The Use Of Cohesive Devices In Selected Short Stories Of Ernest Hemyngway: A Discourse

(1)

TH E USE OF COH ESI V E D EV I CES I N SELECTED SH ORT STORI ES OF ERN EST H EM YN GW AY: A D I SCOURSE

AN ALYSI S

A TH ESI S

ROSALI N A LBN . TOBI N G REG. N UM BER: 0 4 0 7 0 5 0 2 8

EN GLI SH D EPARTM EN T FACULTY OF LETTERS

N ORTH SUM ATERA UN I V ERSI TY M ED AN

(2)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

By the grace, bless, and mercy of God Almighty, the writer can finish this thesis well and right on time. It is a pleasure to complete this thesis. The writer realizes that there are many flaws in this thesis. The writer expresses her deepest gratitude for the help, patience as well as guidance from these people whether directly or indirectly.

First of all, the writer would like to thank the Dean of faculty of letters USU, Drs. Syaifuddin, M.A.,Ph.D., the chair person and the secretary of English Department, Dra. Swesana Mardia Lubis, M.Hum and Drs.Yulianus Harefa, M.Ed TESOL for the facilities and advice the writer had obtained during her study in this faculty.

The writer, then, would like to express her great gratitude to her Supervisor, Drs. Syahron Lubis, M.A. and Co-supervisor, Dra. Masdiana Lubis, M. Hum., for their advice, suggestions, help, and for spending their valuable time to guide the writer in finishing this thesis. The writer also would like to express his sincere thanks to all lecturers of English Department for giving help and contribution of knowledge during her academic years.

The writer’s highest, sincere, and very special gratitude is devoted to her beloved parents, B. Lbn. Tobing and E. Hutabarat, for giving their support, love and affection since in the cradle until now and for good. This thesis is one of many things that the writer wants to do for them in her life. The warmest thanks are also devoted to her dearest sisters, Elida and Ade, and her beloved boyfriend ‘Ian’, for all their love, support and pray.

(3)

Finally, the writer would like to thank her friends Christy, Marilyn, Merlin, Rosa Munthe, Erlin, Siska, and Agustina for giving colorful days and for their never ending friendship, awareness, unfixable aid, spirit and everything during her academic years and especially in the period of finishing this thesis. The writer appreciates them for giving everything they had done to her. May God bless them all.

Medan, Juny 2008

(4)

ABSTRACT

Hal yang paling menarik dalam mengkaji ilmu bahasan adalah bagaimana bahasa itu digunakan dalam kehidupan sehari-hari dan bukan apa komponen-komponen bahasa itu. Dengan demikian yang menjadi permasalahannya adalah bagaimana para pemakai bahasa menafsirkan apa yang disampaikan oleh pemakai bahasa lain. Dengan mencoba mengerti dan mencerna apa yang ditulis oleh para penulis, memahami apa yang disampaikan pembicara secara lisan dalam suatu percakapan, maka kita sudah terlibat dalam suatu analisis bahasa yang disebut analisis wacana. Skripsi ini berjudul The Use of Cohesive Devices in Selected Short Stories of Ernest Hemyngway: A Discourse Analysis, yaitu suatu analisis mengenai relasi yang erat (kohesi) yang bertujuan untuk mengidentifikasi dan mendiskripsikan jenis- jenis alat kohesi yang terdapat dalam teks- teks tersebut yang diangkat dari teks wacana tertulis. Wacana yang dianalisis dalam skripsi ini diseleksi dari sejumlah cerita pendek karangan Ernest Hemingway dalam bukunya yang berjudul The First Forty Nine Short Stories of Ernest Hemingway. Selanjutnya menentukan alat kohesi yang paling dominant. Dari hasil pengkajian yang dilakukan dapat diketahui bahwa pemakaian alat kohesi yang paling dominan adalah perujuk pronominal dengan jumlah 640 atau 61,18%. Kemudian disusul dengan pemakaian alat kohesi konjungsi sebanyak 271 atau 25,90%, elipsis sebanyak 62 atau 5,92%, kohesi leksikal sebanyak 48 atau 4,58%, dan yang paling sedikit adalah subsitusi sebanyak 25 atau 2,39%.

(5)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ... i

ABSTRACT ... iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS... iv

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background of The Analysis ... 1

1.2 Scope of the Analysis ... 4

1.3 Problem of Analysis ... 5

1.4 Objective of the Analysis ... 5

1.5 Significance of the Analysis ... 5

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 2.1 An overview of Discourse Analysis ... 7

2.1.1 Definitions of Discourse ... 7

2.1.2 Functions of Discourse ... 10

2.1.3 Types of Discourse ... 10

2.1.4 Structure of Discourse ... 13

2.2 Concepts Cohesion ... 14

2.2.1 Text ... 15

2.2.2 Texture ... 16

2.2.3 Ties ... 17

2.2.4 Cohesion and Coherence ... 18

(6)

2.3.1 Reference ... 20

2.3.1.1 Personal Reference ... 21

2.3.1.2 Demonstrative Reference ... 23

2.3.1.3 Comparative Reference ... 24

2.3.2 Substitution ... 26

2.3.2.1 Nominal Substitution ... 26

2.3.2.2 Verbal Substitution ... 27

2.3.2.3 Clausal Substitution ... 27

2.3.3 Ellipsis ... 29

2.3.3.1 Nominal Ellipsis ... 30

2.3.3.2 Verbal Ellipsis ... 31

2.3.3.3 Clausal Ellipsis ... 32

2.3.4 Conjunction ... 32

2.3.4.1 Additive ... 33

2.3.4.2 Adversative ... 35

2.3.4.3 Causal ... 36

2.3.4.4 Temporal ... 38

2.3.5 Lexical Cohesion ... 40

2.3.5.1 Reiteration ... 40

2.3.5.2 Collocation ... 41

2.3.6 Relevance study ... 41

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3.1. Research Method ... 44

(7)

3.2. Population and Sample ... 44 3.3. Data Collecting Method ... 45 3.4. Data Analysis Method ... 45

CHAPTER IV THE USE OF COHESIVE DEVICES IN SELECTED SHORT STORIES OF ERNEST HEMINGWAY

4.1 The Analysis of Short Story 1 The Light of the World Based on Reference, Ellipsis, Conjunction, and Lexical Cohesion ... 49 4.2 The Analysis of Short Story 2 Hills like White

Elephants Based on Reference, Ellipsis, Conjunction, and Lexical Cohesion ... 70 4.3 The Analysis of Short Story 3 A Clean, Well-

Lighted Place Based on Reference, Ellipsis, Conjunction, and Lexical Cohesion ... 86

CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS

5.1 Conclusions ... 101 5.2 Suggestions ... 102

BIBLIOGRAPHY

APPENDICES

(8)

Appendix II Text of Short Story 2 Hills Like White Elephants Appendix III Text of Short Story 3 A Clean, Well- Lighted Place

(9)

ABSTRACT

(10)

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Analysis

No one can be separated from language because language holds an important role in our life and for it is always used in every aspect of human life. Tarigan (1987: 6) says, “Bahasa mempunyai fungsi yang amat penting bagi manusia, terutama sekali fungsi komunikatif.”(Language has important role for human being, especially communicative function). It means that language is the principal modality of human communication and is a tool to convey all human activities in term of communication.

In the study of language, the most interesting questions arise in connection with the way language is used, rather than what its components are. We are asking how language users interpret what the other language users intend to convey. When we carry this investigation further and ask how we, as language users, make sense of what we read in texts, understand what the speakers mean despite what they say, recognize connected opposed to jumbled or incoherent discourse, and successfully take part in that complex activity called conversation, we are undertaking what is known as discourse analysis.

Michael Stubbs (1983: 1) states, “Discourse analysis refers to the attempts to study the organization of language above the sentence or above the clause, and therefore to study larger linguistics units such as conversational exchanges or written texts.” It means that the sentence is not the most complete unit of language but there is another more complete unit than the sentence itself, namely a discourse. McCarthy

(11)

1991: 5) states’ “Discourse analysis is concerned with the study of the relationship between language and the context in which it is used”

Discourse is a text which forms a variety a complete unit. While, the word text is used in linguistics to refer to any passage, spoken or written, of whatever length, that does form a unified whole. Brown and Yule (1984: 6) state, “We shall use text as a technical term to refer to the verbal record of a communicative act. It can be written or spoken text.”

A text has texture. Halliday (1976: 2) cites, “The concept of texture is entirely appropriate to express the property of being a text. A text has texture: and this is what distinguishes it from something that is not a text. It derives this texture from the fact that it functions a unity with respect to its environment.” Texture is signed by tight relation, and this is what we call cohesion which exists within text. Therefore, this cohesion must exist in a good discourse.

