2.2 Discourse Analysis
2.2.3 Systematic Functional Garmmar
Halliday (1961) developed systematic functional grammar based on the research of J.R. Firth and the Prague School.
Halliday argued that the form of language is presented based on the functional structure by grammatical patterns. He referred to his functions of language as
32
metafunctions, and subcategorizes them into three general functions: the ideational, the interpersonal and the textual.
The ideational metafunction, which we use to explain the “reality”, is the function for interpreting human experience. Halliday further divided the ideational function into two functions: the logical metafunction and the experiential metafunction. The former referred to the grammatical essences that could combine grammatical units to complex structures, and the latter referred to the grammatical essences involved in reasoning the human experience through the unit of the clause.
The interpersonal metafunction describes the relationship to a text’s aspects of tenor or interactivity. It was the language use of speakers to participate in social activities, express their attitudes, make judgements, and interact with people.
The textual metafunction dealt with the internal structure and the meaning delivery of a text. The interactivity in a text, spontaneity of the idea exchange and the distance of communication were included in this domain. It enabled a language to function in specific contexts, and achieve the ideational metafunction and the interpersonal metafunction through the use of a language.
He proposed three textual functions: cohesion, information structure, and thematic structure. Cohesion was a textual function concerning the coherent relationship among sentences. He argued that linguistics needed to focus not only on the thematic organization of sentences, but also on the relationship between sentences and discourse.
Information structure and thematic structure were textual functions discussed at the sentential level. The former was the study of how speakers structured sentences to convey new information linked to the preceding context by old information. The latter consisted of two elements, the Theme and the Rheme. The Theme, which was the point of departure of the message, was usually what the clause was concerned about. The
33
Rheme, which was the remainder of the message, provided information about the Theme.
This study analyzed students’ discourse errors based on the three discourse functions mentioned above: cohesion, information structure, and thematic structure. The following was the literature review of the three aspects.
2.2.3.1 Cohesion
Cohesion is the grammatical and lexical relationship within a text or a sentence. It is the use of explicit linguistic devices to signal the relationship between sentences and parts of texts to hold a whole text together.
Halliday and Hasan (1976) maintained that coherence was what linked the discourse semantically. A text was different from a non-text due to its “texture” (p. 1), which was formed by the cohesive ties contributed to the whole unity. In other words, cohesion, which was explicitly presented, signaled underlying semantic relationships among the components of a text. In addition, Halliday and Hasan (1976) argued that a text was a passage of discourse which was coherent in the following two aspects. First, it was coherent in terms of the context of the whole article; thus, it would be consistent in register. Second, it was coherent itself; hence, the text was cohesive.
Further, they identified five general categories of cohesive devices that signaled a coherent relationship in a text. They were reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction, and lexical cohesion. Reference, substitution, and ellipsis were grammatical; lexical cohesion was lexical; conjunction stands on the border line between the two categories.
The sections that follow will discuss the five cohesive devices.
34
Reference
Reference refers to specific linguistic elements which cannot be interpreted semantically. Instead, it makes reference to something else within a discourse (Halliday
& Hasan, 1994).
(35) Sally preferred the company of herself.
(Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) In (35), the subject of the second sentence “herself” referred back to the subject of the sentence “Sally”.
Halliday and Hasan (1994) also distinguished several types of references as figure 1 shows:
Figure 1 Types of Reference (Halliday & Hasan 1994: 33)
Exophoric reference was used to describe unconcrete existences that could not be found in a given text; thus, it was not considered cohesive. In contrast to exophoric reference, endophoric reference related to something within a given text (Halliday &
Hasan, 1994).
35 (36) Mike: Hey John, did you just see that?
John: Yes, that was amazing.
(Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) In (36), “that” used as a reference item in the conversation was abstract; therefore, it could not be explicitly identified. To put it differently, it could not be retrieved from elsewhere in the text since it described something outside the text.
