A critical discourse analysis on english women cartoons

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
HANOI OPEN UNIVERSITY

M.A. THESIS

A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS ON
ENGLISH WOMEN CARTOONS
(PHÂN TÍCH DIỄN NGÔN PHÊ PHÁN TRONG TRANH BIẾM HỌA VỀ
PHỤ NỮ CÓ PHỤ ĐỀ BẰNG TIẾNG ANH)

NGUYEN THI OANH

Hanoi, 2016


MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
HANOI OPEN UNIVERSITY

M.A. THESIS

A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS ON
ENGLISH WOMEN CARTOONS
(PHÂN TÍCH DIỄN NGÔN PHÊ PHÁN TRONG TRANH BIẾM HỌA VỀ
PHỤ NỮ CÓ PHỤ ĐỀ BẰNG TIẾNG ANH)

NGUYEN THI OANH

Field: English Language
Code: 60220201

Supervisor: Nguyen Thi Thanh Huong, Ph.D

Hanoi, 2016


DECLARATION
I, the undersigned, hereby certify my authority of the study project report
entitled: “A Critical Discourse Analysis on English Women Cartoons”
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the MA Degree in
English linguistics at Faculty of Post Graduate Studies, Hanoi Open
University. The substance of this thesis has not, wholly or partially, been
submitted for degree to any other university or institution.

Ha Noi, 2016

Nguyen Thi Oanh

Approved by

Nguyen Thi Thanh Huong, Ph.D

Date …………………………………….

3
i


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost, I would like to express my greatest gratitude to my
supervisor, PhD. Nguyen Thi Thanh Huong, for her continuous assistance,

enormous helpful advice, enlightening guidance and encouragement without
which my thesis would not have been successfully completed.

I also wish to acknowledge my sincere thanks to the Head, lectures and staff
of the Faculty of Post Graduate Studies, Hanoi Open University, for their
concern, lessons and support.

A special word of thanks goes to my brother, who did spare his time during
the process of collecting English women cartoons from the Internet, journals,
and magazines as well as help me understand more about women events.
Without his help, this case study would have been impossible.

Last but not least, a word of appreciation to my beloved husband for his being
beside me all the time, giving me encouragement and best conditions for my
completing the research.

Certainly, slips-up and errors are unavoidable. Therefore, I am very thankful
to receive remarks from my teachers and relatives so that my studies in the
future will be more successful.

ii
4


ABSTRACT

This thesis was written in an attempt to uncover the political opinions
embedded in English Cartoons. Besides, thesis the also aims to help readers of
English interpret and understand conversational implicature of English
Cartoons. The case study is carried out in five chapters: The first is

introduction; the second is literature reviews on critical discourse analysis,
English women cartoons and cohesive devices, the third is about
methodology, the four is findings and discussion, and conclusion is the last
chapter.

To carry out this research, the writer collected 55 cartoons that subjects were
to interpret. They made clear from the data analysis. For one thing, women
cartoons express the cartoonists’ critical opinions on women issues, which
show the hidden power in media discourse. For another thing, readers of
English faced many problems during the interpreting process involved the
lack of knowledge, little experience to exploit all features of context and the
interference of native culture, etc. It may follow the suggestions that readers
should try to interpret and understand implicature of cartoons. To exploit this
study, the writer used such methods as descriptive, statistical and analytical.
In the end, the research also suggests further studies.

5

iii


LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.1.1. Reference in English women cartoons………………………... 36
Table 4.1.2. Substitution in English women cartoons …………………… ...40
Table 4.1.3. Ellipsis in English women cartoons …………………………...45
Table 4.1.4. Conjunction in English women cartoons ………………...……49
Table 4.1.5. The grammatical cohesive devices …………………………… 50
Table 4.2.1. Reiteration ………………………………………………….… 53
Table 4.2.2. Lexical cohesive devices ………………………………………54

Table 4.3. Grammatical and lexical cohesive devices ……………………... 61

6iv


LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
E.g.

Example

i.e.

That is

CDA

Critical Discourse Analysis

REP

Repetition

COL

Collocation

N

Noun

NP

Noun phrase

p.

