http://glottopedia.org/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=Ppuhlmann&feedformat=atomGlottopedia - User contributions [en]2024-03-29T12:23:25ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.34.2http://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Cohesion&diff=10788Cohesion2010-06-26T17:49:33Z<p>Ppuhlmann: </p>
<hr />
<div>Cohesion in its broadest sense is “a semantic relation between an element in [a] text and some other element that is crucial to the interpretation of it” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994:8). It is basically the glue that holds a [[text]] together and makes the difference between an unrelated set of sentences and a set of sentences forming a unified whole.<br />
<br />
__TOC__<br />
<br />
==Cohesion and cohesive ties==<br />
The difference of the presence or absence of cohesion for a text is illustrated in the following examples:<br />
:(1) To reach the movie theater you will need to turn right on the next intersection and then go straight for about 5 minutes. You will see it on your right-hand side.<br />
<br />
:(2) A cat catches a mouse. The car broke down. I go swimming<br />
While the set of sentences in (1) seems to make sense, i.e. we could easily find the movie theater if we were in the given situation, the set of sentences in (2) does not qualify as unified text, but simply as three completely unrelated sentences. There is no possibility to relate the three sentences in (2) to each other, not even by changing their position.<br />
<br />
The difference between (1) and (2) is the presence and absence of cohesion, or better, of so-called cohesive ties. A cohesive tie refers to one “single instance of cohesion” and is a term to indicate “one occurrence of a pair of cohesively related items” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994:3). By using the concept of cohesive ties, it is possible to count the amount of instances of cohesion within a given text. Looking at the first examples, it is possible to identify a number of such cohesive ties in (1), while there are no such ties in (2). To illustrate this, one instance of cohesion in the table above can, for example, be identified between “movie theater” in the first sentence and “it” in the second sentence. The “it” refers back to “movie theater” and makes it clear to the hearer that the speaker is talking about the exact same building the hearer wants to reach. Since there are more such cohesive ties in (1), the set of given sentences can be identified as a text, because “[t]he word text is used in linguistics to refer to any passage, spoken or written, of whatever length, that does form a unified whole” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994:1). The absence of such cohesive ties in (2) discard the label text for the three given sentences, because of their unrelatedness to each other. “If a passage of English containing more than one sentence is perceived as a text, there will be certain linguistic features present in that passage which can be identified as contributing to its total unity and giving it [[texture]]” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 2). A text needs texture and this texture can only be created by the presence of cohesive ties. <br />
<br />
Cohesion occurs where the interpretation of any item in a text or discourse requires the making of a reference to some other item in the same text or discourse (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 11). One item “presupposes the other, in the sense that it cannot be effectively decoded except by recourse 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 & HASAN 1994: 4). In other words, sentences are linked by relational elements which combine them to a unified whole that can be called a text. This process, which combines sentences to a meaningful unit, is called cohesion and can be subdivided into the categories: reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction and lexical cohesion. “Each of these categories is represented in the text by particular features – repetitions, omissions, occurrences of certain words and constructions – which have in common the property of signaling that the interpretation of [a] passage in question depends on something else” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 13). <br />
<br />
However, cohesion does not only occur in what could be called a cohesive pair, where one only one element refers to another element in a preceding or subsequent sentence and thus forms a cohesive tie which connects the two sentences with each other. So-called cohesive chains frequently occur within a text in which one element of a sentence is cohesively connected to other elements of preceding or subsequent sentences. In some of these cases one element is only indirectly linked to another one, and it is only through cohesive devices that these links become apparent (cf. (3)).<br />
<br />
:(3) '''International pop stars''' usually lead a very busy life. '''They''' need to give concerts, attend photo shootings, or have other important obligations. Very often '''they''' have to travel around the globe, jumping from one time zone to another without getting much sleep. There is no secret that '''many of them''' have a tendency to take drugs to be able to deal with the pressure. One of the most famous victims of drug abuse during recent years was '''Michael Jackson''' who died in 2009 only two months before his 51st birthday.<br />
<br />
Example (3) shows such a cohesive chain in which “international pop stars” in the first sentence is connected to all the other sentences via “they” in the second and third sentence and “many of them” in the forth sentence. One has to follow all the cohesive ties in the subsequent sentences in order to establish the relation between the element “pop stars” in the first sentence and “Michael Jackson” in the fifth sentence, i.e. Michael Jackson is an instance of an “international pop star”.<br />
<br />
==Cohesion vs. coherence==<br />
It is also necessary to state that the concept of cohesion is closely connected to the concept of [[coherence]]. Although scholars do not completely agree on how to differentiate the two terms “[i]t is generally accepted […] that cohesion refers to the grammatical and lexical elements on the surface of a text which can form connections between parts of the text [while] coherence, on the other hand, resides not in the text, but is rather the outcome of a dialogue between the text and its listener or reader” (TANSKANEN 2006:7). To be able to better understand the concept of cohesion, it is necessary to take a closer look at all the five different kinds of cohesive tie and analyze them in more detail. <br />
<br />
==Types of cohesive ties== <br />
There are five types of cohesive ties which will be analyzed individually below: reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction, and lexical cohesion. It is possible to say that cohesion can be “expressed partly through the grammar and partly through the vocabulary” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 5). Therefore, the five types can be grouped into grammatical and lexical cohesion, i.e. reference, substitution, and ellipsis, fall under the category of grammatical cohesion, while conjunction combines grammatical, as well as, lexical features, and lexical cohesion which is only realized by vocabulary and can be further divided into the categories [[reiteration]] and [[collocation]].<br />
<br />
===Reference===<br />
The term reference refers to specific items within a text/discourse which cannot be “interpreted semantically in their own right”, but “make reference to something else”, i.e. some other item within the text/discourse, “for their interpretation” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994:31). These reference items, which refer to something else, are called directives and indicate “that information is to be retrieved from elsewhere” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 31). “[T]he information to be retrieved is the referential meaning, the identity of the particular thing or class of things that is being referred to” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 31) (cf. (4)). <br />
<br />
:(4) '''John''' goes fishing every other week. '''He''' is a very good fisherman.<br />
In (4) the subject of the second sentence “he” refers back to the subject of the first sentence “John”. If the first sentence were not part of the example and a potential reader were only given the sentence “He is a very good fisherman.” the reader would not be able to figure out who “he” is and would therefore not be able to make much sense of the given sentence. The personal pronoun “he” cannot be interpreted semantically in its own right and information about this element of the sentence has to be retrieved from somewhere else, i.e. from the sentence before. “He” makes reference to “John” in the first sentence and thus forms a cohesive tie of reference that connects the two sentences to each other. It is possible to say that “reference is a relation between meanings”, but it is also possible to say that “reference is a relation on the semantic level” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 89). It is basically a relation, “which holds between meanings rather than between linguistic forms; it is not the replacement of some linguistic element by [another item], but rather a direction for interpreting an element in terms of its environment – and since the environment includes the text (the linguistic environment), reference takes on a cohesive function” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994:226f.).<br />
<br />
As Figure 1 shows, there are different types of reference, i.e. '''exophoric''' and '''endophoric'''. Exophoric reference points to the situational context for the interpretation of a specific item. It always refers to something that is not part of a given text and is therefore not cohesive (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 18). Endophoric reference points to other items within a given text or discourse. <br />
<br />
:(5) Mike: Hey John, did you just see '''that'''? <br />
John: Yes, '''that''' was amazing.<br />
<br />
Example (5) illustrates an instance of exophoric reference. In the given conversation Mike sees something which he does not explicitly identify as a concrete object. He simply assumes that his conversational partner John saw the same thing as he did and asks him about it. The reader does not get to know what the two friends are talking about and is left in the dark. “That” as reference item in the conversation points outside the text to something that was witnessed by the two interlocutors and, consequently, information about it cannot be retrieved from elsewhere in the text. A potential reader has to use his/her own imagination to create a context, which makes exophoric reference “an essential element in all imaginative writing” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 18). <br />
<br />
[[image:Fig. 1 Types of Reference Halliday & Hasan 1994).JPG]]<br />
<br />
Endophoric reference points to the textual environment of a given element can be either '''anaphoric''' or '''cataphoric'''. Anaphoric reference is a form of presupposition and means that a reference item points back to something that has gone before (cf. SCHUBERT 2008:33). Such an instance of anaphoric reference can be found in (4) in which “he” refers back to “John” in the preceding sentence. Cataphoric reference, as oppositional term to anaphoric reference, works the other way around. Here, a usually abstract reference item points forward to a specific element within the subsequent text for its interpretation. In (6) the reader has to look at the whole sentence to make sense of the second word “it” which refers to the specific item “watch” at the end. <br />
<br />
:(6) There '''it''' is, my so much admired '''watch'''.<br />
<br />
===Substitution===<br />
Substitution as another type of cohesive relation, or cohesive tie, is the process in which one item within a text or discourse is replaced by another (cf. HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994:88). While reference was a relation on the semantic level, i.e. between meanings, substitution is a relation on the lexicogrammatical level (level of grammar and vocabulary) “between linguistic items, such as words or phrases” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 89). A substitute, in its broadest sense, can be seen as “a sort of counter which is used in place of the repetition of a particular item” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994:89). Example 7 shows this cohesive relation in which “one” substitutes the word “car”. <br />
:(7) Jack’s '''car''' is very old and ugly. He should get a nicer '''one'''.<br />
<br />
The difference between reference and substitution is that the substituted items are always exchangeable by the items they stand for. With reference the presupposed items can almost never replace the items which refer to them. The table below illustrates this. While in (7) “one” could easily be replaced by “car” without changing the meaning of the sentence (cf. (7´)), “it” in (6) could never be exchanged by “watch” (cf. (6´)). The same is true for (4) in which “he” is not exchangeable by “John” without creating ambiguity. The reader cannot be sure anymore if the “John” in the second sentence is the same person that occurs in the first sentence (cf. (4´)). <br />
:(4´) '''John''' goes fishing every other week. '''John''' is a very good fisherman.<br />
:(6´) *There '''watch''' is, my so much admired '''watch'''.<br />
:(7´) Jack’s '''car''' is very old and ugly. He should get a nicer '''car'''.<br />
<br />
Consequently, “the substitute item has the same structural function as that for which it substitutes” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 89). There are also different types of substitution which are called [[nominal substitution]] (replacement of a noun by “one, ones, same”, as illustrated in (7), [[verbal substitution]] (replacement of a verb by “do”) and [[clausal substitution]] (replacement of a clause by “so, not”) (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 90f.).<br />
<br />
===Ellipsis===<br />
Ellipsis as a type of cohesive relation is very similar to substitution. While substitution referred to the replacement of one textual element by another, ellipsis is simply characterized by “the omission of an item” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994:88). The process can, therefore, be “interpreted as that form of substitution in which [an] item is replaced by nothing” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 88) or as “substitution by zero” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 142). Example (8) illustrates such a cohesive tie of ellipsis. In the given example the predicator “ate” is left out in the second half of the sentence and is presupposed because it already occurred before. It would, of course, also be possible to repeat the predicator again at the position where it has been left out. <br />
:(8) Mary ate some chocolate chip cookies, and Robert [blank] some gummi bears.<br />
It is possible to say that “[w]here there is ellipsis, there is presupposition, in the structure, that something is to be supplied, or ‘understood’” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 144). In other words, “ellipsis occurs when something that is structurally necessary is left unsaid” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 144). As with substitution, there are also three different types of ellipsis, i.e. [[nominal ellipsis]], [[verbal ellipsis]], and [[clausal ellipsis]]. Ellipsis is also “a relation within the text, and in the great majority of instances the presupposed item is present in the preceding text” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 144). This is also true for substitution and renders the two kinds of cohesive tie to relations which are normally anaphoric. Table 1 summarizes the main features of reference, substitution and ellipsis once again. <br />
<br />
{| {{table}}<br />
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|''''''<br />
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Reference'''<br />
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Substitution / Ellipsis'''<br />
|-<br />
| Level of abstraction||semantic||lexicogrammatical<br />
|-<br />
| Primary source of presupposition||situation||text<br />
|-<br />
| What is presupposed?||meanings||items ( i.e. words, groups, clauses)<br />
|-<br />
| Is class preserved?||not necessarily||yes<br />
|-<br />
| Is replacement possible?||not necessarily||yes<br />
|-<br />
| Use as cohesive device||yes; anaphoric and cataphoric||yes; anaphoric (occasionally cataphoric)<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
|}<br />
Table 1: Reference vs. Substitution/Ellipsis (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994:145)<br />
<br />
===Conjunction===<br />
Conjunction is the fourth type of grammatical cohesion, but forms the borderline to the field of lexical cohesion since it also includes lexical features. Unlike the other types of cohesive ties, “[c]onjuctive elements are cohesive not in themselves but indirectly, by virtue of their specific meanings; they are not primarily devices for reaching out into the preceding (or following) text, but they express certain meanings which presuppose the presence of other components in the discourse” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994:226). It is not very easy to give a precise explanation of the way in which conjunctions create cohesion. Neither are they a type of semantic relation that points to something else in the text/discourse, nor are they a grammatical relation that implies that something was left out or replaced by something else. Conjunctions are different in the sense, that they are “a specification of the way in which what is to follow is systematically connected to what has gone before” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 227). They are able to relate linguistic elements to each other “that occur in succession but are not related by other, structural means” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 227). Conjunctions usually structure a text/discourse in a precise way and bring the presented elements into a logical order. Over all, there exist three different kinds of conjunctive [adjuncts] which are presented in Table 2. <br />
<br />
{| align="top" border="1"<br />
! width="200pt"|'''1'''<br />
! width="200pt"|'''2'''<br />
! width="200pt"|'''3'''<br />
|-<br />
| <u>simple adverbs (coordinating conjunctions):</u> <br />
for, and, nor, but, or, yet, so (FANBOYS) <br />
|<u>other compound adverbs, e.g.:</u> furthermore, nevertheless, anyway, instead, besides<br />
|rowspan="3"| <u>Prepositional expressions with that or other reference item, the later being (i) optional, e.g.: </u><br />
as a result of that, instead of that, in addition to that<br />
<br />
<br />
<u> or (ii) obligatory, e.g.: </u><br />
in spite of that, because of that <br />
|-<br />
| <u>compound adverbs in –ly, e.g.:</u> accordingly, subsequently, actually <br />
|rowspan="2"|<u>prepositional phrases, e.g.:</u><br />
on the contrary, as a result, in addition<br />
|- <br />
| <u>compound adverbs in there- and where-, e.g.: </u><br />
therefore, thereupon, whereat<br />
<br />
|}<br />
Tab. 2: The three different kinds of conjunctive adjuncts (own illustration based on HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994:231)<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Lexical cohesion===<br />
Lexical cohesion is the fifth and last type of the cohesive relations in English. It is generally understood as “the cohesive effect [that is] achieved by the selection of vocabulary” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994:274). This type of cohesion can be subdivided into the categories reiteration and collocation. Reiteration has to do with the use of [[general nouns]] to create a cohesive effect by replacing one element by another in the ongoing text/discourse. Cohesion can thereby be achieved in many different ways, either by the repetition of the same item, or via the use of [[synonyms]], near-synonyms, [[hyperonyms]] (superordinates), and general words. It is important to note that “a general noun in a cohesive function is almost always accompanied by the reference item the” which creates anaphoric reference (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 275). The word “the” indicates that the element which comes after it refers back and, therefore, has to be identical with a lexical item that occurred earlier in the text/discourse. Example (9) shows the different types of reiteration that can create lexical cohesion.<br />
<br />
(9)<br />
{| border="1"<br />
! colspan="2"| ''John caught a snake underneath a bucket.''<br />
|-<br />
| Repetition<br />
| The '''snake''' is going to suffocate if it stays there very long.<br />
|-<br />
| Synonym<br />
| The '''serpent''' is going to suffocate if he does not let it go.<br />
|-<br />
| Hyperonym (superordinate)<br />
| The '''animal''' is going to suffocate if he does not let it go.<br />
|-<br />
| General word<br />
| The '''poor thing''' is going to suffocate if he does not let it go.<br />
|}<br />
<br />
Interestingly, lexical items do not always have to have the same referent in order to be cohesive. “A lexical item […] coheres with a preceding occurrence of the same item whether or not the two have the same referent, or indeed whether or not there is any referential relationship between them” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 283). This phenomenon is illustrated in (10). Here the snake/snakes in the given replies (a-c) do not have the same referent as the snake in the italicized sentence, yet the sentences still cohere.<br />
<br />
<br />
(10)<br />
{| border="1"<br />
! ''There is a snake underneath the bucket.''<br />
|-<br />
| a. The snake is going to suffocate if it stays there very long.<br />
|-<br />
| b. Snakes are very strange animals<br />
|-<br />
| c. And there is another snake on top of it. <br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
A second subcategory of lexical cohesion is [[collocation]]. Collocations are lexical “items that regularly co-occur” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 284) and by doing so create cohesion within a given text/discourse. It is possible to say “that there is cohesion between any pair of lexical items that stand to each other in some recognizable lexicosemantic (word meaning) relation” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 285). This includes synonyms, near-synonyms, hyperonyms (superordinates), pairs of opposites (e.g. husband-wife, nephew-niece), antonyms (e.g. black-white, full-empty), converses (e.g. order-obey), “pairs of words drawn from the same ordered series” (e.g. Monday-Wednesday), “pairs drawn from unordered lexical sets” (e.g. blue-yellow, attic-cellar), part-whole relationships (e.g. air plane-wing, pants-pocket), part to part relationships (e.g. nose-ear), and “co-[[hyponym]]s of the same more general class (e.g. couch/cupboard-furniture), etc. (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 285). “The members of any such set stand in some kind of semantic relation to one another, but for textual purposes it does not much matter what this relation is” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 285). Cohesion can always be found between words that tend to occur in the same lexical environment and are in some way associated with each other. In general terms, “any two lexical items having similar patterns of collocation – that is, tending to appear in similar contexts – will generate a cohesive force if they occur in adjacent sentences.<br />
<br />
<br />
==Bibliography==<br />
<br />
*HALLIDAY, M.A.K. & R. HASAN (199413): ''Cohesion in English''. London: Longman. <br />
*SCHUBERT, C. (2008): ''Englische Textlinguistik. Eine Einführung''. Berlin: Schmidt.<br />
*TANSKANEN, S.-K. (2006): ''Collaborating towards coherence. Lexical Cohesion in English Discourse''. Amsterdam: Benjamins.<br />
<br />
{{dc}}<br />
[[Category:Discourse analysis]]<br />
[[Category:en]]</div>Ppuhlmannhttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Cohesion&diff=10787Cohesion2010-06-26T17:46:08Z<p>Ppuhlmann: </p>
<hr />
<div>Cohesion in its broadest sense is “a semantic relation between an element in [a] text and some other element that is crucial to the interpretation of it” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994:8). It is basically the glue that holds a [[text]] together and makes the difference between an unrelated set of sentences and a set of sentences forming a unified whole.<br />
<br />
__TOC__<br />
<br />
==Cohesion and cohesive ties==<br />
The difference of the presence or absence of cohesion for a text is illustrated in the following examples:<br />
:(1) To reach the movie theater you will need to turn right on the next intersection and then go straight for about 5 minutes. You will see it on your right-hand side.<br />
<br />
:(2) A cat catches a mouse. The car broke down. I go swimming<br />
While the set of sentences in (1) seems to make sense, i.e. we could easily find the movie theater if we were in the given situation, the set of sentences in (2) does not qualify as unified text, but simply as three completely unrelated sentences. There is no possibility to relate the three sentences in (2) to each other, not even by changing their position.<br />
<br />
The difference between (1) and (2) is the presence and absence of cohesion, or better, of so-called cohesive ties. A cohesive tie refers to one “single instance of cohesion” and is a term to indicate “one occurrence of a pair of cohesively related items” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994:3). By using the concept of cohesive ties, it is possible to count the amount of instances of cohesion within a given text. Looking at the first examples, it is possible to identify a number of such cohesive ties in (1), while there are no such ties in (2). To illustrate this, one instance of cohesion in the table above can, for example, be identified between “movie theater” in the first sentence and “it” in the second sentence. The “it” refers back to “movie theater” and makes it clear to the hearer that the speaker is talking about the exact same building the hearer wants to reach. Since there are more such cohesive ties in (1), the set of given sentences can be identified as a text, because “[t]he word text is used in linguistics to refer to any passage, spoken or written, of whatever length, that does form a unified whole” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994:1). The absence of such cohesive ties in (2) discard the label text for the three given sentences, because of their unrelatedness to each other. “If a passage of English containing more than one sentence is perceived as a text, there will be certain linguistic features present in that passage which can be identified as contributing to its total unity and giving it [[texture]]” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 2). A text needs texture and this texture can only be created by the presence of cohesive ties. <br />
<br />
