2.5.2 Gutwinski’s model

Gutwinski (1976) proposes a linguistic framework for the study of cohesion in literary texts based on the stratificational theory of linguistics. ¹Although he acknowledges Halliday’s systemic grammar and his conception of cohesion, he departs from the Hallidayan model because of what he believes is a lack of explicitness in developing “a semology or even a fully worked-out tactic for its upper stratum (lexical hierarchy) or lexis” (Gutwinski, 1976: 23), a problem he also associates with tagmemics. According to Gutwinski, a model of semologic structure has to underlie any serious attempt to handle connected discourse. He believes that a stratificational theory is adopted as the theoretical framework because of its capability of recognising and developing strata, one of which is semology, the others being phonology and grammar. Although cohesion as a linguistic phenomenon belongs to the grammatical stratum, a truly comprehensive description can only be made by stating it in terms of the units of, and the relations obtaining on, the semologic stratum.

Gutwinski admits that the structure of the semological stratum “is not directly observable since it is not represented directly in the grammar and even less so in the phonology of the language” (Gutwinski, 1976: 25). But then he asserts that semologic structure “finds its manifestation in the relatively shallower structure of the grammar and is still recoverable from it”.

Accordingly, cohesion as a term is employed for the relations that exist among the sentences and clauses of a text. These relations occurring on the grammatical stratum are signalled by certain grammatical and lexical features reflecting discourse structure on a higher semologic stratum. These features account for textual connectivity of sentences and clauses. “They do not by themselves constitute cohesion but mark which clauses and sentences are related and in what manner” (Gutwinski, 1976: 26). It is this relatedness of clauses and sentences that constitutes the internal cohesion of a text.

Gutwinski believes that a good understanding of cohesive relations in a text will help us in reconstructing the text’s discourse structure. Since cohesion is established as a manifestation of discourse structure, it follows that a text, which is envisaged as a continuous discourse having structure, will display cohesion. He asserts that this cohesion “may differ in kind and degree depending on how it is structured on the semologic stratum and what options have been chosen while realising the semologic structure on the grammatic structure”. Accordingly, he concludes, texts may exhibit strong or weak cohesion, but there will be no text that does not manifest cohesion.

Before he proposes his typology of cohesive features, Gutwinski makes a note of what he calls “a cohesive factor”, that is the order in which sentences follow one another in a text. According to him, the importance of this factor is represented by the imposition of an interpretation on a conglomeration of sentences by virtue of their appearing in a certain order together. If no interpretation is feasible, that sequence of sentences is not a text. “Order” is then a cohesive factor that, either by itself or in combination with other factors, indicates the kind of cohesive relations that obtain between sentences and clauses.

The cohesive features that Gutwinski proposes, and later investigates in literary samples from Henry James and Hemingway, are categorised into two main classes: grammatical and lexical. However, his listing differs from that of Halliday in the manner of classification and presentation, and in some detail. Gutwinski gives two reasons to justify these differences. First, his present listing “will achieve a greater consistency with the theory of cohesion presented”. Secondly, it will “provide a workable descriptive framework for the examination of texts for the purpose of establishing their cohesive features.” Gutwinski: 59) proposes the following listing of the main cohesive features:

1. Grammatical Cohesion:

i) Anaphora and cataphora:

a. Pronouns:

i. Personal pronouns, e.g. he, him, she, it, they, etc.

ii. Demonstrative pronouns, e.g. this, these, that, those, etc.

iii. Relative pronouns: who, which, that, whom, whose, etc.

iv. Determiners: the, this, these, that, those, etc.

v. Personal possessives, e.g. his, its, their, etc.

b. Substitutes:

i. Verbal (do)

ii. Nominal (one)

iii. Partial

iv. Adverbs, e.g. there, then

v. Submodifiers, e.g. such, so

c. Coordination and subordination:

i. Connectors

ii. Enation and agnation

iii. Enate sentences

iv. Agnate sentences