CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION
The study and analysis of actual language in used is the goal of text an
d discourse analysis. Michael Halliday, one of the linguists credited with the d
evelopment of systemic linguistics and functional grammar, defines text as any a
uthentic stretch of written or spoken language. According to Hallyday (1994:14)
the historical study of linguistics first involved studying the morphology of la
nguage followed by studying the meaning of words at the sentence level. Ultimate
ly the goal of such analysis was to find the meaning of the forms of language. H
owever, in Halliday’s view, the reverse approach is more meaningful: “A language is
interpreted as a system of meanings, accompanied by forms through which the mean
ing can be expressed”. Beyond the grammar and lexis of language, understanding the
mechanisms for how text is structured is the basis for his work. What makes any
length of text meaningful and coherent has been termed texture. Texture is the
basis for unity and semantic interdependence within text and a text without text
ure would just be a group of isolated sentences with no relationship to one anot
her. Eggins (1994:85) refers to the term put forth by schegloff and Sacks (1973-
1974) “sequential implicativeness” which proposes that language follows a linear seq
uence where one line of text follows another with each line being linked or rela
ted to the previous line. This linear progression of text creates a context for
meaning. Contextual meaning, at the paragraph level is referred to as “coherence” wh
ile the internal properties of meaning are referred to as “cohesion”. Coherence has
both situational coherence when field, tenor, and mode can be identified for a c
ertain group of clauses and “generic” coherence when the text can be recognized as b
elonging to a certain genre. Cohesion relates to the semantic ties within text w
here by a tie is made when there is some dependent link between items that combi
ne to create meaning. Therefore, texture is created within text when there are p
roperties of coherence and cohesion, outside of the apparent grammatical structu
re of the text. The principles of referencing, substitution, ellipsis, conjuncti
on, and lexical cohesion put forth by Halliday and Hasan (1976) and Bloor and Bl
oor (1995) will be applied to the article and analyzed to demonstrate the releva
nce of the cohesive elements that are present in texts which contribute to the o
verall meaning of the text. Understanding how cohesion functions within text to
create semantic links could be beneficial to students of English as a second of
foreign language to help decode meaning.
CHAPTER II
CRITICISM
A. Principle of Cohesion
Structure in text is provided by grammar therefore cohesion is considere
d to be outside of the structure. Cohesion refers to the non-structural text-for
ming relations. (Halliday and Hasan 1976:7) the concept of cohesion in text is r
elated to semantic ties or relations of meanings that exist within the text, and
that define it as a text (ibid:4). Within text, if a previously mentioned item
is referred to again and is dependent upon another element, it is considered a t
ie. Without semantic ties, sentences or utterances would seem to lack any type o
f relationship to each other and might not be considered text. Halliday and Hasa
n (ibid:4) refer to this intertextual link as the presupposing and the presuppos
ed. Using the authors’ example: “Wash and core six cooking apples. Put them into a
fireproof dish.” The word “them” presupposes “apples” and provides a semantic tie between
the two sentences, thus creating cohesion. Cohesion creates interdependency in
text.
B. Reference
Referencing functions to retrieve presupposed information in text and mu
st be identify able for it to be considered as cohesive. In written text, refere
ncing indicates how the writer introduces participants and keeps track of them t
hroughout the text.
(Eggins 1994:95) there are three general types of referencing are as fol
lows:
1. Exophoric referencing, this refers to information from the immediate con
text of situation.
Example: look at that flower.
2. Endophoric referencing, which refers to information that can be retrieve
d from within the text? It is this endophoric referencing which is the focus of
cohesion theory.
Endophoric referencing can be divided into three areas are:
a) Anaphoric
Anaphoric refers to any reference that point backwards to previously mentioned i
nformation in text.
For example: look at the flower. It’s so beautiful
(It refers back to the flower)
For cohesion purpose, anaphoric referencing is the most relevant as it provides
a link with a preceding portion of the text (Halliday and Hasan 1976:51). Functi
onal speaking, there are three main types of cohesive references, they are:
Person
Person reference keeps track of function through the speech situation using noun
pronouns like “He, him, she, her, etc”. And possessive determiners like “mine, yours,
his, hers, etc”.
For example: Petter has many books. Those books are his.
Demonstrative
Demonstrative reference keeps of information through location using proximity re
ferences like “this, these, that, those, here, there, then, and the.”
For example: This is my book. I bough it yesterday.
Comparative
Comparative reference keeps track of identity and similarity through indirect re
ferences using adjectives like “same, equal, similar, different, else, better, mor
e.” And adverbs like “so, such, similarly, otherwise, so, more, etc.” (ibid: 37-39)
For example: Jack has a white shirt. I bought the same shirt with him.
b) Cataphoric
Cataphoric refers to any reference that point forward to information tha
t will be presented later in the text.
For example: It’s so beautiful, the flower.
(It refers forward to the flower)
c) Esphoric
Esophoric refers to any reference within the same nominal group or phras
e which follows the presupposed item.