A good discourse has some factors. Some of those factors are described in terms cohesion or ties which exist within text. Gutwinsky (1976:26) in Tarigan states that cohesion is a syntactical organization, and is a ‘container’ where the sentences are arranged in harmony intensively to produce discourse.” In other words, Cohesion is the grammatical and lexical relationship within a text or sentence that holds a text together and gives it meaning.

However, by itself, cohesion would not be sufficient to enable us to make sense of what we read. It is quite easy to create a highly cohesive text which has a lot of connections between the sentences, but which remains difficult to interpret. There must be some other factor which leads us to distinguish connected texts which make sense from those which do not. This factor is usually describes as coherence. Coherence can

(12)

be defined as when sentences, ideas, and details fit together clearly, readers can follow along easily, and the writing is coherent.

The term cohesion has some devices to make a tight relation, namely, cohesive devices. Halliday and Hasan (1976: 28) say that there are five kinds of cohesive devices. They are reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction, and lexical cohesion. Reference is the relationship between an element of the text and something else by reference to which is interpreted in the given instance. For example, When scientific experiments do not work out as expected, they are often considered failures until some other scientist tries them again. The word ‘they’ refer to ‘scientific experiments’. Substitution is very similar to ellipsis in the effect it has on the text, and occurs when instead of leaving a word or phrase out, as in ellipsis, it is substituted for another, more general word. For example, "Which ice-cream would you like?" - "I would like the pink one" where "one" is used instead of repeating "ice-cream."

Ellipsis is another cohesive device. It happens when, after a more specific mention, words are omitted when the phrase needs to be repeated. A simple example is The younger child was very outgoing, the older much more reserved. The omitted words from the second clause are "child" and "was". Conjunction creates cohesion by relating sentences and paragraphs to each other by using words from the class of conjunction. For example, I want to buy a new car but I do not have enough money. The conjunction ‘but’ relates two sentences ‘I want to buy a new car’ and ‘I do not have enough money’. Lexical cohesion is basically created by repetition (reiteration) of the same lexeme, or other lexemes sharing the majority of semantic features: the bus ... - the vehicle ... - the chassis. For example, Myths narrate sacred histories and explain sacred origins. These traditional narratives are, in short, a set of beliefs that are a very real force in the lives

(13)

of the people who tell them. The word ‘traditional narratives’ takes the form of synonym namely ‘myths’.

The writer’s analysis is the field of discourse analysis. Discourse consists of several types; they are narrative, exposition, conversation, and poem. Based on the form of discourse, short story is a short prose narrative which usually focuses on a single and clear problem. Tarigan (1987: 57) says, “Wacana prosa adalah wacana yang disampaikan dalam bentuk prosa. Wacana ini dapat tertulis atau lisan dan dapat pula dengan pembeberan atau penuturan. Novel, cerita pendek, dan sebagainya merupakan contoh-contoh wacana prosa.” Like other types of discourse, short story must have texture. To make such texture, of course, there must be cohesive devices used in a short story. Thus, the writer is eager to analyze cohesive devices in short stories.

Ernest Hemingway is an American writer. He was born in Oak Park, Illinois, in 1899. Most of his works especially his short stories The Light of the World, Hills Like White Elephants and A Clean- Well Lighted Place relate with the rural life and take nature as their background. He also employs cohesive devices in his short stories in making cohesive effect to the short stories. So, it helps the readers to understand the unity of the text easier. These things make the writer chooses to analyze Ernest Hemingway’s short stories as the object of an analysis.

1.2 Scope of the Analysis

The analysis which is done by the writer is the field of discourse analysis. In this case, the writer would like to scope this thesis only about the analysis of cohesive devices: reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction, and lexical cohesion found in text

(14)

of selected short stories of Ernest Hemingway : The Light of the World, and Hills Like White Elephants and A Clean- Well Lighted Place.

1.3 Problem of the Analysis

Based on the background of the analysis above, some questions to answer in this thesis are:

1. What are types of cohesive devices occurred in selected short stories of Ernest Hemingway

2. What is the frequency of each type of cohesive devices occurred in selected short stories of Ernest Hemingway showing the dominance in use?

1.4 Objective of the Analysis

In line with the object of the analysis above, my thesis has purpose as listed below: 1. To find out the types of cohesive devices occurred in selected short stories of

Ernest Hemingway.

2. To find out the frequency of each type of cohesive devices occurred in selected short stories of Ernest Hemingway showing the dominance in use.

1.5 Significance of the Analysis

This analysis is expected to be able to give some significance both practically and theoretically. It is expected that this analysis is practically very significant for better understanding about the very basics principles of cohesive devices. Analysis of these cohesive links within a text gives us some insight into how writers structure what they want to say and shows how one sentence or paragraph relates with another sentence or paragraph. Thus, it helps us to understand the unity of the text easier.

(15)

Further, this analysis is theoretically also expected to be useful as one reference for the readers who are interested in analyzing the same subject.

(16)

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERARURE

2.1 An overview of Discourse Analysis 2.1.1 Definitions of Discourse

Linguistics had focused its analysis on sentence until the beginning of 1950s. But in 1952, a famous linguist Z. S. Harris published an article entitled “Discourse Analysis” in Language Magazine. He expressed a new opinion stating that the most complete unit of language is discourse, not a sentence. This opinion had brought linguist started to analyze language base on discourse.

Discourse analysis is not only widely recognized as one of the vastest, but also the least defined areas in linguistics. One reason for this statement is that our understanding to discourse analysis is based on scholars from a number of academic disciplines that are actually very different from one to another. However, as the least defined areas in linguistics, the study of discourse analysis is supposed to be the most important study of language.

According to Schiffrin (1994: 20), there are three definitions of discourse which are influenced by different paradigms where they reflect to different assumptions between formalist, functionalist, and formalist-functionalist dichotomy.

a. The first is the classic definition of discourse as derived from formalist (in Hyme’s 1974 terms, “structural”) assumptions is that: discourse is language above the sentence or above the clause. Concerning with the definition of discourse as language above the sentence, many contemporary structural analysis of discourse view the sentences as the unit of which discourse is

(17)

b. The second definition to be considered replaces what is basically a formalist trust with a functionalist trust: discourse is language use. Schiffrin (1994:31) considers a functionalist view, “The study of discourse is the study of any aspect of language use.” And another statement is Brown and Yule’s (1984:1), “The analysis of discourse is necessarily, the analysis of language use. As such, it can not be restricted the description of linguistics forms independent of the purposes or functions which are designed to serve in human affairs.”

c. The third definition of discourse attempts to bridge the formalist-functionalist dichotomy: discourse is utterances. This view captures the idea that discourse is above (larger than) other units of language; however, by saying that utterance (rather than sentence) is a unit of which discourse is comprised, we can suggest that discourse arises not as a collection of decontextualized units of language structure but of inherently contextualized units of language use.

Besides those three definitions of discourse above which are influenced by the differences in paradigm, there are still some linguists who give other definitions of discourse. Few of them are as follows:

 Tarigan (1981:85) states,”Wacana adalah satuan bahasa yang terlengkap dan tertinggi atau terbesar di atas kalimat atau klausa dengan kohesi dan koherensi yang berkesinambungan yang mempunyai awal dan akhir yang nyata disampaikan secara lisan dan tulisan.”

 Linde (1981:85) in Tarigan says, “Discourse is a stretch of continuous beginning and ending, and also a number of internal structures.”

(18)

 Edmonson (1981:4) in Tarigan says,”Discourse is a structural event manifested in linguistic behavior (or others) whereas a text is an arrangement of structural linguistic expressions which forms a unity.”

 Carlson (1983: XII-XIV) in Tarigan says, “Discourse is a stretch of continuous utterances (a sequence of individual sentences). So, it does not only consist of utterances or sentences which are grammatically well-formed.”

From all definitions above, the writer sees some similarities and differences on opinions of the linguists. However, there are essentially some important points that the writer gets from all those discourse definitions:

1. linguistic unit

2. the most complete/the highest

3. above the sentence or above the clause 4. well-tied or coherent

5. sense of unity or cohesion 6. continuity

7. written and spoken

(19)

2.1.2 Functions of Discourse

The study of discourse analysis leads the language users to understand thoroughly about the discourse and also is qualified to produce a well-formed discourse. It is important that the recipient gets the information correctly. For instance, when the doctor tells a nurse how to administer the medicine to the patients, a policeman gives direction to the travelers, or a salesman explains the products to the buyers and so on. In each case, it matters that he speaker or writer should make what she/he says/writes clear by. Every speaker or writer is expecting that his/her utterances or written texts be understood and appreciated by the recipients. In this situation, of course, the speaker or the writer will try to find the best way to make easily reported or uttered. So, discourse is an appropriate unit for this purpose.

