Grammatical cohesionin “ the wind in the willow” by kenneth grahame and their equivalents in google translate’svietnamese translations

ABSTRACT The study aims to examine the quality of Google Translate’s Vietnamese translations of the grammatical cohesive devices in “The Wind in the Willow” by Kenneth Grahame in terms o

LÊ THỊ NGỌC THẢO

GRAMMATICAL COHESION IN “THE WIND IN THE WILLOWS” BY KENNETH GRAHAME AND THEIR EQUIVALENTS IN GOOGLE TRANSLATE’S

LÊ THỊ NGỌC THẢO

LIÊN KẾT NGỮ PHÁP TRONG “GIÓ QUA RẶNG LIỄU” CỦA KENNETH GRAHAME VÀ TƯƠNG ĐƯƠNG TRONG BẢN DỊCH TIẾNG VIỆT CỦA GOOGLE

STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP

I confirm that the thesis “Grammatical cohesion in “The Wind in the

Willow” by Kenneth Grahame and their equivalents in Google Translate’s Vietnamese Translations” is my work except where reference is made in the text of

the thesis No other person’s work has been used without acknowledgement in the

I gratefully acknowledge my indebtedness to all my lecturers who have taken part in my MA course at Quy Nhon University and provided me with useful and interesting knowledge and experience as well as their inspiration which helped me conduct my research

Last but not least, I feel deeply indebted to my family members for their support and motivation whenever I needed to finish the thesis

ABSTRACT

The study aims to examine the quality of Google Translate’s Vietnamese translations of the grammatical cohesive devices in “The Wind in the Willow” by Kenneth Grahame in terms of translation errors To fulfil this aim, 10934 reference ties and 770 conjunction ties found in 2306 English sentences containing the references and conjunctions in “The Wind in the Willow” and their equivalents in GT’s Vietnamese translations were examined to classify the translation errors in the Vietnamese translations in terms of grammatical cohesion using Costa et al.’s (2015) model The research employs both quantitative and qualitative content analysis in this study to collect data and analyze it to answer the research questions The results of the study show that GT cannot achieve accuracy in translating the references with contextual meaning and GT shows better quality in translating the conjunctions than the references

TABLE OF CONTENTS

STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii

ABSTRACT iii

ABBREVIATIONS vii

LIST OF TABLES ix

LIST OF FIGURES xi

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Rationale 1

1.2 Aim and Objectives 3

1.2.1 Aim 3

1.2.2 Objectives 3

1.3 Research Questions 4

1.4 Scope of the Study 4

1.5 Significance of the Study 5

1.6 Organization of the Study 5

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 7

2.1 The Theory of Cohesion 7

2.1.1 Definition of cohesion 7

2.1.2 Grammatical cohesion 8

2.1.3 Previous studies 29

2.2 Errors in translation 33

2.2.1 Definition of translation errors 33

2.2.2 Classification of translation errors 33

2.2.3 Conceptual Framework 36

2.3 Google Translate 42

2.3.1 Machine translation 43

2.3.2 Overview of Google Translate 44

2.3.3 Previous studies on Google Translate 47

CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 51

3.1 Research Methods 51

3.2 Data Collection 56

3.3 Data Analysis 60

CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 64

4.1 References and Conjunctions in “The Wind in the Willows” and their Equivalents in GT’s Vietnamese Translations 64

4.1.1 Types of references 64

4.1.2 Types of conjunctions 71

4.2 Types of Translation Errors 78

4.2.1 Semantic errors 79

4.2.2 Lexis errors 82

4.2.3 Orthographic errors 84

4.2.4 Grammar errors 85

4.2.5 Discourse errors 85

4.2.6 No translation errors 86

4.3 The Quality of Google Translate’s Vietnamese translations of English Grammatical Cohesive Devices 87

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION 90

5.1 Summary of the main Findings 90

5.2 Limitation of the Study 93

5.3 Implication of the Study 93

5.3.1 Implication for teachers and students of translation 93

5.3.2 Implication for translators 94

5.4 Suggestions for Future Research 94 REFERENCES 95 APPENDICES

ABBREVIATIONS

(a) Abbreviation

Abbreviation Definition

C.av Conjunction: adversative

DER Discourse errors of references

LEC Lexis errors of conjunctions

LER Lexis errors of references

SEC Semantic errors of conjunctions

SER Semantic errors of references

SMT Statistical machine translation

(b) Conventions

In the text:

ITALICS are used for emphasis, examples or technical terms; BOLD

words are used to mark the first use of technical terms

In numbered examples:

BOLD and UNDERLINED words in examples are the features under

discussion

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.2 Summary of the Conjunctive Relation of the Additive

Table 2.7 The Framework for the Analysis of Reference Items 37 Table 2.8 The Framework for the Analysis of Conjunction 38 Table 2.9 Identifiable Characteristics of Translation Errors 41 Table 2.10 109 Languages Supported by Google Translate 45 Table 3.1

