LITHUANIAN UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES
FACULTY OF PHILOLOGY
DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH PHILOLOGY
DAINORA IEVA BALEVIČIENĖ
DENSITY AND DISTRIBUTION OF COHESIVE DEVICES IN
THE TEXTS OF LITERARY AND LEGAL GENRES
MA Paper
Academic Advisor: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Janina Buitkienė
Vilnius, 2014
LIETUVOS EDUKOLOGIJOS UNIVERSITETAS
FILOLOGIJOS FAKULTETAS
ANGLŲ FILOLOGIJOS KATEDRA
TARPFRAZINIO RYŠIO PRIEMONIŲ DAŢNUMAS IR
PASISKIRSTYMAS LITERATŪRINIAME IR TEISINIAME
ŢANRUOSE
Magistro darbas
Humanitariniai mokslai, filologija (04H)
Magistro darbo autorė Dainora Ieva Balevičienė
Patvirtinu, kad darbas atliktas
savarankiškai, naudojant tik darbe
nurodytus šaltinius
______________________
(Parašas, data)
Vadovė doc. dr. Janina Buitkienė
___________________________
(Parašas, data)
CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... 2
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 3
1. TEXT AND DISCOURSE............................................................................................ 6
2. COHESION AND COHERENCE .............................................................................. 10
3. COHESIVE TIES ....................................................................................................... 12
4. COHESIVE DEVICES ............................................................................................... 15
5. GENRE AND REGISTER.......................................................................................... 19
6. DENSITY AND DISTRIBUTION OF COHESIVE DEVICES IN THE TEXTS OF
LITERARY AND LEGAL GENRES ...................................................................................... 24
6.1 General overview of density and distribution of cohesive devices in the texts of
literary and legal genres ........................................................................................................ 24
6.2 Reference............................................................................................................... 28
6.2.1 Reference in the texts of literary and legal genres ......................................... 31
6.3 Substitution and ellipsis ........................................................................................ 36
6.3.1 Substitution and ellipsis in the texts of literary and legal genres ................... 39
6.4 Conjunction ........................................................................................................... 43
6.4.1 Conjunction in the texts of literary and legal genres...................................... 45
6.5 Lexical cohesion.................................................................................................... 48
6.5.1 Lexical cohesion in the texts of literary and legal genres .............................. 52
CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................. 59
SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... 61
REFERENCES................................................................................................................ 62
APPENDICES ................................................................................................................ 66
ABSTRACT
The aim of this paper was to analyze the impact of the genre on the use of cohesive
devices in the literary and legal texts. To achieve the aim the following objectives were
specified: to determine the typical patterns of the use of cohesive devices in literary and legal
texts and to identify similarities and differences of the use of cohesive devices in the texts of
different genres under investigation. The approaches to the research were quantitative and
qualitative as well as content analysis method was chosen for the analysis. The research
demonstrated that the genre has an evident influence on the density and distribution of
cohesive devices. It also demonstrated that most often used cohesive devices in fiction belong
to the group of reference and in legal documents to the group of lexical cohesion. The
amassed data showed that the literary genre demonstrates all possible types of substitution
and ellipsis whereas in the legal genre this type of cohesive devices has very low frequency.
In addition, conjunction was identified as the least commonly employed type of cohesive
devices in fiction as well as in the legal documents. Cohesive devices are important in all
types of communication as they signal to the addressee the connections between the sentences
of the text; therefore, the further studies are required to determine the influence of textual
genre on the choice of cohesive devices in the genres that were not thoroughly investigated
before.
2
INTRODUCTION
Text is a notion met by the users of language every day. We communicate in texts.
Sometimes even one letter can be understood as a text. Also, text is one of the main points of
interest in the linguistic studies. Discourse analysis is the branch of linguistics which
concentrates on the relationship between the language and the context in which the language
is used. Each text demonstrates some kind of texture. Texture is created with the help of
cohesive devices.
In order to understand the notion of text better, standards of textuality presented by de
Beaugrande and Dressler (1981, 19) might be vitally important. These standards include
coherence, intentionality, acceptability, situationality, intertextuality, informativity, and
cohesion, the text quality phenomenon which received primary and great attention from the
very emergency of discourse analysis. While discussing the phenomenon of cohesion,
scholars focussed principally on the devices which helped to join sentences into the
paragraph. In the development of linguistics, the notable merit of analysing, explaining, and
classifying cohesive devices could be ascribed to M. A. K. Halliday and R. Hasan. There are
distinguished five kinds of cohesive devices which help to create cohesion. These are:
reference, substitution and ellipsis, conjunction, lexical cohesion.
One of the factors restricting the use of language and the choice of syntactic structures
in texts is their division according to what kind of genre they belong to. This allows
formulating the idea that the manifestation of cohesive devices in text is influenced by the text
generic dependence. The present study focuses on the correlation between textual genres and
types of cohesive devices.
Therefore, the following research question was formulated: in what ways does the
textual genre influence the use of cohesive devices and what types of cohesive devices prevail
in the texts of literary and legal genres?
The aim of the research is to analyze the impact of the genre on the use of cohesive
devices in the literary and legal texts.
To achieve this aim, the following objectives were formulated:
1. To determine the typical patterns of the use of cohesive devices in literary and legal
texts.
2. To identify similarities and differences of the use of cohesive devices in the texts of
different genres under investigation.
3
In order to accomplish the aim and to attain the objectives, the following procedures
were performed: the texts were closely read and analyzed. Types of cohesive devices were
identified. The following major groups of cohesive devices were recognized: reference,
substitution and ellipsis, conjunction, lexical cohesion. Sentences were grouped according to
the types of cohesive devices that manifest themselves in them. The density and distribution
of cohesive devices within them were compared.
The quantitative approach was adopted to investigate the density of cohesive devices.
The qualitative approach was applied to analyze the influence of the text genre on the choice
of cohesive devices. Content analysis was carried out in order to distinguish cohesive devices
in texts.
Both literary and legal texts were of approximately the same length: 48.000 words from
the novel “The Great Gatsby” by F. Scott Fitzgerald, and 48.000 words from nine examples of
Standards and Agreements belonging to the category of legal text taken from the official
websites dedicated to the companies which function in various kinds of business.
During the past few decades the amount of interest in the differences among various
genres of texts has grown up. The results of this research may be useful as they can add to the
further investigation of linguistic analysis of the genre influences in the use of cohesive
devices.
The outline of the paper is as follows:
an introduction where the problem question, the aim and the objectives of the research
are presented as well as the research methods are introduced, scope of the research is defined
and the significance of the research is explained;
the introduction is followed by five theoretical chapters in which such linguistic
concepts as text and discourse, cohesion and coherence, cohesive ties, cohesive devices, genre
and register are described, explained and exemplified. The sixth chapter presents density and
distribution of cohesive devices in the texts of literary and legal genres. This chapter is
subdivided into subchapters according to different types of cohesive devices which are:
reference, substitution and ellipsis, conjunction, lexical cohesion. In each subchapter the
particular density of cohesive devices is illustrated by graphs and explained, the similarities
and differences of the use of cohesive devices in the texts of literary and legal genres are
discussed.
The results of the research are summarized in the Conclusions section where the general
findings of the research are submitted as well as implications for further research are given.
4
The list of 50 references used for this paper is presented in the References section; the
appendixes are added in the Appendixes section.
5
1. TEXT AND DISCOURSE
A characteristic feature typical only to human beings is the ability to recognise,
understand, and use language. Even though language is an element that cannot be separated
from everyday life, it is miraculous, for without language the world as we see now would not
exist. Language is the complex phenomenon, and it depends on physical, physiological and
psychological factors. For this reason, Poškienė (2004, 11) makes a suggestion to treat
language as discourse and as action.
Texts are an inseparable part of linguistic studies. They have attracted people‟s attention
since the times of existence of Ancient Greece and Rome where the art of rhetoric was
honoured, and these skills required long and thorough training. Texts are so various and
acquire so many diverse forms that the term “text” itself becomes somewhat blurred and
having no clear boundaries. As described by Brown and Yule (1996, 6), text shall be used as a
technical term, to refer to the verbal record of a communicative act. Nevertheless, this
definition is very simple, and it does not reflect all aspects of the concept. Halliday and Hasan
(1976, 4) invoke the term “cohesion” to define a text more accurately, the concept of cohesion
denotes the relations of meaning existing within the text and defining it as a text.
These definitions suggest very little requirements that have to be fulfilled by the units of
spoken or written language in order to be ascribed to the category of texts. In order to
understand the category of texts better, standards of textuality presented by de Beaugrande
and Dressler (1981, 19) might be vitally important. These standards are: cohesion (which is
related to surface structures of texts), coherence (which is related to deep structures of texts),
intentionality (which reveals itself through goal-directed use of language), acceptability
(which creates conditions for the topic development), situationality (which is concerned with
the being of text situationally relevant), intertextuality (which is based on the experience of
earlier encountered texts), and informativity (which deals with the ability of the text to present
the new information). Here the question may arise what the example of a prototypical text is.
Johnstone (2002, 19) has a possible answer to this question: “Perhaps the prototypical text, in
traditional literary and philological scholarship, is a book”. A book belongs to the class of
concrete objects. The text in it does not change together with time. It is easy to recognize its
beginning and end (the front and back cover). A book is a written source of information. Still,
linguists study not only the books, but many other instances of texts.
Another important question related to this topic is whether everything what we say or
write can be treated as a text or there are still some manifestations of language that are called
6
non-texts. Halliday and Hasan (1991, 10) claim that we shall call a text any instance of living
language that is playing some part in a context of situation. Another linguistic term “context”
comes to help to understand the definition of the text. “Context”, according to Cook (1995,
24) “<…> is a form of knowledge of the world”. He explains the constituent parts of context
which are: “co-text, paralinguistic features, other texts, the physical situation, the social and
cultural situation, interlocutors and their schemata”. One of the main differences between a
text and a collection of unrelated sentences could be the meaning that each text should
possess. In addition, Halliday and Hasan (1991, 10) make a suggestion to consider a text
“<…> from two perspectives at once, both as a product and as a process”. The text being a
product means that it is an output, we can record and study it, it has a certain construction, and
systematic terms represent it. The text being a process means that creating a text people make
semantic choices continuously, move through a network of meaning potential, by making
each set of choices they create the environment for a further set.
In addition, one more question has to be answered, that is whether the length of the text
is that property which serves for separating texts from non-texts. Widdowson (2004, 6)
contends that in certain circumstances single, isolated sentences can serve as texts. Not only
sentences, but also parts of words, even the letters can have textual independence. As
Widdowson (2004, 7) exemplifies “The single letter P tells me where to park my car”. Texts
like this in the example are called minimal texts. Minimal texts stand for larger texts.
Widdowson explains: “<…> P stands for Parking. <…> Parking in turn stands for Parking is
permitted here or Here is a place for parking your car <…>”. The interpretation of the text P
depends on where it is seen and what is known about the multi-storey car park. The
interpretation depends on relating the text to something outside itself that is to say to the
context: to where it is located, and how it is related to the social context. A piece of language
is recognized as a text not because of its linguistic size, but because it is assumed to be
intended to introduce into the reality of the user of the language. A text is identified not by its
linguistic extent but by its social intent (Widdowson 2004, 7-8).
Furthermore, the concept of “texture” is described by Halliday and Hasan (1976, 2) as
“<…> entirely appropriate to express the property of „being a text‟. A text has texture, and
this is what distinguishes it from something that is not a text”.
Discourse can be defined as an instance of language use whose type can be classified on
the basis of grammatical and lexical choices and their distribution in main versus supportive
materials, theme, style, and the framework of knowledge and expectations within which the
addressee interprets the discourse (Loos, 2003). The analysis of language in use is called
7
discourse analysis. It “<…> focuses on knowledge about language beyond the word, clause,
phrase and sentence that is needed for successful communication” (Paltridge 2011, 2). This
branch of linguistics got its name in 1952. It was suggested by Z. S. Harris who put the idea
forward of analyzing the certain elements in texts according to their same environments (De
Beaugrande & Dressler 1981, 21).
Discourse is one of the broadest topics in linguistics; however, it is least defined. One of
the reasons could be that the understanding of discourse is based on several different
disciplines. Some of them are scientific fields which were the first sources of discourse origin,
such as linguistics, anthropology, sociology, philosophy. The others are closely related to all
sciences. These are communication, social psychology, and intellect theories (Poškienė 2004,
12).
Usually, the object of the discourse analysis is a text. As Virtanen (2008, 1044) claims,
studying entire texts in context is one of the main tasks of discourse analysis. Context can be
understood as either understanding of factors outside the analyzed text, or as knowledge of
other parts of the analyzed text referred to as co-text. According to Cook (1995, 25),
“Discourse analysis must <…> be both a study of the formal linguistic qualities of stretches
of language (texts), and a study of the variable perception of these stretches of language by
individuals and groups”. Paltridge (2011, 9) terms the discourse analysis “<…> a view of
language at the level of text”.
One of the ways to look at discourse is to think about it as the social construction of
reality. According to this view, texts are seen as communicative units which are embedded in
social and cultural practices. Besides this, discourses include different social languages which
are used to perform and recognize socially situated identities (Paltridge 2011, 9-12).
Discourse is closely related to culture, and this makes it the object of investigation which
causes the interest of sociologists as well as linguists.
Generally, the difference is made between spoken and written language. This difference
is significant for discourse analysis. As Brown and Yule (1996, 6) state: “The notion of „text‟
as a printed record is familiar in the study of literature”. Written texts tend to be of the higher
lexical density than speech. In order to perform discourse analysis of spoken texts, discourse
analysts have to have them somehow recorded and transcribed. While investigating the
spoken language, discourse analysts encounter different forms of spoken language in different
regions, various manners of production in speech as well as in writing.
Drawing the boundaries of the definitions of „text‟ and „discourse‟, Widdowson‟s
(2004, 8) ideas are worth mentioning: “<…> identifying something as a text is not the same
8
as interpreting it. <…> Discourse in this view is the pragmatic process of meaning
negotiation. Text is its product”. This idea is shared by Brown and Yule (1996, 26): “<…> the
discourse analyst treats his data as the record (text) of a dynamic process in which language
was used as an instrument of communication in a context by a speaker / writer to express
meanings and achieve intentions (discourse)”. Widdowson (2004, 8) also differentiates
between what text and discourse mean to the writer, and what they mean to the reader: “The
discourse which the writer intends the text to record as output is <…> always likely to be
different from the discourse which the reader derives from it. <…> what a writer means by a
text is not the same as what a text means to a reader”.