In contrast, endophoric reference was employed to refer to something within the text. It could be either anaphoric or cataphoric. Anaphoric reference was aimed to avoid repetition by referring back to someone or something that had been previously identified. The example could be found in (35) in which “herself” referred back to
“Sally” in the preceding sentence. Cataphoric reference occurred when something was introduced in the abstract form before it was identified.
(37) There it is, my so much admired watch.
(Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) In (37), “it” refers forward to a specific element within the subsequent text.
Ellipsis
Ellipsis was another cohesive device. It was characterized by “the omission of an item” to avoid repetition (Halliday & Hasan, 1994: 88). It was a relation within the text, and the presupposed item usually occurred in the preceding text (Halliday & Hasan, 1994).
(38) Mary ate some chocolate chip cookies, and Robert [blank] some gummy bears.
(Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) In (38), the predicator “ate” is omitted in the second part of the sentence; however,
36
it is presupposed because it is present in the first half of the sentence. The ellipsis is optional.
Three different types of ellipsis were distinguished: nominal ellipsis, verbal ellipsis, and clausal ellipsis. Examples of these subclasses are given below.
a. nominal ellipsis:
(39) All photos were taken between 1980 and 1981 and nearly all (the photos) were shot in the vicinity of Petticoat Lane.
(Christopher, 2003: 353) In (39), “nearly all” was used with ellipsis of “the photos”.
b. verbal ellipsis:
(40) “Have you noticed?” “Yes, dear, of course I have (noticed).”
(41) It might be true that Rose was the father. It might not (be true).
(Christopher, 2003: 353) In (40) and (41), ellipsis of the lexical verb was used: “noticed” in the first sentence, and “be true” in the second sentence.
c. clausal ellipsis:
(42) “Bob is going to fly to Finland. I can tell (that he is going to fly to Finland) from his expression.”
(Christopher, 2003: 354) In (42), the clausal complement of “tell” was ellipted.
Subsititution
Substitution was the process in which one word within a text or discourse was substituted for another, more general word (Halliday & Hasan, 1994).
(43) Jack’s car is very old and ugly. He should get a nicer one.
37
(Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) Example (43) showed this cohesive relationship in which the word “car” was replaced by the word “one”.
The difference between reference and substitution is that the substituted items are always exchangeable by the items they refer to. In contrast, with reference the presupposed items can almost never replace the specific linguistic elements which refer to them. Examples appear below:
(44) John goes fishing every other week. John is a very good fisherman.
(45) *There watch is, my so much admired watch.
(46) Jack’s car is very old and ugly. He should get a nicer car.
(from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) In example (44), “he” could not be replaced by “John” because that would create ambiguity that the reader could be confused if the two “John” were the same person. As for example (45), it was incorrect to replace “it” with “watch”. However, in example (46), it was completely appropriate to replace “one” with “car” without changing the meaning of the sentence.
Halliday and Hasan (1994) provided further subcategories of substitution, including nominal substitution, verbal substitution, and clausal substitution. Nominal substitution referred to the replacement of a noun by “one, ones, same”, as illustrated in (47). Verbal substitution referred to the replacement of a verb by “do”, as shown in (48). Clausal substitution was the replacement of a clause by “so” and “not”, as in (49) (p. 90).
a. nominal substitution: one, ones, the same.
(47) There are many backpacks here. Which one is yours?
38
b. verbal substitution: do.
(48) I like reading and my sister does.
c. clausal substitution: so, not.
(49) Q: Is Tom coming to the party?
A: I hope so.
(Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
Conjunction
Different from other types of cohesive ties, conjunctions are not aimed to point to some specific items in the preceding or following text, but to express certain meanings which presuppose the presence of other components in the discourse (Halliday & Hasan, 1994).