Finally, it can be insisted that the function of discourse is defined to organized a larger idea of a writer or a speaker (that the sentence failed to do) and to arrange that the idea into a coherent state so that the recipients will easily comprehend what the writer or speaker means. Thus, as the sequence, the goal of language will be obtained. So, the main function of discourse is as the bet way to convey information in terms of communication. However, the participants, either the speaker/writer or hearer/reader should certainly understands thoroughly about the discourse and its structure or organization

2.1.3 Types of Discourse

E. A. Nida (1987:42) in Tarigan says that each language has its own classification of discourse based on different criterions. Further, she classifies discourse

(20)

into narrative, conversation, exposition, exposition, and poem. According to his point of view, discourse can be classified into various ways, such as:

 Based on the medium used

 Based on the way of discourse is conveyed  Based on thematic orientation

 Based on the form of discourse 1. Based on the medium used

Based on the medium used, a discourse can be classified into: a. Written discourse

Written discourse is a type of discourse that is conveyed in written form, through writing media. The recipients should read the discourse if she/he wants to enjoy or comprehend it. The example of written discourse can be found in newspaper, magazine, book, and others.

b. Spoken discourse

Spoken discourse is a type of discourse which is conveyed orally through speaking or spoken form. The recipients should listen to the discourse if she/he wants to enjoy or comprehend it. This includes casual conversation, speech, and others.

2. Based on the way of discourse is conveyed

(21)

a. Direct discourse

Direct discourse is a type of discourse which is limited in its conveyance by intonation or punctuation. Kridaklasana (1984: 208) in Tarigan says.” Wacana langsung adalah kutipan yang sebenarnya dibatasi oleh intonasi atau pungtuasi.”

b. Indirect discourse

Indirect discourse is a type of discourse which is conveyed by using a certain grammatical construction of word, instead of quoting the words used by the speaker directly. Kridaklasana (1984:208) in Tarigan says, “Wacana tidak langsung adalah pengungkapan kembali wacana tanpa mengutip harfiah kata-kata yang dipakai pembicara dengan menggunakan konstruksi grammatical atau kata tertentu, antara lain dengan klausa subordinatif, kata bahwa, dan sebagainya.”

3. Based on thematic orientation

Based on the thematic orientation, a discourse can be classified into: a. Expository discourse

Expository discourse is oriented in the subject and parts that tied logically which ignore the time and the expositor.

b. Narrative discourse

Narrative discourse is oriented in the action and the entire parts tied chronologically. It needs ordered time.

4. Based on the form of discourse

(22)

a. Prose

Prose is free composition. It is not ruled by stanza and rhythm. Prose can be spoken or written, direct or indirect, and expository or narrative. This type of discourse includes novel, short story, articles, and so on.

b. Play

Play is the type of discourse conveyed in the form of dialog, either spoken or written.

c. Poem

Poem is a type of discourse which ruled in stanza, line, rhythm, and rhyme. It can be spoken or written

2.1.4 Structure of Discourse

Every genre has its own discourse structure. It might seem as if informal, spontaneous conversation had no structure of its own over and above the internal organization of each sentence and the cohesion between the sentences. Conversation is very highly structured. There are definite principles regulating the taking of turns in conversation, and one of the functions of some of the items operating cohesively as conjunctives is that of marking and holding turns. There are several types of “adjacency pairs’ ordered sequences of two elements in a conversation that are related to each other and mutually presupposing, like greetings, invitations, or question-answer sequences. The discourse structure of a conversation is in turn reinforced by the cohesion, which explicitly ties together the related parts, bonding them more closely to each other than to the others that are not so related; hence Halliday’s and Hasan’s observation that ‘there

(23)

tends to be a less meaningful relationship between two sequential interchanges than between two sequential speeches (i.e. turns) in a interchange’.

Other forms of discourse are more obviously structured than conversation; and some, notably narrative, have been studied in considerable detail in a variety of different languages. There is no need here to labor the point that the presence of certain elements, in a certain order, is essential to our concept of narrative; a narrative has, as a text, a typical organization, or one of a number of typical organizations, and it acquires texture by virtue of adhering to these forms. Literary forms, including the ‘strict’ verse forms-culturally established and highly-valued norms such as those of metre and rhyme scheme, defining complex notions such as the sonnet, iambic pentameter blank verse, and the like-all fall within the general category of discourse structures. They are aspects of texture, and combine with intrasentence structure and intersentence cohesion to provide the total text-forming resources of the culture.

2.2 Concept of Cohesion

Halliday and Hasan (1976: 4) state that, “The concepts of cohesion is semantic one, it refers to relations of meaning that exist within the text, and that define it as a text.” It means that the key to the concepts of cohesion is based on meaning, that is, something which exists in the language, not something which exists in people.

A relatively neglected aspect of the linguistic system is its resources for text construction, the range of meanings that are specifically related to something which being said or written to its semantic environment. The essential component of these resources is cohesion. Furthermore, cohesive relations are relations between two or more elements in a text that are independent of the structure. For example, between a

(24)

personal pronoun and antecedent proper name such as Tommy…he, Elizabeth…she, and so on. A semantic relation of this kind may set up either within a sentence or between sentences. Concerning with that, when it crosses a sentence boundary, it has been outlined by Halliday in his writings on stylistic, and the concept was developed by his partner, Hasan, in her University of Edinburgh doctoral thesis. Halliday and Hasan said that there are four concepts of cohesion. They are text, texture, ties, and cohesion and coherence.

2.2.1 Text

A text is not just a string of sentences. In other words it is not simply a larger grammatical unit, something of the same kind as a sentence but differing from it in size-a sort of super sentence. A text is best thought of not size-as size-a grsize-ammsize-aticsize-al unit size-at size-all, but rather as a unit of a different kind: a semantic unit. The unity that it has is a unity of meaning in context, a texture that expresses the fact it relates as a whole to the environment in which it is placed.

Being a semantic unit, a text is realizes in the form of sentences, and this is how the relation of text to sentence can best be interpreted. A set of related sentences, with a single sentence as the limiting case, is the embodiment or realization of a text. So the expression of the semantic unity of the text lies in the cohesion among the sentences of which it is composed. Any piece of language that is operational, functioning as a unity in some context of situation, constitutes a text. It may be spoken or written, in any style or genre, and involving any number of active participants.

Text may be of any length. Many familiar texts in fact come out as less than one sentence in that grammatical structure. Since it is not of the grammatical rank scale and

(25)

does not consist of sentences; a text is not tied to the sentence as its lower limit. In fact, many familiar texts such as warning, titles, announcements, inscription, and advertisement come out as less than one sentence in grammatical structure, and often consist of verbal, nominal, adverbial or prepositional group only, for example [2. 1]:

a. No smoking. b. Stop!

c. For sale. d. Do not feed!

e. Wonders never cease!

Equally, there is no upper limit on the length of the text. An entire book may and in many genres such as fiction typically does comprise a single text; this is implied in the term ‘novel’. The same is true of a play, a sermon, a lecture, or a committee meting

2.2.2 Texture

The concept of texture is entirely appropriate to express the property of ‘being a text’. A text has texture, and this is what distinguishes it from something that is not a text. It derives this texture from the fact it functions as a unity with respect to its environment. This also means that every discourse has a texture, which is signed by cohesion between the sentences in the discourse itself and which makes the sentences coherent (logically related).

When a passage of English containing more than one sentence is perceived as a text, there will be certain linguistic features in that passage which can be identified as contributing to its total units and giving it texture. For example:

(26)

[2. 2] Andy and I went to Medan Mall. We bought our needs.

[2. 3] Lea and her mother are shopping. I am sleeping in my bedroom.

The sentences in example [2:2] above are related one another that make the reader or hearer easy to understand what they are about. It is clear that we in the example [2. 2] refers back (is anaphoric to) Andy and I. This anaphoric function of we gives cohesion to the two sentences, so that we interpret them as a whole; the two sentences together constitute a text. The texture is provided by the cohesive relation that exists between Andy and I with we. But, the cohesive relation does not occur in example [2. 3].

2.2.3 Ties

A tie refers to a single instance of cohesion, a term for one occurrence of a pair of cohesively related items. The concept of tie makes it possible to analyze a text in terms of its cohesive properties, and gives a systemic account of its pattern of texture. A tie is a complex notion, because it includes not only the cohesive elements itself, but also that is presupposed by it. A tie is best interpreted as a relation between those two elements. For example:

[2. 4] Lea goes to Medan Mall. She buys pens, books, and cassettes. [2. 5] Come and get two apples. Put the apples into the box.

In the example [2. 4], the two sentences related one another, in which there is a cohesive relation between Lea and she, which constitutes a tie. The particular kind which we can find in this example is called ‘reference’. And in example [2. 5], here the item functioning cohesively is the apples, which works by repetition of the word apples accompanied by the as an anaphoric.

