Endophoric Reference: Cataphora

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 552):

Alternatively, endophoric reference may point ‘forwards’ to the future of the unfolding text, that is, to a referent that is yet to be introduced. … This type of endophoric reference is called cataphora, or cataphoric reference.  Cataphora is quite rare compared with anaphora.  The only exception is structural cataphora, which is common.  Here the reference is resolved within the same nominal group where the reference item appears; a Deictic the or that/those is used to indicate that the Qualifier of the nominal group is to be taken as defining.

Endophoric Reference: Anaphora

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 552):

Endophoric reference may point ‘backwards’ to the history of the unfolding text, that is, to a referent that has already been introduced and is thus part of the text’s system of meanings. … This type of endophoric reference is called anaphora, or anaphoric reference, and the element that is pointed to anaphorically is called the antecedent.

Endophoric Reference

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 552):

Endophoric reference means that the identity presumed by the reference item is recoverable from within the text itself — or, to be more precise, from the instantial system of meanings created as the text unfolds. As the text unfolds, speakers and listeners build up a system of meanings — this is part of the process of logogenesis… . Once a new meaning is introduced, it becomes part of that system, and if it is the right category of thing, it can be presumed by endophoric reference.

Exophoric Reference

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 552):

Exophoric reference means that the identity presumed by the reference item is recoverable from the environment of the text… . Here the reference links the text to the environment; but it does not contribute to the cohesion of the text, except indirectly when references to one and the same referent are repeated, forming a chain.

Reference: Origins In Deixis

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 551):

… it seems likely that reference first evolved as a means of linking ‘outwards’  to some entity in the environment.  So, for example, the concept of ‘he’ probably originated as ‘that man over there’ — a reference to a person in the field of perception shared by speaker and listener.  In other words, we may postulate an imaginary stage in the evolution of language when the basic referential category of person was deictic in the strict sense, ‘to be interpreted by reference to the situation here and now’.  Thus I was ‘the one speaking’; you, ‘the one(s) spoken to’; he, she, it, they were the third party, ‘the other(s) in the situation’.

Anaphoric Reference

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 551):

This is typical of a great many types of discourse: the identity that is presumed can be recovered from the preceding text — or, in effect, from the instantial system of meanings that is built up by speaker and listener as the text unfolds.

Reference: Identifiability

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 550-1):

The textual status at issue in the system of reference is that of identifiability: does the speaker judge that a given element can be recovered or identified by the listener at the relevant point in the discourse or not? If it is presented as identifiable, then the listener will have to recover the identity from somewhere else. If it is presented as non-identifiable, then the listener will have to establish it as a new element of meaning in the interpretation of the text.

Reference: Terminological Clarification

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 550n):

Note that the term ‘reference’ has been used in different ways. For example, in philosophical works on meaning it indicates ideational denotation, as when expressions are said to refer to phenomena. Here we are using the term in the way it has been used in functional work (eg Halliday and Hasan 1976) to indicate the textual cohesive strategy …

Marking Textual Status: Structure Vs Cohesion

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 550):

But whereas Theme and New are parts of textual structures — Theme ^ Rheme in the clause and Given + New in the information unit respectively, the textual statuses that come under the heading of cohesion, reference and ellipsis, are not.  That is, while an element is marked cohesively as identifiable by means of a grammatical item such as the personal pronoun they, or as continuous by means of a grammatical item such as the nominal substitute one, the textual statuses of identifiability and continuity are not structural functions of the clause or of any other grammatical unit.  They can occur freely within Theme or Rheme, and within Given and New (although there are certain unmarked associations).

Marking Textual Status

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 549-50):

By textual statuses, we mean values assigned to elements of discourse that guide speakers and listeners in processing these elements. We have in fact already met two kinds of textual status — thematicity and newsworthiness. … while Theme is the point of departure for integrating the information being presented in the clause, New is the main point to retain from the information presented.

Implicit Conjunction

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 548, 549):

One question that arises in the interpretation of a text is what to do about conjunction that is left implicit. It often happens, especially with temporal and causal sequences, that the semantic relationship is clearly felt to be present but is unexpressed; …

It is clear that texture is achieved through conjunctive relations of this kind, and there is no reason not to take account of it. On the other hand, the attempt to include it in the analysis leads to a great deal of indeterminacy, both as regards whether a conjunctive relation is present or not and as regards which particular kind of relationship it is. …

It is perhaps as well, therefore, to be cautious in assigning implicit conjunction in the interpretation of a text. It is likely that there will always be other forms of cohesion present, and that these are the main source of our intuition that there is a pattern of conjunctive relationships as well. … 

Moreover, the presence or absence of explicit conjunction is one of the principal variables in English discourse, both as between registers and as between texts in the same register; this variation is obscured if we assume conjunction where it is not expressed. It is important therefore to note those instances where conjunction is being recognised that is implicit; and to characterise the text also without it, to see how much we still feel is being left unaccounted for.

Conjunctive Relations: Indeterminacy

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 548):

The conjunctive relation of ‘matter’ is very close to some of those of the elaborating kind, and the concessive (‘despite X, nevertheless Y’) overlaps with the adversative (‘X and, conversely, Y’). Such pairs are characterised by differences of emphasis, and some instances can be assigned to one member or the other; but others cannot, and may be interpreted either way. As always, we can try to bring out the most likely interpretation by checking close agnates to examples occurring in the text.

Enhancing Conjunction: Matter

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 547):

Here cohesion is established by reference to the ‘matter’ that has gone before. As noted earlier, many expression of matter are spatial metaphors, involving words like point, ground, field; and these become conjunctive when coupled with reference items. The relation is either (i) positive or (ii) negative.