Taking everything into account, text and discourse are closely related. One offers the
data for the analysis of the other. Text being a stretch of language becomes discourse in a
certain situation where it gains meaning for its users. In this work, only the written texts will
be investigated, and one of the types of analysis used will be discourse analysis. One of my
purposes in this work is to analyze the use of cohesive devices in English. Cohesive devices
assist in creating cohesive ties that help to create texture. For this reason, the term “text” in
this work will be used to refer to the unit from which the data for the analysis was collected.
9
2. COHESION AND COHERENCE
Earlier in this work, the term “cohesion” was mentioned as the one which helps to
define the concept of text. In linguistics there are two notions which can be easily confused.
They are “cohesion” and “coherence”. Each of them should be discussed separately so as not
to get lost in the “jungles of terminology”.
As Halliday and Hasan (1991, 48) claim, cohesion is the possession of every language
which is the set of linguistic resources (as part of the textual metafunction) for linking one
part of a text to another. Without cohesion a text loses itself. From being a coherent unit a text
becomes just a set of unrelated utterances. Where the interpretation of some element in the
discourse is dependent on that of another, cohesion occurs (Renkema 1993, 35). One element
presupposes the other. It means that the element cannot be effectively decoded except by
resource to it. Halliday and Hasan (1976, 5) call cohesion a part of the system of a language.
It is realized by the systematic resources of reference, substitution and ellipsis, conjunction
and the others that are built into the language itself. Cohesion is expressed through the
grammar as well as through the vocabulary. For this reason, two different types of cohesion
are distinguished. These are grammatical cohesion and lexical cohesion. Cohesion is a
semantic relation between an element in the text and some other element without which the
first element could not be interpreted successfully.
Biber et al (2003, 455) define cohesion as “the pattern of relations between structures
and lexical items which combine together to form a text”. Halliday (1990, 290) explains that
cohesion is a process because discourse itself is a process. One more definition of cohesion is
presented by Hoey (1991, 3): “Cohesion may be crudely defined as the way certain words or
grammatical features of a sentence can connect that sentence to its predecessors (and
successors) in a text”.
According to McCarthy (1991, 26), cohesion is a guide to coherence, and coherence is
something created by the reader when he or she participates in the act of reading a text. The
feeling that text hangs together, makes sense, and is not a mixture of sentences is coherence.
Cohesion is only part of coherence in reading and writing, and indeed in spoken language too.
Brown and Yule (1996, 67) also agree to the idea that coherence is impossible without the
reader: “It is not the sequence of sentences which represents „coherent discourse‟. Rather it is
the reader <…>”. Similarly, Hoey (1991, 12) states: “<…> cohesion is a property of the text,
<…> coherence is a facet of the reader‟s evaluation of a text. <…> Cohesion is objective,
capable in principle of automatic recognition, while coherence is subjective and judgements
10
concerning it may vary from reader to reader”. There are many ways to accomplish coherence
of text. One of them is the use of cohesive devices (Hatch 1992, 223). According to Cook
(1995, 34), “Cohesion is a manifestation of certain aspects of coherence, and a pointer
towards it, rather than its cause or necessary result”. Linguists and teachers often need to
evaluate the coherence of the text. For this reason, it is important to know, understand and
recognize this phenomenon.
Taking everything into account, cohesion and coherence are very closely interrelated.
Coherence cannot exist without cohesion. The manifestations of cohesion are easily seen and
recognizable while reading or listening to the text. They have overt forms. Coherence is more
related with readers‟/listeners‟ experiences. Sometimes the texts having all the necessary
cohesive devices may lack the ability to demonstrate the coherence and, vice versa,
sometimes the text which cannot boast of having a great quantity of cohesive devices may still
demonstrate the creation of feeling of coherence. According to Buitkienė (2005, 7), “Text is
essentially associated with cohesion, and discourse is associated with the concept of
coherence”. My research will focus on cohesive devices; therefore, some other aspects of the
concept of cohesion will be more closely analysed in the other parts of this work.
11
3. COHESIVE TIES
Cohesion is a very broad notion. According to Halliday and Hasan (1976, 3) “<…> a
term to refer to a single instance of cohesion, a term for one occurrence of a pair of cohesively
related items <…> we shall call a TIE”. Any piece of text can be characterized in terms of the
number and kinds of ties which can be found in it. The term “tie” suggests that there is a
relation: a tie cannot exist without two members, and the members cannot appear in a tie if
there is not a relation between them. This concept of a tie allows carrying out the analysis of
the text in terms of its cohesive properties. Besides this, the concept of a tie gives a systematic
account of patterns of texture of the text.
If a text is thought about as a continuous space in which individual messages follow
each other, then the items that function as the two ends of the tie are spatially separated from
each other. The two terms of any tie are tied together through some meaning relation. Certain
kinds of meaning relation can be found between the two members. Consider the following
example:
(1) In my younger and more vulnerable years my father gave me some advice that I‟ve
been turning in my mind ever since.
„Whenever you feel like criticising anyone,‟ he told me, „just remember that all these
people in this world haven‟t had the advantages that you‟ve had‟. (F. S. F. 7)
Thinking of my father as member A and he as member B we can see that the semantic
relation between the two is the identity of reference. The pronoun he refers to no other father
but the one that has already been mentioned as my father; the situational referents of both are
the same person. This relationship of situational identity of reference is known as
CO-
REFERENTIALITY.
(2) I play the cello. My husband does, too. (H. 73)
In example (2), Play the cello is member A and does is member B of the cohesive tie.
The relation here is
CO-CLASSIFICATION.
In this type of meaning relation, the things,
processes, or circumstances to which A and B refer belong to an identical class, but each end
of the cohesive tie refers to a distinct member of a class.
(3) My family have been prominent, well-to-do people in this Middle Western city for
three generations. <…> All my aunts and uncles talked it over as if they were choosing a
prep school for me, and finally said, „Why – ye-es,‟ with very grave hesitant faces. (F. S. F. 9)
In example (3), a third kind of semantic relation between the two members of a tie is
exemplified by family and aunts, uncles. All these three words refer to something within the
12
same general field of meaning. Thus, uncles and aunts refer to family members – there is a
general resemblance. This kind of general meaning relation is referred to as CO-EXTENSION.
Semantic relations of co-referentiality, co-classification, and co-extension are exactly
what ties the two members of a tie. The existence of such ties is essential to texture (Halliday
& Hasan 1991, 73-74).
Member B in the above examples is an item to which we can refer as an implicit
encoding device. This device can function as a cohesive device. Cohesive devices will be
discussed at greater length in the following chapters of this thesis. The source for the
interpretation of the implicit encoding devices should either be co-textual or purely
contextual.
When the interpretative source for the implicit term lies within the co-text as, for
example with he and father, the interpretation is called ENDOPHORIC.
When implicit term follows its linguistic referent, this cohesive tie is
ANAPHORIC.
e.g.
father and he. The cohesive tie established when the implicit term precedes its linguistic
referent is termed CATAPHORIC. Consider the following example:
(4) Twenty miles from the city a pair of enormous eggs, identical in contour and
separated only by a courtesy bay, jut out into the most domesticated body of salt water in the
Western hemisphere, the great wet barnyard of Long Island Sound. <…>
I lived at West Egg, the – well, the less fashionable of the two, though this is a most
superficial tag to express the bizarre and not a little sinister contrast between them. (F. S. F.
11)
The noun eggs in the example (4) can be interpreted as reference forward to the West
Egg described in the second sentence.
When the source for interpretation of an implicit device lies outside the co-text and can
be only be found through an examination of the context, the interpretation of this device is
entitled EXOPHORIC. e.g.:
(5) Did you water those flowers? (My example)
It is possible that those in the example (5) refers back to the preceding text. But it is also
possible that it refers to the environment in which the dialogue is taking place – to the context
of situation – where the flowers in question are present and can be pointed to if necessary
(Halliday & Hasan 1991, 75-77; Halliday & Hasan 1976, 18).
Later, other scholars, i.e. Brown and Yule, Cook, Johnstone, Hoey, Paltridge borrowed
the term “cohesive ties” in their works. For instance, Hoey (1991, 4-5) refers to Halliday and
Hasan: “For Halliday and Hasan, the organization of text (which they term texture) is made
13
up (in large part) of relationships amongst items in the text, some semantic, some
grammatical, which they refer to as cohesive ties.” Hoey (1991, 5) and Lenk (1998, 15) as
well as Halliday and Hasan distinguish five classes of cohesive devices: “<…> conjunction,
reference, substitution, ellipsis, and lexical cohesion”. In other sources on discourse analysis
these ties are referred to as “the main patterns of cohesion” (Paltridge 2011, 130), “cohesive
relationship” (Brown and Yule 1996, 192), “general grammatical and lexical strategies that
speakers use (and hearers expect) for showing how the meanings of parts of different
sentences are related to each other” (Johnstone 2002, 101), or “cohesive links” (Cook 1995,
29).
14
4. COHESIVE DEVICES
Cohesion in text is realized through the use of cohesive devices. Cohesive devices help
to create links between preceding or following parts of discourse. Mental capabilities for
recognizing cohesive devices in texts and the knowledge how to use them are usually passed
from generation to generation together with the acquisition of the first language as well as
developed while learning any other language later in life.
One of a teacher‟s important tasks while teaching any foreign language is to enable
students to understand and use cohesive devices properly. This ability allows them to produce
more native-like spoken and written texts. Students do many different exercises related to the
correct use of cohesive devices. Even the whole lists of cohesive devices with examples are
presented in grammar books. According to Zamel (1983, 22), “Cohesive devices are crucial in
writing, for they turn separate clauses, sentences, and paragraphs into connected prose,
signalling the relationships between ideas, and making obvious the thread of meaning the
writer is trying to communicate”.
Even though the formal use of cohesive devices does not guarantee that the text is
cohesive and coherent, it is unlikely that their importance could be the matter for questioning
(Bikelienė 2012, 23). Cohesive devices are important for the creation of the text because they
help to make up the logical sequence of the speech and create the links between separate parts
of speaking (Poškienė 2004, 22).
The necessity to investigate the manifestation of cohesive devices came gradually with
the evolution of linguistics. At the time when modern linguistics began to emerge, the
investigation of language was limited to the sentence (De Beaugrande & Dressler 1981, 16).
Quirk et al (1982, 248) present the factors which help to join sentences into a paragraph.
These factors are: implication in the semantic context, lexical equivalence, and syntactic
devices. Furthermore, these syntactic devices are enumerated and briefly presented. The role
of logical connectors in sentence joining is clarified. The scholars denote the ability of the
article to perform the function of reference. They explain that substitution is a device which
helps to avoid repetition. They call substitutes “pro-forms”. These pro-forms create conditions
for ellipsis. In the further development of linguistics, a notable merit of analysing, explaining,
and classifying cohesive devices could be ascribed to M. A. K. Halliday and R. Hasan.
According to them, cohesive devices “<…> become cohesive – have a cohesive function and
so are constitutive of texture – precisely if and when they can be interpreted through their
15
relation to some other (explicit) encoding device in the same passage” (Halliday & Hasan
1991, 75).
Cohesive devices not only link different parts of text, but also reveal the relationships
between them, signal to the hearer the connections between the sentences of a text (Gee 2002,
159). Sometimes these devices assist in understanding the order of the sequence of events;
sometimes they allow one not to lose oneself in time and space. Moreover, they can be helpful
in expressing comparison and contrast, addition, determining significant causes. Without
them it would be hard to enumerate, give examples, or infer. They are effective for
concluding, summarizing, presenting the results. Many more cases of the use of cohesive
devices could be mentioned.
In addition, cohesive devices are necessary when decoding the meaning of the text. As
Schiffrin (2001, 9) claims, “Cohesive devices do not themselves create meaning; they are
clues used by speakers and hearers to find the meanings which underlie surface utterances”.
Furthermore, cohesive devices are closely interrelated with cohesive ties. According to
Halliday and Hasan (1991, 74), “<…> there are very strong tendencies for a specific relation
to be realised by a clearly definable set of items”. In this way, the relation of co-referentiality
is characteristically realised by the devices of reference. Co-classification is normally realised
either by substitution or by ellipsis while co-extension is realised by lexical cohesive devices.
Halliday and Hasan (1991, 82) give a summary of cohesive devices, which is presented
in Table 1:
16
Table 1. Summary of Cohesive Devices
NON-STRUCTURAL COHESION
ORGANIC
RELATIONS
COMPONENTIAL RELATIONS
LEXICAL
COHESIVE DEVICES
GRAMMATICAL
COHESIVE DEVICES
Device
Typical
tie relation
A: Reference
1. Pronominals
2. Demonstratives
3. Definite article
4. Comparatives
}
B: Substitution &
Ellipsis
1. Nominal
2. Verbal
3. Clausal
}
}
A: General
1. Repetition
2. Synonymy
3. Antonymy
4. Meronymy
B. Instantial
1. Equivalence
2. Naming
3. Semblance
}
coreference
coclassification
coclassification
or coextension
A:
Conjunctives
e.g. causal
tie
concession
tie
B:
Adjacency pairs
e.g.
Question
(followed by)
answer;
offer
(followed by)
acceptance;
order
(followed by)
compliance
Continuati
ves (e.g. still,
already…)
coreference or
coclassification
STRUCTURAL COHESION
A: Parallelism
B: Theme-Rheme Development
C: Given-New Organisation
In other sources on discourse analysis the terms “cohesive devices” and “cohesive ties”
are used almost synonymously, e.g. Hatch (1992, 223) presents cohesive devices in the
chapter called “Cohesive devices” where she claims: “Cohesive devices are <…> used to tie
pieces of text together in specific ways.” And continues “<…> Halliday and Hasan‟s (1976)
17
system distinguishes four major types of grammatical cohesive ties: reference, substitution,
ellipsis, conjunction, and lexical ties”. Widdowson (2004, 64), speaking about this
phenomenon, also refers to Halliday and Hasan: “Halliday and Hasan then propose a number
of distinct categories for the classification of cohesive devices: „categories which have a
theoretical basis is distinct TYPES of cohesive relation, but which also provide a practical
means for describing and analyzing text‟ (Halliday and Hasan 1976:13)”. Similarly, Zamel
(1983, 22) makes a reference to Halliday and Hasan‟s work: “Halliday and Hasan (1976), in
their exploration of connecting devices identified five major categories of cohesive ties”.