(27)

2.2.4 Cohesion and Coherence

The general meaning of cohesion is embodied in the concept of text. By its role in providing ‘texture’, cohesion helps to create text. The concept of cohesion is semantic one; it refers to relations of meaning that exists within text, and that define it as a text. Cohesion occurs where the interpretation of some elements in the discourse is depend on that of another, the one presupposes the other, in the sense that it cannot be effectively decoded expect by resource to it. When this happens, a relation of cohesion is set up, and the two elements, the presupposing and the presupposed are there by at least potentially integrated into a text. Cohesion makes texts hang together. In short, cohesion is defined as the set of possibilities that exits in the language for making text hang together.

However, by itself, cohesion would not be sufficient to enable us to make sense of what we read or hear. There must be another factor which leads us to distinguish connected texts which make sense from those which do not. This factor is usually described as coherence.

Coherence can be defined as when sentences, ideas, and details fit together clearly, readers can follow along easily, and the writing is coherent. The key to the concept of coherence is not something which exists in the language, but something which exists in people. This means that it is people who make sense of what they read or hear, they try to arrive at an interpretation which is in line with their experience of the way the world is. For example [2. 6]:

A: That’s the telephone B: I’m in the bathroom A: Okay

(28)

There are certainly no cohesive ties within this fragment of discourse. By using the information contained in the sentences expressed, people can manage to make sense of what the other says. From the fragment above, we can characterize that brief conversation in the following ways:

A request to perform action.

B states reason why he can not comply with request. A undertakes to perform action.

However, there must be something else involved in the interpretation. Language-users must have a lot of knowledge to understand how the conversational interaction works which is not simply ‘linguistic’ knowledge, but something in them.

In short, coherence has connection with the aspect of speech, while cohesion has connection with the aspects of form and formal language.

2.3 Kinds of Cohesive Devices

There are five of kinds of cohesive devices which are outlined by Halilday and Hasan. Those five kinds of cohesive devices are reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction, and lexical cohesion.

2.3.1 Reference

According to Halliday, reference is the relationship between an element of the text and something else by reference to which is interpreted in the given instance. Reference is a potentially cohesive relation because the thing that serves as the source of the interpretation may itself be an element of text.

Concerning with the cohesion within a text, it can be provided by relationship called co-reference. Brown and Yule (1976: 31) cite, ‘Co-reference forms are forms

(29)

which instead of being interpreted semantically in their own right make reference to something else for their interpretation.” So, through co-referential relation, we may interpret a text. If the interpretation lies outside the text in the context of situation, the relationship is said to be an ‘exophoric’ relation which plays no part in textual cohesion. And if the interpretation lies within the text, the relationship is said as ‘endophoric’ relation. Endophoric is divided in two relations. They are anaphora and cataphora. Anaphora is the form of presupposition, pointing back to some previous item and cataphora is the form of presupposition with the presupposed element following:

Reference:

[situational] [textual]

exphora endophora

[to preceding text] [to following text] anaphora cataphora

There are three types of reference. They are personal reference, demonstrative reference, and comparative reference.

2.3.1.1 Personal Reference

Personal reference is sentence by means of function in the speech situation, through the category of person. The category of personal includes the three classes of personal pronouns, possessive determiners (usually called ‘possessive adjectives’), and possessive pronoun. See the table of the personal reference below:

(30)

Semantic category Existential Possessive

Grammatical function Head Modifier

Class Noun (pronoun) Determiner

Person: speaker (only) I me mine my

addressee(s), with/without other person(s)

you yours your

speaker & other person(s) us ours our

other person, male he him his his

other person, female she her hers her other person, object they them theirs their

object; passage of text it [its] its

generalized person one one’s

Personals referring to the speech roles (speaker and addressee) are typically exophoric; this includes I and you, and we meaning ‘you and I’. They become anaphoric, however, in speech; and so are normally anaphoric in many varieties of written language, such as narrative fiction. For example:

[2. 7] My husband and I are leaving. We have seen quite enough of this unpleasantness.

We refer to my husband and I. So in this case, it is anaphoric relation.

Personals referring to other roles (persons or objects other than the speaker or addressee) are typically anaphoric; this includes he, she, it and they, and alsothe ‘third person’ component of we when present. For example:

(31)

It is clear that she refers back to (is anaphoric to) Lea. This anaphoric function of she gives cohesion to the two sentences, so that we interpret them as a whole; the two sentences together constitute a text. The texture is provided by the cohesive relation that exists between Lea and she.

Only the anaphoric type of reference that is relevant to cohesion, since it provides a link with a preceding portion of the text. When we talk of the cohesive function of personal reference, therefore, it is particularly the third person forms that we have in mind.

(32)

2.3.1.2 Demonstrative Reference

Demonstrative reference is essentially a form of a verbal pointing. The speaker identifies the referent by locating it on a scale of proximity. The system is as follows:

neutral the

near

near : far :

far (no near)

singular : this that

participant

plural : these those

selective

place : here there

circumstance

time : now then

The adverbial demonstratives here, there, now, and then refer to the location of a process in space or time, and they normally do so directly, not via the location of some person or object that is participating in the process; hence they typically function as Adjuncts in the clause, not as elements within the nominal group. The remaining (nominal) demonstratives this, these, that, those, and the refer to the location of something, typically some entity-person or object-that is participating in the process; they therefore occur as elements within the nominal group.

The demonstratives regularly refer to exophorically to something within the context of situation. This is the primary form of verbal pointing; and it may be accompanies by demonstrative action, in the form of a gesture indicating the object referred to. For example:

[2. 9] Pick these up!

(33)

Similarly with the demonstrative adverbs: [2.11] Leave that there and come here!

In general, this, these, and here imply proximity to the speaker; that, those, and there imply distance from the speaker, which may or may not involved proximity to the addressee-the meaning is ‘near you, or not near either of us, but at any rate not near me’.

2.3.1.3 Comparative Reference

Comparative reference is indirect reference by means of identity or similarity. The table of comparative reference items was given as follows:

identity same equal identical, identically general simililarity such similar, so similarly likewise (deitic)

difference other different else, differently otherwise

comparison

numerative more fewer less further additional; so- as- equally- + quantifier, eg: so many

particular (non-deitic)

epithet comparative adjectives and adverbs eq: better; so- as- more- less-

equally- +comparative adjectives and adverbs, eg: equally good

General comparison is comparison that is simply in forms of likeness and unlikeness, without respect to any particular property: two things may be the same, similar or different (where ‘different’ includes both ‘not the same’ and ‘not similar’). General comparison is expressed by a certain class of adjectives and adverbs. For example [2.12]

(34)

a. It’s the same car as the one we saw yesterday. b. It’s a similar car to the one we saw yesterday. c. It’s a different car from the one we saw yesterday.

All the examples in [2. 12] are cataphoric in the structural sense. In each case the referent was the one we saw yesterday and the comparatives same, similar, and different were pointing forward.

While particular comparison expresses comparability between things in the respect of a particular property. The property in question may be a matter of quantity or quality. If the comparison in terms of quantity, it is expressed in the Numerative element in the structure of the nominal group; either (a) by a comparative quantifier, e.g.: more in more mistakes, or (b) by an adverb of comparison submodifying a quantifier, e.g.: as in as many mistakes.

If the comparison in terms of quality is expressed in two ways: (i) in the Epithet element in the nominal group, either (a) by a comparative adjective, e.g.: easier, more difficult in easier tasks, more difficult tasks, or (b) by an adverb of comparison submodifying an adjective, e.g.: so in so difficult a task; (ii) as Adjunct in the clause, either (a) by a comparative adverb, e.g.: faster in Cambridge rowed faster, or (b) by an adverb of comparison submodifying an adverb, e.g.: as in she sang as sweetly.

(35)

2.3.2 Substitution

Substitution is a relation within a text as the replacement of one item by another. It is a relation in the wording rather than in the meaning. Halliday and Hasan (1976: 88-89) give the difference between substitution and reference: Substitution is a relation in the wording rather that in the meaning. Substitution is also a relation between linguistic items, such as words and phrases; whereas reference is a relation between meanings. In terms of the linguistic system, reference is a relation on the semantic level, the level of grammar and vocabulary or linguistic form.

In English, the substitute may function as a noun, a verb, or as a clause. Concerning with it, there are three different types of substitution, namely, nominal substitution, verbal substitution, and clausal substitution.

The short list of the items that occurs as substitutes are  Nominal: one, ones, same

 Verbal: do  Clausal: so, not

2.3.2.1 Nominal Substitution

Nominal substitution is the replacement of a part or the entire of nominal group by a word. The words include to this type of substitution are one/ones, and same. The substitute one/ones always function as Head of nominal group and can substitute only for an item which is itself Head of nominal group. While same which is accompanied by the substitutes the entire nominal group. For example:

[2. 13] I don’t want an old car. I want a new one.