The Sample Table on the Frequencies of Reference in

“The Wind in the Willow” and Their Equivalents in Google Translate’s Vietnamese Translations

60

Table 3.2

The Sample Table on the Frequencies of Conjunction

in “The Wind in the Willow” and Their Equivalents in Google Translate’s Vietnamese Translations

61

Table 3.3

The Sample Table on the Frequencies of Each Translation Error Type of Grammatical Cohesive Devices

62

Table 3.4

The Sample Table in Translation Errors committed by Google Translate according to Grammatical Cohesive Devices

63

Table 4.1

The Frequencies of Reference in “The Wind in the Willow” and Their Equivalents in Google Translate’s Vietnamese Translations

65

Number Names of tables Page

Table 4.2

The Occurrences of Conjunction in “The Wind in the Willow” and Their Equivalents in GT’s Vietnamese Translations

72

Table 4.3

The Frequencies of Each Error Type of Grammatical Cohesive Devices in Google Translate’s Vietnamese Translations

Table 4.7 Translation Errors committed by GT according to

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Exophoric and Endophoric Reference 9 Figure 2.2 Google Translate Graphical User Interface 47 Figure 3.1 The Interface of Word 2010 with the Navigation Pane 58

Figure 4.1 Translation Errors committed by GT according to

Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Rationale

Among subfields of discourse analysis, cohesion has received a lot of special attention from linguists and researchers such as Halliday (1964), Hasan (1968), Gleason (1968), Halliday and Hasan (1976), Gutwinski (1976), Martin (1992), and many others Although there are a lot of models of cohesion, the framework suggested by Halliday and Hasan (1976) in

Cohesion in English has been considered as the most influential model of

cohesion According to Halliday and Hasan (1976), cohesion refers to “the linguistic means whereby texture is achieved” (p 293) In other words, cohesion in a text is used as a means to connect or relate one sentence to the text semantically so that it is understood Therefore, many researchers have focused on cohesion of news, stories, reports, or editorials (Hameed, 2008; Hidayat, 2016; Sudani, Tika & Sudana, 2017, among others.) However, only

a few have studied and compared the grammatical cohesive devices in an English novel and their Vietnamese equivalents in Google Translate's translations Fewer studies concern the study of evaluating the quality of Google Translate’s Vietnamese translations of the English novel in terms of the grammatical cohesive devices

Google Translate (GT) is a popular tool for free online machine translation developed by Google and is regarded as a portable personal translator with millions of users in the world It can translate multiple forms

of texts and media such as words, phrases, websites, speech, and even moving images from one language into 109 other languages Although GT has been improved a lot from statistical machine translation to neural machine translation to make better and accurate translations, it has still not been

perfect with some limitations Therefore, a lot of researchers from different fields around the world have carried out many studies relating to GT For

example, Aiken and Balan (2011) with the article An Analysis of Google

Translate Accuracy, Patil and Davies (2014) in Use of Google Translate in medical communication: Evaluation of accuracy, Anggaira and Hadi (2017)

with Linguistic Errors On Narrative Text Translation using Google

Translate, Kol, Schcolnik, and Spector-Cohen (2018) in the article Google Translate in Academic Writing Courses, and Aiken with the article entitled An Updated Evaluation of Google Translate Accuracy (2019) In Vietnam, there

are also some researches discussing GT such as Nguyen Minh Trang (2019)

with Using Google Translate As a Pronunciation Training Tool and Nguyen Thi Ngoc Giau (2019) with her Master’s thesis named Evaluating the Quality

of English – Vietnamese Translation carried out by Google Translate

I have been very interested in The Wind in the Willows, a children’s

book by British novelist Kenneth Grahame, first published in 1908 Since its

beginnings as a series of stories told to Kenneth Grahame’s young son, The

Wind in the Willows has become one of the most favourite children’s books of

all time The novel is about the adventures of four anthropomorphised animals

- Toad, Rat, Mole, and Badger, which have enchanted readers of all ages, especially children for more than a century Since the first publication, Kenneth Grahame’s masterpiece has been issued in over a hundred editions

and translated into many languages It can be read in Afrikaans as Die Wind

in die Wilgers, in Italian as Il Vento nei Salici, in Finnish as Kaislikossa suhisee, in Portuguese as As Aventuras de Senhor Sapo and in dozens of other

languages This famous novel also has translations in verse, audio and video adaptations, plays, films, picture books, pop-up books, knitting patterns,

graphic novels and scholarly annotated editions Therefore, The Wind in the

Willows by Kenneth Grahame is a good data resource for my study

With the aim to evaluate the quality of Google Translate’s Vietnamese translations of the English grammatical cohesive devices, this study attempts

to make a comparative analysis of the grammatical devices used in The Wind

in the Willows by Kenneth Grahame and their Vietnamese equivalents

translated by Google Translate When studying it, we not only focus on the kinds of grammatical devices based on the framework of Halliday and Hasan (1976) but also try to find out the translation errors in the Vietnamese translation made by Google Translate to see which kind of grammatical cohesive devices Google Translate translates more accurately That is the

reason why I choose the topic “Grammatical cohesion in ‘The Wind in the Willow’ by Kenneth Grahame and their equivalents in Google Translate’s Vietnamese Translations”

