Chapter 8 The analysis of cohesion

Chapter 8 The analysis of cohesion In this concluding chapter we suggest a mechod for the analysis of coh<>- sion in a text. First there is a brief discussion of the principles of analysis (8.I); next. a coding scheme for the various types of cchesion (8.z). and £inally .an analysis of seven short passages of text. 8. I General principles The basic concept that is employed in analysing the cohesion of a text is that of the TIE, already discussed in Chapter I. A tie is a complex notion, because it includes not only the cohesive dement itself but also that which is presupposed by it. A tie is best interpreted as a 'RE-LATION 'between these two elements. A tie is thus a. relational concept. It is also DIRECTIONAL; the relation is an asymmetric one. It may go either way: the direction may be ana-- phoric. with tbe presupposed eletnent preceding. or cataphoric. with the presupposed element fOllowing. The typkal.fuection. as has been illus- trated throughout the discussion, is the anaphoric one; it is natural, after all to presuppose what has already gone rather than what is to follow. But this is not to say the presupposition will necessarily be aimed at the immediately preceding sentence. It often is. aod this is pechaps the sim~ lest form that cohesion takes: a single tie between a pair of elements in adjacent sentences, with the second of the pair presupposing the first while the fim does not presnpproe anything else in its turn. Most of the examples we have cited have been of this kind, if only for the sake of brevity. But although this can reasonably be regarded as the paradigm form of a co- hesive tie. actual instances of cohesion are typicaDy somewhat more corn- pi= In the lint place, as has frequendy been brought ont. any senrence may have more than one tie in it. This is in f.tct the usual pa~m in connected

330 THE ANALYSIS OF COH£SlON texts:, of whatever variety. Even such a short sentence as the second one in [8: 1], which at first ~i.ght seems to contain only one tie~ has in fact two, since in addition to the reference item it, presupposing the plan, there is lexical cohesion of succeed and try: {8: 1] A little provoked, she drew back: and, after looking everywhere for the Queen (whom she spied out at last, a long way off), she thought she would try the pi~ this time. of walking in the opposite direction. It s:w:ceeded beautifully. In the second place, however, the form of cohesive ties may diverge from the simple; idealized type in either, or both, of two ways. (i) The presupposed item may be not in the inunediatdy preceding sentence, but in somr; sentence that is: more distant in the past. (ii) The presupposee item may itself be cohesive, presupposing another item that is still further back; in this way there may be a whole chain of presuppositions before the original target item is reached. The following passage exemplifies both these points: [8:2] The last word ended in a long b1eat. so like a sheep that Alice quite started {r). She 1ook:ed at the Queen, who seemed to have sud- denly wrapped herself up in wool (a). Alice rubbed her eyes, and looked again (3). She couldn't make out what had happened at all (4). Was she in a shop (5)? And was that really- was it really a sheep that was sitting on the other side of the counter (6)? Rub .as she would, she could make nothing more of it (7). In sentence (2), the she refers to Alice in sentence (r). This is the simplest form of presupposition, relating the sentence to that which immediately precedes it; we shall refer to this as an IMMEDIATE tie. Similarly the she in (4) refers to the Alice in (J). But the she in (.5) has as the target of its presup- position another instance of she. that in (4-); and in order to resolve it we have to follow this through to the OCCUITence ofAlice in sentence (3). We shall can this type a MEDIATED tic. It is not necessary that the media- ting items should always be the same. although in this case the item mediating between she in (5) and Alice in {3) is. in fact, another instance of she. It might have been another form of the personal (eg: her), or another rype of cohesive element altogether (eg: tlu: poor thing). Now consider the clause Rub as she would, in (7). Here we have an instance oflexical cohesion. and it is interesting to note that it is necessary to resolve this tie in order for the passage to be undentood. Taken by it-

8.1 GENBRAL PRINCIPLES 331 self. rub as .$he would is uninterpretable; if one met it out of context. one would probably expect something to f-ollow such as We c<JUJd not get it ro shine. Here it must cohere with Alice rubhetl her eyes. This. however. is in sentence (3-), and there are no intermediate references to the rubbing of the eyes. Here we have what we shall call a REMOTE tie; and the distance be- tween the two items can be very much greater than this. especially in spoken language where a tie often spans large numbers of intervening =ten= Finally, a tie may be BOTH mediated AND remote. For example, the she in M::ntence (7) presupposes nothing in (6) but refers hack to sentence (5); hence the tie is remote. At the same time the presupposed item in (5) is agam she, which has to be fOllowed through to the she in (4) and linally to the .A./ice in (3), so it is also mediated. This again is quite typical ofbotb speech and writing. with a tendency for the more informal modes of dis- course to be the more complex, as they are also .in sentence structure. When analysing a teXt for cohesion, i.t is wefol to note not only the type of tie - whether immediate or not; and if not immediate, whether mediated, remote, or both - hut also the distance separating t:h.e presup- posing from the presupposed. Hence if an instance is coded as mediated, this can he-accompanied by a figure indicating the number of intermediate sentences which participate in the chain of cohesio~ having in them an item which is both presupposed and presupposing, like the she in (4). If an instance is coded as remote, there can again be an .accompanying figure. this time showing the number of sentences separating the presupposing from the presupposed while not themselves participating in the presup- position. So the 5he in sentence (7) would he coded as 'mediated: 2. ·, the number 2 referring to sentences (5) and (4) both of which have she m them, and also as ~remote: 1', where the r refers to sentence (6) which has no part in the resolution of the she. The two figures can simply be added to- gether to show the overall distance. the total number of sentences occur- ring in between the presupposing element and that by which it is ultimately resolved. It should he stressed that in all cases it is. the number of intervening SE.NTli.NCES that is being counted, and. not (in the case of a mediated tie} the number of occurrences of a mediating cohesive element. This is because our interest lies in the way in which cohesive relations build up a text. As fu as texture is concerned. the important question .is, is this sentence re- lated by cohesion or not; and if it is. in how many different ways? 'Which items in the sentence enter into cohesive relations, and what is the type and distance of the cohetion in e:tch instance? Once we have established that

332 THB ANALYSIS 01" COHESION she(=' Alice ') is functioning in the sentence as a cohesive agent by penona1 reference, we have established the salient fact; it does not much matter for cohesive purposes (however interesting it might turn out to be in other respects) whether she occurs once or half a dozen times within the sentence. For any sentence, therefore, we shall indicate, first of all, how many cohesive ties it contains: how m:my instances of a cohesive element that are not resolved by presupposition within the sentence. This shows the total extent of the demands it makes on the preceding (or rather the sur- rounding} text. Secondly, for each of these ties we shall specify what type of cohesion is invoWC<l in terms of reference~ substitution and so on; this can be specified up to a varying degree of delicacy, as suggested in 8.2 bdow. Finally, for each tie we shaJJ specify whether it is immediate or non-immediate, and if non-immediate, whether mediated., remote {non- mediated), or both; and we shall assign numerical values to each instance of a non-immediate tie. showing the number of intervening sentences. This figure is the index of cohesive distance, and it shows both the number of mediating sentences- those containing an element that forms a link in a chain -and the number of non-mediating sentences. those that do not contribute to the tie in question.. In presenting a framework for the analysis and notation of a text. how- ever. we should emphasize the fact that we regard the analysis of a text in terms of such a framework as a means to an end, not as an end in itsel.£ There are numerous reasons why one might undertake such an analysis. and the enquirywillleadin all kinds of ditlerent directions; it is: lik.dy to mean one thing in the context of the teaching of compositio~ another thing in the context of the automatic analysis of text by computer. and something ditferent again in the eontext of stylistic studies. Whatever the ulti.trutte goal. one will almost certainly wish not only to codify the text in ten:ns of cohesive categories but .also to inspect the individual instances of cohesion~ to look closely at the actual words and phnses that enter into cohesive ties and see what patterns of texture then emerge~ A particular text, or a genre, may exhibit a general tendency towards the use 9£ certain features or modes rather than others: for example, in certain types of narrative, where the continuity is provided by the doings or the person- .a.lity of one individual. it would be interesting to know whether this is reflected in a predominance of reference to that individual as: a cohesive device. Other questions that arise are: Does a particular speaker or writer favour one type of cohesion over mhers? Does the density of cohesive ties remain constant or vary. and if it varies, is the variation systematically re-

8.2 SUMMA:RY OF COHESION AND CODING SCHEME 333 lated to some other factor or factors? What is the relation between cohe- sion and the division of a written text into paragraphs?* There are many fundamental questions which can be approached by taking the systematic study of cohesion as a point of departUre. 8.2 Summary of cohesion, and coding scheme A. Type cJ cohesion R I. Pronominals r (r) singular, ma>CU~ine he, him, his rr (2) singular. feminine she.,. her. hers IZ (3} singular. neuter it. its (4) plural they, them, their, theirs r(r-4) functiocing as: (a) non-poss=ive, as Head he/him, she/her, it, they/them (b) poss=ive, as Head his, hers, (its), theirs (c} possessive, as Deictic his. her. its. their 2. Demonstrative5 and definite article (1) demonstrative, near this/these, Mre (z) demonstrative, far tluuftlwse. there. then (3) definite article 2(1-3) functioning as: (a) nomiml, Deictic or Head this/these, thatJtlu>s<, the (b) place advemial here, there {c) time adverbial then 3· Comparatives (not complete lists) (r) identity eg: same, identical (2) similarity eg: dmilar(ly), smh (l) dUference (ie: non-identity and eg: differen~ other, else dissimilarity) aJditi ... l 2I 31 * A ycry inte• eM "'8 study of this queaticn w.as. Inade some years. ago by Colin C. Bowley. of the Univenity of Wellington. New Zealand, in an early applK;ationoftheconcept of~ to the analysi& of text. Bowlcy suggem:d that the ,;obesivc ~ of the pangraph might did'er markedly from one writer to anot:heT (fu1: example along the lines divn--.-1 in 7.1..3 above), but remain f.ridy comtant within one writer, or at least within one work. See Colin C. Bowley, CMniqn and tht Parograph, Univenity of Edinburgh Diploma in <kneral Lingnistia D~,IS)6l.

334 (4-) comparison. quantity (5) comparison, quality 3(1-5) functioning as: eg: nwre~ less. as numy; ordinals eg: as+.adjective; com.p.uatives and superlatives (•) Deictic (1-3) (b) Numerative (4) ( <) .Epithet (5) (d) Adjunct or Submodifier (1-5) Not" Not all combinations of (I-5) with (a-<!) are possible; the usual functions are those indicated here in the last table. SUIISTITtJTION I. Nominal substitutes ( r) fur noun Head (2) for nominal Complement (3) for Attribute 2. Verbal substitutes (r) for verb (•) for process (3) rot propositioo (4) verbal reference 3. Clausal substitutes onefones the same do. be~ ha11e do the -·!likewise do so, be so do it/tluu, ,., ii/that (1) positive (2) negative twl 3(1-2) substitute clause functioning as: (a) reported (b) conditional (c) modaliw:l (d) other BLilPSIS I. Nominal ellipsis ( 1) Deictic as Head i. specific Deictic ii. non-specific Deictic iii. Post-deictic 3I .E

8.2 SUMMARY OF COHJ!'SJON AND CODING SCHEMB 335 (2) Numerative as Head u i. ordinal ii. cardinal --- irulefini Ill. te (3) Epithet " Head I3 i. superlative ii. comparative iii. others 2. Verbal ellipsis (r) lexical ellipsu ('from right) 2I i. total (all items omitted except first operator) ii. partial (lexical verb only omitted) (z) Ope>"ator dlipsi• ('from lefr') i. total (all items omitted except lexical verb) ii. partial (first operator only omitted) Note: Where the presupposed verbal group is simple there is no distinction between total and partial ellipsis; such instances are treated as • total'. "Where it is above a certain complexity there .are other possibilities intermediate between the total and partial as defmed here; such instances are treated as "partial'. 3· Clausal ellipsis ( 1) propositional dlipsi. 31 i. total (all Proposirional clement omitted) ii. partial (some Complement or Adjunct present) (2) modal dlipsi. i. total (all Modal element omitted) ii. partial (Subject preoent) [rare] Note: Lexical dlipsis implies propositional ellipsis, and opera- tor ellipsis implies modal ellipsi~ unless all clause elements other than the Predicator (verbal group) are explicitly repudiated. (3) genecal ellipsis of the clause (all elements but one omitted) i. WH- (only WH- element present) ii. yesfno (only item expressing polarity present) iii. other (other single clause clement present) (4-) zero {entire clause omitted) 3(1-4) elliptical clause functioning as: (a} yes/no question or answer

336 THE ANALYSIS OF COHESJON (h) WH- question or answer (c) 'reported' element (d) othcrw;se Note: Not all combinations of(1-4) with (a-d) are possible. CONJUN"CTION (items quoted are examples. not complete lists} c Note: (E)-external, (1)-;nternal. J. Additive (t) runple: (J!.Jf) i. additive and, and aU. ii. negative nor, and . . . net iii. alternative or, or else (>) complex, emphatic:(!) i. additive forthermore, add to that ii. alternative altunaJively (3) complex, de-emplutic: (!) by the way, inciJentaUy (4) appos;tion: (!) I< ;. exposieory that is, in othn WQrds ii. exemplificatoty eg, thus (5) comparison:(!) I5 i. similar likewise, in tke same way .. di 'mil u. sst ar "" th. other hand, by ·-ast 2. Adversative (I} advenarive • proper': (J!.fl) ZI ye4 though, only ii. +·and! but iii. emph2tic however, even so, all the same (>) contrastive (avowal):(!) in (point <>]}fact. actually (3) oontnstive: (E) ;. snnple but, and Mwever, conversely, on th. other hand (4) correction: (l) i. of meaning imtead. on th~ amtrt'ft'}', r4tlou ii. of wording at least, I mean, or rather