18
5. GENRE AND REGISTER
During all the history of linguistic studies there have been various attempts to classify
texts according to one criterion or another. Linguists worked on creating the theory of
register. Together with the development linguistics, genre analysis appeared as an approach
which assists in describing and explaining texts. One of the classifications adopted is
ascribing each particular text to a certain register. Nevertheless, this task is not as easy as it
appears at first sight. In order to be able to recognize a text register, a clear definition of the
register concept is necessary. According to Leckie - Tarry (1993, 28), the theories
investigating register have the goal to “propose relationships between language function
(determined by situational or societal factors), and language form”. The term „register‟ itself
was introduced in the sixties. The first one who used the term „register‟ was Reid in 1956, and
later Ure developed the use of the term (Leckie – Tarry 1993, 28).
Also, Halliday and Hasan pay attention to the situation when presenting the notion of a
register. For the purpose of explaining it they use the terms as field, mode and tenor. The
linguistic features which are particularly associated with these three concepts constitute a
register (Halliday and Hasan 1976, 22). The first definitions of a register relate the linguistic
structure of a text to the context of situation of the text.
The total event in which the text is functioning can be called the field. The function of
the text in the event is the mode. The type of role interaction is referred to as tenor. Having in
mind these three categories, Halliday and Hasan (1976, 23) define the register as a set of
meanings, the configuration of semantic patterns, that are typically drawn upon under the
specified conditions, along with the words and structures that are used in the realization of
these meanings. Martin develops the definitions of field, mode and tenor by adding that
“Mode is concerned with semiotic distance, as this is affected by the various channels of
communication through which we undertake activity (field) and simultaneously enact social
relations (tenor)” (Martin 2005, 45).
Furthermore, the understanding of what a register is can be expanded with the help of
definition given by Biber et al (2003, 4): “Registers are varieties of language that are
associated with different circumstances and purposes”. This definition helps clarify why the
texts differ not only in the situations when they are produced, but also that the purpose of
producing a text requires an appropriate choice of the register. In addition, registers vary in
terms of the language use that is typical of them (Rühlemann 2008, 674). Furthermore,
19
McCarthy and Carter (1995, 22) claim that “the notion of register is widely agreed to be a
useful way of systematizing the diversity of textual variation in a language”.
Martin (2009, 9), explaining the notion of register, first of all explains what „semiotic
system‟ is and presents the linguistic school of systemic functional linguistics as well as its
main representatives such as Halliday, Firth, Malinowski. Martin goes more deeply in
presenting Malinowski‟s studies and illustrating the terms introduced by Malinowski such as
„context of situation‟ and „context of culture‟. Furthermore, Martin calls register „a semiotic
system‟.
Moreover, Halliday and Hasan (1991, 39) present register variations. They distinguish
the variations of register from something that is „closed and limited‟ to something that is
„relatively free and open-ended‟. Depending on closeness or openness of the register,
linguistic structures employed in it may vary. To closed registers can be ascribed such
instances of text manifestation as the pilots‟ exchange of messages during the flight, the
language of religious ceremonies, also the language of games. For example, the first trading
card game Magic: The Gathering has very strict rules what phrases have to be uttered while
participating in its tournaments. The exact phrases, such as “in response”, “upkeep”, “goes on
stack” are repeated with recurrent players‟ actions and cannot be changed in order not to
change the structure of the game. In restricted registers there is no place for someone‟s
creativity or individuality to be revealed. The possible meanings in this type of registers have
a fixed range. Contrary, open registers leave space for various choices of lexical, grammatical,
and syntactic structures in the creation of texts. In the texts belonging to open registers, there
is left some place for interpretation, imagination, and the manifestations of one‟s fantasy. The
registers of informal narrative and spontaneous conversation can be called the most openended; however, it is important to mention that no registers can be entirely open as each and
every situation is associated with at least the smallest typicality of the language. Although
register distinctions are defined in non-linguistic terms, e.g. differences in purpose,
interactiveness, production circumstances, relations among participants, there are usually
important linguistic differences among registers as well (Biber 1995, 1).
Having discussed the concept of register, another linguistic concept which sometimes is
used almost interchangeably with it requires some more detailed research in order not to
confuse two different notions. Such a notion usually compared to register is genre. Attempts
to investigate this phenomenon were various. The French word „genre‟ has the meaning
„kind‟ (Johnstone 2002, 155). Carter (1997, 27) calls genres „types of text‟. One of the
scholars which investigated genre as such was M. M. Bakhtin. According to him (1986, 60),
20
all human activities cannot be separated from the language use. In all spheres where people
encounter with the use of language there evolve „relatively stable types‟ of utterances.
Bakhtin calls these types of utterances „speech genres‟. Genres are not independent units of
language manifestation. They differ in terms of subject matter, situation and participants. The
scholar Bakhtin (1986, 61) pays attention to the fact that even though there have been lots of
studies of literary genres, they have not been investigated as “<…> specific types of
utterances distinct from other types, but sharing with them a common verbal (language)
nature”. For this reason, it is important to look at the other scholars‟ ideas concerning the
phenomenon of genre.
The significant ideas about genres are ascribed to Swales who presents genre as “a class
of communicative events” (1991, 45). According to him, a „communicative event‟ is one in
which the role of the language is essential. The linguist proceeds with an explanation that
some shared set of „communicative purposes‟ is required to turn a group of communicative
events into a genre. Swales calls genres „communicative vehicles for the achievement of
goals‟. The following component of Swale‟s definition of genre is a variety of genres
according to their prototypicality. He uses prototype theory developed by Rosch to explain
why one or another member of a certain community can be considered more or less
prototypical. In this way, Swales applies this theory to explain genres. If, for instance, the
typicality of birds is based on such facts as having wings, being able to fly, putting eggs, or
tweeting, the typicality of genres is decided upon such features as form, structure and
audience expectations. The fourth component of the definition is the fact that “the rationale
behind a genre establishes constraints on allowable contributions in terms of their content,
positioning and form” (Swales 1991, 52). Genres are necessary for members of discourse
communities as genres participate in the communicative realization of the goals of the
members of discourse communities. Similarly, Figuiredo (2010, 128) states that “Virtually
everything we do involves some kind of genre”. In addition, Fairclough (2004, 26) concurs
that different genres are different ways of (inter)acting discoursally. If any major change in
the communicative purpose occurs, it may lead to the change of genre. Sub-genres may be
distinguished according to minor changes in the communicative purpose (Bhatia 1993, 13). In
addition, Paltridge (2011, 82) agrees: “One of the key ways in which people communicate
with each other is through the participation in particular communicative events, or genres”.
According to Johnstone‟s (2002, 156) definition, genre is “a conventionally verbal form
associated with a conventionalized purpose or occasion”. As McCarthy and Carter (1995, 24)
claim: “The idea that there may be underlying recurrent features which are prototypically
21
present in particular groups of texts is an important one in language teaching at the present
time”.
Coming back to what was said explaining the concept of register, three concepts of
field, mode and tenor were important to its definition and cognition. We cannot escape from
the same three concepts while presenting the concept of genre as Martin (2005, 45) claims
that genre is an additional level of context „above and beyond tenor, field, and mode‟. By
conditioning the way in which field, mode and tenor are recurrently mapped onto one another
in a given culture, genre makes meanings by shaping register (Martin 2009, 18). From these
ideas it becomes clear that the notions of genre and register are truly closely related, and
investigation of one more or less touches the investigation of another. This relation can be
reflected in this way: language functions as the particular pattern in a register, and register as
well as language functions as the particular pattern in a genre. This scheme is shown in Figure
1:
Figure 1: Language, register and genre (Martin 2009, 11).
Lee‟s (2001, 46) explanation can serve for making a divide between the terms of
„register‟ and „genre‟. Lee suggests using the term „register‟ viewing a text as language tied to
certain broad societal situation. He calls register a „variety according to use.‟ As for „genre‟,
Lee tends to use this term viewing the text as a member of a category: „a culturally recognised
artifact‟, a culturally defined grouping according to purposive goals. Furthermore, Lee claims
that genres are instantiations of registers. More than one register can be invoked by a genre.
Genres are descriptors of socially constituted, functional categories of text. The term „genre‟
can be used when speaking about whole texts, while „register‟ is about more abstract,
linguistic patterns, and exists independently of any text-level structures. As McCarthy and
Carter (1995, 26) claim: “<…> though features of the register may vary (eg the relationship
established), the underlying genre pattern is usually maintained”. Leckie- Tarry (1993, 40)
22
separates „register‟ from „genre‟ in a way that the term „register‟ is more suitable for the focus
on discourse smaller than the whole text. „Genre‟ suggests the priority of context over
linguistic forms and patterns and looks at the text as a complete event, with formalized
organizational schemata.
Both these terms, „register‟ and „genre‟, are significant in linguistic analysis. Although
linguists pay attention to the influence of register on the linguistic choices made by speakers,
Bhatia (1993, 15) claims that a much closer relationship between the form of linguistic
resources and their functional values is likely to be found within a genre compared to any
other concept accounting for linguistic variation. Also, Bhatia (1993, 24) distinguishes three
levels of linguistic analysis significant to genre analyst. These levels are „analysis of lexicogrammatical features‟, „analysis of text-patterning or textualization‟, and „structural
interpretation of the text-genre‟. For this thesis the analysis of textualization is significant as
one of the questions of interest of this thesis is the use of cohesive devices in the creation of
texts. According to McCarthy and Carter (1995, 90), cohesion not only links sentences and
utterances on the surface of the text, but also pays its part in creating genres and registers.
Taking everything into account, the terms of register and genre are both important for
discourse analysis. In order to characterize the text under analysis properly, its belonging to
one or another register and genre has to be evaluated strictly. In this thesis the influence of the
choice of the genre upon the use of cohesive devices will be investigated. This choice is based
on the above expressed assumption that as the research touches upon analysis of
textualization, it is rational to follow the use of the particular concept of genre as it is the
environment allowing the revelation of the connection between the form of language units and
their function.
23
6. DENSITY AND DISTRIBUTION OF COHESIVE DEVICES IN THE TEXTS
OF LITERARY AND LEGAL GENRES
In previous chapters of this MA thesis, concepts of text and discourse, cohesion and
coherence, cohesive ties and cohesive devices, genre and register were presented. The
following chapters present the concepts of reference, substitution and ellipsis, conjunction and
lexical cohesion as well as reveal the results of the research. To answer the research question
(in what ways does the textual genre influence the use of cohesive devices and what types of
cohesive devices prevail in the texts of literary and legal genres?) the research was carried
out. The data was collected from the following sources: a novel The Great Gatsby by F. Scott
Fitzgerald and nine examples of Standards and Agreements belonging to the category of legal
text taken from the official websites dedicated to the companies which function in various
kinds of business. (The exact names of the websites where the documents were taken from
and their abbreviations used presenting the examples can be found in the list of sources in the
1st appendix). Both literary and legal texts were of approximately the same length: more or
less 48.000 words from the novel (the whole novel was investigated episode by episode
picking out the occurrences of cohesive devices) and more or less 48.000 words from nine
examples of legal text.
Each source was closely examined so as to identify the types of cohesive devices that
manifest themselves in it. The following major groups of cohesive devices were identified:
reference, substitution and ellipsis, conjunction, lexical cohesion. Sentences were grouped
according to the types of cohesive devices that manifest themselves in the sources analysed.
After collecting the data, the density and distribution of cohesive devices within them were
compared so as to identify the particular density and distribution of cohesive devices in the
analysed texts of literary and legal genres. All texts were investigated carefully and the results
of the research are presented in the following chapters of this thesis.
6.1 General overview of density and distribution of cohesive devices in the texts of
literary and legal genres
The idea, expressed by Hoey (1991, 9), that lexical cohesive relations are the most
important of all the types of cohesive devices, led to the expectations that the possible results
of both different genres would demonstrate the same highest density of lexical cohesive
24
devices. However, this research shows slightly different results. Density and distribution of
major groups of cohesive devices are demonstrated in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Density and Distribution of Major Groups of Cohesive Devices in the Texts of
Literary and Legal Genres
Reference in the literary text was the prevailing cohesive device. It made up 50% of all
the cohesive devices that manifested themselves in the literary text. However, in the legal
genre, reference constituted only 8% of all the cohesive devices that were noticeable.
Substitution and Ellipsis represent 6% of all the cohesive devices in the literary genre
and only 1% in the legal genre.
Conjunction is the smallest group of cohesive devices in literary and legal genres as it
demonstrated only 4% of all cohesive devices in fiction and only 1% of all cohesive devices
in legal documents.
Lexical cohesion has the highest density in the legal genre, which constitutes 90% of all
the cohesive devices; it is prominent in the literary genre as well where it makes up 40% of all
the cohesive devices.
Density and distribution of all kinds of cohesive devices in the texts of literary and legal
genres are presented in Figure 3 in a more detailed way.
25
Figure 3. Density and Distribution of All Kinds of Cohesive Devices in the Texts of Literary
and Legal Genres
All in all, 5086 instances of cohesive devices were recorded in the text of literary genre
and 4427 in the texts of legal genre.
Among all the cohesive devices in the literary text, there were 2275 cases of personal
reference. It constitutes the absolute majority which is 45%.
Among all the cohesive devices in the literary text, there were 269 cases of
demonstrative reference. It comprises 5%.
Among all the cohesive devices in the literary text, there were 45 cases of nominal
substitution and ellipsis. It makes up 1%.
Among all the cohesive devices in the literary text, there were 62 cases of verbal
substitution and ellipsis. It also constitutes 1%.
Among all the cohesive devices in the literary text, there were 178 cases of clausal
substitution and ellipsis. It has 3%.
26
Among all the cohesive devices in the literary text, there were 192 cases of conjunction.
It comprises 4%.
Among all the cohesive devices in the literary text, there were 948 cases of simple
lexical repetition. It makes up 19%.
Among all the cohesive devices in the literary text, there were 37 cases of synonymy. It
constitutes 1%.
Among all the cohesive devices in the literary text, there were 973 cases of meronymy.
It constitutes 19% as well.
Among all the cohesive devices in the literary text, there were 107 cases of hyponymy.
It has 2%.
Among all the cohesive devices in the legal texts, there were 42 cases of personal
reference. It constitutes 1%.
Among all the cohesive devices in the legal texts, there were 312 cases of demonstrative
reference. It comprises 7%.
