COEESION AND COMMUMCATION
(Semantic PersPective)
Oleh
I
Dwi Winrrsih
ABSTMK
Foli,s artikzl ini adalah hubwgan ant@a kohesi, Pada kategogi
senantic ilan konunikasi. Hal le$ebul metuid. Pada t ubuagan
aflatu tinguistil ilen yang direali\asikaa dengan Perunghal kolesi
dau penghubung kahesi. Konunikasi fieliPuti interytetosi nalna
dan lnplikatw dan nalsuel tla sebuah wacana. Pada komunikosi
vqbat, koheci emhontu orang yang sedang be*ornunikasi untu*
nengikuti ptoposisi pada sual wacana Hal ini bisa dildkl!*tn
itengot nenanfaa,kqn perunglat Lohesi sepeli rcference'
subttitltro4 e ipsts,.conjuttction, afid letical
xalo *unct: ioh?,,l, l@murtl/{o$, proPosbt
A'
TNTRODUCTTON
A discourse rnight be in the form of spoken or wdtlen. It is
presented as a unit of language use. Liaguisic behavior in general
io4sisb ofthe use of sentences for the creation. It is not about the
Foduction of loos€ utteranc€ but it deals with utt€rances in whicb
they are related with a group ofan idea
SchiftirE Tamen, and Hamiltoo (2006) state that
communicative knowledge covers four aspects; expressive ability.
social abitity, cognitive a6ility, and textual ability. Thes€ aspect of
communicative knowledge alosely rclate to each other. Expressive
knowledge fructions to display personal identities aad attitudes and
to perfom actior, while social knowledge dtals wilh the ability to
45
Coh6l@
ddcorwnt@tiM (&@tic PeryectiE) (Det w.@It)
perfonn social idedity and to negotiate relationship between
oneself and others. The next aspec! cognitive knowtedge
r€prescnts corcapts snd ideas tluough language, The last asp€ct of
communicative knowledge refers to textual abfity to oryanize form
and convey meanings
in units of
language longer than a single
sentence.
Discourse shows connectedness, as it is mentioned atove
that disclurse is not a random set of utterances. This is the
distinction of discourle and something that is not a discous€. It has
c€I[ah linguistic feature pr€sented in the passage of language
which contains sentences supposed to be a discourse. The linguistio
characteristias here might be identified as supporting to its utrity
and prcvidiug its t€xtwe. The texhre facilitaies cohesive relation
which exists between items of the discouFe. Halli&y and Hasan
(1976) in senartic perspective call this relation as a'lie" and lhis
discoune ti€ has become a standard referenc.e which shows
coDnegigdness.
In the simplest way Halli<tay and Hasan ( 1985: l0 ) say thst a
text is language that is functional, By firnctional, we simply mean
language that is doitrg -some job in some cont€xl, as opposed to
isolated words or s€irt€aces. So any instance of living language that
is playing some pad i! I context of situation, we shall call a text, It
may b€ eithet spoken or writte4 or indwd in any other medium of
exFession that we like to.thitrk of
The important thing about the natue of I teKt is ih't, although
when we write it dowu it looks as though it is made of words and
sentenc€s, it is reelly made of meanings words and structues, in
'
in written symbols. It has to b€ coded il something in
commlmicated, but as a thing in itseE 8 text is
essentially a semantic unit ( Halliday ad Hasan, 1985 : l0 ).
Wbat make a r ritten- sentences and spoken dteralces
sound or
order
to be
arranged to b€ a unified text? They agree
46
to say that discourse has a
Itol. 32 Nd 2. I
5
a&t6tB 2N9 : 45-69
certain feature. Conceming with semantic pqspective, one of the
features pr€seqted by a discouse is the use of word such as and,
but, because, I mean, by the way, etc called markers fimction in
cognitive, expressive, social, snd textual domain. The use of these
conjunctiors (e.g. one, but, however) to make explicit lioks
between propositions in disoourse is another important cohesive.
(Halliday and Hasan, 1989:15)
B.
COIIESION
Cohesion is relations of meaning that exist within the text
(Haltiday and Hasan, 1992). The meaning of the cohesive relation
refers the same thing. lnterFetation of some elemcnts in discouse
is dep€trdent one snother. Cohesion uses explicit linguistics devices
to sigul telations bgt]v€en sentences and parts of texts The
cohesive devices arc phras€s or words that help the rca<iers or
listeners associate previous statements and subsequent ones. They
arc the links that hold a text together and give meaning.
A text is analyzed beyond the sentence level by using the
notion of cohesiol. It does oot only fi[ctioD to charactetize text
structure, but it also to study language dev€lopment and w tten
text. It provides a comprshensive set of discourse analysis for any
Enilish iext (Sanders and Maat, 2006).