8.2 SUMMAltY OF COHESION AND CODING SCHEME 337 (5) dismissal: (!) i. closed in ayjeither case ii. open-ended in any case, anyhow 3· Causal (I) general: (E{f) 3' so, then, therrfore consequent 1y (a) specific: (E{f) J. reason on account of this ii. result in consequence ili.purpose with this in mind (3) rev=ed causal: (I) for. because (4) causal, specifi<:: (I) 1. reason it follows ii. .result arising out of this ut. purpose to this erul (5) corulitional: (E/I) then in that case~ in StKh an event iii. generalized under the drcumstanas iv. reversed polarity otherwise, under othu circumstances (6) respective: (I) 36 i. direct in this respect, here ii. reversed polarity otherwise, apart from this, in other respects 4- Temporal (r) simple: (E) 4I i.sequential then, next ii. simultaneous just then ... ding m.prece before that, mtheru> (a) condwivc: (E) in the end 42 (3) eorrelatives: (E) 43 i. sequential first . .. then ii. condwive "'firnforigimJlyf formerly .•. jinallyfww {4) complex: (E) # i. immediate- "'011« ii. interrupted _,

338 THR ANALYSIS OF COHBSION m. repetitive next time- iv. specific next day v. durative meanwhile vi. terminal until then vii. punctiliar at this mcment (5) mtem•l temponl, (I) 45 i. sequential then. next ii. conclusive finally. in conclusion (6) rorrelativ"'' (I) 46 Lsequential first • •. next ii. conclusive in the fost place .•. to comluJe with (7) here and now' (I) 47 I. past up to now ii. present at this point iii. future from now on (8) sununary' (I) 48 l. summanztng to sum up ii. resumptive to resume 5· Other (continuative') now. of rour.se. well. an}'W•Y· ""<ly. afur all 6. Intonation (r) tone 61 (2) tonicity 62 LBXICAL L I. Same item 2. Synonym or near synonym (incl hyponym) 3. Superord.inatc 4- • General ~ item S· Collocation I-.5 having reference that is: (a) identical (b) inclusive (c) exclusive (d) unrelated

8.2 SUMMARY OF COHE.SJON AND CODING SCHEME 339 B. Direction and distance of co-hesion IMMEDIATE Not immediate: MEDIATED [number of intervening sentences] M[n] REMOTE- NON-MEDIATED [number of intervening sentences] N[n] CATAPHORIC K Note: Any cohesive inst:ance~ or 'tie~. may be 'immediate' (presup- posing an item 1n a contiguous sentence) or not immediate. If not imme- dia~ it may be • mediated' (having one or more intervening sentences that enter into a chain of presupposition) or • remote • (having one or more interVening sentences not involved in the presupposition), or both. Finally it may be anaphoric or cataphoric; cataphoric ties are rdarivdy infrequent and almost always immediate. A tie is assumed to he ana- phoric unless marked ~ K ~. The coding scheme provides a means of representing the cohesive patterns i.n a text i.n terms of the present analysis. Each sentence is given an index number, and the total number of ties in that sentence is entered in the appropriate column. Then for EACH TJE we specify(A) the type of cohe- sion and (B) its distance and direction. The coding is designed to allow for variation in the delicacy of the analysis. For example, suppose we had What is Mary doing? - Baking a pie. we could code the second sentence as :any of the following: Ellipsis Clausal ellipsis Clausal ellipsis: modal dausal ellipsis.: modal: total E EJ Ep E321 and with any of these we could specify 'functioning as answer to WH- question' simply by add-ing a '7': E7, E37. E327 or E3217. (There is also verbal dlipsis, type Ezzl, but this can be predicted. from the clausal dlipsis.) In the coding of all types of cohesion except conjunction, the numbers 1-5 are used for suhategorization and 6-9 for cross-categoriza- tiOIL In conjunction there is no cross-categorization, but there is more sub- categorization, so an the numbers r-8 are used for this purpose. The primary types of cohesion are shown by their initial letters: R (reference). S (substitution), E (ellipsi•J, C (conjunction), L (lexical). Letter• are mo used to indicate the direction and distance. In the :final section we present an analysis of seven sample texts.

340 THE ANALYSIS OF COHBSION 8.3 Sample texts Text[;(.,; example [8:.]) ... The last 'WOrd ended in a long bleat, so like a sheep that Alice quite started (•). She looked at the Queen. who seemed ro have suddenly wrapped her- self up in wool (2). AJice rubbed her eyes, and looked again (3). She couldn't mah out whdt had happened at aU (4)- Was she in a shop (5)? And was that really- was it really a sheep that was sitting on the other side of the counter (6)? Rub as she wonld. she could make nothing more of it (7) ... number ties She the Queen wool Alice looked again She she r~ally a .d«ep the (counter) """"" Rub she(zx) ,.,., R 12.6 c 44-3 R. 12.6 R 12.6 M. I C II.I Czz R.23.6 L L6 R 12.6 M.z+ R34.9 K &-<-<hh! (in preceding sentence) Ali« tire Queen (in preceding text) sheep Alia: looked looked at the Quem A] ;a ske-Aiiu so like a sheep a sheep (S. I) oslwp slwp rnbbed (S.3) she-Alia (than what follows) (SS. s. 6)

8.3 SAMPLE TEXTS 341 I Sen~ l: last is ambiguous. If it~ 'the last of those just uttered', it i$u coded bae; ifitmam'p~',it shouldbe.co.kdC 31.3, Thee~ seems no way of telling. and it may rather be .a. blend of both. a Sentence 6: thr shows cormter t<J be refuentWly .tdated to shop:fwhat counter: r• -'the one in the shop just mentioned'). 'Ibis U one tie; the .cohesion provided by the coll.ocationalliok between the klcical items coru~Ur and sMp, which is independent of tcfctence, t:O!Utitutu -· J Possibly a 'past in put' temc: such .a.s whal hai ~ in Senteru:e 4 could be treated a' aG. inst>nce of conjunction, pusumably C of.I.l. We have not utempted to include tense in the- pmsent treatment. -4 Sentence- J: A1iu is coded as N.1, not M. I, sina strictly $peaking the repetition of a propc!' ~c U lexical not: n:frrential cohest<Jn. ;wd therdOrc theW in the intttveuing ~is llrelevant.. 5 Sentence- 7: Tbe tw<:l -occuncoces of .d~ are both entaed. h could be argued that two occurrences of a reference item comtitut:e <mly a single tie; but this w<JUld. be difficult to apply, and we a-dopt the simpler solution. Text II (conversation) (if example [I: 28]) Can I tell you about the time when I screamed (I)? Yes. do (2). WelL I met a thief in my home (J). I had one oftho.enice old houses- I was very lucky (4). It was about thirty years old, on stone pillars, with a long stone staircase up and folding doors back on to a verandah (s). And I came through the door from the kitchen, and a thief carrying my hand- bag emerged through my bedroom door into the living room at the same moment(6). Splendidly timed (7)! I couldn•t believe my eyes for .a minute {8). I gave a little sort of gulp, :md it &shed through my mind •this won't do·~ and d•you know what I did (9)? I screamed (ro)! And .my scream went wafting out on the night ::U.r (n}! And some neighbours who- they were my nearest neighbours, but they were still some distance away- cam.e rwhing .along (12). They wen: .awfiilly good, and they said afterwards they thought f d been being murdered(13). Well. I couldn.t've made morenoiseiflhad been(14). But I'd surprised myself{rs). Really, the sound that went fio.ating out on the ..air I didn't know I had. it in me, and tbey said it would make my fortune if I sent it to Hollywood (I6}. And I may say it surprised the thief suffi- ciently that he dropped my handbag and fled (I7). Fortun.ately I wasn't between him and the door {rH). So there was no harm done, and I didn't lore anything ('9).

34" THE ANALYSIS OP COHESION Fortwutely for him, or fortunately for you (20)? Oh, for me (ar). They generally arty knives (aa). I know (23}. Someone was murdered in the main hotel quite recently (••l· Oh yes, yes (as)- Though people did say that there were wheels within wheels in that {26). But you get between a fleeing thief and his exit and he's bound to he carrying a knife(27). But anyhow, the only thing [lost was my voice (28). I couldn't speak for a week afterwards (29). (recorded by MafElmenoufy) number ti"' Yes E 31. 2.6 o Jo s 2I wen cs (S.2 ~ S.x) houses lwuse one of those nice .old hoJUes t.birty years old old C II.I (SS. 4-5) kor (ax) doors Splendidly timed E 22.r; 3~1.9 timed 0 - minute moment R21.6 N.a SCTI!ametf H c li.l" (S.ro) <rream I> Cn.I (S.u) they (a x) R 14.6 neighbours mwd.red scnoam Well Cs (S.13) more R34-7 N.a rcream m>ise L 3.8 scream I had b.en E21.2 r J been being murdered IS c 2J.l: (S.13)

8.3 SAMPLE TEXTS 343 tie> 16 S<>Umi L2.8 noise R23.6 N . .; saeam floating out L2.6 N..; w'!fiing out "" N..; mr they R z-(.6 N.z+ -they- neighbours Ami c Il.l (S.16) , .. nJ Rz3.6 N.ro dropped L; carrying henJbag harnlbag 18 him R II.6 the thief dear N.H door(S.6) 19 So C JI.I (S.18) F"""Mtely (2 X) fortu-ly him R II.6 N.r+ --7 him-+ the Oh,fM me E 33·3· (S.zo) 6/7 2> They R 14.6 N.z+ -him-+ him- the thief I !mow E 34.8 (S.») murdered murJereJ Oh yes, yes E 33.2.9 o (S.z.;) 26 Th<>Ugh Car_r (5.23) tlw Rzz.6 N. I (S.z4) Z7 Czt.a (S.z6) fleeing L r.g jkd(S.17) exit L3.9 N.S door(S.I8) (eorry) knife L1.9 "'"Y knives (S.zz) 28 But anyhow Cz.s.z (5.27) (thing) lost I didn't lose anything (S.19) v<nce N.I6 scream (S.rr)

344 Prerupposed speak ajterwmds c 41.1 N.27 vtnce the time when 1 1 Seutmcc 10: The funn of te>ttuce ptovided by a Quesri~A=wer aequc:oce is K- guded as a discourse featm:t (he« the structure (){ convenation; see 7 .4-z). Since there is no ellipsis heR. this. is not :w. insbnce of cohesion. 2 Sentt:J!CC' 16: The tM in tk sound ih<rt w.mt forl!ing eut is primarily ataphoric; but the lexical rdatkm between 50Ami and m-t.un suggests that it may also he referring anaphorically. 3 Scmencc Ilt: lt is likdy that tk door here refento the main daot of the house; if so, Wis =ophoric md not cahrsivc:. -t. Sentence :w ir an altcmativc- question; these art mixed in type, being partly yesfno and partly WH-~ the mixed intooation p~. with first pan rising and second part fall..- ing). 'Ibc: m~pQnse U.:oded as a rcsporue to both. 5 Sentena: :u: T1sq bett means 'thieves in gt'naal", having the sort of anomalous referen« mentioned in 7·3-Z (example [7::roD. T<xt lli (sonnet) The Bad Thing (r) Sometimes just being alone seems the bad thing (2). Solitude can swell until it blocks the sun (J). It hurts s.o much, even fear, even worrying Over past and future, get stifled (4). It has wo~ You think; this is the bad thing, it is here(;). Then sense comes; you go to sleep, or have Some food, write a letter or work, get something clear (6). Solitude shrinks; you are not all its slave (7). Then you think: the had thing inhabits ynune1f(8). Jwt bring alone is nothing; nor pain. not balm (9). Escape, into poem,. into pub, wanting a friend Is not avoiding the bad thing (ro). The high shelf Where you stacked the bad thing, hoping for calm, Broke (n). It rolled dowo (u). It follows you to the end (zJ). Qohn Wain)

8.J SAMPLE TBXTS 345 The bad thing LI Sclitwk L2.9 being alone R 13.6 solitwle It(2x) R IJ.6 M.1 it - solii.UJe think L2.7 N.> reems Rz3.6 N.2 c_.x.r Solitude solitude shrinks swell C-4l.I (S.7) think thittk R23.6 N.z the boJ thing Uust l being .to ... N.6 Uust) being alone pain L2.9 hum R 23.6 N.I N.r R. 13.6 R IJ.6 M. I u_. the bad thing follows avoiding 'Ibe ~ use of tk in th W thing ma.y be intctptctod :u ~oric as. well :;u cata- phoric, :mggesting a specific.-entitywhKh Jlay!-around and contnsting with the genenl quali-- ties. of~ and being alone; for rhe same reascn. b.tJ thing is analysed u L I.ti, .wl~ and kiag ~ as L 1.9. The whesive pauem tdleGU and reinforces the intetp1ay oflocilized and genen1ized .imagery; and so conmbum to the hn~ o£ somedling thet is complex, both a.b~and•mangible, ud at. the same time~ aod very taugibk. Text W (autobiography) I had found when a boy in Dublin on a table in the Royal Irish Academy a pamphlet on Japanese att :md :read there of an animal painter so