Cohesion occurs where the interpretation of any item in a text or discourse requires the making of a reference to some other item in the same text or discourse (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 11). One item “presupposes the other, in the sense that it cannot be effectively decoded except by recourse 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 & HASAN 1994: 4). In other words, sentences are linked by relational elements which combine them to a unified whole that can be called a text. This process, which combines sentences to a meaningful unit, is called cohesion and can be subdivided into the categories: reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction and lexical cohesion. “Each of these categories is represented in the text by particular features – repetitions, omissions, occurrences of certain words and constructions – which have in common the property of signaling that the interpretation of [a] passage in question depends on something else” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 13). <br />
<br />
However, cohesion does not only occur in what could be called a cohesive pair, where one only one element refers to another element in a preceding or subsequent sentence and thus forms a cohesive tie which connects the two sentences with each other. So-called cohesive chains frequently occur within a text in which one element of a sentence is cohesively connected to other elements of preceding or subsequent sentences. In some of these cases one element is only indirectly linked to another one, and it is only through cohesive devices that these links become apparent (cf. (3)).<br />
<br />
:(3) '''International pop stars''' usually lead a very busy life. '''They''' need to give concerts, attend photo shootings, or have other important obligations. Very often '''they''' have to travel around the globe, jumping from one time zone to another without getting much sleep. There is no secret that '''many of them''' have a tendency to take drugs to be able to deal with the pressure. One of the most famous victims of drug abuse during recent years was '''Michael Jackson''' who died in 2009 only two months before his 51st birthday.<br />
<br />
Example (3) shows such a cohesive chain in which “international pop stars” in the first sentence is connected to all the other sentences via “they” in the second and third sentence and “many of them” in the forth sentence. One has to follow all the cohesive ties in the subsequent sentences in order to establish the relation between the element “pop stars” in the first sentence and “Michael Jackson” in the fifth sentence, i.e. Michael Jackson is an instance of an “international pop star”.<br />
<br />
==Cohesion vs. coherence==<br />
It is also necessary to state that the concept of cohesion is closely connected to the concept of [[coherence]]. Although scholars do not completely agree on how to differentiate the two terms “[i]t is generally accepted […] that cohesion refers to the grammatical and lexical elements on the surface of a text which can form connections between parts of the text [while] coherence, on the other hand, resides not in the text, but is rather the outcome of a dialogue between the text and its listener or reader” (TANSKANEN 2006:7). To be able to better understand the concept of cohesion, it is necessary to take a closer look at all the five different kinds of cohesive tie and analyze them in more detail. <br />
<br />
==Types of cohesive ties== <br />
There are five types of cohesive ties which will be analyzed individually below: reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction, and lexical cohesion. It is possible to say that cohesion can be “expressed partly through the grammar and partly through the vocabulary” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 5). Therefore, the five types can be grouped into grammatical and lexical cohesion, i.e. reference, substitution, and ellipsis, fall under the category of grammatical cohesion, while conjunction combines grammatical, as well as, lexical features, and lexical cohesion which is only realized by vocabulary and can be further divided into the categories [[reiteration]] and [[collocation]].<br />
<br />
===Reference===<br />
The term reference refers to specific items within a text/discourse which cannot be “interpreted semantically in their own right”, but “make reference to something else”, i.e. some other item within the text/discourse, “for their interpretation” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994:31). These reference items, which refer to something else, are called directives and indicate “that information is to be retrieved from elsewhere” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 31). “[T]he information to be retrieved is the referential meaning, the identity of the particular thing or class of things that is being referred to” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 31) (cf. (4)). <br />
<br />
:(4) '''John''' goes fishing every other week. '''He''' is a very good fisherman.<br />
In (4) the subject of the second sentence “he” refers back to the subject of the first sentence “John”. If the first sentence were not part of the example and a potential reader were only given the sentence “He is a very good fisherman.” the reader would not be able to figure out who “he” is and would therefore not be able to make much sense of the given sentence. The personal pronoun “he” cannot be interpreted semantically in its own right and information about this element of the sentence has to be retrieved from somewhere else, i.e. from the sentence before. “He” makes reference to “John” in the first sentence and thus forms a cohesive tie of reference that connects the two sentences to each other. It is possible to say that “reference is a relation between meanings”, but it is also possible to say that “reference is a relation on the semantic level” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 89). It is basically a relation, “which holds between meanings rather than between linguistic forms; it is not the replacement of some linguistic element by [another item], but rather a direction for interpreting an element in terms of its environment – and since the environment includes the text (the linguistic environment), reference takes on a cohesive function” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994:226f.).<br />
<br />
As Figure 1 shows, there are different types of reference, i.e. '''exophoric''' and '''endophoric'''. Exophoric reference points to the situational context for the interpretation of a specific item. It always refers to something that is not part of a given text and is therefore not cohesive (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 18). Endophoric reference points to other items within a given text or discourse. <br />
<br />
:(5) Mike: Hey John, did you just see '''that'''? <br />
John: Yes, '''that''' was amazing.<br />
<br />
Example (5) illustrates an instance of exophoric reference. In the given conversation Mike sees something which he does not explicitly identify as a concrete object. He simply assumes that his conversational partner John saw the same thing as he did and asks him about it. The reader does not get to know what the two friends are talking about and is left in the dark. “That” as reference item in the conversation points outside the text to something that was witnessed by the two interlocutors and, consequently, information about it cannot be retrieved from elsewhere in the text. A potential reader has to use his/her own imagination to create a context, which makes exophoric reference “an essential element in all imaginative writing” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 18). <br />
<br />
[[image:Fig. 1 Types of Reference Halliday & Hasan 1994).JPG]]<br />
<br />
Endophoric reference points to the textual environment of a given element can be either '''anaphoric''' or '''cataphoric'''. Anaphoric reference is a form of presupposition and means that a reference item points back to something that has gone before (cf. SCHUBERT 2008:33). Such an instance of anaphoric reference can be found in (4) in which “he” refers back to “John” in the preceding sentence. Cataphoric reference, as oppositional term to anaphoric reference, works the other way around. Here, a usually abstract reference item points forward to a specific element within the subsequent text for its interpretation. In (6) the reader has to look at the whole sentence to make sense of the second word “it” which refers to the specific item “watch” at the end. <br />
<br />
(6) There '''it''' is, my so much admired '''watch'''.<br />
<br />
===Substitution===<br />
Substitution as another type of cohesive relation, or cohesive tie, is the process in which one item within a text or discourse is replaced by another (cf. HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994:88). While reference was a relation on the semantic level, i.e. between meanings, substitution is a relation on the lexicogrammatical level (level of grammar and vocabulary) “between linguistic items, such as words or phrases” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 89). A substitute, in its broadest sense, can be seen as “a sort of counter which is used in place of the repetition of a particular item” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994:89). Example 7 shows this cohesive relation in which “one” substitutes the word “car”. <br />
:(7) Jack’s '''car''' is very old and ugly. He should get a nicer '''one'''.<br />
<br />
The difference between reference and substitution is that the substituted items are always exchangeable by the items they stand for. With reference the presupposed items can almost never replace the items which refer to them. The table below illustrates this. While in (7) “one” could easily be replaced by “car” without changing the meaning of the sentence (cf. (7´)), “it” in (6) could never be exchanged by “watch” (cf. (6´)). The same is true for (4) in which “he” is not exchangeable by “John” without creating ambiguity. The reader cannot be sure anymore if the “John” in the second sentence is the same person that occurs in the first sentence (cf. (4´)). <br />
:(4´) '''John''' goes fishing every other week. '''John''' is a very good fisherman.<br />
:(6´) *There '''watch''' is, my so much admired '''watch'''.<br />
:(7´) Jack’s '''car''' is very old and ugly. He should get a nicer '''car'''.<br />
<br />
Consequently, “the substitute item has the same structural function as that for which it substitutes” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 89). There are also different types of substitution which are called [[nominal substitution]] (replacement of a noun by “one, ones, same”, as illustrated in (7), [[verbal substitution]] (replacement of a verb by “do”) and [[clausal substitution]] (replacement of a clause by “so, not”) (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 90f.).<br />
<br />
===Ellipsis===<br />
Ellipsis as a type of cohesive relation is very similar to substitution. While substitution referred to the replacement of one textual element by another, ellipsis is simply characterized by “the omission of an item” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994:88). The process can, therefore, be “interpreted as that form of substitution in which [an] item is replaced by nothing” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 88) or as “substitution by zero” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 142). Example (8) illustrates such a cohesive tie of ellipsis. In the given example the predicator “ate” is left out in the second half of the sentence and is presupposed because it already occurred before. It would, of course, also be possible to repeat the predicator again at the position where it has been left out. <br />
:(8) Mary ate some chocolate chip cookies, and Robert [blank] some gummi bears.<br />
It is possible to say that “[w]here there is ellipsis, there is presupposition, in the structure, that something is to be supplied, or ‘understood’” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 144). In other words, “ellipsis occurs when something that is structurally necessary is left unsaid” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 144). As with substitution, there are also three different types of ellipsis, i.e. [[nominal ellipsis]], [[verbal ellipsis]], and [[clausal ellipsis]]. Ellipsis is also “a relation within the text, and in the great majority of instances the presupposed item is present in the preceding text” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 144). This is also true for substitution and renders the two kinds of cohesive tie to relations which are normally anaphoric. Table 1 summarizes the main features of reference, substitution and ellipsis once again. <br />
<br />
{| {{table}}<br />
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|''''''<br />
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Reference'''<br />
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Substitution / Ellipsis'''<br />
|-<br />
| Level of abstraction||semantic||lexicogrammatical<br />
|-<br />
| Primary source of presupposition||situation||text<br />
|-<br />
| What is presupposed?||meanings||items ( i.e. words, groups, clauses)<br />
|-<br />
| Is class preserved?||not necessarily||yes<br />
|-<br />
| Is replacement possible?||not necessarily||yes<br />
|-<br />
| Use as cohesive device||yes; anaphoric and cataphoric||yes; anaphoric (occasionally cataphoric)<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
|}<br />
Table 1: Reference vs. Substitution/Ellipsis (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994:145)<br />
<br />
===Conjunction===<br />
Conjunction is the fourth type of grammatical cohesion, but forms the borderline to the field of lexical cohesion since it also includes lexical features. Unlike the other types of cohesive ties, “[c]onjuctive elements are cohesive not in themselves but indirectly, by virtue of their specific meanings; they are not primarily devices for reaching out into the preceding (or following) text, but they express certain meanings which presuppose the presence of other components in the discourse” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994:226). It is not very easy to give a precise explanation of the way in which conjunctions create cohesion. Neither are they a type of semantic relation that points to something else in the text/discourse, nor are they a grammatical relation that implies that something was left out or replaced by something else. Conjunctions are different in the sense, that they are “a specification of the way in which what is to follow is systematically connected to what has gone before” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 227). They are able to relate linguistic elements to each other “that occur in succession but are not related by other, structural means” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 227). Conjunctions usually structure a text/discourse in a precise way and bring the presented elements into a logical order. Over all, there exist three different kinds of conjunctive [adjuncts] which are presented in Table 2. <br />
<br />
{| align="top" border="1"<br />
! width="200pt"|'''1'''<br />
! width="200pt"|'''2'''<br />
! width="200pt"|'''3'''<br />
|-<br />
| <u>simple adverbs (coordinating conjunctions):</u> <br />
for, and, nor, but, or, yet, so (FANBOYS) <br />
|<u>other compound adverbs, e.g.:</u> furthermore, nevertheless, anyway, instead, besides<br />
|rowspan="3"| <u>Prepositional expressions with that or other reference item, the later being (i) optional, e.g.: </u><br />
as a result of that, instead of that, in addition to that<br />
<br />
<br />
<u> or (ii) obligatory, e.g.: </u><br />
in spite of that, because of that <br />
|-<br />
| <u>compound adverbs in –ly, e.g.:</u> accordingly, subsequently, actually <br />
|rowspan="2"|<u>prepositional phrases, e.g.:</u><br />
on the contrary, as a result, in addition<br />
|- <br />
| <u>compound adverbs in there- and where-, e.g.: </u><br />
therefore, thereupon, whereat<br />
<br />
|}<br />
Tab. 2: The three different kinds of conjunctive adjuncts (own illustration based on HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994:231)<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Lexical cohesion===<br />
Lexical cohesion is the fifth and last type of the cohesive relations in English. It is generally understood as “the cohesive effect [that is] achieved by the selection of vocabulary” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994:274). This type of cohesion can be subdivided into the categories reiteration and collocation. Reiteration has to do with the use of [[general nouns]] to create a cohesive effect by replacing one element by another in the ongoing text/discourse. Cohesion can thereby be achieved in many different ways, either by the repetition of the same item, or via the use of [[synonyms]], near-synonyms, [[hyperonyms]] (superordinates), and general words. It is important to note that “a general noun in a cohesive function is almost always accompanied by the reference item the” which creates anaphoric reference (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 275). The word “the” indicates that the element which comes after it refers back and, therefore, has to be identical with a lexical item that occurred earlier in the text/discourse. Example (9) shows the different types of reiteration that can create lexical cohesion.<br />
<br />
(9)<br />
{| border="1"<br />
! colspan="2"| ''John caught a snake underneath a bucket.''<br />
|-<br />
| Repetition<br />
| The '''snake''' is going to suffocate if it stays there very long.<br />
|-<br />
| Synonym<br />
| The '''serpent''' is going to suffocate if he does not let it go.<br />
|-<br />
| Hyperonym (superordinate)<br />
| The '''animal''' is going to suffocate if he does not let it go.<br />
|-<br />
| General word<br />
| The '''poor thing''' is going to suffocate if he does not let it go.<br />
|}<br />
<br />
Interestingly, lexical items do not always have to have the same referent in order to be cohesive. “A lexical item […] coheres with a preceding occurrence of the same item whether or not the two have the same referent, or indeed whether or not there is any referential relationship between them” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 283). This phenomenon is illustrated in (10). Here the snake/snakes in the given replies (a-c) do not have the same referent as the snake in the italicized sentence, yet the sentences still cohere.<br />
<br />
<br />
(10)<br />
{| border="1"<br />
! ''There is a snake underneath the bucket.''<br />
|-<br />
| a. The snake is going to suffocate if it stays there very long.<br />
|-<br />
| b. Snakes are very strange animals<br />
|-<br />
| c. And there is another snake on top of it. <br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
A second subcategory of lexical cohesion is [[collocation]]. Collocations are lexical “items that regularly co-occur” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 284) and by doing so create cohesion within a given text/discourse. It is possible to say “that there is cohesion between any pair of lexical items that stand to each other in some recognizable lexicosemantic (word meaning) relation” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 285). This includes synonyms, near-synonyms, hyperonyms (superordinates), pairs of opposites (e.g. husband-wife, nephew-niece), antonyms (e.g. black-white, full-empty), converses (e.g. order-obey), “pairs of words drawn from the same ordered series” (e.g. Monday-Wednesday), “pairs drawn from unordered lexical sets” (e.g. blue-yellow, attic-cellar), part-whole relationships (e.g. air plane-wing, pants-pocket), part to part relationships (e.g. nose-ear), and “co-[[hyponym]]s of the same more general class (e.g. couch/cupboard-furniture), etc. (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 285). “The members of any such set stand in some kind of semantic relation to one another, but for textual purposes it does not much matter what this relation is” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 285). Cohesion can always be found between words that tend to occur in the same lexical environment and are in some way associated with each other. In general terms, “any two lexical items having similar patterns of collocation – that is, tending to appear in similar contexts – will generate a cohesive force if they occur in adjacent sentences.<br />
<br />
<br />
==Bibliography==<br />
<br />
*HALLIDAY, M.A.K. & R. HASAN (199413): ''Cohesion in English''. London: Longman. <br />
*SCHUBERT, C. (2008): ''Englische Textlinguistik. Eine Einführung''. Berlin: Schmidt.<br />
*TANSKANEN, S.-K. (2006): ''Collaborating towards coherence. Lexical Cohesion in English Discourse''. Amsterdam: Benjamins.<br />
<br />
{{dc}}<br />
[[Category:Discourse analysis]]<br />
[[Category:en]]</div>Ppuhlmannhttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=File:Fig._1_Types_of_Reference_Halliday_%26_Hasan_1994).JPG&diff=10786File:Fig. 1 Types of Reference Halliday & Hasan 1994).JPG2010-06-26T17:41:23Z<p>Ppuhlmann: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Ppuhlmannhttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Cohesion&diff=10785Cohesion2010-06-25T18:18:43Z<p>Ppuhlmann: </p>
<hr />
<div>Cohesion in its broadest sense is “a semantic relation between an element in [a] text and some other element that is crucial to the interpretation of it” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994:8). It is basically the glue that holds a [[text]] together and makes the difference between an unrelated set of sentences and a set of sentences forming a unified whole.<br />
<br />
__TOC__<br />
<br />
==Cohesion and cohesive ties==<br />
The difference of the presence or absence of cohesion for a text is illustrated in the following examples:<br />
:(1) To reach the movie theater you will need to turn right on the next intersection and then go straight for about 5 minutes. You will see it on your right-hand side.<br />
<br />
:(2) A cat catches a mouse. The car broke down. I go swimming<br />
While the set of sentences in (1) seems to make sense, i.e. we could easily find the movie theater if we were in the given situation, the set of sentences in (2) does not qualify as unified text, but simply as three completely unrelated sentences. There is no possibility to relate the three sentences in (2) to each other, not even by changing their position.<br />
<br />
The difference between (1) and (2) is the presence and absence of cohesion, or better, of so-called cohesive ties. A cohesive tie refers to one “single instance of cohesion” and is a term to indicate “one occurrence of a pair of cohesively related items” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994:3). By using the concept of cohesive ties, it is possible to count the amount of instances of cohesion within a given text. Looking at the first examples, it is possible to identify a number of such cohesive ties in (1), while there are no such ties in (2). To illustrate this, one instance of cohesion in the table above can, for example, be identified between “movie theater” in the first sentence and “it” in the second sentence. The “it” refers back to “movie theater” and makes it clear to the hearer that the speaker is talking about the exact same building the hearer wants to reach. Since there are more such cohesive ties in (1), the set of given sentences can be identified as a text, because “[t]he word text is used in linguistics to refer to any passage, spoken or written, of whatever length, that does form a unified whole” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994:1). The absence of such cohesive ties in (2) discard the label text for the three given sentences, because of their unrelatedness to each other. “If a passage of English containing more than one sentence is perceived as a text, there will be certain linguistic features present in that passage which can be identified as contributing to its total unity and giving it [[texture]]” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 2). A text needs texture and this texture can only be created by the presence of cohesive ties. <br />
<br />
Cohesion occurs where the interpretation of any item in a text or discourse requires the making of a reference to some other item in the same text or discourse (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 11). One item “presupposes the other, in the sense that it cannot be effectively decoded except by recourse 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 & HASAN 1994: 4). In other words, sentences are linked by relational elements which combine them to a unified whole that can be called a text. This process, which combines sentences to a meaningful unit, is called cohesion and can be subdivided into the categories: reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction and lexical cohesion. “Each of these categories is represented in the text by particular features – repetitions, omissions, occurrences of certain words and constructions – which have in common the property of signaling that the interpretation of [a] passage in question depends on something else” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 13). <br />
<br />
However, cohesion does not only occur in what could be called a cohesive pair, where one only one element refers to another element in a preceding or subsequent sentence and thus forms a cohesive tie which connects the two sentences with each other. So-called cohesive chains frequently occur within a text in which one element of a sentence is cohesively connected to other elements of preceding or subsequent sentences. In some of these cases one element is only indirectly linked to another one, and it is only through cohesive devices that these links become apparent (cf. (3)).<br />
<br />
:(3) '''International pop stars''' usually lead a very busy life. '''They''' need to give concerts, attend photo shootings, or have other important obligations. Very often '''they''' have to travel around the globe, jumping from one time zone to another without getting much sleep. There is no secret that '''many of them''' have a tendency to take drugs to be able to deal with the pressure. One of the most famous victims of drug abuse during recent years was '''Michael Jackson''' who died in 2009 only two months before his 51st birthday.<br />
<br />
Example (3) shows such a cohesive chain in which “international pop stars” in the first sentence is connected to all the other sentences via “they” in the second and third sentence and “many of them” in the forth sentence. One has to follow all the cohesive ties in the subsequent sentences in order to establish the relation between the element “pop stars” in the first sentence and “Michael Jackson” in the fifth sentence, i.e. Michael Jackson is an instance of an “international pop star”.<br />
<br />
==Cohesion vs. coherence==<br />
It is also necessary to state that the concept of cohesion is closely connected to the concept of [[coherence]]. Although scholars do not completely agree on how to differentiate the two terms “[i]t is generally accepted […] that cohesion refers to the grammatical and lexical elements on the surface of a text which can form connections between parts of the text [while] coherence, on the other hand, resides not in the text, but is rather the outcome of a dialogue between the text and its listener or reader” (TANSKANEN 2006:7). To be able to better understand the concept of cohesion, it is necessary to take a closer look at all the five different kinds of cohesive tie and analyze them in more detail. <br />
