English funny stories a discourse analysis = (phân tích diễn ngôn truyện cười tiếng anh)

VINH UNIVERSITY
FOREIGN LANGUAGES DEPARTMENT
**********

ENGLISH FUNNY STORIES - A DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
(Phân tích diễn ngơn truyện cười tiếng Anh )

GRADUATION THESIS
Field: English linguistics

Student

: Trần Thị Nguyệt

Supervisor : Võ Thị Hồng Minh, M.A.

VINH - 2012


VINH UNIVERSITY
FOREIGN LANGUAGES DEPARTMENT
**********

TRẦN THỊ NGUYỆT

ENGLISH FUNNY STORIES - A DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
(Phân tích diễn ngơn truyện cười tiếng Anh)

GRADUATION THESIS
Field: English linguistics

VINH - 2012


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

For the completion of this study, I have been fortunate to receive invaluable
contributions from many people.

First of all, I would like to express my greatest gratitude to Mrs. Vo Hong Minh, my
supervisor, for her excelllent suggestions, valuable materials, unflagging encouragement,
and detailed correction that help me to fulfill this study.

I am also grateful to my teachers in the Department of Foreign Languages for their
helpful suggestions and encouragement which help me overcome difficulties in the
process of my study.

My warmest thanks go to my family and my good friends who are willing to help me and
always by my side, encourage me to complete my work.


ABSTRACT

The importance of English funny stories as a useful means of language teaching and
learning has stimulated the author in the study. In this thesis, the author discusses the
different notions of two elements of discourse analysis: thematic structure and cohesion
first and then the use of these elements in English funny stories. In addition, the study is
concerned with the application of discourse analysis as well as English funny stories in
teaching and learning English.

LIST OF TABLES
Page

Table 1: Examples of theme and rheme in the structure of clauses……………………..9
Table 2 : General statistics of selected materials………………………………………..21
Table 3 : The statistic of theme in English funny stories………………………………..22
Table 4 : The first example for theme and rheme in complex sentences………………..26
Table 5: The second example for theme and rheme in complex sentences…………….26
Table 6 : The analysis of grammatical cohesive devices in English funny stories……...27
Table 7 : The statistic of three types of reference………………………………….......27
Table 8: The analysis of types of conjunction in English funny stories………………..31
Table 9 : The statistic of reiteration in English funny stories…………………………...33


TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ....................................................................................... i
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................ ii
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................. iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................ iv
PART A : INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 1
1. Rationale .............................................................................................................. 1
2. Aims and objectives of the study......................................................................... 1
3. Scope of the study ............................................................................................... 2
4. Methods of the study ........................................................................................... 2
5. Design of the study .............................................................................................. 2
PART B : DEVELOPMENT................................................................................... 4
CHAPTER ONE: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ........................................... 4
1.1. Theory of discourse .......................................................................................... 4
1.1.1. Concept of discourse ..................................................................................... 4

1.1.2. Discourse and text ......................................................................................... 5
1.1.3. Discourse context .......................................................................................... 6
1.2. Discouse analysis .............................................................................................. 7
1.3. Thematic structure ............................................................................................ 8
1.3.1. Theme and rheme .......................................................................................... 8
1.3.2. Types of theme .............................................................................................. 9
1.4. Cohesion ........................................................................................................... 10
1.4.1. Concept of cohesion ...................................................................................... 10
1.4.2. Cohesion and coherence ................................................................................ 11
1.4.3. Types of cohesion .......................................................................................... 11
1.4.3.1. Grammatical cohesion ................................................................................ 12
1.4.3.1.1. Reference ................................................................................................. 12
1.4.3.1.2.Substitution ............................................................................................... 14
1.4.3.1.3. Ellipsis ..................................................................................................... 15
1.4.3.1.4. Conjunction ............................................................................................. 16
1.4.3.2. Lexical cohesion ......................................................................................... 18