Page

7v


TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION ……………………………………………………..…

i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ………………………………………….....

ii

ABSTRACT ………………………………………………………….….

iii

LIST OF TABLES ………………………………………………..……..

iv

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS …………………………………..……....

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS ………………………………………..……...

vi

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION................................................................ 1
1.1. Rationale of the study .............................................................................. 1
1.2. Aims of the Study.................................................................................... 2
1.3. Objectives of the study ............................................................................ 2
1.4. Scope of the Study................................................................................... 2
1.5. Significance of the study ......................................................................... 3
1.6. Organization of the Study........................................................................ 3
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW.................................................... 4
2.1. Review of previous studies ...................................................................... 4
2.2. Review of theoretical background ........................................................... 5
2.2.1. Critical discourse analysis .................................................................... 5
2.2.1.1. Definitions of critical discourse analysis............................................ 5
2.2.1.2. Principles and aims of CDA.............................................................. 5
2.2.2. Women cartoons and their comments ................................................... 7
2.2.2.1. Women cartoons ............................................................................... 7
2.2.2.2. Women cartoons’ cartoons ................................................................ 7
2.2.3. Concepts of cohesion............................................................................. 8
2.2.4. Cohesive devices ................................................................................. 10
2.2.4.1. Grammatical cohesive devices......................................................... 12
2.2.4.2. Lexical cohesive devices ................................................................. 20
8 vi


CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY............................................................. 24

3.1. Research orientations............................................................................. 24
3.1.1. Research questions ............................................................................. 24
3.1.2. Research setting.................................................................................. 24
3.1.3. Research approach.............................................................................. 24
3.1.4. Data-related issues/criteria for intended data collection ...................... 25
3.2. Research methods.................................................................................. 25
3.2.1. Major methods.................................................................................... 25
3.2.2. Supporting methods............................................................................ 26
3.2.3. Data collection instruments ................................................................ 26
3.2.4. Data analysis techniques .................................................................... 27
3.3. Summary ............................................................................................... 28
CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS ANH DISCUSSION ....................................... 29
4.1. Grammatical cohesive devices in the English women cartoons’ comments . 29
4.1.1. References in English women cartoons’ comments ............................ 29
4.1.1.1. Personal references in English women cartoons’ comments ............ 29
4.1.1.2. Demonstrative reference in English women cartoons’ comments .... 33
4.1.1.3. Comparative reference in English women cartoons’ comments ....... 34
4.1.2. Substitution in English women cartoons’ comments........................... 36
4.1.2.1. Nominal substitution........................................................................ 36
4.1.2.2. Verbal substitution........................................................................... 37
4.1.2.3. Clausal substitution.......................................................................... 38
4.1.3. Ellipsis in English women cartoons’ comments .................................. 40
4.1.3.1. Nominal ellipsis............................................................................... 40
4.1.3.2. Verbal ellipsis ................................................................................. 41
4.1.3.3. Clausal ellipsis ................................................................................ 43
4.1.4. Conjunction in English women cartoons’ comments .......................... 45
4.1.4.1. Additive Conjunction ...................................................................... 45
9vii

4.1.4.2. Adversative Conjunction ................................................................. 46
4.1.4.3. Causal Conjunction.......................................................................... 47
4.1.4.4. Temporal Conjunction ..................................................................... 48
4.2. Lexical cohesive devices in English women cartoons’ comments.......... 51
4.2.1. Reiteration in English women cartoons’ comments ............................ 51
4.2.1.1. Repetition ........................................................................................ 51
4.2.1.2. Synonym ......................................................................................... 52
4.2.1.3. Superordinate .................................................................................. 52
4.2.3. Collocation in English women cartoons.............................................. 53
4.3. Interpreting English women cartoons’ comments .................................. 55
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION .................................................................. 62
1.Conclusion ................................................................................................ 62
2. Limitations ............................................................................................... 62
3. Recommendations .................................................................................... 63
REFERENCES............................................................................................. 64
APPENDIX.................................................................................................. 66

viii
10


CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1.