1.2 Aim and Objectives

1.2.1 Aim

This study aims to examine the quality of Google Translate’s Vietnamese translations of the grammatical cohesive devices in “The Wind in the Willow” by Kenneth Grahame in terms of translation errors

1.2.2 Objectives

In order to achieve this aim, the researcher:

- identified the types of grammatical cohesive devices in “The Wind in the Willows” by Kenneth Grahame,

- identified the Vietnamese equivalents in Google Translate’s translations of the English grammatical cohesive devices, and

- examined the translation errors in the Vietnamese translations of the grammatical cohesive devices to see which type of the English grammatical cohesive devices Google Translate translates more accurately

1.3 Research Questions

To achieve the above aim and objectives, the researcher collected data and analyzed it to answer the following questions:

1 What kinds of grammatical cohesive devices are used in "The Wind

in the Willow" by Kenneth Grahame?

2 What are the Vietnamese equivalents of these grammatical cohesive devices in Google Translate’s Vietnamese translations?

3 What kinds of translation errors are committed in Google Translate’s Vietnamese translations of these grammatical cohesive devices?

4 Which kind of grammatical cohesive devices does Google Translate translate more correctly?

1.4 Scope of the Study

According to Halliday and Hasan (1976, p 6), grammatical cohesive devices are divided into four sub-types, which are reference, ellipsis, substitution, and conjunction However, within limited time and research conditions, the study only focused on the references and conjunctions which are found a lot in “The Wind in the Willow” by Kenneth Grahame Based on

the framework of Halliday and Hasan (1976) in Cohesion in English, the

researcher investigated the grammatical cohesive devices including the references and conjunctions in the novel “The Wind in the Willow” by Kenneth Grahame and their equivalents in Google Translate’s Vietnamese translations Additionally, the researcher compared references and conjunctions in “The Wind in the Willows” by Kenneth Grahame with their equivalents in Vietnamese translations made by Google Translate to classify translation errors in the Vietnamese translations in terms of grammatical cohesive devices according to Costa et al.’s (2015) model that divides errors into five main linguistic categories (Orthography, Lexis, Grammar, Semantics

and Discourse) After classifying translation errors, the researcher evaluated the quality of Google Translate’s Vietnamese translations in terms of the grammatical cohesive devices by pointing out which of these two grammatical cohesive devices is translated more accurately by Google Translate

1.5 Significance of the Study

The study makes significant contributions to both theory and practice For theoretical aspects, the result of this study offers useful knowledge

of references and conjunctions in “The Wind in the Willow” by Kenneth and Google Translate’s Vietnamese translation Besides, this research also brings about insights into errors in these two kinds of grammatical cohesive devices made by Google Translate in its Vietnamese translations of “The Wind in the Willows” by Kenneth Grahame

For practical aspects, after analyzing errors in the references and conjunctions committed by Google Translate, the study helps teachers, students and translators know which of these two cohesive devices is translated more correctly by Google Translate Thanks to this, they will take careful note when using Google Translate in their translating relating to the grammatical cohesive devices

1.6 Organization of the Study

This study is organized into 5 chapters Chapter 1 (Introduction)

presents the rationale, aim and objectives, research questions, significance of

the study Chapter 2 (Literature review) is concerned with the brief view of

theoretical background for the research including the theory of cohesion, errors in translation, Google Translate, and the review of related previous

studies Chapter 3 (Methods) addresses the methods employed in the selection and the analysis of the data Chapter 4 (Finding and discussions) reports and

discusses the results from the analysis and draw conclusions Chapter 5

(Conclusion) closes the study with a discussion of the study’s results, some

implications for teachers, students and translators, its limitations and a few recommendations for further study

Chapter 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter reviews related theories as the background for the analysis and discussion of the data in the study It is concerned with the theory of cohesion, errors in translation, and Google Translate

2.1 The Theory of Cohesion

This section covers the theory about cohesion consisting of the definition of cohesion and grammatical cohesion

2.1.1 Definition of cohesion

In the Dictionary of Language and Linguistics (1996), cohesion is defined

as “the various linguistic means by which sentences ‘stick together’ and are linked into larger units of paragraphs, or stanzas, or chapters” (p 199)

Besides, according to Cook’s (1989) words, “formal links between sentences and between clauses are known as cohesive devices” (p 14) Similarly, Yule (2010, p 143) considers cohesion as “the ties and connections that exist within texts”

According to the definitions provided above, cohesion is a semantic relation in a text that makes the text cohesive Therefore, Halliday and

Hasan’s (1976) concept of cohesion in the book entitled Cohesion in English

seems to be the clearest

The concept of cohesion is a semantic one; it refers to the relations of meaning that exist within the text, and that define it

as a text Cohesion occurs when the interpretation of some element in the discourse is dependent on that of another The one element presupposes the other, in the sense that it cannot be effectively decoded except by recourse to it (Halliday & Hasan,