1.4.3.2.1. Reiteration ............................................................................................... 18
1.4.3.2.2. Collocation .............................................................................................. 20
CHAPTER TWO: AN ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH FUNNY STORIES ............... 21
2.1. Some gerneral features of English funny stories .............................................. 21
2.1.1. Characters in English funny stories ............................................................... 21
2.1.2. Language in English funny stories ............................................................... 21
2.2. General statistic of selected materials .............................................................. 21
2.3. Thematicsation.................................................................................................. 22
2.3.1. Unmarked theme ........................................................................................... 22
2.3.2. Marked theme ................................................................................................ 23
2.3.3. Theme in different mood of a clause ............................................................. 24
2.3.3.1. Theme in declarative clauses ...................................................................... 24

2.3.3.2. Theme in interrogatice clauses ................................................................... 25
2.3.3.3. Theme in imperative clauses ...................................................................... 25
2.3.4. Theme in the complex sentences ................................................................... 26
2.4. Cohesion ........................................................................................................... 26
2.4.1. Grammatical cohesion ................................................................................... 27
2.4.1.1. Reference .................................................................................................... 27
2.4.1.2. Substitution ................................................................................................. 29
2.4.1.3. Ellipsis ........................................................................................................ 30
2.4.1.4. Conjunction ................................................................................................ 30
2.4.2. Lexical cohesion ............................................................................................ 33
2.4.2.1. Reiteration .................................................................................................. 33
2.4.2.1.1. Repetition ................................................................................................ 34
2.4.2.1.2. Synonym & near synonym ...................................................................... 35
2.4.2.1.3. Superordinate and general word .............................................................. 36
2.4.2.2. Collocation ................................................................................................. 36
CHAPTER THREE : FINDINGS AND IMPLICATIONS .................................... 37
3.1. The findings ...................................................................................................... 37
3.1.1. The thematic structure ................................................................................... 37
3.1.2. Cohesive devices ........................................................................................... 37
3.1.2.1. Grammatical cohesion ................................................................................ 37


3.1.2.2. Lexical cohesion ......................................................................................... 38
3.2. Implications for teaching and learning ............................................................. 38
PART C : CONCLUSION ...................................................................................... 42
1. Recapitulation ...................................................................................................... 42
2. Limitations and some suggestions for further research ....................................... 42
REFERENCES
APPENDIX

PART A : INTRODUCTION

1. Rationale
In traditional linguistic research there are many works on text analysis, which focus only
on the formal properties of language divorced from their communicative functions.
Modern linguistic tendency of research focuses on discourse analysis, which is functional
analysis of discourse involving the analysis of language in use. It can be said that
language in the works of discourse analysis has been studied in both form and meaning in
distinctive situations and contexts. Emphasizing as above, it is to be noted that discourse
analysis, although a challenge to researchers and learners, has attracted much of their
attention.

Funny stories play an important role in social interaction. A humorous story can break the
tension in an awkward conversation. Public speakers frequently begin their speeches with
a funny story to put their audience at ease. Laughter may also relieve stress and distract
people from pain. Moreover, funny stories can be also seen as a means of teaching and
learning English. we read them not only to entertain but also learn some grammatical
features as well as vocabulary. However, there is still little study on this kind of stories.

For all reasons above, we have decided to choose " English funny stories - a discourse
analysis " to be the title of the thesis.
2. Aims and objectives of the study
The object of the thesis is to study the structure and style as well as some grammatical
and lexical categories of english funny stories.
The study aims at:
Firstly, having an analysis of the usage of theme and rheme in funny stories.
Secondly, finding out cohesive devices used in funny stories.
Lastly, suggesting some practical applications of discourse analysis in teaching and
learning English.

To realize these aims, the author poses the following research questions:


1. What types of theme are used and how do the writers use thematic structure in
English funny stories?
2. What types of cohesive devices are used in English funny stories and their
functions?