Rationale of the study
Language has been playing a very important role in the development of

mankind through the history of society. We use language to communicate
with others. Language helps us to express inner thoughts and emotions, make

sense of complex and abstract thoughts. It also helps us to establish and
maintain relationship. Moreover, it is a tool to help us get what we want and
need. Therefore, we usually use language with specific and clear purposes in
our mind. We can transmit our ideas and affect other people’s mind through
ideology embedded in the language lexically and syntactically. Thus, it is
undoubted that languages and power have a close connection. Language can
be a tool for social changes; it is shaped by social structure.
Besides, we also understand that successful reading of journalistic
discourse as well as graphics remains at a much higher level than just how
language is used. For second language readers, this process is complicated by
the fact that these readers often rely on sociocultural conventions of their
native language, which is source of misunderstanding among readers of
different languages. Thus, the readers must not only acquire the correct forms
and functions of the target language, but also the knowledge of how language
is used in the culture, especially for reading pictures, images or cartoons
which is understood mainly on graphics and social context and language.
Cartoons are a very potential and appealing source of material because
in cartoons, people have a freedom to employ pragmatic strategies that allow
them to play with words and drawings to achieve various communicative
effects. Most dictionary definitions tend to use the word “humorous” when
describing cartoons, but this does not always have to be the case. Certain
cartoons, especially for women cartoons are not humorous at all, but are
1


making serious messages about certain issues that the artist finds important.
Obviously, cartoons can supply people with very rich information about the
native countries, people’s lifestyles and culture differences.
Having these in mind, I choose to carry out a case study on English women
cartoons’ comments in the light of critical discourse analysis and using

cohesive devices in an attempt to find out hidden English women opinions in
cartoons’ comments. This paper also hopefully helps readers of English
understand and interpret English women cartoons’ comments more exactly.
Then, it gives some suggestions for other studies.
1.2.

Aims of the Study
This thesis is carried out to aim at:
- providing a theoretical background of CDA, cartoons’ comments,

women cartoons and cohesive devices.
- pointing out cohesive devices of each conversational implicature in
order to help readers of English to be able to interpret and understand hidden
meaning in the English women cartoons’ comments.
1.3. Objectives of the study
- Describing and analyzing statistically grammatical and lexical
cohesive devices used in the English women cartoons’ comments.
- Finding out hidden conversational implicature in the

English

cartoons’ comments.
- Discovering the frequency of using cohesive devices in the English
women cartoons’ comments.
1.4.

Scope of the Study
(i) Academic scope: The study of CDA on women cartoons’ comments

in English is confined to cohesive devices and symbolism of the cartoons

under study and their conversational implicatures in relation to everyday life.

2


(ii) Social scope: It is hoped that this thesis would be able to help
readers of women cartoons in English to have a better understanding of
women cartoons’ comments, hence developing their English language
competence and performance.
1.5.

Significance of the study
(i) Theoretical significance: The thesis will help the cartoonists to pay

attention when drawing and write women cartoons’ comments for readers.
(ii) Practical significance: The thesis would, to some extend, help readers
of English to have a better understanding of ways of expressing English
cartoons’ comments and be able to avoid misunderstanding their meaning.
1.6.

Organization of the Study
This thesis is organized into five chapters.
Chapter 1 – Introduction – gives the rationale, the aims of the study,

objectives, scope of the thesis, significance of the study and structural
organization of the thesis.
Chapter 2 – Literature review – presents the pervious studies relating to
the research area and theoretical background employed for conducting the thesis.
Chapter 3 – Methodology – describes in detail all research-governing
orientations and research methods.

Chapter 4 - Presentation and discussion of the results - this is the main
part of the thesis with the data analysis which presents the results and in-depth
discussions, and then an overall picture is given by synthesizing all the major
findings and discussing them.
Chapter 5 – Conclusion – makes a brief summary of the whole thesis,
points out some limitations and give recommendation as well as suggestion
for a further study.
References and appendices come at the end of the paper.