Among all the cohesive devices in the legal texts, there were 26 cases of nominal
substitution and ellipsis. It makes up 1%.
Among all the cohesive devices in the legal texts, there were no cases of verbal
substitution and ellipsis and clausal substitution and ellipsis.
Among all the cohesive devices in the legal texts, there were 56 cases of conjunction. It
comprises 1%.
Among all the cohesive devices in the legal texts, there were 3710 cases of simple
lexical repetition. It makes up the absolute majority, 84%.
Among all the cohesive devices in the legal texts, there were 32 cases of synonymy. It
constitutes 1%.
Among all the cohesive devices in the legal texts, there were 177 cases of meronymy. It
constitutes 4%.
Among all the cohesive devices in the legal texts, there were 72 cases of hyponymy. It
has 1%.
Having analysed the data, the following assumptions can be made. Reference was
identified as the prevailing cohesive device in fiction because of the fact that each and
individual author employs his/her own preferable choices in the use of cohesive devices. As it
can be seen from the results, personal reference is employed most often in the investigated
novel. In legal documents, reference is not so frequent because of the fact that the language of
legal documents belongs to a more restricted genre than that of a novel, and a restricted genre
27
requires to make the choices in the creation of texts where the language follows the similar
earlier established patterns; therefore, linguistic choices are not creative. Substitution and
ellipsis demonstrated higher density and wider distribution in the literary genre because
literary texts usually contain dialogues as, according to the definition in Oxford Advanced
Learner‟s Dictionary of Current English (2007), the first meaning of a word dialogue is
“conversations in a book, play, or film / movie”. Also, fiction allows occurrences of
ambiguity which could be caused by the misinterpretation of the ellipted item. In a dialogue
some phrases can be ellipted or substituted by other lexical items, but they do not ruin the
whole comprehension of the text. In legal documents, the existence of higher density of
substitution and ellipsis would cause the unwanted consequences of misinterpretation; it could
even lead to the undesirable violations of the points of agreements which could end the
cooperation of the parties signing those documents. This is the reason for the low frequency
of this type of cohesive devices in legal documents. The lowest frequency of conjunction in
the literary genre as well as in legal genre could be accounted for the fact that this research
concentrated on the use of cohesive devices joining only two different sentences but not parts
of sentences together. It was noticed that F. S. Fitzgerald avoids beginning his sentences with
the use of conjunction. Speaking about legal documents, the use of lexical items, which join
different parts of text in those documents, is considerable; therefore, the extra use of
conjunction in most cases becomes irrelevant. The group of lexical cohesive devices which
has demonstrated the highest density in legal documents and second highest density in the
literary text can be justified by the fact that lexical cohesive devices, like synonyms, allow to
reveal the beauty of language in fiction as well as express its poetic function whereas in legal
documents simple lexical repetition allows to avoid ambiguities, helps clearly state all the
facts and demands as well as to avoid the wrong treatment of the documents.
In the following sections of this paper, each of cohesive devices will be defined and
discussed in a more detailed way.
6.2 Reference
There are distinguished two big classes of cohesive relations. These are grammatical
cohesive devices and lexical cohesive devices. By linking some element in one sentence with
some element in another, cohesive devices create ties between sentences. The first of these
cohesive devices is reference (Johnstone 2002, 101). In some literature, the phenomenon of
reference is presented using the term co-reference (Brown and Yule 1996, 192; McCarthy
28
1991, 35). Martin (2005, 36) defines reference in this way: “Reference refers to resources for
referring to a participant or circumstantial element whose identity is recoverable”. According
to Hoey (1991, 5), “Reference does not mark semantic relations; it is a semantic relation and
occurs whenever an item indicates that the identity of what is being talked about can be
retrieved from the immediate context”.
As Halliday and Hasan (1976, 31) claim, there are certain items in every language
which have the property of reference. Instead of being interpreted semantically in their own
right, they make reference to something else for their interpretation. In English, these items
are articles, personals, demonstratives and comparatives. Consider the following examples:
(6) It was lonely for a day or so until one morning some man, more recently arrived
than I, stopped me on the road.
„How do you get to West Egg village?‟ he asked helplessly. (F. S. F. 9-10)
The third person personal pronoun he in the example (6) refers to man;
(7) His family were enormously wealthy – even in college his freedom with money was a
matter for reproach – but now he‟d left Chicago and come East in fashion that rather took
your breath away: for instance, he‟d brought down a string of polo ponies from Lake
Forest. It was hard to realize that a man in my own generation was wealthy enough to do
that. (F. S. F. 12)
The determiner that in the example (7) refers to he‟d brought down a string of polo
ponies from Lake Forest. It is wider reference which includes part of the situation;
(8) Benny McClenahan arrived always with four girls. They were never quite the same
ones in physical person, but they were so identical one with another that it inevitably seemed
they had been there before. (F. S. F. 69)
The adjective same in the example (8) refers to four girls. It is comparative reference.
Referential items indicate that information has to be retrieved from elsewhere. When an
item in one sentence refers to an item in another sentence, referential ties are created. Readers
or hearers have to refer to part of some other sentence in order to interpret part of one
sentence. This particular type of cohesion called reference is characterized by the specific
nature of the information that is signalled for retrieval. In this case, the information to be
retrieved is the referential meaning. The cohesion is created in the continuity of reference
when the same thing enters into the discourse a second time. What is important about
reference is that it has the semantic property of definiteness, or specificity (Halliday and
Hasan 1976, 31-32; Johnstone 2002, 101).
29
In addition, another important characteristic of reference is that it is a semantic relation.
Usually the distinction between situational reference (reference in a situation) and reference
within the text is made. Halliday and Hasan suggest calling situational reference
and reference within the text
ENDOPHORA
EXOPHORA
(Halliday and Hasan 1976, 33). Halliday (1990,
290) declares that: “It seems quite likely that reference first evolved as an „exophoric‟
relation: that is, as a means of linking „outwards‟ to some person or object in the
environment”. Endophoric reference is subdivided into anaphoric (to preceding text) and
cataphoric (to following text). According to Halliday and Hasan (1976, 33), what is vital to
every instance of reference either endophoric (textual) or exophoric (situational) is that there
is a presupposition that has to be satisfied; the thing referred to has to be identifiable. A
reference item is an item which has the reference potential. Furthermore, Paltridge (2011,
131) as well as Brown and Yule (1996, 192), Johnstone (2002, 101), Hatch (1992, 224), and
McCarthy (1991, 35) distinguish the main reference patterns: “<…> anaphoric, cataphoric,
exophoric, and homophoric reference”. When a word or phrase refers back to another word or
phrase used earlier in a text, we have anaphoric reference. When a word or phrase refers
forward to another word or phrase which is used later in a text, we have cataphoric reference.
When we need to look outside the text to the situation in which the text occurs to identify the
item being referred to, we have exophoric reference. When the identity of the item can be
retrieved by reference to cultural knowledge, in general, rather than the specific context of the
text, we have homophoric reference (Paltridge 2011, 131-132). As my research focuses on
texts, only endophoric reference will be analysed.
As already mentioned, Halliday and Hasan (1976, 37) distinguish three types of
reference: personal, demonstrative and comparative. Reference by means of function in the
speech situation, through the category of person is personal reference. In the system of
reference known as
PERSON,
where “person” is used in the special sense of “role”, the
traditionally recognized categories are
FIRST PERSON, SECOND PERSON
and
THIRD PERSON,
intersecting with the NUMBER categories of SINGULAR and PLURAL. The term PERSON can be a
little misleading, as the system includes not only “impersonal” meanings but also reference
that is truly non-personal, reference to objects (Halliday and Hasan 1976, 44-45). As it was
mentioned above in this thesis, the basic referential category of person was deictic. The first
and second person personal pronouns I and you still possess their deictic sense, while the third
person personal pronouns he, she, it, and they can either be used deictically or perform the
function of reference in the text (Buitkienė 2005, 19).
30
Halliday and Hasan (1976, 37) define demonstrative reference as a reference by means
of location, on a scale of proximity. Demonstrative reference can be expressed by the
circumstantial (adverbial) demonstratives here, there, now and then, nominal demonstratives
this, these, that, those, and the definite article the.
Halliday and Hasan (1976, 37) explain: “Comparative reference is indirect reference by
means of identity or similarity”. Comparison can be general and particular. General
comparison means comparison simply in terms of likeness or unlikeness, without respect to
any particular property. It is expressed by a certain class of adjectives and adverbs. They are
called
ADJECTIVES OF COMPARISON
and
ADVERBS OF COMPARISON.
Particular comparison
means comparison in respect of quantity or quality. It is expressed by means of ordinary
adjectives and adverbs in some comparative form.
Two things compared can be the same thing, then the likeness takes the form of
identity; or two things can be like each other, then the likeness takes the form of similarity.
Otherwise, two things are different. If we compare two things in respect of a particular
property, the property in question may be a matter of quantity or of quality (Halliday and
Hasan 1976, 76-80).
In the following subchapter the results of the investigation of reference will be
presented and discussed in a more detailed way.
6.2.1 Reference in the texts of literary and legal genres
The first type of cohesive devices investigated in this research belongs to the group of
referential cohesive relations. The frequency of personal reference and demonstrative
reference in the texts of literary and legal genres was compared. Personal reference was
accounted for having in mind the occurrences of reference expressed by possessive pronouns
as well. It is important to mention that while investigating the examples of demonstrative
reference, the definite article the was not taken into an account because of its very frequent
employment in texts. The results of the density and distribution of personal and demonstrative
reference between the analyzed texts of literary and legal genres are presented in Figures 4
and 5.
31
Figure 4. Density and Distribution of Personal and Demonstrative Reference in the Text of
Literary Genre
Figure 5. Density and Distribution of Personal and Demonstrative Reference in the Texts of
Legal Genre
Reference in fiction. As can be seen from Figure 4 above, personal reference in the text
of fiction outnumbered demonstrative reference by nine times. Personal reference comes up to
89% of all the occurrences of reference in the novel, and demonstrative reference stands for
the rest 11%.
Personal reference in fiction. In this research the manifestations of 3rd person personal
pronouns such as she, he , it or they and possessive pronouns such as his/her or their have
32
been significant because 1st and 2nd person personal and possessive pronouns do not serve for
showing the relation between sentences but merely points to the speaker in this way
performing their deictic function. In fiction there can be noticed the repetition of the same
personal or possessive pronoun as well as the repetition of the same proper noun which can be
identified as the person to whom it is referred to. In this way, cohesive chains are created.
Consider the following example:
(9) The sister, Catherine, was a slender, worldly girl of about thirty, with a solid, sticky
bob of red hair, and a complexion powdered milky white. Her eyebrows had been plucked
and then drawn on again at a more rakish angle, but the efforts of nature toward the
restoration of the old alignment gave a blurred air to her face. When she moved about there
was an incessant clicking as innumerable pottery bracelets jingled up and down upon her
arms. She came in with such a proprietary haste, and looked around so possessively at the
furniture that I wondered if she lived here. But when I asked her she laughed immoderately,
repeated my question aloud, and told me she lived with a girl friend at a hotel. (F. S. F. 36)
In the example (9) all personal pronouns she refer back to Catherine anaphorically, and
so do possessive pronouns her.
The item which is referred to can function anaphorically as well as cataphorically. To
illustrate:
(10) „What do you think?‟ he demanded impetuously.
„About what?‟
He waved his hand toward the book-shelves.
„About that. As a matter of fact you needn‟t bother to ascertain. I ascertained. They are
real.‟
„The books?‟
He nodded. (F. S. F. 51)
In the example (10) personal pronoun they cataphorically refers to the books.
The analysis of the data collected from The Great Gatsby indicated that in most cases,
the use of possessive pronouns is inseparable from the use of lexical cohesive items. These
data could be explained by the phenomenon mentioned by Quirk et al (1995, 1329) called
inalienable possession which requires that nouns which are usually considered as permanent
attributes of a person would be used together with possessive pronouns. As in the following
example:
(11) Mrs Wilson had changed her costume some time before, and was now attired in an
elaborate afternoon dress of cream-coloured chiffon, which gave out a continual rustle as she
33
swept about the room. With the influence of the dress her personality had also undergone a
change. The intense vitality that had been so remarkable in the garage was converted into
impressive hauteur. Her laughter, her gestures, her assertions became more violently
affected moment by moment, and as she explained the room grew smaller around her, until
she seemed to be revolving on a noisy, creaking pivot trough the smoky air. (F. S. F. 36-37)
In the example (11) there can be noticed the following cohesive chain: Mrs Wilson, her
personality, her laughter, her gestures, her assertions, she, she. The possessive pronouns her
are used together with lexical cohesive items. In the example analysed, they are used to
present the character features of the person, in this case Mrs Wilson, as well as the sounds the
person produces, the movements made, etc.
Demonstrative reference in fiction. The data showed that demonstrative reference in
fiction can be expressed by determiners this, that, these, those, and place adverbs here and
there. Speaking about demonstrative reference, it could be mentioned that in some examples,
especially in dialogues, in the identified cases, determiners this and that serve to reveal the
spatial deixis between the speaker and the object mentioned. For example:
(12) The man peered doubtfully into the basket, plunged in his hand and drew one up,
wriggling, by the back of the neck.
„That‟s no police dog,‟ said Tom.‟ (F. S. F. 33)
In the example (12) the demonstrative that is used to speak about the one dog which
was drawn out of the basket, implying that Tom, while making the remark, could see that the
dog was lifted up.
There are other cases when demonstratives followed by lexical items are used to refer
back to what was said or done. Consider the following example:
(13) „Five, with Becker.‟ His nostrils turned to me in an interested way. „I understand
you‟re looking for a business gonnegtion.‟
The juxtaposition of these two remarks was startling. (F. S. F. 77)
In the example (13) the demonstrative these followed by the lexical items two remarks
is used to refer to the above remarks made by the speaker.
What is more, in some cases the demonstrative reference was expressed by place
adverbs such as here or there. To illustrate:
(14) We talked for a few minutes on the sunny porch.
„I‟ve got a nice place here,‟ he said, his eyes flashing about restlessly. (F. S. F. 13)
In the example (14) the place adverb here refers to the site where the dialogue of the
characters of the novel takes its place.
