'Cohesion '

6. I . I
Halliday & Hasan take the view that the primary determi-
nant of whether a set of sentences do ordo_not-c~~nstitute a text
The nature of reference in text and depends on cohesive relationships within and between the sent-
in discourse ences, which c r - t e x t u r e e ~ ' A
text has texture and this is what
distinguishes it from something that is not a text. . . . The texture
is provided by the cohesive RELATION' (1976: 2). Cohesive
relationships within a text are set up 'where the INTERPRETA-
T I O N of some element in the discourse is dependent on that of
another. The one PRESUPPOSES the other in the sense that it
In the last chapter we were largely concerned with considering the cannot be effectively decoded except by recourse to it' (1976: 4). A
structure of small formal chunks of language, particularly nominal paradigm example of such a cohesive relationship is given (1976:
expressions, and exploring the ways in which particular forms in 2) :
English have come to be associated with a particular information
status. These formal structures constitute cues for the hearer I (1) Wash and core six cooking apples. Put them into a fireproof
reader as to how the speaker I writer intends the discourse to be dish.
interpreted. Of this text they say: 'It is clear that them in the second sentence
We begin this chapter by considering how large chunks of refers back to (is ANAPHORIC to) the six cooking apples in the
language come to be interpreted as texts. We examine the formal first sentence. This ANAPHORIC function of them gives cohesion
expressions, some of which were discussed in Chapter 5, which are to the two sentences, so that we interpret them as a whole; the two
available to the speaker I writer as cues to signal explicitly how parts sentences together constitute a text' (1976: 2).
of the discourse are to be interpreted, particularly anaphoric Halliday & Hasan outline a taxonomy of types of cohesive
expressions. We then go on to consider the central question of what relationships which can be formally established within a text,
it means to refer in discourse. providing cohesive 'ties' which bind a text together. We shall only
briefly outline these here.
6. I What is 'text'? A familiar type of explicitly marked cohesive relationship in texts
We have proceeded in this book with the rather simple is indicated by formal markers which relate what is about to be said
account of what constitutes a text which we gave, with accompany- to what has been said before - markers like and, but, so and then.
ing caveats, in Chapter I . Text, we said, is the verbal record of a Halliday & Hasan provide an extended, often illuminating, discus-
communicative event. A number of authors have been concerned to sion of the relationships indicated by such markers, together with
provide a tighter, more formal account of how speakers of English an extended taxonomy. The taxonomy of types of explicit markers
come to identify a text as forming a text (cf. for example van Dijk, of conjunctive relations is exemplified in (2).
1972; Gutwinski, 1976; de Beaugrande, 1980; de Beaugrande &
(2) a. additive: and, or, furthermore, similarly, in
Dressler, 1981; Halliday & Hasan, 1976.) These authors are addition
concerned with the principles of connectivity which bind a text b. adversative: but, however, on the other hand,
together and force co-interpretation. In this section we shall give a nevertheless
brief outline of the account provided by Halliday & Hasan (1976) c. causal: so, consequently, for this reason,
it follows from this
since this is by far the most comprehensive treatment ofjhe *ct d. temporal: then, after that, an hour later, finally,
and has become the standard text in this area at last
Reference in text and discourse 6.1 What

It is, of course, not the case that any one of these formal markers (4) Types of co-reference relation
stands in a simple one-to-one relationship with a particular cohesive
relation: and, for example, can occur between sentences which a. exo~hora: Look at that. (that =
exhibit any one of the four relationships mentioned in (2). Neither b. endophora:
(i) anaphoric - Look at the sun. It's going down quickly.
is it the case that the posited relationships cannot be held to exist in
,- refers back to the sun.)
(It
the absence of formal markers. Consider the following extract from (ii) cataphoric - It's going down quickly, the sun.
a letter: (It refers forwards to the sun.)

(3) We ended up going for a drink and then a meal in a Bernie's In the last two examples, the relationship of co-reference was
Inn. Returned chez Jane for coffee and talk. Bed about illustrated as holding between a full lexical expression the sun and a
midnight. pronominal expression it. The same relationship can also be posited
Although the sequential nature of the events is only explicitly to hold between other forms as exemplified in (5). (In each case
pointed to by the then between going for a drink and a meal in a the co-reference relationship exemplified here is anaphoric, hence
Bernie's Inn, it is clearly implied, though not stated, in the endophoric.)
subsequent sequence of events. Halliday & Hasan recognise that 'it (5) a. Repeated form: The Prime Minister recorded her thanks to
is the underlying semantic relation . . . that actually has the the Foreign Secretary. The Prime Minister was most elo-
cohesive power' (1976: 229), rather than the particular cohesive quent.
b. Partially repeated form: Dr E. C. R. Reeve chaired the
marker. Nonetheless, they insist that it is the presence of the meeting. Dr Reeve invited Mr Phillips to report on the state
cohesive markers which constitutes 'textness'. of the gardens.
T h e cohesive relationship which particularly interests them is c. Lexical replacement: Ro's daughter is ill again. The child is
that which they discuss under the headings reference, substitution, hardly ever well.
ellipsis and lexical relationships. Since their use of the term d. Pronominal form: Ro said she would have to take Sophie to
the doctor.
reference is particular to them, we shall immediately substitute for e. Substituted form: Jules has a birthday next month. Elspeth
it the term co-reference (reference in a more orthodox interpreta- has one too.
tion will be discussed in 6.2). Co-referential forms are forms which f. Ellided form: Jules has a birthday next month. Elspeth has
'instead of being interpreted semantically in their own right . . . too.
make reference to something else for their interpretation' (1976: I n the last two cases the structure itself, 'the fundamental relation
31). These forms direct the hearer 1 reader to look elsewhere for between parts of a text', (1976: 143) forces the reader, when he
their interpretation. Where their interpretation lies outside the text, encounters substitution or ellipsis, back into the text to look for a
in the context of situation, the relationship is said to be an previous expression to substitute, in the case of substitution, or to
exophoric relationship which plays no part in textual cohesion provide, in the case of ellipsis. (It should be stressed that ellipsis is
(1976: 18). Where their interpretation lies within a text, they are a formal notion which does not simply apply to anything which
called endophoric relations and do form cohesive ties within the happens to be left unsaid, see Halliday & Hasan, 1976: 142ff., and a
text. Endophoric relations are of two kinds: those which look back particularly helpful discussion in Matthews, 1982: 38ff.) Halliday
in the text for their interpretation, which Halliday & Hasan call & Hasan see these two types as involving 'relatedness of form'
anaphoric relations, and those which look forward in the text for whereas the other examples involve 'relatedness of reference' (1976:
their interpretation, which are called cataphoric relations. These 304), which provides 'continuity of lexical meaning' within a text
relationships are exemplified in (4) : (1976: 3-20).
Reference in text a n d discourse

