Substitution is used where a speaker or writer wishes to avoid the repetition of a lexical item and is able to draw on the grammatical resources of the lan-guage to replace the item. In English, there is a set of words available for this purpose.
The main difference between reference and substitution is that, as we have explained, in the case of referential cohesion, the tie exists between two or more references to the same concept. With substitution we do not have co-ref-erentiality, but rather a substitute for a word or group of words. The difference should be clear from (5) and (6).
(5) Reference
Would you like this cake? I bought it this morning.
(6) Substitution
Would you like this cake? Or do you prefer the other one?
In the case of reference in (5), this cake and it refer to the same object. In (6), however, one does not refer to the same object as the word cake in the ques-tion. One refers to a different cake. It replaces the word ‘cake’ so that the group ‘the other one’ means ‘the other cake’. Nevertheless, in spite of the non-identity of referents, the receiver of the message can only interpret one in terms of the previous mention of cake, and this forms a cohesive tie.
There are three types of substitution in English: nominal, verbal and clausal substitution, and each type has its own set of substitute words.
In nominal substitutes, one, ones and same can stand in place of nominal groups and Head nouns (not necessarily the whole of a nominal group), as in (7), (8) and (9).
Cohesive ties 95
(7) ‘Would you like some sandwiches?’
‘Please pass the ones with cucumber in.’
(8) ‘I’m having chicken and rice.’
‘I’ll have the same.’
(9) In an experiment, some children were given six cardboard discs each in a dif-ferent colour. They were then asked to choose the colour they liked best. The majority chose the blue one.
The words one and to a lesser extent same resemble pronouns, but there are certain crucial differences between substitutes and other pronouns. First, one has a plural form in ones but only a third person form, unlike personal pro-nouns. Second, it can be used with Deictics (realized, for example, by articles and determiners) and Numeratives:
this one, a red one, the blue one, some old ones, five new ones while ordinary pronouns cannot:
*this it, *the red it; *some old they
In verbal substitutes, a form of the verb do (plus, sometimes, additional words like it or that), can stand in place of the lexical verb in a verbal group.
(10) ‘We met in Brazil. Do you remember?’
‘Yes, we must have done.’
Done here stands in place of met in Brazil.
The third type, clausal substitution, is extremely common both in speech and in written prose. Here, the words so and not can stand in place of an entire clause or part of a clause, and the reader or listener can only interpret the meaning of the substitute in terms of what has previously been expressed in full. In (11), a conversation between two people from the play The Importance of Being Earnest, there are two examples of so substitution, one in each response.
(11) ‘I do mean something else.’
‘I thought so.’
‘And I would like to take advantage of Lady Bracknell’s temporary absence [. . .]’
‘I would certainly advise you to do so.’
The equivalent negative expression to so is illustrated in (12).
(12) ‘Well, I don’t intend to get killed if I can help it.’
‘I suppose not.’
An interesting point about substitution is the grammatical distinction between the use of the substitute not following a verb like think, suppose, guess and the ordinary negative form of the verb, as in I don’t suppose. Students of English as a second or foreign language can be easily confused by the
96 Grammar and text
distinction between I think not and I don’t think, sometimes interpreting the former as an ordinary negative form.
In the same cohesive class as substitution, we find ellipsis, or the omission of words, groups or clauses (referred to by IFG as ‘substitution by zero’).
Ellipsis takes place in similar grammatical environments to substitution.
Thus, we have nominal, verbal and clausal ellipsis.
The grammar of nominal ellipsis permits the omission of Head nouns in a nominal group as in (13) where two in the final clause means two cucumber sandwiches. The Classifier and the Head noun are not realized, leaving the Numerative as Head of the nominal group.
(13) ‘Have you got the cucumber sandwiches cut for Lady Bracknell?’
‘Yes, sir.’
(Algernon inspects them and takes two [E])
Verbal ellipsis is common in all short form answers and responses as is exem-plified in (14) where there are two examples of verbal ellipsis in responses (indicated with [E]). In both cases the tie is with save you in the first sentence of the verbal exchange. In these instances, it is the lexical verb that is omitted.