34
In addition, Halliday and Hasan (1976, 66) distinguish one more type of demonstrative
reference which they call “extended reference”. To express this type of reference singular
forms of this and that without a following noun are used. The data collected revealed that
extended reference is used in fiction as well. Consider the following example:
(15) They had spent a year in France for no particular reason, and then drifted here
and there unrestfully wherever people played polo and were rich together. This was a
permanent move, said Daisy over the telephone, but I didn‟t believe it – I had no sight into
Daisy‟s heart, but I felt that Tom would drift on forever seeking, a little wistfully, for the
dramatic turbulence of some irrecoverable football game. (F. S. F. 12)
In the example (15) this refers to the total event their drifting here.
Reference in legal documents. The distribution of different types of reference in the
texts of legal genre was presented in Figure 5 above. As it is apparent from this figure,
demonstrative reference outnumbered personal reference in legal documents by seven times.
Consequently, the distribution is as follows: personal reference stands for 12% of all the
referential cohesive devices and demonstrative reference makes up to 88%.
Personal reference in legal texts, contrary to the literary text, was not expressed by
personal pronouns he or she but by the impersonal pronoun it. In fiction personal pronouns he
or she are justified as the referents to the characters; however, in business documents there is
spoken more about impersonal entities, such as businesses, premises, goods, services. E.g.:
(16) The Seller has good and merchantable title to all of its properties and assets that
constitute “Business” as defined herein. At Closing, such properties and assets will be
subject to no mortgage, pledge, lien, conditional sales agreement, security agreement,
encumbrance or charge, secured or unsecured, except for those taxes which shall be prorated as of the date of Closing. Seller has or will pay all debts incurred by it up to the date of
occupancy by Buyer including all employee compensation and utilities. (B. P. A. 3)
In the example (16) the personal pronoun it refers back to “Business” anaphorically.
Demonstrative reference in legal documents. It is important to mark that in legal
documents demonstrative reference does not serve as a pure type of cohesion because in the
documents analysed it points exophorically to the document which is read. Besides this, it is
expressed through determiners such as “this” or “these” together with the lexical cohesive
devices. E.g.:
(17) Copyright © 1995-2012 Fairtrade Labelling Organizations International. All
rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
35
or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording
or otherwise without full attribution. (C. F. S. P. O. 1)
(18) Seller covenants and represents:
a. That Seller is the sole owner of the Assets with full right to sell or dispose of it as
Seller may choose, and no other person has any claim, right, title, interest, or lien in, to, or on
the Business or Assets.
b. That Seller has no undischarged obligations affecting the Assets being sold under
this Agreement. (A. P. A. 2)
In the examples (17) and (18) this publication and this Agreement exophorically refer to
the document held in hands of the reader.
The observed difference among the density and distribution of personal and
demonstrative reference in the novel and in the legal documents can be justified by the fact
that different genre requires a different choice of the use of cohesive devices. As literary text
is dependent on the author‟s free will of how he/she expresses the ideas, there are no
necessary rules which restrict the prevalence of one or another referential item. The legal
documents follow the old traditions of the use of the legislative writing. According to Bhatia
(1993, 101-102), to the specialist community linguistic devices in legislative writing bring in
precision, clarity and unambiguity and all-inclusiveness. The personal reference in them
would complicate the text itself, and it is inappropriate as one of the goals of the use of
language in documents is its clarity leaving no place for wrong treatment. Demonstrative
reference in legal documents strengthens the importance of the propositions in those
documents. Also, it follows the canonical patterns of language use in legal texts.
6.3 Substitution and ellipsis
One of the very important aspects of using the language is the wish to save time while
speaking. In order not to use too many words and keep the speech coherent, cohesive relation
in forms of substitution and ellipsis is employed. According to Halliday and Hasan (1976,
88), substitution and ellipsis are another type of cohesive relation, which takes two different
forms. We can think about substitution and ellipsis as the processes within the text. The
replacement of one item by another can be treated as substitution. The omission of the item
can be called ellipsis. Buitkienė (2005, 19) explains: “When ellipsis is used, we presuppose
something by means of what is left out. A substitute serves as a place-holding device or some
pro-form, showing where something has been omitted and what its grammatical function
36
could be”. Basically, substitution and ellipsis are the same process. “<…> ellipsis can be
interpreted as that form of substitution in which the item is replaced by nothing” (Halliday &
Hasan 1976, 88).
Both substitution and ellipsis prevent repetition. They are unimaginable if hearer/ reader
is unable to retrieve the missing information from the surrounding context. Neither
substitution nor ellipsis can be used when there arise any doubts as to what is being
substituted or ellipted (Buitkienė 2005, 19).
As Halliday and Hasan (1976, 89) define: “Substitution is a relation between linguistic
items, such as words or phrases <…>”. It is important to mention that substitution is ascribed
to lexico-grammatical level. For example:
(19) My house was at the very tip of the egg, only fifty yards from the Sound, and
squeezed between two huge places that rented for twelve or fifteen thousand a season. The
one on my right was a colossal affair by any standard <…>. (F. S. F. 11)
In the example (19) one serves as a substitute for a place.
In addition, the structural function of the substitute item coincides with the structural
function of that for which it substitutes. Substitution is mainly anaphoric and in this way
constitutes a link between parts of a text.
Different items of substitution are distinguished according to the criterion of the
grammatical function of the substitute item. There are three types of substitution: nominal,
verbal, and clausal. These types are distinguished according to contexts where they occur: the
nominal group, the verbal group, and the clause. The linguistic items that occur as nominal
substitutes are: one, ones; same. The only verbal item is do. Clausal items are: so, not
(Halliday & Hasan 1976, 89-91).
In the nominal group, nominal substitutes can substitute for any countable noun, e.g.:
(20) Try using this lipstick. That one does not suit you. (My example)
In the example (20) one serves as a substitute for lipstick.
According to Halliday (1990, 300), substitution in the verbal group can substitute for
any verb provided it is active not passive, except be or, in some contexts, have.
The clause substitutes are so and not which correspond in meaning to yes and no type of
ellipsis which will be presented a little bit later. E.g.:
(21) „Does the gasoline affect his noise?‟
„I don‟t think so,‟ she said innocently. (F. S. F. 92)
In the second sentence of the example (21) so serves as a substitute for the gasoline
affects his noise.
37
(22) „Why, I thought – why, look here, old sport, you don‟t make much money, do
you?‟
„Not very much‟. (F. S. F. 89)
In the second sentence of the example (22) not serves as a substitute for Not very much
money I make.
As it was mentioned before, Halliday and Hasan (1976, 142) call ellipsis “substitution
by zero”. An essential feature of ellipsis is that ellipsis represents something what was unsaid
but understood using the presupposition. McCarthy (1991, 43) defines ellipsis in this way:
“Ellipsis is the omission of elements normally required by the grammar which the
speaker/writer assumes are obvious from the context and therefore need not be raised”.
Consider the example (13):
(23) „Did you keep it?‟ asked Jordan.
„Sure I did‟. (F. S. F. 49)
In the second sentence of the example (23) keep it is presupposed.
Halliday and Hasan (1976, 143) specify that ellipsis can be found in sentences, clauses,
etc whose structure is such as to presuppose some preceding item, which then serves as the
source of the missing information. Ellipsis cannot exist without the presupposition. If the
structure of an item does not express all the features that have gone into its make-up – all the
meaningful choices that are embodied in it, an item is elliptical.
Ellipsis as well as substitution is a relation within the text. In most cases the
presupposed element is present in the preceding text. The difference between these two
notions lies in the fact that in substitution if the presupposed item is replaced, the slot in the
substitution counter must be deleted, whereas in the ellipsis the slot remains empty –
substitution by zero occurs (Halliday & Hasan 1976, 144-145).
The different types of ellipsis coincide with the types of substitution. They are: nominal
ellipsis, verbal ellipsis, and clausal ellipsis. Nominal ellipsis means ellipsis within the nominal
group. It often involves omission of a noun headword:
(24) “Nelly liked the green tiles; myself I preferred the blue” (McCarthy 1991, 43).
In the example (24) tiles after blue is omitted.
Verbal ellipsis means ellipsis within the verbal group. McCarthy (1991, 43)
distinguishes two types of verbal ellipsis: echoing and auxiliary contrasting. When an element
from the verbal group is repeated, we have echoing. When the auxiliary changes, contrasting
occurs. E.g.:
(25) „You didn‟t look so interested.‟
38
„Well, I was‟. (F. S. F. 115)
In the second sentence of the example (25) interested is ellipted.
“There are also occasions on which a whole clause is ellipted, and this, of course,
constitutes clausal ellipsis proper” (Butler 2003, 353). Also, individual clause elements may
be omitted (McCarthy 1991, 44). Ellipsis in the clause is related to mood. It is related to the
question-answer process in dialogue. For this reason there are two kinds: yes / no ellipsis, and
WH- ellipsis, E.g.
(26) „Did you see any trouble on the road?‟ he asked after a minute.
„Yes‟. (F. S. F. 150)
In the second sentence of the example (26) I saw some trouble on the road is omitted.
(27) „What‟s the matter?‟
„I‟m all run down.‟ (F. S. F. 129)
In the second sentence of the example (27) the matter is is omitted.
Substitution and ellipsis are very closely interrelated. As McCarthy (1991, 46) claims,
ellipsis and substitution take a lot information from the context. Ellipsis and substitution
proceed on the basis that omitted and substituted elements are easily recoverable, and for this
reason, are natural in speech situations where a high degree of contextual support is available.
The effect of substitution and ellipsis is cohesive because both of them require the listener to
recover the missing elements from what has gone before. In addition, ellipsis usually creates
the context for substitution. In this way, they are very often found together.
6.3.1 Substitution and ellipsis in the texts of literary and legal genres
As Figure 2 on page 25 shows, the frequency of substitution and ellipsis as cohesive
devices differs significantly in the texts of literary and legal genres. In this research the
instances of substitution in texts were counted together with the instances of ellipsis following
the presumption that the existence of ellipsis creates conditions for substitution to appear. In
both genres, literary as well as legal, nominal substitution and ellipsis, verbal substitution and
ellipsis, and clausal substitution and ellipsis were investigated. The results are presented in
Figures 6 and 7.
39
Figure 6. Density and Distribution of Substitution and Ellipsis in the Text of Literary
Genre
40
Figure 7. Density and Distribution of Substitution and Ellipsis in the Texts of Legal
Genre
Substitution and ellipsis in fiction. As Figure 6 shows, nominal substitution and ellipsis
account for 1% of all manifestations of cohesive devices in fiction. Verbal substitution and
ellipsis also stand for 1%, and clausal substitution and ellipsis take 3%.
Nominal substitution and ellipsis in fiction were typically used in the dialogic
language. For example:
(28) „My dear, ‟she cried, „I‟m going to give you this dress as soon as I‟m through with
it. I‟ve got to get another one to-morrow. (F. S. F. 42)
In the example (28), in the second sentence the word dress is ellipted and substituted by
one.
Analysing verbal substitution and ellipsis in fiction, the claim of Halliday and Hasan
(1976, 181) that the presupposition of a finite verbal group by a non-finite or vice versa is
unrestricted was confirmed. To illustrate:
(29) Then she added irrelevantly: „You ought to see the baby.‟
41
„I‟d like to.‟ (F. S. F. 16)
In the example (29) in the replying remark to see the baby is omitted.
Of all the three types of substitution and ellipsis in fiction the clausal one was the most
prominent in The Great Gatsby. E.g.:
(30) „You see I think everything‟s terrible anyhow,‟ she went on in a convinced way.
„Everybody thinks so – the most advanced people. (F. S. F. 24)
In the example (30), in the second sentence, everything‟s terrible anyhow is ellipted and
replaced by the substitute so.
As can be seen from the above examples, the literary text is that environment in which
ellipsis and substitution can reveal themselves not only for the economy of language, but also
for the creation of a more lively and more naturalistic sounding discourse.
Substitution and ellipsis in legal texts. Contrary to the data collected from fiction, in
the legal texts there is almost no place left for the use of substitution and ellipsis. As can be
seen from Figure 7 above, only one type, which is nominal substitution and ellipsis, is
employed in the texts of legal genre, and it makes up only 1% of all kinds of cohesive devices
present in the legal texts. There were no cases of verbal substitution and ellipsis or clausal
substitution and ellipsis marked in the legal documents.
In legal texts nominal substitution and ellipsis with the substitute one/ones occurred
only when the substitute one/ones functioned as Head of a nominal group and substituted only
for an item which was itself Head of a nominal group (Halliday and Hasan 1976, 91).
Consider the following example:
(31) There are three standard types of dispute resolution. Here is a brief description of
each one:
■ Mediation is a non-binding intervention between parties in an informal setting in
order to promote resolution of a dispute. (S. F. O. A. F. D. S. 114)
In the example (31) standard type of dispute resolution is ellipted and replaced by one;
types is the Head of the nominal group three standard types of dispute resolution and one is
the Head of the nominal group each one.
Such a small amount of occurrences of substitution and ellipsis in legal texts could be
explained by the fact that more effort is needed to comprehend a text when something is
substituted or ellipted; however, documents should be as clear as possible. As legal
documents, according to Bakhtin (1986, 63) belong to a more restricted genre, which does not
allow the creative use of language, the employment of substitution and ellipsis in legal
documents is avoided.
42
6.4 Conjunction
Probably the most easily recognizable type of cohesive relation is that of conjunction.
Conjunctions are different from the other cohesive devices because the ability to join ideas is
hidden in their nature. It is important to mark that conjunctions have different roles at the
levels of the sentence and of the text. For the purpose of signalling the cohesion only can
serve those conjunctions which operate in the trans-sentential level. Conjunctions are the
closed class of linguistic items; it means that new conjunctions are not supposed to appear in
this grammatical class together with the change of language. The investigation of
conjunctions was one of the first compared to the other cohesive devices. Quirk et al (1982,
189) present conjuncts as adverbials or prepositional phrases having primarily a connective
function. Also, they speak about coordinators and, or, but which are able to participate in
clause coordination as well as in phrasal coordination. Furthermore, the scholars explain that
the possible relationships between sentences linked by above mentioned coordinators and
conjuncts are in general the same as those between clauses linked by these coordinators or
conjuncts. Halliday and Hasan (1976, 226) present that: “conjunctive elements are cohesive
not in themselves but indirectly, by virtue of their specific meanings; they are not primarily
devices for reaching out into the preceding (or following) text, but they express certain
meanings which presuppose the presence of other components in the discourse”. Paltridge
(2011, 139) claims that conjunction refers to words that join phrases, clauses or sections of a
text in such a way that they voice the „logical-semantic‟ relationship between them.