3


CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Review of previous studies
There have been a lot of books in which discourse analysis are
mentioned by well-known scholars such as Burack, Jonathan (1994),
Understanding and Creating Editorial Cartoons: A Resource Guide.
Madison, WI: Knowledge Unlimited; Fairclough, N. (2001), Language and
Power, Second Edition, Harlow: Longman; Fairclough, N. (1997), Critical
Discourse Analysis: The Critical study of Language, London: Longman;
Kress G. and Hodge, B. (1979), Language as Ideology, London: Routledge;
Nunan D. (1993), Introducing Disourse Analysis, Penguine; Richardson, J. E.
(2007), Analysing Newspaper: An approach from Critical Discourse
Analysis. Great Britain; Titscher, S., Meyer, M., Wodak, R. and Vetter, E.
(2000), Methods of Text and Discourse Analysis. London: Sage Publications;
Van Dijk, T.A. (1993b), Principles of critical discourse analysis, Discourse
and Society, 4(2), 249-83; Van Dijk, T.A. (1999), Critical Discourse Analysis
and Conversation Analysis, Discourse and Society, 10 (4), pp.459-450.
Up to now, there have been some researches about cartoons, such as.

Abiola, F. J. (2011). A pragmatic analysis of selected cartoons from Nigerian
dailies the Guardian, the Punch and the Nation. Bachelor’s Thesis.
University of Ilorin, Ilorin: Nigeria. Adejuwon, A. & Alimi, S. (2011).
Cartoons as illustration: Political process in Nigeria. The Journal of Pan
African Studies. Conners, J.L. (2005). Visual Presentations of the 2004
Presidential Campaign: Political Cartoons and Popular Culture References.
Amarican Behavioral Scientist. However, there has been no research about
English women cartoons. Thus, “A critical discourse analysis on English
women cartoons” is chosen to be topic of this study.

4


2.2. Review of theoretical background
2.2.1. Critical discourse analysis
2.2.1.1. Definitions of critical discourse analysis
There is no unanimous definition. According to Rebecca Rogers (2004,
2) CDA is both a theory and a method. Researchers who are interested in the
relationship between language and society use CDA to help them describe,
interpret, and explain such relationships. Gilbert Weiss and Ruth Wodak
(2003,12) says that the term CDA is used to refer to more specially to the
critical linguistic approach of scholars who find the larger discursive unit of
text to be the basic unit of communication. The research specifically considers
more or less overt relations of struggle and conflict of such domains as media
discourse, political discourses, gender issues, issues of racism.
2.2.1.2. Principles and aims of CDA
Titscher et al. (2000), using the work of Wodak (1996), summarize the
general principles of CDA as follows:
- CDA is concerned with social problems. It is concerned with language
or language use, but with the linguistic character of social and cultural

processes and structures.
- Power-relations have to do with discourse, and CDA studies both
power in discourse and power over discourse.
- Society and culture are dialectically related to discourse: society and
culture are shaped by discourse, and at the same time constitute
discourse. Every single instances of language use reproduces or
transforms society and culture, including power relations.
- Language use may be ideological. To determine this it is necessary to
analyze texts to investigate their interpretation, reception and social
effects.

5


- Discourses are historical and can only be understood in relation to their
context. At a theoretical level this corresponds to the approach of
Wittgenstein, according to which the meaning of an utterance rests in
its usage in a specific situation.
- Discourse analysis is interpretative and explanatory. Critical analysis
implies a systematic methodology and a relationship between the text
and its social conditions, ideologies and power-relations. Wodak
(1996:17-20), cited in Titscher et al., (2000:146).
Among them, CDA is the most interested and motivated by pressing social
issues, which it hopes to better understand through discourse analysis. Since
serious social problems are naturally complex, this usually also means a
multidisciplinary approach, in which distinctions between theory, description
and application become less relevant. This focus on fundamental
understanding of social problems such as dominance and inequality does not
mean ignoring theoretical issues. On the contrary, without complex and
highly sophisticated theories no such understanding is possible. Central to this

theoretical endeavor is the analysis of the complex relationships between
dominance and discourse.
Critical discourse analysis is far from easy. It is by far the toughest
challenge in the discipline. As suggested above, it requires multidisciplinary,
and an account of intricate relationships between text, talk, social cognition,
power, society and culture. Its adequacy criteria are not merely observational,
descriptive or even explanatory. Ultimately, its success is measured by its
effectiveness and relevance, that is, but its contribution to change.
In short, in seeking to accomplish these goals, CDA investigates, and aims
at illustrating, “a relationship between the text and its social conditions,
ideologies and power-relations”.

