An analysis of lexical cohesive devices in functional food advertisements in english and vietnamese
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING HANOI OPEN UNIVERSITY
AN ANALYSIS OF LEXICAL COHESIVE DEVICES IN FUNCTIONAL FOOD ADVERTISEMENTS IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE (Phân tích các phương tiện liên kết từ vựng trong quảng cáo thực phẩm chức năngtrong tiếng Anh và tiếng Việt)
PHẠM THỊ HƯƠNG Field: English Language Code: 60220201 Supervisor: Đỗ Kim Phương, PhD
CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY I, the undersigned, hereby certify my authority of the study project report entitled
AN ANALYSIS OF LEXICAL COHESIVE DEVICES IN FUNCTIONAL FOOD ADVERTISEMENTS IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master in English Language. Except where the reference is indicated, no other person’s work has been used without due acknowledgement in the text of the thesis. Hanoi, 2017
Pham Thi Huong
Approved by SUPERVISOR
Đỗ Kim Phương, Ph.D
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This thesis could not have been completed without the help and support from
a number of people. First and foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Ms. Do Kim Phuong, my supervisor, who has patiently and constantly supported me through the stages of the study, and whose stimulating ideas, expertise, and suggestions have inspired me greatly through my growth as an academic researcher. A special word of thanks goes to my best friends, my colleagues and my students at Constructional and Industrial College where I have gathered information for my study. Without whose support and encouragement it would never have been possible for me to have this thesis accomplished. Last but not least, I am greatly indebted to my family, my husband. for the sacrifice they have devoted to the fulfillment of this academic work.
ABSTRACT This thesis mainly focuses on analyzing the lexical cohesive devices in functional food advertisements. The study based on 30 samples of advertisements for Amway in English and Vietnamese. The total of lexical devices are 145 lexical cohesive devices, including collocation and reiteration. The deductive method, inductive method, qualitative method, quantitative method, and descriptive method. The results show that both of advertisement in functional food the same in using 2 lexical cohesive devices. The findings of the study help to find out some similarities and differences in using lexical cohesive devices between English and Vietnamese
samples. This thesis hopefully contributes to the general understanding of the notion “functional food” and the language of advertising. Moreover, learners, teachers, especially the copyrighters may benefit from this study to create an advertisement for a functional food product when comprehensively understanding the roles of lexical cohesive devices in the discourse of functional food advertisements.
LIST OF TABLE AND GRAPHS
Page Table 2.1: Types of cohesion
Graph 3.1: The frequency of occurrence of lexical cohesive devices in English and Vietnamese FFAs for Amway
Graph 3.2: The frequency of occurrence of reiteration in English and Vietnamese FFAs for Amway
Graph 3.3: The frequency of occurrence of repetition in English andVietnamese FFAs for Amway
Graph 3.4: The frequency of occurrence of collocation in Englishand Vietnamese FFAs for Amway
Graph 3.5: The frequency of occurrence of grammatical collocationin English and Vietnamese FFAs for Amway
Graph 3.6: Percentage of N-collocations and other types in EnglishFFAs for Amway
Graph 3.7: Percentage of N-collocations and other typesinVietnamese FFAs for Amway
Table of contents Page CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
LIST OF TABLE AND GRAPHS
Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION
1.2. Aims and objectives of the study
1.3. Research questions
1.4. Methods of the study
1.5. Scope of the study
1.6. Significance of the study
1.7. Design of the study
Chapter 2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Previous studíe
2.2. Discourse and discourse analysis
2.3. Cohesion in English
2.4. The functions of advertising
2.5. Translation theory
Chapter 3. LEXICAL COHESIVE DEVICES IN FUNCTIONAL FOOD 35 ADVERTISEMENTS IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE 3.1. An overview of lexical cohesive devices between Vietnamese and
English FFAs 3.2. Lexical cohesive devices in functional food advertisements in
Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1. Rationale Theoretically, It is noticeable that many researches on cohesive devices and particularly on lexical cohesive devices have been carried out in many discourses and genres. Also, many studies of advertising discourse have focused on the language used in advertisements. However, none of thoese has been done to functional food advertisements for Amway. In the light of discourse analysis, cohesion and coherence are among major aspects studied. Basing on the theory of these two terms, the linguistic features in terms of syntax of functional food advertisements will be analyzed. In the study, the frequency of occurrence of lexical cohesive devices will be exploired and some noticeable findings will be drawn.
