CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION
The study and analysis of actual language in used is the goal of text and discourse
analysis. Michael Halliday, one of the linguists credited with the development of systemic
linguistics and functional grammar, defines text as any authentic stretch of written or spoken
language. According to Hallyday (1994:14) the historical study of linguistics first involved
studying the morphology of language followed by studying the meaning of words at the sentence
level. Ultimately the goal of such analysis was to find the meaning of the forms of language.
However, in Hallidays view, the reverse approach is more meaningful: A language is
interpreted as a system of meanings, accompanied by forms through which the meaning can be
expressed. Beyond the grammar and lexis of language, understanding the mechanisms for how
text is structured is the basis for his work. What makes any length of text meaningful and
coherent has been termed texture. Texture is the basis for unity and semantic interdependence
within text and a text without texture would just be a group of isolated sentences with no
relationship to one another. Eggins (1994:85) refers to the term put forth by schegloff and Sacks
(1973-1974) sequential implicativeness which proposes that language follows a linear
sequence where one line of text follows another with each line being linked or related to the
previous line. This linear progression of text creates a context for meaning. Contextual meaning,
at the paragraph level is referred to as coherence while the internal properties of meaning are
referred to as cohesion. Coherence has both situational coherence when field, tenor, and mode
can be identified for a certain group of clauses and generic coherence when the text can be
recognized as belonging to a certain genre. Cohesion relates to the semantic ties within text
where by a tie is made when there is some dependent link between items that combine to create

meaning. Therefore, texture is created within text when there are properties of coherence and
cohesion, outside of the apparent grammatical structure of the text. The principles of referencing,
substitution, ellipsis, conjunction, and lexical cohesion put forth by Halliday and Hasan (1976)
and Bloor and Bloor (1995) will be applied to the article and analyzed to demonstrate the
relevance of the cohesive elements that are present in texts which contribute to the overall
meaning of the text. Understanding how cohesion functions within text to create semantic links
could be beneficial to students of English as a second of foreign language to help decode
meaning.

CHAPTER II
CRITICISM
A. Principle of Cohesion
Structure in text is provided by grammar therefore cohesion is considered to be outside of
the structure. Cohesion refers to the non-structural text-forming relations. (Halliday and Hasan
1976:7) the concept of cohesion in text is related to semantic ties or relations of meanings that
exist within the text, and that define it as a text (ibid:4). Within text, if a previously mentioned
item is referred to again and is dependent upon another element, it is considered a tie. Without
semantic ties, sentences or utterances would seem to lack any type of relationship to each other
and might not be considered text. Halliday and Hasan (ibid:4) refer to this intertextual link as the
presupposing and the presupposed. Using the authors example: Wash and core six cooking
apples. Put them into a fireproof dish. The word them presupposes apples and provides a
semantic tie between the two sentences, thus creating cohesion. Cohesion creates
interdependency in text.
B. Reference
Referencing functions to retrieve presupposed information in text and must be identify
able for it to be considered as cohesive. In written text, referencing indicates how the writer
introduces participants and keeps track of them throughout the text.
(Eggins 1994:95) there are three general types of referencing are as follows:
1. Exophoric referencing, this refers to information from the immediate context of situation.
Example: look at that flower.
2. Endophoric referencing, which refers to information that can be retrieved from within the
text? It is this endophoric referencing which is the focus of cohesion theory.
Endophoric referencing can be divided into three areas are:
a) Anaphoric
Anaphoric refers to any reference that point backwards to previously mentioned
information in text.
For example: look at the flower. Its so beautiful
(It refers back to the flower)