The concept of coh€sion deals with text and textule.
Coulthard (199: 4)says that text is a string of words' While
Hauiday and Hassan (1976: 1-2) state that text is used in linguistics
to refer to any passage, spoken or writtur, of whatever length, tbat
does form a unified rr{role.
Coh€sion is the are4 of discourse compeience which is most
closely related with linguistic competlnce ( Halliday ard llasan,
1989). It deals with the lingrlistic elements that help generate texts.
Cohesion accounts for how pronouns, demoostrativq articles and
47
Colesi@
@tdco ndicati@ (SeMtic Pe.qectiye) (Dei,t'i@tih)
other marters signal textual co-rgf9lence il rmitteo and oral
discourse build a text. Cohesion also sc.counts for how conventions
of substitution aod ellipsis allow speakers / rlritets to indicate coclassfications and to avoid uinecessary rep€tition. The us€ of
conjunctions (e.g. one, but, however) to make explicit lhks
between propositions in discourse is anothei importatt coh93ive.
(Halliday and Hasan, 1989 : 15)
Text is a product of ideas, though a text does not slways refcr
to the witten form of.langu{ige use, Besides the wdtt form, a text
might be spoken form of language (Halliday, 1976 l). To
distinguish a text ftom a collection of seDte[cas we have to see
whether it has t€xture or not. The only Fop€rty of a text is that it
must have texh.Ee i,e, the meanings relations which arp corstitutive
to the whole inteDr€tation ( Halliday and Hasaq 1985 : 72 ). The
most important thing h texture is the cohesive ties whiah are
realized in the lexico -glammatiaal pattem,
In line rvith the approach to study diwourse, cornectedness is
studied by analyzing linguistic elements and stuctur€. Halliday and
Hasan (1992) describ€ text aonnectedness in terms of reference,
substinrtion, ellipses, co4junotior; and lexical cohesion. Reference
refers to two linguistic elements which are related in what they
refer to, suhitution is a linguistic element that is mt lepeated but
it is'replaced by a substitution it€m, ellipsis is the implementation
of omitting one of idedical linguistic elements, cojunction deals
with semantic relation that is explicitty rcmarked, while lexical
cohesiotr refe$ to two elements that share a lexical field or it is also
call€d collocatiorL
Cohesiveness is one of criteria ofa good text to ftlfill. A text
is oot considered to be a good one if it is not cob€sive. Cohesion
aod coherence are two properties ofa good texl According to thls
conc€pt cohesion is intsmal p_roperty, while cobereace is contsxhral
properties of paragraph. Thus it is quite clear that lhe domi&nt
:
48
vol t2 No. 2, I5 AgalB 2009 : 1549
view has come to b€ liat the connectedness of discourse is a
chamcte.istic of the mental representation of th9 {ext.
Connectedness tbat is conceived is often called coherence.
The explicit relationship betweel propositions of s€ntences
constuats a tgxt to be a teit. Cohesion exists wheo some elements
in the discourse is dependent on the other oDes. It realizes the
relation between meaning and form. Thus cohesion is lexical and
garunatical dcvic€s and at semantic level in lefels to the relation
of rneaning in a discourse. lt makes parts of communicative
elements rgleted as well.
Cohesion relates Mth the concept semantic, it refels to the
relations ofmeaning that exist within a text, and that it defines as a
text. Cohesion occurs where the interpretation of some elements in
the discowse is dependent on that of ano0pr. The one presupposes
the other, in the sense that it cannot be eff€atively decoded exc€pt
by recourse to it. When this happens, relation ofcohesion is set up,
and the two €lements the presupposing and the presupposed, are
thercby at least polentially integrat€d into a text. For example: or,
Jcne
hos bought q ne\' ring. the got il in s depart t ent store.
On the sentence above it is clearly seen that she in the second
sentence refers back to Jsne in the fi$t seqtenc€, and it in the
second sentence r€fers baak to (is snaphoric to) a new ring in lhe
first sedenc€
4.
Kinds of Cohesioti
Italliclay and Hassan (1985: 73) state that in talking about
textue, the conc€pt that is most important is that of tie. This idea
implies a relation of meaning within a text. There should be a tie
among members and the members cannot appear a tie utdess therc
is a relation them. The tie'fircsented by linggistic i&ms is wbat
cerot and Wigell (1995) call cohesion. It refe$ linguistic items
49
cotetiM qd
CMt@nM (&@tic
Perqecti|e)
(D*ivbqtih)
within laqguage that provide continuity in a text, over and above
that provided by clause structure and clause help a text hang
tog€thet
Theie arc cedain kinds of meanhg relation that may be
obtained between two mdmbe6. The number of ties in a link
deternines ihe tumber of cohgsive devices involved in the relation.