346 remarkable that horses he had painted upon a temple waU had slipped down after dar-k and trampled the neighbours' :fidds of rice {I). Somebody had come into the temple in the early morning, had been startled by a shower of water drops~ had looked up and seen painted horses still wet from the dew-covered fidds. but now 'trembJi.ng into stillness• (2). I had soon. mastered Mathers:' symbolic system, and discovered that for a considerable minority - whom I could select by certain unanalysable characteristics - the visible world would completely vanish, and that world. summoned by the symbol, take its place (3). One day when alone in a third-class carriage, in the very middle of the railway bridge that crosses the Thames near Victoria, I smelt incense (4). I was on my way to Forest Hill; might it not come from some spirit Mathers: had called up (5)? I had wondered when I smelt it at Madame Blavatsky's -if there might be some contrivance, some secret censer, but that explanation was no longer possible { 6). I believed that Salamander of his but an image, and presently I fotmd analogies between smell and image (7)· That smell must be thought-created, but what certainty had I. that what had taken me by surprise. could be from my own dlQught, and if a thought could affect the sense of s.mell, why not the sense of touch (8) ? Then l discovered among that group of students dut surrounded Mathers. a man who had fought a cat in his dreams and awakened to find his breast covered with scratches (9). Was there an impassable barrier between those scratches and the trampled. fields of rice (10)? ft would seem ro. and yet all was uncer- tainty{n). What fixed law would our experiments leave to our imagina- tion (12)? (W.B. Yem) ues R 2,3.6 temple the (early morning) R 23.6 o L 1. 7 horse.s L I. 7 fidds Mothers N.3 N.3 a temple wall temple after dark lwrses fields .-\lathers (prece.ling text) symbol

··3 SAMPLE TEXTS 347 s..,.,.. No. of Prerupp=d smelt incense N.sg smell . .. (p=ding text) RI3.6 inanse Matkrs smdt smelt R 13.6 censer thaJ Rn.6 N.J Salamanders s .I.mantk. Salanumdm R IT..7 N.I image (2 x) L1.7 images L :r.8 smelt (it at MaMmeB's) ThaJ Rzz.6 smell(zx) LI.6(7) o C4I.I (S.8) thaJ R22.6 N.r8 a little group . , . students group of stndems N.I8 a little group , .. stud.,,, Matkrs these R22.6 scratches saotches scratches th. R23.6 N.8 the ... fields of rice trampi<J N.B lr""'fld fields of rice N.B fields of rice Il s 3!.8 (S.Io) fixed unartainty The ~tio:n of the lex:kal item muJf provides an .iJ:JtCl'eSting illusttation of the different

34& cUcn:ntial rd.otioru that may be involved inlexic.a1 rcitrJ:at:ion. Tire incident referred to in S.4 stands in no explicit rebtioruhip to that in which che word h:,.d last occurred 59 5tllkw.:es e:~rl;n; hence L 9· In S.6 .rmflt refers to that eatlier incident in a context in which it is expliridy contrasted w:ith the prtSent one; hence L8. InS. 7 we ;n-e back to tiK present, so L.8 again. In 5.8 it occurs twice; fu-st ID reference to rhe pre.~t (d~td mvll). so L.6; se-condly in a genenl con- text tM suui! af .mull, whkh therefoce includes the preceding instance and hence is represenh"d .s L.7. There is considerabk lndctecmin:u:y among these categories. which ue probably the moot difficult to .apply with any consittency; but they .are not irrelevant to patterns of text construction. Text V (dnmatic dialogue) (if example [3 '59]) Mrs Birling: I think we've just .about come to an end of this wretched business- (1) Gerald: I don•t think so (2). Excuse me {3). [He goes out. They watch him go in silence. We hear the front door slam.] Sheila [ro Irupector]: You know, you never showed him that photograph ofhei (4). Inspector: No (5)· It wasn't necessacy (6). And I thought it better not to (7). Mrs. Biding: You have a photograph of this girl (8) ? Inspector: Yes (9)· I think you'd better look at it (10). Mrs Birling: I don't see any particular reason why I should -{rr) lrupector: Probably not (rz). But you'd better look at it (13). Mrs Birling: Very well {q). [He produces the plwtcgTaph and she lvoles harJ at~-] Inspector [taking back the photograph]: You recognize her (15)? M" Birling' No (16). Why should I (17)? Inspector: Of course she might have changed lately. but I can't beheve she could have changed so much (r8). Mrs Birling: I don't understand you, Inspector (19). Inspector: You mean you don't choose to do, Mrs Biding (2o). Mrs Birling [angrily]' I meant what I said (ar). Inspector: You're not telling me the truth {22.). Mrs Birling: I beg your pardon (23)! Birling [angrily, to Inspector]: Look here, I'm not going to have this. Inspector (24). You"ll apologize at once (as). Inspector: Apologize for what- doing my duty (:a6}? Birling: No, for being so offensive about it(27). I'm a public man- (28) Inspector[massively]: Public men, Mr Biding. have responsibilities as well "'privileges (29). Birling: Possibly {30). But you weren't asked to come here to talk to me about my responsibilities {31).

8.3 SAMPL.B TEXTS 349 Sheila: Let's hope not (32). Though I' m beginning to wonder (33). Mrs Biding: Does that me:a.n anything, Sheila (34-) ? Sheib: It means that we've no excuse now for putting on airs and that if we•ve any sense we won•t try (35). U- B. Priesdey) ti<> s 3!.6 photograph N.6oo photog"ph approx. (preceding text) hu R u.6 N .. u+ -+her(-+ .. . ) -+ M.zo Daisy (preceding text) (S.4) R IJ.6 N.I (to) show him that photogtaph of her CIJ.I not t.o E21.1; N.r+ it (S.6)-+ .show 3 1.1.9 him that photo- gtaph afh<t phorogtaph L I.7 photogtaph R21.6 N-46+ ~ he-r (--7 ... ) M;zr ~Daisy Yes (S.8) R 13.6 N.I a photograph I should Ez1.1; you'd lwtter look JI.2.8 at it Probably not s J2.8 (S.II) c 21.2 (S.I2) R Ij.6 N.J+ --)-it-+ a photograph look at look at I4 Very well E 33-3·9 o (S.r3) 15 ""' R. 12.6 N.p+ -+ ha (-+ . . . ) M.22 ---Daisy •6 E JJ.z.6 o (S.I5)

350 number ties Why should I? E2LI; N.I recognize her 31.2.9 (S.Is) I8 Of course cs (S.I7) she(2x) Rrz.6 N.s4+ ~her(~ ... ) M.23 -+Daisy srJ much RJ4-9 N. I (S.I6) I9 to do s 21 understo.rul tnl! """"" ""'"" tell . .. truth meant • .• said Rzr.6 N. I (S.22) 26 Apologize for E 22.1; (S.zs) what? 32.1.7 apologize "1"'/ogize 27 apologize •.. for doing my duty? for being so E 33·3·7 o aprJlogize for offensive ab<mt it what? R 35.8 (S.zz) R I3.6 ®ing your duty 28 29 Public men public man JO Possibly E 33-3-9 o (S.zg) 3I Czr.z (S.3o) responsibilities responsibilities not s J2.6 (S.J I) Though Czi.I (S.Jz) to wornJe,- E 34-8 N.r (8.32) that R.u.6 (S.J3) R IJ.6 M.r that~ (S.3J) means mean I Dn.matic dialogue may be interpreted in two w.a.ys: citbtt as .read, or as acted. The former would take aa;:ount of stage directions, aod treat all n:fCren.:e as endoph~ic; in the btter

8.3 SAMPLE. TEXTS. J5I penpectivc, which i. that adopted here-, stage dice-ctions ace excluded and reference to situarional features is trealed as e>~Cophoric, and thus not cohesive. Senten~ 4: Both him and lhat (in thtlt pfwtcgmph) are exophoric he:re-. The her, however, is at Ieut part:i.ally endopboric: the only appearomce of Daisy on the stage isjn the form uf the photogr2ph. The !.llnu: consideration applies to Sentence 15- Text VI (informal interview, adult; reported) I harked back to his school year~ and he confessed that he had never liked school (r). 'I remember it very well, and particularly my dislike of it, which has never died to this very day (2). And I am now 68 (3) !' Whenever he visited schools., the smell of the chalk or the plasticine al- ways gave him a sinking feeling {4). He hated. it so much (5). 'Then we moved into the country, to a lovely little village called War- ley {6). It is about three miles from Ha1i&x (7). There are quite a few about (8). There is a W arley in Worcester and one in Essex (9)- But the one not far out of Halifax had had a maypole, and a fountain (ro). By this time the maypole has gone, but the pub is sti.ll there called the Maypole {II). Per- haps they were the happiest days of my life. in the country (rz). I was there for about seven or eight years and I loved it (13).' Even the village school proved less odious than its predecessor in his life (r4). 'I started to take a little bit of a liking to school then (r5)! (from • Meeting Wilfred Pickles·. by Frank Haley) l R. II .8 he (2x) R. JI.6 Rrr.6 it(2x) R I3.6 R II.8 my J;s/ike L 2.6 N.z+ -'I'(~---) M.6 Wi!fred N.z+ -·r<~---l M.6 ~ Wi!fred {preceding text) N.I3 M.?+ he(-+ ... ) -> Wi!fred M.7+ he(-> ... )- never liked

,. Presence No. of tie> C23.1 never ... to this vay J.:y R 11.6 M.S+ • I'(~- .. )~ now R 21.8 io this very day hefhim R II.6 M.9+ 'I'(->-- .. )~ Wi/freJ schools L L9 he R II.6 M.IO+ he(-+ ... )~ R_ IJ.6 N.z+ it --+ schPOl M.t .w much R34.9 (5.4) C 4l.I N.26 (p<eceding teXt) Rn.6 M.II+ he(-+ ... )-+ W£ moved to N.26 moved ID Brighton vilt.ge railed Warley Halifax N.32 H.lifax quiu afow E 12..3 vilt.ge tailed Warky Warky L r.8 WMley 10 &t C 2J.I (S.g) one Sli Warley not Jar out of abnut three miks from Halifax Halifox Il By this timt' c «-6 N.4 Then we nwved a mtJypole ... ypo/e maypok Maypok maypok

8.J SAMPLE TEXTS 353 Presence No. of numhtt the country N.5 the country R II.8 N.7+ -+ • we'(--+ ... )--+ my M,n -+ Wi!fred l 'I' (>x) Ru.6 M.rz+ ' my' c~-- -)~ there R22.7 in the country villag~: village (5.6) sdwols (5.4) odious Lz.8 N.II dis/;ke (5.2) R rr.8 M.IJ+ '!'(~ ... )~ Wi!fr<d life Ufo (S.12) 15 R n.6 M.q+ his<~. ' .) -> Wi!fral take a liking Lz.6 less odious tb R2z.8 N.I (5.IJ) 1 The fim: penon. forms 1 etc (in the speooch of the interviewee) are anaphonc and cohe$ive, functioning in th.ii context ,n conditioned vuiants: of the third peoon ref«cn<:c item M etc. 2. Sentence 4: the ckatk, tM phtmril«! rekr to $(brwfs within the ~ sentrnre, :md are there- fen: not treated :u cohesive. J Smtence n: tMy here is ca~pboric to (tlwst) ir> tlw ~y, which is within the same 4 Scntem::e iJ: it refers to 'being there', le~ was tltae in the same :K'lltence. Tat ¥71 (informal interview, children; transcribed)* We•ve made SO far a boat, garden dibber, teapot stand ... {1) What eke (2)? A seed marker (3). I think our nail box was the best one that we made (4). Yes (5) 1 The nail box {6). We just made this little box out of wood. (7}. lt's very * Recorded by Ruq.Uya Hasan; Nufficld Foreign Langu~~s T~ching Materials Project, Reports. and Occasional Papers No ~9 {slightly adapted)-

354 THE ANALYSIS OF COHBSION useful as something else than a nail box(8).Myfather~sfriend ~-entout,he brought two packs of seeds b:.ck and he gave them to my father {9). And we keep my sister's pack in one half of the box and my pack in the other half(w). What did it look like (n)? Y cs what did it { u) ? Wdl, we had a base, :and then an end, and the two sides, with a piece of wood across the middle (I3)- And no lid (Y4)- We left the lid off(rs)- Did you paint it (I6)? We didn't {17). Not in school (r8). But we could have done at home (I9)- I painted the boat at home, all different colours (20). What else? else A seed marker """ Yes? The nail box tke nail hex made •.• box box nail fwx Ami pad. the (bax) bax Prempposed E 33-I-7 0 R33.9 o E 33-3·7 o S II E J3.J.6 o R2J.6 N.I Rz1.6 K L3.6 Cu.I RZ3~6 N.I+ N.r+ a beat, garden dibber, teapot stand (S.2) (list in S.I (-+ one- thing in prec. text)) (S.4) cur . .• that we made Mil box made ... box nail box this little box tuJil box (S.g) packs of seeds --+ it ~ this little bax --+ a naillwx --+ this little box

8.J SAMPLE TEXTS 355 Presupposed. the box what did it! E21.r; 3 !.2.7 (S.n) R 13.6 M.I it----+ the box Well C5 M.r (S.12- S.u) base md sides wood N.) wcod (S. 7) C23.I (S.r3) tW lid E 33·3·9 o we luul ..• (S.rJ) Ij no lid lid lid r6 R .13.6 N.J+ -+ it -+ it ---+- the box (S. 10) We di&n•t. E 2I.I; (S. r6) JI.I.6 18 Not s 32·9 M.r (S.17-+ S.r6) 19 c 2!.2 (S. r8) could have done s 21 paintit(S.r6) at hcme in school paint (S.r6) R23.6 N.I8 aboat(S.r) boat L 1.6- N.I& boat (S.r) at 1umte L L6 at home lt is perhaps questionable whether the lid that was •teft: off'(~ not made; Setueru:e rs} is re£erentially identical with the Hd that did not exist (Sentence J 4}. But dtis is a haf'In1cn asmmp- tiOil that be requir~ fOr interpretation of tbe tM.

