An analysis of cohesive devices used in pride and prejudice by jane austen in comparison with its vietnamese translation

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
HANOI OPEN UNIVERSITY





TA MINH HANG


AN ANALYSIS OF COHESIVE DEVICES USED IN “PRIDE
AND PREJUDICE” BY JANE AUSTEN IN COMPARISON
WITH ITS VIETNAMESE TRANSLATION

(PHÂN TÍCH CÁC PHƯƠNG TIỆN LIÊN KẾT SỬ DỤNG TRONG
TÁC PHẨM “KIÊU HÃNH VÀ ĐỊNH KIẾN” CỦA JANE AUSTEN SO
SÁNH VỚI BẢN DỊCH SANG TIẾNG VIỆT)


M.A.THESIS


Hanoi-2013

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
HANOI OPEN UNIVERSITY




TA MINH HANG

AN ANALYSIS OF COHESIVE DEVICES USED IN “PRIDE
AND PREJUDICE” BY JANE AUSTEN IN COMPARISON
WITH ITS VIETNAMESE TRANSLATION

(PHÂN TÍCH CÁC PHƯƠNG TIỆN LIÊN KẾT SỬ DỤNG TRONG
TÁC PHẨM “KIÊU HÃNH VÀ ĐỊNH KIẾN” CỦA JANE AUSTEN SO
SÁNH VỚI BẢN DỊCH SANG TIẾNG VIỆT)

M.A.THESIS
Field: English Language
Code: 60220201
Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Hoang Van Van

Hanoi-2013


i
DECLARATION

I hereby declare that no part of the enclosed Master Thesis has been
copied or reproduced by me from any other‟s work without acknowledgement
and that the thesis is originally written by me under strict guidance of my
supervisor.

Hanoi, December 20
th
, 2013.
Candidate Supervisor

Tạ Minh Hằng Prof. Dr. Hoàng Văn Vân




ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

In completion of this study, I have received a great deal of helpful
assistance from many people.
First of all, I would like to express my sincere thanks to my supervisor,
Prof. Dr. Hoang Van Van. With his profound knowledge and experience in
teaching as well as great enthusiasm, he has given me a lot of advice,
comments and encouragement so that I could finish my research with the best
result.
I would also like to show my gratitude to all the professors of the Faculty
of Graduate Studies, Hanoi Open University for their in valuable lectures.
Beside, I really wish to thank the authors of the books and articles I used as
reference materials for this thesis.
My deepest thanks go to my beloved family and my friends who always
stand by my side, and have helped and encouraged me during my preparation
till the completion of the study.


Hanoi, December 2013

Ta Minh Hang

iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS iii
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES vi
PART I: INTRODUCTION 1
1. Rationale of the study 1
2. Aims of the study 2
3. Research questions 2
4. Scope of the study 3
5. Methods of the study 3
6. Design of the study 4
PART II: DEVELOPMENT 5
CHAPTER 1: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 5
1.1 Literature Review 5
1.2. Theoretical background 8
1.2.1. Discourse and discourse analysis 8
1.2.2. Context in discourse analysis 9
1.2.3. Cohesion 11
1.2.3.1. The concept of cohesion 11
1.2.3.2. Cohesion vs. Coherence 11
1.2.4. Types of Cohesion 12
1.2.4.1 Grammatical Cohesion 14
1.2.4.2. Lexical cohesion 19
1.3. Overview of Translation 20
1.3.1. Concept of Translation 20
1.3.2. Important Factors of Translation 21