<br />
==Types of cohesive ties== <br />
There are five types of cohesive ties which will be analyzed individually below: reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction, and lexical cohesion. It is possible to say that cohesion can be “expressed partly through the grammar and partly through the vocabulary” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 5). Therefore, the five types can be grouped into grammatical and lexical cohesion, i.e. reference, substitution, and ellipsis, fall under the category of grammatical cohesion, while conjunction combines grammatical, as well as, lexical features, and lexical cohesion which is only realized by vocabulary and can be further divided into the categories [[reiteration]] and [[collocation]].<br />
<br />
===Reference===<br />
The term reference refers to specific items within a text/discourse which cannot be “interpreted semantically in their own right”, but “make reference to something else”, i.e. some other item within the text/discourse, “for their interpretation” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994:31). These reference items, which refer to something else, are called directives and indicate “that information is to be retrieved from elsewhere” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 31). “[T]he information to be retrieved is the referential meaning, the identity of the particular thing or class of things that is being referred to” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 31) (cf. (4)). <br />
<br />
:(4) '''John''' goes fishing every other week. '''He''' is a very good fisherman.<br />
In (4) the subject of the second sentence “he” refers back to the subject of the first sentence “John”. If the first sentence were not part of the example and a potential reader were only given the sentence “He is a very good fisherman.” the reader would not be able to figure out who “he” is and would therefore not be able to make much sense of the given sentence. The personal pronoun “he” cannot be interpreted semantically in its own right and information about this element of the sentence has to be retrieved from somewhere else, i.e. from the sentence before. “He” makes reference to “John” in the first sentence and thus forms a cohesive tie of reference that connects the two sentences to each other. It is possible to say that “reference is a relation between meanings”, but it is also possible to say that “reference is a relation on the semantic level” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 89). It is basically a relation, “which holds between meanings rather than between linguistic forms; it is not the replacement of some linguistic element by [another item], but rather a direction for interpreting an element in terms of its environment – and since the environment includes the text (the linguistic environment), reference takes on a cohesive function” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994:226f.).<br />
<br />
As Figure 1 shows, there are different types of reference, i.e. '''exophoric''' and '''endophoric'''. Exophoric reference points to the situational context for the interpretation of a specific item. It always refers to something that is not part of a given text and is therefore not cohesive (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 18). Endophoric reference points to other items within a given text or discourse. <br />
<br />
:(5) Mike: Hey John, did you just see '''that'''? <br />
John: Yes, '''that''' was amazing.<br />
<br />
Example (5) illustrates an instance of exophoric reference. In the given conversation Mike sees something which he does not explicitly identify as a concrete object. He simply assumes that his conversational partner John saw the same thing as he did and asks him about it. The reader does not get to know what the two friends are talking about and is left in the dark. “That” as reference item in the conversation points outside the text to something that was witnessed by the two interlocutors and, consequently, information about it cannot be retrieved from elsewhere in the text. A potential reader has to use his/her own imagination to create a context, which makes exophoric reference “an essential element in all imaginative writing” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 18). <br />
<br />
Insert Figure 1 here<br />
<br />
Endophoric reference points to the textual environment of a given element can be either '''anaphoric''' or '''cataphoric'''. Anaphoric reference is a form of presupposition and means that a reference item points back to something that has gone before (cf. SCHUBERT 2008:33). Such an instance of anaphoric reference can be found in (4) in which “he” refers back to “John” in the preceding sentence. Cataphoric reference, as oppositional term to anaphoric reference, works the other way around. Here, a usually abstract reference item points forward to a specific element within the subsequent text for its interpretation. In (6) the reader has to look at the whole sentence to make sense of the second word “it” which refers to the specific item “watch” at the end. <br />
<br />
(6) There '''it''' is, my so much admired '''watch'''.<br />
<br />
===Substitution===<br />
Substitution as another type of cohesive relation, or cohesive tie, is the process in which one item within a text or discourse is replaced by another (cf. HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994:88). While reference was a relation on the semantic level, i.e. between meanings, substitution is a relation on the lexicogrammatical level (level of grammar and vocabulary) “between linguistic items, such as words or phrases” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 89). A substitute, in its broadest sense, can be seen as “a sort of counter which is used in place of the repetition of a particular item” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994:89). Example 7 shows this cohesive relation in which “one” substitutes the word “car”. <br />
:(7) Jack’s '''car''' is very old and ugly. He should get a nicer '''one'''.<br />
<br />
The difference between reference and substitution is that the substituted items are always exchangeable by the items they stand for. With reference the presupposed items can almost never replace the items which refer to them. The table below illustrates this. While in (7) “one” could easily be replaced by “car” without changing the meaning of the sentence (cf. (7´)), “it” in (6) could never be exchanged by “watch” (cf. (6´)). The same is true for (4) in which “he” is not exchangeable by “John” without creating ambiguity. The reader cannot be sure anymore if the “John” in the second sentence is the same person that occurs in the first sentence (cf. (4´)). <br />
:(4´) '''John''' goes fishing every other week. '''John''' is a very good fisherman.<br />
:(6´) *There '''watch''' is, my so much admired '''watch'''.<br />
:(7´) Jack’s '''car''' is very old and ugly. He should get a nicer '''car'''.<br />
<br />
Consequently, “the substitute item has the same structural function as that for which it substitutes” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 89). There are also different types of substitution which are called [[nominal substitution]] (replacement of a noun by “one, ones, same”, as illustrated in (7), [[verbal substitution]] (replacement of a verb by “do”) and [[clausal substitution]] (replacement of a clause by “so, not”) (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 90f.).<br />
<br />
===Ellipsis===<br />
Ellipsis as a type of cohesive relation is very similar to substitution. While substitution referred to the replacement of one textual element by another, ellipsis is simply characterized by “the omission of an item” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994:88). The process can, therefore, be “interpreted as that form of substitution in which [an] item is replaced by nothing” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 88) or as “substitution by zero” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 142). Example (8) illustrates such a cohesive tie of ellipsis. In the given example the predicator “ate” is left out in the second half of the sentence and is presupposed because it already occurred before. It would, of course, also be possible to repeat the predicator again at the position where it has been left out. <br />
:(8) Mary ate some chocolate chip cookies, and Robert [blank] some gummi bears.<br />
It is possible to say that “[w]here there is ellipsis, there is presupposition, in the structure, that something is to be supplied, or ‘understood’” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 144). In other words, “ellipsis occurs when something that is structurally necessary is left unsaid” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 144). As with substitution, there are also three different types of ellipsis, i.e. [[nominal ellipsis]], [[verbal ellipsis]], and [[clausal ellipsis]]. Ellipsis is also “a relation within the text, and in the great majority of instances the presupposed item is present in the preceding text” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 144). This is also true for substitution and renders the two kinds of cohesive tie to relations which are normally anaphoric. Table 1 summarizes the main features of reference, substitution and ellipsis once again. <br />
<br />
{| {{table}}<br />
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|''''''<br />
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Reference'''<br />
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Substitution / Ellipsis'''<br />
|-<br />
| Level of abstraction||semantic||lexicogrammatical<br />
|-<br />
| Primary source of presupposition||situation||text<br />
|-<br />
| What is presupposed?||meanings||items ( i.e. words, groups, clauses)<br />
|-<br />
| Is class preserved?||not necessarily||yes<br />
|-<br />
| Is replacement possible?||not necessarily||yes<br />
|-<br />
| Use as cohesive device||yes; anaphoric and cataphoric||yes; anaphoric (occasionally cataphoric)<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
|}<br />
Table 1: Reference vs. Substitution/Ellipsis (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994:145)<br />
<br />
===Conjunction===<br />
Conjunction is the fourth type of grammatical cohesion, but forms the borderline to the field of lexical cohesion since it also includes lexical features. Unlike the other types of cohesive ties, “[c]onjuctive elements are cohesive not in themselves but indirectly, by virtue of their specific meanings; they are not primarily devices for reaching out into the preceding (or following) text, but they express certain meanings which presuppose the presence of other components in the discourse” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994:226). It is not very easy to give a precise explanation of the way in which conjunctions create cohesion. Neither are they a type of semantic relation that points to something else in the text/discourse, nor are they a grammatical relation that implies that something was left out or replaced by something else. Conjunctions are different in the sense, that they are “a specification of the way in which what is to follow is systematically connected to what has gone before” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 227). They are able to relate linguistic elements to each other “that occur in succession but are not related by other, structural means” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 227). Conjunctions usually structure a text/discourse in a precise way and bring the presented elements into a logical order. Over all, there exist three different kinds of conjunctive [adjuncts] which are presented in Table 2. <br />
<br />
{| align="top" border="1"<br />
! width="200pt"|'''1'''<br />
! width="200pt"|'''2'''<br />
! width="200pt"|'''3'''<br />
|-<br />
| <u>simple adverbs (coordinating conjunctions):</u> <br />
for, and, nor, but, or, yet, so (FANBOYS) <br />
|<u>other compound adverbs, e.g.:</u> furthermore, nevertheless, anyway, instead, besides<br />
|rowspan="3"| <u>Prepositional expressions with that or other reference item, the later being (i) optional, e.g.: </u><br />
as a result of that, instead of that, in addition to that<br />
<br />
<br />
<u> or (ii) obligatory, e.g.: </u><br />
in spite of that, because of that <br />
|-<br />
| <u>compound adverbs in –ly, e.g.:</u> accordingly, subsequently, actually <br />
|rowspan="2"|<u>prepositional phrases, e.g.:</u><br />
on the contrary, as a result, in addition<br />
|- <br />
| <u>compound adverbs in there- and where-, e.g.: </u><br />
therefore, thereupon, whereat<br />
<br />
|}<br />
Tab. 2: The three different kinds of conjunctive adjuncts (own illustration based on HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994:231)<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Lexical cohesion===<br />
Lexical cohesion is the fifth and last type of the cohesive relations in English. It is generally understood as “the cohesive effect [that is] achieved by the selection of vocabulary” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994:274). This type of cohesion can be subdivided into the categories reiteration and collocation. Reiteration has to do with the use of [[general nouns]] to create a cohesive effect by replacing one element by another in the ongoing text/discourse. Cohesion can thereby be achieved in many different ways, either by the repetition of the same item, or via the use of [[synonyms]], near-synonyms, [[hyperonyms]] (superordinates), and general words. It is important to note that “a general noun in a cohesive function is almost always accompanied by the reference item the” which creates anaphoric reference (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 275). The word “the” indicates that the element which comes after it refers back and, therefore, has to be identical with a lexical item that occurred earlier in the text/discourse. Example (9) shows the different types of reiteration that can create lexical cohesion.<br />
<br />
(9)<br />
{| border="1"<br />
! colspan="2"| ''John caught a snake underneath a bucket.''<br />
|-<br />
| Repetition<br />
| The '''snake''' is going to suffocate if it stays there very long.<br />
|-<br />
| Synonym<br />
| The '''serpent''' is going to suffocate if he does not let it go.<br />
|-<br />
| Hyperonym (superordinate)<br />
| The '''animal''' is going to suffocate if he does not let it go.<br />
|-<br />
| General word<br />
| The '''poor thing''' is going to suffocate if he does not let it go.<br />
|}<br />
<br />
Interestingly, lexical items do not always have to have the same referent in order to be cohesive. “A lexical item […] coheres with a preceding occurrence of the same item whether or not the two have the same referent, or indeed whether or not there is any referential relationship between them” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 283). This phenomenon is illustrated in (10). Here the snake/snakes in the given replies (a-c) do not have the same referent as the snake in the italicized sentence, yet the sentences still cohere.<br />
<br />
<br />
(10)<br />
{| border="1"<br />
! ''There is a snake underneath the bucket.''<br />
|-<br />
| a. The snake is going to suffocate if it stays there very long.<br />
|-<br />
| b. Snakes are very strange animals<br />
|-<br />
| c. And there is another snake on top of it. <br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
A second subcategory of lexical cohesion is [[collocation]]. Collocations are lexical “items that regularly co-occur” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 284) and by doing so create cohesion within a given text/discourse. It is possible to say “that there is cohesion between any pair of lexical items that stand to each other in some recognizable lexicosemantic (word meaning) relation” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 285). This includes synonyms, near-synonyms, hyperonyms (superordinates), pairs of opposites (e.g. husband-wife, nephew-niece), antonyms (e.g. black-white, full-empty), converses (e.g. order-obey), “pairs of words drawn from the same ordered series” (e.g. Monday-Wednesday), “pairs drawn from unordered lexical sets” (e.g. blue-yellow, attic-cellar), part-whole relationships (e.g. air plane-wing, pants-pocket), part to part relationships (e.g. nose-ear), and “co-[[hyponym]]s of the same more general class (e.g. couch/cupboard-furniture), etc. (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 285). “The members of any such set stand in some kind of semantic relation to one another, but for textual purposes it does not much matter what this relation is” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 285). Cohesion can always be found between words that tend to occur in the same lexical environment and are in some way associated with each other. In general terms, “any two lexical items having similar patterns of collocation – that is, tending to appear in similar contexts – will generate a cohesive force if they occur in adjacent sentences.<br />
<br />
<br />
==Bibliography==<br />
<br />
*HALLIDAY, M.A.K. & R. HASAN (199413): ''Cohesion in English''. London: Longman. <br />
*SCHUBERT, C. (2008): ''Englische Textlinguistik. Eine Einführung''. Berlin: Schmidt.<br />
*TANSKANEN, S.-K. (2006): ''Collaborating towards coherence. Lexical Cohesion in English Discourse''. Amsterdam: Benjamins.<br />
<br />
{{dc}}<br />
[[Category:Discourse analysis]]<br />
[[Category:en]]</div>Ppuhlmannhttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Cohesion&diff=10784Cohesion2010-06-25T18:12:05Z<p>Ppuhlmann: article complete</p>
<hr />
<div>Cohesion in its broadest sense is “a semantic relation between an element in [a] text and some other element that is crucial to the interpretation of it” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994:8). It is basically the glue that holds a [[text]] together and makes the difference between an unrelated set of sentences and a set of sentences forming a unified whole.<br />
<br />
__TOC__<br />
<br />
==Cohesion and cohesive ties==<br />
The difference of the presence or absence of cohesion for a text is illustrated in the following examples:<br />
:(1) To reach the movie theater you will need to turn right on the next intersection and then go straight for about 5 minutes. You will see it on your right-hand side.<br />
<br />
:(2) A cat catches a mouse. The car broke down. I go swimming<br />
While the set of sentences in (1) seems to make sense, i.e. we could easily find the movie theater if we were in the given situation, the set of sentences in (2) does not qualify as unified text, but simply as three completely unrelated sentences. There is no possibility to relate the three sentences in (2) to each other, not even by changing their position.<br />
<br />
The difference between (1) and (2) is the presence and absence of cohesion, or better, of so-called cohesive ties. A cohesive tie refers to one “single instance of cohesion” and is a term to indicate “one occurrence of a pair of cohesively related items” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994:3). By using the concept of cohesive ties, it is possible to count the amount of instances of cohesion within a given text. Looking at the first examples, it is possible to identify a number of such cohesive ties in (1), while there are no such ties in (2). To illustrate this, one instance of cohesion in the table above can, for example, be identified between “movie theater” in the first sentence and “it” in the second sentence. The “it” refers back to “movie theater” and makes it clear to the hearer that the speaker is talking about the exact same building the hearer wants to reach. Since there are more such cohesive ties in (1), the set of given sentences can be identified as a text, because “[t]he word text is used in linguistics to refer to any passage, spoken or written, of whatever length, that does form a unified whole” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994:1). The absence of such cohesive ties in (2) discard the label text for the three given sentences, because of their unrelatedness to each other. “If a passage of English containing more than one sentence is perceived as a text, there will be certain linguistic features present in that passage which can be identified as contributing to its total unity and giving it [[texture]]” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 2). A text needs texture and this texture can only be created by the presence of cohesive ties. <br />
<br />
Cohesion occurs where the interpretation of any item in a text or discourse requires the making of a reference to some other item in the same text or discourse (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 11). One item “presupposes the other, in the sense that it cannot be effectively decoded except by recourse 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 & HASAN 1994: 4). In other words, sentences are linked by relational elements which combine them to a unified whole that can be called a text. This process, which combines sentences to a meaningful unit, is called cohesion and can be subdivided into the categories: reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction and lexical cohesion. “Each of these categories is represented in the text by particular features – repetitions, omissions, occurrences of certain words and constructions – which have in common the property of signaling that the interpretation of [a] passage in question depends on something else” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 13). <br />
<br />
However, cohesion does not only occur in what could be called a cohesive pair, where one only one element refers to another element in a preceding or subsequent sentence and thus forms a cohesive tie which connects the two sentences with each other. So-called cohesive chains frequently occur within a text in which one element of a sentence is cohesively connected to other elements of preceding or subsequent sentences. In some of these cases one element is only indirectly linked to another one, and it is only through cohesive devices that these links become apparent (cf. (3)).<br />
<br />
:(3) '''International pop stars''' usually lead a very busy life. '''They''' need to give concerts, attend photo shootings, or have other important obligations. Very often '''they''' have to travel around the globe, jumping from one time zone to another without getting much sleep. There is no secret that '''many of them''' have a tendency to take drugs to be able to deal with the pressure. One of the most famous victims of drug abuse during recent years was '''Michael Jackson''' who died in 2009 only two months before his 51st birthday.<br />
<br />
Example (3) shows such a cohesive chain in which “international pop stars” in the first sentence is connected to all the other sentences via “they” in the second and third sentence and “many of them” in the forth sentence. One has to follow all the cohesive ties in the subsequent sentences in order to establish the relation between the element “pop stars” in the first sentence and “Michael Jackson” in the fifth sentence, i.e. Michael Jackson is an instance of an “international pop star”.<br />
<br />
==Cohesion vs. coherence==<br />
It is also necessary to state that the concept of cohesion is closely connected to the concept of [[coherence]]. Although scholars do not completely agree on how to differentiate the two terms “[i]t is generally accepted […] that cohesion refers to the grammatical and lexical elements on the surface of a text which can form connections between parts of the text [while] coherence, on the other hand, resides not in the text, but is rather the outcome of a dialogue between the text and its listener or reader” (TANSKANEN 2006:7). To be able to better understand the concept of cohesion, it is necessary to take a closer look at all the five different kinds of cohesive tie and analyze them in more detail. <br />
<br />
==Types of cohesive ties== <br />
There are five types of cohesive ties which will be analyzed individually below: reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction, and lexical cohesion. It is possible to say that cohesion can be “expressed partly through the grammar and partly through the vocabulary” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 5). Therefore, the five types can be grouped into grammatical and lexical cohesion, i.e. reference, substitution, and ellipsis, fall under the category of grammatical cohesion, while conjunction combines grammatical, as well as, lexical features, and lexical cohesion which is only realized by vocabulary and can be further divided into the categories [[reiteration]] and [[collocation]].<br />
<br />
===Reference===<br />
The term reference refers to specific items within a text/discourse which cannot be “interpreted semantically in their own right”, but “make reference to something else”, i.e. some other item within the text/discourse, “for their interpretation” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994:31). These reference items, which refer to something else, are called directives and indicate “that information is to be retrieved from elsewhere” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 31). “[T]he information to be retrieved is the referential meaning, the identity of the particular thing or class of things that is being referred to” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 31) (cf. (4)). <br />
<br />
:(4) '''John''' goes fishing every other week. '''He''' is a very good fisherman.<br />
In (4) the subject of the second sentence “he” refers back to the subject of the first sentence “John”. If the first sentence were not part of the example and a potential reader were only given the sentence “He is a very good fisherman.” the reader would not be able to figure out who “he” is and would therefore not be able to make much sense of the given sentence. The personal pronoun “he” cannot be interpreted semantically in its own right and information about this element of the sentence has to be retrieved from somewhere else, i.e. from the sentence before. “He” makes reference to “John” in the first sentence and thus forms a cohesive tie of reference that connects the two sentences to each other. It is possible to say that “reference is a relation between meanings”, but it is also possible to say that “reference is a relation on the semantic level” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 89). It is basically a relation, “which holds between meanings rather than between linguistic forms; it is not the replacement of some linguistic element by [another item], but rather a direction for interpreting an element in terms of its environment – and since the environment includes the text (the linguistic environment), reference takes on a cohesive function” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994:226f.).<br />
<br />
As Figure 1 shows, there are different types of reference, i.e. '''exophoric''' and '''endophoric'''. Exophoric reference points to the situational context for the interpretation of a specific item. It always refers to something that is not part of a given text and is therefore not cohesive (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 18). Endophoric reference points to other items within a given text or discourse. <br />