Bibliography The Bibliography contains selected items re1ated in various ways to the main theme. I. Standard grammars of English, such as those of Curme. Fries. and Jespersen, figure both as general background and for their discussion of particular dements that enter into the expression of cohesion. Also listed are some other works that contain relevant background material for example by Abeccrombie, Ulimann., ~nd Gleason. The major source of u~to-date information on English grammar (up- to-date both in terms of the English language and in terms of linguistic scholarship) is provided by A GrammM ofCo,.,mporary Eoglish, by Quirk and others, and its shorter version A Uniwrsity Grammar of English (Ameri- can tide A Omcise Grammar cfCcmte.mporary English). Both contain treat- ments of the areas of the grammar that are involved in cohesion. z. Other general works on English have been included where they throw light on the theoretical background of the present account; for example Hudson, English Complex Sentt!ttas; Sindair, A Course in Spoken English: Grammar. Two large-scale studies of English texts are of special relevance: that by Huddleston and others, on grammar, and that by Sindair and others, on lexis. (It is unfortunate that these were written at a time when text studies were heretical in linguistics, and so they were not published; but they were distributed in the form of reports.) J. Many articles have appeared particubrl.y in transformational gram- mar dealing with cohesive relations within the sentence. especially pro- nominal reference and conjunction. A selection of these has been included; see for example Lees and Klima. George Lak.off, Robin Lako:ff. and Postal. 4- Discourse structure in languages other than English. typically non-

.l58 Indo-European languages. has been described in numerous studies inspired particularly by the theoretical work of Pike and Gleason. These studies have not been cited here; bibliographies. are readily available. 5· Cohesion in literary texts is treated. in a recent book by Gutwinski (which had not yet appeared at the time of writing). Aside from this, as far as literary studies are concerned. the ]ist includes some genetal works on style and the linguistic study of literature, such as Leech• sA Linguistic Guide ro English Poetry; and also some recent collections of essays, such as Chatman' s Literary Style: a symposium. Stylistic studies of particular prose or verse texts have not been listed; for references to these, see Richard W. Bailey and Dolores M. Burton, English Stylistics: a bibliography (Cam- bridge, Mass: MIT Press, 1968). 6. Some recent works have been cited from the field of rhetoric and composition, where there is systematic treatment of discoune structure in .a primarily educational context. From the newer, rdated field of language variety (register) studies are included one or two general treatments. such as that of Benson and Greaves; and certain papers which relate particularly to cohesion in this context, for example those by Jean Ure. 7· Finally reference is nude to selected books and articles dealing with particular aspects of the English language that in one way or other relate to cohesion~ either topics falllng directly under the main headings. (reference, substitution and ellipsis. conjunction, lexical cohesion), or parts of the grammar that :figure prominently in cohesive patterns (such as the noun phrase. or nomina! group; see for example Peter Fries}. Abercrombie, David. Elements '!{ Ge,.ml Phonetics. Edinburgh: University Press, 1967. A~ Keith.. 'In reply to .. There1• therct.,. Journal cfLlnguistics 8~ 1972. - • A note on the source of there in existential sentences 9 Foundations of l..angu4ge 7, I97I- Roben L. 'The classification of English substitute words' Genua/ Linguistics j, IS)6L Allerton. D. J. 'The sentence as a linguistic unit' Lingua n.. :19()9. Aupoff, Nancy. 'The semantic role of sentence connectors in extra- sentence logical relationships' TESOL QuMt"'ly 2, 1!)68. Ballard, Lee, Conrad, Robert J. and Longacre, Robert E. • The deep and surface grammar of interdausal relations • Foundations '?{Language 7~ 1971.

359 Banhes. Roland. 'L'ancienne rhetorique• Communications 16, 1970. Becker, Alton L. • Symposium on the paragraph • College Composition and Conummicaiion, May 1966. Behre,. Frank • On the principle of connecting elements of speech in contemponry English' G. A. Bonnard (ed), English Studies ToJ.y. Bern: Francke Ver}ag, Ig6l. Bemon,James D. and Greaves. William S. The Language People Really Use. Agincoun, Ontario: The Book Society· of Canada. 1973- Bolinger, DwightL. That's that. The Hague: Mouton, 1972. -'Entailment and the meaning of structures' Glossa ,2;, 19()8. - Degree W onls. The Hague: Mouton.. 1972. Bouton. Lawrence. • Identity constraints on the Do So rule' Papers in Linguistics, Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1!}69. Buyssens. Eric. La O:mtmunication et l'ArticulatWn Lingu~. BruxeUes: Presses Universi.taires de Bruxelles, I967. Cardedge, H. A. 'The articles in English' English .Language Teaching 14, 195'}-00. Centro Intern.azionale d.i Semiotica e di Linguistica, Universib di Urbino: Working Papers and Prepuhlicatioru, 1971-. Chafe, Wallace L. • Directionality and paraphrase • Language 47. 1971. Chatrnan, Seymour. • English sentence connectors • Studies in Languages and Linguistics in Honcr of Charles C. F&s. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan English Language Institute, I964· - (ed). Lituary Style: a symposium. New York & London: Oxford University Press. 1971. Christiansen. Francis. Notes Toward a new .Rhetoric. New York: Huper & Row, 196]. Christophenen, Paul The Amcles: a study of their history ond use in English. Copenhagen: Munksgaard, <939· Crytnes, Ruth. Some Systems of Substitution CI)Trl!lations in MrJdern American English. The Hague: Mouton, Ig68. Crystal, David. • Specification and English tenses • Joumal of Linguistics 2, 19()6. Ccysta1, David and Davy, Derek. Investigating English Style. London: Longman (Engli,h Language Series), 1969. Curme, George 0. A Grammar of the English Language Ill: Syntax. Boston: Heath, I931· DaneS, FrantiSek. • Zur linguistischen Analyse der Textstruktur • Folia Linguistica oh 1969.

36o B!BLlOGRAPH"Y - 'One irutance of Prague school methodology: functional analysis of utterance and text' Paul L. Garvin {ed). Method anD Theory in Linguistics. The Hague: Mouton. I970· - (ed). Papers on Functioturl Sentence Perspective. Prague: Academia, 197+· Davies, Eirian C. "Some notes on English clause types • Tram~Utions of the Philological Society, 1967. Di:k. Simon. Co-ordination: it.s implications for the thecry of genua! linguistics. Amsterdam: North Holland, 1968. -'Referential identity' Lingua u, 1$)68. Dixon, Robert M. W. What IS Language? a new approach to linguistic desctiplion. London: Longman (Longman Unguistics Library), 1965. Dorfman. Eugene. The Ntmeme in the Mt>dievtJ.i Romance Epic: an introduction to nMTative structures. Toronto: University Press (Romance Series T3), T9(5g. Doughty, PeterS .• Pearce, John J. and Thornton, Geo:lfrey M. Exploring Language. London~ Edward Arnold (Sclwols Council Programme in Linguistics and English T~aching). 1972. Dressfer, Wolfgang U. "Textsyntax' Linguae Stile j, 1970. -"Towards a semantic deep structure of discourse grammar' Papers ftr:Jm the Sixth Regional Met!ting of the Chkago Linguistics Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Department of Linguistics, 1970. Eaton, Trevor. 'The foundations of literary semantics' Ling_u.istics62. 1970. Elmenoufy, Afa£ A Study cf the Role oflntonatWn in the GranutUlr of English. University of London PhD thesis, 19{)9. Enkvis~ Nl!s Erik, Spencer. John and Gregory, Michael. Linguistics and Style. London: Oxford University Press (Language mu/ Language Le""'ing), 1968. Firbas, Jan. 'On defining the theme ln functional sentence analysis' Travaux Linguistlques de Prague I, 1964:. - cOn the interplay of means of functional sentence perspective • Proceedings of the Tenth International Congress tf Linguists. Bucharest: Rumanian Academy of Sciences, 1970. Fries, Cha-rles C. American English Grammotr: the grammatical structUTe of present-day American English with especial referrnce to social tlijfereMes fJT clttsS dialects. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1940. - The Stmdu:re if English: an introduction to the construction t?fEnglish sentences. New York: Harcoun Brace, I952. London: Longman, 19.57. Fries, Peter H. Tagmeme Sequences in the English Noun Phrase. Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Summer Institute ofLinguistics, 1970.

36.1 Gleason, H. A., Jr. Linguistics and English Grammar. New York: Hoh, Rinehart & Winston, .1965. - 'Contrastive analysis in discourse structure • .\.fetwgTaph Series on Languages a.nd Linguistics 2 I. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1g68. Gleitman, Lila R. 'Co-ordinating conjunctions in English • Language .p:, r96s. Green, Georgia M. 'On Too and Either; and not just Too and Eitkr, either' Papers from the Fourth Regional Meeting cf the Chicago Linguistics Society. Chicago: Univenity of Chicago Department of Linguistics, I9{i8. Greenbaurn, Sidney. Studies in English Adverbial UstlJle. London: Longman (Lmgm.m Linguistics Library), 1969. Grime~, Joseph E. ' Kinds of infonnation in discourse • Kivung ~ IC)7I. Gnnter, Richard. 'Elliptical ~ntences in American English' Lingua 12, II/6J. - 'On the placement of accent in dialogue; a feature of context grammar' Journal ofLinguistics 2, 1966. Gutwinski, Waldemar. Cohesion in Literary Texts: a study of some grammatical and lexical features ofEnglish discMrse. The Hague: Mouton. 1974- Halliday. M. A. K. 'The linguistic study oflitera:ry textS' Seymour Chatman and Samud R. Levin {eds}, Essays on the Language t?f Literature. Boston: Houghton Miffi.in, 1967. - 'Lexis as a linguistic levd • C. E. Bazell, J. C. Catford. M. A. K. Halliday and R. H. Robins (eds), In Memory of]. R. Firth. London: I.ongman {Longman Linguistics Library), r9()6. -Intonation mu/ Grammar in British English. The Hague: Mouton,. 19{)7. - 'Notes on transitivity and. theme in English, Part 2' Journal of Linguistics 3, I 967. -'Language structure and language function • John Lyons (ed), New Hcnizons in Linguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1970- - A Co-urse in Spoken English: Intonation. London: Oxford University Press, 1970. -Language and Sodal Man. London: Longman (Schools Council Pretgramme in Linguistics and English Teaching, Papers, Series II, 3), 1974. -The Meaning oflvfcdem.&Jglish. London: Oxford University Press (fmthcorning). Harris, Zellig S. Discoune Analysis Reprints (Papers on Formal Ilttguistics 2). The Hague: Mouton, 1963.

362 Hartmann, Peter. • Textlinguistik als neue linguistische Tei1dis:zip1in • Replik I, I2, I968. Hasan, Ruqaiya. A Linguistic Study of ContrtJSting Features in the Styk of Two Comemporary English Prose Writers. University of Edinburgh PhD thesis, r964. - • Linguistic~ and tbe study ofliter.ary texts • EtuJes de Linguistique App/iqul, s, I967. -Grammatical CohesiQn in Spoken and Writtrn English Patt I. London: University College London Department of General Linguistics {Communication Research Centre) and Longman (Papers of the Programme in Linguistics and English Teaching, Series I, 7), Ig68. -Language in the Imaginative Context: a sccio-lin~(!Uistic study of storieJ told by children. London: Routledge & Kegan Pauf (Primary Socializlllion, Language and Education) (forthcoming). Hausenhlas, Karel. 'On the characterization and classification of discourses' Travaux Linguistiques de Prague I, 1964.- Hays., Danid G. and Lance, Donald M. From Sournlstmlm to Discour££: papers from the 1971 Mid-AmericaLinguistics Co'!ference. Columbia, Missouri: University of Missouri Linguistics Area Program, 1972. Hendrick.s, William 0. 'On the notion ubeyond the sentence••• LinguisticJ 37, 1967. -'Current trends in discourse analysis' Braj B. Kachru and H. W. Stah.Ike (eds). Current Trends in Stylistics • .Edmonton, Alberta: Linguistic Research Iru; 1972. Hill, Aochibald A. • A re-examination of the English articles' MotWgraph &Ties on Languages and Linguistics 19. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. 1966. Hlavsa. Zdenek. 'On the operators of reference' Travaux Linguistiques Je Prague 3, 1968. Huddleston, Rodney D. 'Rank and depth • Lrnguage 41, 1965. Huddleston, Rodney D .• Hudson, Richard A., Winter, Eugene and Henrici, Alick. Sentence and Clause in Scientific English. London: University College London Department of General Linguistics (Communication Research Centre), 1968. Hudson, Richard A. 'Constituency in a systemic description of the English dause· Ungua r7. 19\S7. -English Complex Sentences: an introduelion tc systemic grmnmar. Amsterdam: North Holland (North Holland Linguistic Series 4.). 1971. Jakohson, Roman. Shifters. Verbal Categories, anJ the Rmsian VeTb. Cambridge. Mass.: Harvard University Press. 1957.