Conjunctions set up a relationship between two clauses. They combine the presented elements into a logical order by relating those linguistic elements to each other (Halliday & Hasan, 1994). Four types of conjunctions are distinguished: additive, adversative, causal, and temporal. The following examples illustrate different types of conjunctive cohesion.
a. additive relations
The words “and”, “or” and “nor” are used cohesively as conjunctions to form the additive relations.
(50) I couldn’t send all the horses, you know, because two of them are wanted in the game. And I haven’t sent the two Messengers either.
(Halliday & Hasan, 1976: 246) Semantic similarity is formed by using the words “similarly”, “likewise”, “in the
39
same way” to show that more details are given to reinforce the point.
(51) Your directors are planning for steady growth over a considerable period of time.
Similarly our intentions in adopting this new investment policy are focused on the long-term prospects of the company.
(Halliday & Hasan, 1976: 247) Besides semantic similarity, dissimilarity can also be indicated by connectives, such as “on the other hand”, “by contrast”, and “as opposed to this”.
(52) Our garden didn’t do very well this year. By contrast, the orchard is looking very healthy.
(Halliday & Hasan, 1976: 247) Another type of additive relation shows exposition or exemplification relation, such as “to put it another way”, “I mean”, “in other words”, “that is”, “that is to say”,
“thus”, “for instance”, and “for example”.
(53) I wonder whether that statement can be backed up by adequate evidence. In other words, you don’t believe me.
(Halliday & Hasan, 1976: 248) b. adversative relations
An adversative relation is based on the opposite of expectation. The conjunctions include “but”, “however”, “yet”, and “although”. It can also function against the previous content. Some expressions used for this relation are “on the contrary”, “at least”, “rather”, and “instead”.
(54) He showed no pleasure at hearing the news. Instead he looked even gloomier.
(Halliday & Hasan, 1976: 254) Another adversative relation “presupposes that some circumstances have been referred to which are then dismissed as irrelevant” (Halliday & Hasan, 1976: 254). “In any/either case/event”, “whether...or not”, “any/either way”, and “anyhow” are
40
included.
(55) We may be back tonight; I’m not sure. Either way, just make yourselves at home.
(Halliday & Hasan, 1976: 254)
c. causal relations
Causal relations may show result, reason, or purpose. Expressions showing this type of causal relation are: “hence”, “thus”, “so”, “accordingly”, “therefore”,
“consequently”, “because of that”, “as a result (of that)”, “in consequence (of that)”, and etc.
d. temporal relations
Halliday and Hasan (1976) argued that the relationship between two successive sentences might be associated with time. This relation was expressed by using connectives, such as “then”, “and then”, “next”, “afterwards”, “after that”, and
“subsequently”. The temporal relationship could also be expressed by a series of conjunctions, such as the following example shows:
(56) Obrecht subjects his cantus firmus to the most abstruse manipulations. First, he extracts all the longs from the tune, and strings them together in succession; then he does the same with the breves, and finally with the semibreves. He then reverses this procedure, starting with the shorter values first.
(Halliday & Hasan, 1976: 263) Connectives used to mark the end of a process is also categorized in this domain:
“at last”, “finally”, “in the end”, and “eventually”.
(57) All this time the Guard was looking at her, first through a telescope, then through a microscope, and through an opera-glass. At last he said “You’re travelling the wrong way,” and shut up the window and went away.
41
(Halliday & Hasan, 1976: 263)
Lexical Cohesion
Halliday and Hasan (1994) proposed that lexical cohesion was achieved by the selection and use of vocabulary. Two subcategories were divided: one was reiteration, the other was collocation. Reiteration pertained to the repetition of a lexical item by either directly repeating the words or using the synonyms, a superordinate or a generally related word. For example, “a boy” could be replaced in the following sentences with
“the boy” (the same word), “the lad” (a synonym/near-synonym), “the child” (a superordinate), and “the idiot” (a general word) (Halliday & Hasan 1976: 279–80). As for collocation, Halliday and Hasan (1976) argued that any two lexical items tending to appear in similar context would generate a cohesive force if they occurred in adjacent sentences.