iv
1.3.3. The Basis of Translation 21
1.3.4. Source Language and Target Language 22
1.3.5. Translation of fiction 22
1.4. An overview on “Pride and Prejudice” by Jane Austen 23
1.4.1. Introduction to “Pride and Prejudice” by Jane Austen and the translated
version 23
1.4.1.1. The source language version 23
1.4.1.2. The translated version 25
1.4.2. A brief summary of “Pride and Prejudice” 25
1.4.3. The selection of certain chapter 26
CHAPTER 2: AN ANALYSIS OF COHESIVE DEVICES USED IN
“PRIDE AND PREJUDICE” BY JANE AUSTEN IN COMPARISON
WITH ITS VIETNAMESE TRANSLATION 27
2.1. Grammatical cohesion 27
2.1.1. References 27
2.1.1.1 Exophoric 27
2.1.1.2. Endophoric Reference 28
2.1.1.3. Statistical Analysis of Reference Markers 30
2.1.2. Substitution 34
2.1.3. Ellipsis 36
2.1.4. Conjunction 38
2.2. Lexical cohesive devices 41
2.2.1. Reiteration 42
2.2.2. Collocation 47
2.3. Vietnamese Solutions to the English Cohesive Devices 49
2.3.1. Treatment of Referential cohesion 51
2.3.2. Treatment of Substitution 56

v
2.3.3. Treatment of Conjunctions 57
2.3.4. Treatment of Lexical Cohesion Devices 59
2.3.5. Translation Techniques 60
CHAPTER 3: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 63
3.1. Major findings of the cohesive devices employed in “Pride and
Prejudice” 63
3.2. Analysis of the solution adopted in the Vietnamese translation. 65
PART III: CONCLUSION 68
1. Recapitulation 68
2. Limitations of the study 69
3. Implications 69
4. Suggestions for further studies 71
REFERENCES 72




vi
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Table 1.2: Types of Grammatical and Lexical Cohesion 13
Figure 1.2: Types of reference 14
Table 1.3: Personal reference 16
Table 1. 4: Demonstrative reference 16
Table 2.1. Personal Reference in “ Pride and Prejudice” 30
Table 2.2. Demonstrative Reference in “Pride and Prejudice” 31
Table 2.3. Comparative Reference in “Pride and Prejudice” 32

Table 2.4: Substitution in “Pride and Prejudice” 35
Table 2.5: Ellipsis in “Pride and Prejudice” 37
Table 2.6: Conjunctive Relations in “Pride and Prejudice” 39
Table 2.7. Occurrence and frequency of Vietnamese solutions to the English
cohesive devices 50









1
PART I: INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale of the study
Cohesion is an important factor of discourse which has attracted a lot
of attention from linguists. The most significant research on cohesion is
“Cohesion in English” by Halliday and Hasan (1976). Cohesion is considered
one of the most challenging aspects of translation, as any language has its
own unique manners in which it employs cohesive devices in the creation of a
cohesive text. Each language has its own patterns to convey the
interrelationships of persons and events; there is not any language that these
patterns may be ignored, if the translation is to be understood by its readers
(Callow, 1974). The topic of cohesion has always appeared as the most useful
constituent of discourse analysis that is applied to translation. English and
Vietnamese have different grammatical and lexical structures, and it is only
natural that they pose great difficulties and challenges for a translator to deal
with, especially in the field of literature.

Literature, which plays a very important role in our spiritual life, has
been greatly developing as a consequence of high living standards. As a
matter of fact, there have been more and more people choosing to work in
literary field and their efforts have created so many famous works. It is open
to questions as to which factors have to be taken into consideration to make a
successful work? How important are those factors to the completion of a
coherent and cohesive text? Added to this, the knowledge of cohesion and
coherence are actually regarded as the crucial aspects of the language usage.
“Pride and Prejudice”, Jane Austen‟ most famous book, is a story of
love and values unfolds in the class-conscious England of the late 18th
century. The main character Elizabeth Bennet and Mr Darcy. Elizabeth is one
of five daughters with a mother who is keen to marry them all off to wealthy