(36)

In the example [2. 13] the word one substitutes car, which is the Head of the nominal group an old car. While in [2.14] the word the same substitutes the entire nominal group hamburger for lunch.

The substitute one/ones presupposes some noun that is to function as Head in the nominal group. It is a substitution counter put in to fill the “Head” slot. The meaning is ‘the noun to fill this slot will be found in the preceding text’.

2.3.2.2 Verbal Substitution

Verbal substitution is a substitution of a verbal group. In English the verbal substation is do which operates as Head of a verbal group, in the place that is occupied by the lexical verb; and the position is always final in the group. For example [2. 15]:

Mother: Have you eaten the pizza kept in the cupboard? Andy: No, I haven’t done yet, but I will do.

Here do substitutes for eat the pizza kept in the cupboard, and serves to link the two sentences by anaphora, exactly in the same way as the nominal substitute one.

2.3.2.3 Clausal Substitution

Clausal substitution is a substitution in which what is presupposed is not only an element within the clause, but the entire clause itself. The words used as the substitution are so and not.

There are three environments in which clausal substitution takes place. They are: a. Substitution of reported clause

The reported clause that is substitute by so or not is always declarative, whatever the mood of the presupposed clause. So as a report substitute occurs in initial position in

(37)

expressions such as so it seems, so he said, so I believe, so we were led to understand. For example:

[2. 16] ‘You’ve seen them so often, of course you know what they’re

like’.

‘I believe so,’ Alice replied thoughtfully. Here so substitutes for I know what they’re like.

b. Substitution of conditional clause

A second context for clausal substitution is that of conditional structure. Conditional clauses are frequently substituted by so and not, especially following if but also in other forms such as assuming so and suppose not. For example:

[2. 17] Everyone seems to think he’s guilty. If so, no doubt he’ll offer to resign.

Here so substitutes for he is guilty. c. Substitution of modality clause

So and not occurs as substitutes for clauses expressing modality. Modality is the soaker’s assessment of the probabilities inherent in the situation. These may be expressed either by modal forms of the verb (will, would, can, could, may, might, must, should, and ought to), or by modal adverbs such as perhaps, possibly, certainly, sure. For example:

[2.18] Can he lift the box? I guess not.

Here not presupposes the whole clause he can not lift the box. [2. 19] Ben: would you like cats if you were me? Tom: Certainly not.

(38)

2.3.3 Ellipsis

Ellipsis is a process within the text as the omission of an item. In other words, we can take as general guide the notion that ellipsis occurs when something that is structurally necessary is left unsaid; there is a sense of incompleteness associated with it. But it is useful to recognize that this is an over-simplification, and that the essential characteristic of ellipsis is that something which is present in the selection of underlying (‘systemic’) options is omitted in the structure-whether or not the resulting structure is in itself ‘incomplete’. For example:

[2. 20] Mother is looking for some salt and the father some sugar.

In the example, the predicate of the second clause father some sugar is omits, but we still understand it. The omission of the predicate in the second clause is supplied in the preceding clause.

Like substitution, ellipsis is a relation within the text, and in the great majority of instances the presupposed item is present in the preceding text. That is to say, ellipsis is normally an anaphoric relation. The difference between substitution and ellipsis is that in the former a substitution counter occurs in the slot, and this must therefore be deleted if the presupposed item is replaced, whereas in the latter the slot is empty-there has been substitution by zero. Halliday and Hasan discuss ellipsis under three headings, namely, nominal ellipsis, verbal ellipsis, clausal ellipsis.

2.3.3.1 Nominal Ellipsis

By nominal ellipsis, we mean ellipsis within the nominal group. The structure is that of a Head with optional modification; the modifying elements include some which

(39)

precede the Head and some which follow it, referred to here as Premodifier and Postmodifier respectively. Thus in these two fast electric trains with pantographs the head is trains, the Premodifier is formed by those two fast electric and the Postmodifier by with pantographs.

There are two ways to fill out an elliptical nominal group. The first is simply to push down the element functioning as Head, making it a Modifier, and add the ‘missing’ head in its place.

[2. 21] How did you enjoy the movie? - A lot (of the movie) was very good, though not all.

[2.22] How did you enjoy the exhibition? A lot (of the exhibition) was very good, though not all.

The second one is to keep the elliptical group as it is and add a partitive qualifier that is possible only under the certain conditions. For example:

[2. 23] Which hat will you wear? This is:

a. the best b. the best hat

c. the best of the hats d. the best of the three e. the best you have

In all cases the is Deictic, three is Numerative, best is Epithet and hat is the common noun representing the thing. Then:

(a) is elliptical; the is modifier, best is Head.

(40)

(c)) is non-elliptical; the is Modifier, best is Head, of the hats is partitive Qualifier, non elliptical.

(d)is elliptical; structure as (c), except that the partitive Qualifier of the three is itself elliptical.

(e) is elliptical; structure a (c). Except that the qualifier you have is not partitiive

2.3.3.2 Verbal Ellipsis

By verbal ellipsis, we mean ellipsis within the verbal group. For example: [2. 24] Have you been swimming? – Yes, I have.

[2. 25] What you have been doing? – swimming.

The two verbal groups in the answers, have (in yes, I have) in [2. 24] and swimming in [2.25] are both instances of verbal ellipsis. Both can be said to stand for have been swimming and there is no possibility of ‘filling out’ with any other items. So, from the examples, swimming in [2. 25] could not be interpreted as I will be swimming or they are swimming. It could be interpreted only as I have been swimming.

2.3.3.3 Clausal Ellipsis

Clausal ellipsis is an ellipsis within the clause, taking the clause as the point of departure. The clause in English, considered as the expression of the various speech functions, such as statement, question, response and so on, has a two-part structure consisting of modal element plus propositional element. Typically, modal ellipsis occurs in response to a WH- questions asking ‘what’ (did, was, does, etc.) For example:

[2. 26] What were they doing? – Holding hands.

(41)

On the other hand, prepositional ellipsis is response to statement yes/no questions where the subject is presupposed by a reference item. For example:

[2. 28] The train has arrived. - Has it? [2. 29] Has the train arrived? - Yes, it has.

2.3.4 Conjunction

Conjunction is rather different from the other kind of cohesive devices. It is not simply an anaphoric relation. According to Hartley who said that conjunction is a salient cohesive device because of its function of specifying the semantic connection of a clause with the preceding text. Conjunctive element are cohesive not in themselves but indirectly, by virtue of specific meanings; they are not primarily devices for reaching out into the preceding (or following) text, but they express certain meanings which presuppose the presence of other components in discourse.

In describing conjunction as cohesive device, we are focusing attention not on the semantic relation, but on one particular aspect of them, namely the function they have of relating to each other linguistic elements that occur in succession but are not by other structural means.

There are four categories of conjunction. They are additive, adversative, clausal, and temporal. Here is an example of each:

[2. 30] For the whole day he climbed up the steep mountainside, almost without stopping.

a. And in all this time he met no one. (additive) b. Yet he was hardly aware of being tired. (adversative) c. So, by the night time the valley far below him. (clausal)

(42)

d. Then, as dust fall, ha sat down to rest. (temporal)

The words and, yet, and, then can be taken as typifying these four general very general conjunctive relations, which they expressed in their simplest form.

Conjunctive relation may occur in either an external or an internal context. The conjunction may be located in the phenomena that constitute the content of what is being said (external), or in the interaction itself, the social process that constitutes the speech event (internal).

2.3.4.1 Additive

The additive relation is somewhat different from coordination proper, although it is no doubt from it, for example:

[2. 31] They gave him food and clothing. And they looked after him till he was better.

Here and does links two different facts which makes it external, but at the same time it mat to serve to convey the speaker’s intention that they should be regarded as connected in some way.

Here are the conjunctive relations of additive type, with example of each: Simple additive relation (external and internal)

 Additive: and, and also, and…too.

 Negative: nor, and…not, not either, neither  Alternative: or; or else

Complex additive relation (internal): emphatic

 Additive: further (more), moreover, additionally, besides that, add to this, in addition, and other thing.

(43)

 Alternative: alternatively Complex additive relations (internal): de-emphatic

 Afterthought: incidentally, by the way Comparative relations (internal)

 Similar: likewise, similarly, in the same way, in (just) this way  Dissimilar: on the other hand, by contrast, conversely

Appositive relations (internal)

 Expository: that is, I mean, in other words, to put it another way  Exemplificatory: for instance, for example, thus

(44)

2.3.4.2 Adversative

The basic meaning of the adversative relation is contrary to expectation. The expectation may be derived from the content of what is being said, or from the communication process, the speaker-hearer situation as in the additive we find cohesion on both the external and the internal planes.