Practically,functional foods are an emerging field in food science due to their increasing popularity with health-conscious consumers. With its easy use, ability to support good health with nutrients and improve the immune system, functional food is winning the hearts of more and more consumers. As a matter of fact, functional foods seem to be sort of new to a large number of Vietnamese people. There exist different ideas, even contrary ideas on this new kind of product. The idea of investigating this kind of product to have a better understanding on it comes deeplyto my mind. As mentioned before, consumers’ interest in functional foods has been increasing during the late twentieth century as people's interest in achieving and maintaining good health increased. People’s demand has increased; offering an opportunity for the age of advertising, advertising has been gaining its great popularity. Different kinds of customers potentially demand different ways of presenting advertisements 1.2. Aims and objectives of the study The main aims of the thesis are as follows: Identify lexical cohesive devices in functional food advertisments for Amwayin English and Vietnamese in order to help learners of English use lexical cohesivedevices effectively. The study is objectived at: - To examine lexical cohesive devices in funtional food advertisments for Amwayin English and Vietnamese. - To make a comparison between lexical cohesive devices in funtional food advertisments for Amwayin English and Vietnamese.
- To give some suggestions to help learners of English use lexical cohesive devices in funtional food advertisments for Amwayin English and Vietnamese effectively. 1.3. Research questions In order to achieve the aims stated above, the study is meant to find out the answers to the following research questions: - What are the ways of using reiteration and collocation in funtional foodadvertisments for Amway in English and Vietnamese? - What are the similarities and differences usinglexical cohesive devices in functional food advertisments for AmwaybetweenEnglish and Vietnamese? - What are the evaluations on ways of using lexical cohesive devices in FFAs for Amway in English and their Vietnamese versions? 1.4. Methods of the study In this study, the following methodsare used: - Descriptive method: In the investigation of data, the descriptive method is employed to give a detailed description of data in terms lexical cohesion. It is through this process that the significance level of each lexical cohesive device to the advertisements is specified. - Qualitative and quantitative methods: Qualitative method helps the study approach the advertising samples, then find out general features of these advertisements. After the qualitative analysis, the data is also quantitatively analyzed. This quantitative is exploited most of the time to search for what the lexical cohesive devices are used. - Contrastive analysis are used to find out the similarities and differences in FFAs for Amway. 1.5. Scope of the study In the framework of the study, the study is focused on the lexical cohesive devices in the advertisements for only one kind of products namely FFAs for Amway. The investigation on one of two main aspects of cohesion, grammatical one, is beyond of the scope of this study, and this issue should be left for further study.
The samples include 30 English FFAs for Amway and Vietnamese ones with equivalent number for the purpose of contrastive analysis. All the data collected will be analyzed to explore their contribution to the creation of the cohesive and coherent text with precision, unambiguity, and tightness. 1.6. Significance of the study Theoretical significance: It is true that lexical aspect has been given little attention so far and teachers instead only pay attention to grammar or other aspects. Thus, students are often not provided with full understandings towards English collocations some certain words and only learn their definitions. A frequent difficulty is that students might find some common expressions complicated because they have no idea while a combination of the word with another one is not approved. In order to overcome such a trouble, the research carried out in order to offer needed knowledge as to linguistic theories in discourse analysis by working on a certain kind of discourse in functional food advertisements for Amway.This study contributes to verify the correctness and significance related to linguistic theories in discourse analysis by working on a certain kind of discourse (Functional Food Advertisements for Amway) Practical significance: This thesis helps gaining an insight into the lexical cohesive devices in FFAs for Amway in English and Vietnamese.This study’s implications are to deal with these issues in hope that will help students overcome their troubles. Findings of this study will provide information that can help learners and translators gain an insight into lexical cohesive devices in FFAs can be employed in discourse in English by Vietnamese and translators. First of all, when the students study about collocations, they might learn them by heart easily, however, the main problem will lie in applications of 20 FFAs in appropriate contexts. Therefore, learning about lexical cohesive devices is the beginning of the whole process. The main step is to understand comprehensively how they are applied in diverse situations and student can only do this by analyzing examples made by native speakers, not their own. This research offers them a method to do this.