6


2.2.2. Women cartoons and their comments
2.2.2.1. Women cartoons
Women cartoons are an easy and funny way to criticize current events
without having to resort to tedious activities such as research, reading, or
comprehending said current events. Women cartoons make criticism of
difficult issues as easy as doodling on a napkin - why, even words are
optional! One might say women cartooning make women commentary
available to the illiterate.
Women cartoons are widely used to express opinions about public
issues and officials. They may be found in the pages of every major
newspaper in the world and appeal to all levels of readers. Cartoonists possess
a special art skill which often incorporates caricatures, symbolism, satire and
a well-rounded understanding of the issues about which they are drawing
cartoons. Often the full meaning of the cartoon is rather subtle and may be
missed entirely by casual reader.

2.2.2.2. Women cartoons’ cartoons
Women cartoons thrive on hyperbole and exaggeration, and, to a lesser
degree, humor. Symbolism is also heavily used. For example, instead of
drawing the entire traditional woman, cartoons use a work-around such as
drawing an elephant, which takes up far less space than thousands upon
thousands of white conservatives and their Latino lackeys.
Symbolism also allows women cartoons to reach a broader audience: while
people with college educations might nearly giggle when a cartoon Jack Abram
off gives a sack of money to an elephant, illiterate high-school dropouts might
nearly chuckle at the thought of giving an elephant a sack of money.
Women cartoons are also animated through visual analogies that imply
a likeness between the event portrayed in the image and the issue on which
the cartoonist is making comment. Although many kinds of analogies can be
7


used, meanings arise as the reader is able to recognize and interpret them.
This becomes difficult, though, when a cartoon's analogy is drawn from
contemporary or historical events, plays on literary allusions, or uses past
cultural knowledge not readily available to a reader. Cartoons are meaningful
to those who understand something about the larger discourse within which
they are constructed and read. This discourse includes a visual language of signs,
conventions and rhetorical devices used to convey and interpret meanings. Most
rhetorical devices can be grouped under the broad categories of caricature and
visual analogy. (Cited in Nguyen Thu Phuong’s thesis (2010)
2.2.3. Concepts of cohesion
Cohesion, based on Halliday and Hasan (1976) “cohesion theory as the
major characteristic of coherence considering linguistic properties of the
language, gives a sequence of sentences a coherent texture. Cohesion occurs
where the interpretation of some elements in the discourse is dependent on

that of another”. Halliday and Hasan (1976, p. vii) pointed out that cohesion is
one of the linguistic system's major resources for text construction. In fact,
cohesion represents the presence of explicit cues in the text that allow
readers/listeners to find semantic relations within it as part of linguistic
system enhancing the semantic potentials of text. A text is meaningful only
when elements referring to each other in the text set up a relation. The relation
can be set up through reference, substitution, ellipsis, and conjunction as
grammatical and lexical cohesion. So, the grammar and lexicon are two forms
of cohesion. These cohesive devices used by speakers and writers in order to
express meaning based on the interpretations of the listeners and readers
provide semantic relations for the semantic units whose interpretations they
facilitate. Cohesion depicts how meaning-based relationship is set up by
lexical and syntactic features. These explicit lexical and syntactic features are
known as cohesive devices, signaling the relationship in sentences and
8


paragraphs. Halliday and Hasan (1976) introduced five different types of
cohesive devices in order to provide a guideline for studying and judging the
cohesion and coherence of writing: (a) reference (i.e., the indication of
information from elsewhere such as personals, demonstratives, and
comparatives), (b) substitution (i.e., the replacement of one component by
another), (c) ellipsis (i.e., the omission of a component), (d) conjunction (i.e.,
the indication of specific meaning which presupposes present items in the
discourse, such as additive, adversative, casual, and temporal), and finally (e)
lexical cohesion (i.e., the repetition of the same orrelative lexical items). They
contended that through analyzing the use of cohesive devices, one could
evaluate or assess writing quality from the perspective of coherence.
Cohesion is the term used to describe the structural, grammatical and
lexical means by which sentences and paragraphs in the texts are linked and