Conjunctive relations may appear in a number of different ways. They have a highly
cohesive effect when they function alone, unaccompanied by other explicit connecting
factors. What is important is that it is the underlying semantic relation that has the cohesive
power (Halliday & Hasan 1976, 227-229). Consider the following example:
(32) His voice faded off and Tom glanced impatiently around the garage. Then I heard
footsteps on a stairs, and in a moment the thickish figure of a woman blocked out the light
from the office door. (F. S. F. 31)
In the example (32) the relation of sequence in time is expressed by an adverb,
functioning as Adjunct, and occurring initially in the second sentence.
There are some conjunctive relations expressed with a preposition. In addition, “<…>
many conjunctive expressions occur in two more or less synonymous forms, one with and the
other without a demonstrative” (Halliday & Hasan 1976, 230).
43
According to Brown and Yule (1996, 191) “A familiar type of explicitly marked
cohesive relationship in texts is indicated by formal markers which relate what is about to be
said to what has been said before – markers like and, but, so and then”. Types of explicit
markers of conjunctive relations are:
“a. additive:
and, or, furthermore, similarly, in addition
b. adversative: but, however, on the other hand, nevertheless
c. causal:
so, consequently, for this reason, it follows from this
d. temporal:
then, after that an hour later, finally at last”
(Brown and Yule, 1996; 191)
The particular type of discourse we create allows the usage of different conjunctive
items as cohesive terms (Hatch 1992, 225). Consider the following examples of additive,
adversative, clausal, and temporal conjunction:
(33) „No, he doesn‟t,‟ said Tom coldly. „And if you feel that way about it, maybe I‟d
better sell it somewhere else after all.‟ (F. S. F. 31)
In the example (33) and is used to create additive conjunction between sentences.
(34) Evidently some wild wag of an oculist set them there to fatten his practice in the
borough of Queens, and then sank down himself into eternal blindness, or forgot them and
moved away. But his eyes, dimmed a little by many paintless days, under sun and rain, brood
on over the solemn dumping ground. (F. S. F. 29)
In the example (34) but is used to create adversative conjunction between sentences.
(35) He was insensitive to her words. Consequently, there were a lot of tears. (My
example)
In the example (35) consequently is used to create causal conjunction between
sentences.
(36) She looked at me and laughed pointlessly. Then she flounced over to the dog,
kissed it with ecstasy, and swept into the kitchen, implying that a dozen chefs awaited her
orders there. (F. S. F. 38)
In the example (36) then is used to create temporal conjunction between sentences.
Under the heading of additive cohesive relations there are grouped together both of the
types that appear structurally in the form of coordination, the „and‟ type and the „or‟ type.
Besides this, there is a negative form of the additive relation manifesting itself as „nor‟ type.
The conjunctive „or‟ relation has the meaning of alternative. The semantic pattern of
similarity is also put under the heading
ADDITIVE.
In this type the cause of cohesion is the
comparison of what is being said with what has gone before. It corresponds to the negative
44
comparison where the meaning is dissimilarity. Also, conjunctive relations of exposition,
exemplification, and afterthought belong to this heading (Halliday & Hasan 1976, 244-250).
Halliday and Hasan (1976, 250) point out that “The basic meaning of the ADVERSATIVE
relation is „contrary to expectation‟.” This relation can have the aspect of expressing the sense
of
CONTRASTIVE.
Also, to this relation belongs the expressing of the sense of
And last but not least, the expression of
DISMISSIVE
CORRECTION.
relations belongs to the subcategory of
adversative conjunction too.
Causal relations can be general and specific (reason, result, purpose), reversed causal
relations general and conditional, and respective relations.
The relation of what is being said in two successive sentences may be the sequence in
time. This is the place where temporal relation can be found. Conjunctive relations of the
temporal type are: simple temporal relations (sequential, simultaneous, preceding), complex
temporal relations (immediate, interruptive, repetitive, specific, durative, terminal, punctiliar),
conclusive relations (simple, sequential and conclusive), „here and now‟ relations (past,
present, future), and summary relations (culminative, resumptive) (Halliday & Hasan 1976,
261-267).
6.4.1 Conjunction in the texts of literary and legal genres
In this research all types of conjunctive relations between the different sentences have
been considered important. These types are: additive, adversative, causal, and temporal
conjunctive relations. The results of conjunction as a cohesive device in the texts of literary
and legal genres are presented in Figures 8 and 9.
45
Figure 8. Density of Conjunction in the Text of Literary Genre
Figure 9. Density of Conjunction in the Texts of Legal Genre
Figures 8 and 9 demonstrate that the frequency of occurrence of conjunction was low in
the literary as well as in the legal genre. In the literary text conjunction makes up only 4% of
all the cohesive devices, and in legal texts conjunction has only 1%.
Conjunction in fiction. In the novel The Great Gatsby the most popular conjunctives
were: additive and, adversative but, temporal then, and after that. Consider the following
examples:
46
(37) I am still a little afraid of missing something if I forget that, as my father
snobbishly suggested, and I snobbishly repeat, a sense of the fundamental decencies is
parcelled out unequally at birth.
And, after boasting this way of my tolerance, I come to the admission that it has a limit.
(F. S. F. 7)
Example (37) shows how and alone is used as a cohesive item.
(38) „That‟s right,‟ corroborated Tom kindly. „We heard that you were engaged.‟
„It‟s a libel. I‟m too poor.‟
„But we heard it,‟ insisted Daisy, surprising me by opening up again in a flower-like
way. (F. S. F. 26)
In the above example but is used to express the contradiction to what was said before.
(39) His voice faded off and Tom glanced impatiently around the garage. Then I heard
footsteps on a stairs, and in a moment the thickish figure of a woman blocked out the light
from the office door. (F. S. F. 31)
The example (39) reveals the situation when then expresses the sequential sense
between the actions in these two sentences.
(40) Wild rumours were circulating about her – how her mother had found her packing
her bag one winter night to go to New York and say good-bye to a soldier who was going
overseas. She was effectually prevented, but she wasn‟t on speaking terms with her family for
several weeks. After that she didn‟t play around with the soldiers any more, but only with a
few flat-footed, short-sighted young men in town, who couldn‟t get into the army at all. (F. S.
F. 82)
The example (40) demonstrates how after that expresses a sequence of the events.
In legal documents conjunction was used to present some extra points covered in
agreement. For example:
(41) Total bean equivalents = 1.25 + 2.66 = 3.91 MT. 
In addition, mass balance conversions are only allowed in the direction that is
physically possible:
- 1 MT of beans can be converted into 800 Kg of liquor OR into 376 Kg of butter and
424 Kg of powder
- 1 MT of liquor can be converted into 470 Kg of butter and 530 Kg of powder <…>.
(C. F. S. P. O. 5)
In the example (41) in addition links the two separate formulas.
47
The adversative conjunctive element however in legal documents serves explaining the
details. E.g.:
(42) When two products are purchased under the same contract, the processing costs
should be calculated only once. However, these products must be purchased using the
processing proportions. (C. F. S. P. O. 8)
In the example (42) however restricts the exact conditions following which products can
be purchased.
Moreover, conjunctions used in legal documents help to express similarity in the
context where the requirements for the signing of the agreement are presented, consider the
following example:
(43) Buyer shall indemnify and hold Seller harmless from any and all liabilities and
obligations arising from Buyer‟s operation of the business after the Closing. Similarly, Seller
shall indemnify and hold Buyer harmless from any and all liabilities and obligations arising
from Seller‟s operation of the business prior to the Closing. (B. P. A. 5)
In the example (43) additive conjunctive element similarly expresses the identical
functions of the Business buyer and Seller.
As the data shows, conjunctive elements in legal documents are useful as transition
signals joining several paragraphs together; they also serve for the text further development.
The low frequency of conjunction in fiction could be expounded by the fact that conjunction
itself is a little bit „mechanical‟ form of cohesion which allows different parts of text to be
hung together. Cohesion in legal documents is created mainly by the use of lexical cohesive
devices; therefore, conjunction is helpful only from time to time, when the aspect of focus
changes in the text.
6.5 Lexical cohesion
Lexical cohesion can be defined as “<…> the cohesive effect achieved by the selection
of vocabulary” (Halliday & Hasan 1976; 274). It refers to relationships in meaning between
lexical items in a text and content words and the relationship between them (Paltridge 2011,
133). Lexical cohesion plays an important role in binding the sentences together; however,
McGee (2009, 212) claims that “<…> the use of lexical cohesive ties does not, necessarily,
make a text more coherent, or „better‟ than another”. From the beginning of the research of
text cohesion, the importance of lexical cohesive devices was a matter of question. According
to Hoey (1991, 7), various types of lexical cohesive devices are in the first place types of
48
lexical relation and only their secondary role is that of marking the textual relation.
Nevertheless, he admits that lexis has the text-forming properties and claims: “<…> the text
provides the context for the creation and interpretation of lexical relations, just as the lexical
relations help create the texture of the text”. Consequently, the scholar makes a conclusion
that lexical cohesion can be considered the most important form of cohesive tie.
All the types of cohesion discussed before, such as reference, substitution and ellipsis,
conjunction, belong to what is called grammatical cohesion. Halliday and Hasan draw a
borderline between grammatical cohesion and lexical cohesion and put the cohesive function
of the class of general noun in between. A small set of nouns having generalized reference
belongs to the class of general noun (Halliday & Hasan 1976, 274-275).
Halliday and Hasan (1976, 288) present the classification of lexical cohesion in this
way:
1. Reiteration
(a) same word (repetition)
(b) synonym (or near-synonym)
(c) superordinate
(d) general word
2. Collocation
The first of these two classes – reiteration can be defined as “<…> a form of lexical
cohesion which involves the repetition of a lexical item, at the one end of the scale; the use of
a general word to refer back to a lexical item, at the other end of the scale; and a number of
things in between – the use of a synonym, near-synonym, or superordinate” (Halliday &
Hasan 1976, 278). E.g.:
(44) „Absolutely real – have pages and everything. <…> Pages and – Here! Lemme
show you.‟ (F. S. F. 51-52)
In the example (44) there is the repetition of the same lexical item pages.
(45) Wild animals have the capability to catch food themselves. This ability prevents
them from extinction. (My example)
In the example (45) there is the synonymy between the words capability and ability.
(46) A child ran into the room. The girl was in a hurry. (My example)
In the example (46) the word child is the superordinate of the word girl.
(47) I believe that on the first night I went to Gatsby‟s house I was one of the few guests
who had actually been invited. People were not invited – they went there. (F. S. F. 47)
In the example (47) the word people is the general word.
One type of reiteration – repetition can be categorized into simple lexical repetition and
complex repetition. Stotesbury (1993, 334) clarifies that “Simple lexical repetition <…>
49
means that lexical items appear in an identical form in text or, if there are differences, these
are only within the same grammatical paradigm <…>”. Consider the following example:
(48) „You must know Gatsby.‟
„Gatsby?‟ demanded Daisy. „What Gatsby?‟ (F. S. F. 17)
In the example (48) the repetition of Gatsby is the simple lexical repetition.
Complex repetition covers the cases sharing a lexical morpheme and the identical forms
which have different grammatical functions (Hoey 1991, 55; Stotesbury 1993, 334). E.g.:
(49) Two o‟clock and the whole corner of a peninsula was blazing with light, which fell
unreal on the shrubbery and made thin elongating glints upon the roadside wires. Turning a
corner, I saw that it was Gatsby‟s house, lit from tower to cellar. (F. S. F. 88)
In the example (49) the repetition of light and lit is an example of complex lexical
repetition.
The classification of other items that belong to lexical cohesion is based on their
paradigmatic relations. Paradigmatic relations occur between words which constitute certain
lexical-semantic word groups, the so-called semantic fields. A semantic field is made up out
of words joined by at least one common feature of their meaning. (Jakaitienė 1980, 28-29).
Explaining lexical cohesion Halliday and Hasan use the traditional concept of sense
relation with certain additions. “The three sense relations generally recognized in the literature
on semantics are those of
SYNONYMY, ANTONYMY
and
HYPONYMY.
Whenever two lexical
expressions stand in any of these relations, a cohesive tie is established” (Halliday & Hasan
1991, 80). Lexical ties are able to cross short or large pieces of the discourse. In this way, they
are either “short” or “long” (Hatch 1992, 226).
One of the instances of reiteration can be synonymy. The origin of the term synonym is
from the Greek roots syn „alike‟ and onym „name‟. This term is used talking about words
which mean the same as each other. Words which belong to the category of synonyms are
either absolute synonyms or sense synonyms. Absolute synonyms mean that words can
substitute each other in all possible contexts without experiencing any changes in denotation
or other aspects of meaning. Sense synonyms are called those which each have one sense that
means the same as one of the other word‟s senses. In addition, there exist near-synonyms and
variants. When words can often substitute for each other in some contexts, but not in every
context, they are called near-synonyms. If sense synonyms denote the same things, but differ
in register and connotation, they are called variants of one another (Murphy 2012, 110-112).
Consider an example of synonymy:
50
(50) This morning five accidents happened. In one of the car crashes no one survived.
(My example)
In the example (50) accidents and crashes are used synonymously.
Another case of sense relations when a cohesive tie is established is antonymy. Halliday
and Hasan (1991, 80) describe antonymy as “<…> the oppositeness of experiential meaning
<…>”. Of all the sense relations discussed only antonymy holds between pairs of words (a
word has only one antonym in a particular sense). “Antonymy is a relation between two
lexemes that share all relevant properties except for one that causes them to be incompatible”
(Murphy 2012, 118). The subtypes of antonym relation are: contrary antonyms, scalar
antonyms, gradable antonyms, complementary (contradictory) antonyms, converse antonyms,
reversive antonyms, and directional antonyms. E.g.:
(51) I lived at West Egg <…>. Across the courtesy bay the white palaces of fashionable
East Egg glittered along the water <…>. (F.S.F. 11)
In the example (51) West and East are used as antonyms.
Furthermore, the relation of hyponymy plays a significant role in creating a cohesive tie.
This relation is explained by Halliday and Hasan (1991, 80) as “<…> a relation that holds
between a general class and its subclasses. The item referring to the general class is called
SUPER-ORDINATE;
those referring to its sub-classes are known as its
HYPONYM”.
Consider the
following example:
(52) There are certain animals which have lived together with humans since ancient
times. Cats are ones of those animals. (My example)
In the example (52) animals is the super-ordinate of cats.