3. Scope of the study
Our research deals with some aspects of discourse analysis including theme and rheme,
cohesive devices including grammatical and lexical cohesion mainly provided by
Halliday and Hasan (1976).
The data analyzed in this thesis are 10 English funny stories available in the book “ Nu
cuoi nuoc anh”( 2007) which are very popular with the Vietnamese reader, especially, the
students.

4. Methods of the study
To meet the aims and objectives of the study:
First of all, 10 English funny stories are carefully collected. They are popular, especially,
easy for everybody to understand.
Second, these stories will be described and analysed in terms of dicourse analysis.
Third, the data obtained will be dealt with in order to reach some conclusions on the
usage of some linguistic features in discourse.
Moreover, in this thesis we use the quantitative method and inductive approach based on
a collection of sample stories.

5. Design of the study
The thesis is comprised of three part: introduction, development and conclusion.
Part A : Introduction
Like other thesises, this part provides some information about the purposes and reasons

of choosing the topic ; aims and objectives; scope; methods and design of the study.
Part B: Development . This part consists of three chapter.
Chapter one: Theoretical background.


In this chapter, the author gives theoretical background of the study. They are some
notions related to discourse like discourse, discourse analysis and cohesive
devices.
Chapter two: Discourse analysis of English funny stories
This chapter explores some discourse features of English funny stories and discuss the
findings of theme and rheme and cohesion.
Chapter three: Implications
In this chapter the author suggests some implications for better learning and teaching.
Part C : Conclusion
The final part of the thesis is conclusion. This part conludes the issues addressed and put
forward some issues which have not been mentioned in the thesis as well as some
suggestions for further research.

PART B : DEVELOPMENT


CHAPTER ONE : THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

1.1.Theory of discourse
1.1.1 Concept of discourse
Since its introduction to modern science, the term 'discourse' has taken various,
sometimes very broad meanings. Traditionally, discourse has been treated as "a
continuous stretch of (especially spoken) language larger than a sentence…a discourse is
a behavioural unit which has a pre-theoretical status in linguistics…" (Crystal 1991: 106).
According to this definition discourse is primarily seen as spoken language (a language

act: parole).
Discourse, according to Zellig Harris (1951), who first used the term, is a sequence of the
utterances. He observes that: “Stretches longer than one utterance are not usually
considered in current descriptive linguistics.[…] the linguist usually considers the
interrelations of elements only within one utterance at a time. This yields a possible
description of the material, since the interrelations of elements within each utterance (or
utterance type) are worked out, and any longer discourse is describable as succession of
utterances, i.e. a succession of elements having the stated interrelations. This restriction
means that nothing is generally said about the interrelations among whole utterances
within a sequence.”
Grenoble (2000), explaining Harris’s definition of discourse, states that:

“Harris

interestingly enough ruled out the kind of study which discourse analysis aims to do. He
is of the view that linguistic research focuses on the elements within an utterance;
discourse can be considered as a sequence of utterance. Harris argues that the study of
the interrelations between utterances within a discourse; the scope of a discourse
analysis required much more information than the theoretical apparatus of that time
could handle. While this held true for 1950s and 1960s, roughly, but 1970s saw an
emerging body of different approaches including pragmatics, conversation analysis,
textual linguistics, and relevance theory.”


Through reading, in my opinion, the answer to the question 'What is discourse?' can be
seen clearly in Cook's (1989: 44) explanation: "discourse is like a moving film, revealing
itself in time  sometimes over long periods."
1.1.2. Discourse and text
“Discourse” and ‘text’ are very trendy words referring to very trendy concepts. Although
linguistic theorists define the terms ‘discourse’ and ‘text’ in a number of different ways,

they still have something in common. Some linguists maintain that the two terms can be
used interchangeably. According to Widdowson (1979) text is sentences in combination
whereas discourse is the use of sentence for communication.