1976, p 4)

Cohesion is realized through a lexicogrammatical system In other words, cohesion is expressed either through grammar or vocabulary Thus, cohesion comprises two main types: grammatical and lexical cohesion (Halliday & Hasan, 1976, p 6) However, only reference and conjunction of grammatical cohesive devices, which are found almost everywhere in “The Wind in the Willows”, are discussed in the following sections

2.1.2 Grammatical cohesion

Halliday and Hasan (1976) said that “grammatical cohesion means that some forms are realized through the grammar” (p 6) Also according to Halliday and Hasan, there are four main types of grammatical cohesive devices, which are reference, ellipsis, substitution, and conjunction (p 6) Among these four kinds of grammatical cohesive devices, the study only discusses references and conjunctions

2.1.2.1 Reference

According to Halliday (1994), “[a] participant or circumstantial element introduced at one place in the text can be taken as a reference point for something that follows” (p 288) Besides, the definition of reference was also presented by Halliday and Hasan (1976, p 32), who define reference as a semantic relation and who say that “since the relationship is on the semantic level, the reference item is in no way constrain to match the grammatical class

of the item it refers to.” In the words of Halliday and Hasan, there are two main forms of reference, including situational reference (referring to a thing

as identified in the context of situation) and text reference (referring a thing as identified in the surrounding text Halliday and Hasan also identified situational and textual reference by contrasting exophora (or exophoric reference) and endophora (endoforic reference), as shown in Figure 2.1

Figure 2.1 Exophoric and Endophoric Reference (Halliday & Hasan, 1976, p 33)

As it can be seen in Figure 2.1 that reference items can be exophoric or endophoric, and if it is endophoric, it may be anaphoric or cataphoric Anaphoric reference refers to any reference that points “backwards” to previously mentioned information in the text whereas cataphoric reference points the reader or listener “forwards” to the following information in the text For example,

(2.1) Who’s he? [speaker pointing at photograph]

(2.2) She appealed to Philip He turned the main tap

(Thompson, 2014, p 217)

In the first example, the hearer understands the meaning of “he” by

relating it to something in the context of situation – the photograph of a man,

so “he” in this example is exophoric In the second example, on the other hand, identifying the referent of “he” involves interpreting that it refers to the man mentioned as “Philip” in the previous text; therefore, “he” in the second example is an endophoric and it is anaphoric because the meaning of “he”

referring to “Philip” has already been mentioned earlier in the text

Halliday and Hasan (1976) state that there are three types of reference: personal reference, demonstrative reference and comparative reference (p

37) These three types of reference are discussed in more detailed in the next sections

 Personal reference

Personal reference is reference by means of function in the speech

situation, through the category of PERSON It has three classes: personal

pronouns (I, me, you, we, us, he, him, she, her, they, them, it, one), possessive determiners (my, your, our, his, her, their, its, one’s), and possessive pronouns (mine, yours, ours, his, hers, theirs, its) (Halliday & Hasan, 1976,

pp 37-38) For instance,

(2.3) Nam and Lan didn’t say a word Perhaps they were angry

(Van, 2006, p 68)

In the example above, “they” is a personal reference because it is a

personal pronoun referring to “Nam and Lan” in the previous text

 Demonstrative reference

Demonstrative reference is a form of verbal pointing at a referent by

locating it on the scale of proximity in terms of space and time (Van, 2006, p

68)

There are three kinds of demonstrative references: the selective

nominal demonstratives, the definite article the and the adverbial

demonstratives (Halliday & Hasan, 1976, p 59)

a The selective nominal demonstratives

According to Halliday and Hasan (1976), there are four selective nominal

demonstratives: this, these; that, those Halliday and Hasan say that these

demonstratives commonly refer to anaphoric reference in English (p 59)

There are three systematic distinctions between them (Halliday & Hasan, 1976, pp 60-62):

(i) This and these refer to something that is ‘near’ the speaker while

that and those denote something that is ‘not near’ the speaker

Both this and that are often anaphoric reference referring to something that has been said before In dialogue, this is often used to refer to something the speaker has said and that to denote something said by his interlocutor

(Halliday & Hasan, 1976, p 60) The following two examples show the

difference between this and that in terms of ‘near’ or ‘not near’ the speaker

(2.4) There seems to have been a great deal of sheer carelessness This

is what I can't understand

(2.5) There seems to have been a great deal of sheer carelessness -Yes, that's what I can’t understand

(Halliday & Hasan, 1976, p 60)

In (2.4), “this” is a demonstrative reference referring to “there seems

to have been a great deal of sheer carelessness” - the content of what has

been said by the speaker In (2.5), on the other hand, “that” is also a

demonstrative reference, but it refers to “there seems to have been a great deal of sheer carelessness” said by the listener

Halliday and Hasan (1976, p 60) also say that in terms of time, that is associated with a past-time referent and this for one in the present or future

