---

The aim of the upcoming research is to study aspects of the problem of implicit meaning that show that the language indexes this meaning to express it. Therefore, the issues that have been reviewed here should be considered, in the first place, as a means to develop sensitivity to the extraordinary subtleties of language to process this meaning that, in our hypothesis, can only be properly understood if we return to it its inherent dynamism and follow the path of its evolution for each utterance exclusively. After that, the obtained results gave us the opportunity to improve some of the past opinions and help advance the discussions in this field. Our reading of the topic and the results of the analyzes strengthened our belief that commenting on implied meaning, regardless of the process of its production, will be mixed with a kind of dogmatism, the abolition of which depends on acknowledging the role that has the explicit meaning in this, because in our opinion, the explicit and implicit meanings are not separate and independent from each other. So, during the discussion, we have tried to include in the analysis the variables that change from one utterance to another and from one context to another and may be ignored, so that we can remain relativistic despite our orientations that are manifested in a set of new definitions.The results of the analyzes indicated this fact that language condenses meaning ...

---

As with literature where literarity appreciation entails a literary text, textuality is a prerequisite for materializing texts. In fact, in order for textuality to be actualized, we need to have "coherence" ensured that has been studied by many scholars including Michel Charolles in discourse analysis. A device for establishing this quality as addressed by Charolles is "prepositional syntagms". Even though he duly emphasized the particular function of these devices within coherence, it seems, however, that the perspective in which he envisions the issue can be open to criticism. The present paper seeks to offer an alternative to a formal-syntactic view suggesting that coherence can be characterized in semantic terms in which the reader assumes a more active role. Drawbacks to the former perspective are adequately highlighted and more comprehensive view is offered to compensate for the inadequacies of the linguist's idea. The question which arises here is the relation between textual structuralization using prepositional syntagms and continuity of meaning: whether prepositional syntagms have causative role, that is to say continuity of meaning is due to their presence, or vice-versa, prepositional syntagms are the effect of this continuity. According to this second hypothesis, continuity of meaning results in coherence which creates a specific structuralization and prepositional syntagms are just some elements of this structure. Therefore, if we can find a coherent text or passage which has discoursal conditions of the texts where Charolles studies prepositional syntagms while these elements are absent there, Charolles's theory faces a counterexample. In this way, the role of these elements in issue of coherence will be modified. Thus we believe that criticizing Charolles's theory is sufficient to prove the novelty of this research. As a result, we propose to deal with the issue considering coherence rather than cohesion. Since not only the functions which Charolles attributes to prepositional syntagms are not limited to them, but also these functions cannot, in themselves, guarantee the coherence of the text, because other features such as readers' topic familiarity should be considered as well. To these aims, at the first stage, the particular function of "prepositional syntagms" which Charolles calls "framing adverbials" is clarified through his theory. Subsequently, the paper focuses on deemphasizing the exclusive dominance of such elements through resorting to contextualized aspects of coherence.