By contrast, some other linguists draw a clear and explicit distinction between the terms.
Widdowson (1984: 100) claims that: “Discourse is a communicative process by means of
interaction. Its situational outcome is a change in a state of affairs: information is
conveyed, intention made clear, its linguistic product is text”. According to Crystal
(1992: 25), discourse is considered to be “a continuous stretch of (especially spoken)
language large than a sentence, often constituting a coherent unit, such as a sermon,
argument, joke or narrative. Text is a piece of naturally occurring spoken, written or
signed language identified for purposes of analysis”.
In fact, it is sometimes impossible to make a clear-cut distinction between discourse and
text. However, the study will be based on the approach developed by Halliday and Hasan
(1985: 10):”text (discourse) can be defined in the simplest way perhaps by saying that it
is language that functional. By functional we simply mean language that is doing some
job in some context as apposed to isolated words or sentences that I might put on the
blackboard. So any instance of living language that is playing some part in a context of
situation, we shall call it a text. It may be either spoken or written or indeed in any other
medium of expression that we like to think of”.
According to the view of Halliday and Hasan, the term “text” is used to refer to any
written record of communicative event and regarded as the product of discourse, so
‘discourse’ and ‘text’ can be often used interchangeably to denote the same subject
matter.
1.1.3. Discourse context


The concept of context has been extensively studied by different linguists from different
aspects, such as pragmatics and systemic-functional linguistics.. In the framework
proposed by Halliday, the concept of context consists of three aspects: context of culture,

context of situation and co-text. Context of culture and context of situation are outside of
language itself. Co-text, also known as linguistic context, is certainly inside of language
itself. There is a close interdependent relationship between language and context. Context
determines and is constructed by the choice of language. On the one hand, language,
when considered as a system--its lexical items and grammatical categories—is related to
its context of culture. While the specific text and its component parts are related to its
context of situation. To be specific, context of culture is related to genre, context of
situation is related to register, and co-text to the discourse itself.
Context of situation consists of three aspects: field, tenor and mode. Field refers to what
is happening, to the nature of social action that is taking place. It answers such questions
as what it is that the participant is engaged in. Tenor refers to who is taking part, to the
nature of the participants, their status and roles: what the relationship between
communicators, including permanent and temporary relationships. Mode refers to what
role the language plays, what it is that the participants are expecting the language to do for

them in that situation: the symbolic organization of the text, the status that it has, and its
function in the context, including the channel and also the rhetorical mode, what is being
achieved by the text in terms of such categories as persuasive, expository, didactic and
the like. Collectively the three aspects of situational context are called register.
Context of situation is closely related to various texts. Certain situational context asks for
certain text and in return, certain text creates certain context. In the process of
communication, the meaning system is largely determined by the three aspects of
situational context: ideational meaning by field, interpersonal meaning by tenor and
textual meaning by mode (Baker, 2000: 9).

1.2.Discourse analysis


It is said that discourse is related to many disciplines. The principal concern of discourse
analysis is to examine how any language produced by a given participants

whether spoken or written is used in communication for a given situation in a given
setting. Thus, discourse analysis is concerned with written and spoken forms. Discourse
devices also help to string language elements.
The organization of stretches of language greater than a sentence [It] can focus on
conversation, written language, when searching for patterning of the language.
Discourse analysis must determine the units of these larger stretches of language, how
these units are signalled by specific linguistic markers, and/or the processes involve in
producing and comprehending larger stretches of language.
(Fine, 1988:01)
Yule (1996) asserts that discourse structure is very important. It focuses on the main
elements that can form a well-stretched text. These structural connections between
sentences create cohesion. Moreover, the study of discourse is based especially on a
pragmatic view where the background knowledge, beliefs and expectations are taken
into consideration; i.e., what the speakers or writers have in mind.
Another definition of discourse analysis is quoted from (Allen and Corder 1974: 200)
“discourse analysis is taken to be the investigation into the formal devices used to
connect sentences together”.
In my opinion, discourse analysis examines how stretches of language, considered in
their full textual, social, and psychological context, become meaningful and unified for
their users. It is a rapidly expanding field, providing insights into the problems and
processes of language use and language learning, and is therefore of great importance to
language teachers. Traditionally, language teaching has concentrated on pronunciation,
grammar, and vocabulary, and while these remain the basis of foreign language
knowledge, discourse analysis can draw attention to the skills needed to put this
knowledge into action and to achieve successful communication.

