TOPIC 29 DISCOURSE ANALYSIS.

COHESION AND COHERENCE.

ANAPHORA AND CATAPHORA.
CONNECTIVES. DEIXIS.

4
TOPIC 29 DISCOURSE ANALYSIS. COHESION AND COHERENCE.

ANAPHORA AND CATAPHORA. CONNECTIVES. DEIXIS.

0. INTRODUCTION

1. DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

2. GRAMMAR WITHIN AND BEYOND THE SENTENCE

3. LANGUAGE IN AND OUT OF CONTEXT

4.- COHESION

COHESIVE DEVICES:

A) Verb form

B) Parallelism

C) Anaphora and cataphora

D) Repetition and lexical chains

E) Substitution

F) Ellipsis

G) Connectives

5.- COHERENCE: COHERENCE ANALYSIS

6.- DEIXIS

6.1 Person

6.2 Place

6.3 Time

6.4 Discourse

6.5 Social

7.- CONCLUSION AND TEACHING IMPLICATIONS

8. - BIBLIOGRAPHY AND WEBLIOGRAPHY

4
TOPIC 29 DISCOURSE ANALYSIS. COHESION AND COHERENCE.

ANAPHORA AND CATAPHORA. CONNECTIVES. DEIXIS.

INTRODUCTION

Discourse analysis examines how stretches of language in full

textual, social and psychological context, become meaningful & unified for
their users. Traditionally, language teaching has concentrated on
pronunciation, grammar and vocabulary, and while these are the basis of FL
knowledge, discourse analysis can draw attention to the skills needed to
put this knowledge into action and to achieve successful communication.
Our aim is to explain the theory of discourse analysis. Then, if it is
not the rules of the sentence that enable us to be meaningful and to perceive
unity what is it?
We must recognize that the ability to formulate grammatical,
correctly bounded sentences, and being able to exploit the formal sentence
grammar is one of the most important elements in order to communicate,
but there is more to producing and understanding meaningful language than
knowing how to produce or recognize correct sentences. Being a
communicator, having what Hymes calls ‘communicative competence’
involves much more.

1. DISCOURSE AND THE SENTENCE

We have, then, 2 different kinds of language for study: one

abstracted in order to study how the rules of language work and another
used to communicate something and which is felt to be coherent (and may
or not correspond to a correct sentence). The latter is called discourse
(language in use); and the search for what gives discourse coherence is
discourse analysis. It is important to notice that the distinction between
these two kinds of language (the artificially constructed and the

4
 communicating) is often more a question of the
way we use or think about a particular stretch of
language, than the way it is in itself.
The two approaches are not mutually
exclusive. Discourse treats the rules of grammar
as a resource, conforming to them only when it
is necessary. What matters is not its conformity to rules, but the fact that it
communicates and is recognized by its receivers as coherent. This leads to
the belief that there is a degree of subjectivity in identifying a stretch of
language as discourse yet in practice discourse is usually perceived as such
by groups.

2. GRAMMAR WITHIN AND BEYOND THE SENTENCE

There are two possible answers to the problem of how we recognize

a stretch of language as meaningful and unified.
One is that we employ language rules of the type that is taught in
textbooks and they operate between and within sentences.
The other is that we employ knowledge -of the world, the speaker, social
convention, of what is going on around us -, in order to make sense of the
language we are encountering. That is the way that coherence is created by
factors outside language.

3. LANGUAGE IN AND OUT OF CONTEXT

When we perceive a linguistic message, we pay attention to many

factors apart from the language itself: to the face, eyes, body, the quality of
the voice, accent, hesitation. These are the paralinguistic features of a
spoken message.
We are also influenced by the situation in which we receive
messages, by our socio-cultural relationship with the participants, by what

4
we know and what we assume the sender knows. These factors take us
beyond the study of language to consider the world at large: the context.
We have, then, two approaches to language: sentence linguistics and
discourse analysis and both need each other. We cannot communicate with
only the rules of semantics and grammar, so we just cannot communicate
very well without them. Let us set up a contrast between the two as
follows:

Sentence linguistics data: Discourse Analysis data:

isolated sentences, any stretch of language felt to be unified,
grammatically well-formed, achieving meaning
without context, in context
invented observed

4. COHESION

Regarding discourse, we need to look at features outside the language:

context, in order to construct stretches of language as discourse, as having a
meaning and a feeling of unity (i.e. coherence).However, the way we
recognize correct & incorrect sentences is through our knowledge of grammar.
We can describe the 2 ways of approaching language as contextual,
referring to facts outside language, and formal, referring to facts inside
language. Stretches of language treated only formally are referred to as text.

Although it is true that we need to consider contextual factors to explain

what it is that creates a feeling of unity (i.e. coherence) in stretches of
language of more than one sentence, we must admit that there are formal links
between sentences in discourse. We will now examine how far these formal
links will go in helping to explain why a succession of sentences is perceived
as discourse and not as a jumble.