Secondly, regarding translation students will have problems with understand the meanings if they learn lexical cohesive devices. 1.7. Design of the study Within the scope mentioned above, the thesis is structured as follows: Chapter1 introduces the rationale, aims and objectives, research questions,methods, scope, significance, and the design of the study. chapter 2 consists of theoretical Background & Review of Related Literature which covers some theoretical knowledge on discourse analysis in general, on cohesive devices in particular. Chapter3 points out lexical cohesive devices in functional food advertisements for Amway in Englishand Vietnamese Chapter 4 evaluation on ways of using lexical cohesive devices in FFAs for Amway in English and their Vietnamese versions Chapter 5makes a brief summary of the whole thesis, points out some limitations and gives recommendation as well as suggestions for a further study. References and appendix come at the end of the study.
Chapter 2 LITERATURE REVIEW The chapter begins with a brief view on discourse and discourse analysis. Being aware of the importance role of advertising in the daily communication in the society as well as in creating advertising texts and slogans, many researchers has taken studies on advertising language in various field such as syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and translation, etc. Then, the study investigates the notion cohesion”. This study is taken by the view of Halliday and Hasan as the theoretical framework. 2.1.Previous studies In English, there are a lot researches which have been conducted in every aspect of the advertising in English, many of which cover the features of advertising language. Some famous titles that can be mentioned here are "English in advertising: A linguistic study of advertising in Great Britain" by Geoffrey
N.Leech (1966), "Advertising as communication" by Gillian Dyer (1982), "English for sale: A study of the language of advertising" by Lars Hermeren (1999), or "The discourse of advertising" by Guy Cook (2001). There are also some researches which only focus on some certain features in advertising language. Typical examples are "Selling America: Puns, language and adverting" by Michel Monnot (1982), "Pictorial Metaphor in Advertising" by Char Forceville (1998). There are also some contrastive studies which compare the advertising language in English and that in other languages, e.g. "Advertisinglanguage: A pragmatic approach to advertisements in Britain and Japan” by Keiko Tanaka (1994). According to Janalapsanska (2006) a Slovakian author, conducted a study: "The language of advertising with the concentration on the linguistic means and the analysis of advertising slogans". In the study, he scopes his attention to the linguistic means used in advertising. The study found out linguistic means used in advertising language in phonological, lexical and morphological, syntactic, and semantic aspect. Although the thesis covers all aspects of linguistics, its result reflects only representatives of advertising slogan of many products. It did not focus on a specific product, thus its findings is advisable for references when studying language of advertising. In 2015, Be. Adela Pilatova stated "The language of advertising: analysis of advertising slogans in fast food industry" by. The study language strategies used in advertising slogan of fast food in terms of phonology, lexicology, syntactic, semantics and discourses. The thesis of the analyzed slogans is limited to four companies and slogans were chosen subjectively. Therefore, results of this analysis should not be generalized and applied to all slogans of all companies. It is only a sample of slogans from fast food industry. However, the playfulness of language and the importance of slogans for development of language can be still confirmed. Mehwish Noor et al. (2015) carried out a study namely "the language of TV Commercials' Slogan: A Semantic Analysis". The study investigated on the linguistic means and devices used by copywriters of TV commercials to influence the viewers and highlight the semantic property of TV commercial slogans. In Vietnamese, some notable researches on the language of advertising include two PhD theses done by Mai Xuan Huy (2001) on " Các đặc điểm của ngôn ngữ
quảng cáo dưới ánh sáng của lý thuyết giao tiếp" (Features of advertising language in the light of communicative theory) and Ton Nu My Nhat (2005) in which she carried out a contrastive discourse analysis of travel advertisements based on the theory of Functional Grammar. Also, there are some MA theses carried out at institutional level. For example, in Vietnam National University, Hanoi College of Foreign Languages, a thesis on advertising language used in trade was studied by Hoang Thi Thuy in 2005 and another on “Presupposition and Implicature in English and Vietnamese Advertising Slogans" by Tran Thien Tu in 2007. All those books, articles and studies have revealed typical and very interesting features of advertising language in general and slogans in particular. Mai Xuan Huy (2001) carried out a PhD study on language of advertising namely "
Các đặc điểm của ngôn ngữ quảng cáo dưới ánh sáng của lý thuyết giao tiếp" (Features of advertising language in the light of communicative theory). The study investigated on semantic and pragmatic structure of advertising slogan in Vietnamese at the time that the study was conducted. This is the first project of Vietnam that has surveyed and researched on the characteristics of advertising language most comprehensively and completely. Moreover, this is also the first study that has approached the language of advertising in the light of communicative theory and pragmatics. By studying semantic and pragmatic structure of advertising language, the study defined mechanism of the activity of creating language in advertising slogan of advertiser. Besides, the thesis discovered some interesting phenomena of semantics and pragmatics in Vietnamese. Nguyen Thi Thu Thao (2015) took "Acontrastive analysis of English and Vietnamese real estate advertising slogans printed advertisement”. In the thesis, she focuses on examining the phonological, lexical, and syntactic characteristics of advertising slogans of estate of the two varieties. I he thesis' finding showed the similarities and differences in the linguistic features of real estate advertising slogans in English and Vietnamese language. However, examining the above studies, the writer finds that many linguists, grammarians, have been absorbed in advertising language. Many researchers have dealt with advertising language in many aspects but the language of advertising slogan of car is still an open subject which has given fully detailed analysis
So far, there have found no studies give fully detailed analysis of the linguistic features of advertising slogan of car. Therefore, this thesis is being conducted to find the mentioned above features and together propose some possible applications for creating fascinating functional food advertisements in English and Vietnamese.