<br />
:(5) Mike: Hey John, did you just see '''that'''? <br />
John: Yes, '''that''' was amazing.<br />
<br />
Example (5) illustrates an instance of exophoric reference. In the given conversation Mike sees something which he does not explicitly identify as a concrete object. He simply assumes that his conversational partner John saw the same thing as he did and asks him about it. The reader does not get to know what the two friends are talking about and is left in the dark. “That” as reference item in the conversation points outside the text to something that was witnessed by the two interlocutors and, consequently, information about it cannot be retrieved from elsewhere in the text. A potential reader has to use his/her own imagination to create a context, which makes exophoric reference “an essential element in all imaginative writing” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 18). <br />
<br />
Insert Figure 1 here<br />
<br />
Endophoric reference points to the textual environment of a given element can be either '''anaphoric''' or '''cataphoric'''. Anaphoric reference is a form of presupposition and means that a reference item points back to something that has gone before (cf. SCHUBERT 2008:33). Such an instance of anaphoric reference can be found in (4) in which “he” refers back to “John” in the preceding sentence. Cataphoric reference, as oppositional term to anaphoric reference, works the other way around. Here, a usually abstract reference item points forward to a specific element within the subsequent text for its interpretation. In (6) the reader has to look at the whole sentence to make sense of the second word “it” which refers to the specific item “watch” at the end. <br />
<br />
(6) There '''it''' is, my so much admired '''watch'''.<br />
<br />
===Substitution===<br />
Substitution as another type of cohesive relation, or cohesive tie, is the process in which one item within a text or discourse is replaced by another (cf. HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994:88). While reference was a relation on the semantic level, i.e. between meanings, substitution is a relation on the lexicogrammatical level (level of grammar and vocabulary) “between linguistic items, such as words or phrases” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 89). A substitute, in its broadest sense, can be seen as “a sort of counter which is used in place of the repetition of a particular item” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994:89). Example 7 shows this cohesive relation in which “one” substitutes the word “car”. <br />
:(7) Jack’s '''car''' is very old and ugly. He should get a nicer '''one'''.<br />
<br />
The difference between reference and substitution is that the substituted items are always exchangeable by the items they stand for. With reference the presupposed items can almost never replace the items which refer to them. The table below illustrates this. While in (7) “one” could easily be replaced by “car” without changing the meaning of the sentence (cf. (7´)), “it” in (6) could never be exchanged by “watch” (cf. (6´)). The same is true for (4) in which “he” is not exchangeable by “John” without creating ambiguity. The reader cannot be sure anymore if the “John” in the second sentence is the same person that occurs in the first sentence (cf. (4´)). <br />
:(4´) '''John''' goes fishing every other week. '''John''' is a very good fisherman.<br />
:(6´) *There '''watch''' is, my so much admired '''watch'''.<br />
:(7´) Jack’s '''car''' is very old and ugly. He should get a nicer '''car'''.<br />
<br />
Consequently, “the substitute item has the same structural function as that for which it substitutes” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 89). There are also different types of substitution which are called [[nominal substitution]] (replacement of a noun by “one, ones, same”, as illustrated in (7), [[verbal substitution]] (replacement of a verb by “do”) and [[clausal substitution]] (replacement of a clause by “so, not”) (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 90f.).<br />
<br />
===Ellipsis===<br />
Ellipsis as a type of cohesive relation is very similar to substitution. While substitution referred to the replacement of one textual element by another, ellipsis is simply characterized by “the omission of an item” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994:88). The process can, therefore, be “interpreted as that form of substitution in which [an] item is replaced by nothing” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 88) or as “substitution by zero” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 142). Example (8) illustrates such a cohesive tie of ellipsis. In the given example the predicator “ate” is left out in the second half of the sentence and is presupposed because it already occurred before. It would, of course, also be possible to repeat the predicator again at the position where it has been left out. <br />
:(8) Mary ate some chocolate chip cookies, and Robert [blank] some gummi bears.<br />
It is possible to say that “[w]here there is ellipsis, there is presupposition, in the structure, that something is to be supplied, or ‘understood’” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 144). In other words, “ellipsis occurs when something that is structurally necessary is left unsaid” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 144). As with substitution, there are also three different types of ellipsis, i.e. [[nominal ellipsis]], [[verbal ellipsis]], and [[clausal ellipsis]]. Ellipsis is also “a relation within the text, and in the great majority of instances the presupposed item is present in the preceding text” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 144). This is also true for substitution and renders the two kinds of cohesive tie to relations which are normally anaphoric. Table 1 summarizes the main features of reference, substitution and ellipsis once again. <br />
<br />
{| {{table}}<br />
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|''''''<br />
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Reference'''<br />
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Substitution / Ellipsis'''<br />
|-<br />
| Level of abstraction||semantic||lexicogrammatical<br />
|-<br />
| Primary source of presupposition||situation||text<br />
|-<br />
| What is presupposed?||meanings||items ( i.e. words, groups, clauses)<br />
|-<br />
| Is class preserved?||not necessarily||yes<br />
|-<br />
| Is replacement possible?||not necessarily||yes<br />
|-<br />
| Use as cohesive device||yes; anaphoric and cataphoric||yes; anaphoric (occasionally cataphoric)<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
|}<br />
Table 1: Reference vs. Substitution/Ellipsis (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994:145)<br />
<br />
===Conjunction===<br />
Conjunction is the fourth type of grammatical cohesion, but forms the borderline to the field of lexical cohesion since it also includes lexical features. Unlike the other types of cohesive ties, “[c]onjuctive elements are cohesive not in themselves but indirectly, by virtue of their specific meanings; they are not primarily devices for reaching out into the preceding (or following) text, but they express certain meanings which presuppose the presence of other components in the discourse” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994:226). It is not very easy to give a precise explanation of the way in which conjunctions create cohesion. Neither are they a type of semantic relation that points to something else in the text/discourse, nor are they a grammatical relation that implies that something was left out or replaced by something else. Conjunctions are different in the sense, that they are “a specification of the way in which what is to follow is systematically connected to what has gone before” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 227). They are able to relate linguistic elements to each other “that occur in succession but are not related by other, structural means” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 227). Conjunctions usually structure a text/discourse in a precise way and bring the presented elements into a logical order. Over all, there exist three different kinds of conjunctive [adjuncts] which are presented in Table 2. <br />
<br />
{| align="top" border="1"<br />
! width="200pt"|'''1'''<br />
! width="200pt"|'''2'''<br />
! width="200pt"|'''3'''<br />
|-<br />
| <u>simple adverbs (coordinating conjunctions):</u> <br />
for, and, nor, but, or, yet, so (FANBOYS) <br />
|<u>other compound adverbs, e.g.:</u> furthermore, nevertheless, anyway, instead, besides<br />
|rowspan="3"| <u>Prepositional expressions with that or other reference item, the later being (i) optional, e.g.: </u><br />
as a result of that, instead of that, in addition to that<br />
<br />
<br />
<u> or (ii) obligatory, e.g.: </u><br />
in spite of that, because of that <br />
|-<br />
| <u>compound adverbs in –ly, e.g.:</u> accordingly, subsequently, actually <br />
|rowspan="2"|<u>prepositional phrases, e.g.:</u><br />
on the contrary, as a result, in addition<br />
|- <br />
| <u>compound adverbs in there- and where-, e.g.: </u><br />
therefore, thereupon, whereat<br />
<br />
|}<br />
Tab. 2: The three different kinds of conjunctive adjuncts (own illustration based on HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994:231)<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Lexical cohesion===<br />
Lexical cohesion is the fifth and last type of the cohesive relations in English. It is generally understood as “the cohesive effect [that is] achieved by the selection of vocabulary” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994:274). This type of cohesion can be subdivided into the categories reiteration and collocation. Reiteration has to do with the use of [[general nouns]] to create a cohesive effect by replacing one element by another in the ongoing text/discourse. Cohesion can thereby be achieved in many different ways, either by the repetition of the same item, or via the use of [[synonyms]], near-synonyms, [[hyperonyms]] (superordinates), and general words. It is important to note that “a general noun in a cohesive function is almost always accompanied by the reference item the” which creates anaphoric reference (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 275). The word “the” indicates that the element which comes after it refers back and, therefore, has to be identical with a lexical item that occurred earlier in the text/discourse. Example (9) shows the different types of reiteration that can create lexical cohesion.<br />
<br />
(9)<br />
{| border="1"<br />
! colspan="2"| ''John caught a snake underneath a bucket.''<br />
|-<br />
| Repetition<br />
| The '''snake''' is going to suffocate if it stays there very long.<br />
|-<br />
| Synonym<br />
| The '''serpent''' is going to suffocate if he does not let it go.<br />
|-<br />
| Hyperonym (superordinate)<br />
| The '''animal''' is going to suffocate if he does not let it go.<br />
|-<br />
| General word<br />
| The '''poor thing''' is going to suffocate if he does not let it go.<br />
|}<br />
<br />
Interestingly, lexical items do not always have to have the same referent in order to be cohesive. “A lexical item […] coheres with a preceding occurrence of the same item whether or not the two have the same referent, or indeed whether or not there is any referential relationship between them” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 283). This phenomenon is illustrated in (10). Here the snake/snakes in the given replies (a-c) do not have the same referent as the snake in the italicized sentence, yet the sentences still cohere.<br />
<br />
<br />
(10)<br />
{| border="1"<br />
! ''There is a snake underneath the bucket.''<br />
|-<br />
| a. The snake is going to suffocate if it stays there very long.<br />
|-<br />
| b. Snakes are very strange animals<br />
|-<br />
| c. And there is another snake on top of it. <br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
A second subcategory of lexical cohesion is [[collocation]]. Collocations are lexical “items that regularly co-occur” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 284) and by doing so create cohesion within a given text/discourse. It is possible to say “that there is cohesion between any pair of lexical items that stand to each other in some recognizable lexicosemantic (word meaning) relation” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 285). This includes synonyms, near-synonyms, hyperonyms (superordinates), pairs of opposites (e.g. husband-wife, nephew-niece), antonyms (e.g. black-white, full-empty), converses (e.g. order-obey), “pairs of words drawn from the same ordered series” (e.g. Monday-Wednesday), “pairs drawn from unordered lexical sets” (e.g. blue-yellow, attic-cellar), part-whole relationships (e.g. air plane-wing, pants-pocket), part to part relationships (e.g. nose-ear), and “co-[[hyponym]]s of the same more general class (e.g. couch/cupboard-furniture), etc. (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 285). “The members of any such set stand in some kind of semantic relation to one another, but for textual purposes it does not much matter what this relation is” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 285). Cohesion can always be found between words that tend to occur in the same lexical environment and are in some way associated with each other. In general terms, “any two lexical items having similar patterns of collocation – that is, tending to appear in similar contexts – will generate a cohesive force if they occur in adjacent sentences.<br />
<br />
<br />
==Bibliography==<br />
<br />
*HALLIDAY, M.A.K. & R. HASAN (199413): ''Cohesion in English''. London: Longman. <br />
*SCHUBERT, C. (2008): ''Englische Textlinguistik. Eine Einführung''. Berlin: Schmidt.<br />
*TANSKANEN, S.-K. (2006): ''Collaborating towards coherence. Lexical Cohesion in English Discourse''. Amsterdam: Benjamins.<br />
<br />
[[category: En|Dict|Discourse]]</div>Ppuhlmannhttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Cohesion&diff=10783Cohesion2010-06-25T18:08:43Z<p>Ppuhlmann: /* Conjunction */</p>
<hr />
<div>Cohesion in its broadest sense is “a semantic relation between an element in [a] text and some other element that is crucial to the interpretation of it” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994:8). It is basically the glue that holds a [[text]] together and makes the difference between an unrelated set of sentences and a set of sentences forming a unified whole.<br />
<br />
__TOC__<br />
<br />
==Cohesion and cohesive ties==<br />
The difference of the presence or absence of cohesion for a text is illustrated in the following examples:<br />
:(1) To reach the movie theater you will need to turn right on the next intersection and then go straight for about 5 minutes. You will see it on your right-hand side.<br />
<br />
:(2) A cat catches a mouse. The car broke down. I go swimming<br />
While the set of sentences in (1) seems to make sense, i.e. we could easily find the movie theater if we were in the given situation, the set of sentences in (2) does not qualify as unified text, but simply as three completely unrelated sentences. There is no possibility to relate the three sentences in (2) to each other, not even by changing their position.<br />
<br />
The difference between (1) and (2) is the presence and absence of cohesion, or better, of so-called cohesive ties. A cohesive tie refers to one “single instance of cohesion” and is a term to indicate “one occurrence of a pair of cohesively related items” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994:3). By using the concept of cohesive ties, it is possible to count the amount of instances of cohesion within a given text. Looking at the first examples, it is possible to identify a number of such cohesive ties in (1), while there are no such ties in (2). To illustrate this, one instance of cohesion in the table above can, for example, be identified between “movie theater” in the first sentence and “it” in the second sentence. The “it” refers back to “movie theater” and makes it clear to the hearer that the speaker is talking about the exact same building the hearer wants to reach. Since there are more such cohesive ties in (1), the set of given sentences can be identified as a text, because “[t]he word text is used in linguistics to refer to any passage, spoken or written, of whatever length, that does form a unified whole” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994:1). The absence of such cohesive ties in (2) discard the label text for the three given sentences, because of their unrelatedness to each other. “If a passage of English containing more than one sentence is perceived as a text, there will be certain linguistic features present in that passage which can be identified as contributing to its total unity and giving it [[texture]]” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 2). A text needs texture and this texture can only be created by the presence of cohesive ties. <br />
<br />
Cohesion occurs where the interpretation of any item in a text or discourse requires the making of a reference to some other item in the same text or discourse (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 11). One item “presupposes the other, in the sense that it cannot be effectively decoded except by recourse 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 & HASAN 1994: 4). In other words, sentences are linked by relational elements which combine them to a unified whole that can be called a text. This process, which combines sentences to a meaningful unit, is called cohesion and can be subdivided into the categories: reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction and lexical cohesion. “Each of these categories is represented in the text by particular features – repetitions, omissions, occurrences of certain words and constructions – which have in common the property of signaling that the interpretation of [a] passage in question depends on something else” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 13). <br />
<br />
However, cohesion does not only occur in what could be called a cohesive pair, where one only one element refers to another element in a preceding or subsequent sentence and thus forms a cohesive tie which connects the two sentences with each other. So-called cohesive chains frequently occur within a text in which one element of a sentence is cohesively connected to other elements of preceding or subsequent sentences. In some of these cases one element is only indirectly linked to another one, and it is only through cohesive devices that these links become apparent (cf. (3)).<br />
<br />
:(3) '''International pop stars''' usually lead a very busy life. '''They''' need to give concerts, attend photo shootings, or have other important obligations. Very often '''they''' have to travel around the globe, jumping from one time zone to another without getting much sleep. There is no secret that '''many of them''' have a tendency to take drugs to be able to deal with the pressure. One of the most famous victims of drug abuse during recent years was '''Michael Jackson''' who died in 2009 only two months before his 51st birthday.<br />
<br />
Example (3) shows such a cohesive chain in which “international pop stars” in the first sentence is connected to all the other sentences via “they” in the second and third sentence and “many of them” in the forth sentence. One has to follow all the cohesive ties in the subsequent sentences in order to establish the relation between the element “pop stars” in the first sentence and “Michael Jackson” in the fifth sentence, i.e. Michael Jackson is an instance of an “international pop star”.<br />
<br />
==Cohesion vs. coherence==<br />
It is also necessary to state that the concept of cohesion is closely connected to the concept of [[coherence]]. Although scholars do not completely agree on how to differentiate the two terms “[i]t is generally accepted […] that cohesion refers to the grammatical and lexical elements on the surface of a text which can form connections between parts of the text [while] coherence, on the other hand, resides not in the text, but is rather the outcome of a dialogue between the text and its listener or reader” (TANSKANEN 2006:7). To be able to better understand the concept of cohesion, it is necessary to take a closer look at all the five different kinds of cohesive tie and analyze them in more detail. <br />
<br />
==Types of cohesive ties== <br />
There are five types of cohesive ties which will be analyzed individually below: reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction, and lexical cohesion. It is possible to say that cohesion can be “expressed partly through the grammar and partly through the vocabulary” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 5). Therefore, the five types can be grouped into grammatical and lexical cohesion, i.e. reference, substitution, and ellipsis, fall under the category of grammatical cohesion, while conjunction combines grammatical, as well as, lexical features, and lexical cohesion which is only realized by vocabulary and can be further divided into the categories [[reiteration]] and [[collocation]].<br />
<br />
===Reference===<br />
The term reference refers to specific items within a text/discourse which cannot be “interpreted semantically in their own right”, but “make reference to something else”, i.e. some other item within the text/discourse, “for their interpretation” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994:31). These reference items, which refer to something else, are called directives and indicate “that information is to be retrieved from elsewhere” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 31). “[T]he information to be retrieved is the referential meaning, the identity of the particular thing or class of things that is being referred to” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 31) (cf. (4)). <br />
<br />
:(4) '''John''' goes fishing every other week. '''He''' is a very good fisherman.<br />
In (4) the subject of the second sentence “he” refers back to the subject of the first sentence “John”. If the first sentence were not part of the example and a potential reader were only given the sentence “He is a very good fisherman.” the reader would not be able to figure out who “he” is and would therefore not be able to make much sense of the given sentence. The personal pronoun “he” cannot be interpreted semantically in its own right and information about this element of the sentence has to be retrieved from somewhere else, i.e. from the sentence before. “He” makes reference to “John” in the first sentence and thus forms a cohesive tie of reference that connects the two sentences to each other. It is possible to say that “reference is a relation between meanings”, but it is also possible to say that “reference is a relation on the semantic level” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 89). It is basically a relation, “which holds between meanings rather than between linguistic forms; it is not the replacement of some linguistic element by [another item], but rather a direction for interpreting an element in terms of its environment – and since the environment includes the text (the linguistic environment), reference takes on a cohesive function” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994:226f.).<br />
<br />
As Figure 1 shows, there are different types of reference, i.e. '''exophoric''' and '''endophoric'''. Exophoric reference points to the situational context for the interpretation of a specific item. It always refers to something that is not part of a given text and is therefore not cohesive (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 18). Endophoric reference points to other items within a given text or discourse. <br />
<br />
:(5) Mike: Hey John, did you just see '''that'''? <br />
John: Yes, '''that''' was amazing.<br />
<br />
Example (5) illustrates an instance of exophoric reference. In the given conversation Mike sees something which he does not explicitly identify as a concrete object. He simply assumes that his conversational partner John saw the same thing as he did and asks him about it. The reader does not get to know what the two friends are talking about and is left in the dark. “That” as reference item in the conversation points outside the text to something that was witnessed by the two interlocutors and, consequently, information about it cannot be retrieved from elsewhere in the text. A potential reader has to use his/her own imagination to create a context, which makes exophoric reference “an essential element in all imaginative writing” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 18). <br />
<br />
Insert Figure 1 here<br />
<br />
Endophoric reference points to the textual environment of a given element can be either '''anaphoric''' or '''cataphoric'''. Anaphoric reference is a form of presupposition and means that a reference item points back to something that has gone before (cf. SCHUBERT 2008:33). Such an instance of anaphoric reference can be found in (4) in which “he” refers back to “John” in the preceding sentence. Cataphoric reference, as oppositional term to anaphoric reference, works the other way around. Here, a usually abstract reference item points forward to a specific element within the subsequent text for its interpretation. In (6) the reader has to look at the whole sentence to make sense of the second word “it” which refers to the specific item “watch” at the end. <br />
<br />
(6) There '''it''' is, my so much admired '''watch'''.<br />
<br />
===Substitution===<br />
Substitution as another type of cohesive relation, or cohesive tie, is the process in which one item within a text or discourse is replaced by another (cf. HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994:88). While reference was a relation on the semantic level, i.e. between meanings, substitution is a relation on the lexicogrammatical level (level of grammar and vocabulary) “between linguistic items, such as words or phrases” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 89). A substitute, in its broadest sense, can be seen as “a sort of counter which is used in place of the repetition of a particular item” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994:89). Example 7 shows this cohesive relation in which “one” substitutes the word “car”. <br />
:(7) Jack’s '''car''' is very old and ugly. He should get a nicer '''one'''.<br />
<br />
The difference between reference and substitution is that the substituted items are always exchangeable by the items they stand for. With reference the presupposed items can almost never replace the items which refer to them. The table below illustrates this. While in (7) “one” could easily be replaced by “car” without changing the meaning of the sentence (cf. (7´)), “it” in (6) could never be exchanged by “watch” (cf. (6´)). The same is true for (4) in which “he” is not exchangeable by “John” without creating ambiguity. The reader cannot be sure anymore if the “John” in the second sentence is the same person that occurs in the first sentence (cf. (4´)). <br />
