ENGLISH LANGUAGE SERIES General Editor: Randolph Quirk Title no: David Cry and Derek Daty Tas A. Gordon Aucune ce To Ents Foxy 4 Geoey N. Leech Cohesion in English sn srrenucnion 10.7 Valen Adams MLALK. Holiday and Rogiya Haan M.A. K. HALLIDAY Professor of Linguistics University of Sydney Rodney Hudseston Dwight Bolinger RUQAIYA HASAN Associate Professor School of English and Linguistics bic oc ose 2 Macquarie Universit ‘Walker Nash . a CGofreyN. Leech and Michael H. Short Derek Aridge Wiler Nah 00 ENGL AND THE CaM Sidney Greenbaum Richard D. Cureton Pop Fsiaia] Patrick J. Dey LONGMAN London and New YorkLongman Group Limited Longman Howe, Bare Mil Harlow, Enel CMD 3 Pal nt Aol Compan ago he ld ahd nh Unie Sis of Ame by Langman fc, Nw York (© Longman Group Lined 1975 Al sight carved no pt of thi pubcton may be epee, oan edna oy yy me {lcrome, mechan pbeasopying, rowing or thee, wihoat Site the poor ween perminon Bf the Paha or Tree Fermin soe coping the Une Kingdom ined by the Ss msm A i Toes Cr Rk London Fine pubsed 1976 Frac inpeeion 1995, ISBN O-582-SS041-b roduc by Longman Singapore Pubishers (Lad Foreword ‘Throughout more than a century of oustanding progres in linguistics ~ and especialy from the time of the jnegrammatte ~ the most impressive land apparently most abiding suceases have been in work atthe elemental fend of language structure: the description and relation of phonological tanits. Nor, when they were presed into reluctant service, did the eate~ gories and insights evalved for phonology get us fr in explicating lin~ fuistic organization at othcr ‘level’, the morphological and syntactic. ‘Moreover, even in the feutfl reaisance of syntactic studies during the third quarter of this eenuey, work hs been viewally confined to relations ‘within the sentence, This limitation, though to some extent vigorously ‘defended on theoretical grounds, has notin general been because no relo~ ‘vance to linguistic structure was scn in the relations between sentences, inthe connections which resulted in the impression of well-formed paca graphs of longer stretches of discourse. But as with semanties ~ another land indeed closely related area which linguists have hestated to enter, often justifying thir disocation on closely-argued theoretical grounds ~ i was not unreasonably held tht relations ‘beyond the sentence" involved 1 complex interplay of linguistics with other concems such a rhetoric, Assets and pragmatics, for which the theoretical Foundationsand frame work were t0 shaky’ to support ambitious model building, And that in any case linguists had enough on hand to get their sentential house furnished "Means, literary critics (for whom of course text structure has been a traditional concer) and social anthropologists (for whom text and tale ‘onstrate fandamental evidence) hogan themselves 10 look at the con structs evolved by de Sausure, the Prague Schoo), and other linguists. One thinks for example of Lévi-Strauss, Dell Hymes, Roland Barthes, 25 out. standing exponents of structuraigm in brosdacale textual analysis And among linguists, there have always been those who have persisted intheenturtosubrve Hear nd other humanisi diiptins by extend th work tocmbrce tyne and other peso thea sen the ‘ovement Mic! Haldsy nd Rayan have ong benepely Save. The prow of Golding and he ver of Yeu ae ae the mata sete ovale Hinge erin bythe former, whi che later has tna ‘cohesion’ ber sei fel, ening witha doctoral disci st the Univertyof Edinburgh and conning wich noc ppes we she worked for several iil years in he Communion Research Cente at University College London. Ding the whol of ths pei, dhe two author have worked in ow cooperation nd muta infec acsey aware of scrim Englth studs of profound intrest for both Ings and res bt sgorouly explored to ge extent by nether "We are singly fortanate thot ware ble o correct some ofthese rare defen in the dectigion of Engish with the work o 50 tne Seely equipped a eam, As Engh as increasingly come into world-wide She, there as aren coresponingly increasing eed for mor informa sion om the language an! the ways in which it is used The English Langue Series to mest hi ned ant ply pat afer sim slang the dy and teaching of nglah by providing up-to-date and scholarly wean of tpie mot revit to pen English — n= Gling is hitory and tradon, sound ptters i grammar 1s lexclogy its ch waricy and complexity in specch and wting, an its standard in Bin, the USA, sn the eter poncpal areas where the Tangoage ed University College London May 1973, RANDOLPH QUIRK Preface ‘This book originated as one of a series of studies of the English language and modem English texts which were undertaken by the Nuffield Pro- gramme in Linguistics and English Teaching at University College London. ‘The aim of these sedis was to provide an account of aspects of contem= porary English which would be both founded on theory and also applic able in practice: a description of che sytem, but one which, since i¢ was based on evidence from texts of different varieties, including both spoken and written, would be wel in application to farther text studies. ‘A rclatively neglected aspect ofthe linguistic system is its resources for text constuction, the range of meanings that are specifically associated with relating what is being said or writen to its semantic environment. ‘The principal component of these resources is chat of cohesion. Cohesive relations are relations between two oF more clement in a text that are independent of the structure; for example berween a personal pronoun and an antecedent proper name, such s John... he. A semantic relation of | this kind may best up either within a sentence or Between sentences with the consequence that, when it croses a sentence boundary it has the effet ‘of making the two sentences cohere with one another. The various kinds fof cohesion had been outlined by M. A. K. Halliday in his writings on styles, and the concept was developed by Rugaiya Hasan in her Uni~ versity of Edinburgh doctoral thesis. “The eatlier chapters of thi book were frst published as Grammatical Cohesion in Spoken and Weiten English, Part, by Rogaiya Hasan, Com= munication Research Centre (University College London) and Long- ‘mans, Green & Co, Programme in Linguists and English Teaching: Papers No. 7, 1968. Ths contained Chapters 1,2 and 3 in theie original fort. The Tater chapters were written in collaboration by Rugaiya Hasan and M. A. K, Halliday, and were prepared for publication inthe follow-up series (Schols Counc Programme in Linguists and English Teaching: PapersSeis 1, However, intend oF ing tis part esr, it was edd to rove the ear chaps and to publ he two halves ogee as 9 oak. The revision war snderaken by M. A.K. Hada, who sho aed hela tvo caper, ‘We shoul like to expres out gata to several individol and insti cutons forthe cooperation and help. The Nfld Foundation Snanced theerignal project within which the air pare ofthe work was writen The Schols Counc naneed the soecsor projec (Sl: Col Pr aramme in Lins ond Englih Teatking, 967-7"; slthough the ltr fort was not weriten deal under the supe sine Raaiya Hasan Edy then the ream,eiad been planned