1.3. The thematic structure


The thematic structure of a discourse plays a crucial role; it is organization of events, the

way theme or topic is realized in a text; this is the reason why the systemic analysis of the
textual structures of news begins with an explication of notions like theme or topic.
1.3.1. Theme and Rheme
The Theme-Rheme structure can be identified in both written discourses and spoken
narratives and anesdotes, and a story is the combination of both as it is a story written
down and conversation are included.
Theme and Rheme is the one favored by Halliday (1968, 1985), whose insights in this
area form a very important part of this paper.
Theme and Rheme are two terms which represent the way in which information is
distributed in a sentence. The definition of Theme given by Halliday (1985, p.38) is that
Theme is given information serving as “the point of departure” of a message. The given
information is the information which has already been mentioned somewhere in the text,
or it is shared or mutual knowledge from the immediate context. In other words, Theme
typically contains familiar, old or given information. Theme provides the settings for the
remainder of the sentence – Rheme. Rheme is the remainder of the message in a clause in
which Theme is developed, that is to say, Rheme typically contains unfamiliar or new
information. New information is knowledge that a writer assumes the reader does not
know, but needs to have in order to follow the progression of the argument. The
boundary between Theme and Rheme is simple: Theme is the first element occurring in a
clause; the remainder clause is Rheme. For example:

(1)
Theme

Rheme


1. The two Indians

stood waiting.

2. Across the bay

they found the other boat.

3. What she had felt

he never knew.

Table 1: Examples of theme and rheme in the structure of clauses
From the examples we can see that the initial place has an enormous importance in a
clause. Whatever is chosen to be in the first place will influence a reader’s interpretation
of everything that comes next. Accordingly, in cohesive writing, ‘given’ information in a
clause needs be presented in Theme position, which acts like a signpost signaling a reader
where the meanings have come from and where they are going to. The new information
needs to be located in Rheme position. The balance and movement of a clause between
Theme and Rheme is an essential component in composing a cohesive text.
1.3.2. Types of theme
Another aspect of concerning Theme-Rheme structure is the classification of Theme.
Brown and Yule ( 1983 : 133) has some ways of dividing theme such as single and
multiple, predicated and unpredicated theme. However, in this thesis we will mention to
two subtypes of theme: Unmarked theme and Marked theme.
Halliday(1994:4) points out that the unmarked Theme is the default choice and the
subject is usually “chosen as Theme unless there is a good reason for choosing something
else”. He continues to define marked Theme as “a Theme that is something other than
the Subject”. For examples:

(2) One day, the small man came home very excitedly.( Marked theme)
(3) Mr.Johnson was a rich old man.( Unmarked theme)

1.4. Cohesion
1.4.1. Concept of cohesion
The term cohesion has been defined in various ways. The concept of cohesion refers to
relations of meaning that exist within the text, and that defines it as a text.