lHBLIOG.RAPHY 363 Jespersen, Otto. A Modem English Gr4mmar on Historical Principles I-VII. London: Alien & Unwin, I909-49· -Essentials of English Grammar. New York: Holt, I9JJ. Karlsen, R. Studies in the Ccnnt'ction of Clauses in Cu"ent English: zero, dlipsis and explicit forms. Bergen: Bides, I959· K.arttunen, Lauri. ~Discourse referents~ Bloomington. Indiana: Indiana University Linguistics Club (mimeo.), 1971. Kiefer, Ferenc (ed). Studies1'n Syntax 4nJ Semantics. Foundations of Language Supplements 10, 1970. Kinneavy~James L., Cope, John A. and Campbell,J. W. 'rhe Design cf Discourse. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice--Hal1. r969. Kiparsky, Paul .and Kiparsky, C.lrol. • Face Manfred Bierwisch and K. Heidolph {eds), Progress in linguistics. The Hague: Mouton, 196&. Knapp, Donald S. Formal Factors t.!ffecting Paragraph Division in Expository Writing. Columbia University PhD thesis., 1967. Koch, Waltcr A. 'Preliminary sketch of a semantic type of discourse analysis • Linguistics t2, 1965. - 'Einige Prohleme der Textanaiyse' Lingua 16, r9()6. Kruisinga~ E. A Handbook of Present-Jay English, Parts I & II. Groningen: Noordhoff, sth edn. 193 I-J2 .. :L.lkoff. George. I"egularity in Syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Wiruton, .1970. - • Pronouns and rd'erence ~ Bloomlngton, Indiana: Indiana University Linguistics Club (mimeo.), I969. Lak:off, Robin, "[f' s, and's and but's about conjunctions • C. J. FiUm.ore and D. T. L-augendoen (cds), Studies in Lingutstic Semantics. New York: Holt. Rlnehart & Wiruton, I97I. Leech. Geoffrey N. English in Advertising: a linguistic stuJy of advertising in Great Britain, London: Longm.an (English Language Series), r9()6. - Tt.1Wards a Semantic Description of English. London: Longman (Lottgman Linguistics Library). r969. -A Linguistic Guide to English Poetry. London: Longman {English LAnguage Series), t96g. Lees, Robert B. and Klima, E. S. 'Rules for English pronominalization • Lmguage 39. .19(53. Longacre, Robert E. 'Taxonomy in deep and surface grammar' Proceedings of the Eleventh International Congress of Linguists. Bo)ogna: U Mulino, 197;. Lowe, !van.' An algebraic theory of English pronominal reference' StmiotiD! I, I9(i9-.

364- Lyons. John. Intrcduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge: University Press, 1969. Mdntosh. Angus. • Patterns and ranges • Angus Mclntosh and M. A. K. HaHiday. Patterns of Language: papers in general, JescripHve and applied linguistics. London: Longman (Longman Linguistics Library}, 1966. Morgan. James 0. 'English structure above the sentence levd' A1onograph Series on Languages and Linguistics 20. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. 1967. Nickel, Gerhard. 'Some contextual rdations between sentences in English' Proceedin.<Js of the Tenth ],tternational Congress of Lin . ..;uists. Bucharest: Rumanian Academy of Sciences. 1970. Olney,J. C arul Lande, D. L. 'An analysis ofEnghsh discourse structure, with particular attention to anaphoric rdations' Proceedings of the Tenth Intffl111titmal Congress ~?_{Linguists. Bucharest: Rumanian Academy of Sciences, I970- PaduCeva, E. V. 'Anaphoric relations and their manifestations in the text' Proceedings of the Tenth International Congress of Linguists. Bucharest: Rumanian Academv of Sciences., 1970. Also in Bierwisch and Heidolph (cds), Progress inLin_f!uirtics. The Hague: Mouton. r968. P"ale:k. Bohumil. 'Cros~-reference: a contribution to hyper-syntax' Travau.x Linguistiqt~es de Prague 3, 1968. Palmer, Harold E. 'English -article usage' English Language Tem:hing 2~ 1947-48. Pike, Kenneth L. 'Discourse analysis and tagmemic matrices' Oceanic Linguistics 3, .1964. -'A linguistic contribution to composition' Cclk~e Composition and Cotnmunicaticn, May 1964. -'Beyond the sentence' College Composition and Cornmunicatitm, October Ig64. Postal, Paul M. 'On so...a.Ued "'pronouns'' in English • David Reibel and Sandford Schane {eds), Modern StuJies in English: readings in transformational grammar. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall~ 19(}9. - 'Anaphoric islands' Papers of tfte Fifth &gional ~"4eeting ;;.f the Chicago Lingr.ristics Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Department of Linguistics., 1!}69. - • Problems in linguistic representation of reference • Danny D. Steinberg and L. A. Jakobovits (eds), Semantics: an interdisciplinary reatkr in philosophy~ linguistics and psychology. Cambridge: University Press, 1971.

lHBLIOGRAJ>HY 365 Quirk. Randolph. 'Descriptive statement and serial relatioruhip • Languagt! 41, rg6s. - Esst~ys in thr English LongtMge, Medieval and Modern. London: Longman (Lcngman Linguistic-s Libn;ry), .1968. Quirk., Randolph, Grecnh.aum, Sidney, leech, Geoffrey and Svartvik, Jan. A GrammM cf Contemporary English. London: Longman • .1972. New York: Seminar Press, 1972. Quirk, Randoiph and Greenhaum, Sidney. A UniversiJy Grammar of English. London: Longman, 1973. (A Condse Grammar of Contemporary English. New York: Harcoun Drace Jovanovich., 1973.) Rob-b.iru, B. L Tlu: Jc./inite article in Et~~!ish transfimn<ltions. The Hague: Mouton: Ig68. Ruhl. Charles. ~Prerequisites for a linguistic description of coherence' Language Sciences 2-5, 1973. Sachs. Harvey, Schegloff, Emanue-l A. and Jdferson, Gail. 'A simplest systematics for the analysis of turn-taking in conversation' Language so. 1974· Sampmn, Geoffrey. 'There1, there2 'Journal cJUnguistics 8, 197:2.. Scott, Charles T. • On defining the riddle: rhe problem of a structucal unit' Genre 2, r9(}9. Sebeok, Thomas A. (ed). Style in Language. Cambridge. Mass: MIT Press, .196o. Slndair,J. McH., 'Beginning the study oflexis' C. E. Bazell, J. C. Catford, M. A. K. Halliday and R. H. Robins (eds). In MefTWry of ]. R. FiTth. London: Longman (Longman Linguistics Library), 1966. -A Course in Spckro English: Grammar. London: Oxford University Press, 1972. Sinclair, J. McH. Jones, S., and Daley. R. English Lexical Studies. University of Birmingham Depanment ofEnglish, 1970. Sinclair,J McH. and Coulthard, R. M. Towards an Analysis of Discourse: the English used by teachers and pupils. London: Oxford University Press, 1975. Smith, Carlotta S. 'Determiners an-d relative clauses in a generative grammar' Language 40, 1964. - 'Sentences in discourse: an analysis of a discourse by .Bertrand Russell' Journal of Linguistics 7, 1971. Sommerstein, AI an H. 'On the so-called Defmite Article in English' Linguistic Inquiry J, 1972. Serensen, H. •The function of the definite anicle In Modern English' Engli~h Studies 40, 1959.

366 Staal, J. F. 'Some semantic relations between sentoids~ Foundations cif Language J, 1967. Stockwcll, Robert P., Schachter, Paul and Partee, Barhara Hall. The Major Syntactic Stmctures of English. New York: Holt. Rinehart & Winston. 1973- Srrang. Barbara M. H. 'Types and tokens in language • Pre>ceedings e>J the University if Durham Philosophical SC'Ciety I. B, 3, '1958. -Modern English Structuu. London: Edward Amold, rg62; 2nd ed, revised, 1968. Sumpf. J. and Dubois, J. Problemes de 1' analyse de discours. Langages 13~ I969- Svartvik,jan. On Vqice in tltP English Verb. The Hague: Mouton, Ig66. T odorov, Ts:vetan. La grammaire du rCcit. Langages rz., r9{i8. Turner, Geoffrey J. and Mohan, Bernard A. A Linguistic DescriptWn and Computer Program for ChilJren' s Spuch. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul (Primary Soci4lization, Language and Education). 1970. Ullmann, Stephen. LAnguage and Sty!<. Oxford: B!ackwe\I, 1964. Ure, Jean N. • Practical registers' (Parts I & 2) English Langr~ttge Teaching, '1969- - 'Lexical density and register differentiation'. G. E. Perren and J. L. M. Trim (eds), Applications ~Linguistics: selected papers of the Sectmd International Congr-ess of Applied Linguistics (Cambridge, 1969). Cambridge: University Press, I9]I. Van Dijk, Term A. 'Sbnantique g6nera.le et theorie des textes' Linguistics 62, I9'JO· -Some Aspects cif Text Grammars: a study in theoretical linguistics and poetics. Tbe Hague: Mouton. 1972. Vendler, Zeno. Adjectives arui Nomina/izations. The Hague: Mouton, I9(i8. Waterhouse, Viola. •Independent and dependent sentences' lntmwtional ]ourmd cif Ameriun Linguistics 29, I963- Williams,Joseph M. Some Grammatical Characteristics of Continuous Discouue. University ofWisconsin PhD thesis, I966. Winboume, John. 'Sentence sequence in discoune • Proceedings of the Ninth IntenUJticmal Congress ofUnguists. The Hague: Mouton~ 1964- Winterowd, W. Ross. 'The grammar of coherence' College English 31. 19'70· Young. Richard E., Becker, Alton L. and Pike~ Kenneth L. Rhetoric; .diSC011ery ®tl changr. New York: llircourt, Brace and World, 1970. Zandvoort, R. W. A HandhookoJEnglisll Grammar. London: Longman. 3rd edn, revised. 19()5.

Index .1, om, 70. <)6, too-2, 1.57-~ action dawc, roll additi\n:, 234. 2.41-4 (table), 244-50 adjective. .q.o--3, 147 ... as deictic, I 59-61 as ~tbet, 163-6 colour """, 166 (;()mpuati:u- ... , n. Bl, 165-6 superlative _., 81, Hh, I6]-j Oldjunct: in clauose struaure, 194 comparative as ... , 77, h, &6 cof!iunctive -, 228, ZJ.o--2. J..4.8. discourse '"", 75, .u8 rcpudtatian of""", 194-5 WH- -. 2lo-I zdverb,43o l47, ~ ..., as conjUPctive aqjunct, ZJQ--2 comparative """ , 77 demonsU"ative ,., , 74-5 advm,iil group, 794 zdvenative, adversity, 229, 237, 141-4 (tabk), :z,.S, .zj-0-15 lljtn, ll.finw.mls. 2.2&, 2]0, J.6I ~,!l, 270 afterthought. 249 all, ljf-6 als.t, 238. 246 U~tive. 2.46, ~ #hl~Dugft. .2jl-2 amphora., anaphoric, 1, :r4, lJ, 291. 329 ""' cmnpar:lti.vn, '79-llo, 83-4 dtmonmttives,. 6o--70. 74-5 ""' dlipsis, l«, 150-:S. '167-9, Xl6-25 ""' le:xk:d cohesion,. 281-· ""'mbstitution, ~ IIJ-7, 128, l].o--6, ,,. ... IlK, 'P-4- tie, JJO to general noun, .1.74-7 to pasonal n:une. 277 real and imaginary ""' • 298 ami. z:n. 2J5-'J, 239, ~-7 _. o4dition..Jly, 247 aisc, ~6 .• t<W, 2.46 'and' ttbrion, loJJ--3, 244, pl answer (see also response), =6---rJ antonyn, 285 any, Ilj, 15$--<) 4ft)'W4)', 2]1, li]8, J.65, 211 apposition. appogtive, 248, 2.50 .ugument., 239-40 .artkle, 1()()--.I ddinite -, J, 57, '70-4. 96, lOT, 157 indefinite -. 70. 96. too-~. 157-9- -. So. 84--6 .a.Bmt, w6., :.u6 attribute. 107, 165 repudiation cf ... 119 substitution for,..., 109, .114, u!J, 1,14 attnln~ti,..e clau5e, 16:5 avcwal. 2.53-5 ~{lexical): subsmution for _.. n? recognition of-, 171-% """ and operator, 201 bu~Uo~~. z58 bt>th, Ijy-6 boib . . . and, "1# branching, 14). 14-6, .WJ lna, ~JI, LJ7, zso-~ cataphor.L, c~c, 17. ZS!&. 3:19 ""' compantives. 78, 8z ..., demoruttatives, 6!l-']O. 75 personal N'f~e. >6 .-... suMtitution,. 90. :t:Oj, I~. I,fi -.. tempor;al conjunction. 2.63-4