vo publi inthe series of paper eating rom this project and we ae gael then oallow= tng tte witha and pulsed in pee revised form. The fl Veron was witen by M.A. K.Hallday dsrnghistnare of llowship Sethe Center fr Advanced Stay in the Beavoral Seen, Sifor, California, and we ate mort geal to the Centr for providing hit oppo Pie wih o thnk Stephen Lshingto, Geel Editor ofthe Slo Conc Programe Lingus ond Engh Teaching apr Sete I, ata former colleague in the projet, for his valable help and commen throughou the preparin ofthe orginal manic. Other member of the Nufield team ~ Kenneth Albrow, Ein Davis, Peter Doughty, David Mackay nd Brian Thompon - provided imulstng dscision #5 did our collegues another rated rextch projec, Rosaey Huds tom, Rickard Huon and Eagene Winer. To Marian we exes out Spprecition forber reach an bibllogrphilaance sing the final ‘evn, Studentsa the Linguist Sosy of Aeris Ling tit at the University of Michigan, Ann bor, in simmer 97), made humerus hell observation inthe conte of cou hued on ti sae ‘We mach appreciate the inert shown by Randolph Quit, friend, former colleague, and Gene Elite of the presen see; and would ike to take hit opporenity of fering tothe dee owed By everyone in che flo contemporary Engh othe work doe by him and by hi col- cage athe Sarvey of Engl Usge Pally we hak the many people ‘whotave indy engied er he progres ofthe book. Th conning Concer ha beens moe valle sate of encouragement University of Bex magi May 1975 aw Acknowledgments “We ae grateful to the fllowing for permitsion to reproduce copyright mater: ‘Author's agents for the sonnet “The Bad Thing” by John Wain; Gerald Duckworth & Company Led for ‘The Hippopotamus” from The Bai Childe Book of Beats by Hilaire Belloc; Granada Publishing Led for extracts from Clas Cade and Control Val 1 by Bail Berstein, published by Paladin Books; The Proprietor of The Greenwich Bookshop for ‘extracts from Royel Greenwich by Olive and Nigel Hamilton, The Greenwich Bookshop 1969; the Author for an extrac from the article “Meeting Willeed Pickles’ by Frank Haley from The Dalsman September 1973; Author's agents for extracts from "An Inspector Call’ from The Plays of J. B. Presley Vol 3 published by William Heinemann Led ‘Reprinted by perminion of A. D, Peters and Company and Author's agents, M. B. Yeats, Miss Anne Yeats, Macmillan of London & Dasing- stoke, Macmillan of Canada and Macrillan Publishing Company Inc for an extract from The Aucbiography of William Butler Yeots. Copyright © 1916, 1935 by Maciullan Publishing Co Inc, renewed 1944, 1963 by Bertha Georgie Yeats.Table of Contents Foreword Proce x Introduction 1.1 The concept of cohesion tia Tee 12 Texture 113 Ties 1.14 Cabssion 12 Cohesion and linguistic structure xa Texture and structure 113.3 Cohesion within the sentence? 1.23 Cohesion and discourse srucate 124 Cohesion a a semantic relation 1.3 Cabesion and linguistic coment 1.3 The domain of cohesive relations 13.3 Texe and station 1.3.3 Components ofthe conten of station, and register 134 The plc of cobsion in the linguist system 13.5 The meaning of cobesion 2 Reference ‘2.1 Endophoric and exophorie reference 2.2 Types of reference 23 Personal reference 1231 Semantic isinctions in the personal systom 2.3.2 Speech roles and other roles, a 7 8 4%2.3.3 Some special kindof penonal reference 2s Extend efrnce, sd tent efron 2534 Gomnlnel rope reference 22.1 Demon pronoun; pontine determin and pose ro= 2.3.5 Camphove erence 21 Demormrntve ference aL The cerve nominal demonstrative thi, the tha the EL Nearand not neat thie vena hath 2203 Singular and plrl hth vers the how 2ibtg Herd and mesdior ht, as peoow ver thi, plos following noun : ari Exended reletene and reference to ts hi andthe 25 Anuploric tnd capris demonsries 242 The 2145 Demontraive dives 204 A inl note on demons 25 Comparative rence 254 Gener conpation 2 Pana comparton 35:3 Arnote on, dhand a 3 Substitation 4 Substitution and ellipsis 4.14 Subsite and reference sara Types of substitution 5.2 Nominal substitution a1 The meaning of substitute onlones 5.2.2 Conditions of we ofthe nominal substitute 5.23 The word one other than as substitute 5.23.1 Personal pronoun one 3.23.2 Cardinal aumeral one 323.3 Indefinite article one 3.234 ‘Pro-noun’ one 3.2.4 Summary of uses of one 3.2.5 Nomina substitute same 32.51 say the same 53.5.2 do the sme 3.2.53 be the same 3 2 8 4 36 7 9 @ 6 oe ™ 7 ca n % 43.246 Diflerence between the same and one() 28 nominal sbsttwes 313 Verbal substation 433.1 The meaning ofthe verbal substitute do 433.2 Condivions of use ofthe verbal substiute 5.33 The word do other than as subsite 433 Lexical verb do 3:3.3.2 Gencral verd db 3334 Prowverb do 3.34 Verbal operator do 43.34 Summary of uses of do 344 Claus substation Jeb Diflerence between claus and other eypes of substiution| $uk.t-1 Substitution of reported clauses 3ub1.2 Substitution of conditional clauses 3.41.3 Substitution of modalized causes 5.42 Similarity among the types of causal substitution 5:43 Some related patterns aad Response forms 3.43.2 Other uses of sand not Seed Summary of wee of 0 4 Ellipsis 44 Eps, substitton and reference {£2 Nominal lips ‘$au Blips within the nominal group {422 Prespposition of nominal elements 4253 Typesof nominal lipss 42:34 Specific dices 423.3 Nonspecific deietin 4233 Posedeictics 4234 Nameratives 42.3.5 Rpithes 463 Verbal elipss {13a Bliss within he verbal group 4432 Lexical ellipsis 433 Operator alipss {£344 Premppositon of verbal group systems 341 Polaty foe {$3142 Fritencs and modality ny 7 3 1h 14 ns 7 at 30 0 Br a 16 ns 17 137 18 19 ua ur M7 150 138, 135, 137 139 16 163 167 167 rp 174 1764343 Voice 4344 Tene 435 Summary of verbal clips. 1436, Verbal ellipsis and the classe 44 Clas ellipsis 4441 Modal and propositional 442 No lliprs of single cements 443 Ellipsis in queston-answer and other eeoinder sequences 4.434 Direc responses (1): yesino questions 443.2 Diect responses 2): WH- questions 4433 Indirect responses 4434 Anote on zeugms 443.5 Other rgjoinders “444 Ellipsis in ‘eporing-reported’ sequences 44-41 Indirect WH- questions “44042 Indirect yesino questions 4443 Indirect statements ‘44a-4 Ambiguity betwen indirece statements and indirect ‘questions 444.5 Reports and fats in relation to claus ellipsis 445 Claws ellipsis and cause complexes 5 Conjunction 4.1 Conjunction and other cohesive relations $1 Structural equivalents of conjunctive rations 5.12. Types of conjunctive expresion 552 Some common conjunctive elements 52 The ‘and’ relation 5.22 Coordinate and and conjunctive and 5.2.3 Other conjunctive clement: but et, 0, and then 53 Types of conjunction Sop Additive 565 Adversative 5.6 Causl, 37 Temporal 38 Other conjunctive items (ontinuatives) 58 now 582 ofcourse 583 well 18 186 192 198 196 196 208 a4 24 a7 a7 a 29) 236 27 230 233 233 235 237 238 250 256 261 267 268 269 58.4 anyway 5853 surely 5:86 fier all 559 The cobesive fancton of intonation 6 Lexical cohesion 6.41 The cas of ‘general nouns" 6.2 Types of reiteration 663 Lexieal relations a cohesive patterns 6.4 Collocation {65 The general concept of lexical cohesion Ye ‘The meaning of cohesion \_ pp Tent 71 Length of ext 17.12 