(2.6) We went to the opera last night That was our first outing for

(2.8) This man is my father

(iii) A demonstrative as Modifier (demonstrative determiners) (this,

that, these, and those plus nouns, i.e., this book is a novel) may refer to any

class of noun while a demonstrative as Head (demonstrative pronouns) (this,

that, these and those without nouns, i.e., this is a novel) can not refer to a

human noun except in the special environment of a relational clause in which one element is supplying the identification of the others

b The definite article the

The definite article the is an unmarked or non-selective referential

deictic Its meaning is that the noun it modifies has a particular referent and that the information required for identifying this referent is identifiable (Halliday & Hasan, 1976, p 74) In other words, the noun which the definite

article the modifies is something like ‘you know which I mean, either because

I have mentioned it, or because I am about to explain which one, or because you are familiar with it from your own knowledge and experience’ (Thompson, 2014, p 218)

According to Halliday and Hasan (1976), the function of the definite

article the is to signal definiteness, without itself contributing to the definition, so it does not contain the content The definite article the creates a

cohesive link between the sentence in which it occurs and the referential information It does not contain that information in itself, and it does not say where the information is located (p 74)

The demonstrative reference the may be exophoric or endophoric

(Halliday & Hasan, 1976, p 71) If it is exophoric, the modified item is identifiable in one of two ways

(i) The modified item is a specific individual or subclass which is

identifiable in the particular situation As in “Look! The bus is coming”, the bus is interpreted as “the bus we are both expecting”

(ii) The modified item is the only one (e.g., the sun, the moon, etc.), the whole class (e.g., the stars); or the individual considered as a representative

of the whole class, like ‘the child’ in the following example is interpreted as

‘all children in the world’

(2.9) As the child grows, he learns to be independent

(Halliday & Hasan, 1976, p 71) According to Halliday and Hasan (1976), if the demonstrative reference the is endophoric, there are also two possibilities (p 72)

(i) It can only refer to a modifying element within the same nominal

group as itself As exemplified below, the is the signal of identifying which

ascent

(2 10) The ascent of Mount Everest

(ii) The item which the definite article the modifies has already been mentioned or repeated Consider the following example where the is used to modify the item “holiday” which is repeated

(2.11) Last year we went to Devon for a holiday The holiday we had

there was the best we’ve ever

c Demonstrative adverbs

Then, there, now and then are four kinds of demonstrative adverbs

although now is very rarely cohesive Three of them need to be distinguished

from their homographs written the same way but having different functions in

the language (1) Demonstrative there is to be distinguished from pronoun there

as in “there's an apple on the table” (2) Demonstrative now is to be distinguished from conjunction now as in “Now we’re going to look at the

exercise on page.” (3) Demonstrative then is to be distinguished from

conjunction then as in “then we went to school” (Halliday & Hasan, 1976, p 4)

As reference items, here and there closely parallel this and that,

respectively The meaning of here and there is locative (e.g., The people here

are friendly) Besides, here and there can refer to the meaning of “respect”

(in this respect and in that respect)

The temporal demonstratives then and now are much more restricted in their cohesive function The cohesive use of demonstrative then is that

embodying anaphoric reference to time; the meaning is ‘at the time just

referred to’ (e.g., In my young days we took these things more seriously We

had different ideas then.) The use of now is confined to those instances in

which the meaning is ‘this state of affairs having come about’, for example

“now” in “The plane touched down at last Now we could breathe freely

again” (Halliday & Hasan, 1976, p 75)

 Comparative reference

Whereas personal and demonstrative references set up a relation of reference, whereby the same entity is referred to over again, comparatives set

co-up a relation of contrast Comparative reference is expressed through

adjectives and adverbs (Van, 2006, p 69)

Comparative reference items function in nominal and adverbial groups; and the comparison is made with reference either to general features of identity, similarity and difference or to particular features of quality and

quantity Any expression such as the same, another, similar, different, as big,

bigger, and less big, and related adverbs such as likewise, differently, and equally, presumes some standard of reference in the preceding text (Halliday,

2004, p 560) For example, different in (2.12) is Post-Deictic and referential

It means ‘different from the two referred to’ not ‘different from each other’

(2.12) They were a different two colours

(Halliday & Hasan, 1976, p 80) Halliday (2004, p 561) presents a list of comparative reference items,

together with their positions and function in nominal and adverbial groups

including Post-Deictic (e.g., other in “the other interesting trips”), Numerative (e.g more in “more time”), Epithet (e.g., bigger in “a bigger

apple”) in the nominal group and Head in the adverbial group, as shown in

Table 2.1 In the first column, Halliday groups the comparative reference items into two groups: general comparison of identity, similarity and difference and particular comparison of quality and quantity

