М. В. Ломоносова Филологический факультет Кафедра английского языкознания Когезия и когеренция в философском дискурсе на материале эссе Бертрана Расселла "О природе знакомства". Курсовая

• Название: М. В. Ломоносова Филологический факультет Кафедра английского языкознания Когезия и когеренция в философском дискурсе на материале эссе Бертрана Расселла "О природе знакомства". Курсовая
• Анкор: Cohesion and Coherence in Philosophical Discourse On the basis of Bertrand Russell’s essay On the Nature of Acquaintance
• Дата: 17.02.2022
• Размер: 1 Mb.
• Имя файла: Cohesion and Coherence in Philosophical Discourse On the basis o.docx
• Тип: Курсовая; #365366
• страница: 5 из 11

Reference.

1. Endophoric and exophoric reference.

M. K. Halliday determines different types of cohesion: reference (or coreference), substitution, ellipsis, and lexical cohesion. Reference is a phenomenon characterized by “the identity of the particular thing or class of things that is being referred to.” Thus, “same thing enters into the discourse a second time.” [1] Referential relations are semantic and not grammatical: they can be further divided into exophoric reference which is partly extralinguistic, to be more exact – a reference to the context of situation, endophora – textual reference, which is further divided into anaphora (a reference to the item in the text which precedes) and cataphora (a reference to the item in the text which follows).

Exophoric reference, studied in works of Bernstein, who Halliday refers to, contributes significantly to the creation of text, but not to its integration.

2. Types of reference.

Halliday’s classifications describe not only the position of the presupposed element relative to the interpreted one. He also claims that reference further splits into personal, demonstrative, and comparative. Personal reference alludes to the items which carry out different functions in the context of situation. Thus, there are first-, second-, and third-person personal reference. Demonstrative reference “is reference by means of location”, it can be further specified by temporal/locative character (here, there/then) if they are adverbs, and by quantity, singular/plural (this, that/these, those), if they are determiners. The universal category for demonstrative units is proximity (both temporal and locative proximity is meant by the notion here). The only neutral means of cohesion in this respect is the article “the” [1, p.38].

Comparative reference has to do with “indirect reference” [1] and signals the identity, general similarity or difference, non-identity and non-similarity by means of adjectives (same, identical, equal etc) or adverbs (identically, similarly, likewise etc) . When a particular characteristic of an object is brought out, particular comparison appears (adjectives: better, more; adverbs: so, more, less, equally).

A defining characteristic of reference as a means of cohesion is that it is incorporated mainly in a nominal group (here we try to avoid further specification, as there is very little difference between M. Halliday’s term and the most influential alternative to it, used by the majority of Western researchers, namely, a noun phrase — see Sharndama 2015). Exceptions are several demonstrative and a few relational adverbs.

If a presupposing element is a Qualifier² or Classifier³, it typically shifts from reference per se to Deictic attached to another type of cohesive device, for instance “It’s an old box camera. – I never had one of that kind.”

1. Personal reference

Personal reference can be incorporated in three types of referential units. Their function is to draw a clear-cut line between “the persons defined by their roles in the communication process”, or “communicative roles”. They function in speech in the following way:

1. 
   as a participant in a certain process:
   

1. 
   personal pronouns – head in an NG⁴
   

2. 
   as a possessor of some entity:
   

1. 
   possessive adjectives – head in an NG
   
2. 
   possessive pronouns – determiner in an NG
   

As far as we go deeper into a more complex analysis, there is also an inherent semantic difference between cohesive relations established by 1) first- and second-person personal pronouns and 2) third-person personal pronouns. The former group does not typically contribute to textual integrity, they are exophoric (except from the cases of direct speech, when the pronoun refers back to the quoted speaker mentioned in the text), and the latter group forms cohesion per se. Third-person pronouns can be exophoric as well, but they are normally anaphoric. Third-person forms can also be cumulatively anaphoric, i.e. form cohesive chains (for example, a chain of many instances of “he”, “him”, “his” etc each of them referring to the initial “root” – “John”).