4
 Cohesion occurs when the interpretation of
one element in the discourse depends on that of
another. It is, then, a semantic relation, expressed
through the formal organisation of language.

COHESIVE DEVICES

They are formal links between sentences and between clauses.

A) Verb Form
The verb form in one sentence can condition the choice of the verb
form in the next one. And we may be justified in saying that a verb form in
one sentence is “wrong” or “unlikely”, because it does not fit with the form
in another. There seems to be a degree of formal connection between them.
A: Right, who' s goin' to lift the bottom?
Well...come on, someone' s got to take hold of it.

It could be very strange if the exchange had been:

Well...come on, someone had got to take hold of it.

B) Parallelism
Parallelism suggests a connection because the form of one sentence or
clause repeats the form of another. It is often used in speeches, prayers,
poetry and adverts. It can have a powerful emotional effect.
Parallelism does not have to be grammatical; it may be sound
parallelism (rhyme, rhythm) or semantic parallelism (i.e. sentences
meaning the same).

C) Referring expressions (anaphora & cataphora)

4
They can be endophoric (within the text) and exophoric (only found through
the examination of the context: Stop doing that here! I´m trying to work.)

Anaphora & cataphora have to be discovered by referring to other

words or elements of the context which are clear to both sender & receiver. If
someone says ‘So I ate it’, we may well know the meaning of ‘it’ from
somewhere earlier. We chose the most likely meaning from the text. Our
knowledge of ‘it’ is partly formal, though it involves our knowledge of the
world, too. And if the conversation went ‘there was a pineapple on the table.
So I ate it’. We assume that the speaker has eaten the pineapple, not the table.
Anaphora is the common procedure for the identity of
someone/something to be given at the beginning. It points back to some
previous item which is its linguistic reference. This makes a kind of chain. 3rd
person pronouns, this & that, and here & there work in this way. Ambiguity
arises when a demonstrative pronoun can refer to both a previous
noun/sentence.
Mike bought Martha a present. That was nice.
The meaning of a referring expression is not always textual, it can be
contextual. If two people arrive at the door with a piano and say: Where shall
we put it? We can assume that it means the piano. The meaning is not textual,
but contextual (exophoric reference).
Sometimes we are given the pronoun first and then the identity is
revealed later. This is cataphora: It´s true that he works very hard.
Referring expressions fulfil a dual purpose of unifying the text and of
economy, because they save us from repeating.
ANAPHORA points back in discourse and CATAPHORA points
forward.

D) Repetition and lexical chains

4
 Repetition of words can create the same chain as pronouns. We use
‘elegant repetition’ instead, i.e. synonyms or more general words or phrases.
So instead of repeating “the pineapple”, we can use “exotic fruit”, “tropical
luxury”, etc.
However, elegant repetition is not always suitable. It may sound
pretentious in casual conversation or create ambiguity in a legal document.
Lexical chains can also consist of words which are associated by means
of some formal semantic connection : antonyms, hyponyms or terms
belonging to the same semantic field. Good for example, associates with its
opposite bad; animal with any example of an animal, like a horse; violin with
orchestra or which it is a part; or it may be because words are felt to belong to
some more vaguely defined lexical group (rock star; would tour; millionaire;
yatch).

E) Substitution
Another kind of formal link between
sentences is the substitution of words like do,
so or one for a word or group of words which have appeared in an earlier
sentence.
It would be very long-winded if we had always to answer a question like
“do you like mangoes?” with a long answer like “Yes, (I think) I like
mangoes”. It is quicker to say “Yes, I do”.
Much traditional language teaching in its zeal for practising verb tenses
has concentrated exclusively on long answers and deprived students of using
more authentic options.
Substitution can be nominal, verbal and clausal.
a) Nominal: the substitute one/ones always functions as head of a
nominal group, and can substitute only for an item which is itself head of a
nominal group. For example I cut the old trees but I didn´t cut the young ones.

4
 b) Verbal: The verbal substitute in English is do. This operates as head of
a verbal group, in the place occupied by the lexical verb. For example, The
letters didn´t come the same day as they used to do.
c) Clausal substitution: There is one further type of substitution in which
what is presupposed is not an element within the clause but the entire clause.
The words used are so and not. For example: Is there going to be an
earthquake? It says so.

