¡Descarga COHESION AND COHERENCE y más Apuntes en PDF de Idioma Inglés solo en Docsity!
COHESION AND COHERENCE
1. COHESION AND COHERENCE
Van Peer (1988) → On the basis of oral communication, conceives of texts as displaced communication. His starting point is the canonical form of face-to-face communication → Basic ingredients: a speaker (S) and a hearer (H) in a situation (N) of physical co-presence. Besides, participants perform speech acts (A): uttering of sounds (u), conveying propositional content (p) and performing an illocutionary act (i), all at the same time, or better one by means of another. Representation of face-to-face communication: Texts can be regarded as speech acts that are detached from their original time and space situation and are introduced in another time and space configuration. The purpose of communication may be retained but the displacement causes the text to carry some of its contextual features. Representation of textual communication: *Nj: new context The power to perform the same illocutionary act, that is, to convey the speaker's intentions, weakens across situations. That is why in written communication, text and receiver take on a leading role. Texts do not display all the elements required for their comprehension and in a way act as stimuli that trigger the receiver's cognitive capacity. Van Peer identifies two aspects that cause this <<open-ness>>: 1 st^ ) incompleteness with respect to the reality the text purports to depict. Accordingly, understanding consists in bridging this incompleteness, for which the reader has to draw upon the world knowledge stored in memory ( inference: the result of a process based on the assumption that the meaning of a text is organized in a pattern of coherence. Coherence refers to real or imagined world knowledge). 2 nd) relationships within texts are also incomplete, so understanding also requires the reader to make conjectures as to the internal links ( integration: the reader has to integrate separate textual elements into a general pattern of meaning. Counterpart → cohesion: the way in which anaphoric expressions, conjuncts, parallelism, time adverbials, link up different parts of a text). Si → Ai → Hi Ni Ni Si → Ai → Hi Nj Sj → Aj → Hj
Cohesion and coherence in texts: Text interpretation is a function of two sets of strategies that operate in opposite directions. Cohesion proceeds bottom-up by integrating the separate pieces of a puzzle one after another. On the contrary, coherence can be viewed as a general picture of the whole. By operating top-down, coherence enables the receiver to begin decoding with an idea that allows him or her to infer the place that each piece of the puzzle occupies. What is the determining factor in interpretation? There seem to be two fundamental constituents: inferencing and world knowledge. Traditionally, pragmatics has made a clear distinction between textual meaning (i.e., propositional, literal, or conventional meaning) and pragmatic interpretation (non-propositional, non-literal, conversational meaning) and has focused on the latter leaving the former to semantics. However, it is difficult to test how much meaning we get out of a text and how much we read into it. Pragmatic meanings are often conventionally encoded (in the text) rather than inferred (in the mind of the hearer). When any meaning is encoded, it becomes independent from the context and ceases to be pragmatic, that is, it is no longer an issue that depends on the speaker's choice. Coherence is aptly explained by schema theory. The notion of schemata provides a theory of knowledge in interaction. Schemata are mental representations of typical situations and it is hypothesized that they are used in discourse processing to predict and make sense of the particular situation that the text portrays. Knowledge of the world ( world schemata ) and knowledge of text types ( text schemata ) → Text and world schema interact, as seen in the possibility for a story to be told in the chronological order of events (world), or some rearrangement of this order (text). On the other hand, cohesion is the formal linguistic realization of semantic and pragmatic relations between sentences. It is a formal property of texts while coherence is the result of the interaction between the text and the receiver. The connection between formal cohesive devices and the patterns of knowledge that we identify as coherence is asymmetrical, to say the least. Defamiliarization in literature plays upon the representation of common experience in an uncommon way for the purpose of questioning our perception of reality. Cohesion is the manifestation of certain aspects of coherence and a pointer towards it, rather than its cause or result. It is always partial because texts are by definition incomplete in their internal constitution and even texts with a high density of cohesive devices leave some links understated. Interpretation requires more than establishing coherence. Understanding discourse meaning is a combination of three functions: a) computing communicative function; b) using general socio-cultural knowledge; c) determining inferences to be made. In order to compute the communicative function, the different approaches to discourse analysis have put forward
TEXT
INCOMPLETE
INTERNAL
RELATIONS
INCOMPLETE
EXTERNAL
REFERENCE
COHERENCE COHESION
TOP-DOWN BOTTOM-UP
INFERENCE INTEGRATION