For example: a few numbers of students get good score.
C. Ellipsis and Substitution
Whereas referencing functions to link semantic meanings within text, sub
stitution and ellipsis differs in that it operates as a linguistic link at the l
exicogrammatical level. In Bloor and Bloor (1995:96), substitution and ellipsis
is used when a speaker or writer wishes to avoid the repetition of a lexical ite
m and is able to draw on one of the grammatical resources of the language to rep
lace the item.”
For example: Wealthier Italians whose parents quit farms for the cities
in the 60’s are coming back.
The word “coming back” refers to line before in which the elliptical references to t
he children of farmers are returning to the farms that their parents quit.
The three types of classification for substitution and ellipsis that reflect its
grammatical function are as follows:
1. Nominal
In nominal substitution, the most typical substitution words are “one and ones” and
they substitute nouns.
For example: This car is mine, but that one is yours.
2. Verbal
In verbal substitution, the most common substitute is the verb “do” and is sometime
used in conjunction with “so” as in “do so” and substitute verbs. Halliday and Hasan (ib
id: 125-126) point out that “do” often operate with the reference items “it” and “that” but
still have the main function as a verbal substitute because of its grammatical r
ole.
For example: You buy a new book and she do too.
From: you buy a new book and she buys a ne book too.
3. Clause
In clause substitution, an entire clause is substituted and though it may seem t
o be similar to either nominal or verbal substitution, the difference is the pre
supposed anaphoric reference.
When something in text is being substituted, it follows that the substit
uted item maintains the same structural function as the presupposed item. Though
substitution and ellipsis are similar in their function as the linguistic link
for cohesion, ellipsis differs in that it is substitution by zero (ibid: 142).
Ellipsis refers to a presupposed anaphoric item although the reference is not th
rough a place-marker like in substitution. The presupposed item is understood th
rough its structural link. As it is a structural link, ellipsis operates through
nominal, verbal and clausal levels. Halliday and Hasan further classify ellipsi
s in systemic linguistic terminology as deictic, enumerative, epithet, classifie
r, and qualifier.
D. Conjunction
Conjunction, as described by Bloor and Bloor (1995:98) acts as a cohesiv
e tie between clause or sections of text in such a way as to demonstrate a meani
ngful pattern between them, though Halliday and Hasan (ibid: 227) indicate that
conjunction relations are not tied to any particular sequence in the expression.
Therefore, amongst the cohesion forming devices within text, conjunction is the
least directly identify able relation.
Conjunction acts as a semantic cohesive tie within text in four categori
es, they are:
Additive
Additive conjunction acts to structurally coordinate or link by adding to the pr
esupposed item and are signaled through “and, also, too, furthermore, additionally”,
etc. additive conjunction may also act to negate the presupposed item and is si
gnaled by “nor, and… not, either, neither, etc.”
For example: I don’t like smoking, and neither does he.
(Deriver from: I don’t like smoking. He doesn’t like smoking).
Adversative
Adversative conjunctions act to indicate “contrary to expectation” (ibid: 25
0) and are signaled by “yet, though, only, but, in fact, rather, etc”
For example: Peter in English students, but he can’t speak English.
Causal
Causal conjunction expresses “result, reason and purpose” and is signaled by
“so, then, for, because, for this reason, as a result, in this respect, etc”.
For example: She studied match hardly as a result she passed the exam.
Temporal
The last conjunctive category is temporal and links by signaling sequenc
e or time. Some samples temporal conjunctive signals are “then, next, after, that,
next day, until then, a the same time, at this pint, etc”
For example: I get up at 5 o’clock in the morning then taking a bath.
E. Theme and Rheme
Most learners, when learning the grammar of a foreign language, spend ti
me assimilating the structure of clauses in that language, i.e. where subjects,
objects and adverbials are placed in relation to the verb, and what options are
available for rearranging the most typical sequences. Discourse analysis are int
erested in the implications of these different structural options for the creati
on of text, and as always, it is from the examination of natural data that patte
rns of use are seen to emerge. Some of the structural options frequently found i
n natural data are ignored or underplayed in language teaching (especially those
found in spoken data, which are often dismissed as degraded or bad style), prob
ably owing to the continued dominance of standards taken from the written code.
 English is what is often called an ‘SVO’ language, in that the declarative c
lause requires a verb at its centre, a subject before it and any object after it
. This is simply a labeling device which enables comparisons to be made with dec
larative realizations in different languages, some of which will be ‘VSO’ or ‘SOV’ langu
ages. This pattern is often recast in English, no least in interrogative structu
res, where the verbal group is split by the subject (“does she like cats?”), and in
cases where the object is brought forward:
1. The Guardian, Joyce reads.
(OSV Object-fronted)
There are in English a variety of ways in which the basic clause element
s of subject, verb, and complement object, adverbial can be rearranged by puttin
g different elements at the beginning of the clause, as illustrated in sentence
1 to 3 which is as way of bringing different element to the front are called fro
nting devices.