368 INDI!.X ratapho~----cvrtld ... 7::i-J cauW. '41-o{ (table) citation fonn. ::i.O dassifiCT (in nominal group), 40, 9-3, gll, 14'7-.54 c:Uwe: ... complex, a~5. ::i4].4- ,._ rtructun, l)o-&, 14].3, 1'}6-201 .ellipsis in -,194-225 rdativc -.., 14-7 subnirution in "", l) I -9 ceding scheme, JH-9 cohesion: :u:.d inton:mon. 271-) ... and linguist:i<: <:ontext, 14]. ... ;md linguistic structute. 6. 9 ... ;md pangraph, :196-7, HJ "" ~relation and process. 18--9,. 329 ""' u $C:tnantic rdation, 4, :1.2.6---7, ~8-]24 over kmg stretches. 294-5 within the sc:nl:t'nCC:, 7. 146 absence of"', 302. direction of""', 329. 339 distance of-, JJo-I, 339 domain of"", 14-9 -e.xplicit -. 14], 19 grammarial aud Jn.:ical "", 6. }01-4. jZz--4 phonological -. 6, 271-J $ummary of ... (t.tbles). JU-J types of ... , 21.6--7, JOJ-8, 31.3 coheUve chain. 1.5, 1.56, 286. JJI eO-~.$. U, 27$, 314 collocation, ~-91, JI8-.:.~o coloo. 17, 1.32 .commentary(to quesrion}, :zoo, zrz communic:ltion: proce:st,. 2.4o-1, 264-5, 267-8 -.. roks, 240 _. iituation, 240, ZSJ, ::i64]., ~7 COinpaariv~. 76-87 com~e: .- adjediYes, 77,lh, 16)--6 adverbs, 77 comparison: "' as «Xljunccive relation, ;7.47-8 ... as a form ofrcfercru:e, 78,309, Jll-4]. adjectives of,..,., 76---7 .dvttbs of ""• 76-7, llo--r gem:W -. '1'6-Bo internal ..., ' 78, 84 ~cular .-. So---.4. compkment: ... in clause saucwre, 143, 194 of preposition. 232 ellipsilof ... 171-2 repudWion of-, uy. 194-5 WH- """• llO complemenurity, :;;85 complex (eknu:nt), :u.>c, :1.}.4 =ndusiV<':, 263, 266---7 conditional: .- cbuw, l34. ~IJ conjunction, 259-'61 cong£UCnce, J 1 J conjunction {u cohesive relation), Chapter 5 {p<wim); IJ, .JOJ-4-, 308, j:lO-l, JJ6-R oand reference, 75-6, 21;6.->J, 3JO, )21 _, .and sub:rtitution, 22~ within the sentence, 2 n coding of ""• 336-8 extenul -. l40-4. J:otl intnial -. 2]6, ~ 32I meaning of,..., 320--2 types of ""'• 238--+4 conjunction, conjunctive (dem.ent), zzS, ~Jo-2 conjunctive; ~junct, =-8. ~Jo--:., 248 OC:pre$S{Om, :1]0--J '""' relations. 227, 238-44 (table) Consent, 206, 216 .:onrcitaency, 2, IJ6 conrext of culture, :13 context of situation (see also situ:ttion), 21, 3~ :5<>-:l continuatives. 267-71 .:ontradiction. zOO, .1.16 CODI:Ust (in substitution), !P-j, IU-J, IJ6, 307,JI4-5 contrastive (conjt.maion), 252--3, 2-55, :171 ronvcrsation. 327 converse; 285 cocrdi:mtion, 2L2, 2.33. J 12 corefcrcnce, coreferential, ), JI-J, 277-8 ::llh--4. 300. :J09, jlJ-4 cozrect:ive (conjunction), :154-5 rorrehtives; additive "', ~--5. 2.47 tem~ ... ,l.6J a?afl.lrt', ::1074-6 ~rive,265, 267 cumub.tive, .<.71 d~mphasis, 249

dcictic: _.in dlipsis, ISS--9 - in nominal group,~ 93, 1:47~51 compant:ivc as""', 77, io, 159'-60 dem.onstr.J.ti~ as ... , jl, 155--7, :2.31 n011-5pecific ""', 1 S?-9 pcnmW as-. :srs. 157 ipecifk -~ 15$-7. 309 delicacy of focus. 4 demotuttatives, 57-'16. l:S$~7. ~)o-.. lO!J dependent clause, 1]6, I!)B determiner, 45. 70. 100,. 147. 155-9. ]09 (bble) penooru~l as ,.., , 4:5, 54 demomtrative as "", s7-8 ~c-. too-t, 1:57-9 spccifK:-, ']0-1, roo, 155~7 dWogu<.- tlf(f~. 78 djy);,imn (t<> question}, 206, 213 disroune. discounc: sttuetutt, 1~ 2.]9, 283. 299. 3»-7" dismissal, dismissive. :lS<J-6, 210 dissjmiluity. 2.4.7, :1.50 •• d«s. 4i4. tkl{ttg, Urlt, 3, 91 "" "" u genenl vnb,. ro8, 1~-5 as substitut~ 1o8, Ulo-:lJ, 171-~ ""' as kxica1 ve:b, 1.14. I 70-2 ""' .U pro-verb, Uj:-7, 211-2 "'"' as verbal operator, 127, 171 fonni of- (ttbk), 129 t» it, 11# tlutt, de wi.M?, u,S--6. 2n 4liJ6, 116 udt, ISS, 157--8 eftitr, ljj, IS7-' titJrn • .. OT, 2.f4 dlipDs. Ch.\ptet 4 (passim}; I.U. 195-6, ~. Jl-4.-...3, 33-t-6 ""' and mbstittJtion.l3-9. ?Zo 9'7--9. II7-22, 1~, IS4, 199 "' in re:spomes, 1'17-9> 191-2,. 2.02. clausal-, 196-225 coding of ..., , 334-6 -. 170-"- 192 meaning of ""'• ]r4...8 nomin;l,..,.. I.-.7-65. 211 opeatol' ,... , IU-6. 11):1 relation between vabal ~nd chusal "' , 196-201 rcstricriow; 011 - • ~-J verbal,... 16']-96 ~hz. Be lNDI!X 369 IK -, ~6 embeddiag ($tt :dso rank shift), 136, 191'> :lJ:I-3 emphuic additive, 2.4-6. aw endophon., eodophoric, 33. Jo6 compMativ~. 78-8o, 8~ demonstratives, 6o-72 penonah, 4&-52 substitution, 89-90 '"" the, 71-4 epithet: ""' indlipsis, 163-6 _... in nominal group, 40-1, 93, 147-53 comparative as"", 76-7, 8o-J: rquative rutue, 1l4,. 165, 313 exnnplifiauion. 248, :~:so rxophon, exopheric, 11, JJ, J6, JOS comparatives, 79. 83 ... demom.tntivn. 58-9, 63 ""' ellipas, l-4-b l6I, 163, 166 ""' general nouns. 277 "" personals, 4B-s2 ""' subst:itutiOD.,. 90. 1::1&, 141 ""'tM.71,7] generalized ""'• Sl-4. 143 experiential (component, structure), z6, 2<), 40. 11), Jof.7,2li.:J40-J: exposition, ~...s. 2j0 enemal: ,.. additive, 24So ~9 "" .:a~e. 2so, :zss-6 ,.,.. CJlU.Jal, .2j7, ~~ ""' conjunction, .140-4. 34-I ... kmpo=i, 26)-4. 266-7 E:u;t, :52, IJI-J. ~ll comparative reference to "" • 79 demomtntive refercoce to ..., , 66--7 personal rcfereacc. to """. j2-J, .zz1-:1 mbstitut:i011 fer ... , l0'7 field. :u. J.6 forally • .26], ~j finite. fini~ 127, 167, 1'70'-6, tiJo-I, '99 ""' and ten$e, l&4-'7, 190-I ... in .modal element. 197 presupposition of ... 1io-2, 19;1-3 fo~ Xi]-4 for, 253 frequency, 290-1 fimct:ion2l componenu, 26 ~. 231, 2.38, ~ gender. ol7 geoeral words. 27.f.-'7, ~ • .z8o--r

370 g;.,·a:~ (and new), 27, u6_ p.s--6 demonstrative as -. 67 :substitute 2.5 -. IIO II~ Jw~ {lexical, 'possess ) ; recognition of,... 171-3 :substitution for -. 117 """ cand operator, :WI ~. him, his., ll, 44. ,._7-9, z8&, 30I ~d {in rwminal group), ]~. 90. ~. ~47-9. 153-:S classifie:r :u ... , I SO dcictk as -. 155--61 demonsu-ative: .U ""', jll, 62--6, ZJI epithet :u ... !6)--6 DUmerative as ... r61-3 peaonal as ,.., • 45-6 substitute u "'""', 90-"::Z, 94-5, 99 bead (in verbal group}, 90, 11,_3 ltma, .2S6--"7 lwu, 57. 74-:S 'btte 1ond now'. 1>9, z6<{, 7.67 bomophoric. 7r. 73 lwwtvn, :Z.$Oo-Z. ::zss byponym. 285 hypoWW. hypouctic, 136, .1.37 ... in clause complex. 2»--4 presupposition and ,.._., 196 reported clause as ... , u8, lli l, mt, my, mi~ • ... 46-9 .ideational component, 26,. "39 identity, 3H-4 ... and similarity. ).9. 7<:> '""' of tefereru:e, see cotef~ence if. :Zj!) indirect {tpetth}, :Z.I7 rtatem.ent, 219-~ ,... WH-question. 217-8, 2U>-l ... yesjno question,. 21&--.9. 220-1 information; foc;~U, 1.22, 15), Jl6-7 structure, 27, I2J. 299. l:Zs-6 syucm:s, pj-(i contnstive - , 1 53. 307 iruktu/. .2)0, .2)1, .2Jll, 2.48 internal: ..., additive, 24.5, 2.49--SO adversative. 252-J, ::Zjj-6 ... uusal, .257. 2$9-"61 ,.._, conjunction. .2)6, Z4D-4 ..., continuuive, 268-71 t-emporal, WJ-s, 7.1YJ interpa=nal (component. structure), 26, 29. 104, 2)8, Z40-l ... meaning with gener;l nouns. 27(1 intonation (5ee alro tonk), 102, u6, 1:53, 161, 2$0o-l, 271-J, :&i), ].2j-6 it, i.ts, # 47-8, ::1.79, ]Ol U: ... referring to .tact, .s.a referring to thing, 5.2 kveb (of"la.ng=gc), j, j0)--3, ]t3 lexical; item. 274-. 2'79-84, .2.19--9-2 relati-ons, zS_s, )t8-Ul set, 27$. 285 ..., taxonomy, ::z'79-8o lcxkal cohesion, Chapcer 6 {passim): lZ. 296. JI8-~. JJ8 and conjunction. JQJ-4 and reftrenee, 304-:'S ""' and subultution, .280 coding of-. 338 meaning of ... , 118-2.0 Jexirogrammar, leldoogrammatical, 5, .299- .300. 303", Jo6-&. ]18: linguhti!: system, s. ~ ]0], J:W logk.al (cGmponent,. structure), 26, :z.g, 39, H), 147• ZJr-4. 2-JS, 32<0 274-6 meaning (see also semantic), s. 10. W, S<J-9o, JOJ '"" G{ cahesian. Chapttr 7 {paWn) '""' of dlipsis, 314-8 '""' of lex:ictl cobesilln, :188--<) '"'"' of Riercnce, )08--14 ,., ofsubrtitution, 307, 114-8 fact 2.5 ..., , IJ2 medium (in clause structure), uo .modal block (mocW element in. clause structure), IP-4, 197 ellipsis of-. 191-201 mod.aliry, 1):5-6, 170,. I.lio-a, z.D9,. 219 presupposition of '""• uz. 181-2 modalivd cbwe: elliptical _., U9 substitution of-. 1).4--5 mode, 2:2., 26 modifier, 39-, su-s. 147-53 attiw.dinal ,.,. , .27() definiug ,and non-dcfu:ring.-, 6j,93-5,277 demonstutive u ... j8, tU---6 personal as ,._. • 4-s--6 mood; (tee also modal block) "" and ref<:tcnc.e. 310 ,... ofrepor«d ciau.se,. IJI, %17 presupposition of ... I9Z, 1<)8