Cohesion may be crudely defined as the way certain words or grammatical features of a
sentence can connect that sentence to its predecessors (and successors) in a text (Hoey
1991:3). A text is in part organized and created by the presence in each sentence of these
elements that require the reader to look to the surrounding sentences for their
interpretation. Phenomena that had resisted satisfactory handling within sentence-bound
grammars, such as pronominalization, ellipsis, and sentence conjunction were found in
such studies to be not only well handled once textual factors were taken into account but
capable in turn of casting light on the nature of text itself.
Halliday and Hasan (1976:4) state that the concept of cohesion is a semantic one; it refers
to relations of meaning that exist within the text, and that define it as a text. Cohesion
occurs where the interpretation of some elements in the discourse is dependent on that of
another. The one presupposes the other, in the sense that it cannot be effectively decoded
without recoursing to it. When this happens, a relation of cohesion is set up, and the two
elements, the presupposing and the presupposed, are thereby at least potentially
integrated into a text.
Halliday and Hasan (1976:5) also argue that cohesion is part of the system of a language.
The potential for cohesion lies in the systematic resources of reference, ellipsis and so on
that are built into the language itself. The actualization of cohesion in any given instance,
however, depends not merely on the selection of some option from these resources, but
also on the presence of some other element which resolves the presupposition that this set
up.
In this thesis, we use the definition of Halliday and Hasan. According to them, the
organization of text (which they term texture) is made up (in large part) of relationships
among semantic and grammatical items referred to as cohesive ties in the text.

1.4.2. Cohesion and coherence
Cohesion and coherence are terms used in discourse analysis and text linguistics to
describe the properties of written texts. Many linguists have discussed the question of
cohesion and coherence. But their opinions on these two notions differ. Some (such as


Crystal, 1985) think that cohesion realizes the relation between meaning and its super
forms and coherence realizes the relation between meaning and the context. Some (such
as Brown & Yule, 1983) think that when people interpret a discourse they do not need
textual markers (cohesive ties), and they assume that the discourse is coherent and make
the interpretation under this assumption. Some (such as Wang Zongyan, 1992) think that
cohesion is the lexical and grammatical devices in a text and coherence is the effect
realized by these devices. Still some (such as Widdowson, 1978) think that cohesion is
the explicit relationship between propostions of sentences and coherence is the
relationship between illocutionary acts of utterances. In this paper I refer to cohesion as
anything at the semantic level that makes parts of communicative elements related, and
refer to coherence as anything at the pragmatic level that makes parts of communicative
elements related.
In summary, the relation between coherence and cohesion is one focus of linguists in
discourse analysis. These two aspects of discourse are interrelated: cohesion is seen as
one of the ways of indicating coherence. Despite the fact that both cohesion and
coherence have the function of binding the text together by creating the sequence of
meanings, cohesion, manifested by cohesive devices, does not guarantee coherence,
which is best seen as the feeling that the discourse hang together and that it makes sense.
1.4.3. Types of cohesion
No linguist or sociolinguist would attempt to make a complete list of all the possible lexical
and grammatical cohesive devices in any one language. In this thesis, we adopt the classification
of cohesive devices by Halliday and Hasan(1976). According to Halliday and Hasan
(1976) cohesion can be divided into two types: grammatical cohesion and lexical
cohesion. The previous refer to a combination of

sentences that form grammatical

aspect. The latter refers to a combination of sentences that form lexical components.
1.4.3.1. Grammatical cohesion
Grammatical cohesion refers to the various grammatical devices that can be used to make
the relations among sentences more explicit. There are four subtypes of grammatical
cohesion: reference, substitution, ellipsis and conjunction.


1.4.3.1.1. Reference
One of the options that grammar of English offers creating surface links between
sentences is reference .Halliday and Hassan (1976) point out that reference features can
not be semantically interpreted without referring to some other features in the text.
Pronouns is the most common linguistic element regarded as referring devices in a
textual environment. However, there are other linguistic elements used to fulfill the same
function such as: articles, demonstratives and comparatives.
Reference can be accounted as “exophoric” or “endophoric” functions. This is because
simply when we refer to a given item, we expect the reader to interpret it by either
looking forward, backward and outward. Exophoric involves exercises that require the
reader to look out of the text in order to interpret the referent. The reader, thus, has to
look beyond or out of the text with a shared world between the reader and the writer.
“Exophoric reference directs the receiver ‘out of ‘the text and into an assumed shared
world”. For example:
When walking out at night, a person might point to the moon and say to a friend, ‘Look at
that’. In this case, that refers to an entity which is identifiable in the situation of
utterance.
The word “that” here is an example of exophoric reference or reference outside the text.
Endophoric function refers to the text itself in its interpretation. Brown and Yule (1983:
192) point that “where their interpretation lies within a text they are called ‘endophoric’

relations”. Endophoric reference is classified into cathaphoric and anaphoric reference.
Cataphoric refers to any reference that “points forward” to information that will be presented
later in the text. For example:

(4) When she arrived, Susan was very surprised to find the door open.
In the above example, the pronoun “ she” is a cataphoric reference because it refers to the
noun “ Susan” that is introduced later on in the text.