Definitivenes ofthe concept of text 1713 Tight and loose texture ‘744 Imaginary texture ‘7 The general meaning of cohesion 73 The meaning ofthe different kinds of cohesion 73:4 General principles behind the different types 732 Reference 73: Substitution and ellipsis 734 Lexical cohesion: reiteration and collocation 73.5 Conjunction 736 Summary 74 Cohesion and the text ‘pat Texture within the sentence 74.2 The texture of discourse ‘743 The role of linguistic analysis 8 The analysis of cohesion 8.1 General principles 8.2 Summary of cohesion, and coding scheme 83 Sample toxes Biliggaphy Indes 27 270 270 a am 27 28 284 288 293 295 297 208 303 p04 08 34 38 320 ya x Bs 336 7 20 as 30 3s7 367Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 The concept of cohesion sta Test 1a speaker of Engh hea or reads pasa ofthe language which i tore than one sentence in eng he an noemally decide woot di Cay whee fxs aun whole or nj Clleson of weld ‘Smears This bok abou hat maketh diene een the 0 "The word exis sed jn lngais to fer t any pasage, spoken or write, of whucer length that doc frm ified whole. We know. Teen ule, wheter any specie of our own language costs 4 ‘brror not. This docs nor mean thee can never be any uncer. The Sisinconheoween teat anda cllection of unreled sete ia the ta ort a matt of eee, and thee may alway be stn bout hich we are nertsin~s pinta probably Emir mos aches om reading thse compotion, But this doesnot nal the fener ebrvaon nt we are smatve othe neson between whats fiend whats not “Thi sugges that thee ar bjctive fico involved here must be cern fetes hich ae charset of texts and not found edherwise: Sve there ae We sll tempo senses order to blk She ete properties texts in Engh and what shat distinguishes Trew fom 2 dcamccted sequence of snences As always igus dlcription, we sl be dusting things thatthe native speaker ofthe lamgurge now akcady bt woot kaowing that he knows then 1 ce may be spoken or writen, poe oe wens logue oe mano- Togue Ie may be atythng om a single rove toa whole ply rom 2 Lenmar xy fo lp oan all-day dstsion om commits ‘howe ai of gang nse noes grammar iy Bke 2 close of settnce and tis not define by faze Avex is sometinscavinged to be some kind of supersentence grammatical nit shat i Innger than sentence but i elated toa sentence in the samc way that 2 sentence i elated to a claue, a clause 0 + group and soon: by CON sraruewe the cmposton ligt unis alr om, Bh is mileading. A toe not something thai ike a sentence, ony biggers itissomething that dies fom a setence in kind fa SrA text ig bs regarded a & SEMANTIC uit uit not of form but of fea, ‘Ths its eelated to 4 cause oF Sentence ot by size but by {At12a1108, the coding of one synbole sytem in another, A text dot fot CONSIST OF Sentences its REALIZED BY, oF encod in, sentence Ife understand it inthis way, we sal not expt to ind the sae kind ofstaveronaintegation among the pars of text a we nd among the pars ofa sentence or dause, The unity of teat isa unity of diferent kind. ana Texture ‘The concept of rexr ones entirely appropriate to express the property of| “being a text’ text bas texture, and his i whae distinguishes if something that is nota text. le derives this texture from the face that it fanctions as a unity with expect to its environment ‘What we are invertigating inthis book arc the resources that English has for creating texture. Ifa pasage of English containing more than one sen- tence is perceived as tex, there will be certain linguistic features present jnthat passage which canbe identified 2s contributing to its cota unity and giving it texture ‘Let us star witha simple and eval example. Suppose we find the fol. lowing instructions inthe cookery book: ia [1:1] Wash and core sx cooking apples. Put them inco a Greproof dish Teisclear that thm in the second sentence refers back to (is ANAPHORIC 0) the six cooking apples inthe first sentence. This aNA#HORIC function of them gives cohesion to che two sentences, so chat we interpret them 25 2 wholes the two sentences together constitute text. Or rather, they form ptt ofthe same text; there may be more of tt follow. "The texture is provided by the cohesive RELATION that exits between them and sx cooking eples. Is important to make tht point, eeause we shall be constantly focusing attention on the items, such as thm, which typically refer back to something that has gone before; but che cohesion i ected not bythe presence ofthe refering item slone ba by the presence 1. THE CONCEPT OF COHESION 3 ‘of both the referring item and the itm that it refers to, In other words it is not enough that there should be 2 presupposition; the presupposition rat also be stisfed. This accounts for the humorous effect produced by the radio comedian who begat his at with the sentence [r:2] So we pushed him under the other one “his sentences onded wih resappostons, located in the word 0 him, other anne and since twas the oping sentees, none ofthe could te resolved What isthe aman ofthe cohesive reation erwecn them and si cookin apples? The mening is tha they refer tothe sme thing. ‘The wo stems ane dental ference, oc Cone rrat. The cohesive agency in dis instance, that which provides the texte, the corefeeniaty oF the and ss coking spe. The igo, othe exprsion of his orefren- tay is the presence ofthe potently snaphore tem them inthe sccond Senne ogeter with pot agit song appl in heise enti of reference sot te only meaning elation that conte #9 texture there ar others bodes, Noir the ws of pronoun the ony way ‘of exresing density of ference, We cold have had [1:3] Wath nd cores cookng appli. Pe the apples into fireproof ih Here the item finctioning coesvely is th aples, which works by septic tion of the word apples acompaned by the van anapoiexghal. One of “the finctions ofthe definite ail i signa dey of ference with something chat has gone befor. (Since this has sometimes been said to be its only function, we should perhaps point out that it has others as wel, ‘hich are not cohesive all; for example none ofthe instances in (a) or (b) hha an anaphoric sens’ [1:4] a. None but the brave deserve the ft. ’. "The pain in my head cannot stifle the pan in my heat, For the meaning ofthe ce 24.2 below) 11g Tis We need term to reir toa sngle instanceof cohesion, a tem for one ‘ccutrene of pai afahesvay elated toms. This we shallclla 118. The relation between them and sx coking apples in exarnple [2:1] cosines a "We ean characterize any segment of text in term ofthe number and4 intmopucrion kinds of tes which ie display. In [1:1] theres just one te, ofthe particular kind which we shall be calling neFEREN cE (Chapter 2) In (tsa) there are actually two tes, of which one is ofthe ‘reference’ kind, and consist in the anaphoric relation ofthe tos cooking apples, while the other is of diferent kind and consists in the m5PETITION ofthe wo apley, a epeti= tion which would stil have a cohesive effect even if the two were not referring to the same apples. This latter type of cohesion is dscused in Chapter 6 ‘The concept ofa tie makes it possible to analyse a text in tems of is cohesive propetics snd give a systematic account ofits patterns of texture. ‘Some