Cohesive devices for personal reference: Semantic Category EXISTENTIAL POSSESSIVE Grammatical Function HEAD MODIFIER Class PRONOUN DETERMINER Item He – Him She – Her It They – Them His Hers Its Theirs His Her Its Their First and second person pronouns cannot be used cohesively because their reference is usually exophoric. First person pronouns correspond to the speaker ( I, me ), or to the speaker and another person ( we ); second person pronouns ( you ) correspond to the addressee(s). Third person pronouns can be used endophorically or exophorically and correspond to other persons than the speaker or hearer, male ( he ), female ( she ), and object or objects ( it, they ). Cohesive devices for demonstrative reference: Semantic Category SELECTIVE NON-SELECTIVE Grammatical Function MODIFIER/HEAD ADJUNCT MODIFIER Class DETERMINER ADVERB DETERMINER Distance: near far neutral This – These That - Those Here – Now There - Then The Cohesive devices for comparative reference: Grammatical Function MODIFIER ADJUNCT Class ADJECTIVE ADVERB General Comparison Same, similar, other Identically, likewise, otherwise Particular Comparison Better, more (comparative adjective) So, more, less We are only concerned with cases of endophoric co-reference, when co-interpretation takes place within the text. The reference item can be either identified with the referent or compared with it. In identification the reference item functions as deictic and identification is specific. Since interrogative pronouns are non-specific, they cannot be cohesive. Reference is a semantic relation realized by the grammatical systems of pronouns, determiners, and comparatives. The grammatical function of the reference item may be different from the referent. In other words, class does not need to be preserved (eg The man gave the magnificent unicorn (Oi) a lily (Od). He (S) ate it (Od) gravely ). The relationship between reference item and referent can be anaphoric or cataphoric (and also exophoric) and there is total identity of reference between both (he = the magnificent unicorn). Reference is a non-verbal relation. Because it is a semantic relation, replacement of the referent is not necessarily possible: John's house is beautiful. He had it (“John's house) built last year.
3. SUBSTITUTION Substitution is the replacement of one linguistic item by another. The difference between substitution and reference is that substitution is a relation between forms (words, phrases), whereas reference is a relation between meanings. Substitution is a textual relation so it is necessarily endophoric (eg That joke was obscene. I have never heard a dirtier one ). As a rule, the substitute item has the same structural function as the element it substitutes. In substitution, class is preserved and replacement is always possible. In the case of clausal substitution, identity of function is not so clear (eg Has he written the essay? I guess so [so = ( that) he has written the essay] ).
Checklist of items used in substitution: NOMINAL SUBSTITUTES Noun head Nominal complement Attribute One, ones the same so VERBAL SUBSTITUTES Verb Process Proposition Verbal reference Do, be, have do the same do so do it CLAUSAL SUBSTITUTES Positive Negative So not In nominal substitution , the substitute one/ones always functions as the head of a noun phrase and substitutes only the head regardless of the functions of the noun phrases (eg. Why have you chosen such a boring destination? -I couldn't think of an exciting one ). Two consequences are derived from the conditions of nominal substitution (substituting only the head): 1 st) One can only substitute count nouns: -You have bought vanilla ice-cream again! - I couldn't find strawberry Ø (ellipsis fulfills the cohesive function and allows the speaker to avoid repetition). Substitution and ellipsis are complementary procedures to achieve cohesion. In fact, ellipsis is explained as substitution by zero. 2 nd) Modification is not carried by one , which in turn will require some modifying element. The modification of the head that is the object of substitution ( boring ) is somehow negated by the modification of the substitute ( exciting ) → Repudiation. Substitution and reference are complementary: reference for identity relations and substitution/ellipsis for contrast relations. While one presupposes only the head of a NP, the same is a substitute for the whole NP including all modifiers, except those explicitly repudiated: - I'll have a double cheese burger with mayonnaise. - I'll have the same without mayonnaise. In verbal susbtitution the substitute item is do. It functions as the head of the verb phrase, the function performed by the lexical verb. Did you ever get that feeling? - No. I never did. In principle, do substitutes the lexical verb and the rest of the predication but Halliday and Hasan point out the possibility of repudiation of part of the predication: Have they removed their furniture? - They have done the desks, but that's all so far. Do can be a substitute for any lexical verb with the exception of be ( He has been very clear about it. - I think he has been ) and have ( I have had problems with the programme. - We all have had ), except with the meaning of <> ( You've got a car? - Alison does ). In clausal substitution , the substitute items so and not presuppose a whole clause ( Is it going to rain? - They say so ). Typically, clausal substitution takes place in reported speech, conditional sentences and also with modality. In reported speech, substitution only applies to declarative sentences ( I guess so ) but never interrogative ( *I wonder so ) nor imperative ( *I ordered so ). With conditional sentences, not and so often follow if : You should clean this surface with lint-free paper. If not , it may be scratched. Clauses expressing modality can also be substituted by so and not : Could I get a copy? - Possibly so / - Certainly not.