F) Ellipsis
Sometimes we do not need to substitute words or phrases. We can simply
omit them, and the missing part can be constructed successfully. Ellipsis can
be nominal, verbal and clausal.
a) Nominal ellipsis: ellipsis within the nominal group: Four other
students followed them, and yet another four.
b) Verbal ellipsis: ellipsis within the verbal group. We may distinguish
lexical and operator ellipsis. In the lexical ellipsis, the final element in the
verbal group, the lexical verb, is omitted, and preceding elements may be
omitted, all except the initial element, the operator. For example, Have you
been swimming?- Yes I have. In operator ellipsis, the initial element in the
verbal group is omitted, and the following elements may be omitted, all except
the lexical verb. For example: What have you been doing?- Swimming.
c) Under clausal ellipsis we include both types of verbal ellipsis, both
operator and lexical ellipsis since they involve ellipsis that is external to the
verb itself, affecting other elements in the structure of the clause. For example,
instead of answering Would you like a glass of beer? with Yes I would like a
glass of beer, we can just say Yes I would knowing that like a glass of beer
will be understood. Or if someone says What are you doing? we can just
answer Eating a mango instead of I am eating a mango because we know that
I am is understood and does not have to be said.

G) Connectives

4
 They consist of words and phrases which explicitly draw attention to the
type of relationship which exists between one sentence or clause and another.
They are useful to impose a peculiar order to express a thought in an orderly
way.
We shall examine the different types from a
semantic point of view:
1. Addition or coordination. These connectives add
more information to what has already said: and, (and) also, furthermore,
besides, in addition, moreover.
2. Enumeration. They are used to put items in a consecutive order: firstly,
secondly, finally, last, next, to begin with, etc. There can be an order of
increasing or decreasing importance, eg last but not the least or first and
foremost.
3. Reformulation. They can simply introduce a paraphrase of something that
has been said previously: in other words, that is to say, to make it plain, etc.
4. Exemplification. They introduce a relationship between general statements
and particular instances. For example, for instance, especially…
5. Comparison and contrast. They may contrast new information with old
information, or put another side to the argument: like (colloquial), likewise,
similarly, or, on the other hand, however, by contrast, etc.
6. Generalization. These connectives occur when a particular instance/s is
summarized into a generalization: in general, generally (speaking), on the
whole…
7. Connectives of place. They establish a spatial relation between facts: here,
there, where, hence, etc.
8. Connectives of time. They establish a temporal relation between facts:
after, before, while, since, when, as soon as.
9. Connectives of condition establish relations between facts that condition
each other: if, unless, in that case, providing (that), as long as, as.
10. Connectives of cause and reason establish relations between facts in
terms of cause: because, so, for this reason.

4
11. Connectives of result: as a result, in consequence, consequently.
12. Connectives of inference: one can conclude/infer/deduce from, etc.
13. Connectives of purpose: in order to, for this purpose.
14. Connectives of concession: yet, although, but.
Connectives indicate the relationship of utterances in the mind or in the
world and are thus in a way contextual. Besides, these formal links are neither
necessary nor sufficient to account for the unity of discourse. And certain
connectives have more than one potential meaning.
But the connectedness we experience in our interpretation of normal texts
is not simply based on connections between the words. There must be other
factor: coherence.

5. COHERENCE

We must begin by noting that an understanding of language use requires

us to recognize that in the production of a sentence we express a proposition
and in the expressing of a proposition we perform an illocutionary act.
Language use has to do with propositions and the acts they are used to
perform. But propositions combine to form discourse. If we focus on the way
in which sentences are created to ensure that there is a link between the
propositions, then we are concerned with cohesion. Thus we can modify a set
of sentences in a number of ways, so that we can derive a number of texts
from this set. And given a number of cohesive texts, the most acceptable
discourse will be that which is most coherent.
Whereas cohesion has to do with the way propositions are linked
together to form texts, coherence has to do with the illocutionary function of
these propositions, with how they are used to create different kinds of
discourse (descriptions, explanations, and so on). The key to the concept of
coherence is not something which exists in the language, but in people. It´s
people who make sense of what they read and hear. Ex.:

4
 Nancy: That´s the telephone
Ron: I´m in the back.
Nancy: Ok.

There are no cohesive ties, there is something else

involved in the interpretation, a knowledge of how
conversational interaction works.
The reader realizes coherence by recognizing that
the propositions in their form and order can be associated with illocutionary
values which he accepts as appropriate. And where does this sense of
appropriacy come from?
When a child learns a language, in addition to his acquisition of the
formal elements, he learns certain assumptions upon which communication
depends.
(1) The speaker intends to be informative and relevant.
(2) Meanings are not explicitly stated in sentences but have to be inferred.
(3) He learns probabilities in the frequency of occurrence of linguistic
elements.
(4) He learns common patterns of discourse development, beginning with
understanding basic conversational routines.
The sense of appropriacy which enables us to distinguish coherence
derives, then, from knowledge of communicative conventions naturally
acquired. Thus, we recognize that a particular sequence of illocutionary acts is
more familiar than another and so more coherent. Some conventions are
‘common sense’ conventions.

- COHERENCE ANALYSIS According to Van Dijk, our expectations about

semantic structure of discourse are determined by our knowledge of
situations.