The second type of endophoric reference, and by far the most common, is called
anaphoric reference. This type is looking backward in the sense that the named item
appears first and the pronoun appears second.
Example:
(5) All this year’s students passed. It was very gratifying.
The word “It” in the second sentence refers to ‘All this year’s students passed’ and it is
called “ anaphoric” reference.
Halliday and Hasan (1976:37) also state that there are three types of reference: personal,
demonstrative, and comparative. Personal reference is a reference by means of function
in the speech situation, through the category of person. Demonstrative reference is a
reference by means of location, on a scale of proximity. Comparative reference is the
indirect reference by means of identity or similarity.
Personal reference
What is known as personal reference depends on the use of personal pronouns (I, she, he,
it, they, me, etc), possessive adjectives (my, your, their, etc), and possessive pronouns
(mine, yours, theirs). For example:
(6) Rose left school when she was seventeen years old and went to a college for a year to
learn to type. She passed her examinations quite wel and then went to look for work. She
was still living with her parents.
( Nụ Cười Nước Anh (2007):147)
Demonstrative reference

Demonstrative reference is dependent on the use of determiners (this, these, that, those)
and adjuncts (here, now, then, there).
(7) Be careful of wasp, bees and hornets. These are dangerous pests.

Comparative reference


Comparative reference uses adjectives like same, other, identical, better or their
adverbial counterparts identically, similarly, less, and so on, to forge links with
previously mentioned entities. For example:
(8) There were two wrens upon a tree
Another came, and there were three
( Halliaday and Hasan, 1976:31)

1.4.3.1.2. Substitution

Substitution is used where a speaker or writer wishes to avoid the repetition of a lexical
item and is able to draw on one of the grammatical resources of the language to replace
the item..Halliday and Hassan (1976) state that substitution takes place when one feature
(in a text) replaces a previous word or expression.
For instance:
(9) I left my pen at home, do you have one?
In this example, “one” is replaced or substituted for “pen”.

It is important to mention that substitution and reference are different in what and where
they operate, thus substitution is concerned with relations words whereas reference is
concerned with relations of meaning. Substitution is a way to avoid repetition in the text
itself; however, reference needs to retrieve its meaning from the situational textual
occurrence. In terms of the linguistic system, reference is a relation on the semantic level,

whereas substitution is a relation on the lexicogrammatical level, the level of grammar
and vocabulary, or linguistic form.

(Halliday and Hassan 1976: 89)

We can substitute nouns, verbs or clauses. Kennedy (2003) points out there are three
types of substitution: nominal, verbal, and clausal substitution.
Nominal substitution
In nominal substitutes, one, ones and same can stand in place of Nominal Groups and
Head Nouns, as in the examples below :
(10)

‘Would you like some sandwiches?’
‘Please pass the ones with cucumber in.’

Verbal substitution


The verb or a verbal group can be replaced by another verb which is “do” .This
functions as a head of verbal group, and it is usually placed at the end of the group.
Here are two examples:
(11) ‘I don’t know the meaning of half those long words, and, what’s more, I
don’t believe you do either.’
(12) ‘We met in Brazil. Do you remember?’
‘Yes, we must have done.’
“Do” in the first sentence substitutes for “know the meaning of half those long
words”. And “done” in the second sentence substitutes for “met in Brazil”.
Clausal substitution
A clause can be usually substituted by “so” or “not”. For example:
(13)