2.2. Discourse and discourse analysis The term discourse is defined under different linguists’ point of views. Crystal (1992:25) considers discourse as a continuous stretch of spoken language larger than a sentence, often constituting a coherent unit, such as a sermon, argument, joke or narrative. In Nunan's viewpoint, (1993: 6) discourse is the interpretation of the communicative event in context. To Halliday and Hasan (1985:3), discourse is functional language. This fact suggests that linguists need more debates and discussion before an agreeable definition of discourse is made. However, the following definition of discourse suggested by Guy Cook seems to provide relatively sufficient information so that we can shape a clear image of discourse in our minds: "Discourses are stretches of language perceived to be meaningful, unified,
and purposive"(1989:156) "Discourse may be composed of one or more well-formed grammatical sentences - and indeed it often is - but it does not have to be. It can have grammatical "mistakes" in it, and often does." "Discourse can be anything from a grunt or single expletive, through short conversations and scribbled notes right up to Tolstoy's novel, WAR AND PEACE, or a lengthy legal case. What matters is not its conformity to rules, but the fact that it communicates and is recognized by its receivers as coherent." (1989:7) It can be inferred from this definition that advertisements and advertising slogans are undeniably discourses due to their communication function and they are recognized by their potential customers as coherent. This is because advertisements themselves are messages from manufacturers or service providers to their customers and slogans are those messages in the most concise ways. 2.2.1. The concept of discourse Different linguists seek to define context from different point of view in order to
answer questions encountered in their own fields, and to support their own ideas and theories. H. G. Widdowson, when focusing his study on language meaning, thought "context" as " aspects of the circumstance of actual language use which
are taken as relevant to meaning." He furtherpointed out, "in other words, context is a schematic construct... the achievement of pragmatic meaning is a matter of matching up the linguistic elements of the code with the schematic elements of the context." (H.G. Widdowson, 2000, p.126), When Guy Cook was studying the relationship between discourse and literature, he took " into consideration as well. In his definition, context is “knowledge of the world outside language" which helps us to understand and use it to interpret the messages both in spoken and written form and the term "context" can be used in a broad and narrow sense. In the narrow sense, it refers to (knowledge of) factors outside the text under consideration. In the broad sense, it refers to (knowledge of) these factors and to (knowledge of) other parts of the text under consideration, sometimes referred to as "co-text." (Guy Cook, 1999, p. 24). When studying reference and inference, George Yule also took “context" into account. He provided us with a somewhat general definition, “Context is the physical environment in which a word is used." (George Yule, 2000, 128). According to Nunan (1993: 10), "context refers to the situation giving rise to the discourse and within which discourse is embedded". Although they are viewed from different perspectives for different purposes, these definitions have an important point in common: one main point of the context is the environment (circumstances or factors by some other scholars) in which a discourse occur. From those ways of defining context, it can be concluded that context is something that we need to understand the discourse and there is no discourse without context. There are different ways of understanding and defining “discourse”. A number of definitions of discourse have been offered. It is a fact that the term “discourse” is very ambiguous. This notion should be investigated along with the notion “text”, which will be presented below: Discourse and text Although many linguists have given different meanings to these two terms, there is no clear cut definition between the two. Some also use these two terms as synonyms.