specimen analycs ae given in Chapter 8, Various types of question ‘an be investigated in this way, for example concerning the difference be- ‘ween speech and writing, the relationship between cohesion and the ‘organization of written texts into sentences and paragraphs, and the por sible differences among different genes and diferent authots in the nim= bers and kinds of te they typically employ. "The diffrent kinds of cohesive tie provide the msi chaptcr divisions of the book. They are: substation, ellipsis, conjunction, and lexical cohesion, A preliminary definition of thee categoris i given ater in che Inroduction (12.4; each of these concepts is then discussed more fally in the chapter in question. slog Cohesion ‘The concept ofcobesion sa semantic one it refers to relations of meaning that exis within the text, and that define its tex. Cohesion occurs where the 1NTERFRETATION of some clement in the scours is dependent on that of another. The one raasurPoses the ‘other, n the sense that iteannot be efetvely decoded exeept by course tit, When tis happens, a relation of cohesion is setup, and the two cle~ ments the presupposing andthe presupposed, are thereby at east poten- tially integrated into a fext. This i another way of approaching the notion of a tc. To return to ‘example [1:1], the word them presupposes for its interpretation something ‘other than ile This requirement is met by the six ooking apples inthe preceding sentence. The presupposition, and the fat that itis resolved, ‘provide cohesion between the to sentences, and in so doing create text, ‘Asanother example, consider the old piece of schoolboy husour [2:5] Time fis. = You can't; they ly t00 quickly, I. THE CONCEPT OF ConESION 5 "The fis sentence gives no indication of rot being a complete text; in face i usually i, andthe humour lcs in the misiterpretaton that i required if the presupposition from the second sentence isto be satisfied. Here, inci dentally, the cohesion is expresied in no les than three tes: the elipical farm you can' (Chapter 4), the reference item dey (Chapter 2) andthe lexi cal repetition fy (Chapter 6) ‘Cohesion is part ofthe system of a language. The potential for cobesion lis inthe systematic resources of referees, ellipsis and so on chat ate built ino the language it The actusization of cohesion in any given in- stance, however, depends not merely on the seletion of some option from. ‘within these resourees, but also on the presence of some other element ‘which resolves che presupposition that this sets up. I is obvious thatthe selection of the word apples has no cohesive force by itself; cohesive ela- sion eset up only ithe same word, ora word related tot suchas fe (ce ‘Chapter 6), has occurred previously. I is less obvious, bur equally true, that the word thm bas no cohesive force ether unless there is some explicit teféxent for it within each, In both instances, che cohesion lies inthe eela= tion that is set up beeen the two. Like other semantic elations, cohesion is expressed through the strata ‘organization of language. Language can be explained asa multiple coding system comprising three levels of coding, or ‘strata’: the semantic (mean ings), the lexicogrammatical (forms) and the phonological and ortho- ‘graphic (expressions). Meanings ite realized (coded) as forms, and forms fre realized in tam (recoded) as expresions. To put this in everyday ter~ ‘minology, meaning is put into wording, and wording into sound or ‘writing meaning (he semantic system) woeding (Chelexcogrammatcl system, grammar x tnd vont) andi’ )writing (he Penlpal and_ orthographic ‘ye ‘The popular term ‘wording’ refer to lexicogrammaticl form, the choice of words and grammatical steucrures. Within this stratum, there is no hard-and-fct division between vocabulary and grammar; the goiding principle in language is that the more general meanings ace expresed ‘through the grammar, andthe more specific meanings through the vocab- tulary. Cohesive relations ft into the same overall pattem, Cobcsion is ‘expressed parly through the grammar and partly through the vocabulary.6 wrropuerion “We can refer therefore to GRAMMATICAL CONLESION and LEXICAL comssi0N. In example [1:3], one of te tes was geammatial reference, cxpressed by the), the other lexial(eteration, expressed by apple). The types of cohesion deale with in Chapters 2-4 (reference, subsoturion and cllipss) are grammatical; that in Chapter 6 i lexical. That dealt with in ‘Chapter (Conjunction) ison the borderline of the two; mainly gram- ‘matical, but with a lexical component in it. The distinction berscen ‘grammatical and lexical is really only one of degree, and we need not make too mach of it here, Iris importa to sees, however, that when we talk of cohesion as being “grammatical or lexical’, we do nor imply that it {sa purely formal elation in which mesning is ot involved. Cohesion is 2 semantic relation, But ike all components of the semantic system, iis realized dhrough the lexicogeammatical sytem; and itis 2 this point chat the distinction can be drawn. Some forms of cohesion are realized through the grammar and others through the vocabulary. ‘We might add asa footnote here that certain types of grammatical co- Inesion are in heir turn exprested through che intonation system, in spoken English, For example, in [1:6] Did I hure your flings? didn’t mean to. the second sentence cohetes not only by ellipsis, with I did't mean pro~ supposing hare your feelings, but alo by conjunction, the adversative mean ing "but" being expresed by che tone. Phonologicaly this would be: sia. did hur your | rsunes J 41] aide xa 0 the second sentence having the rising-falling tone 4. For an explanation of the intonation system, see section §.4 and the references cited there. 1.2 Cohesion and linguistic structure 4.2. Texture and sure ‘Aten, as weave de not a ctrl i; nd bain inthe ese inoich we arin the cm, ota sacra elation, Whatever l= tion dees among the ar of text =the sentences, o paragraphs, oF tur ins dog it othe sane ocr inthe etl ee, he telaton wich nk the par ofa sentence oF a cate. Sirus of cous, unifying lation. The pars ofa enn o¢ 2 chase sbvsouly’ coher’ with exch thet, by vita the rate Hence they ab dplay tecture; the ements ofan sete have by definition, te nal iy hich ese that they al expe pat fa ext. One cannot change text in mid-sentene, 10 t0 speak; or rather, fone docs, there will always bea break inthe structure, with something being ince polated which snot stuctuallya part ofthe same sentence 35 in Hamlet's 1:7] Then I will come to my mother by and by ~ y they fool me to the top of my bent ~ I will come by and by. ‘or, more conversational, [8]. Bue what I wane to know is— yes, some ie, please — what this {government think they’ doing when they spend all hat money ‘on building new schools. What's wrong with the old ones? In gencrl, any unit which i steacared hangs together soa to form text ‘ll grammatical units ~ sentenecs, clauses, eoups, words ~ are internally “eohesive” simply because they ate structured. The same applies to the ‘phonological units, the tone group, foot and syllable. Suucture is one ‘means of expressing texture. every