2.5 Models of cohesion

Cohesive devices or features have become over the past ten years a major growth industry in modern language study, and several books and studies are published on the subject every year.

In the early seventies a number of important models were published that dealt with the subject of cohesion. These models dealt with cohesion from different perspectives. Enkvist (1973) proposes a linguistic-stylistic model to describe textual cohesion (Section 2.5.1); Gutwinski (1976) proposes a model of cohesion within a stratificational framework; its focus on the potential stylistic applications of cohesive studies has provided a starting-point for some research studies in stylistics (Section 2.5.2). The third model is the procedural/relational model proposed by Beaugrande (1980) and developed further by Beaugrande and Dressler (1981) (Section 2.5.3). Finally, there is Halliday and Hasan’s (1976) model, which is the most widely known model of cohesion. This model builds heavily upon on Halliday’s model of systematic functional grammar and on two earlier works by Hasan (1968 and 1981). This model will be discussed at length in Chapter 3.

The reason for including these models of cohesion in the current study is to shed light on the diversity of emphasis and scope of these models.

2.5.1 Enkvist’s model

Enkvist proposes a model of textual cohesion. Textual cohesion, according to this model, is seen from a linguistic-stylistic perspective, with potential application to the analysis of literary texts.

Unlike other style theorists and stylistic scholars, Enkvist believes that style should not be restricted only to the sentence or to linguistics of units larger than the sentence. Within this context Enkvist (1973: 110) writes:

[…] single sentences have style, and stylistic incongruities such as the use of a colloquial word in an otherwise solemn, high-style frame may occur within the bounds of one sentence. And the other way round: quite a few features of textual cohesion between sentences can be regarded as grammatical rather than as stylistic. Pronominal reference, concord, and certain other grammatical phenomena do not stop at sentence borders.

Enkvist also asserts that the manner in which sentences are strung together into texts can also function as a style marker, particularly in contexts characterised by the use of textually deviant sentence strings. Patterning of sentence sequences is an essential stylistic aspect. He says:

If certain patterns of sentence sequence are significantly more frequent in a given text than in a norm chosen for its contextual relationship with that text, they qualify as style markers precisely like any other linguistic features. (Enkvist, 1973: 115)

Enkvist distinguishes two major categories of textual style markers: theme dynamics and cohesive devices between structural and textual units.

1. Theme dynamics

Enkvist’s development of theme dynamics, as an apparatus for the description of patterns of sentence sequence, is based on syntax and draws on studies of theme as elaborated by the Prague School linguists and others. Enkvist notes that within intersentence grammar and text linguistics, the investigator should not be satisfied with an apparatus capable only of discussing the statics of theme and rheme. There is therefore a need for theme dynamics expressly designed for description of thematic cohesion in strings of sentences. These dynamics chart “the patterns by which themes recur in a text and by which they run through a text, weaving their way from clause to clause and from sentence to sentence.” (Enkvist, 1973: 116)

Enkvist points out that theme dynamics must consist of three parts. These are:

i. Theme statics, that is, a theory of theme in a clause and sentence. He asserts that this does not need to be discussed here, as theories of this type are already available.

ii. A theory and method of thematic identification, which facilitates the comparison of thematically definable parts of different sentences and the decision whether to regard them as the same or different, irrespective of whether they are expressed with the same words or not. At present, lack of a sufficiently rigorous semantic theory of synonymy leads to maintaining some very rough-and-ready systems of theme identification. Enkvist believes that themes may be regarded as the same if they fit into one of certain patterns of semantic relationship such as:

a. Repetition, as in:

The process of charging a capacitor consists of transferring…. The charging process therefore requires….

b. Reference, as in:

On the station platform were Negro soldiers. They wore brown uniforms and were tall and their faces shone.

c. Synonymy, as in:

Rome was still the capital of the Pope. As if she knew that her doom was upon her, the Eternal City arrayed …

d. Antonymy, as in:

Wise men should speak. Fools are much less interesting to listen to.

e. Comparison, as in:

John was hurt by all these accusations. Even more painful were the suspicions of his wife.

f. Contracting hyponymy, as in:

People got on and off. At the news-stand Frenchmen, returning to Paris….

g. Expanding hyponymy, as in:

Tulips are cheap even in January. But then flowers seem to be necessary to….

h. Co-membership of the same word field, as in:

Tulips are cheap. Roses are expensive.

i. Sustained metaphor, as in:

The sun sagged yellow over the grass plots and bruised itself on the clotted cotton fields. The fertile countryside that grew things in other seasons spread flat from the roads and lay prone in ribbed fans of broken discouragement.

(Enkvist, 1973: 117-18)

Enkvist believes that sentences can often be linked thematically by the simultaneous use of more than one device of thematic identification; the categories listed above can further be subdivided for greater delicacy. For instance, a subclass of the category (h) can be assigned the label “indexical”, a semiotic term, to indicate a special word-field relationship as in, for example, ‘sun’ and ‘shadows’.

Enkvist emphasizes that a taxonomy of patterns of theme movement through the successive sentences of a text is needed. He notes that despite the various difficulties that a theoretical conception of the terms ‘theme’ and ‘rheme’ causes, one can operationally and strictly discuss thematic movement in terms of two positions, I (initial) and N (non-initial). Enkvist believes that there are four patterns of thematic movement:

i. I to I, as in:

The fields outside the village were full of vines. The fields were brown.

ii. I to N, as in:

A lady stood in the midst of the hail…. It was obviously impossible to frighten her.

iii. N to I, as in:

The ratio of the …called the index of refraction…. The

index of refraction will be….