2. She reads the Guardian, Joyce.
S (pronoun) VOS (noun) Right-displaced subject
3. Joyce, she reads the Guardian
S (noun) S (pronoun) VO left displaced subject
Structures such as sentence 2 and 3 are far from infrequent in spoken da
ta, but are often for no obvious reason, not presented in books claiming to desc
ribe grammatical options for the learner. If we look again at our examples from
the point of view of how the information in them is presented, we can see how di
fferent options enable us to focus on or highlight certain elements: sentence1 s
eems to be saying something about the Guardian rather than about Joyce; sentence
2 and 3 seem to be telling us something about Joyce. This aboutness is the sort
of notion discourse analysis are concerned with for it is a speaker/writer choi
ce made independently of the propositional content of the message; the speaker/w
riter decides how to stage the information, where to start, so to speak, in pres
enting the message.
In English, what we decide to bring to the front of the clause (by whate
ver means) is a signal of what is to be understood as the framework within which
what we want to say is to be understood. The rest of the clause can then be see
n as transmitting what we want to say within this framework. Items brought to fr
ont-place in this way we shall call the themes (or topics) of their clauses in w
hat has been called the Prague school of linguistics, the relationship of the th
eme to the rest of the sentence is viewed as part of communicative dynamism, tha
t is the assessment of the extent to which each element contributes to the devel
opment of the communication. Alternatively, the theme can be seen as the point o
f departure of the message (Halliday 1985:38). For the moment, we shall take as
the theme of a clause the subject noun-phrase, or, if this is not initial, then
we shall include whatever comes before it. It seems that first position in the c
lause is important in many of the world’s languages, and that creating a theme in
the clause is a universal feature, though its realizations may vary from languag
e to language.
Concentrating on the themes (or topics) of clauses does not tell us much
about the rest of the clause, which may be called the rheme or comment of the c
lause. In fact, when we look at themes and rhemes together in connected text, we
see further patterns emerging we can divide our postcard text into themes and r
hemes:
Themes (topic Rhemes (comment)
1. I ‘m sitting here…
2. Outside my window is a big lawn…
3. In the middle of the lawn is a flower bed
4. The bed was full of daffodils…
5. You ‘d love it here
6. You must come and stay
7. We ‘ve got plenty of room
Two different options can be sees to be realized here: (a) the rheme of
sentence 3 contains an element (the flower bed) which becomes the theme of sente
nce 4; (b) the theme of sentence 5 is the same as the rheme of sentence 6.
CHAPTER III
CONCLUSION
This chapter has taken a selection of grammatical concepts and has attem
pted to show how discourse analysis has contributed to our understanding of the
relationship between local choice within the clause and sentence and the organiz
ation of the discourse as a whole. When speakers and writers are producing disco
urse, they are at the same time as they are busy constructing clause, monitoring
the development of the larger discourse, and their choices at the local level c
an be seen simultaneously to reflect the concerns of the discourse as an unfoldi
ng production, with an audience, whether present or projected. A discourse-orien
ted approach to grammar would suggest not only a grater emphasis on contexts lar
ger than the sentence, but also a reassessment of priorities in terms of what is
taught about such things as word order, articles, ellipsis, tense and aspect, a
nd some of the other categories discussed here.
If grammar is seen to have a direct role in welding clauses, turns and s
entences into discourse, what of words themselves? What role does vocabulary cho
ice play in the discourse process? It is to this question that we turn next.
Answer question
1. Which sentence is including anaphoric referencing?
a. If you couldn’t, I would like you to be back here at five thirty
b. Look at the flower. It’s so beautiful
c. Look at that
d. I had left my cattle
2. There are three types of classification for ellipsis and substitution th
at reflect its grammatical function. Except
a. Nominal
b. Verbal
c. Homophoric
d. Clausal
3. Which sentence is including comparative reference?
a. It’s so beautiful, the flower
b. This car is mine, but that one is yours
c. I am very satisfied with it
d. Jack has white shirt. I bought the same shirt with him
4. Ellipsis is the omission of elements normally required by the grammar wh
ich the speaker/writer assumes are obvious from the context and therefore need n
ot be raised. Based on the definition above, it refers to…
a. Ellipsis
b. Conjunction
c. Clausal
d. Reference
5. There are three main types of cohesive references except…
a. Personal
b. Demonstrative
c. Comparative
d. Cataphoric
Answer key
1. B. look at the flower. It’s so beautiful
2. C. Homophoric
3. D. Jack has white shirt. I bought the same shirt with him
4. A. Ellipsis
5. D. Cataphoric
REFERENCES
Brown Gillian & George Yule. 1984. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge University Pres
s.
Crane Paul A. 1994. Texture in Text: A Discourse Analysis of A News Article Usin
g Halliday and Hasan’s Model of Cohesion. Retrived (09 nov 2009) from
http://library.nakanishi.ac.ip/kiyou/gaidai%2830%29/08.pdf.