relationships between them established. The basic concept that is employed in
analyzing the cohesion of a text on the basis of the presented framework of
cohesion by Halliday & Hasan is that of the tie. It is a complex notion which
comprises not only the cohesive element by itself but also that which is
presupposed by it. The notion is interpreted as a relation between these two
elements. The relation may be anaphoric, with the presupposed element
preceding, or cataphoric, with the presupposed element following.
According to Halliday &Hasan (1976), other cohesive relations are:
1. Exophoric relation is found outside the text, i.e. in the situation
2. Paraphoric relation points to the information that is in the other text.
3. Homophoric relation is a self- interpreting relation. Entities are
unique under certain circumstances.
While analyzing cohesion, two facts about ties have to be taken into
consideration. In the first place, any sentence may have more than one tie in
it. In the second place, the distance between cohesive items may be
9


immediate, i.e. the presupposed item may be in the immediate preceding sentence;
or remote, i.e. the presupposed item may be not in the immediately preceding
sentence. Also, the presupposed item may include a mediated tie. Distance
between ties is relevant in terms of analysis of cohesion Halliday & Hasan (1976).
A text should be a unified whole; it is not just a collection of
unrelated sentences. Therefore, to make a text as a unified whole, there should
be a device to tie it together. The device is cohesive devices.
2.2.4. Cohesive devices
Cohesive devices are the tool of cohesion to create unity of meaning
within atext. Millward in Muslimah’s thesis (2007:13) says that cohesive
devices are certainwords or phrases and their location within the discourse
will activate a set of assuptionsto themeaning of what has gone beforehand or

will generate a set of expectations to what may follow Muslimah (2007:13).
From that statement, it can be concluded that cohesive devices are words or
phrases which their meaning are dependent on the otherwords orphrases either
precede them. In another word, their meaning are related to each other.
Connor (1984) defines cohesion as the use of explicit cohesive devices
that signal relations among sentences and part of a text. According to Rahman
(2013: 2) “This means that the use of cohesive devices enables readers and
listeners to capture the connectedness or the meaning between what precedes
and what follows”. It also shows that cohesive device is important.
Cohesive devices are the ones used to stick one clause to another in a
sentence and one sentence to another in a paragraph and make the text
communicative. According to M.A.K. Halliday and Ruqaiya Hasan, there are
two main types of cohesion: grammatical, referring to the structural content,
and lexical, referring to the language content of the piece. Five general
categories of cohesive devices that create coherence in texts can be identified
are: reference, ellipsis, substitution, lexical cohesion and conjunction.
10


According to Halliday and Hasan (1976), the classification of cohesion
is based on the linguistic form. The types of cohesion depend either on
semantic relation in the linguistic system or on lexico-grammatical relations.
In other words, the cohesive relation can be interpreted as being either lexicogrammatical in nature or semantic. It can be made clearer in the following
description:
Table 2: Type of cohesion
Nature of cohesive relation

Type of cohesion

Relatedness of form

Substitution and ellipsis; lexical collocation

Relatedness of reference

Reference; lexical reiteration

Semantic connection

Conjunction
Source: Halliday and Hasan (1976:304)

Reference, substitution and ellipsis are clearly grammatical; lexical
cohesion, as the name implies, lexical. Conjunction is on the borderline of the
grammatical and the lexical; the set of conjunctive element can probably be
interpreted grammatically in terms of systems, and some conjunctive
expressions involve lexical selection. However, it is better to put it in the
group of grammatical cohesion as it is mainly grammatical with a lexical
component inside. Consequently, we can refer to grammatical cohesion and
lexical cohesion as follows:
Table 2: Grammatical and lexical cohesion
Grammatical cohesion devices

