* Speaking of coherence, don't forget to analyze if your text stands out for some elements that contribute to this aspect to be really effective. So see if it has an introduction, a development, and a conclusion. Another aspect: are your arguments convincing, so that the interlocutor gives the speech the credibility it needs?
These, among many others, are indispensable postures for good writing. Therefore, try to use the rereading, as it will provide you with conditions to detect some flaws that would possibly go unnoticed.
By Vânia Duarte
Graduated in Letters