An external adversative relation is expressed in its simple form by the word yet occurring initially in the sentence

[2. 32] They looked after him well. Yet he got no better.

The adversative relation also has its internal aspect. Here the underlying meaning is still contrary expectation; but the source of the expectation is to be found not in what the presupposed sentence is about but the current speaker-hearer configuration, the point reached in the communication process, as we expressed it earlier. For example:

[2. 33] That must be Harry. Yet it can’t be; Harry’s in London. Here is the summary of conjunctive relations of the Adversative type: Adversative relations ‘proper’ (in spite of) (external and internal)

 Simple: yet, through, only

 Containing: but

 Emphatic: however, nevertheless, despite this, all the same. Contrastive relations (‘as against’) (external)

 Simple: but, and

 Emphatic: however, on the other hand, at the same time Contrastive relations (‘as against’) (internal)

(45)

 Avowal: in fact, as matter of fact, to tell the truth, actually, in point of fact

Correcting relations (‘not…but’) (internal)

 Correction of meaning: instead, rather, on the contrary  Correction of wording: at least, rather, I mean

Dismissive (generalizes adversative) relations (no matter…, still’) (external and internal)

 Dismissal, closed: in, any/either case/event, any/either way, whichever

 dismissal open-ended: anyhow, at any rate, in any case, however that, may be

2.3.4.3 Causal

The simple form of causal relation is expressed by so, thus, hence, therefore, consequently, accordingly, and a number of expression like as a result (of that), in consequence (of that), because of that. Under the heading of causal relations are included the specific ones of result, reason, and purpose.

The distinction between external and internal types of cohesion tends to be a little less clear cut in the contexts of causal relations than it is in the other contexts, probably because the notion of cause already involves some degree of interpretation by the speaker. The simple forms thus, hence, and therefore all occur regularly in an external sense, implying some kind of reasoning or argument from a premise. For example:

(46)

In a sense internal relation the meaning is if we have now reached this point in the discourse. For example:

[2. 35] We’re having guests tonight. So don’t be late.

The following is a summary of the conjunctive relations of the causal type:

Clausal relation, general (‘because…so’) (external and internal)  Simple: so, thus, hence, therefore

 Emphatic: consequently, accordingly, because of this Clausal relation, specific

 Reason: (mainly external) for this reason, on account of this (internal) it follows (from this), on this basis

 Result: (mainly external) as result (of this), in consequence (internal) arising out this

 Purpose: (mainly external) for this purpose, with this in mind/view (internal) to this end

Reserved clausal relations, general

 Simple: for, because

Conditional relations (‘if…then’) (external and internal)

 Simple: then

 Emphatic: in that case, that being the case, in such an event  Generalized: under the circumstances

 Reserved popularity: otherwise, under the circumstances Respective relations (‘with respect to’) (internal)

(47)

 Reversed popularity: otherwise, in the other respects, aside/apart from this.

2.3.4.4 Temporal

The relation between the two sentences – that is, their relation in internal terms, as content- maybe simply one of sequence in time: the one is subsequent to the other. The temporal relation is expressed in its simplest form by then. One important type of internal temporal conjunction which is linked to the one just discussed is the relating of what is being said to the particular stage which the communication process has reached: to here and now of the discourse, as it were. For example:

[2. 36] He stayed there for three years. Then he went on to Jakarta.

External temporal conjunction is being said to the present situation, the ‘here and now’ of reality; they do not therefore presupposed anything in the preceding text. If on the other hand, ‘here and now’ means ‘here and now in the text, then such forms will have a cohesive effect. For example:

[2. 37] He found his way eventually. Then he’d left his papers behind Here is the summary of relations of the temporal type:

Simple temporal relations (external)

 Sequential: (and( then, next, afterwards, after that, subsequently  Simultaneously: just (then), at the same time, simultaneously

 Preceding: earlier, before, then/that, previously Complex temporal relations (external0

 Immediate: at once, there upon, on which, just before

(48)

 Repetitive: next time, on other occasion, this time, the last time  Specific: next day, five minutes later, five minutes earlier  Durative: meanwhile, all this time

 Terminal: by this time, up till that time, until then

 Punctiliar: next month, at this point/moment, previous moment Conclusive relations (external)

 Simple: finally, at last, in the end, eventually Sequential and conclusive relations (external): correlative forms

 Sequential: first…then, first…next, first…second  Conclusive: at first…finally, at first…in the end Temporal relations (internal)

 Sequential: then, next, secondly

 Conclusive: finally, as a final point, in conclusion Temporal relations (internal): correlative forms

 Sequential: first…next, first…then, first…secondly  Conclusive: …finally, …to conclude with

Here and now relations (internal)

 Past: up to now, up to this point, here to fore  Present: at this point, here

 Future: from now on, hence forward

2.3.5 Lexical Cohesion

Lexical cohesion is the cohesion effect achieved by the selection of the vocabulary. On the borderline between grammatical and lexical cohesion is the cohesive

(49)

function of the class of general noun. Lexical cohesion has two types, namely, reiteration and collocation.

2.3.5.1 Reiteration

Reiteration is a form of lexical cohesion which involves the repetition of a lexical items, or the occurrence of a related item which may be anything from a synonym or near synonym of the original to a general word dominating the entire class in the context of referent; that is, where the two occurrences have the same referent. Let us categorize these as above:

The instance of reiteration may be: (a) same word, (b) synonym or near synonym, (c) super ordinate or (d) general word. For example:

[2. 38] There is a boy climbing that high tree. a. The boy’s going to fall if he doesn’t take care. b. The lad’s going to fall if he doesn’t take care. c. The child’s going to fall if he doesn’t take care. d. The idiot’s going to fall if he doesn’t take care From the example, it can be concluded that:

In (a) the word boy is repeated. There is a repetition. In (b) the reiteration takes the form of synonym lad. In (c) of the super ordinate term of boy is child. In (d) of a general word idiot.

2.3.5.2 Collocation

Collocation is achieved through the association of lexical items that regularly co–occur. Collocation takes place through occurrence of a different lexical items that is

(50)

systematically relate to the first one, as a synonym or super ordinate of it. We can therefore extend the basis of the lexical relationship that features as a cohesive force and say that there is cohesion between any pair of lexical items which stand to each other in same recognizable lexicosemantic (word meaning) relation. This would include not only synonyms or near synonyms such as sick…ill, climb…ascent, and superordinates such as rose…flower, elm…tree, but also pairs of opposites such as dead…alive,

boy…girl, stand up…sit, antonyms such as high…low, wet…dry. For example: [2.39] Why does this little boy wriggle all the time? Girls don’t wriggle

There is obviously a systematic relationship between a pair of words boy and girl; they are related by a particular type of oppositeness, called complementary.

2.3.6 Relevance study

In designing this thesis which deals with cohesive analysis, the writer consults and refers to some relevant text book, research, and thesis to support the idea of the analysis. Some of them can be mentioned here as follows:

Halliday and Hasan in Cohesion in English (1976:298-299) say, “The concept of cohesion refers to relations of meaning that exist within text, and it is that define it as a text. Cohesion occurs where the interpretation of some elements in the discourse is dependent on that of another. The potential for cohesion lies in the systematic resources of reference, ellipsis, and so on that is built into the language itself.” The sentence of a text, however , are related to each other both substantively and by cohesion , and it is a characteristic of a text that the sequence of the sentence cannot be disturbed without destroying or radically altering the meaning. Within a text, the meaning of each

(51)

sentence depends on its environment, including its cohesive relations with other sentences.

Tarigan (1987:96) says “Dalam kata kohesi tersirat pengertian keterpaduan dan keutuhan; dan pada kata koherensiterkandung pengertian pertalian, hubungan. Kalau kita kaitkan dengan aspek bentuk dan makna kata dapatlah kita katakan bahwa kohesi mengacu kepada aspek bentuk dan koherensi kepada aspek makna wacana. Akhirnya, kohesi merupakan wadah disusunnya kalimat secara padu dan padat untuk menghasilkan tuturan.”

Lubis (2005: 158) in her journal Penggunaan Kohesi dalam Translasi concerns with the usage of English cohesive devices, such as reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction and lexical cohesion as suggested on Halliday and Hasan in translation. The aim of using cohesive devices is to build cohesive clauses in a text. She concludes that these cohesive devices are used differently in some languages since they have their own preferences and patterns.

Laurie (1991: 75)) in her thesis An analysis of Cohesive Devices and Cohesive Ties in Robert Forst’s Poems presents about cohesive devices and ties that she found in Robert Forst’s poems: “The Pasture”, “Stopping by Woods in a Snowy Evening”, and “Neither Out Far, nor in Deep”. Based on her analysis, the findings are as follows: (a) in other types of discourse, cohesion is an intersentence relation. But in poems, cohesion is an interline relation; (b) only endophoric reference can be classified as cohesive devices, whereas exophoric reference does not give cohesive effect to the text; (c) the relation of co-referential is typically realized by the devices of reference and sometimes by substitution, lexical, and by ellipsis. The relation of co-extension is normally realized by the devices of lexical.