2
men. For the Bennet sisters many trials and tribulations stand between them
and their happiness, including class, gossip and scandal. Jane Austen‟s book,
therefore, make great impression on the readers.
Those reasons mentioned above are the most important ones that have
encouraged the author to conduct “An analysis of cohesive devices used in
“Pride and Prejudice” by Jane Austen in comparison with its Vietnamese
translation” as the topic this study. Based on the detailed classification of
cohesive devices in English by Halliday and Hasan (1976), this study
provides a close analysis of particular cohesive devices employed in English
and their equivalents in the Vietnamese translation. The study is also expected
to be a good reference for those who love “Pride and Prejudice” by Jane
Austen in particular and literary works in English in general for a good
translation.
2. Aims of the study
Based on the contrastive analysis of two parallel corpora, an original

text in English and its translation into Vietnamese, this study aims to provide
a close analysis of a particular cohesive devices employed in English and their
equivalences in the Vietnamese translation. It uses both quantitative and
qualitative methods. Then it will make a comparison between the use of
cohesive devices of the original text and those of the target text.
3. Research questions
This research aims at addressing the following questions:
1) “What cohesive devices are used in Pride and Prejudice?” and what
extent do cohesive devices contribute to the success of literary work?
2) “What are the techniques of translating cohesive devices?”


3
The answer to these questions will help students of English as a foreign
language, especially those who wish to specialize in translation realize
those differences and decide on the most appropriate method.
The study is also expected to be a good reference of criteria to any
Vietnamese readers who love “Pride and Prejudice” by Jane Austen in
particular and literary works in English in general for a good translation.
4. Scope of the study
As Discourse Analysis has a very broad scope which has a very close
relationship with many other aspects of language study, it is impossible for
the author to refer to all of its characteristics. Thus, within this study, the
author just mentions some background knowledge about Discourse Analysis
as well as coherence and cohesion.
In addition, there are a number of factors that make “Pride and
Prejudice” a successful work, hence, this study only focus on the cohesive
devices employed in Jane Austen‟s book. The data here analyses is only taken
from some selected chapters from “Pride and Prejudice” by Jane Austen and
their equivalents in the translated version in Vietnamese.

5. Methods of the study
To carry out this study, two literary corpora are used. They are
identified as Corpus A (Source language text) and Corpus B (Target language
text). The former is composed of the original text written in English entitled
“Pride and Prejudice”. The latter which is the Vietnamese translated version.
The literary text is chosen for analysis because it is a famous literary work of
Jane Austen.
In the study, both quantitative and qualitative methods are adopted for
analysis. And the analysis is conducted in the following steps:


4
- Firstly, identifying in corpus A the cohesive devices employed in
English using Halliday and Hasan‟s (1976) as the theoretical
framework.
- Then, locating the equivalent linguistic expressions in Corpus B.
- Finally, discussing and analyzing the solutions adopted in the
Vietnamese translation.
6. Design of the study
The study consists of three main parts:
* Introduction: presents the reason why the topic is chosen, the justification,
the aims, the research questions, the scope and the design of the study.
* Development: this part consists of three chapters:
Chapter 1 reviews some previous studies on similar issue and gives an
overview on Discourse and Discourse Analysis including Discourse
Analysis, Discourse and Text. This chapter is not only devoted to the
presentation of the definitions, major features of cohesive devices but
also in translation.
Chapter 2 provides a collection of examples taken from the book with
detailed analysis to clarify the application of such cohesive devices

employed in the novel.
Chapter 3 describes, analyzes and discusses the translation of the text
from English into Vietnamese in matter of cohesive devices.
* Conclusion: summaries the main contents studied in thesis and makes some
suggestions for further research.