text consisted of only one sentence, we should not need to go beyond the eatogory of structure co explain the internal cohesivenes of teat this could be explained simply asa function ofits structure, Bu texts ae usally not limited to one sentence; on the contrary, texts consisting of ‘one sentence only ae fairly rare. They do exist; there are public notices, proverbs, advertising slogans and the like, where one sentence by isl ‘comprise 4 complete tex, for example [1:9] a. No smoking. ', Wonders never cease! ©. Read The Herald every day. ‘Bue most teat extend well beyond the confines ofa single sentence, Tn other word, text typically extends beyond the range of seuctural relations, as thee ate normally conceived of. Bu texts cohere; so cohesion ‘within a text texture ~ depends on somthing other than structure. There ae certain specifically text-forming rclations wick eannot be accounted forin terms of constituent structure; they are properties of che cextas such, and not of any structural uni such asa clause or sentence. Our use ofthe term COWESION refers specially to chee non-structural text-forming relations. They ae, 38 we have suggested, semantic relations, andthe text, 1.2.2 Cohesion within the rntoce? Since éohesive relations are not concerned with structure, they may befora just as well within a sentence as berween sentences. They attract ess notice within a sentence, beeause ofthe cohesive stength of grammatical structure; since the sentence hangs together already, che colesion is not rnceded in order to make it hang together. But the cohesive relations ate there ll the sume. For example [1:10] 1fyou happen to meet the admiral, don't tell hi his ship’ gone down, Here the him and his inthe second half have to be decoded by reference t0 the admiral, jst as they would have had tobe if there had been a sentence boundary in between. Similely: [211] Mary promised co senda piceue ofthe children, but she hasn't Hire done equal sen apr ofthe children and itis quite ierelevant to this ‘whether the two ate in the same sentence or not. Cohesive relations have in principle nothing to do with sentence bound= aries, Cohesion isa semantic relation beeween an element inthe text and Some other clement that is eruil to the interpretation of it. This other ‘clement is also to be found in the text (1.24 below); bat is location in the text isin no way determined by the grammatical structure. The two element, the presupposing and the presupposed, may be structurally c= Tated to each other, oF they may no; it makes no differenee to the meaning, of the cohesive relation. However, there Sense in which the sentence i significant unit for cohesion precisely because itis the highest unit of grammatical seuctut’ it tends to determine the way in which cohesion is EXPRESSED. For ‘example ifthe same entity is referred to ewice within the same sentence, there ar rules goveming the form ofits realization. These ae dhe rules of ‘pronominalization. Ie isthe sentence structure which deteemines, within Timi, whecher ae the second mention the entity will be named again or willbe referred to bya pronoun. For example, we cannot say [12] John took John’s hat off and hung Job's hat ona peg. Assuming that there i only one “John” here, and only one ha’ then this identity of roference must be expresed by the use of pronomial forms’ John tok his hat off ed hang ton peg. ‘This sore of thing can be accounted for by reference to sentence struc- ture; the relation beeween an item and another one that presupposes it could be explained a a structural eelaton. In the preceding sentence, for 1.2 COMESION AND LINGUISTIC STRUCTURE 9 ‘example, the words one and itboh, in diffrent ways, presuppore the word ‘tem; and dhs presupposition coukl be incorporated into the strvcrare of the sentence. ‘But this would be misleading. Only cerain instances of cohesion could be treated structurally, and only shen the two items, the presupposing and the presupposed, happened to occur within the same sentence, Bur, as ‘we have sen, the question whether the two fill within dhe same sentence for not is irelevant to the nature of the cobesive celation; cohesion is 2 ‘more general notion, and one that is above considerations of stracture, ‘Moreover only certain kinds of cohesive relation are governed by such rules; mainly those involving idensty of reference, which unde certain conditions must be signalled by a reference item (Chapter 2). Cohesion that is expresed through substivation and ellipsis (Chapters 3 and 4) is ‘unalected by the sentence sect and soi lexical cohesion (Chapter 6) In the case of conjunction (Chapters), there are special forms to express the various conjunctive relations where these ate associated with gram= ‘motial sracture; compare [1:13], which i non-stractral, with ts sec tural counterpart [12135]: [usus]a Ws raining. Then lets stay at home. ', Since i's taining let's stay at home. Regardles of the presence or absence ofa sractural link, the semantie r= lation that provides cobsion, namely that of caus, ithe same in bot. For these reasons cohesion within che sentence need not be regarded ‘sentially a distinct phenomenon. Cobesion is 2 general texe-forming rela~ tion, o tof such relations, certain of which, when incorporated within a sentence structure, ae subject to certain restrictions ~ no doubt because the grammatical condition of “being a sentence’ ensures that the pats go together to form a text anyway. Bue the cohesive relations themselves are the same whether thee elements are within the same sentence oF not. ‘As a general rule the examples cited in this book will be of eohesion across sentence boundaries, since here the effec is more striking and the raning is more obvious: cohesive ties between sentences stand out more clearly Because they ate the ONLY source of texture, whereas within the sentence there ae the structural relations 28 well In che description of a teat, it the iterventence cohesion tha is significant, because that sep~ resents the variable aspect of cohesion, distinguishing one text from a= ‘other. Bu this should not obscure the fact that cohesion is not stictly speaking, a relation ‘above the sentence’. It is a relation to which the sentence, of any athe form of grammatical structure, is simply itrlevant1.2.5 Cohesion and dinoure state Te will be clear from what has been sid above that cohesion fs not just another name for diseourse structure. Discourse structure i, asthe name implies, a type of structures the trm is ased eo refer to the structure of ome postulated unit higher than the sentence, for example the paragraph, for sone larger entity sich 2 episode o topic uni “The concept of cohesion is set up to account for relations in discourse, bout in rather a diferent way, without the implication tha thre ie ome seretutal unt that is above the sentence. Cohesion refers to the range of posiblces chat exist for liking something, with what has gone before. Since this linking is achieved through relations in MEANING (we are ‘excluding from consideration the efets of formal devices such as sym= tactic parallelism, metre and rhyme), what isin question isthe set of mean= ing