Lexical cohesion revisited. A combined corpus and systemic-functional analysis

  1. Gómez González, María de los Ángeles
Revista:
Quaderns de filología. Estudis lingüístics

ISSN: 1135-416X

Ano de publicación: 2018

Título do exemplar: Referential devices in the grammar-discourse interface. Cohesion, coherence and cognition.

Número: 23

Páxinas: 105-127

Tipo: Artigo

DOI: 10.7203/QF.23.13523 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso aberto editor

Outras publicacións en: Quaderns de filología. Estudis lingüístics

Obxectivos de Desenvolvemento Sustentable

Resumo

In this article I argue for a refinement of the classic SFL approach to lexical cohesion. First, a literature overview is provided in which key principles and related categories are examined. In addition, the connection of cohesion and discourse coherence is addressed and an overview is provided of the wide range of applications that the former has in such fields as genre studies, language teaching and learning, psycholinguistics and computational linguistics, among others. The core SFL models of cohesion are then revisited in order to propose a modified taxonomy of lexical cohesion, involving five distinct types (repetition, synonymy, opposition, inclusion and association) that are cross-classified by four kinds of distance-based ties (immediate, immediate-mediated, remote and remote-mediated). After this, the model is attested in the telephone conversation and broadcast discussion components of the International Corpus of English-Great Britain. The analysis of 10,042 cohesive ties reveals that repetition and association are the most frequently used lexical cohesion strategies across the two genres. They are overwhelmingly produced over speakers’ turns and remote-mediated ties. The results further indicate that lexical patterns collaborate in topic management, staging and turn-taking strategies.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Baker, M. 1992. In Other Words. London: Routledge.
  • Biber, D.; Johansson, S.; Leech, G.; Conrad, S. & Finegan, E. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman.
  • Carter-Thomas, S. 2008. Teaching coherence through genre. De la France au Quebec - l’Ecriture dans tous ces etats. IUFM Poitou-Charentes (12-15 November), 1-11.
  • Cruse, D. A. 2004. Meaning in Language: An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics (2nd ed.). London / Oxford: University Press.
  • Dontcheva-Navratilova, O. & Povolná, R. 2009. Coherence and Cohesion in Spoken and Written Discourse. Cambridge: Scholars Press.
  • Downing, A. 2000. Talking topically. In Downing, A.; Guijarro, J. M. & Al-bentosa, J. I. (ed.) Talk and Text. Studies on Spoken and Written Dis-course. Cuenca: University of Castilla-La Mancha, 31-50.
  • Ebrahimpourtaher, A. & Eissaei, S. 2013. Awareness of lexical cohesive devic-es in text and reading comprehension. International Journal of Educa-tional Research and Technology 4(2), 63-65.
  • Field, A. 2009. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS (3rd ed.). Los Angeles / Lon-don / New Delhi / Singapore / Washington: Sage
  • Fillmore, Ch. J. & Baker, C. F. 2001. Frame semantics for text understanding. In Proceedings of WordNet and Other Lexical Resources Workshop, NAACL. Pittsburgh, June. Gzipped Postscript (112 KB) PDF (189 KB)
  • Flowerdew, J. & Mahlberg, M. (ed.). 2009. Lexical Cohesion and Corpus Lin-guistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Flowerdew, J. 2010. Use of signalling nouns across L1 and L2 writer corpora. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 15(1): 36-55.
  • Fraser, B. 2005. Towards a Theory of Discourse Markers. Retrieved from http://people.bu.edu/bfraser/
  • Francis, G. 1986. Anaphoric Nouns (Discourse Analysis Monograph 11). Eng-lish Language Research, Birmingham: University of Birmingham.
  • Gómez González, M. Á. 2010. Evaluating lexical cohesion in telephone con-versations. Discourse Studies 12(5): 599-624.
  • Gómez González, M. Á. 2011. Lexical cohesion in multiparty conversations. Language Sciences 33(1): 167-179.
  • Gómez González, M. Á. 2013. A Reappraisal of Lexical Cohesion in English Conversations. Applied Linguistics 34(2): 128-150.
  • Gutwinski, W. 1976. Cohesion in Literary Texts: A Study of Some Grammatical and Lexical Features of English Discourse. The Hague / Paris: Mouton.
  • Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, R. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
  • Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, R. 1985. Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-Semiotic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Halliday, M. A. K. & Matthiessen, M. I. M. 2014. An Introduction to Function-al Grammar (4th ed.). London: Edward Arnold.
  • Halliday, M. A. K. 1985. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
  • Halliday, M. A. K. 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar (2nd ed.). London: Edward Arnold.
  • Hawkins, J. A. 1978.Definiteness and Indefiniteness: A Study in Reference and Grammaticality Prediction. London: Croom Helm.
  • Hoey, M. 1991. Patterns of Lexis in Text. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Hoey, M. 2001. Textual Interaction. An Introduction to Written Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge.