Cohesion within a text can of course be provided by relationships sufficient to guarantee identification as a text? A subsidi
other than those involving co-reference, which are the ones we have tion which follows on from the second question is: if
chosen to illustrate. Cohesion may be derived from lexical rela- identified by these criteria, will they guarantee textual coherence?
tionships like hyponymy (dafodil is a hyponym of flower), part- Is it necessary for a text to reveal at least some of the features of
whole ( a m is part of a man), collocability (Monday relates to cohesion which we have been discussing in order for it to be
Tuesday), by further structural relationships like clausal substitu- identified as a text? Halliday & Hasan appear to suggest that it is.
tion (Sarah is very fond of Rachel. So am I), comparison (My They acknowledge that the notion of cohesion needs to be 'sup-
thumb is stronger than that hammer), by syntactic repetition (We plemented' by a notion of 'register' (appropriateness to a particular
came in. They came in), by consistency of tense, by stylistic choice context of situation) but, they say:
(The gentleman encountered a n acquaintance vs The guy met up the concept of cohesion accounts for the essential semantic relations
with this bloke he knows) and so on. Some aspects of cohesion are whereby any passage of speech or writing is enabled to function as a text.
exemplified in (6). We can systematize this concept by classifying it into a small number of
Lord Melbourne, who was Prime Minister when Victoria distinct categories . . . Each of these categories is represented in the text
(6)
became Queen in 1837, did not like birdsong and could not by particular features . . . which have in common the property of
distinguish a woodlark from a nightingale. He preferred the signalling that the interpretation of the passage in question depends on
singing of blackbirds anyway; best of all he liked the cawing of something else. If that 'something else' is verbally explicit, then there is
rooks and could watch them for hours as they circled at sunset. cohesion. There are, of course, other types of semantic relation associated
Victoria was surprised by this: she disliked their grating and with a text which are not embodied in this concept; but the one that it does
insistent calling. embody is in some ways the most important, since it is common to text of
(Marina Warner, Queen Victoria's Sketchbook, every kind and is, in fact, what makes a text a text. (1976: 13)
Macmillan, 1979, p. 77) An important distinction needs to be drawn, which many
We can observe a number of co-referential chains: students adopting Halliday & Hasan's approach have failed to draw,
a. Lord Melbourne - Prime Minister - 0 - He - he - 0 and which Halliday & Hasan themselves are somewhat ambivalent
(7)
b. Victoria - Queen - Victoria - she about, as this quotation reveals. This is the distinction between the
c. rooks - them - they - their 'meaning relations' which hold between items in a text and the
We can also observe chains of lexical collocation: explicit expression of those 'meaning relations' within a text. This is
a distinction which we have already mentioned in our discussion of
(8) a. birdsong - woodlark - nightingale - blackbirds - rooks
b. birdsong - singing - cawing - calling
conjunctive relations: 'it is the underlying semantic relation . ..
which actually has the cohesive power'. Few would dispute that it is
There is an instance of an adversative marker (anyway), compari- necessary that such relations be postulated within a discourse which
son (preferred, best of all), a pronominal expression referring back is capable of being interpreted coherently. What is questionable,
to the content of the previous clause (Victoria was surprised by however, is whether the explicit realisation of these relations is
this), consistent tense, and repeated negative structure (did not, required to identify a text as a text. Halliday & Hasan appear to
could not). We might add the effect of the special punctuation insist that such explicit realisation is necessary when they make
marks (;) and (:) which indicate a relationship between what has statements like 'A text has texture, and this is what distinguishes it
been said and what is about to be said, just as verbal markers of from something which is not a text' (1976: z ) , and 'cohesive ties
conjunctive relations do. between sentences stand out more clearly because they are the
Most texts will reveal some cohesive structuring of this kind. ONLY source of texture' (1976: 9). In such statements they
Two main questions need to be asked. First, is such cohesion to be talking of verbal elements which appear in the verbal r
necessary to the identification of a text? Secondly, is such cohesion not of underlying semantic relations.