:(4´) '''John''' goes fishing every other week. '''John''' is a very good fisherman.<br />
:(6´) *There '''watch''' is, my so much admired '''watch'''.<br />
:(7´) Jack’s '''car''' is very old and ugly. He should get a nicer '''car'''.<br />
<br />
Consequently, “the substitute item has the same structural function as that for which it substitutes” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 89). There are also different types of substitution which are called [[nominal substitution]] (replacement of a noun by “one, ones, same”, as illustrated in (7), [[verbal substitution]] (replacement of a verb by “do”) and [[clausal substitution]] (replacement of a clause by “so, not”) (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 90f.).<br />
<br />
===Ellipsis===<br />
Ellipsis as a type of cohesive relation is very similar to substitution. While substitution referred to the replacement of one textual element by another, ellipsis is simply characterized by “the omission of an item” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994:88). The process can, therefore, be “interpreted as that form of substitution in which [an] item is replaced by nothing” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 88) or as “substitution by zero” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 142). Example (8) illustrates such a cohesive tie of ellipsis. In the given example the predicator “ate” is left out in the second half of the sentence and is presupposed because it already occurred before. It would, of course, also be possible to repeat the predicator again at the position where it has been left out. <br />
:(8) Mary ate some chocolate chip cookies, and Robert [blank] some gummi bears.<br />
It is possible to say that “[w]here there is ellipsis, there is presupposition, in the structure, that something is to be supplied, or ‘understood’” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 144). In other words, “ellipsis occurs when something that is structurally necessary is left unsaid” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 144). As with substitution, there are also three different types of ellipsis, i.e. [[nominal ellipsis]], [[verbal ellipsis]], and [[clausal ellipsis]]. Ellipsis is also “a relation within the text, and in the great majority of instances the presupposed item is present in the preceding text” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 144). This is also true for substitution and renders the two kinds of cohesive tie to relations which are normally anaphoric. Table 1 summarizes the main features of reference, substitution and ellipsis once again. <br />
<br />
{| {{table}}<br />
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|''''''<br />
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Reference'''<br />
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Substitution / Ellipsis'''<br />
|-<br />
| Level of abstraction||semantic||lexicogrammatical<br />
|-<br />
| Primary source of presupposition||situation||text<br />
|-<br />
| What is presupposed?||meanings||items ( i.e. words, groups, clauses)<br />
|-<br />
| Is class preserved?||not necessarily||yes<br />
|-<br />
| Is replacement possible?||not necessarily||yes<br />
|-<br />
| Use as cohesive device||yes; anaphoric and cataphoric||yes; anaphoric (occasionally cataphoric)<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
|}<br />
Table 1: Reference vs. Substitution/Ellipsis (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994:145)<br />
<br />
===Conjunction===<br />
Conjunction is the fourth type of grammatical cohesion, but forms the borderline to the field of lexical cohesion since it also includes lexical features. Unlike the other types of cohesive ties, “[c]onjuctive elements are cohesive not in themselves but indirectly, by virtue of their specific meanings; they are not primarily devices for reaching out into the preceding (or following) text, but they express certain meanings which presuppose the presence of other components in the discourse” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994:226). It is not very easy to give a precise explanation of the way in which conjunctions create cohesion. Neither are they a type of semantic relation that points to something else in the text/discourse, nor are they a grammatical relation that implies that something was left out or replaced by something else. Conjunctions are different in the sense, that they are “a specification of the way in which what is to follow is systematically connected to what has gone before” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 227). They are able to relate linguistic elements to each other “that occur in succession but are not related by other, structural means” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 227). Conjunctions usually structure a text/discourse in a precise way and bring the presented elements into a logical order. Over all, there exist three different kinds of conjunctive [adjuncts] which are presented in Table 2. <br />
<br />
{| align="top" border="1"<br />
! width="200pt"|'''1'''<br />
! width="200pt"|'''2'''<br />
! width="200pt"|'''3'''<br />
|-<br />
| <u>simple adverbs (coordinating conjunctions):</u> <br />
for, and, nor, but, or, yet, so (FANBOYS) <br />
|<u>other compound adverbs, e.g.:</u> furthermore, nevertheless, anyway, instead, besides<br />
|rowspan="3"| <u>Prepositional expressions with that or other reference item, the later being (i) optional, e.g.: </u><br />
as a result of that, instead of that, in addition to that<br />
<br />
<br />
<u> or (ii) obligatory, e.g.: </u><br />
in spite of that, because of that <br />
|-<br />
| <u>compound adverbs in –ly, e.g.:</u> accordingly, subsequently, actually <br />
|rowspan="2"|<u>prepositional phrases, e.g.:</u><br />
on the contrary, as a result, in addition<br />
|- <br />
| <u>compound adverbs in there- and where-, e.g.: </u><br />
therefore, thereupon, whereat<br />
<br />
|}<br />
Tab. 2: The three different kinds of conjunctive adjuncts (own illustration based on HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994:231)<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Lexical cohesion===<br />
Lexical cohesion is the fifth and last type of the cohesive relations in English. It is generally understood as “the cohesive effect [that is] achieved by the selection of vocabulary” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994:274). This type of cohesion can be subdivided into the categories reiteration and collocation. Reiteration has to do with the use of [[general nouns]] to create a cohesive effect by replacing one element by another in the ongoing text/discourse. Cohesion can thereby be achieved in many different ways, either by the repetition of the same item, or via the use of [[synonyms]], near-synonyms, [[hyperonyms]] (superordinates), and general words. It is important to note that “a general noun in a cohesive function is almost always accompanied by the reference item the” which creates anaphoric reference (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 275). The word “the” indicates that the element which comes after it refers back and, therefore, has to be identical with a lexical item that occurred earlier in the text/discourse. Example (9) shows the different types of reiteration that can create lexical cohesion.<br />
<br />
(9)<br />
{| border="1"<br />
! colspan="2"| ''John caught a snake underneath a bucket.''<br />
|-<br />
| Repetition<br />
| The '''snake''' is going to suffocate if it stays there very long.<br />
|-<br />
| Synonym<br />
| The '''serpent''' is going to suffocate if he does not let it go.<br />
|-<br />
| Hyperonym (superordinate)<br />
| The '''animal''' is going to suffocate if he does not let it go.<br />
|-<br />
| General word<br />
| The '''poor thing''' is going to suffocate if he does not let it go.<br />
|}<br />
<br />
Interestingly, lexical items do not always have to have the same referent in order to be cohesive. “A lexical item […] coheres with a preceding occurrence of the same item whether or not the two have the same referent, or indeed whether or not there is any referential relationship between them” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 283). This phenomenon is illustrated in (10). Here the snake/snakes in the given replies (a-c) do not have the same referent as the snake in the italicized sentence, yet the sentences still cohere.<br />
<br />
<br />
(10)<br />
{| border="1"<br />
! ''There is a snake underneath the bucket.''<br />
|-<br />
| a. The snake is going to suffocate if it stays there very long.<br />
|-<br />
| b. Snakes are very strange animals<br />
|-<br />
| c. And there is another snake on top of it. <br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
A second subcategory of lexical cohesion is [[collocation]]. Collocations are lexical “items that regularly co-occur” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 284) and by doing so create cohesion within a given text/discourse. It is possible to say “that there is cohesion between any pair of lexical items that stand to each other in some recognizable lexicosemantic (word meaning) relation” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 285). This includes synonyms, near-synonyms, hyperonyms (superordinates), pairs of opposites (e.g. husband-wife, nephew-niece), antonyms (e.g. black-white, full-empty), converses (e.g. order-obey), “pairs of words drawn from the same ordered series” (e.g. Monday-Wednesday), “pairs drawn from unordered lexical sets” (e.g. blue-yellow, attic-cellar), part-whole relationships (e.g. air plane-wing, pants-pocket), part to part relationships (e.g. nose-ear), and “co-[[hyponym]]s of the same more general class (e.g. couch/cupboard-furniture), etc. (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 285). “The members of any such set stand in some kind of semantic relation to one another, but for textual purposes it does not much matter what this relation is” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 285). Cohesion can always be found between words that tend to occur in the same lexical environment and are in some way associated with each other. In general terms, “any two lexical items having similar patterns of collocation – that is, tending to appear in similar contexts – will generate a cohesive force if they occur in adjacent sentences.</div>Ppuhlmannhttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Cohesion&diff=10782Cohesion2010-06-25T17:13:16Z<p>Ppuhlmann: </p>
<hr />
<div>Cohesion in its broadest sense is “a semantic relation between an element in [a] text and some other element that is crucial to the interpretation of it” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994:8). It is basically the glue that holds a [[text]] together and makes the difference between an unrelated set of sentences and a set of sentences forming a unified whole.<br />
<br />
__TOC__<br />
<br />
==Cohesion and cohesive ties==<br />
The difference of the presence or absence of cohesion for a text is illustrated in the following examples:<br />
:(1) To reach the movie theater you will need to turn right on the next intersection and then go straight for about 5 minutes. You will see it on your right-hand side.<br />
<br />
:(2) A cat catches a mouse. The car broke down. I go swimming<br />
While the set of sentences in (1) seems to make sense, i.e. we could easily find the movie theater if we were in the given situation, the set of sentences in (2) does not qualify as unified text, but simply as three completely unrelated sentences. There is no possibility to relate the three sentences in (2) to each other, not even by changing their position.<br />
<br />
The difference between (1) and (2) is the presence and absence of cohesion, or better, of so-called cohesive ties. A cohesive tie refers to one “single instance of cohesion” and is a term to indicate “one occurrence of a pair of cohesively related items” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994:3). By using the concept of cohesive ties, it is possible to count the amount of instances of cohesion within a given text. Looking at the first examples, it is possible to identify a number of such cohesive ties in (1), while there are no such ties in (2). To illustrate this, one instance of cohesion in the table above can, for example, be identified between “movie theater” in the first sentence and “it” in the second sentence. The “it” refers back to “movie theater” and makes it clear to the hearer that the speaker is talking about the exact same building the hearer wants to reach. Since there are more such cohesive ties in (1), the set of given sentences can be identified as a text, because “[t]he word text is used in linguistics to refer to any passage, spoken or written, of whatever length, that does form a unified whole” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994:1). The absence of such cohesive ties in (2) discard the label text for the three given sentences, because of their unrelatedness to each other. “If a passage of English containing more than one sentence is perceived as a text, there will be certain linguistic features present in that passage which can be identified as contributing to its total unity and giving it [[texture]]” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 2). A text needs texture and this texture can only be created by the presence of cohesive ties. <br />
<br />
Cohesion occurs where the interpretation of any item in a text or discourse requires the making of a reference to some other item in the same text or discourse (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 11). One item “presupposes the other, in the sense that it cannot be effectively decoded except by recourse 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 & HASAN 1994: 4). In other words, sentences are linked by relational elements which combine them to a unified whole that can be called a text. This process, which combines sentences to a meaningful unit, is called cohesion and can be subdivided into the categories: reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction and lexical cohesion. “Each of these categories is represented in the text by particular features – repetitions, omissions, occurrences of certain words and constructions – which have in common the property of signaling that the interpretation of [a] passage in question depends on something else” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 13). <br />
<br />
However, cohesion does not only occur in what could be called a cohesive pair, where one only one element refers to another element in a preceding or subsequent sentence and thus forms a cohesive tie which connects the two sentences with each other. So-called cohesive chains frequently occur within a text in which one element of a sentence is cohesively connected to other elements of preceding or subsequent sentences. In some of these cases one element is only indirectly linked to another one, and it is only through cohesive devices that these links become apparent (cf. (3)).<br />
<br />
:(3) '''International pop stars''' usually lead a very busy life. '''They''' need to give concerts, attend photo shootings, or have other important obligations. Very often '''they''' have to travel around the globe, jumping from one time zone to another without getting much sleep. There is no secret that '''many of them''' have a tendency to take drugs to be able to deal with the pressure. One of the most famous victims of drug abuse during recent years was '''Michael Jackson''' who died in 2009 only two months before his 51st birthday.<br />
<br />
Example (3) shows such a cohesive chain in which “international pop stars” in the first sentence is connected to all the other sentences via “they” in the second and third sentence and “many of them” in the forth sentence. One has to follow all the cohesive ties in the subsequent sentences in order to establish the relation between the element “pop stars” in the first sentence and “Michael Jackson” in the fifth sentence, i.e. Michael Jackson is an instance of an “international pop star”.<br />
<br />
==Cohesion vs. coherence==<br />
It is also necessary to state that the concept of cohesion is closely connected to the concept of [[coherence]]. Although scholars do not completely agree on how to differentiate the two terms “[i]t is generally accepted […] that cohesion refers to the grammatical and lexical elements on the surface of a text which can form connections between parts of the text [while] coherence, on the other hand, resides not in the text, but is rather the outcome of a dialogue between the text and its listener or reader” (TANSKANEN 2006:7). To be able to better understand the concept of cohesion, it is necessary to take a closer look at all the five different kinds of cohesive tie and analyze them in more detail. <br />
<br />
==Types of cohesive ties== <br />
There are five types of cohesive ties which will be analyzed individually below: reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction, and lexical cohesion. It is possible to say that cohesion can be “expressed partly through the grammar and partly through the vocabulary” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 5). Therefore, the five types can be grouped into grammatical and lexical cohesion, i.e. reference, substitution, and ellipsis, fall under the category of grammatical cohesion, while conjunction combines grammatical, as well as, lexical features, and lexical cohesion which is only realized by vocabulary and can be further divided into the categories [[reiteration]] and [[collocation]].<br />
<br />
===Reference===<br />
The term reference refers to specific items within a text/discourse which cannot be “interpreted semantically in their own right”, but “make reference to something else”, i.e. some other item within the text/discourse, “for their interpretation” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994:31). These reference items, which refer to something else, are called directives and indicate “that information is to be retrieved from elsewhere” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 31). “[T]he information to be retrieved is the referential meaning, the identity of the particular thing or class of things that is being referred to” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 31) (cf. (4)). <br />
<br />
:(4) '''John''' goes fishing every other week. '''He''' is a very good fisherman.<br />
In (4) the subject of the second sentence “he” refers back to the subject of the first sentence “John”. If the first sentence were not part of the example and a potential reader were only given the sentence “He is a very good fisherman.” the reader would not be able to figure out who “he” is and would therefore not be able to make much sense of the given sentence. The personal pronoun “he” cannot be interpreted semantically in its own right and information about this element of the sentence has to be retrieved from somewhere else, i.e. from the sentence before. “He” makes reference to “John” in the first sentence and thus forms a cohesive tie of reference that connects the two sentences to each other. It is possible to say that “reference is a relation between meanings”, but it is also possible to say that “reference is a relation on the semantic level” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 89). It is basically a relation, “which holds between meanings rather than between linguistic forms; it is not the replacement of some linguistic element by [another item], but rather a direction for interpreting an element in terms of its environment – and since the environment includes the text (the linguistic environment), reference takes on a cohesive function” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994:226f.).<br />
<br />
As Figure 1 shows, there are different types of reference, i.e. '''exophoric''' and '''endophoric'''. Exophoric reference points to the situational context for the interpretation of a specific item. It always refers to something that is not part of a given text and is therefore not cohesive (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 18). Endophoric reference points to other items within a given text or discourse. <br />
<br />
:(5) Mike: Hey John, did you just see '''that'''? <br />
John: Yes, '''that''' was amazing.<br />
<br />
Example (5) illustrates an instance of exophoric reference. In the given conversation Mike sees something which he does not explicitly identify as a concrete object. He simply assumes that his conversational partner John saw the same thing as he did and asks him about it. The reader does not get to know what the two friends are talking about and is left in the dark. “That” as reference item in the conversation points outside the text to something that was witnessed by the two interlocutors and, consequently, information about it cannot be retrieved from elsewhere in the text. A potential reader has to use his/her own imagination to create a context, which makes exophoric reference “an essential element in all imaginative writing” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 18). <br />
<br />
Insert Figure 1 here<br />
<br />
Endophoric reference points to the textual environment of a given element can be either '''anaphoric''' or '''cataphoric'''. Anaphoric reference is a form of presupposition and means that a reference item points back to something that has gone before (cf. SCHUBERT 2008:33). Such an instance of anaphoric reference can be found in (4) in which “he” refers back to “John” in the preceding sentence. Cataphoric reference, as oppositional term to anaphoric reference, works the other way around. Here, a usually abstract reference item points forward to a specific element within the subsequent text for its interpretation. In (6) the reader has to look at the whole sentence to make sense of the second word “it” which refers to the specific item “watch” at the end. <br />
<br />
(6) There '''it''' is, my so much admired '''watch'''.<br />
<br />
===Substitution===<br />
Substitution as another type of cohesive relation, or cohesive tie, is the process in which one item within a text or discourse is replaced by another (cf. HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994:88). While reference was a relation on the semantic level, i.e. between meanings, substitution is a relation on the lexicogrammatical level (level of grammar and vocabulary) “between linguistic items, such as words or phrases” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 89). A substitute, in its broadest sense, can be seen as “a sort of counter which is used in place of the repetition of a particular item” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994:89). Example 7 shows this cohesive relation in which “one” substitutes the word “car”. <br />
:(7) Jack’s '''car''' is very old and ugly. He should get a nicer '''one'''.<br />
<br />
The difference between reference and substitution is that the substituted items are always exchangeable by the items they stand for. With reference the presupposed items can almost never replace the items which refer to them. The table below illustrates this. While in (7) “one” could easily be replaced by “car” without changing the meaning of the sentence (cf. (7´)), “it” in (6) could never be exchanged by “watch” (cf. (6´)). The same is true for (4) in which “he” is not exchangeable by “John” without creating ambiguity. The reader cannot be sure anymore if the “John” in the second sentence is the same person that occurs in the first sentence (cf. (4´)). <br />
:(4´) '''John''' goes fishing every other week. '''John''' is a very good fisherman.<br />
:(6´) *There '''watch''' is, my so much admired '''watch'''.<br />
:(7´) Jack’s '''car''' is very old and ugly. He should get a nicer '''car'''.<br />
<br />
Consequently, “the substitute item has the same structural function as that for which it substitutes” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 89). There are also different types of substitution which are called [[nominal substitution]] (replacement of a noun by “one, ones, same”, as illustrated in (7), [[verbal substitution]] (replacement of a verb by “do”) and [[clausal substitution]] (replacement of a clause by “so, not”) (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 90f.).<br />
<br />
===Ellipsis===<br />
Ellipsis as a type of cohesive relation is very similar to substitution. While substitution referred to the replacement of one textual element by another, ellipsis is simply characterized by “the omission of an item” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994:88). The process can, therefore, be “interpreted as that form of substitution in which [an] item is replaced by nothing” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 88) or as “substitution by zero” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 142). Example (8) illustrates such a cohesive tie of ellipsis. In the given example the predicator “ate” is left out in the second half of the sentence and is presupposed because it already occurred before. It would, of course, also be possible to repeat the predicator again at the position where it has been left out. <br />
:(8) Mary ate some chocolate chip cookies, and Robert [blank] some gummi bears.<br />
It is possible to say that “[w]here there is ellipsis, there is presupposition, in the structure, that something is to be supplied, or ‘understood’” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 144). In other words, “ellipsis occurs when something that is structurally necessary is left unsaid” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 144). As with substitution, there are also three different types of ellipsis, i.e. [[nominal ellipsis]], [[verbal ellipsis]], and [[clausal ellipsis]]. Ellipsis is also “a relation within the text, and in the great majority of instances the presupposed item is present in the preceding text” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 144). This is also true for substitution and renders the two kinds of cohesive tie to relations which are normally anaphoric. Table 1 summarizes the main features of reference, substitution and ellipsis once again. <br />
<br />
{| {{table}}<br />
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|''''''<br />
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Reference'''<br />
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Substitution / Ellipsis'''<br />
|-<br />
| Level of abstraction||semantic||lexicogrammatical<br />
|-<br />
| Primary source of presupposition||situation||text<br />
|-<br />
| What is presupposed?||meanings||items ( i.e. words, groups, clauses)<br />
|-<br />
| Is class preserved?||not necessarily||yes<br />
|-<br />
| Is replacement possible?||not necessarily||yes<br />
|-<br />
| Use as cohesive device||yes; anaphoric and cataphoric||yes; anaphoric (occasionally cataphoric)<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
|}<br />
Table 1: Reference vs. Substitution/Ellipsis (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994:145)<br />
<br />
===Conjunction===<br />