4. ELLIPSIS Substitution and ellipsis are very similar: both devices contrast with reference in their formal character. The basic condition for ellipsis as cohesive device is that something is left unsaid but understood by looking at the previous co-text. Ellipsis is identified by detecting some missing element in the structure to be supplied from elsewhere in the text: - My friend will bring a CD player. At least I think he will. Ellipsis permits the deletion of known information and gives contrastive focus on the modal verb. Cohesion and thematization go together. Thematization is the other source of texture and combines with cohesion to account for
5. CONJUNCTION
Conjunctive elements are not in themselves cohesive in that they do not point towards some specific element of the text. They presuppose some elements which are not easily definable. Conjunction establishes an explicit semantic relation. Conjunctive relations are varied but we will consider four types: additive, adversative, causal, and temporal. Conjunctive adjuncts are of two basic kinds: adverbs (for, so, accordingly) and prepositional phrases (as a result, in contrast with). Conjunctive relations can arise from a particular sequence of forms but are not constrained by them so we can distinguish between a sequence of events in the world and a sequence of presentation is discourse. Event 1: my friends leave their country house; Event 2: I arrive at my friend's country house. In discourse, the order could:
- reproduce the temporal sequence: My friends left their country house. Later, we arrived there (external conjunction)
- present a sequence of its own: We arrived at my friends' country house. Previously, they had left (internal conjunction) This distinction is called external or internal conjunction, depending on whether relations are established between phenomena external to discourse or internal to the communicative situation. The distinction applies to all semantic types, although sometimes it is neutralized. In additive and temporal relations the distinction is clear. Nevertheless, in more abstract relations (adversative, causal) it is very difficult to tell. Types of Conjunctions: ELABORATING APPOSITIVE In other words, that is, for example CLARIFYING Or rather, anyway, in short, actually EXTENDING ADDITIVE And, nor, or, furthermore ADVERSATIVE Yet, but, however VARIATIVE On the other hand, apart from that, alternatively ENHANCING TEMPORAL Then, finally, first, soon, next day, up to now COMPARATIVE Likewise, similarly, in the same manner CAUSAL So, for this reason, as a result, for, therefore CONDITIONAL In that case, otherwise, yet, nevertheless MATTER Here, in that respect, as to that 6. LEXICAL COHESION Cohesion can be achieved lexically by reiteration or collocation. Reiteration involves the repetition of a lexical item, or rather, the repetition of a sense or part of it. Collocations are recurrent word combinations. The simplest case of lexical cohesion is the repetition of the same word but the reiteration may consist of a synonym or near-synonym ( figurehead = dummy ); a superordinate item ( flea < bug ); or a general word ( people, creature, thing, stuff, question ). These lexical devices represent a scale of specificness, from the most specific (repetition) to the least specific (general word). A general word is almost empty of lexical meaning and requires a deictic ( the, that ) to produce anaphoric reference. In this sense, it is very close to the function of personal pronouns. Thus, the most general end of lexical cohesion resembles pronominal and deictic reference. It is as if we had come full circle from semantic cohesion (reference) to grammatical cohesion (substitution and ellipsis), then lexicogrammatical cohesion (conjunction), then lexical cohesion and back.
Set of lexical items with different degrees of specificness: Military troops went to the rescue of the hostages. + specific Instances of lexical cohesion (a) The rescue was daring Repetition: the rescue – the rescue (b) The deliverance Synonym: the rescue – the deliverance (c) The task Superordinate item: the rescue – the task (d) The thing General word: the rescue – the thing (e) It Personal reference: the rescue - it
- specific Halliday and Hasan (1976) argue that lexical cohesion is independent from reference: “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.” This position amounts to maintaining that, at least in some cases of lexical cohesion, texture is strictly a formal property of texts, in other words, that cohesion is not semantic, as the authors insist throughout their work. Even though such an affirmation has to be verified, mere repetition produces some sort of connection. Referential relations between lexical items: Several professors have written a handbook for this course. a) This handbook could be suitable for your students. Identical reference → It could replace this handbook b) In other courses we have these handbooks. Inclusive reference → They could replace these handbooks c) Advanced courses have other handbooks. Exclusive reference → substitution is possible ( other ones, others ) d) Good courses always have handbooks. No referential relation whatsoever Collocation is a type of lexical cohesion achieved by means of two lexical items that tend to co-occur. Identity of reference is clearly excluded here. Lexical collocations include a variety of semantic relationships such as opposites, complementaries, or ordered series: reader – handbook; faculty – undergraduate; fail – pass; lecture – tutorial; freshman – sophomore.