(52)

Irawan (1994: 58) in An Analysis of Cohesive Devices in Articles of Reader Digest concludes that the study of cohesion shows how one sentence or one paragraph is related to another. Thus, it helps us to understand the unity of text easier. Irawan also finds the fifth cohesive devices: reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction, and lexical cohesion in his data. In terms of the distribution reference, the personal reference is the most dominant in the data.

Rosa (1997: 75)) in Cohesive devices in TV Interview: An Analysis of Cohesive Devices as Found in RCTI’S Aneka Dialog sums up that study of cohesion can be applied not only in English texts, but also in other language, including Indonesian language. She also finds that demonstrative reference is the most dominant in her data.

(53)

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Research Method

The writer uses descriptive quantitave method in analyzing the data. Lexy in his book Metodologi Penelitian Kuantitatif (2005:3) states that penelitian kuantitatif mencakup setiap jenis penelitian yang didasarkan atas perhitungan persentase, rata-rata, kuadrat, dan perhitungan statistik lainnya. In the quantitative method the writer calculates the percentage of the cohesive devices found in selected short stories of Ernest in order to show the dominance in its use.

Besides the quantitative method, the writer also uses descriptive method because it gives a description of the cohesive devices. Lexy in the same book Metodologi Penelitian Kuantitatif (2005:4) states that penelitian deskriptif sebagai prosedur penelitian yang menghasilkan data deskriptif berupa kata-kata tertulis atau lisan dari orang-orang dan perilaku yang diamati. The writer will analyze the data by describing what types of cohesive devices Hemingway uses in his selected short stories.

3.2 Population and Sample

A population is a group of individuals persons, objects, or items from which samples are taken for measurement while a sample is a finite part of a statistical population whose properties are studied to gain information about the whole (Webster, 2003: 966).- The data is acquired from The First Forty Nine Short Stories of Ernest Hemingway which was first published in Taipei, 1987. The writer takes only three short stories purposively as her sample related with the rural life and nature as their

(54)

background. Arikunto (1987:135-140) states “Sampel bertujuan atau purposive sample adalah teknik sampling yang digunakan peneliti dengan cara mengambil sampel bukan didasarkan atas strata, random, atau daerah tetapi didasarkan atas adanya tujuan atau pertimbangan tertentt. Pengambilan sample dengan bertujuan ini cukup baik karena sesuai dengan pertimbangan peneliti sendiri sehingga dapat mewakili populasi.” (Purposive sample is a technique of sampling that is used by a researcher with taking sample because there are some certain purposes or considerations). This research analyzes all sentences that contain cohesive devices found in three selected short stories.

3.3 Data Collecting Method

After reading the material comprehensively, the writer underlines the sentences that contain cohesive devices. Those sentences are entered into data cards. Then, the writer groups the data card into the table based on the types of cohesive devices (reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction, and lexical cohesion.

3.4 Data Analysis Method

There are three steps applied by the writer in analyzing the data. Firstly, after reading the material comprehensively, the writer identifies the sentences which use cohesive devices in each short story. Those sentences are entered into data cards.

Secondly, the writer will classify them into kinds of cohesive devices by using Halliday’s and Hasan’s theory. The writer groups the data card into the table based on the types of cohesive devices (reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction, and lexical cohesion).

(55)

Having analyzed all the data, a percentage value will be set up form each kind of cohesive devices based on the following formula (Bungin, 2005: 171-172):

n= fx x100 % N Notes:

n= the percentage of one kind of cohesive devices fx= individual frequency (one kind of cohesive devices) N= number of occurrence (all kinds of cohesive devices)

Thirdly, the writer will determine the most dominant cohesive devices to the least dominant one. Then, the writer will draw some conclusions based on the result of the analysis. For example:

1. He drew it, cut the top off with the spatula and then held the glass in his hand. (Taken from The Light of the World in 3rd sentence, 1st paragraph.)

Table of personal reference

Paragraph Sentence number Cohesive item Presupposed

he the bartender

it beer

1 3

his the bartender

To know what he and it refers to, we have to look at back to the preceding text of this sentence. He and his refer to the bartender, while it refers back to the beer. In short, the bartender is the interpretation of he and his, while beer is the interpretation of it. The personal pronoun he, his and it gives a cohesive result to the text, in which they connect with the preceding text. They give continuity to the text. So, he, his and it become a cohesive device of personal reference.

(56)

Paragraph Sentence number Cohesive item Presupposed

1 3 and preceding text

Then, here, the conjunctive and is used cohesively, to link He drew it, cut the top off with the spatula (preceding clause) and then held the glass in his hand to another (next clause). So, and belongs to conjunction, additive.

Table of temporal conjunction

Paragraph Sentence number Cohesive item Presupposed

1 3 then preceding text

The temporal conjunction then shows the relation of sequence in time. Here the time relation then shows the connection between two even two events, which are He drew it, cut the top off with the spatula and (preceding clause) and held the glass in his hand to another (next clause). So, then belongs to conjunction, temporal.

2. “I've never seen one,”…

(Taken from Hills like White Elephants in 20th semtence, 3rd paragraph) Table of nominal substitution

Paragraph Sentence number Cohesive item Presupposed

3 20 one hills like white elephants

One substitutes for hills like white elephants. So, one is a type of cohesive device that belongs to nominal substitution. One presupposes hills like white elephants and hills like white elephants becomes the presupposition of one.

3. ”Are you trying to insult me?” “No, hombre, only to make a jog.”

(Taken from A Clean, Well- Lighted Place in 105th sentence, 8th paragraph) Table of verbal ellipsis

(57)

Paragraph Sentence number Cohesive item Presupposed

8 105 No. Sentence 104

I don’t trying to insult you

No, hombre, only to make a jog.” is an instance of ellipsis that can be said to stand for I don’t trying to insult you. So, No belongs to verbal ellipsis.

(58)

CHAPTER IV

THE USE OF COHESIVE DEVICES IN SELECTED SHORT STORIES OF ERNEST HEMINGWAY

The writer has explained about the five kinds of cohesive devices, outlined by Halliday and Hasan, in the previous chapters. They have tried to describe them all clearly. Now, in this chapter, the writer tries to analyze all of the data. The data are three selected short stories of Ernest Hemingway which are acquired from The First Forty-Nine Stories of Ernest Hemingway and published in July 1987.. They are A Clean Well-Lighted Place, Hills like White Elephants, and The Light of the World. In analyzing the data, the writer uses some tables for each kind of cohesive devices.

4.1 The Analysis of The Light of the World Based on Reference, Substitution, Ellipsis, Conjunction, and Lexical Cohesion

4.1.1 Based on reference 4.1.1.1 Personal reference

Table 4.1.1.1

Paragraph Sentence number Cohesive item Presupposed 1 he

the bartender I and Tommy 3 he

it his

the bartender beer

the bartender 4 he

the bartender I

(59)

7 he it

the bartender beer

9 him Tommy

10 he our

the bartender I and Tommy 14 it

them

the free lunch bowl a bowl of pickle pig’s feet

16 his Tommy

17 it the wooden scissors fork

18 you the bartender

19 us I and Tommy

20 he the bartender

21 yours he

I and Tommy the bartender

22 he 2x the bartender

23 your he his the bartender Tommy Tommy

26 you I, Tommy, and the man who

had drunk the Rye

27 you I, Tommy, and the man who

had drunk the Rye 28 he

the bartender

I, Tommy, and the man who had drunk the Rye

31 you I, Tommy, and the man who

had drunk the Rye

32 we I and Tommy

33 it your

going out the bartender

(60)

34 we I and Tommy

35 him Tommy

36 him he me the bartender the bartender I

38 it outside

42 we I and Tommy

43 it town

44 it 3x

town

I and Tommy

46 it down at the station

47 we I and Tommy

48 you I

49 it shut the door

50 it somebody

51 he 2x

his 2x

one of the white man one of the white man 52 you

the door

53 it the door

54 he one of the white man

56 he me

the white man I

57 you he

the white man 6

58 he it

the white man the cook 59 him

his

the white man the cook 7 60 he his the cook the cook

(61)

61 he the cook 62 them

they

the cook’s hands the cook’s hands 64 she

one of the whores I

65 she the biggest whore

67 she her

the big whore who has weighed 350 pounds

69 they three of the whores

70 they three of the whores

71 his the cook

73 her you

the biggest whore the biggest whore

74 she the biggest whore

75 she the biggest whore

76 she the biggest whore

78 they 2x the two big other whores 10

79 they the two big other whores

83 me I

84 it preceding text

85 he lumberjack who has ready to

say something

86 them the three big whores

88 boys I and Tommy

89 he I

91 she the big whore

93 you the big whore

95 we I and Tommy

96 you me

I I 12

(62)

99 your Alice

100 she Alice

101 it Alice

102 she Alice

105 you Alice

106 it Alice

110 they Hazel and Ethel

112 she Frances

115 it you

name of Frances Wilson Frances

117 she the other one blondes whore

118 he us

preceding text

119 you the five of whores

121 you lumberjack who talked

123 she the peroxide blonde whore

124 her the one blonde whore

125 she the one blonde whore

128 you Alice

130 you him

the cook the cook

133 you Tommy

134 he himself

the cook the cook

135 you the man

136 we all of them

138 her the one blonde whore

139 his him

Steve Ketchel Steve Ketchel

140 his Steve Ketchel

(1)

"He had better get off the street now. 18The guard will get him. 19They went by five minutes ago."