Conjunction is the fourth type of grammatical cohesion, but forms the borderline to the field of lexical cohesion since it also includes lexical features. Unlike the other types of cohesive ties, “[c]onjuctive elements are cohesive not in themselves but indirectly, by virtue of their specific meanings; they are not primarily devices for reaching out into the preceding (or following) text, but they express certain meanings which presuppose the presence of other components in the discourse” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994:226). It is not very easy to give a precise explanation of the way in which conjunctions create cohesion. Neither are they a type of semantic relation that points to something else in the text/discourse, nor are they a grammatical relation that implies that something was left out or replaced by something else. Conjunctions are different in the sense, that they are “a specification of the way in which what is to follow is systematically connected to what has gone before” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 227). They are able to relate linguistic elements to each other “that occur in succession but are not related by other, structural means” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 227). Conjunctions usually structure a text/discourse in a precise way and bring the presented elements into a logical order. Over all, there exist three different kinds of conjunctive [adjuncts] which are presented in Table 2. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Tab. 2: The three different kinds of conjunctive adjuncts (own illustration based on HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994:231)</div>Ppuhlmannhttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Cohesion&diff=10781Cohesion2010-06-25T16:22:34Z<p>Ppuhlmann: </p>
<hr />
<div>Cohesion in its broadest sense is “a semantic relation between an element in [a] text and some other element that is crucial to the interpretation of it” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994:8). It is basically the glue that holds a [[text]] together and makes the difference between an unrelated set of sentences and a set of sentences forming a unified whole.<br />
<br />
__TOC__<br />
<br />
==Cohesion and cohesive ties==<br />
The difference of the presence or absence of cohesion for a text is illustrated in the following examples:<br />
:(1) To reach the movie theater you will need to turn right on the next intersection and then go straight for about 5 minutes. You will see it on your right-hand side.<br />
<br />
:(2) A cat catches a mouse. The car broke down. I go swimming<br />
While the set of sentences in (1) seems to make sense, i.e. we could easily find the movie theater if we were in the given situation, the set of sentences in (2) does not qualify as unified text, but simply as three completely unrelated sentences. There is no possibility to relate the three sentences in (2) to each other, not even by changing their position.<br />
<br />
The difference between (1) and (2) is the presence and absence of cohesion, or better, of so-called cohesive ties. A cohesive tie refers to one “single instance of cohesion” and is a term to indicate “one occurrence of a pair of cohesively related items” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994:3). By using the concept of cohesive ties, it is possible to count the amount of instances of cohesion within a given text. Looking at the first examples, it is possible to identify a number of such cohesive ties in (1), while there are no such ties in (2). To illustrate this, one instance of cohesion in the table above can, for example, be identified between “movie theater” in the first sentence and “it” in the second sentence. The “it” refers back to “movie theater” and makes it clear to the hearer that the speaker is talking about the exact same building the hearer wants to reach. Since there are more such cohesive ties in (1), the set of given sentences can be identified as a text, because “[t]he word text is used in linguistics to refer to any passage, spoken or written, of whatever length, that does form a unified whole” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994:1). The absence of such cohesive ties in (2) discard the label text for the three given sentences, because of their unrelatedness to each other. “If a passage of English containing more than one sentence is perceived as a text, there will be certain linguistic features present in that passage which can be identified as contributing to its total unity and giving it [[texture]]” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 2). A text needs texture and this texture can only be created by the presence of cohesive ties. <br />
<br />
Cohesion occurs where the interpretation of any item in a text or discourse requires the making of a reference to some other item in the same text or discourse (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 11). One item “presupposes the other, in the sense that it cannot be effectively decoded except by recourse 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 & HASAN 1994: 4). In other words, sentences are linked by relational elements which combine them to a unified whole that can be called a text. This process, which combines sentences to a meaningful unit, is called cohesion and can be subdivided into the categories: reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction and lexical cohesion. “Each of these categories is represented in the text by particular features – repetitions, omissions, occurrences of certain words and constructions – which have in common the property of signaling that the interpretation of [a] passage in question depends on something else” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 13). <br />
<br />
However, cohesion does not only occur in what could be called a cohesive pair, where one only one element refers to another element in a preceding or subsequent sentence and thus forms a cohesive tie which connects the two sentences with each other. So-called cohesive chains frequently occur within a text in which one element of a sentence is cohesively connected to other elements of preceding or subsequent sentences. In some of these cases one element is only indirectly linked to another one, and it is only through cohesive devices that these links become apparent (cf. (3)).<br />
<br />
:(3) '''International pop stars''' usually lead a very busy life. '''They''' need to give concerts, attend photo shootings, or have other important obligations. Very often '''they''' have to travel around the globe, jumping from one time zone to another without getting much sleep. There is no secret that '''many of them''' have a tendency to take drugs to be able to deal with the pressure. One of the most famous victims of drug abuse during recent years was '''Michael Jackson''' who died in 2009 only two months before his 51st birthday.<br />
<br />
Example (3) shows such a cohesive chain in which “international pop stars” in the first sentence is connected to all the other sentences via “they” in the second and third sentence and “many of them” in the forth sentence. One has to follow all the cohesive ties in the subsequent sentences in order to establish the relation between the element “pop stars” in the first sentence and “Michael Jackson” in the fifth sentence, i.e. Michael Jackson is an instance of an “international pop star”.<br />
<br />
==Cohesion vs. coherence==<br />
It is also necessary to state that the concept of cohesion is closely connected to the concept of [[coherence]]. Although scholars do not completely agree on how to differentiate the two terms “[i]t is generally accepted […] that cohesion refers to the grammatical and lexical elements on the surface of a text which can form connections between parts of the text [while] coherence, on the other hand, resides not in the text, but is rather the outcome of a dialogue between the text and its listener or reader” (TANSKANEN 2006:7). To be able to better understand the concept of cohesion, it is necessary to take a closer look at all the five different kinds of cohesive tie and analyze them in more detail. <br />
<br />
==Types of cohesive ties== <br />
There are five types of cohesive ties which will be analyzed individually below: reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction, and lexical cohesion. It is possible to say that cohesion can be “expressed partly through the grammar and partly through the vocabulary” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 5). Therefore, the five types can be grouped into grammatical and lexical cohesion, i.e. reference, substitution, and ellipsis, fall under the category of grammatical cohesion, while conjunction combines grammatical, as well as, lexical features, and lexical cohesion which is only realized by vocabulary and can be further divided into the categories [[reiteration]] and [[collocation]].<br />
<br />
===1 Reference===<br />
The term reference refers to specific items within a text/discourse which cannot be “interpreted semantically in their own right”, but “make reference to something else”, i.e. some other item within the text/discourse, “for their interpretation” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994:31). These reference items, which refer to something else, are called directives and indicate “that information is to be retrieved from elsewhere” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 31). “[T]he information to be retrieved is the referential meaning, the identity of the particular thing or class of things that is being referred to” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 31) (cf. (4)). <br />
<br />
:(4) '''John''' goes fishing every other week. '''He''' is a very good fisherman.<br />
In (4) the subject of the second sentence “he” refers back to the subject of the first sentence “John”. If the first sentence were not part of the example and a potential reader were only given the sentence “He is a very good fisherman.” the reader would not be able to figure out who “he” is and would therefore not be able to make much sense of the given sentence. The personal pronoun “he” cannot be interpreted semantically in its own right and information about this element of the sentence has to be retrieved from somewhere else, i.e. from the sentence before. “He” makes reference to “John” in the first sentence and thus forms a cohesive tie of reference that connects the two sentences to each other. It is possible to say that “reference is a relation between meanings”, but it is also possible to say that “reference is a relation on the semantic level” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 89). It is basically a relation, “which holds between meanings rather than between linguistic forms; it is not the replacement of some linguistic element by [another item], but rather a direction for interpreting an element in terms of its environment – and since the environment includes the text (the linguistic environment), reference takes on a cohesive function” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994:226f.).<br />
<br />
As Figure 1 shows, there are different types of reference, i.e. '''exophoric''' and '''endophoric'''. Exophoric reference points to the situational context for the interpretation of a specific item. It always refers to something that is not part of a given text and is therefore not cohesive (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 18). Endophoric reference points to other items within a given text or discourse. <br />
<br />
:(5) Mike: Hey John, did you just see '''that'''? <br />
John: Yes, '''that''' was amazing.<br />
<br />
Example (5) illustrates an instance of exophoric reference. In the given conversation Mike sees something which he does not explicitly identify as a concrete object. He simply assumes that his conversational partner John saw the same thing as he did and asks him about it. The reader does not get to know what the two friends are talking about and is left in the dark. “That” as reference item in the conversation points outside the text to something that was witnessed by the two interlocutors and, consequently, information about it cannot be retrieved from elsewhere in the text. A potential reader has to use his/her own imagination to create a context, which makes exophoric reference “an essential element in all imaginative writing” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 18). <br />
<br />
Insert Figure 1 here<br />
<br />
Endophoric reference points to the textual environment of a given element can be either '''anaphoric''' or '''cataphoric'''. Anaphoric reference is a form of presupposition and means that a reference item points back to something that has gone before (cf. SCHUBERT 2008:33). Such an instance of anaphoric reference can be found in (4) in which “he” refers back to “John” in the preceding sentence. Cataphoric reference, as oppositional term to anaphoric reference, works the other way around. Here, a usually abstract reference item points forward to a specific element within the subsequent text for its interpretation. In (6) the reader has to look at the whole sentence to make sense of the second word “it” which refers to the specific item “watch” at the end. <br />
<br />
(6) There '''it''' is, my so much admired '''watch'''.<br />
<br />
===2 Substitution===<br />
Substitution as another type of cohesive relation, or cohesive tie, is the process in which one item within a text or discourse is replaced by another (cf. HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994:88). While reference was a relation on the semantic level, i.e. between meanings, substitution is a relation on the lexicogrammatical level (level of grammar and vocabulary) “between linguistic items, such as words or phrases” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 89). A substitute, in its broadest sense, can be seen as “a sort of counter which is used in place of the repetition of a particular item” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994:89). Example 7 shows this cohesive relation in which “one” substitutes the word “car”. <br />
:(7) Jack’s '''car''' is very old and ugly. He should get a nicer '''one'''.<br />
<br />
The difference between reference and substitution is that the substituted items are always exchangeable by the items they stand for. With reference the presupposed items can almost never replace the items which refer to them. The table below illustrates this. While in (7) “one” could easily be replaced by “car” without changing the meaning of the sentence (cf. (7´)), “it” in (6) could never be exchanged by “watch” (cf. (6´)). The same is true for (4) in which “he” is not exchangeable by “John” without creating ambiguity. The reader cannot be sure anymore if the “John” in the second sentence is the same person that occurs in the first sentence (cf. (4´)). <br />
:(4´) '''John''' goes fishing every other week. '''John''' is a very good fisherman.<br />
:(6´) *There '''watch''' is, my so much admired '''watch'''.<br />
:(7´) Jack’s '''car''' is very old and ugly. He should get a nicer '''car'''.<br />
<br />
Consequently, “the substitute item has the same structural function as that for which it substitutes” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 89). There are also different types of substitution which are called [[nominal substitution]] (replacement of a noun by “one, ones, same”, as illustrated by (7), [[verbal substitution]] (replacement of a verb by “do”) and [[clausal substitution]] (replacement of a clause by “so, not”) (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994: 90f.).</div>Ppuhlmannhttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Cohesion&diff=10780Cohesion2010-06-25T14:55:14Z<p>Ppuhlmann: based on term paper by Frank Schmidt in "Discourse Analysis" Prof. Dr. Gast</p>
<hr />
<div>Cohesion in its broadest sense is “a semantic relation between an element in [a] text and some other element that is crucial to the interpretation of it” (HALLIDAY & HASAN 1994:8). It is basically the glue that holds a text together and makes the difference between an unrelated set of sentences and a set of sentences forming a unified whole.<br />
<br />
__TOC__</div>Ppuhlmannhttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Stress&diff=10775Stress2010-06-16T21:22:33Z<p>Ppuhlmann: /* Rules of Word Stress in English */ further text revision</p>
<hr />
<div>{{stub}}<br />
In [[phonology]], the term '''stress''' generally refers to an abstract property of [[syllable]]s within the [[word domain]] by which they are pronounced with more [[prominence]] than unstressed syllables. Prominence may involve greater [[amplitude]], higher [[pitch]], greater [[duration]] or greater accuracy of articulation (most notably in vowels). <br />
<br />
The degree of prominence of a syllable is marked by loudness, length and [[pitch]]. Lexical stress refers to the prominence relations within a word which distinguishes lexical meanings by means of stress, as in 'inCREASE' (verb) vs 'INcrease' (noun). The term '''stress''' is also more generally used to indicate which words or phrases in a sentence bear [[accent]], or [[focus]].<br />
<br />
__TOC__<br />
== Stress in English nouns ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Intonation, the “music” of a language, is perhaps the most important element of a correct accent. Pronunciation is another element constituting an accent, but correct intonation is also necessary in order to make an accent sound indistinguishably native. In many cases non-native speakers who have developed near-native second language skills in the fields of grammar, pronunciation of sounds and words of English, clearly remain recognizable as non-native speaker because of slight variations in intonation. <br />
<br />
Therefore, it is necessary to realize that, besides pronunciation and linking, intonation is an important element to attain a native-like accent.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Rules of Word Stress in English ===<br />
<br />
<br />
====Two major rules for word stress====<br />
<br />
#''There is only one main stress per word''. (One word cannot have two stresses. However, there can be a "secondary" stress in some words, but a secondary stress is much prominent than the main [primary] stress, and it is only used in long words.)<br />
#''Only vowels are stressed, never consonants.''<br />
<br />
<br />
====Further rules for word stress ====<br />
There are also some more rules that help to find out where to put the primary stress. However, note that there are many exceptions, so that these rules should rather be used as guidelines. It is better to try to "feel" the music of the language and to add the stress naturally.<br />
<br />
'''a. Stress on first syllable'''<br />
<br />
Most 2-syllable nouns PRESent, EXport, CHIna, TAble<br />
<br />
'''b. Stress on last syllable'''<br />
<br />
Most 2-syllable verbs to preSENT, to exPORT, to deCIDE, to beGIN<br />
<br />
'''c. Stress on penultimate syllable '''<br />
<br />
Words ending in '''-ic''' GRAPHic, geoGRAPHic, geoLOGic<br />
<br />
Words ending in '''-sion''' and '''-tion''' teleVIsion, reveLAtion<br />
<br />
'''d. Stress on ante-penultimate syllable'''<br />
<br />
Words ending in -'''cy, -ty, -phy''' and '''-gy''' deMOcracy, dependaBIlity, phoTOgraphy, geOLogy<br />
<br />
Words ending in '''-al''' CRItical, geoLOGical<br />
<br />
<br />
==== Stress for modifying adjectives and compound nouns====<br />
<br />
In cases of groups of two or more words, the place of stress depends on whether it is a description or a compound noun. If it is a description, the adjective is usually less prominent whilethe main stress is put on the noun:<br />
<br />
a nice '''guy'''<br />
<br />
a big '''house'''<br />
<br />
a good '''idea'''<br />
<br />
<br />
If two nouns form a compound noun, the stress is put on the first word: <br />
<br />
a '''hot''' dog<br />
<br />
a '''note'''book<br />
<br />
a '''picture''' frame<br />
<br />
<br />
The difference is also illustrated in the following examples:<br />
<br />
#He lives in a white '''house'''. <br />
<br />
He lives in the '''White''' House.<br />
<br />
<br />
a ''''greenhouse''' = place where we grow plants (compound noun)<br />
<br />
a '''green 'house''' = house painted green (adjective and noun)<br />
<br />
<br />
a ''''bluebird''' = type of bird (compound noun)<br />
<br />
a '''blue 'bird''' = any bird with blue feathers (adjective and noun)<br />
<br />
<br />
====Lexical Stress - stress determining word class====<br />
There are many two-syllable words in English whose meaning and class is distinguished by stress, e.g. '''present'''. If the stress is put on the first syllable, it is a noun (gift) or an adjective (antonym for "absent"). But if the stress is put on the second syllable, it becomes a verb (to offer, to give a presentation). <br />
<br />
Further examples: the words '''export, import, contract''' and '''object''' can all be nouns or verbs depending on whether the stress is on the first or the second syllable.<br />
<br />
====Cases of stress variation among native speakers====<br />
For a few words, native English speakers don't always "agree" on where to put the stress. For example, some people say '''teleVIsion''' and others say '''TELevision'''. Another example is: '''CONtroversy''' and '''conTROversy'''<br />
<br />
== Intonation: Noun or Verb ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Knowing when and where to stress the words you use is very important for understanding, and is part of a good accent. A clear example is that of the different stress in nouns and verbs.<br />
Usually (although there are some exceptions), the stress of a verb is on the last syllable, and that of a noun is on the first syllable.<br />
<br />
to susPECT: meaning, to have an opinion <br />
a SUSpect: meaning, a person under suspicion <br />
<br />
to preSENT: meaning, to give, to introduce <br />
a PREsent: meaning, a gift, now</div>Ppuhlmannhttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Stress&diff=10774Stress2010-06-16T20:23:51Z<p>Ppuhlmann: text revision</p>
<hr />
<div>{{stub}}<br />
In [[phonology]], the term '''stress''' generally refers to an abstract property of [[syllable]]s within the [[word domain]] by which they are pronounced with more [[prominence]] than unstressed syllables. Prominence may involve greater [[amplitude]], higher [[pitch]], greater [[duration]] or greater accuracy of articulation (most notably in vowels). <br />
<br />
The degree of prominence of a syllable is marked by loudness, length and [[pitch]]. Lexical stress refers to the prominence relations within a word which distinguishes lexical meanings by means of stress, as in 'inCREASE' (verb) vs 'INcrease' (noun). The term '''stress''' is also more generally used to indicate which words or phrases in a sentence bear [[accent]], or [[focus]].<br />
<br />
__TOC__<br />
== Stress in English nouns ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Intonation, the “music” of a language, is perhaps the most important element of a correct accent. Pronunciation is another element constituting an accent, but correct intonation is also necessary in order to make an accent sound indistinguishably native. In many cases non-native speakers who have developed near-native second language skills in the fields of grammar, pronunciation of sounds and words of English, clearly remain recognizable as non-native speaker because of slight variations in intonation. <br />
<br />
Therefore, it is necessary to realize that, besides pronunciation and linking, intonation is an important element to attain a native-like accent.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Rules of Word Stress in English ===<br />
<br />
<br />
There are two very simple rules about word stress:<br />
<br />
1.''One word has only one stress''. (One word cannot have two stresses. If you hear two stresses, you hear two words. Two stresses cannot be one word. It is true that there can be a "secondary" stress in some words. But a secondary stress is much smaller than the main [primary] stress, and is only used in long words.)<br />
<br />
2.''We can only stress vowels, not consonants.''<br />
<br />
Here are some more, rather complicated, rules that can help you understand where to put the stress. But do not rely on them too much, because there are many exceptions. It is better to try to "feel" the music of the language and to add the stress naturally.<br />
<br />
'''1- Stress on first syllable'''<br />
<br />
Most 2-syllable nouns PRESent, EXport, CHIna, TAble<br />
<br />
'''2- Stress on last syllable'''<br />
<br />
Most 2-syllable verbs to preSENT, to exPORT, to deCIDE, to beGIN<br />
<br />
'''3- Stress on penultimate syllable '''<br />
<br />
Words ending in '''-ic''' GRAPHic, geoGRAPHic, geoLOGic<br />
<br />
Words ending in '''-sion''' and '''-tion''' teleVIsion, reveLAtion<br />
<br />
'''4- Stress on ante-penultimate syllable'''<br />
<br />
Words ending in -'''cy, -ty, -phy''' and '''-gy''' deMOcracy, dependaBIlity, phoTOgraphy, geOLogy<br />
<br />
Words ending in '''-al''' CRItical, geoLOGical<br />
<br />
'''5- Stress in compound nouns'''<br />
<br />
When we find a group of two or more words together, we have to make a simple decision: which of those should I stress the most? How do I know which one to stress? Well, if it is a description, you should skim over the adjetive and stress the noun:<br />
<br />
a nice '''guy'''<br />
<br />
a big '''house'''<br />
<br />
a good '''idea'''<br />
<br />
<br />
If you have a two nouns that form a compound noun, stress the first word: <br />
<br />
a '''hot''' dog<br />
<br />
a '''note'''book<br />
<br />
a '''picture''' frame<br />
<br />
<br />
This will explain why it is said:<br />
<br />
He lives in a white '''house'''.<br />
<br />
He lives in the '''White''' House.<br />
<br />
<br />
In compound nouns, the stress usually falls on the first syllable: <br />
<br />
a ''''greenhouse''' = place where we grow plants (compound noun)<br />
<br />
a '''green 'house''' = house painted green (adjective and noun)<br />
<br />
a ''''bluebird''' = type of bird (compound noun)<br />
<br />
a '''blue 'bird''' = any bird with blue feathers (adjective and noun)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
There are many two-syllable words in English whose meaning and class change with a change in stress. The word '''present''', for example is a two-syllable word. If we stress the first syllable, it is a noun (gift) or an adjective (opposite of absent). But if we stress the second syllable, it becomes a verb (to offer). More examples: the words '''export, import, contract''' and '''object''' can all be nouns or verbs depending on whether the stress is on the first or second syllable.<br />
<br />
For a few words, native English speakers don't always "agree" on where to put the stress. For example, some people say '''teleVIsion''' and others say '''TELevision'''. Another example is: '''CONtroversy''' and '''conTROversy'''<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Intonation: Noun or Verb ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Knowing when and where to stress the words you use is very important for understanding, and is part of a good accent. A clear example is that of the different stress in nouns and verbs.<br />
Usually (although there are some exceptions), the stress of a verb is on the last syllable, and that of a noun is on the first syllable.<br />
<br />
to susPECT: meaning, to have an opinion <br />
a SUSpect: meaning, a person under suspicion <br />
<br />
to preSENT: meaning, to give, to introduce <br />