For example, Widdowson (1973) describes that text is made up of sentences and have the property of cohesion whereas discourse is made up of utterances and have the property of coherence. But, these definitions have become ambiguous in his later works as he describes discourse as something that is made up of sentences, and omits any mention of text. Text refers to any object that can be read. Discourse has different definitions depending on the context. In a broad and general sense, discourse is considered to be the use of spoken and written language in a social context. Text and discourse are two terms that are commonly used in linguistics, literature, and language studies. There are many debates about the interchangeability of these two terms. Some linguistics view text and discourse analysis as the same process whereas some others use these two terms to define different concepts. Text can refer to any written material that can be read. Discourse is the use of language in a social context. This is the key difference between text and discourse. A text can be defined as an object that can be read, whether it is a work of literature, a lesson written on the blackboard, or a street sign. It is a coherent set of signs that transmits some kind of informative message. In literary studies, text usually refers to the written material. We use the term text when we are discussing novels, short stories, and dramas. Even the content of a letter, bill, poster or similar entities that contain written material can be called a text. The term discourse has many meanings and definitions. Discourse was first interpreted as dialogue – an interaction between a speaker and a listener. Thus, discourse referred to authentic daily communications, mainly oral, included in the wide communicative context. The term discourse was then also used to refer to the totality of codified language used in a particular field intellectual inquiry and of social practice (e.g. medical discourse, legal discourse, etc.) Michael Foucault defines discourse as “systems of thoughts composed of ideas, attitudes, courses of action, beliefs, and practices that systematically construct the subjects and the worlds of which they speak.”
In linguistics, discourse is generally considered to be the use of written or spoken language in a social context. The Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics (1998) defines discourse as follows: “Discourse is a general term for example of language use, i.e. language has been produced as the result of an act of communication.” Sharing the same concern, many other linguists have so far given definitions of discourse. Widdowson (1979) states: “Discourse is a use of sentences to perform acts of communication which cohere into larger communicative units, ultimately establishing a rhetorical pattern which characterizes the pieces of language as a whole as a kind of communication.” Whereas Crystal (1992: 25) says: “Discourse is a continuous stretch of language larger than a sentence, often constituting a coherent unit such as a sermon, argument, joke or a narrative.” Quite differently from the others, Halliday and Hasan (1976) give a simple definition: “We can define text (discourse) in the simplest way perhaps by saying that it is language that is functional.” Linguists have paid much attention to the distinction between a discourse and a text since confusion of these two terms may result in the failures of discourse analysis. Even though that the distinction is not always clear and the two terms are used interchangeably by some linguists. As in the above-mentioned definition of discourse by Halliday and Hasan, “text” is employed to refer to “discourse”; they sec “text” as a “semantic unit” characterized by cohesion. The two authors state: “A text is a passage of discourse which coherent in these two regards: it is coherent with respect to the context of situation, and therefore consistent in register; and it is coherent with respect to itself, and therefore cohesive” (1976: 23). For some other linguists, “text” is used for writing and “discourse” for speech. The third group of linguists like Brown & Yule, Nunan, Widdowson, and Cook see discourse as a process and text as a product. Brown & Yule argue that text is the representation of discourse and the verbal record of a communicative act. In this study, we would like to take Widdowson's view point of the difference and the interrelationship between the two as the base: ‘'Discourse is a communicative process by means of interaction. Its situational outcome is a change in state of affairs: information is conveyed, intentions made clear, its linguistic product is Text.” (1984: 100) 2.2.2. Spoken and written discourse
In discourse analysis a distinction is often made between spoken and written discourse. Although there are typical differences between the two, there is also a considerable overlap and a frequent mixture, which has been accelerated by new technology. Analysis of both modes encounters the problem of representing relevant context, but this problem is especially acute in the analysis and transcription of spoken discourse. At present, opinion on the differences between written and spoken discourse is often speculative. Systematic analysis of corpora is beginning to reveal actual differences, as well as those among the various written and spoken genres, and some of this information will be useful for the design of courses for language learners which wish to focus upon one mode or the other. When the distinction between spoken and written discourse refers simply to a difference of mode, in that spoken discourse utilizes sound and written discourse is visual, it is both self-evident and unremarkable. When, more interestingly, an attempt is made to distinguish