Lexical cohesion devices

Reference

Conjunction

Reiteration

- Exopheric

- Additive

- Same word/repetition

- Endophora

- Adversative

- Synonym/near synonyms

- personal

- Causal

- Superordinates

- demonstrative

- Temporal

- General words

11


- comparative

- Others

Collocation

Substitution

- Noun + Noun

- Nominal substitution

- Adjective + Noun

- Verbal substitution

- Verb + Noun

- Clausal substitution

- Noun + Preposition

Ellipsis

- Adjective + Preposition

- Nominal ellipsis

- Adverb + Adjective

- Verbal ellipsis

- Verb + Preposition

- Clausal ellipsis
Adapted from Haliday and Hasan (1976)
2.2.4.1. Grammatical cohesive devices
Grammatical cohesion is constructed by the grammatical structures,
each component tie each other. Halliday and Hasan (1976) classify
grammatical cohesion into 4 major classes: Reference, Substitution, Ellipsis
and Conjunction.
a. Reference
Reference is one of the most extensively used cohesive devices in texts.
Therefore, we will have a closer look at the definition of reference and what
characterizes this particular type of cohesion.
Reference is a well researched area within linguistics. According to
Lyons (1969), “this term was introduced into linguistics to name the
relationship which holds between words and things, events, actions, and the
qualities they stand for” cited in Verikaite (1999). The development of
linguistics has broadened the meaning of reference. Salkie (1995) claimed
that it includes “a relation between the meaning of a word and its
environment, which can be either a real world or the text”.

12


Every language has particular items which have the feature of reference.
They make reference to something else for their interpretation. In English it is
personals, demonstratives and comparatives. These items show that information
indicates something else. It shows the relationship between a word and what it
points to in the real world Baker (1992). The main feature that characterizes
reference is that the information signals for retrieval. The identity of particular

thing that is being referred to has a referential meaning and cohesion is found
then the same thing occurs a second time. Reference has the semantic feature of
definiteness or specificity. Because of that there has to be reference to the
context of situation. Referencing items do not have to match the grammatical
class they must have semantic properties Halliday and Hasan (1976).
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 Endophora reference as a general name for reference within the text
Exophoric reference looks outside the text to the situation in which the
text occurs for the item which is being referred to Paltridge and Burton (2000).
Endophora reference is textual reference referring to an item which is
identified in the text.
Anaphoric reference signifies a word or phrase that refers to another
or phrase used earlier in a text Paltridge and Burton (2000).
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).
13


Halliday and Hasan (1976) divide referential cohesion into three subtypes: personal, demonstrative and comparative.
When characterizing reference, “It is often considered important in
formal semantics that the expression used to refer to an entity must, in its
description, be true of the entity. That is, if an individual is referred to by the
expression must be true of the individual in order for correct reference to take

place” Brown & Yule (1996). However, when we analyze discourse, we are
interested not in the correct reference but in the success of reference.
Successful reference can only be achieved if three conditions are met. In the
first place, the speaker must have linguistic competence, i.e. the speaker and
the addressee must know the language in which they communicate. In the
second place, the speaker must have the cognitive ability. That is she/ he must
have enough factual knowledge about the reference. Thirdly, the speaker must
have pragmatic willingness to communicate the total knowledge he has about
the referent. But this of course may not always be the case; the speaker may
wish to keep some information from us Yule (1996).
Nevertheless, Halliday & Hasan (1976) define reference as a case
where the information to be retrieved is the referential meaning, the identity
of the particular thing or class of things that is being referred to. The cohesion
lies in the continuity of reference, whereby the same thing enters into the
discourse a second time. Reference is a semantic relation. It includes language
elements that refer to something else for interpretation. They are different
from lexical ties by their directionality. Lexical cohesive patterns do not
depend on each other for their interpretation. They belong to open systems
while reference and, at the same time, substitution items entirely depend on
their items for their interpretation and have no definitional meaning in
themselves. They are members of closed system.

14


There are certain items in every language which have the property of
reference. Reference is realized by personal pronouns, demonstratives, and
the definite article Ellis (1992); Toolan (2002); Halliday & Hasan (1976);
Nunan (1993). In order to get a better view of reference, different types of
reference will be defined below:

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.
Speaking of morphological features of the personal and possessive
pronouns, it is important to notice that “such forms as I, you, we have no noun
antecedents at all; only he – him, she – her, it –it, they – them have. The same
holds for my, your, our; only his, her, its, their have noun antecedents”
Valeika & Buikiene (2003). As a result, the personal pronouns I, you and we
are exophoric and fulfill deictic function. They make reference to the roles of
listener and speaker which are outside the text. References made outside the
text are exospheric while reference made within the text are endophoric
Halliday & Hasan (1976)
In many languages, pronoun usage encodes deixis. Traditionally,
pronouns are thought of being as noun substitutes. But most subclasses of
pronouns perform quite a different function, i.e. deictic function. From an
etymological point of view, the term ‘deixis’ originates in the notion of
gestural reference Lyons (1996).
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:

15