Enhancing Conjunction: Causal-Conditional

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 546, 547):

In many types of discourse the relation of cause figures very prominently as a cohesive agent. Some cause expressions are general, others relate more specifically to result, reason or purpose. … Conditionals subdivide into (i) positive, (ii) negative and (iii) concessive.

Enhancing Conjunction: Manner

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 546):

Manner conjunctives create cohesion (i) by comparison, (ii) by reference to means. Comparison may be (a) positive (‘is like’), or (b) negative (‘is unlike’). … Expressions of means are however not often conjunctive; those that are are usually also comparative, for example in the same manner, otherwise.

Enhancing Conjunction: Internal Temporal Relations

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 545):

Many temporal conjunctives have an ‘internal’ as well as an ‘external’ interpretation; that is, the time they refer to is the temporal unfolding of the discourse itself, not the temporal sequence of the processes referred to.  In terms of the functional components of semantics, it is interpersonal not experiential time.

Enhancing Conjunction: Spatial Metaphors

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 544-5):

Note however that most apparently spatial cohesion is in terms of metaphorical space, for example, there in there you’re wrong; cf expressions like on those grounds, on that point.  These are actually expressions of Matter.  Many conjunctive expressions of the expanding kind are also in origin spatial metaphors; for example, in the first place, on the other hand (hand involves a double metaphor: ‘part of the body’ — ‘side’ [on my right hand] — ‘side of an argument’).

Enhancing Conjunction: Spatial

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 544):

Place reference may be used conjunctively within a text, with here and there, spatial adverbs such as behind and nearby, and expressions containing a place noun or adverb plus reference item, for example in the same place, anywhere else. Here spatial relations are being used as text-creating devices.

Enhancing Conjunction

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 544):

The various types of enhancement that create cohesion are (a) spatio-temporal, (b) manner, (c) causal-conditional and (d) matter.

Extending Conjunction

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 543):

Extension involves either addition or variation.  Addition is either positive and, negative nor or adversative but; … Variation includes replacive instead, subtractive except and alternative or types.

Elaborating Conjunction: Clarification

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 541):

Here the elaborated element is not simply re-stated but reinstated, summarised, made more precise or in some other way clarified for purposes of the discourse.

Elaborating Conjunction: Apposition

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 540):

In this type of elaboration some element is re-presented, or re-stated, either (i) by exposition, the ‘i.e.’ relation, or (ii) by example, the ‘e.g.’ relation.

The System Of Conjunction

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 540):

… the logico-semantic relations that are manifested in the system of conjunction fall into the same three types of expansion we met in our exploration of clause complexing — that is, conjunctions mark relations where one span of text elaborates, extends or enhances another, earlier span of text.

Conjunction: Non-Structural Vs Structural

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 540):

The logico-semantic relation is marked by a conjunction — either by a non-structural one that is used only in this way, that is, only cohesively, such as for example, furthermore, consequently; or by a structural one whose prototypical function is to mark the continuing clause in a paratactic clause nexus. The former serve as conjunctive Adjuncts and are very commonly thematic; the latter are simply analysed as structure markers and are obligatorily thematic as structural Theme.

From Clause Complexing To Conjunction

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 538-9):

… logico-semantic relations are confined to the internal organisation of each clause complex: the clause complex is the most extensive domain of relational organisation. The cohesive system of conjunction has evolved as a complementary resource for creating and interpreting text. It provides the resources for marking logico-semantic relationships that obtain between text spans of varying extent, ranging from clauses within clause complexes to long spans of a paragraph or more.

The Location Of Cohesive Resources Within Lexicogrammar

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 538):

… the systems of cohesion operate within either the grammatical zone or the lexical zone of the lexicogrammatical continuum. Conjunction, reference and ellipsis are all grammatical systems, and are thus all manifestations of what we might call grammatical cohesion. The point of origin of each of these systems falls within one or more particular grammatical unit; and terms within these systems are realised either by grammatical items that have some particular place within the structure of that unit or (in the case of ellipsis) by the absence of elements of grammatical structure. For example, the systemic environment of conjunction is that of the clause; and conjunctions serve as conjunctive Adjuncts in the structure of the clause. In contrast, lexical cohesion operates within the lexical zone; and it follows the general principle that lexical items are not defined in terms of particular grammatical environments.

The Extent Of Elements Linked Cohesively

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 537):

We can make a distinction between conjunction and the three other resources of cohesion. As we have seen, conjunction is concerned with rhetorical transitions — transitions between whole ‘messages’, or even message complexes. Conjunction indicates the relations through which such textual transitions are created. In contrast, the other cohesive resources are concerned with textual status — statuses having to do with how ‘components’ of messages are processed as information.

Lexical Cohesion

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 537):

Most typically, such cohesive relations hold between single lexical items, either words or larger units … ; but also involving wordings having more than one lexical item in them … . Lexical ties are independent of structure and may span long passages of intervening discourse …

Ellipsis

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 536-7):

Ellipsis (including substitution) is a relationship involving a particular form of wording, either a clause or some smaller item; it is usually confined to closely contiguous passages, and is particularly characteristic of question + answer or similar ‘adjacency pairs’ in dialogue.

Reference

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 536):

Reference is a relationship between things, or facts (phenomena, or metaphenomena); it may be established at varying distances, and although it usually serves to relate single elements that have a function within the clause (processes, participants, circumstances), it can give to any passage of text the status of a fact, and so turn it into a clause participant.

Conjunctive Relations

Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 536):

Conjunctive relations typically involve contiguous elements up to the size of paragraphs — and possibly beyond, or their equivalent in spoken language; conjunction (in this sense) is a way of setting up the logical relations that characterise clause complexes in the absence of the structural relationships by which such complexes are defined.