linguistic or discourses features peculiar to one mode or the other, the distinction becomes more complex. (That differences are not merely determined by the channel of communication is demonstrated by the use of deaf sign languages in conversation.) Spoken communication is widely regarded as typically time-bound, ephemeral, informal ... log in or subscribe to read full text. Spoken and written discourses represent different modes for expressing linguistic meaning. Despite some similarities, these two forms of discourse arc basically different from each other. The major difference between them is taken from the fact that spoken discourse is changeable and written is permanent. Spoken discourse is often less planned and orderly, more open to intervention by the receiver while the written one is well structured and the possibilities for subordinate participants’ are very limited. Brown and Yule (1983) suggest that spoken and written discourse serve various functions: the first is used for the establishment and maintenance of human relationship (interactional use); and the second for the working out of and transference of information (transactional use). 2.2.3.Discourse Analysis Discourse analysis (DA) is a general term for a number of approaches to analyze written, vocal, or sign language use, or any significant semiotic event. The objects of discourse analysis (discourse, writing, conversation, communicative event) are variously defined in terms of coherent sequences of sentences, propositions, speech, or turns-at-talk. Contrary to much of traditional linguistics, discourse analysts not only study language use 'beyond the sentence
boundary' but also prefer to analyze 'naturally occurring' language use, not invented examples. Text linguistics is a closely related field. The essential difference between discourse analysis and text linguistics is that discourse analysis aims at revealing socio-psychological characteristics of a person/persons rather than text structure. Discourse analysis is concerned with the study of the relationship between language and the contexts in which it is used. It grew out of work in different disciplines in the 1960s and early 1970s, including linguistics, semiotics, psychology, anthropology and sociology. Discourse analysts study language in use: Written texts of all kinds, and spoken data, from conversation to highly institutionalized forms of talk. 2.2.4.Context in Discourse Analysis Context Different linguists seek to define context from different point of view in order to answer questions encountered in their own fields, and to support their own ideas and theories. H. G. Widdowson, when focusing his study on language meaning, thought "context" as "those aspects of the circumstance of actual language use which are taken as relevant to meaning” He further pointed out, "in other words, context is a schematic construct., the achievement of pragmatic meaning is a matter
of matching up the linguistic elements of the code with the schematic elements of the context" (H.G. Widdowson, 2000, p.126). When Guy Cook was studying the relationship between discourse and literature, he took "context" into consideration as well. In his definition, context is "knowledge of the world outside language" which helps us to understand and use it to interpret the messages both in spoken and written form and the term "context" can be used in a broad and narrow sense. In the narrow sense, it refers to (knowledge of) factors outside the text under consideration. In the broad sense, it refers to (knowledge of) these factors and to (knowledge of) other parts of the text under consideration, sometimes referred to as "co-text" (Guy Cook, 1999, p. 24). When studying reference and inference, George Yule also took "context” into account. He provided us with a somewhat general definition, “Context is the physical environment in which a word is used (George Yule, 2000, 128). According to Nunan (1993: 10), "context refers to the situation giving rise to the discourse and within which discourse is embedded". Although they are viewed from different perspectives for different purposes, these definitions have an important point in common: one main point of the context is the
environment (circumstances or factors by some other scholars) in which a discourse occur. From those ways of defining context, it can be concluded that context is something that we need to understand the discourse and there is no discourse without context. Context in discourse analysis There exist many definitions of discourse, but the following ones help to make clear understanding of discourse. To Halliday M.A.K & Hassan R„ (1976), "discourse is language that is functionallanguage that is doing some job in some context as opposed to isolated words or sentences. Discourse can be spoken, written or in other medium of expression." "Discourse is a unit of language in use. It is not a grammatical unit, like a clause or
a sentence." "A discourse does not consist of sentences, it is recognized by, or encoded in sentences." Nunan D., 1993 defines discourse as "a stretch of language consisting f several sentences, which are perceived as being related in some way Sentences can be related, not only in terms of the idea they share but terms of the job they perform within the discourse-that is in terms of their functions". From above definition of discourse, we can see that discourse analysis studies language in use: both written texts of all kinds and spoken data from informal to formal speech and it also studies the language phenomena above the sentence level that are influenced by contexts, social phenomena, social relationships as well as cultural factors. Hymes (1962) sees contexts as a limit of the range of possible interpretations, and on the other hand, a supporter of the intended interpretation. He states as follows: Hymes (1962] sees contexts as a limit of the range of possible interpretations, and on the other hand, a supporter of the intended interpretation. He states as follows: "The use of linguistic form identifies a range of meanings. A context can support a range of meanings. When a form is used in a context, it eliminates the meanings possible to that context other than those the form can signal; the context eliminates