eations which function inthis way: dhe semantic resources which are dawn on forthe purpose of cresting text. And since, as we have stressed, is the sentence that i the pivotal entity bere ~ whatever is put together ‘within one sentence i ps act part of «text we ean interpret cohesion, in practice, asthe set of semantic resources fo linking a seNTENGE with shat has gone before. “This is not to rule out the possibilty of seting up discourse structures, and specifying the structure of some entity such 2sa paragraph or topic unit. Its clear that chere is seructure ere, at least in certain genres or registers of discourse. But it i doubtful whether itis posible to demonstrate ‘generalized structural relationships ino which sentences entra the ealiz~ tion of functions in some higher unit, as can be done for all units below the sentence, The type of relation inco which sentences enter with cach other difers from that which holds among the part or sub-parts ofa sen fence. We cannot show, for example, tht theres any functional ration bbeeween the two sentences of [1:1] above, such thatthe two form a con figuration of mutually defining structorl roles. (le may on the other hand be possible to show something of the kind precisely by invoking the con cept of cohesion; of Chapter 5.) Whereas within the sentence, or any Similar unit, we ean specify a limited numberof posible structure, such as types of modification or subordination, eansivy or modal structures andthe like, which define the relations among the pars, we cannot inthe same way lise set of posible sructutes for a text, with sentence classes to fill the stroctural roles. Instead we have to show how sentences, which are structurally independent of one another, may be linked together through particular features of thee interpretation; and eis for this chat the concept ‘of cohesion is required 4.24 Cohesion as «semantic relation “To say that two sentences cohere by vite of relations in thei meaning is not by itself very precte. Practically any two sentences might be shown to hhave something todo with each other as fir a theie meaning is concerned and although in judging whether there ie texture or not we certainly have recourse to some feling abou how much the sentences do actualy inter- felate in meaning, we could not give any very explicit account of the tlegce ofrclatednss that is needed or how itis to be measured. ‘Bur there is one specific kind of meaning relation that is etal forthe ‘creation of texture: that in which ONE ELEMENT 15 INTERPRETED BY FFERENCE TO ANOTICER, What cohesion has to do with isthe way in ‘which the meaning ofthe clements i interpreted. Where the interpteta~ _tion of any item in the discourse requires making reference to some other fem inthe discourse, there is cobesion. ‘Consider the example [1:14] He sid so, ‘This sentence is perfectly intelligible a it stands; we know what it means, in the sense that we can “decode” it semantically. But it is uNmwTER- PaETABLE, because we do not know who ‘he’ is or what he said. For this we have co refer elsewhere, to its ‘context inthe sense of what has gone befor, "Now it is alo tue that, given just the sentence 5] John sid everything. swe do not know who ‘Jb’ or what he sid either, Bu dere san important diférence between exaple [1244} and [1:15-In [1:14 the items hands contain in their meaningan explicit signal that the means of ‘heir interpretation avaiable omtesere inthe environment Heating reading this sentence, we know hati links up with some other pasage in ‘which there isan indication of who “he isand what he said This is ot the ‘se with Jol or everthing, citer of which necesaly presupposes any such source of further interpretation. ‘Wenow come othe more complex parof the picture Tisasy enough tostiow that ead sae cabaiv; ter iso means of interpreting then in ther own right, and we ae immediatly sware of the need to recover tn interpretation from caewhere. There ae systematically rated ques Sons which expres thts Hh sds? ha dhe ay? By these token ‘we can realy recogeize the cohesive effet ofa sentence sch 8 (1226) Lying on the floor.Here ther i no explicit signal of presuppotiton, in the form of a word like he or so; the cohesion s provided by what is left out, and again we ea ask the relevant question Who is? Notice however that cher is now some ambiguity a regards the information to be supplied; the actal text right have been [1:17] What was John doing when you came in? Lying om the lor, in which eas ying would have tobe interpreted at was lying not is Ing. And theee ate sill further possibilities as illastrated by. [218] Whatis your favourite pastime? Lying on the floor. "These show that cohesion is rational conecpt it snot the presence of particular class of item chat is cohesive, but the relation between one item and another, ‘This point emerges very clearly with another type of cohesion, which would otherwise be dificul to explain. We said with reference to example [1:15] that there is nothing presupposing about the item Jolin; the sen= tence Jol sid everything does no in ieself eofee the sutomaic right to ask for an interpretation of John, as he sid everything dacs with regard to he. ‘Blue we may have a sequence such as: (1:19) 1 was introduced to them; it was John Leathwall and his wife hhad never met John before but Fhad heaed a lot about him and had some idea what to expect. Here Join does have a cohesive fanction ~ because itis reiterated. This form of eahesion js lexical (Chapter 6); it consists in selecting the same lexical item twice, or selecting two that are closely related. The two in stances may or may not ave the same referent; bu the interpretation of the second willbe referable in some way to tha ofthe fe, Compare what ‘wassaid about example 1:3] shove, Another example would be: [1:20] Jansat down to rest2t the foot of huge beech-tee, Now he was so tired that he soon fll asleep; anda lea el om him, and then another, and then another, and before long he was covesed all over with leaves, yellow, golden and brown, Here lates with becke. The two at clearly not identical in reference, since tre and leef ae not synonymous; but the interpretation of leaf de 1.2 COMRSION AND LINGUISTIC STRUCTURE 13 pends on eectee — we ‘know’ thatthe leaf wa a becch-lea, and if the Sentence had continued before long he war cvered al ver with ak-leaves we shoold have rejected it 2 mistake. This illustrates the force of cohesion; and it als illustrates the fact that cohesion depends not on the presence of ‘xplicitly anaphoric items like so and fe, but on the establishment of a semantic relation which may take any ane of various forms, (One other form it may take is hat of conjunction, expresed by means ‘of items such 2s bt, later on, in that case (Chapter 5). Here the cohesion resides nan abstract relation between one proposition and another. This ‘may be a matter of the CONTENT of the propositions, how they ate related to each other as phenomena; for example [1:21] Fits he cook a pice of string an ted it carfilly round the neck of the bottle. Next, he passed the other end over a branch and weighted it down with 3 sone, Or it may be a mater