2.2.3.2 Information Structure and Thematic Structure
Halliday and Hasan (1976, 1990) suggested that a clause consisted of two segments: the theme and the rheme. The theme was the given information serving as
“the point of departure” of a message, and the rheme was the remainder of the message in a clause in which the theme was developed. Moreover, the theme typically contained familiar, old or given information, and the rheme contained unfamiliar or new information.
Baker (1992) indicated that as a cohesive device, the theme had two functions.
First, it acted as a point of orientation by connecting back to the previous content of the text. Second, it also served as a point of departure by connecting forward to the following content of the discourse. As for the rheme, it was usually the important message the speaker wanted to deliver. Thus, it was the most important element in the
42
structure of the clause as a message.
Therefore, the theme-rheme distinction was realized by the sequential ordering of clause elements. Furthermore, the thematic structure was sender-oriented. In other words, the message was divided into two segments: the theme was the information which the speaker considered as already known to the receiver, and the rheme was the common ground the speaker used to develop and relate new information. The order of delivering messages was often recommended to writers since it was the unmarked order (Vande, 1986).
However, information structure was receiver-oriented. A topic was formed when the theme was old information, and a comment was structured when the rheme was new information (Halliday 1970). Thus, the topic in the information was treated as already known to the hearer, and the comment was called “focus” since the new information was important to the hearer.
End-focus referred to the placing of the most important information in a sentence at the end. Hence, end-focus was a normal characteristic of sentence structure. In speech, the focus was realized by nuclear pitch, which typically fell on the last stressed syllable (Leech & Svartvik, 1975). Chen (2010) provided several examples to explain the function of end-focus.
(58) 屢敗屢戰 Lǚ bài lǚ zhàn
Despite of setback, continue to fight.
(59) 屢戰屢敗 Lǚ zhàn lǚ bài To lose every time.
（Chen, 2010b: 45）
43
Example (58) and (59) have different meanings: the first one is positive while the second one is negative. The semantic difference is due to speaker’s intentions to put the focus “zhàn” or “bài” at the end of the sentence. In (58), the focus is “zhàn”; therefore, it emphasizes his spirit of never giving up. In contrast, the focus in (59) is “bài”, stressing the person’s incessant failure.
Chen further provided the following example to illustrate the end-focus principle.
(60) 花園飛滿蜜蜂．
Huāyuán fēi mǎn mìfēng.
The garden is filled with bees.
(61) 蜜蜂飛滿花園．
Mìfēng fēi mǎn huāyuán.
The bees filled the garden.
（Chen, 2010b: 47）
According to the principle of economy, speakers do not use different language structures or forms to express the same meaning. Therefore, example (60) and (61) absolutely provide different functions. Chinese is a topic-prominent language whose main function is to introduce the topic, and relate new information based on the topic. It includes the information structure from the old information to the new one. In (60), “the garden” is the old information, and the end of the comment “the bee” is the new information, the focus of the sentence. The situation is the same in example (61).
Chen presented further evidence that consisted of the old and new information to illustrate the principle.
(62) A：我待會兒想去花園散散步．
B：勸你不要去．
44 A：為什麼？
B：因為花園飛滿蜜蜂，萬一去了被叮得滿頭包可怎麼得了？
A: Wǒ dàihuìér xiǎng qù huāyuán sànsàn bù.
B: Quàn nǐ búyào qù.
A: Wèishéme?
B: Yīnwèi huāyuán fēi mǎn mìfēng, wànyī qù le bèi dīng de mǎntóu bāo kě zěnmedéliǎo?
A: I want to go for a walk in the garden later.
B: I don’t think you should go.
A: Why?
B: Because the garden is filled with bees. What happened if you got bitten hard?
（Chen, 2010b: 48）
“The garden” is the topic two people are talking about; therefore, B uses the old information “it” to develop the new information “the bee”.