Example:
Get me a piece ofpqper and a pencil. Put themt on ny desk
There is just oie tie in each relation, of the padicular kind
which is calhd iqi,?/€rre. To give a cleaner descdption about the
kinds oftie, some other exarnples would be givcn b€low.
I had s liftle nut tree
Norhing u/ould it bear
But os sibet nutmeg
And a golden pear.
The words of lit e run bee in li'tle I ad tr in line 2 show
sernantic rclation betiveen the two. It is the identitv of reference.
The pronoun r;fers to no other nut tee but th; one that has
already been mentioned.as a tle nn bee; the situational referents
of both arc lhe sarne thing. In the literahlre o the discussion of
textual continuity, This relationship of situatioml idettity of
t
rcfe!€rce is
l
kriow as Co-referentialig (Llalliday and Hassao:
1985:73)
'
I like swirnming. My husband
does, too
Swinning in th€ first sentenc€ aod do€s in the
second
tie. The relationship itr this case is not
refercntial identity. Swimming tllat I do is a differed situational
evetrt ftom swimming that my husband does. So the relation here is
not co-Eferentiality, but of *ind that could be tlesqibed as Coclassifcation This tt?e ofmcaning relatioq the rhings, process€s,
sentenc€ are the cohesive
50
Yol. 32
Na 2,
1
5
ls@a
2N9 : | 549
or circuEstanc€s to which first sgnterce and s€cond sentenc-e r€fer
belong to an identical class, but each end of the cohesive tie refers
to a distinct member of this class. Thus therc is significant
difference between co-referentiality and co-classification.
The t?e of cohesive device that is discussed in this part is
r,alled Reference. This is not the only cohesive device that is
comrnonly used in developiag a text. The other types of devices
lfte Substitutioo Ellipsis, Conjunction and lericql would be
presented in the next section. The following passages are additional
explanation about reference device .
1.
Refcrence
The use of words to refer to p€ople or things is a relatively
straightforward matter. Yule (2003) says that the use of linguistic
forms as reference enable a listenet or reader to identiry
something. Referenc€ elemcnts provide a sernantic relation$hip
between them, in which one of the elements facilitates the other
with the meaning. The definition of cohesion precisely accoutrts for
system of leferenie.
Much about this cohesive device has been discussed in the
previous section to provide a smooth entrance to the undeEtanding
of the corcept of cohesion and cohesive devices. ln this part of
discussion I would give some additional informatiol regarding this
referential device used to. make refercnce to something els€ outside
or iDsido the text. In other words, reference items may be exophoric
(retrievable ftom outside the text cotrtext of situation) or
endophoric (retrievable fiom huide the text). In endophoric, ihey
may be anaphoric (eferring to prec€ding text), or cataphodc
(rcfening to followiag text). Exophodc reference is mosdy used in
spoken text in which referenc€ is retrievable ftom the physical
environmert of the text.. Le the context of situation. This
description can be illuskated in figure I below :
51
CatustN
I Situational
Exophora
I to following
@14
Coitwhatt@ ls.n@tie Pe,qend (>ti vb@th)
I Textuat
]
]
Endophora
I to prec€dirg rext
anaphora
tbxt]
cataphora
]
Figure I Tlpe ofRefcrence
In English endophoric Fference items ar€ penonals,
denronstrative, and comparative. Personal referpoce is rcfereqce
that deals with firaction in the speech sinration, through the
cat€gory ofpdsor. (sedtable : 1) Demonstrative reference is the
refercnce wtich refer. to locatio!. It consid€rs the scale of
proxinity (s€e table 2). Comparison refqence is indire.ct
r€fercnce by meels ofidentity or similarity (see table : 3)
:
52
vol
32
Nd Z 15 rtsuntr 2UD : 1549
Table I P€rsonal Refer€nce
Sernantic Cdegory '
Pdssessrrt
Ex]Jtential
M MoAfEt
Head
Gronnnticat
Delerttinct
Noun
Clar,s
(hoaoun)
Perrot
r'
/
I
Ime
You ---->
.'