Moreover, the sense relation of meronymy can serve in creating cohesive ties, too.
Meronymy is a part – whole relation. A part is represented by the term meronym, and a whole
is referred to by the term holonym. E.g.:
(53) Daisy‟s face, tipped sideways beneath a three-cornered lavender hat, looked out at
me with a bright ecstatic smile. <…> The exhilarating ripple of her voice was a wild tonic in
the rain. (F. S. F. 92)
In the example (53) voice is a meronym of Daisy.
Besides this, Halliday and Hasan (1976, 284) distinguish one more type of lexical
cohesion as they call it: “cohesion that is achieved through the association of lexical items that
regularly co-occur”. These lexical items are collocations. If lexical items in a pair are in some
way associated with each other in the language, there is always a possibility of cohesion
between them. A very marked cohesive effect derives from the occurrence in proximity with
51
each other of pairs whose meaning relation is not easy to classify in systematic semantic
terms. The cohesive effect of such pairs depends on their tendency to occur in collocation
with one another. “In general, any two lexical items having similar patterns of collocation –
that is, tending to appear in similar contexts – will generate a cohesive force if they occur in
adjacent sentences” (Halliday & Hasan 1976, 286). Consider the following example:
(54) „You‟re lucky it was just a wheel! A bad driver and not even trying!‟ (F. S. F. 61)
In the example (54) words wheel and driver occur as a collocation.
Lexical cohesion constitutes a significant part among all cohesive relations. Various
types of lexical cohesion were investigated in this research. The results of the investigation
are presented in a following sub-chapter of this paper.
6.5.1 Lexical cohesion in the texts of literary and legal genres
All types of cohesion introduced in details before belong to grammatical cohesive
devices; however, there is one more group left to present which is very important as well.
This group is lexical cohesive devices. The data accumulated in this research proves that their
density and distribution significantly varies from genre to genre. The results obtained by
investigating lexical cohesion are presented in Figures 10 and 11. In this research the
occurrences of simple and complex repetition due to the very small number of occurrences of
complex repetition were analysed under the same heading Simple Lexical Repetition. Other
types of lexical cohesion investigated were synonymy, hyponymy and meronymy. Antonymy
and collocations were not included in the investigation due to their very low frequency in the
analysed texts.
52
Figure 10. Density and Distribution of Lexical Cohesion in the Text of Literary Genre
Figure 11. Density and Distribution of Lexical Cohesion in the Texts of Legal Genre
Lexical cohesion in fiction. As can be seen from Figure 10 above, in the literary text
lexical repetition constitutes 46% of all the lexical cohesive devices, synonymy accounts for
only 2%, meronymy has 47%, and hyponymy demonstrates the remaining 5%.
These results are a little bit surprising because previous researches of the use of
cohesive devices described in Hoey (1991) demonstrated lexical repetition as having the
highest frequency among all the cohesive devices. The data accumulated performing the
analysis of cohesive devices used in The Great Gatsby showed that meronymy is as important
53
as lexical repetition in the analysed text (the percentage of meronymy is slightly higher than
that of lexical repetition). This data could be justified by the fact that meronymy is helpful in
descriptions of the characters where it is used to reveal characters‟ appearances, actions. The
occurrences of meronymy which serves for characters‟ development also demonstrated the
existence of possessive pronouns. Once again, the notion of inalienable possession in English
explains why, for instance, the parts of person‟s body cannot be mentioned without the
particular possessive pronouns. For example:
(55) The nature of Mr Tostoff‟s composition eluded me, because just as it began my
eyes fell on Gatsby, standing alone on the marble steps and looking from one group to
another with approving eyes. His tanned skin was drawn attractively tight on his face and
his short hair looked as though it were trimmed every day. (F. S. F. 56)
In the example (55) his tanned skin, his face, his short hair are meronyms used to
present the physical appearance of Gatsby.
In addition, meronyms are used for the description of buildings and places:
(56) Their house was even more elaborate than I expected, a cheerful red-and-white
Georgian Colonial mansion, overlooking the bay. The lawn started at the beach and ran
toward the front door for a quarter of a mile, jumping over sun-dials and brick walls and
burning gardens – finally when it reached the house drifting up the side in bright vines as
though from the momentum of its run. The front was broken by a line of french windows,
glowing now with reflected gold and wide open to the warm windy afternoon, and Tom
Buchanan in riding clothes was standing with his legs apart on the front porch. (F. S. F. 1213)
In the example (56) the front door, brick walls, the front, french windows, the front
porch serve as the meronyms of the house in this way creating the clearer picture of that
house, presenting additional details about it.
Simple lexical repetition was one of the most easily identifiable cohesive devices in the
text. It logically signals the relation between the sentences and allows the reader not to lose
himself/herself in the text. For example:
(57) Miss Baker and I exchanged a short glance consciously devoid of meaning. I was
about to speak when she sat up alertly and said „Sh!‟ in a warning voice. A subdued
impassioned murmur was audible in the room beyond, and Miss Baker leaned forward
unashamed, trying to hear. (F. S. F. 21)
The example (57) demonstrates simple lexical repetition of the lexical item Miss Baker.
In text not necessarily proper nouns are repeated. E.g.:
54
(58) „Ask Myrtle,‟ said Tom, breaking into a short shout of laughter as Mrs Wilson
entered with a tray. She‟ll give you a letter of introduction, won‟t you, Myrtle?‟
„Do what?‟ she asked startled.
„You‟ll give McKee a letter of introduction to your husband, so he can do some studies
of him.‟ (F. S. F. 39)
In the example (58) proper noun Myrtle is repeated as well as common noun phrase a
letter of introduction.
Synonymy in fiction. As can be seen from Figure 9 above, synonymy represents the
lowest density of lexical cohesive items in fiction. In many cases synonyms in the
investigated novel were used in one and the same sentence; therefore, the percentage of
synonyms used as cohesive devices to connect different sentences was so low. In those cases
when synonyms helped to create cohesion, they were also useful when the author wanted to
express similar ideas or strengthen and continue what was said before. For example:
(59) The fact that gossip had published the banns was one of the reasons I had come
East. You can‟t stop going with an old friend on account of rumours and on the other hand I
had no intention of being rumoured into marriage. (F. S. F. 26)
In the example (59) there are synonyms gossip, rumours.
(60) I bought a dozen volumes on banking and credit and investment securities, and
they stood on my shelf in red and gold like new money from the mint, promising to unfold the
shining secrets that only Midas and Morgan and Maecenas knew. And I had the high
intention of reading many other books besides. (F. S. F. 10)
In the example (60) the lexical item books in the second sentence refers back to volumes
mentioned in the first sentence anaphorically and these two lexical items are synonyms to one
another.
In fiction the instances of hyponymy were not very frequent. In the cases where
hyponymy is used one of the items serves as a superordinate. For example:
(61) „No, it‟s not exactly a police dog,‟ said the man with disappointment in his voice.
„It‟s more of an Airedale.‟ He passed his hand over the brown washrag of a back. „Look at
that coat. Some coat. That‟s a dog that‟ll never bother you with catching cold‟. (F. S. F. 33)
In the example (61) dog is the superordinate, police dog and Airedale are co-hyponyms.
(62) Mrs Wilson had changed her costume some time before, and was now attired in an
elaborate afternoon dress of cream-coloured chiffon, which gave out a continual rustle as she
swept about the room. With the influence of the dress her personality had also undergone a
change. (F. S. F. 36)
55
In the example (62) dress is a hyponym of a costume. These two lexical items reveal the
cohesion between the sentences in the example discussed.
Lexical cohesion in legal documents. As can be seen from Figure 11 above, the
distribution of lexical cohesive devices in the texts of legal genre was as follows: the
prevailing type of cohesive devices belongs to lexical repetition – 93% of all the lexical
cohesive devices, all the other groups were not so dense – meronymy constitutes 4%,
hyponymy demonstrates 2%, and synonymy has the rest 1%.
In legal documents, the prevailing type of cohesive devices belongs to the group of
simple lexical repetition. The identical lexical items are constantly repeated and they signal
cohesion between the sentences. According to Bhatia (1993, 101), repetitions are one of the
linguistic peculiarities of legal discourse. Simple lexical repetition makes the text coherent
and unambiguous. To illustrate:
(63) SECURITY DEPOSIT: At the signing of this Lease, Tenant shall deposit with
Landlord, in trust, a security deposit of $500.00 as security for the performance by Tenant of
the terms under this Lease and for any damages caused by Tenant, Tenant's family, agents
and visitors to the Premises during the term of this Lease. Landlord may use part or all of the
security deposit to repair any damage to the Premises caused by Tenant, Tenant's family,
agents and visitors to the Premises. However, Landlord is not just limited to the security
deposit amount and Tenant remains liable for any balance. Tenant shall not apply or deduct
any portion of any security deposit from the last or any month's rent. Tenant shall not use or
apply any such security deposit at any time in lieu of payment of rent. If Tenant breaches any
terms or conditions of this Lease, Tenant shall forfeit any deposit, as permitted by law. (L.
W. O. T. P. 2)
In the example (63) Lease, Tenant, Landlord, Tenant‟s family, Premises demonstrate
simple lexical repetition.
Examples of meronymy noted in legal documents were not truly typical constituent
parts of the sentences. As documents are very specific forms of text which consist of not only
of full sentences, but also of parts of text expressed in various forms of tables, lists and
appendices, it was decided to consider a manifestation of meronymy in a document which
also speaks about buildings where different rooms of the premises are enumerated for
inspection check as well as parts that these rooms consist of and objects in those rooms. E.g.:
(64)
PREMISES INSPECTION MOVE-IN / MOVE-OUT
The Premises should be inspected immediately before the Lease is
signed or the premises are occupied Address of Premises:
56
Move In date
Inspected by (for Landlord)
MOVE-IN
Move out date
Inspected by (for Tenant)
Comments
OK NO
00
Bedroom 1
00
Bedroom 2
00
Bedroom 3
00
Bathrooms
00
Entry Area
Living Areas 0 0
00
Balcony
00
Carpeting
00
Ceilings
00
Closets
00
Dishwasher
00
Disposal
Drapes I
00
Blinds
00
Doors
00
Fireplace
00
Lights
00
Locks
00
Patio
00
Refrigerator
00
Screens
00
Storage
00
Stove
00
Walls
00
Windows
Window
00
coverings
00
Yard
NOTES:
(L. W. O. T. P. 7).
MOVE-OUT
Comme
nts
OK NO
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
In the example (64) all the lexical items in the left column such as Bedroom 1, Bedroom
2, Balcony, Doors serve as meronyms of the Premises.
In those documents which were related to purchasing and selling goods the cases of
hyponymy were also conspicuous:
(65) Guidance: Operators may apply the higher conversion rate for butter only (2.66)
or for powder only (2.36) according to the major product sold/or used in production. Using
this method, it is not required to count the minor product. For example, if operators know
they will sell more butter than powder, they can apply the conversion rate of 2.66 to all butter
volumes and not count their powder volumes. (C. F. S. P. O. 5)
In the example (65) product is hypernym, butter and powder are co-hyponyms.
57
The least prominent group of lexical cohesive devices in the legal genre is the group of
synonymic relations. It is important to mention that legal documents demonstrate the specific
nature of legal discourse, i.e. the sentence length can be an above-average, and syntactical
discontinuities can occur (Bhatia 1993, 106; 111). Therefore, synonyms sometimes appear in
elliptical sentences. For example:
(66) Injunction. On the closing date, there shall be no effective injunction, writ,
preliminary restraining order, or any order of any nature issued by a court of competent
jurisdiction directing that the transactions provided for herein or any of them not be
consummated as herein provided. (A. P. A. 4)
In the example (66) these synonyms can be noticed: injunction; writ; order.
(67) A warranty is a promise in a contract. It is a written guarantee that the subject of
the agreement is as represented. (S. F. O. A. F. D. S. 111)
Warranty, promise, guarantee in the example (67) are synonyms.
As can be seen from the results of the research, density and distribution of lexical
cohesion differ from genre to genre. As literary genre demonstrated wider distribution of
different kinds of lexical cohesion, in legal genre the only one prevailing type is that of lexical
repetition. These results could be explained by the fact that in legal documents, where one‟s
fantasy is not truly welcomed, the lexical repetition allows remembering the most important
points in the text better, clearly shows where to put the attention. Such lexical cohesive
devices as synonyms, meronyms or hyponyms, which enrich the language in fiction, are not
useful when signing the documents; therefore, these items are avoided in the legal genre in
order not to cause confusion for the addressee and protect from the mistakes which could be
the result of wrongly decoded referent of meaning.
58
CONCLUSIONS
After carrying out the research, the following conclusions can be made:
 Taking everything into account, the genre has a considerable influence on the density
and distribution of cohesive devices. Literary text which belongs to a more open genre
demonstrates wider distribution of more types of cohesive devices; this distribution is more or
less even among cohesive devices having either high or low density: reference makes up 50%,
substitution and ellipsis represent 6%, conjunction comprises 4% and lexical cohesion
constitutes 40%. Legal texts which belong to a more restricted genre demonstrate a high
density of lexical cohesive devices which is 90% and a very low density of the other types of
cohesive devices which is represented as follows: reference constitutes 8%, substitution and
ellipsis represent 1% and conjunction comprises 1%.
 Most frequently used cohesive devices in fiction belong to the group of reference and
in legal documents to the group of lexical cohesion. Reference as prevailing type of cohesive
devices in fiction constitutes 50% which is a half of all cohesive devices in fiction. This high
frequency could be explained by the fact that reference helps to signal the connections
between different sentences and retrieve the particular information which allows recognising
different elements of the text as parts of the same unit without which literary text would lose
its coherence. Lexical cohesion as prevailing type of cohesive devices in legal documents
comprises 90% which is an absolute majority of all cohesive devices in legal documents. This
high frequency could be explained by the fact that lexical cohesive devices clearly reveal
connections between different sentences and help to establish clarity and prevent from
ambiguities which could be caused by wrong decoding of a particular referent which is highly
undesirable in legal documents.
 Lexical cohesion in the investigated novel is mostly expressed by the meronymic
lexical relations that constitute 47% of all lexical cohesive devices, and simple lexical
repetition that constitutes 46% of all lexical cohesive devices. Meronymy is frequently
employed because in the investigated novel there are many descriptions of characters and
places. Lexical cohesion in legal documents is mostly expressed by simple lexical repetition
that makes up 93% of all lexical cohesive devices.