For cohesion purpose, anaphoric referencing is the most relevant as it provides a link
with a preceding portion of the text (Halliday and Hasan 1976:51). Functional
speaking, there are three main types of cohesive references, they are:
Person
Person reference keeps track of function through the speech situation using
noun pronouns like He, him, she, her, etc. And possessive determiners like
mine, yours, his, hers, etc.
For example: Petter has many books. Those books are his.
Demonstrative
Demonstrative reference keeps of information through location using
proximity references like this, these, that, those, here, there, then, and the.
For example: This is my book. I bough it yesterday.
Comparative
Comparative reference keeps track of identity and similarity through indirect
references using adjectives like same, equal, similar, different, else, better,
more. And adverbs like so, such, similarly, otherwise, so, more, etc. (ibid:
37-39)
For example: Jack has a white shirt. I bought the same shirt with him.
b) Cataphoric
Cataphoric refers to any reference that point forward to information that will be
presented later in the text.
For example: Its so beautiful, the flower.
(It refers forward to the flower)
c) Esphoric
Esophoric refers to any reference within the same nominal group or phrase which
follows the presupposed item.
For example: a few numbers of students get good score.
C. Ellipsis and Substitution
Whereas referencing functions to link semantic meanings within text, substitution and
ellipsis differs in that it operates as a linguistic link at the lexicogrammatical level. In Bloor and
Bloor (1995:96), substitution and ellipsis is used when 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.
For example: Wealthier Italians whose parents quit farms for the cities in the 60s are
coming back.
The word coming back refers to line before in which the elliptical references to the
children of farmers are returning to the farms that their parents quit.
The three types of classification for substitution and ellipsis that reflect its grammatical function
are as follows:
1. Nominal
In nominal substitution, the most typical substitution words are one and ones and they
substitute nouns.
For example: This car is mine, but that one is yours.
2. Verbal
In verbal substitution, the most common substitute is the verb do and is sometime used
in conjunction with so as in do so and substitute verbs. Halliday and Hasan (ibid:
125-126) point out that do often operate with the reference items it and that but
still have the main function as a verbal substitute because of its grammatical role.
For example: You buy a new book and she do too.
From: you buy a new book and she buys a ne book too.
3. Clause
In clause substitution, an entire clause is substituted and though it may seem to be similar
to either nominal or verbal substitution, the difference is the presupposed anaphoric
reference.
When something in text is being substituted, it follows that the substituted item maintains
the same structural function as the presupposed item. Though substitution and ellipsis are similar
in their function as the linguistic link for cohesion, ellipsis differs in that it is substitution by zero
(ibid: 142). Ellipsis refers to a presupposed anaphoric item although the reference is not through
a place-marker like in substitution. The presupposed item is understood through its structural
link. As it is a structural link, ellipsis operates through nominal, verbal and clausal levels.

Halliday and Hasan further classify ellipsis in systemic linguistic terminology as deictic,
enumerative, epithet, classifier, and qualifier.
D. Conjunction
Conjunction, as described by Bloor and Bloor (1995:98) acts as a cohesive tie between
clause or sections of text in such a way as to demonstrate a meaningful pattern between them,
though Halliday and Hasan (ibid: 227) indicate that conjunction relations are not tied to any
particular sequence in the expression. Therefore, amongst the cohesion forming devices within
text, conjunction is the least directly identify able relation.
Conjunction acts as a semantic cohesive tie within text in four categories, they are:
Additive
Additive conjunction acts to structurally coordinate or link by adding to the presupposed
item and are signaled through and, also, too, furthermore, additionally, etc. additive
conjunction may also act to negate the presupposed item and is signaled by nor, and
not, either, neither, etc.
For example: I dont like smoking, and neither does he.
(Deriver from: I dont like smoking. He doesnt like smoking).
Adversative
Adversative conjunctions act to indicate contrary to expectation (ibid: 250) and are
signaled by yet, though, only, but, in fact, rather, etc
For example: Peter in English students, but he cant speak English.
Causal
Causal conjunction expresses result, reason and purpose and is signaled by so, then,
for, because, for this reason, as a result, in this respect, etc.
For example: She studied match hardly as a result she passed the exam.

Temporal
The last conjunctive category is temporal and links by signaling sequence or time.
Some samples temporal conjunctive signals are then, next, after, that, next day, until then,
a the same time, at this pint, etc
For example: I get up at 5 oclock in the morning then taking a bath.
E. Theme and Rheme
Most learners, when learning the grammar of a foreign language, spend time assimilating
the structure of clauses in that language, i.e. where subjects, objects and adverbials are placed in
6

relation to the verb, and what options are available for rearranging the most typical sequences.
Discourse analysis are interested in the implications of these different structural options for the
creation of text, and as always, it is from the examination of natural data that patterns of use are
seen to emerge. Some of the structural options frequently found in natural data are ignored or
underplayed in language teaching (especially those found in spoken data, which are often
dismissed as degraded or bad style), probably owing to the continued dominance of standards
taken from the written code.
English is what is often called an SVO language, in that the declarative clause requires a
verb at its centre, a subject before it and any object after it. This is simply a labeling device
which enables comparisons to be made with declarative realizations in different languages, some
of which will be VSO or SOV languages. This pattern is often recast in English, no least in
interrogative structures, where the verbal group is split by the subject (does she like cats?), and
in cases where the object is brought forward:
1.
The Guardian, Joyce reads.
(OSV Object-fronted)
There are in English a variety of ways in which the basic clause elements of subject, verb,
and complement object, adverbial can be rearranged by putting different elements at the
beginning of the clause, as illustrated in sentence 1 to 3 which is as way of bringing different
element to the front are called fronting devices.
2. She reads the Guardian, Joyce.
S (pronoun) VOS (noun)
Right-displaced subject
3. Joyce, she reads the Guardian
S (noun) S (pronoun) VO
left displaced subject
Structures such as sentence 2 and 3 are far from infrequent in spoken data, but are often
for no obvious reason, not presented in books claiming to describe grammatical options for the
learner. If we look again at our examples from the point of view of how the information in them
is presented, we can see how different options enable us to focus on or highlight certain
elements: sentence1 seems to be saying something about the Guardian rather than about Joyce;
7