spe8k€r (only)
We
Addr€ss€{s)
witr/without
other perso(s)
us
Yorts
Youa
Ours
Our
His
His
Her
Their
Its
r' Speskor 8trd
He hln.-+ Hers
Th€irs
personG)
other
/ other p€asotr
She her "
titl
male
r' other person
Thev lhorn
fenale
/ otherpeaon
ItOne --------.1,
object
r' Objec! Passage L
--.----D
'oftext
r' Generelized
t^
. psrsoo
I
53
My
Mine
Onets
Cohaidddctu
ti.ati@
(&Mti. Pe6pea*)
(Dvi
wmq
Table 2 Demonstrative refereqce
Gtan mstical
furction
Class
Prcrimity
r' Near
Non
Selective
Semsntic Category
Modifier
/
selective
Adjunct
Modifier
Advelb
Determi
net
Head
Determiner
This,
r' Far
That,
r' Neutra
these
those
H€r€ (trovf)
then
the
I
Tabl€ 3 Comparative rcference
Grafinatical jmclion
Modifier
Deiotio/Epithet
sul
,do.ltlizt/Adj,.rt
ct
Adverb
Adjective
CIqss
Goneml Comparison I
Identity Same, identical, equal,
Sinilar, additional
Dfference (ie. non
Othet differenq elsd
Identity ot
'
G€neBl similarity
-
sinilrrity)
identicaly,
similarlt
likewise,
so,
such
ditrercody,
otherwiso
Porticaldr conp&ison
Better, more, etc.
Sq more,
(comparativo adjective
equally
and suatrtifrer)
54
less,
l'ol- 32 No. 2, l5 /19u16 2009 :
2.
1549
Substitutior
Substitution is tho replac€ment of a language element into
others i! bigger com. position in order to get clearer differeoce. It
explains the same certain language elements rsf€r to an item or
items v/hich is / arc leplaced by another item or iteos.
Rar*ema (1993: 37) states a substitution is the replac€ment of
a word or a group of words or sentences segrnent by a "dummy'!
word. The reader catr fill in a concct glemeDt bas€d on the
precediqg. There are three ilpes of substitutioq tlnt of (i) a noun ,
of (ii) verb,.and of(iii) a clause
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
This is not my pencils . Mine is the blue one
A: Have you typ€ an e-mail to fle lechuer?
Bt ltteven't done ity*, but I will do it
A: Though actually, I think you should do it
A: Can you play piano?
B: No. It is too difficult for me.
Halliday and Hasan (1976: 98 - 100). mention that
substinrtion is grammatical relalion of words : one word
substitutes another word. Substitution is then separated into : (i)
nominal substitution, (ii) verb substitution, and (iii) clausal
subititutioo. The examples below will explain the three types of
substitution
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
:
I like the blue trous€rs but I don't like the red ones
(the word olres substitutes trouse$)
Does Yusril look after you everyday? He can't do it at the
weekends, because he has to go to his hometou,[
(the word do is substituted for look aeer)
Is therc going to be an earthquake? It says so
(the word so presupposes the whole clause there is goitrg to
Cohesia
zd [email protected] (e@ti. Pnqedtk) (Dd l|nndh)
be an earthquake)
3.
Ellipsis
Ellipsis is the omission of elements normally required by the
grammar, which the speaker or writer assumes are obvious tom
the context and therefore need not be mised (Mc, Carthy, 1991:
43), An ellipticai cohesion is a cohesioa ofwhich one ofthe words
is
omiud
sincc the word has already been meationed before. This
is done to avoid wdrthless rcpetition. Therc are basically ttuee
typ€s of ellipsis ; (i) noninal, (ii) verbal and (iii) clausal
a. Nominal ellipris is omitting or liiding a noun.
take for example
A.
B.
:
: Which one is yorus, the red car or the blue rc?
:
The red (one)
ln the secand sentence the word car is not mentioned after the
word red , howeve! any competent English speak€r can easily
rehieve the meaning ofthe red as the rcd car.
Vcrbal ellipsls involves the omission of the verb head while
the auxiliary element reurains explicit.
Example :
A
B
: Is John going
; Yes, he is
to come?
(goirg to come)
TXe complete response must be yes, he
b going to comq
h
the dialoguc especialln the speaker does rot use lotrg
seotenc€s very often. Ellipsis is often used without making
the odrer communicairt confixed.
Clausal Eltipsis represefis thc omission of part ofthe clause
orthe whole clause.
56
vol. 32 Nd 2. I5 AEllsta 2009 : 45.69
Example:
: What are you reading?
: A magazine
A
B
In the exarnple aboye, the whole clause is omitted.
complete response
4.
The
shouldhavebeen I ait reqdi g magqzine.
Conjunction
The fourth b?e of cohesive relarion found in English
grammar is that of conjunotion, A conjunction is a bit different in
natue from the olher three coh€sive r€lations: reference,
substitutioD, and ellipsis, It is not simply an anaphoric relation.
Conjunctive elements are cohesive not in themselves but indirectly
by virtue of theL specific meanings ; they arc not primary devices
for reaching out into the Fecading (or following) text, but they
express certain meaning whioh Fesuppose the pres€nce of other
componeats in the discouse.
Conjunctive relatior; in general, can be classified into four
:
types additive, adversativ€, oausative, 8nd temporal
Additive conjunction is the 'and' relation as it is embodied in
the form of coordination. It includes qnd in aA ion'
mo.eoveL 04 Jutthe4 larthemorc, beslde$' elc.