mort, So. llti- morpOOlogiQI Yarianb,. ~91 ~tive, so-t, •98, 3~7 mar, see proximity negative: -.. form of additive, ~5, 249 ,.., form of conditional 259 ..., :in verbal gnmp, 176--So ..., rubstitute. 133 ndtWr, ISS, 157-8 ndthn .•. 1Wf, .l# new, 27, 67, ~ u6, JO?, 315-6. Ps--6 &nwnm-ati- as -, 69 elliptical item :LS ""' , I 52 substirute as ""• l~O nm, :>JI, 239, :z6t, 263, M7 as 'not so', 07. 178, ~-9 ... as delermincr, 155. 157-8 nominal group. 39'-43, HJ, 1<4-3-.t. I.f-7-st, 111'1M, IS-r-8 mw, 137. 24<4--S ,.., .. ... as substitnte, r):I-6 ,... iP vcrllal group, 176-7 .am/ ••• -.14-'5. - ... dth"· 2.4-5 notation. 332. 333-9 noun,-t.I, 45,147-8, IS<t- cbSiei of ... ' 274 common -. ~. 147, lS1 compound - • 98 COIIllt """• 9a_ 97, 100 geuenl -. 10). 27.j.-82 mass, <p, tOO m~~. 1620 proper ""'. 42, 147, 23r rmw; demomtr::uive ... , S7, 14-5 temporal ..., • Ul4 contibuative ""', 167 number, 44;. 100 iu demonstntives. f:i:o~; - in~ deittk!>, 15!1.-9 in partitives, 14&-9 in substitutes. 91-2, 96, 99 numenl: """' in nominal group, 40, 147 cudi=l -. ')3-100, 161-2 OTdinaf ""', I6I-:l numerative: ""' in ellipsis, 161-3 37I "" in nominal group, 40--Z. 99, 147-53. ,., com.pan~tive as ""'. 76-7 t>f {llUfff, ~69 ON fM uthff hand. 14-7, 252- as deknn.ine:r, 96, ICIO-.<. ""' as cardinal nu.meral, 9&---1:00 ..., as pn>-noun. 102-4 forms eof ... (table), 1o6 "'"'· Otl<"5 (sumtibne}, 91-105 -. onc's(penonal), 44. 46. 5J., 98 .mly. 25r opentor: ellipsis of,..,,174--6 modi.l -. 1'?0.. !So-~ temporal ... 171 verb:II ...,, 127,170, 180-~, S94 IK, 244-7, 148 'or' relation, .l3J, 236. 238, :1.44, ~7 ordinati-n- {in nominal group), 163 Dih~. 7&.--9, I6o ofimwm, 2j9 pacagraph, 10.. 2.'}6-7, 333 parataxis, ~bctic, :122. 2.3.3, 4J7, 249 ,.._. in clause complex, l.U---4 particip•mt (roles in clause), 210. 212, .lJS: put!ti~. 14&-9 p~rive, SJ. tl':Z...3 no:rubsritutionin ,.,.,zu, l99 ~son. 38, «-5 p~ u-s?. 305, 309 pclari<y' ;md subitiuuion. IU in verbal group, 167, 171, 176--80 ,..,. in yet/no questions, ::1;19 dliptic:al e.xpres:sion of,..., :208-9 marked ""'. 179-So, 201 prnuppoo.tionof-, ut, ;r7(S-8o.t9:l.-3 switch of""', 259 positi~ {p<;llaricy}, t]6--8o marked ""'• 171, 1'79--80. 191, ;JOl pouessives. 45-6, 5-J-S, t57 post-deictic, t59-6I postmodifier, 40. 147 ptedicator; ""' in clause: MrUCtttH:, 19-f- premoditier, 40. 1-4-7 ~n, 228, 2J0-:l, .29! ptepOiiti<:lnal group. 147, 23~. 294 pf'(Silppositioq, J-9. 14, 17 _, and dependem:e. .2:03 aDd~22-J

372 presuppmition,----«mld -. by ellipsis, I.p--6, 14-B-53, 155-62, •6-f---6, 17~-'l-, 176----9, 181-~, J:t:l&-92, ""-" ""'by r-eferffl{:e, $6,6)-), 82, IJJ ..., by substirution. 92-5, IO)-U, fiJ-.!J, ,,.,... pn:..-ious, 262, :us6 pro-form, 103-4 pronoun. 41, 4-5, 29'! indefinite '"", .p, IOJ, 22]. pen.onal ""• JS. 42-4. 147 pm-noun, 103 Dttt' as """. 102-4 thing~ ~, 10):, H2 propOl'ition.U clement (in dau!ie}, 193-.f, 197 ellipsis of,..., 197-201 pro-verb, 12.5-7 proximity (in demonstrati..-es), ]3, 57, sS- 61, 305 proximity (of linguistic items), 285, 290 pun.cr;u.;uion, 17, jl, 2JZ, J2S purpose, 2.5t'i, USo qualifier, 4(1, 93, 14-7--9 partitive ... 148-9, 162-3 quantifier: "" in nomi:n:o.l. group, 40, J47 rompuative """, 76, &o indeliniu "". 161-2 question; -.. ~ amwrr, aob-1J, 3I:S t:r.g, 176 e!:ho -. 21$,218 irnlirett ... ' 217--9 non-polar - , see WH- ~ polar ..., , iltt" ya/no - WH- "", t.,S.. 19!, 198-9, .no- u yes/no-.., t77-9. H)l, 19&. 2o8-1o nnk shift, 1)6, 221, 2.2J, 2.25 of fad da=e,. :z.21 p.-csupposition and - , I 96 rn:lization, 2, s. 293 reason, zs6. :.Wo ttCOvcn:blc (and see given}. 69, 72. 89. IJ6, I«-5. 2!18, 302-J, J25-6- reducal form: article u -, 101 continuative as ,..,. , :U>8 vc:tbalopttatoc as,...,, llj-6. 179-So reference,. Chilpter 2 (passim); .f., 89. Z75-7. Jo8-I4, 333-4 -.. ;md conjunction, 75--6,zz6-7, 2]0--2 >1nd kria.l cohezicm, :z78-84. JOC-1 ,..., and substitution, 88-90> 95, I2J, IJ6, 145. 304-S coding of ... , 3 33-4 compar.anve ..., , 39, 76--87, 248 .ru-monru-.arive ~, 38, 57-76 extended ... , 52-3, t'i6-7 meaning of ... 30&-14 person.tl ""'• JS,4J-.'i7 :SJ'tuationa1 and texnn.l-, 32, 305 reference item, J7, 44, 1:98, z)o-r, 27j, 277- 82 retinal, 206, :.n6 reginer. 2.2-6, :U. 294 reitc~tion, 278--9, J 18-9 rejoinder, zo6--8 "" to command, .:u6 "" to stttemt":nt, 214-6 que~tion ""• 214 rep-etition, 4. z78, 281-4 report. J:U-3. 221-2 reported clause ; dl.ips.is in,..,, zu, .217-22 substitution of,..., lJI-4 repudiation, 93 ,_ .in conjw:u:ticn, 23~ in nomin.U ~llipsis, 1!§1-J, r.sS.. 16o. ••• ~ in tespoll!ieS., 2l3, .2I8 -.. in verbal ellipsis, 174-5, 176-94 '""'with_ lW, IT4, ll'}-2], IJO ~ with <.>m', 94-5 ~ with Slml<", IOj, 107-8 re!lervation, 271-3 respective, 2:;9, 261 response, 206 to st;otement., 198 _. toWH- question. 178, l9I, 198----9, ZlD-2 """' to yesjno question. ITJ-9, l9't, r'}ll, 208->0 direct ... ' 206. 20$-I:l indir.ect ... 20<6, 212-J supplementary -, zOO, 2 0 restricted code, 34 result, 256. z6o nwmptive, UIS, 267, 270 retrmpective function, 236, 2n rever.ed cauul. 2j7, z6o rheme, 325 salient (phonologically): formi of articles, 101 forms of verbal operator.~, 179 J,u-,1o8,ns

MU: i1S ~. 'lo:i. 14tflefi ""• 'l.I(), 112 S<lme': "' as referen.::e jrem, 78, 79-8t>. 107 ""' as subst:itut.e, 91, 105-r2 in ellipsis, 16o ~lht -, 109-iO Jo tht! ""'' 108-9 $1:1}' flu,.,, 107-8 second mention. 7J semantics, semantic (S« aho ~aning), .f, s. 1~ ~-S, 88-9o, 305 ..., connection, 304. 3o8 ,.,... rdations, 278-8~ z8s, 320 semantic unit. 2, 7. 293 scnten«, 7-to, 28, 143--6, 235, 29J-S, P5-6 ~lion of ""• 235. z.u immed!.attly preceding,.,., I.f., 2111, Jlr;t initi.:il ,., ' ~8 intervening ... , J:Jl isolated '""'. 300 orthographic ""'• I7, 232-3 :seqw:ntiai, ~~. U06-7 sM, J:n,lw{l), #. 47 -' ,... as ooqjiWctive tehtion, 247, 250 "" u l>.'ference, 39. 76 t.imultmeow, 262, 2.66 .situation. 17, :.U, 240, 305-6 rommullication "", 240, 253, 264, 267 se: (see ako tlo so} ,.,. as oomp2ntive, 79, So,. 14-6 a$COOjunction,. 2Jl,2J7, l]9, 25-6-7, JOI """assubstitute,91, IJo-4-I """ = 'true', IJ!i-9 ""' in response forms, .137--9 forms of_, {table), 140 -· 100, 157-9 speakc:T; ...,. and addressee, 45-6 .,.,me, """deiaics, 154. 155-7, 309 "" furJU5 in sul»titutioa, 314 _. rd«m~ 309-10 speci6arion (in nominal group), .p speech act, 240 speech function. 197-8 of report, J:l7 speech roles, -45. 4Jl--52 statement, 198 m1ita (see also kvcls), :J structure, smxtur21, 6, ]0] :wd cohesion, :Z.)J-4 INDJ!:X 373 clause "'• IJo-R, 143, r96---201 elliptical "-', 1.43;., 167-8 seotence ""'• r:;6, 143, r46 mbject: in verbal ellipsU, 183 ... jn clause structure, 143, 194 rdi::rcnceto ""'• ]IQ-l repudOOon of'""', 1.19, 194-5 requin:mart of ... , jJ, I2.f. lJO WH--, 2Io-I mbj~N:t-.maner, 25 mbmodifier: ..,. in nominal group, 43, 147 com.panriv-e ;os ... 77, 3I, 86 substitution., Chapter 3 {passim); 307, JI.f--8, ,. ""' and ellipsis, 88-9, 92, 97-9, 117-22, 142-6.154, 199" .- and lexial cohesion, ~o "' Zbd refuence, 88--9o,. 95, lZJ, I:Jc'i, 145. 304-8 "' counter, 145 in responses, .zoo. ~ dauuJ:.,..., 91, t:;o-41 coding a( ""' , 334 meaning of """• Jt;YJ, 314-8 nominal """'• 91-ll2 verbal -.., 91, 1 Ili-29 !!JUh, 79, l4-6, JOI supedative, &t, US!, 163-5 supero~e, 63, 275, ~ mpctnution: clause of""', Io8 Sllt~ly. 2']0 ~n~,63-5, 72, 278-9.~92 symmic {featules, options). 144, 16'7-9, 204 temporal. 2J9. 241-4 (table), 2.61-J tenor, U. 26 tense, l67, JS<f--7 compound ""'• Ill8-9o prewpposition of ,., , 12-1, 1S~. 19k-J primacy ""'• 187 secoodary '""'. 187 i.impk '"". 188, 191 text, I:, 4, :1.], I.p, ~34, Z4Q. 267, 290, 293---.8, ,,.,... textual component, 27, 29, 234, 237-8, 299, 324-(i, ]28 textl!te, :Z, 7, 2.3-6, 73, 285, 289, :A9J-9, 320 ""' of discot.u=, 326-7 ""' within lhe sentence, 32.5-6 imaginary "", .2;9'7-8 tight and loose ..., • ~5-7

374 dJdt, tlwJ;e, $7• 59-']0. Z.JO fM. ), 570 '70--4. 96, JOI, '156-7, I6j...('i, ~75-7 dteme,. thematic 3ti'UCtl.ln:o 1.7, 299, j.lj, 325 ""' and refuenc;e, Jll-2 subrtirute so as ,... , I J.C. ,., demomtrative """, 57, 74-5 aa temporal conj>&nction. 231, 237, :ZJ9, 261-3 Ai :uausalroQjunction,.zs?-8 lhm. n. 7.4-~ tktt;lt»t. ~30. 2Jl, :l:S6-7 thesis,. ZJ~ 26'] Jitry, tlftm, llrrir(s).. J, j, 44. l()I t~oq, """""""('im"""""''·" tiring. !OJ, 274-6 thing (in DOminal group), 40. j2, 1)8, ll]., 1.4?-Sl tiis_ lbue, 57, 59-70. <J6--7, :lJO, )01 tfwMgfi, 250 dats. 248. 2j6->} tie. 3. Z93> 2;96. 319. P9-P jmmrdiatc """, :no mediated """ , .no reuJO(e -. J.Jl types of ... J~J2 ~(see • a:mpotal): succession in -, .2~. 2)9 internal (situation) - • 2.40 cxtemal (them) "". ~ tone group, 7.7, 2j0-I, ~ took (tonic promiDence), 102, 116, lj.:l-], 161, ].26 ""'in ellipsis. ISl conjunctive as ,., , 250-1, 271 demoosttative u -. 69 leas-, 116, I:U nurkcd ""'• IS:J Dm a ""'• roz Si<liJSt'U "'• 110 substitute u ... , 94 verbal operator u ,..,. , 168, 179 zw, *· JOl: transitivity, Jlo-1 verb: anxiUary -, see operatoc general ,.,. , 114--j lexical-, 170.178 verW group, IIJ, :r~, '1'70-94- 294 e:llipsis in ... 1:14>. 11&-9. t6?-76 substitution in ... , ll..J-.23 vocabulary, see lexical vocative, 277 voice, 167, I~l presupposition of ""'• I.:ll, 18:1-J, 19:rJ wt', ws, mlt(s), 44-o 49-SO we: gem:ralized('im.pc:nonal'}, 53 weok (phonologially)' <lenwwttative as """• 65 determiner as """• Ioo-I ~tote iD as"", roB, us substitute ;Jilt' as """, roo. to6 'SUbstitute so as ""', I 11 wen,~ WH- eJtPtts:sions. 210, ~JO wocling (see abo lexi~. S. tp, 145, JI4 yu, 1.J7. 173. 208-"9 )'d. 2]7. 239. 2jQ-:i ,_.~,$~ ,_, }'t'Uf(s), #. 48-9 ,..., ('"""""""' ,. " zeugma, ZI4