5
PART II: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER 1: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
This chapter attempts to provide the theoretical framework of
investigation such as concepts of discourse, cohesion and coherence, cohesive
devices, context in discourse analysis which are relevant to the purpose of this
study, as well as the definition and properties of Discourse Analysis in
general and Cohesive devices in particular.
1.1 Literature Review
The theoretical knowledge of the study is based on the viewpoint from
different prospects of great linguists as well as the ideas extracted from the
researches previously done. In this chapter, the author would like to review
some researches related to the study of previous authors as references for
carrying out the study them the author compare and analyze the data of
grammatical cohesion devices of English and Vietnamese version‟s novel
“Pride and Prejudice”. In reality, researches done on cohesion, particular
cohesive devices of a certain genre of discourse are numerous; therefore, it is
hard to cover all. For this reason, only some researches implemented in
Vietnam within restricted area of Vietnam National University are reviewed
in a very small scale.
The first research in an M.A thesis by Phuong To Tam (2003) entitled
“An analysis of coherence and cohesion and a contrastive analysis of lexical

cohesive devices in English and Vietnamese”. The data for this thesis is from
a chapter (chapter 5) on International Trade in the textbook “International
Business – An integrated Approach” (1998). The attention of the study is paid
to considering contrastive analysis of lexical cohesive devices (including
reiteration and collocation) in English (source language) in the original
textbook and their equivalents in Vietnamese (target language) in the


6
translation version. The author then attempts to collect data in both English
and Vietnamese to see the frequencies, similarities and differences of each
device and sub-device of lexical cohesive devices in the discourse of both
languages. In the research, reiteration is viewed noticeably in term of
repetition, synonyms and antonyms. In the first place, the repetition is
categorized into noun +noun phrase, proper names, other content words and
titles, and the analysis shows repetition is most often seen with nouns and
nouns phrase, other types of repetition account for a rather small portion in
total ranging from 9.6% to 15%; synonyms and antonyms are analyzed with
their types of nouns, verb and adjectives. Collocation is also a focus for
analysis; the author primarily classifies collocation (in terms of structure) into
two main types: Noun-collocation with noun as element and others without
the presence of a noun, and come to conclusion that noun- collocation
dominates all other types of collocations with up to 75%.
The next research in another M.A thesis by Le Thi Mai Hien (2004)
entitled “An Analysis of Cohesive Devices in English Application Letter”. The
process of researching on twenty English application letters has enables her to
reach the results of the frequency of occurrence of lexical cohesive device.
The data present repetition in English application letter also occupies the first
position among the four kinds of reiteration with up to 53.4%. Different from
English sales letters, superordiates rank the second with a considerably higher

percentage, 24.9% compared with 11%. Synonyms and Near-synonyms
account for nearly the same portion, which is respectively 10.4% and 11.3%.
However, unlike in sales letters, near-synonyms in application letters seem to
play a more important part, with 11.3% compared with 4.9%. The data
analysis helps the author come to final conclusion that repetition is by far the


7
most frequently used lexical cohesive devices in the genre of a application
letter.
The next research is an M.A thesis by Tran Thi Hoa Mai (2010) entitled
“An analysis of grammatical cohesion used in “The call of the Wild” by Jack
London”. The data for this thesis from the seven chapters of the book with
detailed analysis to clarify the application of such grammatical cohesive
devices employed in that book. In the research, it can be concluded that the
occurrences of conjunctions in discourse, specifically in “The Call of the
Wild” is so often that without them, a text would be a collection of jumbled
sentences which are not related to each other. One thing should be noted in
here is the absolute omission of Dismissal in Adversative and Conditional and
Respective in Causal.
The last research review is Cao Thi Huyen Nga (2012) entitled “An
analysis of cohesive devices in the ESP textbook on accounting at the
University of Labor and Social Affairs”. This study is mainly aimed at
analyzing cohesive devices in the reading texts on Accounting at ULSA,
finding out teachers‟ attitudes towards cohesion teaching. Four reading texts
were chosen as core materials for the analysis of the cohesive devices. Five
teachers from English Department were asked to take part in the interview in
order to give ideas about their attitudes towards teaching cohesion. The
analysis reveals that lexical cohesive devices are used more often in the
textbooks than grammatical cohesive devices. The data from interview

indicates that the teachers often teach cohesion in class but they cannot cover
all types of cohesion.
In conclusion, it is noticed that a number of researches on cohesive
devices have been done. Nevertheless, none has been done on “Pride and
Prejudice” in English version in comparison with it Vietnamese translation.