Table 2 1 Comparative Reference Items

group Post-Deictic Numerative Epithet Head adjective Adverb Adjective;

identically, (just) as, Similarity similar,

additional, … Difference other,

different, …

otherwise, else, differently, …

more, fewer, less, further,

bigger,

OR Submodifier:

more, less, so,

as, … + Subhead:

adjective

Comparative adverb: better,

OR Submodifier: more, less, so,

as, + Subhead: adverb

Adapted from “Introduction to Functional Grammar,” by M.A.K Halliday, 2004, p 561

In Table 2.1, general comparison is meant comparison that is in terms

of likeness and unlikeness: two things may be the same, similar or different It

is expressed by a certain of adjectives and adverbs (same, equal, identical,

similar, additional, other, different, such; otherwise, else, differently, equally,

…) The adjectives function in nominal group either as Deictic (e.g., different

in a two different colors) or as Epithet (e.g., such in such men) The adverbs

function in the clause, as Adjunct (e.g., differently in “She sang this song

differently”)

Particular comparison means comparison that is in respect of quantity

or quality As can be seen in Table 2.1, particular comparison is expressed by

means of adjective or adverbs in some comparative form (comparative

adjective, comparative adverb and Submodifier + Subhead: Adjective/Adverb) If the comparison is in terms of quantity, it is expressed in

the Numerative elements of the nominal group; either by a comparative

quantifier such as more, fewer, less, further, … (e.g., more in more books), or

by an adverb of comparison submodifying a quantifier (so, as, … + Subhead:

numeral), e.g., so many in so many things If the comparison is in terms of

quality, it is expressed in either way: (i) in the Epithet element in the nominal

group, either (a) by a comparative adjective (e.g., bigger in a bigger box), or

(b) by an adverb of comparison submodifying an adjective (more, less, so, as,

… + Subhead: Adjective), e.g., such in such a good student; equally good in

an equally good student; (ii) as Adjunct in the clause, either (a) by a

comparative adverb (e.g., more carefully in my father drives more carefully),

or (b) by an adverb of comparison submodifying an adverb (more, less, so, as,

… + Subhead: Adverb), e.g., as slowly in he runs as slowly

2.1.2.2 Conjunction

Conjunction refers broadly to the combining of any two textual

elements into a potentially coherent complex semantic unit (Thompson, 2014,

p 225) Besides, Bloor and Bloor (1995, p 98) describe conjunction as “a cohesive tie between clauses or sections of text in such a way as to

demonstrate a meaningful pattern between them.” In other words, conjunction

is used to connect sentences and clauses together into one text

Conjunction is a relationship which indicates how the subsequent sentence or clause should be linked to the preceding or the following part of the sentence (Halliday & Hasan, 1976, p 226) There are four categories of conjunction: additive, adversative, causal, and temporal (p 238) The

simplest form of conjunctive relations can be expressed by the words and, yet,

so and then For example,

(2.13) a And in all this time he met no one (additive)

b Yet he was hardly aware of being tired (adversative)

c So by night time the valley was far below him (causal)

d Then, as dusk fell, he sat down to rest (temporal)

(Halliday & Hasan, 1976, pp 238-239) Halliday and Hasan (1976) also make a clear distinction between these four types of relation by introducing their subcategories presented in detail in the following sections

 Additive conjunction

The additive relation shows the ‘and’ relation (Halliday & Hasan,

1976, p 244) The word and, or and nor at the beginning of a new sentence

are used cohesively to link one sentence to another Moreover, there is a

difference between and, or, and nor in structural relations (coordination), which hold within a sentence, and and, or, and nor in cohesive relations which hold between sentences The words and, or, and nor can occur in

coordinate pairs, such as both and, either or, neither nor These coordinate pairs are not cohesive because they function as a single unit within the sentence Therefore, the main distinction between coordination and the additive relation is that the former relation is structural, whereas the latter one

is cohesive (Halliday & Hasan, 1976, p 234)

Halliday and Hasan (1976, p 249) says that there are four conjunction relations of the Additive type: simple additive relations, complex additive relations, comparative relations and appositive relations Table 2.2 presents four conjunction relations of the Additive type with text examples

Table 2.2 Summary of the Conjunctive Relations of the Additive Type

Kinds of conjunctive relation Example

Simple additive relations

Negative nor; and…not; not…either, neither, or, or

else

Complex additive relations

Additive further (more), moreover, additionally,

besides that, add to this, in addition, and another thing

Afterthought incidentally, by the way

Comparative relations

Similar likewise, similarly, in the same way, in

(just) this way

Dissimilar on the other hand, by contrast, conversely Appositive relations

Expository that is, I mean, in other words, to put it

another way

Exemplificatory for instance, for example, thus

Adapted from “Cohesion in English,” by M.A.K Halliday and R Hasan, 1976, pp 249-250

All three, and, or and nor of simple additive conjunction can be used in the initial position to link one sentence to another The word and signals the presentation of additional information while the word nor serves to function

as the negative form of the additive relation The additive conjunction or has

the basic meaning of alternation, and it often occurs in questions, requests, permissions, predictions, opinions (Halliday & Hasan, 1976, p 246) For example,

(2.14) ‘I said you looked like an egg, sir,’ Alice gently explained ‘And some eggs are very pretty, you know,’ she added