4
a) Sequence Ordering.
We now analyse the relationship between fact ordering and sequence
ordering. According to the linguist “if sentences denote facts, sequences of
sentences would denote sequences of facts”. In most cases the structure of
both sequences is less straightforward because:
1. A discourse usually mentions only a small part of the
facts.
2. The ordering of facts may have a different order in the
discourse due to pragmatic and cognitive constraints.
3. Sometimes facts are spatially or hierarchically ordered and
not always linearly ordered (as when we emphasize particular parts through
initial position, intonation, passive voice).

b) The topic.
The establishment and continuity of what we are talking about is crucial
for coherence. The topic has to make sense and be understood in the socio-
cultural context.
The statements of a discourse must be linked in a common topic.
Statements can: introduce, keep and recover an old topic. The topic can be
established in an explicit way, through a direct Q or in an implicit way by
repeating words from the same semantic field.
The notions ‘topic of conversation’ & ‘topic of discourse’ are often used
in order to define connectedness of sentences and coherence of discourse,
assuming that such topics are to be defined in terms of prepositions.

6. DEIXIS

According to Fillmore deixis designates the formal properties which are

determined by certain aspects of the communication act. We will also follow
Huddleston & Pullum when dealing with deixis.

4
6.1- PERSON DEIXIS refers to the identity of the interlocutors in a
communication situation.

6.2- PLACE DEIXIS indicates the place(s) in which the interlocutors are
located. The most common are ‘here’ & ‘there’ and the demonstratives
‘this/these, that/those’. They can be used in 3 different ways:
1. Gestural. We have to know where the speaker is pointing.
2. Symbolic. As when in a telephone conversation the caller asks: ‘Is Liz
there?’
3. Anaphoric. As when ‘there’ refers to a place which has been identified
earlier.
Deictic place adverbs have a two-way contrast: this (the location of the
speaker, or the speaker and addressee as a group) versus that (the addressee’s
location, different from that of the speaker).

6.3 - TIME DEIXIS indicates the time of the communication act. The
encoding time is the time at which the message is sent, and the decoding
time the time at which the message is received.
‘Now’ indicates something occurring simultaneously with the speech act
or which includes that moment.
Time periods located earlier or later than the *coding time require
adverbs like recently, two days ago; and later on respectively.

6.4- DISCOURSE DEIXIS refers to the matrix of linguistic material within

which the utterance has a role, which is the preceding and following parts of
the discourse. There are expressions like ‘the former’, ‘the preceding’, ‘the
following’. The more formal the discourse, the more markers may be needed.
In written discourse, we can find ‘above’ or ‘below’.
- SOCIAL DEIXIS is very important in the analysis of conversations. It
studies the social situation of speech acts. Fillmore distinguishes 2 types of
analysis:

4
  The external analysis of conversation deals with the moment when the
participant decides to contribute to the conversation, how he gains the
attention of the other participant(s), how he changes the topic and so
on.
 The internal analysis is about how the participants contribute to the
conversation and determines the social relationships, and the different
levels of speech: polite, intimate, insulting, etc. This is reflected in the
names, titles and kinship terms according to the relationships among
the speakers, the audience and the person referred to. This description
includes personal deixis.

7. CONCLUSION AND TEACHING INFERENCE

Teachers can use discourse analysis not only as a research method for the
investigation of their teaching practices but also as a tool for studying
interactions among language learners. Learners can benefit from using
discourse analysis to *what explore language and how it is used to achieve
communicative goals in different contexts. Thus, discourse analysis can help
to create a L2 learning environment that reflects how language is used and
encourages learners to have proficiency.
Even with the most communicative approaches, the L2 or FL classroom is
limited to develop learners’ communicative competence in the TL due
minimal opportunities for interacting with native speakers and limited
exposure to the variety of functions, genres and speech events.
By following a four-part process of Record-View-Transcribe-Analyze,
*L2 and FL teachers can use discourse analytic techniques to
investigate the interaction patterns through the different
activities and tasks in the classroom to promote as many
opportunities as possible for the use of the TL and the students’
language development.

4
8. BIBLIOGRAPHY AND WEBLIOGRAPHY

- Cook, Guy “Discourse”. O.U.P. 1989

- Huddleston R. & Pullum G.K., A Student´s Introduction to English
Grammar, C.U.P., 2005.
- Van Dijk, T.A. Text and Context. Explorations in the Semantic and
Pragmatics of Discourse. Longman. 1980
- Widdowson, H.G. Discourse Analysis, OUP, 2007

- http://www.linguisticsociety.org/resource/discourse-analysis-what-speakers-do-conversation

- https://sites.google.com/a/sheffield.ac.uk/all-about-linguistics/branches/discourse-analysis/

what-is-discourse-analysis