An;noff, ~. et aL ( ed..'<} Beaugrandoe, R.D_ lh:umfield, L. Radfm-d, A. et al. Robin~, R. H. Spair. E Sau$W"e, F. D. Yule, G. Cben, M. Y. Clark, J. et al. Cruttenc'en, A. (ed) Gus:>enhoven, C. et al. Kagt'T, R. Roach, P. The Handbook of LinguistTLS ,._,_"',.lt Linguistic Theory: The Diswur~~ of Fundamental Works m~*~~,~~~~~~~~~~ Lang=.ge m""t"-11:: Lt'nguislic;;: A-n Tntmduction Gnu:ml Lmgu•stics Foun:h edition Language: An Introduction tu the Study of Sj.>ee<_-h ii--t7r-:~il-.J]f-Jt-l}~ -tf-04-ikT?f:-tt:tt The Study of Language Second edition ?&-TJJtlt Tome &ndhi : Patterns acrv:>.> Chi-n:eu: Diala::ts Se<X>nd edition g-~~~$.~Afl Gimsan '~ Pnmunciativn of Engtim Sixth Edition Umh>ntanding Phmwlogy -t-.*.~>1-- Optimalitv Theory English Phun~ti<.·s and Pr.nrwi<>KY: A Practical Quru Se=nd edition 375

Syntax ~ r!:'*" Ba:tin, M. et sL (eds.) Cook, V. Ouhaila, j. Radfonl, A. Radfonl, A. Smith, N. Lappin, S. {ed) ... yons, 1. Saeed, j. L Matthews, P. H. PM::kard, J . L. Pragmartc~ ~m$" Mey,J.L. 376 The Har~dbook of Omtcntpon:;ry Symru:tic Theory :!i~5Jii-J£-1£'~~ Rnau:4edge of Language: Its Nature, Origin , ami Use "* ~ ~ iP.. ; Jt.+t Jk " * ~ Jt-!! }ij Sewnd edition .ff. -HJ: ~ £. ji; -f-.14 if-i.Ht a Intnxludnjl; Tramform.:~.tit:mai &am mar: From Prim·;ptes a".d Parameters to Minimaiism S=oond edition Syntax: A Minimalist lntnxlw::tinn Transfc;·rmationaf G7um-mar: A Fint Count' C/wm;;;ky: Ideas and I <hob ~'*'t~.!,.:-&~l:ij~"fl. The Handb.oo.k. of Contemporary Semantic Theory :lH':,-$-- :'Ul f(dlf ~ Linguistic Semantics: An lntnxlucticm -jj,:)liJF~l* Serna,.tics Morpho.'.o~=.y Second edition :ifj ,5-Jfr. The Mo..-pholngy of Chii'UW': A Linguistic and Cagnith"' Approach. Vtii-'li§5'f!':ii-"tiA.,i;;;.J;;t~>#. Pragmatics: An Introduaicm Second t!dition

Peccei, J.S Sperhr, D. \"t 11L N.elnxmce: C.ommunu:ati071 and Cognrtion Seeand editKm Ven><:hueren, J. Understanding Pragmatics Brown, G.€1: al. Di.<n~r.w Arw.lj<5is Gee, J-P- Philo::ophy nf l..1l.ngaage JB-~1§'$ Austin, J.L Haw to lJG Things with Word:; Seeond edition ~?I y;{ "t .ff • Gri<:e, H. P. Searle, J.R. S:udi€5 in the Way of Wards "t~Jfi;'!;-Ai;f#.: Speech Act> : An E$say tlf the Philosuphy <Jf l.a-nguap ~-ii-#fl:m-T~:f-i:e Searle, J.R. &pressio'! and Meaning: Studies in tiw Theory of Speech Ac-ts Language Origin Jit11fi8;${ Ai!dllson, J. The Seed! of Speech: Lang=g<" On;;in a.nd Erolutw:: "t m- t11 i!i1 L : -ffl-1: ~ ~ .tj it ft History of. LinguistiC\ i'lt 'l"f'*' ;f. Robin:;, R. H. L=ioograph,- ~A$ Hejoi:1t, H. Cowie, A.P. A Short Htstory of Linguis!U~ F=rth E:d:itlm: -i§."t-<f'i'li:i: English Dictionarieo for Forfign Learners: A H~tary ~'**;;jj,Jj-#{.1!_ 377

Sty!isttcs _Xf*-?t Leech, G. N. Leech., G. :'i. et al. Thcn-nbocrow, J. et al. Wright, L. et al. T ypok.gy jg -g ~~#fr. Croft, w. Didirmory of Ln:imgraphy A Unguistic Guide to Engbsh Poetry ~it <¥:' >3" -m "' : :it- "t" "" ~ ~ -#" ~ 5!- Style in Fiction: A Linl,,'"Yistic Iltlrod.uaifm tu E-ngli,J, Ficrimwi Prose Patients in La-nguage: Styliuics for Studtmts of Language and Literature Typology and Vmversals ii-~4t~~~-f->A-ii-4#M- Anthropok?gu::al Lingui>;tics A~ m-~-~ Foley, W. ltnthrvpofugical Linguisl>O : An ln!nxl.uction A~-ii-"i"~A.f1 Sociolinguistics tl ~m tf "f: Coulmas, F. (ed} The Handbook of &xiolinguistia; ?-*-ii~~,il~ Crystal, D. F~!d, R. Hudson, R.A. Aitchison, J. 378 English as a GWbal Language "*' j§. ' ± If-ill Jll -ij. The Socwiing-«i!-lics af Language ***i:!f" Sociolinguislics Se=nd €clition :ii:.*-ii-"t'*1t« lntrothutUm In ."V>cinli11J!Uistio; Thin:! edition ¥-.it--jj"t~~l ~ The Artit::uiate JltftJmmd: An 1-ntnxluction 10 P~Jwhnguist;c;, Fourth edition

Csormll, D. W. Psychoio;zy of l.a~ge Third edi1ion it-""$" •U ~ 'f:. lntereultural Crnr.municati.on ~.X f.tJC!iJ; Samovar , L. A. et al. Scollon, R.et al. Tun..«h1.1ology l!llf~ Baker, M. Taylor, J.R. Ungerer, F. et ~l. Bloor, T. et al. Hallirlay, M.A.K. H;olliday, M.A.K. Halliday, M.A.K. et ai. Thompson, G. Ccmmunicu.ti<m &tuft>!" Cultures Second edition lntercullural Cam municati011 : A DiSLuur.k' Analysis Jt X.1t. ~ !'ij: : ii-.li>St· # ~ In Other Word;<: A Ctmrsebook on Translation :ll. T .:t. : fli it .tt. :n. Transf4tion and Translating' Thewy o.:nd Pnu;tice Unguistk Categori=tWn : Prolotype;< in Linguii.tic Theory Second edition ·~-~~~:~T•«•t~AA~ An Intraductian to ~ithi£ Linguistus R4.Pii-i:'*Af1 TM Functional Analysis of Er;glish: A Ha.llida_van Approach "iO.; ;< lt <l-t; ' # ;t.<U! .<; An Introduction to Fum:tim;al Grammar Secoru:l edition Langua.ge <U Social Stmiotu:: Th£ Scxid Interpretat;on of Language and Meanmg ~~~*~~~~~:A¥*•L~·~T~·~ O;he;<iun in English .f:.it "#!" 3- Introduci:ng Fum:tWnal Grammar #/1tit*-A.f1 Historieal Linguistics IJj j;: jg-1'j ~ Lehmann, W . P. Hist<.•rirni Lingui;;tic4: An Int.-aducti<m Third edition »;:t.~~<f='.!t-*" 379

Tras.k, R- L Biber, D. et al. Kum:edy, G. W<-'lXi:., A. et al. Carpus L-ingu;uiu; -J.i# .. i!-i>'f: An Introduction tu Wrpu.s Lingui5tin -ffl--#J.$.-:i-iit~Afl History oi the Engl:.sh Langu~ ~'in j: Baugh, A.C. eta!. Freeborn, D. A History of the Enf{iish Language Fourth edition From. Old English W Standard F--nglz>h Second edition ,lt--$- Jt , A --i;- A:. ~ it $IJ # )jt .1,; -$-- First Umguage A.:q::.isition ;g-m~ .5J14 Foote:--Cchen, S. H. Goodluck, H. Feccei, J.S. An lntroducti<m to Child Language f_ft .. JclrJpment JL :t-W --t :l_.a 5T * La~g1<tlge AcquiritWn: A Lin;;uis1ic lntrodw:tWn Child La.ngw:<ge New edition JL :l-1t. "t Second Language Acquisition ~- iH "'§ JJ ~ Cohen, A. D. Strateg".e.s m Lea_,.-ning and Using a 5dund Language C.ooif., V. Cook, V. James, C. 380 'f:Jl:t>-ii:..ifi-==-ii"t"BiJ-l-4- Linlf'.<l-5t-i£s and Serond Langz..age Acqui5itUm -ii~-Yf'-t>~-=--i!-lt>J1f Sa:or.d Lang:.,age Lcar.ring and Langwa.ge- Tcachmg Second edition Erro:s i11 Language Learr.i:ng and Use: Exploring EnYir Analy.<is

Larnen-Freerc:an, D.e1 al. Re!d. J. M. R!chan:ls, ] . C. n: al. Rmv.-n, H. D. Brown, H. D. Brown, J.D Harmer, J _ Hatch. E_ et al. Joh,son. K. Trudgi!l. P. et a!. Ur, P. Research Method ilf~1f~ Mc0ofl04<h • J . et al. SLide, C_ An I ntraducticm to S.X=d La.ngu<>ge Acquisitio., R«s«anh Sa:or-<i Umguage I eaching and Learning L!armng Stj'iu in the ESL/EFL Gr:s.;roo-m ESL/EFL *-ii- -1¥- ~ __'t_ ~ <'f: ;g Pl.t.\- &(Uctiue T.u:u:hing i.n Se::mul LanguageCla.ssroo:m.., Prinriples of lAnguage LearT<inl{ and Trucking ThOrd edition T a:K hin;; by Principlu: An fnteractit:e Approach W La>1guage Pedagogy ~-./.fl!.¥.<t:£S..A,$-t".ft_#' D.e Eli:mR11ts of l.angua}l;<' Curriculum : A SyMematU: Appru«ch w Pmgram Deu:lopon~nt Hrrw tc Teach English ;t.#--ft~il- Vocabulary, &m.un:ics and Language Edu=tion ::>!X.-ii-Y._~-fpjj-""t.-. An Intnxluaion to Forrign Lan;:ruaJ:e L-ea.rm·ng awl TrochtnK Appruaches and Methnds m Languag<O Tead-.ing Imer~W-tional Eng{ith Third edtrion **'m~>i.mil- A Coune m La:r.gua~re Teaching : Practice and Theory :i!- --t .oft ~ :tt 4'£ : ~ ~ ~ Jlt ~ R~.::h Metlwds for En.gluh Language Teachers ~-ii-;Jt.<'f:#~::t':ik Form and Style' Resem-ch Paper.;, Report:;, Thei!es Tenth edit;on 381

ThnmRS. J et al. (eds) Wray, A. et .a!. Testing ill~'$: A.ldt'nlOn. J. C. er .sL Bachman, LF. et al. Davie;, A. et al. Henning, G. Hea:on, J. B. Wood, R. Academic Writing$;f::~f1:: Robens, W. H. et al. Course Design W.ffi!tlt Y aio:kn , J . English Grammar #fia-~1! Biber, D. et al. Hopper, P. J . -et al. Di.crionary $-A Bl.llloS!"m;.nn, H. 382 Projocts m. Linguir>iH 1 A Practical Guide to Researching Lan,_ 1i-T"tiJ.JA:il1:l.lt3t~.Dl-ll.lJ lnterfm:et between Secr.nd Language Acgui:u."tion and Language Testing Ruearch -~*~~~~*~~~~~~4P Dit:t:Umary of Language TeJting ii-"t""il'Jil.f;JJ.Jil. A Guide to Language Testing: Development, Evalw:Uion tmd Re:>earch Writing En!diMI Language Tests New edition .1\su-ssment and Terting: A Survey of Researr:h jtft;~~iii.:$J!"3t'*l!. A!xmt Language~ .4.. Reader for Writers Fifth edition ilii-T: 1i-ff'"it*"- Prinopies oJ COurse 1Jesi1(11 for lAn.g~m~ Te=king li-""t4t'**tlii.~~.II Lm>gman Grammar "f Spoknt and 1\''ritten English. I!;IJ X* ii- t7 ii" :;, !{.. 3-iiHI:· Grammutical;=tirm Routledge Dictionary of I..anifUUge and Linguistics -)l"t~ii-T<filf11l

C:ryst.al, D. Johnson. K. et aL R!chards, J. C. et al. Tht> Cambridge F:"u:y<;{~W. of Language Seo:md edition S~JJ ~ m 1; "li it m ~ Em::;x:Wpedi<· Du:tion.ary of Applid Lingui•·t;c.;, A Handbook .far Language T eochmg 11! .. J'l m- 1: <f 1f "tit~: ii-T tt !f!" -f -M- IAngman Dirt<<maryof I.ang~Wge Teaching & Applied Linguistics 383