Example :
My sister visited Egp! and I visired Holland.
a.
.
.
b.
Adversative Conjrinction is contrary to expectation. It cove.s
buq howcae\ on olher hand' neverlhele$s, dD.
Example;
It raills like cats and dogs. However Jobn still goes to school
c.
Causal Conjunction-'is expressed
corrsequenlb
fot
this rcsson, il follott't
57
by so, therefote,
fiom, elo
Coh.nfuddco n@ietid ls4@ac Pe,qpdi|e) (D"t Vb@'ih)
Example:
The books were cheap, so (that) I bought aU ofthem
.d
Tempoml conjunction incladet then, olter tha!,
Wer,finally, evertually, next ,ime, etc
Exanple:
' I woke up, then I iook a bath
sn hoat
5.
Ledcal Coheribn
The four types of cohesion that belong to the category of the
grammatical c{hesion have been pesented st the previous
passages. The following psrts are the pich& of cohesive relations
that is necessary io tak€ into considemtion as well. L€xical
cohesion is the cohesive device that is realized by the seleclion of
vocabulary.
There are two kinds of lexfual cohesion. They are reiterstion
and collocation.
a. Reiteration (Halliday and llasan, 1976 : 276) is a form of
lexical cohesibn I'tich involves r€petition of lexicsl iten, at
one end ofthe scale; the use of general word to ref€r back to a
lexical item, at the other end ofthe scale; and numbcr ofthings
itr
-
between
luperordioate.
the use
Ite
of
or
synonym, Dear s)monlEL
examples ti"torn -"y give'us a ctear
description of the congept of reiteratioD"
a- Th€re rras r lage mushroom growing ne3r hgr, about the
same height as herself; and, when she bad looked rmder ig it
ocaurcd to h€r that fhe might as well loo& atrd s€€ what
vias on the top.ofit
She streteh€d hers€lfw otr tiptoe, 8d pe€p€d over the edge
ofthe musbroon, ....
b. Acaordingly... I took leevg aDd tumed to tb€ asc€nt ofthe
peak- The climb is perfectly easy ....
58
-
vol. 32 Nd 2. t5
c.
Aa&6 2ur9 : 1549
Henry's bought himself a new Jaguar. He practically fves
h the car.
In example (1), there is repetition: mushroom refers back to
mushroom. In example (2) climb rcGrs back to ascent Of
which it is a synonlrn, In example (3) car reGrs back to Jaguar'
and car is a superordilate ofJaguar - tha! ig a name for a morc
grineral ciass (as vehicle is supercrdinate of ca., spoon of
ofpeic, and so forft)
. In general reitiration is divided into five typ€s. They are
teaspoon, cut
repetition, synonym, hypon)fl! metonymy atrd antonym.
R;petition is a wod oI words, which has been state4 and then it is
repested again (or stated mol€ than one time). We can tie s€ntenc€s
oi paragaph together by repeating certain key words Aom one
r"ni.n"" to the next or ftom one paragraph to the text' This
repetition ofkey words also helps to emphasize the main idea of a
piece oflriting ( Kilborn and lGeei, 1995:31)
Synonyms are words, which have equal or similar m€aning'
That is, when the experiential meaning ofthe two lexical items arc
identical, they are synonyms (l{alliday and Hasan' 1985: 80).
-
Example: Maria'is beautifirl. Her mother was Fptty.
(bearxiful a[d pretty 8re synouymous)
.
Hyponym is a sernantic relation between specific aad general
neaning between general class and its sub-class€s' The item
referring to the general rlass is called Super'ordinate, and thory
reftrng to its sub-classes are called Hypo4'm (talliclay and
Hasao. 1985: 80)
Example: Robert bought hirnself a new Honda Jaz. He
practically lives in the car. (car refers back to the Honda Jazz)
L. Coltocation : Halliday and Hasan 1926 : 28 ) state that
colloc*ion is a kind of r€lation of two lcxical items baviog
similar pattems that tencl io appear in si'nilar context. It gives
more cohesion force if the l€xical items happen in adjaaent
(
59
Cohe$M atd
CoMt
ati@
l&Mtlic Perycaiw) (D*i Vtutti
seDtences
Collocation is a pair of lexical items that are associated with
each other in language. It deals with the rclationship between
words on the basis o the fact that these often occur in he same
surrormdings (Raokema 1993:39-40)
The following is an excerpt containing examplss ofeach lexical
cohesive device:
...a small. fal woman in black, with a lbb
gold chain descending to her waist aod
.. vadshing into her belt, leaming on ebony carc
with a tarnished gold head (l). I{er skeleto
was small and spare; perhaps that was why
what would have been merely plumpners in
another l as obesity in h€r (2). She lookcd
bloated, like body long motionless water and
ofthat pallid hue (3)
The above paragiaph contains some uses of lexical cohesion as
follows:
d. Repetition of texical item: .rma,l/ in sentences (l ) and (2)
e, Synorym: fat in sentence (l), plurnpness, and obesity in
sentence (2); bloated in sentence (3)
'Antonyq/opposite
f,
meaning for example: fat in s€nterce (l) vs
thin in s€ntenc€ (l)
g. .Hyponym: body in seirtence (3); skeleton h s€ntenc€ (2), body
in s€nterce (3)
b- Metonymy: My in sentence (3)
Conceming with the. explanation of cohesion at the previous
, cohesive
passages based on Haltiday atld Hasao's perpective
devices can be s'mmari'€d ap.the following table:
60
ItoI32 Nd 2, 15,4glttut 2N9: 1549
Table 4. Kinds ofCohesive Devices
Granmatical
Cohesive Devices
Kinds of
Cohesive
Devices
Lexical Cohesive
Devices
a. Reference
b. Substitution
c. Ellipsis
d, Coniunction
a. Reiteration
.