8
The results of the previous studies are useful permits of reference for this
study.
1.2. Theoretical background
1.2.1. Discourse and discourse analysis
a, The concepts of discourse
There are different ways of understanding and defining discourse.
Halliday (1985) defines “Discourse is a multidimensional process”.
According to Crystal (1992) discourse is seen as “a continuous stretch of
language larger than a sentence, often constituting a coherent unit such as a
sermon, argument, joke, or narrative”. Cook (1989) has a similar perspective
on discourse; he considers discourse as “stretches of language perceived to be
meaningful, unified, and purposive”. In other words, as Brown and Yule
(1983) state, discourse is language material, either spoken or written, in actual
uses by speakers (and writers) of the language.
Discourse analysis is a branch of linguistics that studies language use in
relation to social factors that influence our daily interactions. It deals with the
way people use language in its appropriate context. i.e, in certain ways to
have certain affects; in order to construct versions of their experiences
according to Yule (1978): “When it is restricted to linguistic issues, discourse
analysis focuses on the record (spoken and written) of the process by which
language is used in some context to express intention.” The focus of discourse
analysis is any form of written or a spoken language such as: conversation,

dialog, articles, books, and so on. Discourse analysis is often described as
“language-in-use” by means; the way of understanding social interactions,
and how written and spoken texts are used in a specific contexts to make
meanings. “It tends to focus specifically on aspects of what is unsaid or
unwritten (yet communicated) within the discourse being analyzed”


9
(Yule, 1978). So discourse analysis is all what people “perceive” or “think”
about any given topic.
b, Discourse and Text
It is still in vagueness to define whether or not discourse and text are
of two separate entities and some linguists are trying to set them apart.
According to Widdowson (1979) text is sentences in combination whereas
discourse is the use of sentence for communication.
For some linguists, discourse is different from text. According to
Cook (1989) text is “a stretch of language interpreted formally, without
context”. However, Brown and Yule (1983) argue that text is the
representation of discourse and the verbal record of a communicative act.
Actually, it is not easy to make a clear-cut distinction between “text”
and “discourse”. The concepts of discourse and text defined by Halliday
(1985) maybe the most comprehensive. He states that “discourse” itself is a
process and the term “text” is usually taken as referring to the product. And
obviously, cohesion and coherence are typical of text as a language unit.
1.2.2. Context in discourse analysis
a, The notion of context
As premise, we should take a short excursion into the history of the
notion of context. Halliday and Hasan (1976) draw their concept of context
from Bronislaw Malinowski's principle of describing the environment and
culture along with the text to analyze. Malinowski, himself being an

anthropologist in the 1920s, added various information to his reports on the
language of the Trobriand islanders, which included as much cultural
background as possible (context of culture), and the immediate environment
in which the text was produced (context of situation). He encountered basic
difficulties when translating pragmatic conversations of the Trobrianders into


10
English, but later on realized that even so called "civilized" language, mostly
used for abstraction, could not be separated from its cultural and immediate
surroundings if it had to be understood and rendered intelligibly. Based on
this early framework of context, more and more features determining the
production and reception of texts were defined and added, from Firth's
'nonverbal actions', 'effects', and 'objects and events' surrounding the text, to
Hymes' 'intent', 'key', 'medium' and 'genre', and normative principles of the
text. According to Halliday then, all these features are indebted to the
complexity of modern society and communication itself, but they enable us to
predict what is going to happen within "the framework of something that we
knew was going to happen". The success of every act of communication thus
is based on our predatory interpretation of the cultural and situational context.
The situational context of our text could be characterized as well organized
and highly predictable. In general, there are two main types of context.
b, Context of situation
Context of situation is an integral concept of discourse analysis.
According to Eggins (1994), context of situation is usually discussed under
three variables: what is talked about, what the relationship between the
communicators is; what role the language plays. Other linguists have the same
opinion that in order to understand thoroughly what someone says or writes. It
is necessary to know the context of situation like Nunan (1993).
c, Context of culture