ιω. Ν το Ν, ασ ιν:

That afternoon Jack came to London. Peter was also there.

(Enkvist, 1973: 119)

Enkvist indicates that there are various possible principles for classifying thematic movement. One criterion is syntactic function: a theme may move from the subject of one sentence to the subject of another, from subject to object, from object to subject, and so on. Another is syntactic structure: thematic features may move from a noun phrase to a verb phrase, and so on. According to Enkvist, one principle of classification is based on the distance of sentences with related themes. For instance, “Some texts make frequent use of thematic movements from one sentence to the next, that is from sentence n to sentence n + 1, whereas in other texts, movements from sentence n to n + 2, n + 3, and so on may be comparatively common.” (Enkvist, 1973: 120)

2. Cohesive devices

Enkvist believes that in addition to anaphoric and cataphoric reference, pronominalisation, the use of referential ‘do’ or ‘one’, and other cohesion devices traditionally discussed in sentence grammar, there are other cohesion features. According to Enkvist, these cohesion features can be used in the analysis and the description of texts. Enkvist (1973) proposes the following four types of cohesion features. These will be presented under the following headings respectively: contextual cohesion, lexical cohesion, clausal linkage, and iconic linkage.

i. Contextual cohesion

It is believed that contextual cohesion “keeps together passages occurring in the same matrix of contextual features” (Enkvist, 1973: 122). For example, in a novel, a dialogue has a contextual matrix different from a descriptive passage in the same novel. Similarly, in a play, stage directions are under the contextual constraints of a matrix different from that of the dialogue in the play. Each verbal strand displays typical and distinct cohesive patterns.

ii. Lexical cohesion

According to Enkvist, lexical cohesion is a term suggesting, “coherent texts often have a homogeneous vocabulary, which contributes to their unity” (Enkvist, 1973: 122). Enkvist believes that homogeneity of vocabulary may be affected by a number of factors. One factor is the subject matter of the text; for instance, an article on nuclear physics is likely to contain a high density of terms related to nuclear physics. Other factors comprise various contextual features, including style: a colloquial text is likely to use a stylistically homogeneous, colloquial vocabulary.

iii. Clausal linkage

According to Enkvist, clausal linkage provides an arsenal of formal means marking the ways in which clauses cohere within sentences and sentences within texts. Enkvist observes that grammarians have traditionally paid attention to the ways in which clauses join into sentences, but though many of the devices of intersentence linkage are much the same as these of clausal linkage within the sentence, ways of linking sentences into texts still deserve special study. In this category, Enkvist identifies eight types of logical relations between sentences. These are:

a. Additive, a proposition that has no organic relation with its predecessor ‘and’.

b. Initial, the first sentence of a paragraph.

c. Adversative, a proposition which changes the direction of the argument ‘but’.

d. Alternative, a proposition which may be substituted for the previous one ‘or’.

e. Explanatory, a restatement, definition or expansion of the previous proposition ‘that is’.

f. Illustrative, an instance or illustration ‘for example’.

g. Illative, a conclusion ‘therefore’.

h. Causal, the cause for a preceding conclusion ‘for’.

Enkvist notes that the density patterns of types of sentence linkage may offer a battery of additional style markers.

iv. Iconic linkage

According to Enkvist, iconic linkage is a term borrowed from semantics. It is implemented here to denote “situations in which two or more sentences cohere because they are, at some level of abstraction, isomorphic (or, more popularly, “pictures of each other”)” (Enkvist, 1973: 123). In order to clarify this notion, Enkvist points out that one line of Pope, for example, is highly likely to be metrically isomorphic with another line of Pope. In identifying iconic linkage, one is compelled to determine the level of abstraction at which the isomorphism is significant as an iconic link. As a rule such isomorphisms have to be realised at, or close to, the surface. Instances of iconic linkage include rhythmic and metrical regularities, rhyme, alliteration and assonance. Furthermore, iconic links may also be syntactic, linking, for instance, “The old gentleman elegantly kissed the young lady” with “The striped tiger cruelly bit the innocent lamb”.

Other cohesive features that Enkvist proposes are the consistent use of certain tenses and the consistent use of such aspects of point of view as can be linguistically defined.

According to Enkvist, the significance of all these patterns of intersentence grammar and text linguistics for stylistic analysis is twofold:

First, they reveal the kinds of conceptual frames employed if agreement is reached that style is not merely a quality of sentences but also of texts. In this case, means for describing style must be devised, “which reckon with textual, intersentential features and not only with terms that refer to phenomena within the confines of single sentences.” (Enkvist, 1973: 125)

Second, patterns of textual cohesion provide the investigator with “a vast arsenal of additional style markers”. Accordingly, stylistic differentials between text and norm can be expressed with the aid of densities of cohesion devices. For instance, one can test a hypothesis such as “X’s scientific style is characterised by a comparatively high density of thematic movements from rheme in sentence n to theme in sentence n + 1”. Furthermore, Enkvist suggests that observations of textual cohesion patterns and of devices of theme dynamics “may also yield material for practical tasks such as the teaching of composition and normative stylistics.” (Enkvist, 1973: 126)