.
.
.
.
Repetition
Synonym
Antonyo
Htlonl.m
Metonymy
b. Collocation
C.
COMMUNICATION AND COHESION
l.
CoEmuDicrtiotr
Conceroing with communication, Tracy in Schiffrir; Tannen
and Hamiltotr(2006) says that conununication is the process
tbrough rtich individuals as well as institution exclnnge
bfoi.rnation; it is the mme for everyday activity in which people
build....in which people need to live and work with others who
differ &om themselves. i Along with this idea Webst€r's New
Coll€giate Dictioaary (1981:225) states that commurication is a
process by which infonnatlon is ex-cbange between bdividuals
through a common system of symbol, sign or behavior. Thus, in
coEmlmicatioo there are tlree componelrts which must exisl;
participants:speaker and interlocutor, iaformatio4 and a means of
cornmunication.
Those conceptual ideis about cornmunication explain that
6l
(smric p6qec6k) (Itwi wn@ t)
Cal4sili dtd cod$@t@tiu
wheo peopte produce a sentence in the course of normal
communicative activity they simultaneously do two t\ings. .Ihev
express a proposition of one kind or another and at the s;De dm;
that goposition they perform is a kind of i[ocutionary act. The
followitrg ilustrates the concept, during a conversation between
two people, one ofthem (X) utters the following s€ntence:
X:
Jobn will go to Japan tomonow.
Now if the other person taking part in the conversation
.
wishes to report this remark
person,
,
to a third
ofthree ways, He can use direct speech:
Y:
She said: "John
will go to
Japan
@)
he can do so in one
tomorlow.
Herc B is reportidg X,s fenlence. Altematively, he can use
indirert sp€ech:
Y:
She said that irer friend would go to Japan toFormw.
In this case it is uot Xs sentenca that is beilg report€d but the
proposition that tns setrt€nc€ is used to express. The lhird uav in
whirh Y can iElort Xs rcmark is to stste the illocutionary acf 'that
he thinks A might perform at the time. Depediry on the
circJmstances of the uiteranc€, on what h8s preceaea in ru
cooversation, on what Y knows ofthe situarion, on the relatioDshiD
betnten X Y ald the person that y is r€portitg to,
so oa
might interprea X's rema* in a number of ways, and report it
accordiagly. The folJowing are all possible:
d
Y:
Y:
i
She tbreatene.d tbat her.friend would go to Jap@ tomortjow.
She promised ahat hei fiiend voutd go to
foi- to.or*r.
62
Lol. 12 No 2, 15
Y:
Y:
,lgat6
2009 : 15-69
She wamed that her fiiend would reh.lrtl the tal}e tomorow.
She predicted that her ftiend would go to JE)an lomorrow.
lo reporting these acts (promise, threat, warning prediction)
Y repo(s x's propositiotr at the same time, but lot her senteoce.
Now while there is only one possible version of Xs remark as a
senteirc€, there are several possible versiors ofher remark taken as
the expression ofa proposition. Thus all of thc following represent
accurate reports:
Y:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
tomorow
her friend who \rould
She said that John would go to Japan
go to
it would be
Japan tomorlo\ .