from consideration the meanings possible in the form other than those the context can support. "(Hymes, 1962 quoted in Brown and Yules, 1983:38). The mode of context can be represented as follow: Field of discourse is defined as “the total event, in which the text is functioning, together with the purposive activity of the speaker or writer; it thus includes the
subject-matter as one element in it” (Halliday 1994, 22). The field describes activities and processes that are happening at the time of speech. The analysis of this parameter focuses on the entire situation, e.g. when a mother talks to her child. The mode of discourse refers to “the function of the text in the event, including therefore both the channel taken by the language – spoken or written, extempore or prepared – and its [genre], or rhetorical mode, as narrative, didactic, persuasive, ‘phatic communion’ and so on” (Halliday 1994, 22). This variable determines the role and function of language in a particular situation. When analyzing the mode of a text, the main question is ‘What is achieved by the use of language in this context?’ For example, a fairy tale (in written form) may have a narrative or entertaining function. A spoken conversation can be argumentative (in a discussion) or phatic (e.g. to contact someone or to keep in touch with someone). Tenor of discourse (sometimes also referred to as style; Esser 2009, 78) describes the people that take part in an event as well as their relationships and statuses. “The tenor refers to the type of role interaction, the set of relevant social relations, permanent and temporary, among the participants involved” (Halliday 1994, 22.). There might be a specific hierarchy between the interlocutors, e.g. when the head of a business talks to an employee, or they may have only a temporary relationship, e.g. when a person asks an unknown pedestrian for the time. All three variables (field, mode, tenor) taken together enable people to characterize the situational context specifically, and, thus, to recreate part of the language that is being used (Halliday 1994, 22). Halliday provides the following example to explain the significance of collective information about the three parameters: “For instance, if we specify a field such as ‘personal interaction, at the end of the day, with the aim of inducing contentment through recounting of familiar events’, with mode ‘spoken monologue, imaginative narrative, extempore’ and tenor ‘intimate, mother and three-year-old child’, we can reconstruct a great deal of this kind of bedtime story […].” (Halliday 1994). Different linguists give different concepts of register. According to Halliday (1985: 12) “Register may be fined as the variety of a language used in particular situational context”. Moreover, Galperin (1977: 319) suggests that, “a functional style of language is a system of interrelated language means which serves a definite aim in communication”.
This study is concentrating on the concept of cohesion, which is usefully supplemented by that of register. These two elements can be regarded together to effectively define a text. Discourse is a set of utterances which constitute any recognizable speech unit and it is a behavioral unit which has pre-theoretical status in linguistics. It is a general term used in pragmatics to refer to language that has been produced as the result of an act of communication. In another words, it stands for a stretch of language which is unified, meaningful and purposive. Example: conversations, interviews, compositions etc. Discourse can be both spoken and written. The study of spoken and sometimes written discourse is called discourse analysis. To some extents, discourse analysis is considered with – The impact of the selection of grammatical items. The relationship between utterances/sentences in the discourse. The speaker to change, introduce or assert a topic. 2.3 Cohesion in English 2.3.1. The concept of cohesion 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). 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. To summarize, cohesion refers to the linguistic elements that make a discourse semantically coherent; or as Hoa (2000: 23) indicated “cohesion refers to the formal relationship that causes texts to cohere or stick together”. Cohesion and text The concept of cohesion is a semantic one. It refers to relations of meaning that exist within the texts, and that defines it as a text. Cohesion occurs where the interpretation of some element in the discourse is dependent on that of another. The one 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. For example: Time flies… You can’t, they fly too quickly. The first sentence gives no indication of not being a complete text, in fact it usually is, and the humor lies in the misinterpretation that is required if the presupposition from the second sentence is to be satisfied. Here, incidentally, the cohesion is expressed in no less than three ties: the elliptical from you can’t, the reference item they and the lexical repetition fly. Cohesion is a part of the system of a language. The potential for cohesion lies in the systematic resources of reference, ellipsis and substitution. The word “text” is exploited in linguistics to refer to any passage, spoken or written, of whatever length, that does construct a unified whole. According to Widdowson (1979), “a text is a collection of formal objects held together by patterns of equivalence or frequencies or by cohesive devices”. A text may be prose or verse, dialogue or monologue. It may be anything from a single proverb to a whole play, from a momentary cry for help to an all-day discussion on a committee. That is, geographical length is not important for a text,