 Reference in fiction is mostly expressed by personal pronouns. Reference is
obviously influenced by the text generic dependence which has an impact on the choice of
referential items; that is as the data shows, personal reference prevails in fiction whereas
demonstrative reference prevails in legal documents. Personal reference is frequently
59
employed in fiction in order to refer to the same character without the exact repetition of the
name of that character.
 The literary genre demonstrates all possible types of substitution and ellipsis
(nominal, verbal and clausal) whereas in the legal genre this type of cohesive devices has a
very low frequency which is only 1% of nominal substitution and ellipsis without any
occurrences of verbal substitution and ellipsis. This data also reveals the close correlation
between the text generic dependence and the cohesive devices that are used in those texts.
 Conjunction is the least commonly employed type of cohesive devices in fiction as
well as in the legal documents as it comprises 4% of all cohesive devices in fiction and 1% of
all cohesive devices in legal documents.
For the further research, it would be useful to analyse the texts of fiction created by
different authors. Also, the investigation of other kinds of genres could be useful for further
linguistic studies in this field. In addition, the corpus (e.g. British National Corpus) based
studies would allow to investigate the significantly higher amount of data of texts belonging
to different genres.
60
SANTRAUKA
Šiame darbe gilinamasi į teksto ţanro įtaką tarpfrazinio ryšio priemonių pasirinkimui.
Tyrimo tikslas yra panagrinėti, kokią įtaką teksto ţanras turi renkantis tarpfrazinio ryšio
priemones literatūriniame ir teisiniame ţanruose. Tyrimui buvo pasirinkti šie tekstai: F. S.
Fitzgerald romanas „Didysis Getsbis“ ir devyni teisiniai dokumentai (standartai ir sutartys).
Literatūrinis ir teisiniai tekstai buvo panašaus ilgio ( apie 48000 ţodţių). Suformuluoti šie
tyrimo uţdaviniai:
1. Apibrėţti tipiškus tarpfrazinio ryšio priemonių vartojimo literatūriniame ir teisiniame
tekstuose modelius;
2. Identifikuoti tarpfrazinio ryšio priemonių vartojimo panašumus ir skirtumus tirtuose
skirtinguose ţanruose.
Buvo iškeltas šis tyrimo klausimas: kokią įtaką teksto ţanras daro tarpfrazinio ryšio
priemonių vartojimui ir kokie tapfrazinio ryšio priemonių tipai vyrauja literatūriniame ir
teisiniame ţanruose.
Tarpfrazinio ryšio priemonių vartojimo daţnumui ištirti buvo taikytas kiekybinis
poţiūris. Ţanro įtaka tarpfrazinio ryšio priemonių pasirinkimui buvo vertinta kokybiniu
poţiūriu. Tarpfrazinio ryšio priemonėms tekstuose išskirti buvo panaudotas turinio analizės
metodas.
Atlikus tyrimą teikamos šios išvados:
 Teksto ţanras iš esmės nulemia tarpfrazinio ryšio priemonių vartojimo daţnumą ir jų
pasiskirstymą tekste. Literatūriniai tekstai, būdami atviresni, suponuoja galimybę plačiau
panaudoti įvairesnes tarpfrazinio ryšio priemones. Uţdaresnio tipo teisiniai tekstai šių
vartojimo priemonių vartojimo galimybę daro gerokai siauresnę.
 Daţniausiai vartojamos tarpfrazinio ryšio priemonės literatūriniame tekste priklauso
referencijos tipui, o teisiniuose dokumentuose leksinio tarpfrazinio ryšio priemonių tipui.
 Literatūriniame tekste referencija daţniausiai reiškiama asmeniniais įvardţiais.
 Literatūrinio ţanro tekste sutinkami visi substitucijos ir elipsės tipai, tuo tarpu kai
teisinio ţanro tekste šis tarpfrazinio ryšio tipas yra vienas iš rečiausiai vartojamų.
 Jungtukinis ryšys ir literatūrinio, ir teisinio ţanrų tekstuose yra rečiausias.
 Iš visų leksinių tarpfrazinio ryšio priemonių tirtame literatūriniame tekste vyrauja
tiek meroniminis ryšys, tiek grynasis leksinis pakartojimas, o teisiniuose tekstuose – grynasis
leksinis pakartojimas.
61
REFERENCES
1. Bakhtin, M. M. 1986. Speech Genres and Other Late Essays [book online]. Austin:
University of
Texas
Press,
accessed
18
October
2013,
available
from:
http://books.google.lt/books?id=_LO_agE_GTcC&pg=PA60&lr=&source=gbs_toc_r
&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false
2. Bhatia, V. K. 1993. Analysing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. New
York: Longman.
3. Biber, D. 1995. Dimensions of Register Variation: A Cross-linguistic Comparison.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4. Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Leech, G. 2003. Student Grammar of Spoken and Written
English. Harlow: Longman.
5. Bikelienė, L. 2012. Teksto jungimo priemonių vartosena gimtakalbių ir negimtakalbių
studentų rašto darbuose anglų kalba. Gretinamoji konektorių analizė. PhD
dissertation. Vilnius: Vilniaus universitetas.
6. Brown, G. & Yule, G. 1996. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
7. Buitkienė, J. 2010. Are the Same Cohesive Patterns Used in English and Lithuanian
Texts? Studies about Languages, accessed 12 February 2013, available from
http://www.kalbos.lt/zurnalai/16_numeris/05.pdf
8. Buitkienė, J. 2005. Dar kartą apie diskursą ir koherenciją. Žmogus ir žodis, accessed 12
February 2013, available from
http://www.biblioteka.vpu.lt/zmogusirzodis/PDF/didaktinelingvistika/2005/buitkiene.
pdf
9. Buitkienė, J. 2005. Variability of Cohesive Devices Across Registers. Studies about
Languages, accessed 12 February 2013, available from
http://www.kalbos.lt/zurnalai/07_numeris/03.pdf
10. Buitkienė, J. 2001. Variation of Cohesive Devices in Different Registers. Žmogus ir
žodis, accessed 12 February 2013, available from
http://www.biblioteka.vpu.lt/zmogusirzodis/PDF/svetimosioskalbos/2001/buitk3-9.pdf
11. Butler, C. S. 2003. Structure and Function: A guide to Three Major StructuralFunctional Theories Part 2 From Clause to Discourse and Beyond [book online].
Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, accessed 07 August 2013,
available
from:
62
http://books.google.lt/books?id=lorZvkqSdA4C&pg=PA353&lpg=PA353&dq=clausa
l+ellipsis&source=bl&ots=lZ53vFgy1q&sig=lHnBnxm617cgl8elXqOKMAvx34c&hl
=lt&sa=X&ei=VhkCUpvyMYbqOM_9gfAL&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=
clausal%20ellipsis&f=false
12. Carter, R. 1997. Investigating English Discourse: Language, Literacy and Literature.
London: Routledge.
13. Cook, G. 1995. Discourse and Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
14. De Beaugrande, R. & Dressler, W. 1981. Introduction to Text Linguistics. London:
Longman.
15. Fairclough, N. 2004. Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research.
London: Routledge.
16. Figueiredo, D. 2010. Context, Register and Genre: Implications for Language
Education. Revista Signos, accessed 24 February 2013, available from:
http://www.scielo.cl/pdf/signos/v43s1/a08.pdf
17. Gee, J. P. 2002. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method. London:
Routledge.
18. Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, R. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
19. Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, R. 1991. Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of
Language in a Social-semiotic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
20. Halliday, M. A. K. 1990. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward
Arnold.
21. Halliday, M. A. K. 2002. Linguistic Studies of Text and Discourse. London:
Continuum
22. Hatch, E. 1992. Discourse and Language Education. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
23. Hoey, M. 1991. Patterns of Lexis in Text. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
24. Hoey, M. 2001. Textual Interaction: An Introduction to Written Discourse Analysis.
London: Routledge.
25. Hornby, A. S., Wehmeier, S., McIntosh, C., Turnbull, J., & Ashby, M. 2007. Oxford
Advanced Learner‟s Dictionary of Current English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
26. Jakaitienė, E. 1980. Lietuvių kalbos leksikologija. Vilnius: Mokslas.
27. Johnstone, B. 2002. Discourse Analysis. Molden: Blackwell Publishing.
63
28. Leckie- Tarry, H. 1993. The Specification of a Text: Register, Genre and Language
Teaching, accessed 24 February 2013, available from
http://www.postgradolinguistica.ucv.cl/dev/documentos/49,712,Leckie-Tarry.pdf
29. Lee, D. 2001. Genres, Registers, Text Types, Domains and Styles: Clarifying the
Concepts and Navigating a Path through the BNC Jungle. Language Learning &
Technology, accessed 24 February 2013, http://llt.msu.edu/vol5num3/lee/default.html
30. Lenk, U. 1998. Marking Discourse Coherence: Functions of Discourse Markers in
Spoken English. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag Tübingen.
31. Loos, E. E. (ed.) 2003. Glossary of Linguistic Terms [book online]. Dallas: SIL
International,
accessed
10
June
2013,
available
from:
http://www-
01.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOfLinguisticTerms/WhatIsADiscourse.htm
32. Martin, J. R. 2005. Cohesion and Texture, in Schiffrin, D., Tannen, D., & Hamilton,
H. E. (eds.) The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Malden: Blackwell Publishing, p.
35-53.
33. Martin, J. R. 2009. Language, Register and Genre. Applied Linguistics Methods,
accessed 24 February 2013, available from
http://elearning.ustb.edu.cn/UploadFile//20111230085828489.pdf
34. McCarthy, M. & Carter, R. 1995. Language as Discourse: Perspectives for Language
Teaching. New York: Longman.
35. McCarthy, M. 1991. Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
36. McGee, I. 2009. Traversing the Lexical Cohesion Minefield, ELT Journal, 63/3: 212 –
220.
37. Murphy, M. L. 2012. Lexical Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
38. Paltridge, B. 2011. Discourse Analysis. London: Continuum.
39. Poškienė, A. 2004. Kas yra diskursas. Kaunas: Technologija.
40. Poškienė, A. 2004. Language and Culture: Language Studies as Academic Culture.
Kaunas: Technologija.
41. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. 1982. A University Grammar of
English. Moscow: Vysšaja škola.
42. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. 1995. A Comprehensive Grammar
of the English Language. Harlow: Longman.
43. Renkema, J. 1993. Discourse Studies: An Introductory Textbook. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins Publishing Company.
64
44. Rühlemann, C. 2008. A Register Approach to Teaching Conversation: Farewell to
Standard English?, Applied Linguistics, 29/4: 672 – 693.
45. Schiffrin, D. 2001. Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
46. Stotesbury, H. 1993. Lexical Patterning in Text – A Way to Automatic Summaries, in
Löfman, L. & Kurki-Suonio, L. & Pellinen, S. & Lehtonen, J. (eds.). The Competent
Intercultural Communicator, AFinLA Yearbook 1993, accessed 16 August 2013,
available
from
https://www.jyu.fi/hum/laitokset/solki/afinla/julkaisut/arkisto/51/stotesbury
47. Swales, J. M. 1991. Genre Analysis/ English in Academic and Research Settings.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
48. Virtanen, T. 2008. Corpora and Discourse Analysis, in Lüdeling, A. & M. Kytö (eds.)
Corpus Linguistics: an International Handbook. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, p. 10431070.
49. Widdowson, H. G. 2004. Text, Context, Pretext: Critical Issues in Discourse Analysis.
Malden: Blackwell Publishing.
50. Zamel, V. Teaching Those Missing Links in Writing. ELT Journal, accessed 02
November 2013, available from
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/31433831_Teaching_those_missing_links_in
_writing1
65
APPENDICES
Appendix 1
THE LIST OF SOURCES AND THEIR ABBREVIATIONS
1. Asset Purchase Agreement, accessed 11 February 2014, available from:
https://www.rocketlawyer.com/secure/interview/new.aspx?id=1573&try=1&v=3&utm
_source=1024#q1 (In the paper abbreviated as A. P. A.)
2. Business Purchase Agreement, accessed 11 February 2014, available from:
https://www.rocketlawyer.com/secure/interview/questions.aspx?document=35923611
&utm_source=1024&v=3#q1 (In the paper abbreviated as B. P. A.)
3. Example of a Residential Lease with Option to Purchase, accessed 11 February 2014,
available from:
https://www.onecpd.info/resources/documents/exampleresleasewithpurchaseoption.pdf (In
the paper abbreviated as L. W. O. T. P.)
4. Fairtrade Standard for Cereals for Small Producer Organizations, accessed 11 February
2014, available from:
http://www.fairtrade.net/fileadmin/user_upload/content/2009/standards/documents/20
12-04-01_EN_SPO_Cereals.pdf (In the paper abbreviated as F. S. C. F. S. P. O.)
5. Fairtrade Standard for Cocoa for Small Producer Organizations, accessed 11 February
2014, available from:
http://www.fairtrade.net/fileadmin/user_upload/content/2009/standards/documents/20
13-12-19_EN_SPO_Cocoa_final.pdf (In the paper abbreviated as C. F. S. P. O.)
6. Fairtrade Standards for Fibre Crops for Small Producer Organizations, accessed 11
February 2014, available from:
http://www.fairtrade.net/fileadmin/user_upload/content/2009/standards/documents/20
11-10-15_EN_SPO_Fibrecrops_Standard.pdf (In the paper abbreviated as C. F. S. P.
O.)
7. Fitzgerald, F. S. 1994. The Great Gatsby. London: Penguin Books. (In the paper
abbreviated as F. S. F.)
8. Standard Form of Agreement for Design Services, accessed 11 February 2014, available
from: http://www.flourishdesignstudio.com/assets/aiga_9standard_agreement_09.pdf
(in the paper abbreviated as S. F. O. A. F. D. S.)
9. Standard Terms and Conditions for Interactive Advertising for Media Buys One Year or
Less, accessed 11 February 2014, available from:
66
http://www.iab.net/media/file/IAB_4As_tsandcs_Education_FINAL.pdf (In the paper
abbreviated as I. A. M. B.)
10. Stock Purchase Agreement, accessed 11 February 2014, available from:
https://www.rocketlawyer.com/secure/interview/questions.aspx?document=35923703
&utm_source=1024&v=3#q1 (In the paper abbreviated as S. P. A.)
In addition, one more source was used for examples. It is: Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan,
R. 1991. Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-semiotic Perspective.
Oxford: Oxford University Press. In the paper abbreviated as H.
67