She said that what hcr friend would do tomorow
She said that
would be to go to Japan. and so
o[
Each version replesents a different way of organizing the
information expressdd in the proposition. lf Y decides that the
person he is reporting to (Z) is principally interested in the activity
'go to Japan' mther than the friend, then he will be inclined to
choose venion (i). lf, on the other hand, he thinks tttat Z might be
in aome doubt about where he goes that the ftiend is to go, then he
might b€ inclined to stress the fact that it is JapaD that he will go to
and he would accordingly select ve$ion (iii). lf he fe€ls tbat C
might be uncertain whether it is the fiiend or somebody else who is
to do the retuming of th€ tap€, then he would prcfer version (ii). Ys
decisioq to utter, then, is dependcnt on what he knows ofzs state
of knowledge, on what he judges Z needs to be hformed about. Y
rnay be familiar with Zs knowledge, So, the following exchanges
are all possible.
63
Colpsiu
Z:
Y:
.
dd
CMn ati
(Se@tic Peryc.t'N) (Dvi Vi@'ih)
So?
She said that John would go to Japan
tomorow
h
this case Y his already been aware that Z l(Ilows somethitrg
about the activity'go' and vants to lnow wherc will go. lt is
possible to make a cohesive relatiotr to the tape with the help of
casusl conjuqction,
C:So?
Y; She said that he would go to Japan.
'
ReGrrbg to the uttcr"ance abov€, it might b€ the case that
both Y and Z already know that 'will go' and ilut it wil! be her
ftiend who will go to Japan, but they don't know wher it is going io
be done. Tben the following form will be quite proper.
Z:
Y:
So?
She said
it n'ould b€ tomorow that hel friend would go to
Japan.
thiDks thai the explicitness of the utierance is quite
clear and that it is possible to introduce a cohesive tie ofellipsis.
or, Y
C:
Yr
So?
Tomorrow.
2. Cohesion and propositional
devolopmcnt ilr
Communlc-ation
Based on the explanation above, the utteranc€ tbat is chos€tr
by Y and parts of setrtence is a matier of needed soDtenc€ and it
depends on Z's knowledge aod intetest. The stat€ of knowledge has
a very close reldionship wilh ihe inter€st they, thercfore, conkols
64
Yol. 32 No. 2, 15
tsua.t
2@9 :
1ft9
the form ofpropositions, both B and C express iq the conversation.
In this case, the sentences, or part of sentences, uttered by bolh B
and C ensure that each proposition fits in with the othen.
Sentences are contextually appropriate when they express
propositions in such a way as to fit into the gopositional
developmert of the discourse as a whole (Widdowson, 1978: 25).
Let's, consider the following exchange:
Well, did you meet him?
Yes, I did (met him).
J
M
When did he say he would go to Japan?
(She said that he would go to Japan) tomorow.
Good. I'll talk to her at the campus.
He said that her frieDd would go !o Japar.
J
M
J
M
Here J's questions take on a fom which indicates what he
wants to know and M's replies organize the information ill such a
way as to meet J's need. Thus the plopositions expressed by M are
linked up with those expressed by J to form a continuous
propositional development, We can say that the forms of the
utterances of J and M ar€ contexhrslly appropliale and so ensure
that their exchange is c.ohesive. And the cohesion in this exchange
is achieved tkough cohesive ties (such as substitution, ellipsis, and
reference).
The concept of cohesion, then, refers to the way sentelces
and parts of setrtences combine so as to eDsule that ther€ is
'
propositional dev€lopment. Usually sentences used
comrnunicatively ih discourse do not exp!€ss independent
propositions; they take oh value in relation to othel propositions
expessed through other s€atences. The diftculty we have in
recovering propositional development is a measure ofthe degree of
cohesion exhibited by a particular discowse. the difrculty might
65
Colein
@d Cotu@ni@ti* (Se@tic Peryedive)
{Dd WaMU
arise because the form of a sentence represents an inappropdale
arrangement of information in respe{t to what has preceded: the
work we have to do in making the necrssary readjustment disturbs
. the propositionat development, ard to this oxtent impairs effectiye
commudcatiotr. Similarly, rumecessary repetitioD of what is
already known, or given, may reduce corumtrnicative effectiveness
becauie the importan! uoknoun parts of the proposition tend to
becone over-shadou€d by rvhat is known: they are not brought
itrto gomineoce. Takd for example:
What did you buy?
I bought a novel.
When did you buy the novel?
I bought the novel yesterday.
B
B
It is not cornmon to have such a conversation because cach
of the proposition.
by
removing
redundatcies
so the
Speakers need to €hahge them
development of tliat Fopositional flows forward smootltly. The
sgntenc.€ repr€sgnts an ind€pendgnt expression
following is cohesive compared with the above example:
B
B
i
:
:
:
What happened to the c.mputer?
It was repaired by my friend.
When?
Yesterday.
because they do not
only make communication smooth and efective, but also because
the development of tbe
they can elirninate the.oddity
propositiom vhen unnecessary repetition or rcdundaocies occur in
-'
verbal commrmication, -
In shor! cohesive devices are needed
of
66
vo|. 32 Nd 2, 15
D.
