UNIT 3

Identification of repetition links and creation of a net of bonds in the text

Main points:

1. Identification of repetition links and the notion of bonds

3.2. Principles of construction of a repetition pattern

3.3. An example of text analysis

3.4. Interpretation of the repetition patterning: central and marginal sentences

3.5. Making summary of a text

3.6. Practical implications of the described methodology for translators

***************************************************************

3.1. Identification of repetition links and the notion of bonds

For the purposes of our further analysis we will have to observe the following rules of treatment repetition links [see: Hoey 1991: 76-99]:

а) If an item (a word or a word combination) repeats two items in another sentence, then only one link is registered;

b) If a sentence contains two items (words), both of which repeat an earlier item, again one link is registered.

c) Repetition links internal to one sentence are not registered.

d) Three links will be regarded to make a sufficient connection between two sentences, which we will call a bond.

3.2. Principles of construction of a repetition pattern

So lexical items (words) form links and sentences sharing three or more links form bonds. M.Hoey [1991: 91] writes that “a bond is not however, defined in terms of an absolute number of links. Bonds will never be deemed to exist where there are less then three links [...] but for some texts three links may not be sufficient”.

However, for the purposes of our analysis we will establish three lexical links as a sufficient connection to make a bond, in other words, any two sentences are connected as packages of information if they share at least three points of reference. The reason for this is practical: if less than three repetitions are treated as establishing a significant connection, then virtually every sentence will be connected to virtually every other sentence, and that is not going to tell us anything interesting about the function of cohesion except that it is pervasive [Hoey 1991: 36].

3.3. An example of text analysis

For the purposes of our analysis we will take a short piece of popular non-fictional text to illustrate our assumptions. We begin by considering the repetition links that sentence 1 shares with sentences 2, 3, 4 and 5.

3.3.1. The repetition links: sentence 1

Drug-crazed grizzlies

1. A drug known to produce violent reactions in humans has been used for sedating grizzly bears Ursus arctos in Montana, USA, according to a report in The New York Times.

2. After one bear, known to be a peaceable animal, killed and ate a camper in an unprovoked attack, scientists discovered it had been tranquillized 11 times with phencyclidine, or “angel dust”, which causes hallucinations and sometimes gives the user an irrational feeling of destructive power.

3. Many wild bears have become “garbage junkies”, feeding from dumps around human developments

4. To avoid potentially dangerous clashes between them and humans, scientists are trying to rehabilitate the animals by drugging them and releasing them in uninhabited areas.

5. Although some biologists deny that the mind-altering drug was responsible for uncharacteristic behaviour of this particular bear, no research has been done into the effects of giving grizzly bears or other mammals repeated doses of phencyclidine

BBC Wildlife, March 1984, Vol.2, №3¹

Sentence 1 has four links with sentence 2 and four with sentence 5; it has three links with sentence 4 and two with sentence 3. In accordance with our decision to take three links as the minimum necessary to establish a connection between sentences, we may say that there are bonds between sentence 1 and sentences 2, 4 and 5 but not with sentence 3. Although “known to” appears both in sentences 1 and 2, the two instances are not treated as repetition because the context within which they appear has nothing to do with the topic of the text. Therefore, the following diagram may represent our analysis:

(1)

(2) (4)

(3)

(5)

3.3.2. The repetition links: sentence 2

2. A fter one bear, known to be a peaceable animal, killed and ate a camper in an unprovoked attack, scientists discovered it had been tranquillized 11 times with phencyclidine, or “angel dust”, which causes hallucinations and sometimes gives the user an irrational feeling of destructive power.

3. Many wild bears have become “garbage junkies” feeding from dumps around human developments.

4. To avoid potentially dangerous clashes between them and humans, scientists are trying to rehabilitate the animals by drugging them and releasing them in uninhabited areas.

5. Although some biologists deny that the mind-altering drug was responsible for uncharacteristic behaviour of this particular bear, no research has been done into the effects of giving grizzly bears or other mammals repeated doses of phencyclidine.

In this portion of text, sentence 2 is connected by three or more repetition links to sentences 4 and 5, in addition to its connection to sentence 1. Again there is insufficient repetition with sentence 3 to establish a bond. Therefore, we can represent bonds of sentence 2 by the following diagram:

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

3.3.3. The repetition links: sentence 3

3. M any wild bears have become “garbage junkies, feeding from dumps around human developments.

4. To avoid potentially dangerous clashes between them and humans, scientists are trying to rehabilitate the animals by drugging them and releasing them in uninhabited areas.

5. Although some biologists deny that the mind-altering drug was responsible for uncharacteristic behaviour of this particular bear, no research has been done into the effects of giving grizzly bears or other mammals repeated doses of phencyclidine.

Although there are two items in both sentences 4 and 5 that connect with the item bears in sentence 3, these are not treated as two repetitions since they connect to only one item in the other sentence. So there is insufficient repetition for sentence 3 to form a bond with any other sentence.

3.3.4. The repetition links: sentence 4

4. T o avoid potentially dangerous clashes between them and humans, scientists are trying to rehabilitate the animals by drugging them and releasing them in uninhabited areas.

5. Although some biologists deny that the mind-altering drug was responsible for uncharacteristic behaviour of this particular bear, no research has been done into the effects of giving grizzly bears or other mammals repeated doses of phencyclidine.

No link is recognised between scientists and biologists, the grounds being that the greater specificity of the later item provides extra information and is, therefore, doing more than repeating the earlier item. Thus, it can be seen that there is little linkage between sentences 4 and 5 as there was between sentence 3 and the other sentences, therefore no bonds can be established between these sentences. The connections made by sentences 4 and 5 with sentences 1 and 2 of the text may be represented as follows:

(1) (1)

(2)

( 2)

(4) (5)

3.3.5. A representation of the repetition pattern

We are now in a position to consider how the various connections we have established combine to make a cohesion pattern of the text. We do this by combining the diagrams for the separate sentences and obtain the following scheme of the bonds of the text:

(1)

( 2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

What is the practical interest of the relationships represented in this scheme? To answer this question, we must examine more closely the sentences we have identified by our “three-link” criterion as having been connected with a bond.