a PREsent: meaning, a gift, now</div>Ppuhlmannhttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Michael_Tomasello&diff=10718Michael Tomasello2010-05-13T09:28:11Z<p>Ppuhlmann: Created page with '{{missing}} ===Link=== [http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomasello Wikipedia article] Tomasello, Michael'</p>
<hr />
<div>{{missing}}<br />
<br />
===Link===<br />
[http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomasello Wikipedia article]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Linguist|Tomasello, Michael]]</div>Ppuhlmannhttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Sandbox&diff=10717Sandbox2010-05-13T09:25:41Z<p>Ppuhlmann: </p>
<hr />
<div>This page is for trying out text and formatting, to see how it looks, to study, etc. Don't expect anything you do here to last.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===Example===<br />
<br />
Swahili <br />
*''ki-kapu ki-kubwa ki-moja ki-li-anguka''<br />
*7/8.SG-basket 7-large 7-one 7-past-fall<br />
*'One large basket fell.' (Welmers 1973:171)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
{|<br />
|'' ki-kapu'' || ''ki-kubwa'' ||''ki-moja'' ||''ki-li-anguka''<br />
|-<br />
|7/8.SG-basket ||7-large ||7-one ||7-past-fall<br />
|-<br />
!colspan=4 | 'One large basket fell.' (Welmers 1973:171)<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
[Michael Tomasello]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Glottopedia]]</div>Ppuhlmannhttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Perlocutionary_act&diff=10462Perlocutionary act2009-12-06T17:18:33Z<p>Ppuhlmann: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{stub}}<br />
<br />
<br />
===Links===<br />
<br />
{{Wikipedia|Perlocutionary act}}<br />
<br />
{{Wikipedia|Sprechakttheorie#Sprechakte|de}}</div>Ppuhlmannhttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Performative&diff=10461Performative2009-12-06T16:57:47Z<p>Ppuhlmann: </p>
<hr />
<div>The term '''"Performative"''' was introduced by [[John Langshaw Austin]] (1911 - 1960) in his philosophical lectures ''How to do things with words'' (1962), which was published two years after his death. In the context of Austin's theory of '''[[speech act]]s''' "performative" was applied to those utterances which are used to ''perform'' an act instead of describing it. Performative utterances thus stand in opposition to '''[[constative]]''' utterances, which are statements of facts.<br />
<br />
__TOC__<br />
<br />
<br />
==John L. Austin and his Theory of Speech Acts==<br />
Language is not only used to describe the world. In his William James lectures delivered at Harvard University in 1955 (titled: ''How to do things with words''), Austin criticizes the view that the main purpose of sentences would be to state facts or to describe some state of affairs as either true or false. He argues against {{Wikipedia|logical positivism}}, which retains the view that the only meaningful statements are those that are verifiable (cf. Austin 1976: 2). Instead, Austin claims that such truth-evaluable sentences only constitute one type of utterance, pointing out that there are other types of utterances which are neither true nor false, but nonetheless meaningful. He calls this second type of utterance '''"performative"'''. Performatives are used to carry out an action. In that they differ from other types of declarative sentences (constatives) which only describe the world (constatives) in systematic ways. On the syntactic level, however, both performatives and constatives take the grammatical form of declarative sentences. Austin revises his theory considerably in the course of his lectures and eventually replaces the dichotomy ‘performative’ vs. ‘constative’ with a more general theory of speech acts which regards every utterance as a type of action. This theory of speech acts is later elaborated by Austin’s student [[John R. Searle]]. <br />
<br />
<br />
===Constatives===<br />
<br />
Constative utterances describe states of affairs which are either true or false. They are utterances which describe the world and in so doing ascertain or state something. Constatives mostly (though not necessarily) have the form of declarative sentences, they refer to the act of saying something, and, as mentioned above, they are truth-evaluable or at least purport to describe reality (cf. Petrey 1990:4).<br />
<br />
:;Examples of Constatives:<br />
:#Snow is white. (true)<br />
:#Snow is red. (false)<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Performatives===<br />
<br />
Performative utterances often take the form of declarative sentences with which the speaker performs the action denoted by some performative verb (e.g. promise, declare etc.). In so doing, the speaker does not describe the world but changes it. <br />
Austin claims about performatives that<br />
: “they do not ‘describe’ or ‘report’ or constate anything at all, are not ‘true or false’; and the uttering of the sentence is, or is a part of, the doing of an action, which again would not normally be described as, or as ‘just’, saying something” (Austin 1976:5).<br />
<br />
:;Example <br />
:By uttering (i) the [[speaker]] actually makes an apology, he does not describe himself apologizing for his behaviour.<br />
<br />
:: ( i ) I apologize for my behaviour<br />
<br />
This distinguishes performatives from constatives which are used to make a true or false statement. Performatives do not have [[truth condition]]s but [[felicity condition]]s. <br />
<br />
==== Performative Verbs====<br />
<br />
The type of [[verb]]s used to make performative utterances are called performatives or performative verbs. Examples are: promise, name, bet, agree, swear, declare, order, predict, warn, insist, declare or refuse. The propositional content of the utterance functions as a complement of the performative verb. <br />
Characteristics of performative verbs are:<br />
# Performative verbs are verbs that describe actions carried out by speakers.<br />
#They are used in 1st person singular, simple present, indicative, active.<br />
#They can be combined with hereby (cf. Bublitz 2009:75f).<br />
<br />
<br />
Austin (1976:5) provides the following examples of performatives in his work:<br />
*a) “‘I do (sc. Take this woman to be my lawful wedded wife)’ – as uttered in the course of the marriage ceremony.”<br />
*b) “‘I name this ship the Queen Elisabeth’ – as uttered when smashing the bottle against the stem.”<br />
*c) “‘I give and bequeath my watch to my brother’ – as occurring in a will.”<br />
*d) “‘I bet you sixpence it will rain tomorrow.’”<br />
<br />
<br />
====Explicit Performatives and Primary Utterances====<br />
Due to the fact that the distinction between performatives and constatives is questionable in several ways, Austin further distinguishes between explicit performatives and primary utterances. <br />
:;Examples:<br />
<br />
:#“primary utterance: ‘I shall be there.’<br />
:#explicit performative: ‘I promise that I shall be there.’” (Austin 1976:69).<br />
<br />
The first example does not make use of a performative verb, whereas the second does. Still, both examples have similar implications, i.e. they both are promises, but only in the second example the promise is made explicit. At this point, Austin recognizes that an utterance can also be performative without including a performative verb. For example, "I salute you" is an act of greeting just as "Salaam."<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Felicity Conditions==<br />
<br />
In his second lecture “Conditions for happy performatives” (1976:12-24), Austin identifies a set of rules which govern the felicitous or ‘successful’ use of performative utterances. These ‘felicity conditions’ apply especially to performatives associated with specific rituals or other types of formal events (cf. Thomas 1997:37). According to Austin (1976: 14f), the following conditions must be met for a performative sentence to be successful:<br />
<br />
<br />
*A.1 “There must exist an accepted conventional procedure having a certain conventional effect, that procedure to include the uttering of certain words by certain persons in certain circumstances, and further,<br />
*A.2 the particular persons and circumstances in a given case must be appropriate for the invocation of the particular procedure invoked.<br />
*B.1 The procedure must be executed by all participants both correctly and<br />
*B.2 Completely.<br />
*C.1 Where, as often, the procedure is designed for use by persons having certain thoughts or feelings, or for the inauguration of certain consequential conduct on the part of any participant, then a person participating in and so invoking the procedure must in fact have those thoughts of feelings, and the participants must intend so to conduct themselves, and further<br />
*C.2 must actually so conduct themselves subsequently.” (Austin 1976: 14f)<br />
<br />
<br />
===Misfires===<br />
<br />
The conditions under A and B are essential to the first group of infelicities which Austin calls '''“Misfires.”''' (Austin: 1976: 16) Not observing these rules makes the act invalid, so that it does not take effect. For example, if a husband says to his wife ‘I divorce you’, this is an infelicitous speech act because one cannot get divorced by oneself, so the utterance does not have a conventional effect. Another example occurs if speaker A says: ‘I bet you sixpence’ but speaker B doesn’t say ‘I take you on.’ <br />
<br />
<br />
===Abuses===<br />
<br />
The conditions listed under C – when violated – make the professed act an abuse of the procedure. Austin states that such performances are not void but '''“unhappy.”''' (Austin 1976: 15, 43) For example, when the speaker says "I congratulate you", although the speaker does not have the requisite feelings. (Austin 1976: 41)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Problems with Performatives==<br />
<br />
Austin modified his theory during his lectures considerably. At the end of his lectures, he replaces his performative/constative distinction with a more general theory of speech acts, stating that "the traditional 'statement' is an abstraction, an ideal" (Austin 1962: 148). Performative verbs as criteria for classifying speech acts are replaced by types of illocutionary force which are associated with an utterance. The notion of ‘performative’, which was based on the performative/constative distinction, has thus been replaced with more general families of related and overlapping speech-acts (Austin 1962: 150). Austin distinguishes five general classes of utterances which are classified according to their illocutionary force:<br />
<br />
#Verdictives (used to judge from something, examples: estimate, reckoning, appraisal)<br />
#Exercitives (used to exercise powers, rights or influence. Examples: appointing, voting, ordering)<br />
#Commissives (used to commit yourself to doing sth. example: promising)<br />
#Behabitives (used to express attitudes or social behaviour towards someone. examples: Congratulating, challenging)<br />
#Expositives (make plain how we are using words. Example: 'I illustrate') <br />
::::::::::::::::(types 1-5: cf. Austin 1976: 151ff)<br />
<br />
<br />
Even though the ‘performative-constative’ dichotomy was given up, Austin’s theory has had great influence on modern linguistics, as his writing is accessible and his work represents a consistent line of thoughts, even though it has often been modified (cf. Thomas1997:27).<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
This article is based on a term paper by Katrin Posselt, Pragmatics Course (Summer 2009) Prof. [[Volker Gast]] Department of English and American Studies, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena<br />
<br />
<br />
== Links ==<br />
<br />
[http://www2.let.uu.nl/UiL-OTS/Lexicon/zoek.pl?lemma=Performative&lemmacode=390 Utrecht Lexicon of Linguistics]<br />
<br />
[http://grammar.about.com/od/pq/g/performativeverbterm.htm Performative Verbs on About.Grammar.com]<br />
<br />
http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~jsearle/ <br />
<br />
{{Wikipedia|logical positivism}} <br />
<br />
[[John R. Searle]]<br />
<br />
[[John_Langshaw_Austin]] <br />
<br />
[[Speech act]]<br />
<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
* Austin, J.L.(1962) ''How to Do Things with Words,'' Oxford: Oxford University Press.<br />
:* most references on this site have been taken from the following edition: Austin, J.L. (1976) ''How to do things with words''. Oxford et.al.: Oxford University Press. (occasionally page numbers might be different in both editions)<br />
<br />
*Bublitz, Wolfram.(2009) ''Englische Pragmatik – Eine Einführung''. Berlin: Erich Schmidt.<br />
<br />
*Petrey, Sandy.(1990) ''Speech Acts and Literary Theory''. New York et.al. Routledge.<br />
<br />
*Thomas, Jenny.(1997) ''Meaning in Interaction – An Introduction to Pragmatics'', London et.al.:Longman.<br />
<br />
* Chierchia and McConnell-Ginet. (1990) ''Meaning and grammar,'' MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.<br />
<br />
<br />
{{dc}}<br />
[[Category:Semantics]]<br />
[[Category:Speech act theory]]<br />
[[Category: Pragmatics]]</div>Ppuhlmannhttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Robert_Lado&diff=10460Robert Lado2009-12-06T14:43:23Z<p>Ppuhlmann: Created page with '{{stub}} Dr. Robert Lado (born May 31, 1915, Tampa, Florida) was an American expert on modern linguistics who is considered one of the founders of modern contrastive linguistics...'</p>
<hr />
<div>{{stub}}<br />
<br />
Dr. Robert Lado (born May 31, 1915, Tampa, Florida) was an American expert on modern linguistics who is considered one of the founders of modern contrastive linguistics.<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Wikipedia|Robert Lado|en}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:BIOG]]<br />
[[Category:En]]</div>Ppuhlmannhttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Portal:Biography&diff=10459Portal:Biography2009-12-06T14:32:45Z<p>Ppuhlmann: /* 20th century */</p>
<hr />
<div>__NOTOC__<br />
This page will become the portal on [[Glottopedia:Biographical articles|biographical articles]].<br />
<br />
If you would like to maintain this portal, please [[Glottopedia:Contact|contact]] the editors.<br />
<br />
Here is a list of the articles that belong to the article type [[:Category:BIOG|biographical article]].<br />
<br />
===Recent deaths===<br />
*[[Soenjono Dardjowidjojo]], 2009-09-22<br />
*[[Natal'ja Ju. Shvedova]], 2009-09-18<br />
*[[G. Nick Clements]], 2009-08-30<br />
*[[Vladimir P. Nedjalkov]], 2009-07-21<br />
*[[Erica García]], 2009-07-05<br />
*[[Richard Allsopp]], 2009-06-03<br />
*[[David Watters]], 2009-05-18<br />
*[[S.-Y. Kuroda]], 2009-02-25<br />
*[[Michael Noonan]], 2009-02-23<br />
*[[Catherine P. Browman]], 2008-07-18<br />
*[[Robert de Beaugrande]], 2008-06<br />
*[[Wang Jialing]], 2008-06-23<br />
*[[Mukhadin A. Kumakhov]], 2008-06-07<br />
*[[Rulon S. Wells]], 2008-05-03<br />
*[[J. Patrick B. Allen]], 2008-03-26<br />
*[[Clive Perdue]], 2008-03-14<br />
*[[M. Lionel Bender]], 2008-02-19<br />
*[[Antonius Angelus Weijnen]], 2008-02-09<br />
*[[Roger W. Andersen]], 2008-01-22<br />
*[[Riccardo Ambrosini]], 2008-01-13/14<br />
*[[Andreas Wesch]], 2008-01-11<br />
*[[Ursula Drolc]], 2008-01-10<br />
*[[Eloise Jelinek]], 2007-12-21<br />
*[[David G. Lockwood]], 2007-09-26<br />
*[[Rolando Félix Armendáriz]], 2007-09-09<br />
*[[Richard M. Hogg]], 2007-09-06<br />
*[[Peter Hans Nelde]], 2007-08-31<br />
*[[Carlota Smith]], 2007-05-24<br />
*[[Tanya Reinhart]], 2007-03-17<br />
*[[John Sinclair]], 2007-03-13<br />
*[[Stefan Elders]], 2007-02-19<br />
<br />
Otherwise, this portal should probably be arranged chronologically and by region, e.g. as follows:<br />
<br />
===Antiquity===<br />
[[Panini]], [[Plato]], [[Aristotle]], [[Dionysios Thrax]], [[Varro]], [[Priscian]], [[Donatus]]<br />
<br />
===Middle Ages===<br />
[[Ælfric of Eynsham]], [[Alcuin]], [[Geoffrey of Vinsauf]], [[Thomas of Erfurt]], [[Sibawayh]], [[First Grammarian]], [[Rabanus Maurus]], [[Sejong the Great of Joseon]]<br />
<br />
===Early Modern Period===<br />
[[Antonio de Nebrija]], [[Domingo de Santo Tomás]], [[Ivan Uzhevych]], [[Bartholomaeus Ziegenbalg]]<br />
<br />
===18th century===<br />
[[Étienne Bonnot de Condillac]], [[Gabriel Girard]], [[Johann Gottfried Herder]], [[William Jones]], [[Adam Smith]], [[Johann Karl Zeune]]<br />
<br />
===19th century===<br />
[[Franz Bopp]], [[Karl Brugmann]], [[Georg von der Gabelentz]], [[Jacob Grimm]], [[Wilhelm von Humboldt]], [[K.M. Rapp]], [[J.H. Bredsdorff]], [[Rasmus Rask]], [[Friedrich Müller]], [[Friedrich von Schlegel]], [[August Schleicher]], [[Heymann Steinthal]], [[Petr K. Uslar]], [[William Dwight Whitney]], [[Jost Winteler]]<br />
<br />
===20th century===<br />
[[Leonard Bloomfield]], [[Alan Gardiner]], [[H. Allan Gleason Jr.]], [[Mary R. Haas]], [[Karl Erich Heidolph]], [[Archibald Hill]], [[Otto Jespersen]], [[Robert Lado]], [[Georg Friedrich Meier]], [[Helmut Meier]], [[Antoine Meillet]], [[Adolf Noreen]], [[Ferdinand de Saussure]], [[Edward Sapir]], [[John Sinclair]], [[Lucien Tesnière]], [[Max Vasmer]], [[Wolfgang U. Wurzel (de)]]<br />
<br />
===21st century===<br />
[[Stefan Elders]], [[Rolando Félix Armendáriz]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:En]]<br />
[[Category:Portal|Biography]]<br />
[[Category:BIOG|!]]</div>Ppuhlmannhttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Performative&diff=10454Performative2009-11-30T21:28:18Z<p>Ppuhlmann: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''!!!This site is currently undergoing major editing: Please excuse any temporary mistakes, redundancies, incompletions etc. The editing will be over soon''' 21:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
The term '''"Performative"''' was introduced by [[John Langshaw Austin]] (1911 - 1960) in his philosophical lectures ''How to do things with words'' (1962), which was published two years after his death. In the context of Austin's theory of '''[[speech act]]s''' "performative" was applied to those utterances which are used to ''perform'' an act instead of describing it. Performative utterances thus stand in opposition to '''[[constative]]''' utterances, which are statements of facts.<br />
<br />
__TOC__<br />
<br />
<br />
==John L. Austin and his Theory of Speech Acts==<br />
Language is not only used to describe the world. In his William James lectures delivered at Harvard University in 1955 (titled: ''How to do things with words''), Austin criticizes the view that the main purpose of sentences would be to state facts or to describe some state of affairs as either true or false. He argues against {{Wikipedia|logical positivism}}, which retains the view that the only meaningful statements are those that are verifiable (cf. Austin 1976: 2). Instead, Austin claims that such truth-evaluable sentences only constitute one type of utterance, pointing out that there are other types of utterances which are neither true nor false, but nonetheless meaningful. He calls this second type of utterance '''"performative"'''. Performatives are used to carry out an action. In that they differ from other types of declarative sentences (constatives) which only describe the world (constatives) in systematic ways. On the syntactic level, however, both performatives and constatives take the grammatical form of declarative sentences. Austin revises his theory considerably in the course of his lectures and eventually replaces the dichotomy ‘performative’ vs. ‘constative’ with a more general theory of speech acts which regards every utterance as a type of action. This theory of speech acts is later elaborated by Austin’s student [[John R. Searle]]. <br />
<br />
<br />
===Constatives===<br />
<br />
Constative utterances describe states of affairs which are either true or false. They are utterances which describe the world and in so doing ascertain or state something. Constatives mostly (though not necessarily) have the form of declarative sentences, they refer to the act of saying something, and, as mentioned above, they are truth-evaluable or at least purport to describe reality (cf. Petrey 1990:4).<br />
<br />
:;Examples of Constatives:<br />
:#Snow is white. (true)<br />
:#Snow is red. (false)<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Performatives===<br />
<br />
Performative utterances often take the form of declarative sentences with which the speaker performs the action denoted by some performative verb (e.g. promise, declare etc.). In so doing, the speaker does not describe the world but changes it. <br />
Austin claims about performatives that<br />
: “they do not ‘describe’ or ‘report’ or constate anything at all, are not ‘true or false’; and the uttering of the sentence is, or is a part of, the doing of an action, which again would not normally be described as, or as ‘just’, saying something” (Austin 1976:5).<br />
<br />
:;Example <br />
:By uttering (i) the [[speaker]] actually makes an apology, he does not describe himself apologizing for his behaviour.<br />
<br />
:: ( i ) I apologize for my behaviour<br />
<br />
This distinguishes performatives from constatives which are used to make a true or false statement. Performatives do not have [[truth condition]]s but [[felicity condition]]s. <br />
<br />
==== Performative Verbs====<br />
<br />
The type of [[verb]]s used to make performative utterances are called performatives or performative verbs. Examples are: promise, name, bet, agree, swear, declare, order, predict, warn, insist, declare or refuse. The propositional content of the utterance functions as a complement of the performative verb. <br />
Characteristics of performative verbs are:<br />
# Performative verbs are verbs that describe actions carried out by speakers.<br />
#They are used in 1st person singular, simple present, indicative, active.<br />
#They can be combined with hereby (cf. Bublitz 2009:75f).<br />
<br />
<br />
Austin (1976:5) provides the following examples of performatives in his work:<br />
*a) “‘I do (sc. Take this woman to be my lawful wedded wife)’ – as uttered in the course of the marriage ceremony.”<br />
*b) “‘I name this ship the Queen Elisabeth’ – as uttered when smashing the bottle against the stem.”<br />
*c) “‘I give and bequeath my watch to my brother’ – as occurring in a will.”<br />
*d) “‘I bet you sixpence it will rain tomorrow.’”<br />
<br />
<br />
====Explicit Performatives and Primary Utterances====<br />
Due to the fact that the distinction between performatives and constatives is questionable in several ways, Austin further distinguishes between explicit performatives and primary utterances. <br />
:;Examples:<br />
<br />
:#“primary utterance: ‘I shall be there.’<br />
:#explicit performative: ‘I promise that I shall be there.’” (Austin 1976:69).<br />
<br />
The first example does not make use of a performative verb, whereas the second does. Still, both examples have similar implications, i.e. they both are promises, but only in the second example the promise is made explicit. At this point, Austin recognizes that an utterance can also be performative without including a performative verb. For example, "I salute you" is an act of greeting just as "Salaam."<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Felicity Conditions==<br />
<br />
In his second lecture “Conditions for happy performatives” (1976:12-24), Austin identifies a set of rules which govern the felicitous or ‘successful’ use of performative utterances. These ‘felicity conditions’ apply especially to performatives associated with specific rituals or other types of formal events (cf. Thomas 1997:37). According to Austin (1976: 14f), the following conditions must be met for a performative sentence to be successful:<br />
<br />
<br />
*A.1 “There must exist an accepted conventional procedure having a certain conventional effect, that procedure to include the uttering of certain words by certain persons in certain circumstances, and further,<br />
*A.2 the particular persons and circumstances in a given case must be appropriate for the invocation of the particular procedure invoked.<br />
*B.1 The procedure must be executed by all participants both correctly and<br />
*B.2 Completely.<br />
*C.1 Where, as often, the procedure is designed for use by persons having certain thoughts or feelings, or for the inauguration of certain consequential conduct on the part of any participant, then a person participating in and so invoking the procedure must in fact have those thoughts of feelings, and the participants must intend so to conduct themselves, and further<br />
*C.2 must actually so conduct themselves subsequently.” (Austin 1976: 14f)<br />
<br />
<br />
===Misfires===<br />
<br />
The conditions under A and B are essential to the first group of infelicities which Austin calls '''“Misfires.”''' (Austin: 1976: 16) Not observing these rules makes the act invalid, so that it does not take effect. For example, if a husband says to his wife ‘I divorce you’, this is an infelicitous speech act because one cannot get divorced by oneself, so the utterance does not have a conventional effect. Another example occurs if speaker A says: ‘I bet you sixpence’ but speaker B doesn’t say ‘I take you on.’ <br />
<br />
<br />
===Abuses===<br />
<br />
The conditions listed under C – when violated – make the professed act an abuse of the procedure. Austin states that such performances are not void but '''“unhappy.”''' (Austin 1976: 15, 43) For example, when the speaker says "I congratulate you", although the speaker does not have the requisite feelings. (Austin 1976: 41)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Problems with Performatives==<br />
<br />
Austin modified his theory during his lectures considerably. At the end of his lectures, he replaces his performative/constative distinction with a more general theory of speech acts, stating that "the traditional 'statement' is an abstraction, an ideal" (Austin 1962: 148). Performative verbs as criteria for classifying speech acts are replaced by types of illocutionary force which are associated with an utterance. The notion of ‘performative’, which was based on the performative/constative distinction, has thus been replaced with more general families of related and overlapping speech-acts (Austin 1962: 150). Austin distinguishes five general classes of utterances which are classified according to their illocutionary force:<br />
<br />
#Verdictives (used to judge from something, examples: estimate, reckoning, appraisal)<br />
#Exercitives (used to exercise powers, rights or influence. Examples: appointing, voting, ordering)<br />
#Commissives (used to commit yourself to doing sth. example: promising)<br />
#Behabitives (used to express attitudes or social behaviour towards someone. examples: Congratulating, challenging)<br />
#Expositives (make plain how we are using words. Example: 'I illustrate') <br />
::::::::::::::::(types 1-5: cf. Austin 1976: 151ff)<br />
<br />
<br />
Even though the ‘performative-constative’ dichotomy was given up, Austin’s theory has had great influence on modern linguistics, as his writing is accessible and his work represents a consistent line of thoughts, even though it has often been modified (cf. Thomas1997:27).<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
This article is based on a term paper by Katrin Posselt, Pragmatics Course (Summer 2009) Prof. [[Volker Gast]] Department of English and American Studies, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena<br />
<br />
<br />
== Links ==<br />
<br />