Ae$tB 2N9 : 1549
CONCLUSION
Cohesion caa be defined as the links th* hold a text together
and it gives meaniag. Linguistic cohesion iu a senterc€ is the glue
.that hoftls a s€ntence together. Linguistic cohesion involves the
seEanlic and syotactic lelation$ip that liDk sentences together.
Coherent in discours€ presents interactive process. It tiemands
speakers to have sweral types of communioatiYe knowledge. This
communicative knowledge includes grammatical lnowledge of
sormd, form, and meaning.
Cohasion is the area of discourse competence which relates
with tinguistic competence and helps generate texts. Cohesion
accounts for how pronouns, d€monshative, adicles and other
markers signal textual co-refcrence in written and oral discourse
build a text. It can also be mhieved by making use ofdevices such
as ref€rence, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction, and lexical.
To undeFtand language us€, r€4uir€s t€cognizing ihe
production of 8 senteirce in which people express a proposition of
som€ sort and io th€ expressing of a proposition they perform an
iltocutionary act of some sort. Communicalion has to do n'itlt
proposilions atrd the acts they are used to p€rfom. But these do not
occur in isolalion; they cornbine to fom discours€' When people
focus their attetrtion on the way in which s€ntenc€s or utl€rances
are fonned with a link between the propositions thcy exprcss, then
we dan say lhere is cohesion in the piece of communicaion
Pmposition and acis tbat are used to p€rform cmmudcation
do not occur itr isolation, Realization to coBbinalioq thos€ two
rhings foims a discbEse. The way how to arrange utsranc€s or
s€ntences are formed by linking the propositions they express
presen8 coh€sion.
it
67
Cohat@
@rd
CMuicoti@ (&' atic Pery.die) (Dsi Vi,mih)
BIBLIOGRAPIIY
'
Coulthard, M. 1994.-Ahanced in Written Text Anelysis. LorLdon I
Routledge
Djik, Teuw A.
Var
1986. Text and Context ;
Semantics and Prugmatics
Longman.
of
Wlorations in the
Dscourse. New York :
Eggns,S. 1994, An Inftoduction to systemic Functional Grammar.
London : Pinter Publisher. L.t,d
L
and P. Wignett, 1994, Making sense of Function
Gramzal . NSW : Antipodean EducatioDal Enterprises
Halliday M.A.K. and Hasan. Rugaiya. 1992. Cohesion in English.
New York longman
Ilalliday M.A.K. 1985. Spoken qnd Wtitten Language. Oxford
Gero!
Univcrsity Press.
Halliday
M.A.l! l9fi9.
Language
Language Context and fer, : Asp€ct of
in Social Semiotic Persp€ctive. Victoda: Deakin
Universig
Halliclay. M.A.K. and Hasan, Rugaiya, 1996- Cohesion in Engtish,
' New York ; l,ongrnan
Harm*, !.1999. How to leach English,New Yo*: Iongman
Huriord, James F. And Heasley, Bredan. 1983. Semantics
Course Book. Ca{r.brldge University Press.
Jacobs, H.L, Zinkgrap S.A, D.R Wormutb, V-F. Hartifiel4
;
a
ad
fe$ing ESL Composition; a practical
approach- Massrchtsetts: Newbury House Publisher.
P.B.Hughey.l98l
Kilborq Judilh and Natlnn Ktl'i,1995. Cohesion: Using repetition
and Reference Vords to Emphasize Key klea in Ypw
68
Irol. 32 No. 2, 15
As'da 2aD : 1549
Vriting.
Http:/Aeo.stcloudstate.edt/style/cohesion/html.
Lyons, Jolrn. 1968. Inlroduction
to
Theoritical Lirtguistics-
Cambridge University Prcss.
Meizuo, Zhang. 2000. Cohesiw Features in the expository vriting
ol llndergaduate Students in Two Chinese Unbercities.
RELC Joumal Vol 3l' 6l-93
Palrner, F.
R
1985, Senantics, Canbridge : Cambridge
University
Press.
Rankem4 J. 1993. Dkcowse Studies : An Inbodr'tctiorury
Textbook. Phtlallrelphia ; John Benjamins Publisher
Company.
'
T and Maat, Pande!, T,2006. Cohesion ond Coherence :
Linguistic Approdch. Paper' Utreaht University, Th€
-Sander,
Netberlands: Elsevier Lmt.
Schiftin, Tannen, Hamilton. 2006. The Handbook of Discourse
,4rattri. Australi4: Blackwelt Publishing Ltd.
Webster. 1981. New WorM Dictionary, USA; William Collirs
Publisber, Inc.
Yule, Geoqe.2003. Pragmalics. China: Oxford University Press.
69