(Halliday & Hasan, 1976, p 245)

“And” in (2.14) is an example of the additive conjunction It is used

initially and serves to connect a succession of two sentences and add more information to what Alice has said

As can be seen from the above table, complex additive conjunctive expressions are classified into emphatic and de-emphatic Emphatic conjunctions are used to emphasize the additional point that is to be connected

to the previous one (further, moreover, additionally, besides that, add to this,

in addition, and another thing), or to stress some alternative interpretation

(alternatively) De-emphatic forms (incidentally, by the way) introduce

information as afterthought For instance,

(2.15) My client says he does not know this witness Further, he

denies ever seeing her or spoken to her

(Halliday & Hasan, 1976, p 246)

In (2.15), the word “further” is an example of the emphatic form of the

complex additive conjunction It is used in the initial position and serves to

emphasize “he denies ever seeing her or spoken to her” in conjunction with

“he does not know this witness”

According to Halliday and Hasan (1976, p 247), comparative relations can be established when what is being said is compared to what has been said

In this case, additive conjunction can express similarity (similarly, in the same

way) or dissimilarity (by contrast, as opposed to this) The comparative

conjunctive expression by contrast in the following example is used to

express the meaning of dissimilarity It serves to introduce a different point,

the orchard is looking very healthy, that contradicts the information expressed

in the presupposed sentence our garden didn’t do very well this year

(2.16) Our garden didn’t do very well this year By contrast, the

orchard is looking very healthy

(Halliday & Hasan, 1976, p 247) According to Table 2.2, another subcategory of additive conjunction is

appositive relations It can establish expository relations (that is, I mean, in

other words, to put it another way) to add some explanation to what has been

already said and exemplificatory relation (for instance, for example) to link

sentences by giving examples Here is an illustration

(2.17) I wonder whether that statement can be backed up by adequate evidence In other words, you don’t believe me

(Halliday & Hasan, 1976, p 248)

 Adversative conjunction

The semantic meaning of adversative is ‘contrary to expectation’

(Hoang Van Van, 2006, p 76) In other words, the basic meaning of

adversative conjunction is to introduce a contrary point to what has been said

In English, simple adversative markers are however, yet, although, but, in

spite of, in contrast, contrary to, adversely, nevertheless, despite

Adversative relations has four conjunction relations: proper relations,

contrastive relations, corrective relations, and dismissive relations (Halliday

& Hasan, 1976, pp 255-256) The summary of adversative relation with examples is shown in Table 2.3

Table 2 3 Summary of the Conjunctive Relations of the Adversative Type Kinds of conjunctive relation Example

Adversative relations ‘proper’(in spite

all the same Contrastive relations (as again)

same time, as again that

Avowal in fact, as a matter of fact; to tell the

truth, actually; in points of facts

Corrective relation (not…but)

Correction of meaning instead, rather, on the contrary

Correction of wording at least, rather, I mean

Dismissive relation (no matter…, still)

Dismissal, closed in any/either case/event; any/either

way, whichever…

Dismissal, open-ended anyhow, at any rate, in my case,

however that may be

Adapted from “Cohesion in English,” by M.A.K Halliday and R Hasan, 1976, pp 255-256

Based on Table 2.3, proper adversative conjunction is expressed by its

simple adversative conjunctions (yet, though, only), but containing ‘and’, and emphatic adversative conjunctions (however, nevertheless, despite this, all the

same) All these adversative conjunctive expressions are used initially to

create contrast in a text The word though is often placed at the end of the

clause, but it is treated as fully cohesive subordinating conjunction only if it

occurs initially However is different; it can occupy both initial and final

positions Below is an example of emphatic adversative relations realized by

however in the initial and final position

(2.18) I’m afraid I’ll be home late tonight However, I won’t have to go

in until late tomorrow

= I’m afraid I’ll be home late tonight I won’t have to go in until late

tomorrow, however

(Van, 2006, p 76) Halliday and Hasan (1976, p 253) introduced a group of avowal

contrastive expressions (in fact, as a matter of fact, actually, to tell (you) the

truth) that are used in the meaning of “as against what the current state of the

communication process would lead us to expect, the fact of the matter is ”

Besides, emphatic expressions (however, on the other hand, at the same time)

can establish contrastive adversative relations in a text

Table 2.3 also shows two more subclasses of adversative conjunction, including corrective and dismissive relations Corrective items can be

expressed by instead, on the contrary, rather, at least to establish the link

between sentences by rejecting what has been said in favour of another formulation For example,

(2.19) He showed no pleasure at hearing the news Instead, he looked

even gloomier

(Halliday & Hasan, 1976, p 254)

The dismissive adversative expressions (in any/either case/event,

any/either way, anyhow, at any rate) are used to introduce a new point that

refers to what has been said with the only difference that some previous information has been dismissed as irrelevant Below is an example

(2.20) We may be back tonight; I’m not sure Either way, just make

yourself at home

(Halliday & Hasan, 1976, p 254)