for example: A single word: “DANGER” on a warning sign. A stretch of language even though not a sentence: “NO SMOKING” printed on a wall. Plays or novels: Hamlet, Great Expectations, etc. A text is a unit of language in use. It is not a lexico-grammatical unit like a clause or a sentence, and it is not defined by size. We cannot mathematically count that a text has two or three or… sentences. A text does not consist of sentences. It is realized by, or encoded in sentences. A text is best regarded as a semantic unit, a unit not of form but of meaning. Thus it is related to a clause or sentences not by size but by realization, the coding of one symbolic system in another. 2.3.2.Classification of cohesion Cohesion is the grammatical and lexical linking within a text or sentence that holds a text together and gives it meaning. It is related to the broader concept of coherence. There are two main types of cohesion: grammatical cohesion, which is based on structural content- and lexical cohesion, which is based on lexical content and background knowledge. A cohesive text is created in many different ways. In Cohesion in English, M.A.K. Halliday and Ruqaiya Hasan identify five general categories of cohesive devices that create coherence in texts: reference, ellipsis, substitution, lexical cohesion and conjunction. Conjunction sets up a relationship between two clauses. The most basic but least cohesive is the conjunction and. Transitions are conjunctions that add cohesion to text and include then, however, in fact, and consequently. Conjunctions can also be implicit and deduced from correctly interpreting the text. Here are two referential devices that can create cohesion: Anaphoric reference occurs when the writer refers back to someone or something that has been previously identified, to avoid repetition. Some examples: replacing "the taxi driver" with the pronoun "he" or "two girls" with "they". Another example can be found in formulaic sequences such as "as stated previously" or "the aforementioned". Cataphoric reference is the opposite of anaphora: a reference forward as opposed to backward in the discourse. Something is introduced in the abstract before it is
identified. For example: "Here he comes, our award-winning host... it's John Doe!" Cataphoric references can also be found in written text. There is one more referential device, which cannot create cohesion: Exophoric reference is used to describe generics or abstracts without ever identifying them (in contrast to anaphora and cataphora, which do identify the entity and thus are forms of endophora): e.g. rather than introduce a concept, the writer refers to it by a generic word such as "everything". The prefix "exo" means "outside", and the persons or events referred to in this manner are never identified by the writer. Halliday and Hasan considered exophoric reference as not cohesive, since it does not tie two elements together into in text. Ellipsis is another cohesive device. It happens when, after a more specific mention, words are omitted when the phrase must be repeated. A simple conversational example: (A) Where are you going? (B) To dance. The full form of B's reply would be: "I am going to dance". A simple written example: The younger child was very outgoing, the older much more reserved. The omitted words from the second clause are "child" and "was". A word is not omitted, as in ellipsis, but is substituted for another, more general word. For example, "Which ice-cream would you like?" – "I would like the pink one," where "one" is used instead of repeating "ice-cream." This works in a similar way with pronouns, which replace the noun. For example, "ice-cream" is a noun, and its pronoun could be "it", as in, "I dropped the ice-cream because it was dirty." The thesis can be examined under two subtypes, grammatical and lexical cohesion. Here below illustrates subtypes of both grammatical and lexical cohesion from the viewpoint of Halliday and Hasan (1976:288, 1976:303-304) which will be taken as the classification basis of the study.
Lexical cohesion refers to the way related words are chosen to link elements of a text. There are two forms: repetition and collocation. Repetition uses the same word, or synonyms, antonyms, etc. For example, "Which dress are you going to wear?" – "I will wear my green frock," uses the synonyms "dress" and "frock" for lexical cohesion. Collocation uses related words that typically go together or tend to repeat the same meaning. An example is the phrase "once upon a time". Lexical cohesion is about meaning in text. It concerns the ways in which lexical items relate to each other and to other cohesive devices so that textual continuity is created. Traditionally, lexical cohesion (along with other types of cohesion) has been investigated in individual texts. With the advent of corpus techniques, however, there is potential to investigate lexical cohesion with reference to large corpora. This collection of papers illustrates a variety of corpus approaches to lexical cohesion. Contributions deal with lexical cohesion in relation to rhetorical structure, lexical bundles and discourse signaling, discourse intonation, semantic prosody, use of signaling nouns, and corpus linguistic theory. The volume also considers implications that innovative approaches to lexical cohesion can have for