The old man sitting in the shadow rapped on his saucer with his glass. 21The younger waiter went over to him.

"What do you want?"

The old man looked at him. 24"Another brandy," he said.

"You'll be drunk," the waiter said. 26The old man looked at him. 27The waiter went away.

"He'll stay all night," he said to his colleague. 29"I'm sleepy now. 30I never get into bed before three o'clock. 31He should have killed himself last week."

The waiter took the brandy bottle and another saucer from the counter inside the cafe and marched out to the old man's table. 33He put down the saucer and poured the glass full of brandy.

"You should have killed yourself last week," he said to the deaf man.

The old man motioned with his finger.

"A little more," he said. 37The waiter poured on into the glass so that the brandy slopped over and ran down the stem into the top saucer of the pile. 38"Thank you," the old man said. 39The waiter took the bottle back inside the cafe. 40He sat down at the table with his colleague again.

"He's drunk now," he said.

"He's drunk every night."

"What did he want to kill himself for?"

"How should I know."

(2)

"He hung himself with a rope."

"Who cut him down?"

"His niece."

"Why did they do it?"

"Fear for his soul."

"How much money has he got?"

"He's got plenty."

"He must be eighty years old."

"Anyway I should say he was eighty."

155

"I wish he would go home. 56I never get to bed before three o'clock. 57What kind of hour is that to go to bed?"

"He stays up because he likes it."

"He's lonely. 60I'm not lonely. 61I have a wife waiting in bed for me."

"He had a wife once too."

"A wife would be no good to him now."

"You can't tell. 65He might be better with a wife."

"His niece looks after him. 67You said she cut him down."

"I know."

"I wouldn't want to be that old. 70An old man is a nasty thing."

"Not always. 72This old man is clean. 73He drinks without spilling. 74Even now, drunk. 75Look at him."

"I don't want to look at him. 77I wish he would go home. 78He has no regard for those who must work."

(3)

The old man looked from his glass across the square, then over at the waiters.

"Another brandy," he said, pointing to his glass. 81The waiter who was in a hurry came over.

"Finished," he said, speaking with that omission of syntax stupid people employ when talking to drunken people or foreigners. 83"No more tonight. 84Close now."

"Another," said the old man.

"No, finished." 87The waiter wiped the edge of the table with a towel and shook his head.

The old man stood up, slowly counted the saucers, took a leather coin purse from his pocket and paid for the drinks, leaving half a peseta tip. 89The waiter watched him go down the street, a very old man walking unsteadily but with dignity.

"Why didn't you let him stay and drink?" the unhurried waiter asked. 91They were putting up the shutters. 92"It is not half-past two."

"I want to go home to bed."

"What is an hour?"

"More to me than to him."

"An hour is the same."

"You talk like an old man yourself. 98He can buy a bottle and drink at home."

"It's not the same."

100

"No, it is not," agreed the waiter with a wife. 101He did not wish to be unjust.

102

He was only in a hurry.

103

(4)

105

"Are you trying to insult me?"

106

"No, hombre, only to make a joke."

107

"No," the waiter who was in a hurry said, rising from putting on the metal shutters. 108"I have confidence. 109I am all confidence."

110

"You have youth, confidence, and a job," the older waiter said. 111"You have everything."

112

"And what do you lack?"

113

"Everything but work."

114

"You have everything I have."

115

"No. 116I have never had confidence and I’m not young."

117

"Come on. 118Stop talking nonsense and lock up."

118

"I am of those who like to stay late at the cafe," the older waiter said. 119"With all those who do not want to go to bed. 120With all those who need a light for the night."

121

"I want to go home and into bed."

122

"We are of two different kinds," the older waiter said. 123He was now dressed to go home. 124"It is not only a question of youth and confidence although those things are very beautiful. 125Each night I am reluctant to close up because there may be some one who needs the cafe."

126

"Hombre, there are bodegas open all night long."

127

"You do not understand. 128This is a clean and pleasant cafe. 129It is well lighted. 130The light is very good and also, now, there are shadows of the leaves."

131

"Good night," said the younger waiter.

132

(5)

133

Turning off the electric light he continued the conversation with himself. 134It is the light of course but it is necessary that the place be clean and light. 135You do not want music. 136Certainly you do not want music. 137Nor can you stand before a bar with dignity although that is all that is provided for these hours. 138What did he fear? 139It was not fear or dread. 140It was a nothing that he knew too well. 141It was all a nothing and a man was nothing too. 142It was only that and light was all it needed and a certain cleanness and order. 143Some lived in it and never felt it but he knew it was all nada y pues nada y nada y pues nada.

144

Our nada who art in nada, nada be thy name thy kingdom nada thy will be nada in nada as it is in nada. 145Give us this nada our daily nada and nada us our nada as we nada our nadas and nada us not into nada but deliver us from nada; pues nada.

146

Hail nothing full of nothing, nothing is with thee. 147He smiled and stood before a bar with a shining steam pressure coffee machine.

148

"What's yours?" asked the barman.

149

"Nada."

150

"Otro loco mas," said the barman and turned away.

151

"A little cup," said the waiter.

152

The barman poured it for him.

153

"The light is very bright and pleasant but the bar is unpolished," the waiter said.

154

The barman looked at him but did not answer. 155It was too late at night for conversation.

156

"You want another copita?" the barman asked.

157

(6)

159

A clean, well-lighted cafe was a very different thing. 160Now, without thinking further, he would go home to his room. 161He would lie in the bed and finally, with daylight, he would go to sleep. 162After all, he said to himself, it is probably only insomnia. 163Many must have it.

The Use Of Cohesive Devices In Selected Short Stories Of Ernest Hemyngway: A Discourse

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Parts

Dokumen yang terkait

Translation Procedures Found In Three Fairytale Stories

The Analysis of Nick’s Character in Three of Ernest Hemingway Short Stories.

The Analysis Of Transitivity In Three Selected Brothers Grimm’s Short Stories

The Use Of Discourse Marker In Written Text Of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s Speeches

An Analysis Of Conflics In Three Selected Short Stories Of Flannery O’ Connor

THE COMPOUND WORDS ANALYSIS IN SELECTED SHORT STORIES IN PITARA WEBSITE

THE USE OF COHESIVE DEVICES IN STUDENTS’ WRITING

AN ANALYSIS OF COHESIVE DEVICES IN THE HEADLINE NEWS OF THE JAKARTA POST.

RECONSTRUCTING HUMOR: AN ANALYSIS OF HUMOR IN TWO SELECTED SHORT STORIES.

THE USE OF SIMPLE SENTENCES IN THE DIRECT SPEECHES IN ERNEST HEMINGWAY’S SHORT STORY THE UNDEFEATED

Dukungan

Links

The Use Of Cohesive Devices In Selected Short Stories Of Ernest Hemyngway: A Discourse

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Parts

Dokumen yang terkait

Translation Procedures Found In Three Fairytale Stories

The Analysis of Nick’s Character in Three of Ernest Hemingway Short Stories.

The Analysis Of Transitivity In Three Selected Brothers Grimm’s Short Stories

The Use Of Discourse Marker In Written Text Of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s Speeches

An Analysis Of Conflics In Three Selected Short Stories Of Flannery O’ Connor

THE COMPOUND WORDS ANALYSIS IN SELECTED SHORT STORIES IN PITARA WEBSITE

THE USE OF COHESIVE DEVICES IN STUDENTS’ WRITING

AN ANALYSIS OF COHESIVE DEVICES IN THE HEADLINE NEWS OF THE JAKARTA POST.

RECONSTRUCTING HUMOR: AN ANALYSIS OF HUMOR IN TWO SELECTED SHORT STORIES.

THE USE OF SIMPLE SENTENCES IN THE DIRECT SPEECHES IN ERNEST HEMINGWAY’S SHORT STORY THE UNDEFEATED

Dokumen yang Anda mencari sudah siap untuk unduhkan