Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Introduction
Prior to the 1960’s, the study of language was largely focused on sentence level in
order to reveal how language works and to establish rules and constraints
accordingly. In the 1960’s and 70’s, however, linguists, psychologists and sociologists
began to assume and suggest far broader views of language and communication
(Pennycook 1994). They recognized that there is much more to language than the
language is used beyond the sentence level to create coherence and achieve what
Hymes (1971 in Cook 1989) calls communicative competence. Out of this work in
Terminology
as it refers to the situation in which the discourse arises and is embedded. Nunan
ibid.:118). A problem with this definition is that Nunan’s use of the term “language”
definitions – that is, discourse is a piece of oral or written interaction that involves
Coherence
Coherence is the way in which discourse appears to ‘hang together’ rather than
world, of the speaker, and of social convention is considered first before attending to
where the focus is initially on language rules that operate between sentences, as well
Discourse Analysis
Discourse analysis involves the identification of regularities and patterns in
language in order “to show and to interpret the relationships between these
regularities and the meanings and purposes expressed through discourse.” (Nunan
1993:7). Also, as Brown and Yule (1983) point out, an important aspect of any
discourse analysis is that the language under scrutiny should be fully contextualised
Of importance with regard to discourse analysis is the fact that there are clear
distinctions between spoken and written discourse that derive from the fact that
Yule 1983). One of the major differences discussed by Brown and Yule is in manner
continually monitor her speech and its reception by the hearer and rapidly plan
appropriate responses that fit into the overall pattern of conversation whereas a
writer, in contrast, may review and reorder what has been written without worrying
major difference Brown and Yule discuss is difference in form. Typically, written
rhetorical organisers are more numerous, syntactic forms are less repetitive, and
passive constructions are less frequent. Clearly, these distinctions will impact on
1
See Brown and Yule (1983:36) for a detailed example of how context affects the message language
conveys.
how a particular piece of discourse is analysed, the interpretation of the findings
Reference
Referential forms are those which “instead of being interpreted semantically in their
own right … make reference to something else for their interpretation” (Halliday
and Hanson 1976:31). That is, the reader has to refer elsewhere to discover the
meaning of a word or phrase. Halliday and Hanson identify two major categories of
discourse but within the context of the situation (Halliday and Hasan ibid.).
However, exophoric reference will not be considered here as, in accordance with
Halliday and Hasan (1976), exophoric reference does not play a part in cohesion and
Where a reference is internal to the text, it is called endophoric and such references
may be cataphoric or anaphoric (Halliday and Hasan ibid.). Cataphoric references
point the reader ‘forward’ in the discourse to identify elements subsequently
mentioned and are often used for dramatic effect by writers to encourage the reader
to continue on reading (McCarthy 1991). An anaphoric reference directs the reader
‘backwards’ in the discourse to an element previously mentioned (Nunan 1993).
Halliday and Hasan (1976) identify and detail three sub-types of cohesive reference
2
For a full analysis of each reference type see Halliday and Hasan (1976:31-87).
Personal reference
Although Mr. Hart has denied falling asleep at the wheel, it has been
suggested that he had been surfing the Internet for hours before
leaving his home in Strubby, Lincs, before dawn.
Demonstrative reference
Comparative reference
General comparison relates to a special class of adjectives and adverbs that compare
Substitution
Substitution is a cohesive device in which a particular set of words replaces a word,
phrase or clause that appeared in a previous sentence (Cook 1989). Three types 3 of
substitution are proposed by Halliday and Hasan (1976) - nominal, verbal, and
clausal.
Ellipsis
Ellipsis is the omission of words, clauses or phrases that can only be recovered by
referring to an element elsewhere in the text (Nunan 1993). The process is essentially
Ellipsis, like substitution, can be used to create ties to nominals, verbals, and
clausals5.
Conjunction
different to reference, substitution and ellipsis in that it does not refer backward or
3
For a full analysis of each substitution type see Halliday and Hasan (1976:88-141).
4
For grammatical reasons, Halliday and Hasan (1976) consider substitution and ellipsis independently. In a
subsequent publication, substitution and ellipsis are combined by Halliday (1985) into a single category.
5
For a full analysis of each type of ellipsis see Halliday and Hasan (1976:142-225).
According to Halliday and Hasan (ibid.), there are four kinds of conjunction -
additive, adversative, causal, and temporal6.
Lexical cohesion
Repetition, in accordance with refers to the way in which items in a sentence “ …tell
the reader or listener nothing new but reinstate some element(s) from earlier
sentences so that something new can be said about them” (Hoey ibid:268). It may be
simple or complex, achieved through paraphrasing, or categorized as superordinate,
hyponymic or co-reference repetition.
6
Halliday and Hasan (1976:226-273) give full details of different types of conjunction.