 Causal conjunction

Causal relation is undoubtedly cohesive in a discoursal environment, as

it must consist of two elements, cause and effect (Van, 2006, p 77) This kind

of relation is expressed by so, thus, hence, therefore, nevertheless, however,

consequently, accordingly, and some expressions like as a result (of that), in consequence (of that), because of that

There are five conjunction relations of the causal type, which are general causal relations, specific causal relations, reversed causal relations, conditional relations (if… then), and respective relations (Halliday & Hasan,

1976, p 260) These five conjunction relations of the causal type together their examples are summarized in Table 2.4

Table 2 4 Summary of the Conjunctive Relations of the Causal Type

Kinds of conjunctive relation Example

General causal relations

of this Specific causal relations

Reason for this reason, on account of this, it

follows from this, on this basis

Kinds of conjunctive relation Example

(of this), arising out of this

mind/view, with this intention, to this end Reversed causal relations

Conditional relations (if… then)

Emphatic in that case, that being the case, in

such an event, under those circumstances

Reversed polarity otherwise, under the circumstances Respective relations

regard to this; here Resersed polarity otherwise, in other respects;

aside/apart from this

Adapted from “Cohesion in English,” by M.A.K Halliday and R Hasan, 1976, pp 260-261

According to Table 2.4, the first subtype of the causal type is general causal relations, which are classified into two forms: simple and emphatic

The simple forms of general causal relation are so, thus, therefore The emphatic forms (consequently, accordingly, because of that) are used as

general conjunctive expressions to emphasize the cause-consequence relation Below is an example of simple causal relations

(2.21) … she felt that there was no time to be lost, as she was shrinking rapidly; so she got to work at once to eat some of the other bit

(Van, 2006, p 77)

In (2.21), the word so is used as a causal conjunction to serve the meaning that she got to work at once to eat some of the other bit is ‘as a result

of ’ she felt that there was no time to be lost, as she was shrinking rapidly

Causal conjunction can establish specific relations of reason (for this

reason, on account of this), result (as a result, in consequence, arising out of this), and purpose (for this purpose, with this intention) For example,

(2.22) She was never really happy here As a result, she’s leaving

In (2.22), the phrase as a result is a specific clausal conjunction of result What it means is that she’s leaving is as a result of that she was never

really happy here

Another subclass of causal conjunction expresses conditional relationships The conditional relation can be expressed by the simple form

then or other emphatic items (in that case, under these circumstances, otherwise) For example,

(2.23) I was not informed Otherwise, I should have taken some action

(Halliday & Hasan, 1976, p 259)

In (2.23), the conditional meaning can be interpreted as If I had been

informed, then I should have taken some action

Halliday and Hasan (1976, p 259) label otherwise as a causal conjunction of reversed polarity For example in (2.21), otherwise switches

the polarity from negative to positive

Otherwise can be also used as an equivalent to such conjunctive

expressions as in this respect, apart from this, with regard to this These

expressions establish a conjunctive link that is called respective

 Temporal conjunction

Temporal relation is the relation between successive sentences It may

be simply a sequence in time: one is subsequent to the other (Halliday &

Hasan, 1976, p 261) This temporal relation is expressed by then, next,

afterwards, after that, subsequently; (just) then, at the same time, simultaneously; earlier, before, previously

There are seven types of temporal relations namely simple temporal relations, complex temporal relations, conclusive relations, sequential and conclusive relations, temporal relation, ‘here and now’ relations, and summary relations (Halliday & Hasan, 1976, pp 266-267) Table 2.5 shows

seven conjunction relations of the Temporal type with text examples

Table 2.5 Summary of the Conjunctive Relation of the Tempor al

Kinds of conjunctive relation Example

Simple temporal relations

Sequential (and) then, next, afterwards, after

that, subsequently Simultaneous (just) then, at the same time,

simultaneously Preceding earlier, before the/that, previously Complex temporal relations

Immediate at once, thereupon, on which; just

before Interrupted soon, presently, later, after a time;

some time earlier, formerly Repetitive next time, on another occasion; this

time, on this occasion; the last time, on a previous occasion Specific next day, five minutes later, five

minutes earlier

Terminal by this time; up till that time, until

Kinds of conjunctive relation Example

then Punctiliar next moment; at this point/moment;

the previous moment Conclusive relations

Simple finally, at last, in the end, eventually Sequential and conclusive relations

Sequential first … then, first … next, first …

second … Conclusive at first … finally, at first … in the

end Temporal relation

finally, as a final point, in conclusion first … next, first … then, first …

secondly …; in the first place

…; to begin with …

‘Here and now’ relations

heretofore

Summary relations

Culminative to sum up, in short, briefly

Resumptive to resume, to get back to the point,

anyway

Adapted from “Cohesion in English,” by M.A.K Halliday and R Hasan, 1976, pp 266-267

As can be seen from Table 2.5, the simplest form of the temporal

conjunction is then It serves to create a sequence in time, showing that one