sentence 2 and 3 seem to be telling us something about Joyce. This aboutness is the sort of notion
discourse analysis are concerned with for it is a speaker/writer choice made independently of the
propositional content of the message; the speaker/writer decides how to stage the information,
where to start, so to speak, in presenting the message.
In English, what we decide to bring to the front of the clause (by whatever means) is a
signal of what is to be understood as the framework within which what we want to say is to be
understood. The rest of the clause can then be seen as transmitting what we want to say within
this framework. Items brought to front-place in this way we shall call the themes (or topics) of
their clauses in what has been called the Prague school of linguistics, the relationship of the
theme to the rest of the sentence is viewed as part of communicative dynamism, that is the
assessment of the extent to which each element contributes to the development of the
communication. Alternatively, the theme can be seen as the point of departure of the message
(Halliday 1985:38). For the moment, we shall take as the theme of a clause the subject nounphrase, or, if this is not initial, then we shall include whatever comes before it. It seems that first
position in the clause is important in many of the worlds languages, and that creating a theme in
the clause is a universal feature, though its realizations may vary from language to language.
Concentrating on the themes (or topics) of clauses does not tell us much about the rest of
the clause, which may be called the rheme or comment of the clause. In fact, when we look at
themes and rhemes together in connected text, we see further patterns emerging we can divide
our postcard text into themes and rhemes:
Themes (topic
1. I
2. Outside my window
3. In the middle of the lawn
4. The bed
5. You
6. You
7. We

Rhemes (comment)
m sitting here
is a big lawn
is a flower bed
was full of daffodils
d love it here
must come and stay
ve got plenty of room

Two different options can be sees to be realized here: (a) the rheme of sentence 3 contains
an element (the flower bed) which becomes the theme of sentence 4; (b) the theme of sentence 5
is the same as the rheme of sentence 6.

CHAPTER III
CONCLUSION
This chapter has taken a selection of grammatical concepts and has attempted to show
how discourse analysis has contributed to our understanding of the relationship between local
choice within the clause and sentence and the organization of the discourse as a whole. When
speakers and writers are producing discourse, they are at the same time as they are busy
constructing clause, monitoring the development of the larger discourse, and their choices at the
local level can be seen simultaneously to reflect the concerns of the discourse as an unfolding
production, with an audience, whether present or projected. A discourse-oriented approach to
grammar would suggest not only a grater emphasis on contexts larger than the sentence, but also
a reassessment of priorities in terms of what is taught about such things as word order, articles,
ellipsis, tense and aspect, and some of the other categories discussed here.
If grammar is seen to have a direct role in welding clauses, turns and sentences into
discourse, what of words themselves? What role does vocabulary choice play in the discourse
process? It is to this question that we turn next.

10

Answer question
1. Which sentence is including anaphoric referencing?
a. If you couldnt, I would like you to be back here at five thirty
b. Look at the flower. Its so beautiful
c. Look at that
d. I had left my cattle
2. There are three types of classification for ellipsis and substitution that reflect its
grammatical function. Except
a. Nominal
b. Verbal
c. Homophoric
d. Clausal
3. Which sentence is including comparative reference?
a. Its so beautiful, the flower
b. This car is mine, but that one is yours
c. I am very satisfied with it
d. Jack has white shirt. I bought the same shirt with him
4. Ellipsis is the omission of elements normally required by the grammar which the
speaker/writer assumes are obvious from the context and therefore need not be raised.
Based on the definition above, it refers to
a. Ellipsis
b. Conjunction
c. Clausal
d. Reference
5. There are three main types of cohesive references except
a. Personal
b. Demonstrative
c. Comparative
d. Cataphoric

Answer key
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

B. look at the flower. Its so beautiful

C. Homophoric
D. Jack has white shirt. I bought the same shirt with him
A. Ellipsis
D. Cataphoric

11

12

REFERENCES
Brown Gillian & George Yule. 1984. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge University Press.
Crane Paul A. 1994. Texture in Text: A Discourse Analysis of A News Article Using
Halliday and Hasans Model of Cohesion. Retrived (09 nov 2009) from
http://library.nakanishi.ac.ip/kiyou/gaidai%2830%29/08.pdf.

13