Besides the language and context of situation we need to pay attention to
the context of culture. As stated by Malinowski (1923) “if you are not a
member of the culture, you cannot understand what is meant”. To recognize
the text as meaningful, the readers or hearers need to refer the text to a


11
cultural context. It is important to know the culture of the given language in
interpreting and understanding the given messages.
1.2.3. Cohesion
1.2.3.1. The concept of cohesion
The concept of cohesion is closely connected with text. It is defined as the
grammatical and lexical relationship between different elements of a text.
According to Yule (1996), a text is usually considered to have a certain
structure which depends on factors quite different from those required in the
structure of single sentence. Some among those factors are described in term
of cohesion, or the ties and connection which exist within a text.
Halliday and Hasan (1976) also define cohesion in a similar way: “The
concept of cohesion is a semantic one; it refers to relations of meaning that
exist within a text, and that defines it as a text”. They also point out that
cohesion often occurs when the interpretation of some elements in the
discourse is dependent on that of another.
1.2.3.2. Cohesion vs. Coherence
The concept of cohesion refers to relations of meaning that exist within
the text, and that defines it as a text. Cohesion occurs where the interpretation
of some element in the discourse dependent on that of another.
Cohesion is the network of lexical, grammatical, and other relations
which link various parts of a text. These relations or ties organize and, to
some extent, create a text, for instance, by requiring the reader to interpret
words and expressions by reference to other words and expressions in the

surrounding sentences and paragraphs. Cohesion is a surface relation and it
connects together the actual words and expressions that we can see or hear.
Halliday and Hasan (1976) identify five main cohesive devices in
English: reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction, and lexical cohesion.


12
Coherence, on the other hand, is defined as the relationships of various
ideas in a text that are linked together to create a meaningful discourse.
According to Nunan (1993) coherence is “the feeling that sequences of
sentences or utterances seems to hang together and make sense. In short,
coherence means the relationships that link the meanings of utterances in a
discourse or of the sentences in a text. These links may be based on the
speakers‟ shared knowledge.
Though cohesion and coherence, in essence, is different from each
other, they are closely linked together. They represent the very essential
elements that make a text or discourse coherent and that make coherent text or
discourse different from random sentences or utterances. Cohesion is mainly
used to embody coherence by a system of cohesive devices. Accordingly,
cohesion and coherence help consolidate the text as a complete and unified
linguistics unit beyond the largest syntactic unit of sentence.
1.2.4. Types of Cohesion
Halliday and Hasan (1976) give the most comprehensive description
analysis of cohesive devices five major types of cohesive ties: reference,
substitution, ellipsis and conjunction and lexical ties. The first four types are
grouped as grammatical cohesion and the later is lexical cohesion.
Types of cohesion in each group are given out in details as follows:

13
GRAMMATICAL COHESION
LEXICAL COHESION
Reference
 Exphoric Reference
 Endophoric Reference
 Personal
 Demostrative
 Comparative
Substitution
 Nominal Substitution
 Verbal Substitution
 Clausal Substitution
Ellipsis
 Nominal Ellipsis
 Verbal Ellipsis
 Clausal Ellipsis
Conjunction
 Additive
 Adversative
 Causal
 Temporal
 Others
Reiteration
 Same word/Repetition
 Synonymy/ Near-synonym
 Superordinate
 General words
Collocation
 Noun + Noun

 Adjective + Noun
 Verb + Noun
 Noun + Preposition
 Adjective + Preposition
 Adverb + Adjective
 Verb + Preposition