Is it going to rain?
I think so

In the above example, the clause “ it is going to rain” is substituted by “so”
1.4.3.1.3. Ellipsis
The relation between substitution and ellipsis is very close in the sense that ellipsis is
“substitution” by zero . What is essential in ellipsis is that some elements are omitted
from the surface text, but they are still understood. Thus, omission of these elements can
be recovered by referring to an element in the preceding text .Harmer defines it: “(…)
words are deliberately left out of a sentence when the meaning is still clear”. (Harmer,
2004:24). Let’s consider the following example:

(14) John found (0) and sold a valuable stamp.
(A University Grammar of English,2003:266)
It appeared that the structure of the second clause indicates that there is something left
out “a valuable stamp”, the omission of this feature kept the meaning still clear and there
is no need of repetition.
Carter (2000:182) states that “ellipsis occurs in writing where usually 30 functions
textually to avoid repetition where structures would otherwise be redundant” .
Ellipsis takes place in similar grammatical environments to substitution. Thus, we have
nominal, verbal and clausal ellipsis.


Nominal ellipsis:

means ellipsis within the nominal group, where the omission of

nominal group is served a common noun, proper noun or pronoun.
Example…:

(15) Mary has washed the dishes, (0) dried them, and (0) put them in the cupboard.
( A University Grammar of English,2003:261)
In this example, the omission is concerned with “Mary”.
Verbal ellipsis: refers to ellipsis within the verbal group where the elliptical verb
depends on a preceding verbal group.
Example:
(16) Have you been working?
Yes, I have [0].
Here, the omission of the verbal group depends on what is said before and it is concerned
with “been working”.
Clausal ellipsis: clausal ellipsis functions as verbal ellipsis, where the omission refers to
a clause .
Example:
(17) They will be arriving before the show begins or after (0).
In this example the omission falls on the “the show begins”.
1.4.3.1.4. Conjunction
Conjunction is achieved to have grammatical cohesion in texts which show the
relationship between sentences. They are different from other cohesive ties that they
reach the meaning by using other features in the discourse. Because as Nunan (1993)
points out, they use features to refer to the other parts of the text in order to make
relationships between sentences extremely understood. Halliday and Hassan describe it as
follows:
“In describing conjunction as a cohesive device, we are focusing attention not on the
semantic relation as such, as realized throughout the grammar of the language,but on
one particular aspect of them, namely the function they have of relating to each other
linguistic elements that occur in succession but are not related by other, structural
means”.
(Halliday and Hassan, 1978: 227)

Halliday and Hasan (1976:238) handle conjunctions under four main headings: additive,
adversative, causal and temporal.
Additive conjunction
Additive conjunction serves to further the discourse topic. It differs from the paratactic
relation of coordination by introducing the new clause as an extra piece of information,
perhaps reinforcing what has already been said.
For example:
(18)

The party got to the summit and had their lunch. And they had time for a rest

afterwards.
Here, the first “and” coordinates the propositions “the party got to the summit and had
their lunch”. The second “and”, however, introduces a supplementary idea.
Adversative conjunction
Adversative conjunction is explained as introducing an item of information which is
‘contrary to expectation’. The expectation may be derived from the content of what is
being said, or from the communication process, the speaker-hearer situation.
For example:
(19) All the figures were correct; they’d been checked. Yet the total came out wrong.
Causal conjunction
Causal conjunction marks the relationships of reasons, consequences and purposes.
Example :
(20) He didn’t pass this time, so he will have to resit.
Temporal conjunction
Temporal conjunction specifies the time sequence relationship which exists between
sentences.
Example:
(21) First, he forgot his money, then he forgot his keys.
Previously he had never absent for a day.

1.4.3.2. Lexical cohesion
Lexical cohesion is the second type of cohesion marked in Halliday and Hasan’s model.
Lexical Cohesion is a group of words which is lexically cohesive when all of the words
are semantically related. It refers to the author’s usage of words with related meaning.