of thei role in the discourse, how they ae related in the perspective ofthe speaker of writer, for example [1:23] First, he has no experience of this kind of work. Next, he showed no sig of being willing to ear, lee next refers to soecesion in the argument, not to any soquence of events in time, Avery lage nun of eiferent words and Phrases oxcut as expresions of conjunction; but they al fl ato afew ses representing very genera ype of logic elation “Thos the concept ofeohesionsecountsfor the cent semanti relations whereby ny pasage of speech ot writing is enabled to fonction a text, ‘We can systematize this concept by clasiyng i ino small number of divine categories ~ ference, substation, ellis, conjunction, and Texi- cal eohesion; categories which have a choretial bass 8 dnct 398 of cohesive relation, bt which abo provide a practi means for desribing and analysing tens. Each of thee extegoie i tepesentd in the text by particular stares ~ repetitions, onions, occrrences of certain woeds and constructions ~ which have in common the property of signaling that the imzrpetation of the pasiage in question depends am something ele. Aha someting ee” is verbally explicit, then there cohesion. There are, of couse other types of semantic relation acid witha txt which ae not embodied inthis conespt; but the one that docs embody iin some ways the most importa, since iis ommmaon to text of every kind and isin ict, what makes exe atext1.3, Cohesion and linguistic context 1.3.1 The domait of whesve relations ‘The simplest form of cohesion is chat in which the presopposed clement is verbally explicit and is Found in the immediately preceding sentences for example [1:23] Did the gardener water my hydrangeas? = He ssid so. ‘We shall reat this s the note for purposes ofillstation and dscusion; not only beeause it simpler in practice but al because i i, a8 we have sugested the paradigm cae of cahesion from a theoretical point of view, since the boundary between two sentences represents a minimal break in structural continuity. “There ate two kinds of departure fiom this norm. First, che presupposed clement may be located elsewhere, in an eatler sentence, pethaps, or in the following one; secondly, i may not be found inthe text at all. Le us consider these incur. ‘Cohesion as we have suid i not a structural relation; hence ie is unre~ stricted by sentence boundaries, and in its most normal form iis simply the presupposition of something that has gone before, whether inthe pre~ ‘celingsentence or not. Thsform of pressppositon, pointing sacktosome previous item, is known as NaPHORA, What is presupposed anaphori~ tally may be inthe sentence immediately preceding, but it may also bein some eatlier sentence; inthe flowing example, he eefets back to Henry t:24] The firs years of Henry's evigh, at recoded by che admiring Hall, were given over ta sport and gaity, though chee was lite ofthe licentiousness which characterizod the French Court. The athletic contests were serious but very popular. Masgues, jousts and spectacles followed one another in endless pageantry. He brought to Greenwich 2 temendousl vial court life a central ‘importance inthe country’s afis and, above al, a great naval Crit may be the whole of some longer passage; here the such presupposes everything thc precedes: tg) Teeing with ge rif wf servant, medi fe monarchs demanded a serics of houses to take care of their needs, + ote nl Nigel Hamilton, Rap! Gren The Grenwich Booksop | | 1.3 CouESION AND LINGUISTIC ConTEXT 15 ‘Their coqutements were large. Government went where they ‘went (it was stil che King’s government) ~ withall is attendant staf and visitors. They were responsible fora large number of followers, and visitors had to be entertained in syle. They were expected to dispense patronage and to enterain on 2 lavish scale, During the winter festival of Christmas, lasting twenty ays, they nominally kept open house. Richard Ul, notoriously prodigal, entertained over ten thousand every day 2 it palaces, and even more over Christmas. ‘No single home could possibly cope with the organization and material products needed on such a sesle* [As might be expected, the tendency i diferent with diffrent types of| cohesion. Where the cobesive clement is something like he or one, which coheres by direct reference to, or substitution for, another item, the pre~ supposed element is typically a specific tem in the immediately preceding séatence. Ths isthe most usual pattem in the case of reference and sub stitution. Characteritically chee intances ao tend to form coWESIVE ‘CHAINS, sequences in which i, for example, refers back to the immedi ately preceding sentence — but to another it in that sentence, and itis necessary to go back thre, four or more sentences, stepping across whole sequence of is, before finding che subsantal element. An example ofthis is[1:25] above, which has 2 cohesive chain medieval monarch. ther they... hey... they they, leading finally to Richard IT 8 a specie instance of medieval monarch, Here is nother example in which three such cohesive chains interewine, initiated by Short, Johnson over Jordan and Johnson: [i:26}/Shore places Johnson over Jordan squarely in the radtion of ‘expresionist drama, He says that Johnson isa “typical Briton’, an “English Everyman’. He regards the play a8 sn imaginative presentation of the mind of a man who has just died. Bur, he add, Priestley is more interested in Johnson living than in John son dead. In this the play ie expresionie ints approuch to theme, Buti isalsosoin its use of unfamiliar devices ~ the use of masks, the rejection of the dhce oF four act lay-out ofthe plot. And, finaly, he poins to the way in which Johnson moves quite ecely in and out of chronological ime: Te may be helpfal to tabulate the ties forming thewe three chains * Otveand Nigel Hanon, Repel Grew, The Gren Bookshop Gueh Hoy Bran, Bee = The Dati16 wwrnopuction a an Shore Johnson over Joon Johan ‘Johnson oe Jordan Sentence 1: Shore Jobson (in J over J) Sentence 2: he + Peorannats Seneence3: he the pay {man who has just : i tied Sentence 4: 4 Johnson (23) Sentence § | the play ies Sentence 6: it its | Sentence 7: he Johnson, Where the cohesion takes the form of conjunction, with expresions like but, sin tht case, later on, the presupposition typically involve a pase sage longer than a single sentence. This hardy needs illstrating, bot here is one example, a pasage of Carlyle in which che conjunction onthe oher hand clearly relates to che whole ofthe preceding pacagraph: [1:27] How much still alive in England; how much has not yet come into life! A Feudal Aristocracy is sill alive, inthe prime of life superintending che cultivation of che land, and les consciously the distribution ofthe produce ofthe land, the adjustment ofthe Guarrels of che land; judging, soldering, adjusting: everyohere governing che people, ~ so that even Guth, born thrall of Ceri, lacks not his due parings of the pigs he tends. Govern= ing; ~ and, alas, abo game-preserving, so that a Robin Hood, a William Scarlet and others have, in these days, pat on Lincoln coats, and taken to living, in some universal-suffrage manner, under