Table 1.2: Types of Grammatical and Lexical Cohesion
(Adapted from Haliday and Hasan, 1976)



14
1.2.4.1 Grammatical Cohesion
a, Referential cohesion
There is referential cohesion in every language, they are “in their own
right, they make reference to something else for their interpretations”
(Haliday and Hasan, 1976). There are three types of reference in English.
They are personal, demonstrative and comparative items which have the
property of reference (…), instead of being interpreted semantically.
Haliday and Hasan (1976) make a clear distinction between situational
and textual reference by contrasting Exophora, or Exophoric reference with
Endophora or Endophoric reference as a general name for reference within
the text.
Reference:


[ situational] [textual]
exophora endophora

[to preceding text] [to following text]
anaphora cataphora

Figure 1.2: Types of reference
(Source: Haliday and Hasan, 1976)
Exophoric reference looks outside the text to the situation in which the text
occurs for the item which is being refer to (Paltridge and Burton, 2000).
Ex: We are at the supermarket and we‟ll be here for about another hour.


15
In this example, “The” and “here” are only instances of exphoric
reference if the name of the restaurant has not already been referred to earlier
in the text (Paltridge and Burton, 2000).
Endophoric reference is textual reference referring to an item which is
identified in the text.
Ex: "If a man has talent and can't use it, he's failed."
"If a man has talent and can't use it, he's failed."
(Tom Wolfe)
In this example, “he” a man; “it” talent. A reference item may be either
exophoric or endophoric. If it is endophoric, it may be anaphoric or
cataphoric.
Anaphoric reference signifies a word or phrase that refers to another or
phrase used earlier in a text (Paltridge and Burton, 2000).
Ex: "No woman can call herself free until she can choose consciously
whether she will or will not be a mother."
(Margaret Sanger)
In this example, “herself” & “she”woman.
Cataphoric reference describes the use of a word or phrase that refers to

another word or phrase which is used later in a text (Paltridge and Burton,
2000).
Ex: When I told them I got the first prize, my parents smiled happily.
In this example, “them” refers to my parents.
Haliday and Hasan (1976) divide referential cohesion into three sub-types:
personal, demonstrative and comparative.
Personal references are reference by means of function in the speech
situation, through category of person in form of personal pronouns and
determiners. Here is the table showing the system of personal reference.


16
Table 1.3: Personal reference

Semantic catergory
Existential
Possessive
Grammatical function
Head
Modifier
Class
noun
(pronoun)
Determiner

I me
you
we us
he him
she her

they them
it
one
mine
yours
ours
his
hers
theirs
[its]
my
your
our
his
her
their
its
one‟s
(Source: Haliday and Hasan, 1976)
Demonstrative references are references by means of location, on a scale of
proximity, through determiners and adverbs. The following table shows the
system of demonstrative reference:
Table 1. 4: Demonstrative reference
Semantic catergory
Selective
Non-selective
Grammatical function
Modifier/Head
Adjunct
Modifier

Class
Determiner
Adverb
determiner

this these
that those
Here
[now]
There
then


The

(Source: Haliday and Hasan, 1976)


17
Comparative references are indirect references by means of identity or
similarity. They are expressed through adjectives and adverbs and serve to
compare items within a text.
Table 1.5: Comparative reference
Grammatical
function
Modifier:
Deictic/Epithet
Submodifier/Adjunct

Class

Adjective
Adverb

same identical
equal
similar additional

other different else
identically
similarly likewise
so such
differently
otherwise

better, more etc
[comparative
adjectives and
quantifiers]
so more less
equally

(Source: Haliday and Hasan, 1976)
b, Substitution
Substitution is when a substitution form replace a noun (phrase), verb
(phrase) or a clause.
Three types of substitution are nominal substitution, verbal substitution
and clausal substitution. Haliday and Hasan (1976) give out a list of the items
that occur as substitutes:
Nominal: one, ones; same
Verbal: do

Clausal: so, not