  • Hoey, M. 2005. Lexical Priming. A New Theory of Words and Language. Lon-don: Routledge.
  • Jordan, M. P. 1992. An integrated three-pronged analysis of a fund-raising let-ter. In Mann W. C. & Thompson, S. A. (ed.) Discourse Description. Diverse Linguistic Analyses of a Fund-Raising Text. Amsterdam: Ben-jamins, 171-227. Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. 2004. Introducing polylogue. Journal of Pragmatics36(1): 1-24.
  • Kunz, K. 2015. Cohesion in English and German. A Corpus-Based Approach to Language Contrast, Register Variation and Translation. Habilita-tionsschrift. Universität des Saarlandes.
  • Lewis, M. 1993. The Lexical Approach. The State of ELT and a Way Forward. Hove: Language.
  • Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics 1. Cambridge: University Press.
  • Lyons, J. 1981. Language, Meaning and Context. London: Fontana.
  • Martin, J. 2001. Cohesion and Texture. In Schiffrin, D.; Tannen, D. & Ham-ilton, H. E. (ed.) The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Malden, MA.: Blackwell Publishers, 35-53.
  • Martin, J. R. 1992. English Text: System and Structure. Philadelphia / Amster-dam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  • McCarthy, M. 1988. Some vocabulary patterns in conversation. In Carter, R. & McCarthy, M. (ed.) Vocabulary and Language Teaching. London / New York: Routledge, 197-208.
  • McNamara, D.; Louwerse C. & Graesser, A. 2002. Coh-Metrix (Version 2.0) [Software]. Memphis, TN: University of Memphis, Institute for Intel-ligent Systems. Available from http://cohmetrix.memphis.edu/cohme-trixpr/index.html
  • Moreno, A. 2003. The role of cohesive devices as textual constraints on rel-evance: A discourse-as-process view. International Journal of English Studies 3(1): 111-165.
  • Morris, J.; Beghtol, C. & Hirst, G. 2003. Term relationships and their contribu-tion to text semantics and information literacy through lexical cohesion. In Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Canadian Asso-ciation for Information Science. Halifax, Nova Scotia, June 1-June 4, 2003, 153-168.
  • Norrick, N. R. 1987. Functions of repetition in conversation. Text 7: 245-264.
  • Ochs Keenan, E. 1977. Making it last: repetition in children’s discourse. In Ervin-Tripp, S. & Mitchell-Kernan, C. (ed.) Child Discourse. New York: Academic Press, 26-39.
  • Sanders, T. & Pander Maat, H. 2006. Cohesion and Coherence: Linguistic Ap-proaches. Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (2nd ed.). Elsevier: London.
  • Scott, M. & Tribble, C. 2006. Textual Patterns: Key Words and Corpus Analy-sis in Language Education. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  • Schmid, H.-J. 2000. English Abstract Nouns as Conceptual Shells: From Cor-pus to Cognition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Steiner, E. 2015. Contrastive studies of cohesion and their impact on our knowledge of translation. In Zhang, M. & Jeremy, M. (ed.) Discourse Analysis in Translation Studies. Special issue of Target 27(3). Interna-tional Journal of Translation Studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Stokes, N. 2004. Applications of Lexical Cohesion Analysis in the Topic Detec-tion and Tracking Domain. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Comput-er Science, University College Dublin, Dublin.
  • Stenström, A. B. 1994. An Introduction to Spoken Interaction. London: Long-man.
  • Struthers, L.; Lapadat, J. & MacMillan, P. 2013. Assessing cohesion in chil-dren’s writing: development of a checklist. Assessing Writing 18(3): 187-201.
  • Stubbs, M. 2001. Computer-assisted text and corpus analysis: Lexical cohe-sion and communicative competence. In Schiffrin, D. et al. (eds) Hand-book of Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell, 304-20.
  • Taboada, M. 2004. Building Coherence and Cohesion: Task-Oriented Dia-logue in English and Spanish. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Ben-jamins.
  • Tadros, A. 1985. Prediction in Text. (Discourse Analysis Monograph 10). Eng-lish Language Research, Birmingham: University of Birmingham.
  • Tannen, D. 2007. Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in Con-versational Discourse (2nd ed.). Studies in Interactional Sociolinguis-tics, 6. Cambridge [England]: Cambridge University Press.
  • Tanskanen, S.-K. 2006. Collaborating towards Coherence: Lexical Cohesion in English Discourse. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  • Winter, E. O. 1974. Replacement as a function of repetition: a study of some of its principal features in the clause relations of contemporary English. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of London.
  • Winter, E. O. 1977. A clause relational approach to English texts: a study of some predictive lexical terms in written discourse. Instructional Sci-ence 6: 1-92.Winter, E. O. 1979. Replacement as a fundamental function of the sentence in context. Forum Linguisticum 4(2): 95-133.
  • Yankova, D. 2006. Semantic relations in statutory texts: A study of English and Bulgarian. SKY Journal of Linguistics 19: 189-222.
  • Xi, Y. 2010. Cohesion studies in the past 30 years: development, application and chaos. Language, Society and Culture 31(1): 139-14
Fonte de datos: Dialnet