the greenwood tree! How silent, on the other hand lie all Cotton-trades and such ota steple-chimney yee got on end from sea to sea! Lexical cohesion differs again, in that t regularly leaps over a number of Sentences to pick up an element that has noe figured in the intervening [1:28] Tscreamed, and my seream went wafiing out on the night ai ‘And some neighbours who - they were my nearest neighbours, but they were all some ditanee away ~ came rushing along ‘They were awflly good, and they sid afterward they thought Td been being murdered. Well, 1 couldnt've made more noise if had bon! But P'd surprised myself ~ realy, the sound that 144 COMTSION AND LINGUISTIC CONTEXT 17 ‘went floating out on the ai I didn’t know I had i in me, and they’said ie would make my fortune iT sent it to Hollywood. [And I may say i surprised che thief sufficiently that he dropped ‘my handbag and fled. Forcunately I wasn’t between him and the oor, so there was no harm done and I didn’t loge anything, = Fortunately for him, oF fortunately for you? = Ob, for me; they generally carry knives. <1 know; someone was murdered in the main hotel quite recently, = Oh yes, yes, although people did say that there were wheels within wheels in that. But you get botwoon a fecing thief and his exit, and he’s bound to be eareying a knife. Bu anyhow, the only thing I lost was my voice. I couldn’ speak for a week afterwards Here ot in lot... my voice) resumes the lose (in dds lose anything, the resumption being signalled by che conjunctive item anyhow’ and voce re= lates back to scream, noise and sound. Resumptions ofthis kind can span large pasages of intervening txt, especially in informal conversation. ‘So far we have considered cohesion purely asan anaphoric relation, with 4 presupposin item presupposing something chat has gone before it. But the presupposition may go in the opposite ditection, with the presup- posed clement following. This we shall refer to as cATAPHORA. “The distinction only aries if there isan expliiy presupposing item present, whose referent clearly ether precede or follows. If the cohesion is lexical, with the same lexical item occurring twice over, then obviously the second occurrence mus tke its interpretation from the ist; the first ‘an never be aid to point forward to the second. If Jol follows John, there is no posible contrast between anaphora and cataphora. Buta item such a tis and here CAN point forward, deriving its interpretation from something that follows, for example: [1:25} This is how to get dhe best esl, You let the berries dey in che sun, tillal the moisture ha gone out of them. Then you gather them up and chop them very fine “The presupposed element may, and offen docs, consist of more than one sentence, Where it doesnot, the cataphori reference is often signalled in ‘writing with a colon: bu although ths has the effect of uniting the two part into a single orthographic sentence, it does not imply any kind of structural relation between them. The colon is wed solely to signal the ‘eataphor, thir being one of principal functions.‘There remains one further posibility, namely that the information required for interpreting some clement inthe text is not to be found in the text atall, bu in the situation. Forexaniple, given [1:30] Did the gardence water those plans? itis quite posible cha those refers back to the preceding text, to some cater mention of those particular plans in che discussion, But it is 20 posible that it refers to the envionment in which the dialog i aking plice- tothe ‘context of stu "28 is called ~ where the plants in {question are present and cam be pointed to iEnccesary. The inerpretation ‘would be ‘those plans there, in front oft ‘This type of reference we shall ell EXOPHORA, since it akes us ouside the text altogether. Exophoric reference isnot cohesive, since it does not bind the ro clement together into a text. One might reason thay eta phorically speaking, the plants form part ofthe text; but this seem eather pointes, because there could be no significant contrast ere between the presence of cohesion and it absence ~ one would have eo assme that in the absence of cohesive reference to them, the plats would have com prised 2 text on their own. Bue exophora i of interest at several points in the discussion, particulary with reference to the definite atcle a a text- forming agent, and it willbe brought up where eleva ‘The line between exophoric and anaphoric reference it not always very sharp. In dramatic dialogue, for example the mere presence or absence of a stage direction would change the picture {t:31] How sweet the moonligh sleeps upon this bank! Here will we sit, nd let the sound of music Creep in ou eas I the stage directions specify somthing like “a grassy bank’ then foe the reader this and hee become anaphoric; otherwise, they were exophorie ‘The significance of the exophoric potentials that, in instances where the key to the interpretation is not ready to hand, in text or situation, the hearer or reader Constmucs a context of situation inorder to supply i for himself. So we supply the grasy bank in our imagination, and the pro ducer need not put one on the stage. This is an essential element im all Imaginative writing may be helfil here to draw attention tothe ditinction between ¢o- hesion as aeelation in che system, and cohesion a a process in the text, "Cohesion" is defined as che se of posibilies that exist in the language for ‘making text hang together: the potential that che speaker or writer has st 1.3 COHESION AND LINGUISTIC CONTEXT 19 huis disposal. This isa purely relational concepe, and directionality comes into itomly if one of the cements in the cobesive relation is BY mrs NaTUmT chive, hat tine ‘pointing women hn th ce thee is 3 logical dependence, and hence significant opposition 1s TmE srstmm between pointing back (anaphora) and pointing forwards (cata- jphora) Buc cohesion is alo a process, in che sense that isthe instantiation Df this relation in a text. A text unfolds in realtime, and directionality is bul ino it; hence ofthe wo elements embodying the cohesive relation, one always follows the other. as ob Inthe system: $ thew ae impiily anaphoric Johny” Johny crlcily anphoce John’ the (Cc) caper het john Inthe tex iis natrlfor the element occuring second to depend fo its therein on sing fon spot heed wi Daphora i the mathe term in the opposition. Catapbor ours Sibert presppoing. Ths ess oa proe always invaves one item pointe to another whereas the sigiiant property ofthe cobeive ‘inn, we have sued abo, isthe ir tat one tem provides the tourer the inerpreation of nother. 1.3.2 Text and situation ‘Weshould now say litle more about dhe nature ofa text, and ts elation toa context of situation. Let us begin with an example Fo ae GST A a very high Ritough hot pd ‘Thoth sentences carly have someting in comin: they are not Joc ns pie no m8 ep of wit Engh Jia tcy haven common acorn dee of gmat ait rll cerns wth epttion of ite aeagh, They cul, how= Fer be weten in any otc sequence wihow dturbing Whe organi Shwe page awe chat whatever estat ive uty 0 ths ex rds nor depend onthe onder in which the semen ae arranged