(14) ‘I’ll help you. I’ll save you.’
‘You can’t [E].’
‘I can [E].’
In (14) the finite in the verbal group is realized both negatively and positively.
It is also possible to omit the finite and realize the lexical verb as in (15).
(15) The boys were filling the bags, the men [E] moving them to the dikes.
Example (13) also illustrates clausal ellipsis; where we understand the first response ‘Yes’ to mean ‘I have got cucumber sandwiches cut for Lady Bracknell’. In (16) the clause open the door is omitted in the second sentence.
(16) Get up quick and open the door. If you don’t [E], they will break it down.
5.4.3 Conjunction
Conjunction is the term used to describe the cohesive tie between clauses or sections of text in such a way as to demonstrate a meaningful relationship between them. It is also possible to perceive this process as the linking of ideas, events or other phenomena. This ‘linking’ or ‘joining’ is achieved by the use of conjunctive Adjuncts, which are sometimes called cohesive con-junctives (for example, then, for this reason, on the other hand). These are words or expressions that have two textual functions: they indicate conjunc-tion and, at the same time usually indicate the type of relaconjunc-tionship that oper-ates between the elements being joined (for example, relationships of time, reason, cause, result, concession).
Cohesive ties 97
In Chapter 3, we discussed the difference between conjunctive Adjuncts and conjunctions (linkers and binders), pointing out that, although they have a lot in common semantically, they have different grammatical characteris-tics. We can see this illustrated in (17), where a linking conjunction (but) points out a contrastive relationship between two propositions within one sen-tence, and (17a) (constructed) where a similar relationship is expressed in separate sentences with the use of a conjunctive Adjunct (however).
(17) Over the last twenty years more than a third of a million compounds have been screened by pharmaceutical companies for their anti-cancer proper-ties, but only twenty or thirty have shown any real promise.
(17a) Over the last twenty years more than a third of a million compounds have been screened by pharmaceutical companies for their anti-cancer proper-ties. However, only twenty or thirty have shown any real promise.
The nature of the relationships that can be expressed by the use of conjunctive Adjuncts are many, and lack of space prevents a full account here, but four classes of cohesive conjunction, each of these with numerous subclasses, were identified by Halliday and Hasan (1976), who provide a fuller account:
● additive
● adversative
● causal
● temporal
Some common types are illustrated in (18) and (19). In (18), an extract from an academic paper on management, there are two examples, the first additive-exemplification and the second adversative-contrastive.
(18) It is easy to identify theoretical conflicts in management accounting. For example, contingency theorists argue that the type of management account-ing system which is appropriate to an organization is dependent on a number of organization-specific variables. By contrast, the emphasis in much of the management accounting research published between the late 1950s and the mid-1970s was on the development of specific normative models which were allegedly suitable for use in a wide variety of organizations without any context-specific adaptation.
In (19), there is an example of a causal-result relationship as well as a cohe-sive reference in this and also an internal additive-sequential relationship. The conjunctive Adjuncts are indicated in bold type.
(19) There is a severe shortage of mathematics teachers in Britain and America.
As a consequence of this, far too many people leave school without any interest in pursuing the study of subjects like engineering that rely on math-ematical concepts. Two possible solutions are available. Firstly, it should be a priority to train more teachers; secondly, teachers’ salaries should be made competitive with other jobs in order to attract young people to the profes-sion.
98 Grammar and text
The causal-result relationship is indicated in as a consequence; the additive-sequential relationship in Firstly and Secondly. The latter is said to be ‘inter-nal’ in this case because it is ideas within the text that are ordered in sequence.
In contrast, in another text, an external temporal-sequential relationship might be signalled by the use of firstly, secondly, etc. to introduce the time sequence of specific events referred to.
It can be seen from (18) and (19) that conjunctive Adjuncts provide a use-ful guide to the rhetorical paths that a writer is following. They have been compared to signals or signposts that indicate the direction of argument.