[http://www2.let.uu.nl/UiL-OTS/Lexicon/zoek.pl?lemma=Performative&lemmacode=390 Utrecht Lexicon of Linguistics]<br />
<br />
[http://grammar.about.com/od/pq/g/performativeverbterm.htm Performative Verbs on About.Grammar.com]<br />
<br />
http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~jsearle/ <br />
<br />
{{Wikipedia|logical positivism}} <br />
<br />
[[John R. Searle]]<br />
<br />
[[John_Langshaw_Austin]] <br />
<br />
[[Speech act]]<br />
<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
* Austin, J.L.(1962) ''How to Do Things with Words,'' Oxford: Oxford University Press.<br />
:* most references on this site have been taken from the following edition: Austin, J.L. (1976) ''How to do things with words''. Oxford et.al.: Oxford University Press. (occasionally page numbers might be different in both editions)<br />
<br />
*Bublitz, Wolfram.(2009) ''Englische Pragmatik – Eine Einführung''. Berlin: Erich Schmidt.<br />
<br />
*Petrey, Sandy.(1990) ''Speech Acts and Literary Theory''. New York et.al. Routledge.<br />
<br />
*Thomas, Jenny.(1997) ''Meaning in Interaction – An Introduction to Pragmatics'', London et.al.:Longman.<br />
<br />
* Chierchia and McConnell-Ginet. (1990) ''Meaning and grammar,'' MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.<br />
<br />
<br />
{{dc}}<br />
[[Category:Semantics]]<br />
[[Category:Speech act theory]]<br />
[[Category: Pragmatics]]</div>Ppuhlmannhttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=User:Ppuhlmann&diff=9628User:Ppuhlmann2009-06-09T13:52:04Z<p>Ppuhlmann: Created page with 'Patrick Puhlmann Student assistant Department for English and American Studies, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, Prof. Dr. Volker Gast'</p>
<hr />
<div>Patrick Puhlmann<br />
<br />
Student assistant Department for English and American Studies, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, Prof. Dr. Volker Gast</div>Ppuhlmannhttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Tact_maxim&diff=9536Tact maxim2009-06-03T13:07:23Z<p>Ppuhlmann: Created page with 'This article does not exist yet. (You may find the links helpful, but please do not violate its copyright when writing a Glottopedia article on this entry.) ===Links=== {{Wiki...'</p>
<hr />
<div>This article does not exist yet. (You may find the links helpful, but please do not violate its copyright when writing a Glottopedia article on this entry.)<br />
<br />
<br />
===Links===<br />
<br />
{{Wikipedia|Politeness_maxims#The_Tact_maxim}}</div>Ppuhlmannhttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Sympathy_maxim&diff=9535Sympathy maxim2009-06-03T13:06:21Z<p>Ppuhlmann: Created page with 'This article does not exist yet. (You may find the links helpful, but please do not violate its copyright when writing a Glottopedia article on this entry.) ===Links=== {{Wiki...'</p>
<hr />
<div>This article does not exist yet. (You may find the links helpful, but please do not violate its copyright when writing a Glottopedia article on this entry.)<br />
<br />
<br />
===Links===<br />
<br />
{{Wikipedia|Politeness_maxims#The_Sympathy_maxim}}</div>Ppuhlmannhttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Politeness_maxims&diff=9534Politeness maxims2009-06-03T12:40:28Z<p>Ppuhlmann: Created page with 'This article does not exist yet. (You may find the links helpful, but please do not violate its copyright when writing a Glottopedia article on this entry.) ===Links=== {{Wiki...'</p>
<hr />
<div>This article does not exist yet. (You may find the links helpful, but please do not violate its copyright when writing a Glottopedia article on this entry.)<br />
<br />
<br />
===Links===<br />
<br />
{{Wikipedia|Politeness_maxims}}</div>Ppuhlmannhttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Positive_face&diff=9533Positive face2009-06-03T12:38:06Z<p>Ppuhlmann: Created page with 'This article does not exist yet. (You may find the links helpful, but please do not violate its copyright when writing a Glottopedia article on this entry.) ===Links=== {{Wikip...'</p>
<hr />
<div>This article does not exist yet. (You may find the links helpful, but please do not violate its copyright when writing a Glottopedia article on this entry.)<br />
<br />
===Links===<br />
<br />
{{Wikipedia|Politeness_theory#Positive_and_Negative_Face}}</div>Ppuhlmannhttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=On_record&diff=9532On record2009-06-03T12:36:24Z<p>Ppuhlmann: Created page with 'This article does not exist yet. (You may find the links helpful, but please do not violate its copyright when writing a Glottopedia article on this entry.) ===Links=== {{Wikip...'</p>
<hr />
<div>This article does not exist yet. (You may find the links helpful, but please do not violate its copyright when writing a Glottopedia article on this entry.)<br />
<br />
===Links===<br />
<br />
{{Wikipedia|Politeness_theory#Bald_On-record}}</div>Ppuhlmannhttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Off_record&diff=9531Off record2009-06-03T12:34:52Z<p>Ppuhlmann: Created page with 'This article does not exist yet. (You may find the links helpful, but please do not violate its copyright when writing a Glottopedia article on this entry.) ===Links=== {{Wikip...'</p>
<hr />
<div>This article does not exist yet. (You may find the links helpful, but please do not violate its copyright when writing a Glottopedia article on this entry.)<br />
<br />
===Links===<br />
<br />
{{Wikipedia|Politeness_theory#Off-record_(indirect)}}</div>Ppuhlmannhttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Positive_politeness&diff=9530Positive politeness2009-06-03T12:32:31Z<p>Ppuhlmann: /* Links */</p>
<hr />
<div>This article does not exist yet. (You may find the links helpful, but please do not violate its copyright when writing a Glottopedia article on this entry.)<br />
<br />
<br />
===Links===<br />
<br />
{{Wikipedia|Politeness_theory#Positive_Politeness|en}}</div>Ppuhlmannhttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Negative_politeness&diff=9529Negative politeness2009-06-03T12:30:23Z<p>Ppuhlmann: /* Links */</p>
<hr />
<div>This article does not exist yet. (You may find the links helpful, but please do not violate its copyright when writing a Glottopedia article on this entry.)<br />
<br />
<br />
This article does not exist yet. (You may find the links helpful, but please do not violate its copyright when writing a Glottopedia article on this entry.)<br />
<br />
This article does not exist yet. (You may find the links helpful, but please do not violate its copyright when writing a Glottopedia article on this entry.)<br />
<br />
===Links===<br />
<br />
{{Wikipedia|Politeness_theory#Negative_Politeness|en}}</div>Ppuhlmannhttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Negative_politeness&diff=9528Negative politeness2009-06-03T12:29:04Z<p>Ppuhlmann: /* Links */</p>
<hr />
<div>This article does not exist yet. (You may find the links helpful, but please do not violate its copyright when writing a Glottopedia article on this entry.)<br />
<br />
<br />
This article does not exist yet. (You may find the links helpful, but please do not violate its copyright when writing a Glottopedia article on this entry.)<br />
<br />
===Links===<br />
<br />
{{Wikipedia|Politeness_theory#Negative_Politeness|en}}</div>Ppuhlmannhttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Positive_politeness&diff=9527Positive politeness2009-06-03T12:23:42Z<p>Ppuhlmann: Created page with 'This article does not exist yet. (You may find the links helpful, but please do not violate its copyright when writing a Glottopedia article on this entry.) ===Links=== {{Wiki...'</p>
<hr />
<div>This article does not exist yet. (You may find the links helpful, but please do not violate its copyright when writing a Glottopedia article on this entry.)<br />
<br />
<br />
===Links===<br />
<br />
{{Wikipedia|Politeness|en}}</div>Ppuhlmannhttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Negative_politeness&diff=9526Negative politeness2009-06-03T12:20:45Z<p>Ppuhlmann: Created page with 'This article does not exist yet. (You may find the links helpful, but please do not violate its copyright when writing a Glottopedia article on this entry.) ===Links=== {{Wiki...'</p>
<hr />
<div>This article does not exist yet. (You may find the links helpful, but please do not violate its copyright when writing a Glottopedia article on this entry.)<br />
<br />
<br />
===Links===<br />
<br />
{{Wikipedia|Politeness|en}}</div>Ppuhlmannhttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Negative_face&diff=9525Negative face2009-06-03T12:17:23Z<p>Ppuhlmann: Created page with 'This article does not exist yet. (You may find the links helpful, but please do not violate its copyright when writing a Glottopedia article on this entry.) ===Links=== {{Wiki...'</p>
<hr />
<div>This article does not exist yet. (You may find the links helpful, but please do not violate its copyright when writing a Glottopedia article on this entry.)<br />
<br />
<br />
===Links===<br />
<br />
{{Wikipedia|Politeness_theory#Positive_and_Negative_Face}}</div>Ppuhlmannhttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Modesty_maxim&diff=9524Modesty maxim2009-06-03T12:16:01Z<p>Ppuhlmann: Created page with 'This article does not exist yet. (You may find the links helpful, but please do not violate its copyright when writing a Glottopedia article on this entry.) ===Links=== {{Wiki...'</p>
<hr />
<div>This article does not exist yet. (You may find the links helpful, but please do not violate its copyright when writing a Glottopedia article on this entry.)<br />
<br />
<br />
===Links===<br />
<br />
{{Wikipedia|Politeness_maxims#The_Modesty_maxim}}</div>Ppuhlmannhttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Generosity_maxim&diff=9523Generosity maxim2009-06-03T12:14:27Z<p>Ppuhlmann: Created page with 'This article does not exist yet. (You may find the links helpful, but please do not violate its copyright when writing a Glottopedia article on this entry.) ===Links=== {{Wiki...'</p>
<hr />
<div>This article does not exist yet. (You may find the links helpful, but please do not violate its copyright when writing a Glottopedia article on this entry.)<br />
<br />
<br />
===Links===<br />
<br />
{{Wikipedia|Politeness_maxims#The_Generosity_maxim}}</div>Ppuhlmannhttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Face-threatening_act&diff=9522Face-threatening act2009-06-03T12:10:52Z<p>Ppuhlmann: Created page with 'This article does not exist yet. (You may find the links helpful, but please do not violate its copyright when writing a Glottopedia article on this entry.) ===Links=== {{Wiki...'</p>
<hr />
<div>This article does not exist yet. (You may find the links helpful, but please do not violate its copyright when writing a Glottopedia article on this entry.)<br />
<br />
<br />
===Links===<br />
<br />
{{Wikipedia|Politeness_theory#Face-Threatening_Acts}}</div>Ppuhlmannhttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Approbation_maxim&diff=9521Approbation maxim2009-06-03T12:08:34Z<p>Ppuhlmann: Created page with 'This article does not exist yet. (You may find the links helpful, but please do not violate its copyright when writing a Glottopedia article on this entry.) ===Links=== {{Wiki...'</p>
<hr />
<div>This article does not exist yet. (You may find the links helpful, but please do not violate its copyright when writing a Glottopedia article on this entry.)<br />
<br />
<br />
===Links===<br />
<br />
{{Wikipedia|Politeness_maxims#The_Approbation_maxim}}</div>Ppuhlmannhttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Agreement_maxim&diff=9520Agreement maxim2009-06-03T12:06:24Z<p>Ppuhlmann: Created page with 'This article does not exist yet. (You may find the links helpful, but please do not violate its copyright when writing a Glottopedia article on this entry.) ===Links=== {{Wiki...'</p>
<hr />
<div>This article does not exist yet. (You may find the links helpful, but please do not violate its copyright when writing a Glottopedia article on this entry.)<br />
<br />
<br />
===Links===<br />
<br />
{{Wikipedia|Politeness_maxims#The_Agreement_maxim}}</div>Ppuhlmannhttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Perlocutionary_act&diff=9516Perlocutionary act2009-06-03T10:36:58Z<p>Ppuhlmann: Created page with 'This article does not exist yet. (You may find the links helpful, but please do not violate its copyright when writing a Glottopedia article on this entry.) ===Links=== {{Wiki...'</p>
<hr />
<div>This article does not exist yet. (You may find the links helpful, but please do not violate its copyright when writing a Glottopedia article on this entry.)<br />
<br />
<br />
===Links===<br />
<br />
{{Wikipedia|Perlocutionary act}}<br />
<br />
{{Wikipedia|Sprechakttheorie#Sprechakte|de}}</div>Ppuhlmannhttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Illocutionary_act&diff=9515Illocutionary act2009-06-03T10:28:35Z<p>Ppuhlmann: /* Links */</p>
<hr />
<div>This article does not exist yet. (You may find the link helpful, but please do not violate its copyright when writing a Glottopedia article on this entry.)<br />
<br />
===Links===<br />
<br />
{{Wikipedia|Illocutionary act|en}}<br />
{{Wikipedia|Sprechakttheorie#Sprechakte|de}}<br />
[[Category:Missing articles]]</div>Ppuhlmannhttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Locutionary_act&diff=9514Locutionary act2009-06-03T10:27:24Z<p>Ppuhlmann: /* Links */</p>
<hr />
<div>This article does not exist yet. (You may find the link helpful, but please do not violate its copyright when writing a Glottopedia article on this entry.)<br />
<br />
<br />
===Links===<br />
<br />
{{Wikipedia|Locutionary Act}}<br />
{{Wikipedia|Sprechakttheorie#Sprechakte|de}}</div>Ppuhlmannhttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Indirect_speech_act&diff=9513Indirect speech act2009-06-03T10:25:15Z<p>Ppuhlmann: /* Links */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{missing}}<br />
<br />
This article does not exist yet. (You may find the link helpful, but please do not violate its copyright when writing a Glottopedia article on this entry.)<br />
<br />
This article does not exist yet. (You may find the links helpful, but please do not violate its copyright when writing a Glottopedia article on this entry.)<br />
<br />
===Links===<br />
<br />
{{Wikipedia|Speech Act#Indirect_speech_acts}}<br />
<br />
{{Wikipedia|Sprechakttheorie#Explizite_und_indirekte_Sprechakte|de}}</div>Ppuhlmannhttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Locutionary_act&diff=9512Locutionary act2009-06-03T10:20:46Z<p>Ppuhlmann: Created page with 'This article does not exist yet. (You may find the link helpful, but please do not violate its copyright when writing a Glottopedia article on this entry.) ===Links=== {{Wikip...'</p>
<hr />
<div>This article does not exist yet. (You may find the link helpful, but please do not violate its copyright when writing a Glottopedia article on this entry.)<br />
<br />
<br />
===Links===<br />
<br />
{{Wikipedia|Locutionary Act}}<br />
{{Wikipedia|Sprechakttheorie|de}}</div>Ppuhlmannhttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Illocutionary_act&diff=9511Illocutionary act2009-06-03T10:13:58Z<p>Ppuhlmann: /* Links */</p>
<hr />
<div>This article does not exist yet. (You may find the link helpful, but please do not violate its copyright when writing a Glottopedia article on this entry.)<br />
<br />
===Links===<br />
<br />
{{Wikipedia|Illocutionary act|en}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Missing articles]]</div>Ppuhlmannhttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Indirect_speech_act&diff=9510Indirect speech act2009-06-03T10:10:43Z<p>Ppuhlmann: /* Links */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{missing}}<br />
<br />
This article does not exist yet. (You may find the link helpful, but please do not violate its copyright when writing a Glottopedia article on this entry.)<br />
<br />
===Links===<br />
<br />
{{Wikipedia|Speech Act#Indirect_speech_acts}}</div>Ppuhlmannhttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Illocutionary_act&diff=9502Illocutionary act2009-06-02T17:48:33Z<p>Ppuhlmann: wikipedia link added</p>
<hr />
<div>This article does not exist yet. (You may find the link helpful, but please do not violate its copyright when writing a Glottopedia article on this entry.)<br />
<br />
===Links===<br />
<br />
{{Wikipedia|Illocutionary act|en}}</div>Ppuhlmannhttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Portal:Pragmatics&diff=9501Portal:Pragmatics2009-06-02T16:52:34Z<p>Ppuhlmann: /* Deixis */</p>
<hr />
<div>__NOTOC__<br />
<br />
{| border="0" style="padding: 0px; border:solid 1px #000080; background-color:#ADDFFF;" width="100%" cellspacing="0"<br />
|-<br />
| valign="top" width="66%" colspan="4" |<br />
<div style="font-size:180%; text-align: center; margin-top:10px;"><br />
{| border="0" style="padding: 5px; border:none 1px #000080; background-color:#ADDFFF;" width="100%" cellspacing="10"<br />
|<br />
|<br />
'''Pragmatics'''<br><br />
This portal presents the most central topics in the study of language use.<br />
|<br />
|}<br />
</div><br />
|-<br />
<br />
{| border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="10" style="margin-top:1em; padding:0.2em; background-color:#f0f0f0; border:solid 1px #000080;"<br />
|-<br />
| width="50%" style="vertical-align:top;" |<br />
=='''<div style="font-size:80%;">Fundamental notions</div>'''==<br />
[[appropriateness]] -- [[communication]] -- [[communicative competence]] -- [[context]] -- [[context dependence]] -- [[conveyed meaning]] -- [[felicity]] -- [[indexicality]] -- [[language use]] -- [[literal meaning]] -- [[mutual knowledge]] -- [[natural meaning]] -- [[non-natural meaning]] -- [[organon model]] -- [[origo]] -- [[performance]] -- [[semantics-pragmatics boundary]] -- [[sentence meaning]] -- [[setting selection]] -- [[speaker-meaning]] -- [[utterance]]<br />
<br />
== '''<div style="font-size:80%;">Conversational pragmatics</div>''' ==<br />
[[conversational maxim]] -- [[Cooperative Principle]] -- [[fixed-context assumption]] -- [[floating of maxims]] -- [[Gricean maxims]] -- [[implicature]] -- [[maxim of manner]] -- [[maxim of quality]] -- [[maxim of quantity]] -- [[maxim of relevance]] -- [[relevance]]<br />
<br />
== '''<div style="font-size:80%;">Discourse pragmatics</div>''' ==<br />
<br />
[[background]] -- [[comment]] -- [[contrast]] -- [[definite]] -- [[definite description]] -- [[definiteness restriction]] -- [[discourse referent]] -- [[focus]] -- [[indefinite]] -- [[pragmatic presupposition]] -- [[presupposition]] -- [[semantic presupposition]] -- [[topic]]<br />
<br />
== '''<div style="font-size:80%;">Speech act theory</div>''' ==<br />
[[assertive]] -- [[commissive]] -- [[constative]] -- [[declarative sentence]] -- [[direct speech act]] -- [[felicity condition]] -- [[illocutionary act]] -- [[illocutionary force]] -- [[imperative]] -- [[indirect speech act]] -- [[locutionary act]] -- [[performative]] -- [[perlocutionary act]] -- [[speech act]]<br />
<br />
== '''<div style="font-size:80%;">Deixis</div>''' ==<br />
[[addressee honorifics]] -- [[bystander]] -- [[bystander honorifics]] -- [[deictic centre]] -- [[deictic pronoun]] -- [[demonstrative]] -- [[discourse anaphora]] -- [[discourse deixis]] -- [[displacement]] -- [[distal]] -- [[exophoric]] -- [[gesture]] -- [[honorifics]] -- [[indexicality]] -- [[invisible]] -- [[local deixis]] -- [[medial]] -- [[obvial]] -- [[origo]] -- [[proximal]] -- [[referent honorifics]] -- [[shifter]] -- [[social deixis]] -- [[temporal deixis]] -- [[token-reflexive]] -- [[transposition]] -- [[visible]]<br />
<br />
| style="vertical-align:top;" |<br />
<br />
== '''<div style="font-size:80%;">Politeness</div>''' ==<br />
[[Agreement maxim]] -- [[Approbation maxim]] -- [[face]] -- [[face-threatening act]] -- [[first-order politeness]] -- [[Generosity maxim]] -- [[Modesty maxim]] -- [[negative face]] -- [[negative politeness]] -- [[off record]] -- [[on record]] -- [[politeness maxims]] -- [[Politeness principle]] -- [[Politeness theory]] -- [[positive face]] -- [[positive politeness]] -- [[redressive action]] -- [[second-order politeness]] -- [[Sympathy maxim]] -- [[Tact maxim]]<br />
<br />
== '''<div style="font-size:80%;">Irony</div>''' ==<br />
[[dissociative attitude]] -- [[echoic use]] -- [[figure of speech]] -- [[ironical understatement]] -- [[irony]] -- [[use-mention distinction]] -- [[pretence]] -- [[sarcasm]] -- [[trope]]<br />
<br />
== '''<div style="font-size:80%;">Associations</div>''' ==<br />
<br />
== '''<div style="font-size:80%;">Journals</div>''' ==<br />
<br />
[http://www.elsevier.com/locate/pragma Journal of Pragmatics]<br><br />
[http://semprag.org/ Semantics and Pragmatics]<br />
<br />
== '''<div style="font-size:80%;">Book series</div>''' ==<br />
[http://www.degruyter.de/cont/fb/sk/skReiEn.cfm?rc=22319 Mouton Series in Pragmatics]<br />
<br />
== '''<div style="font-size:80%;">Other ressources</div>''' ==<br />
<br />
[http://www.phil-fak.uni-duesseldorf.de/asw/gfs/deutsch/onlinewb/frames.html Online-Wörterbuch zur Semantik und Pragmatik]<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
{| border="0" style="margin-top:1em; padding:0.2em; border:solid 1px #000080; background-color:#f0f0f0;" width="100%" cellspacing="10"<br />
|-<br />
| valign="top" width="66%" colspan="4" |<br />
<br />
<div style="font-size:100%; text-align: center; margin-top:10px;"><br />
This portal is maintained by [[Volker Gast]]. Please use the discussions tab or<br />
[mailto:v.gast@fu-berlin.de Email] to enter your comments, critical remarks, or suggestions. Thank you.<br />
</div><br />
|}<br />
<br />
[[Category:En]]<br />
[[Category:Portal|Pragmatics]]</div>Ppuhlmannhttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Indirect_speech_act&diff=9498Indirect speech act2009-06-02T11:32:36Z<p>Ppuhlmann: link to Wikipedia article added</p>
<hr />
<div>See [[Wikipedia: Speech Act#Indirect_speech_acts|Indirect Speech Acts]] at Wikipedia</div>Ppuhlmannhttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Kutscherimperativ&diff=9396Kutscherimperativ2009-05-18T03:42:16Z<p>Ppuhlmann: /* Literatur */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Kutscherimperativ''' ist eine umgangssprachliche Bezeichnung für infinitivische Befehle und Aufforderungen.<br />
<br />
===Beispiele===<br />
''Alles aussteigen!''<br />
<br />
''Türen schließen!''<br />
<br />
===Link===<br />
[http://www2.rz.hu-berlin.de/linguistik/institut/syntax/onlinelexikon/K/kutscherimperativ.htm Kutscherimperativ] in Norbert Fries, Online Lexikon Linguistik<br />
<br />
===Literatur===<br />
Fries, N. 1983. ''Studien zum frei verwendeten Infinitiv und zu verwandten Erscheinungen.'' Tübingen.<br />
<br />
{{wb}}<br />
[[Category:Semantics]]<br />
[[Category:Modality]]<br />
[[Category:Pragmatics]]</div>Ppuhlmannhttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Kommissiv&diff=9395Kommissiv2009-05-18T03:41:15Z<p>Ppuhlmann: /* Andere Sprachen */</p>
<hr />
<div>Ein '''Kommissiv''' bezeichnet eine Art von Sprechhandlung, deren Charakteristikum ist, dass sie den Sprecher auf eine zukünftige Handlung festlegt, z. B. Versprechen, Drohung, Angebot, Ankündigung. <br />
<br />
===Beispiele===<br />
Verben, die Elemente dieser Klasse bezeichnen, sind z. B. ''versprechen'' und ''ankündigen''.<br />
<br />
=== Kommentar ===<br />
Ihr propositionaler Gehalt betrifft eine zukünftige Handlung (i. S. von Searle (1979) Welt-auf-Wort-Ausrichtung). <br />
<br />
===Ursprung===<br />
Latein ''committěre'' 'in Erfüllung gehen'. <br />
<br />
===Link===<br />
[http://www2.rz.hu-berlin.de/linguistik/institut/syntax/onlinelexikon/K/kommissive.htm Kommissive] in Norbert Fries, Online Lexikon Linguistik<br />
<br />
===Literatur===<br />
*Harras, G. (Hg.) ''Kommunikationsverben: Konzeptuelle Ordnung und semantische Repräsentation.'' Tübingen 2001. <br />
*– Dies. & K. Proost. 2005. The Lexicalisation of Speech Act Evaluations in German, English and Dutch. In: N. Delbecque et al. (Hg.) Sociolinguistic, Historical and Comparative Perspectives on Variation: Proceedings of the SLE Conference 2001, Leuven (Belgien). Berlin/New York, 319-336. (= Studies and Monographs 163).<br />
*Searle, J. 1979. A Taxonomy of Illocutionary Acts. In: ders., ''Expression and Meaning.'' Cambridge, 1–29.<br />
<br />
===Andere Sprachen===<br />
Englisch [[commissive]]<br />
<br />
{{wb}}<br />
[[Category:Semantics]]<br />
[[Category:Pragmatics]]</div>Ppuhlmannhttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Implicature&diff=9394Implicature2009-05-18T03:39:38Z<p>Ppuhlmann: /* References */</p>
<hr />
<div>Something that is implied by a speaker uttering a sentence, without being part of the truth-conditional content of that sentence. The notion was introduced by the philosopher H.P. Grice to explain how speakers can mean more with their utterance than what they say. Some implicatures where conventionally tied to specific words (like ''but'', differing from ''and'' in its conventional implicature of contrast), others follow on the basis of the [[Cooperative Principle]] and its [[maxims]]. A well-known example are the scalar implicatures, where a weaker term on a scale implicates the negation of a stronger term.<br />
<br />
=== Example ===<br />
<br />
(i) John ate some of the chocolates<br />
''scalar implicature''<nowiki>: John did not eat all of the chocolates<br />
</nowiki><br />
<br />
''Some'' includes the meaning of ''all'', but, given the Maxim of Quantity, the speaker will only use ''some'' if he is not in a position to use ''all''. Hence, his use of ''some'' implicates that there were chocolates not eaten by John. Notice that an implicature can be cancelled, when the speaker explicitly strengthens his utterance:<br />
<br />
(ii) John ate some of the chocolates, in fact, he ate all of the chocolates<br />
<br />
Scalar implicatures are an instance of generalized implicatures (that normally follow from the utterance), in distinction to particularized implicatures (that one follows in special contexts).<br />
<br />
=== Link ===<br />
<br />
[http://www2.let.uu.nl/UiL-OTS/Lexicon/zoek.pl?lemma=Implicature&lemmacode=1805 Utrecht Lexicon of Linguistics]<br />
<br />
=== References ===<br />
<br />
* Grice, H.P. 1975. ''Logic and conversation,'' In: P. Cole and J.L. Morgan eds., Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, 41-58, New York: Academic Press<br />
* Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. ''Pragmatics.,'' Cambridge: Cambridge University Press<br />
<br />
{{dc}}<br />
[[Category:Semantics]]<br />
[[Category:Pragmatics]]</div>Ppuhlmannhttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Imperative&diff=9393Imperative2009-05-18T03:38:49Z<p>Ppuhlmann: /* Other languages */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{stub}}<br />
<br />
An '''imperative''' is a sentence type expressing an order or a request:<br />
<br />
(i) Tell me about it.<br />
<br />
===Comments===<br />
<br />
Imperatives typically lack an overt subject in English, but a subject may appear in German and Dutch imperatives:<br />
<br />
(ii) Vertel (jij) me eens hoe dat zit(?)<br />
'Tell (you) me now how it is'<br />
<br />
=== Link ===<br />
<br />
[http://www2.let.uu.nl/UiL-OTS/Lexicon/zoek.pl?lemma=Imperative&lemmacode=652 Utrecht Lexicon of Linguistics]<br />
<br />
===Other languages===<br />
German [[Imperativ]]<br />
<br />
{{dc}}<br />
[[Category:Semantics]]<br />
[[Category:Modality]]<br />
[[Category:Pragmatics]]</div>Ppuhlmann