LITHUANIAN UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATIONAL SCIENCE

FACULTY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES

DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH PHILOLOGY

YULIIA MANKEVYCH

FREQUENCY AND FUNCTIONING OF COHESIVE DEVICES

IN ENGLISH AND RUSSIAN LITERARY TEXTS

MA THESIS

Academic Advisor: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Janina Buitkienė

Vilnius, 2016

LIETUVOS EDUKOLOGIJOS UNIVERSITETAS

FILOLOGIJOS FAKULTETAS

ANGLŲ FILOLOGIJOS KATEDRA

RYŠIO PRIEMONIŲ DAŽNUMOS IR JŲ FUNKCIJOS ANGLŲ

IR RUSŲ LITERATŪROS TEKSTUOSE

Magistro darbas

Magistro darbo autorė Yuliia Mankevych

Patvirtinu, kad darbas atliktas savarankiškai,

naudojant tik darbe nurodytus šaltinius

____________________________

(Parašas, data)

Vadovas doc. dr. Janina Buitkienė

_____________________

(Parašas, data)

CONTENTS

ABSTRACT 1

INTRODUCTION 1

1. THE LITERATURE REVIEW 5

1.1 Text and discourse 5

1.2 Cohesion and coherence 7

1.3 Cohesive devices 9

1.3.1 Types of grammatical cohesion 11

1.3.1.1 Reference 12

1.3.1.2 Substitution and ellipsis 15

1.3.2 Types of lexical cohesion 18

2. THE RESEARCH RESULTS 24

2.1 Methodology and procedure 24

2.2 General overview of frequency of cohesive devices in English and Russian literary

texts 25

2.3 Reference in the English and Russian literary texts 27

2.4 Substitution and ellipsis in the English and Russian literary texts 35

2.5 Lexical cohesive devices in the English and Russian literary texts 39

CONCLUSIONS 47

SUMMARY 48

REFERENCES 49

SOURCES 52

1

ABSTRACT

This thesis is concerned with the cohesive devices in English and Russian literary texts

and their functioning across these two languages. The aіm of this study іs to analyze the

functioning and frequency of cohesіve devіces іn Englіsh and Russіan lіterary texts on the

basis of mixed-method approache to the data. To achieve the aim, formal and functіonal

characterіstіcs of the analyzed cohesіve devіces іn a lіterary text іn Englіsh and іts translation

іnto Russіan were presented; the results of the frequency and functioning of the found items

of cohesive devices were analysed; and the investigated cohesive devices were compared in

terms of their distribution and functioning in both languages. The research demonstrated that

the most widely used cohesive devices are lexical. It also showed that differences of items of

reference are caused by the different grammatical structures of the researched languages. The

Russian language allows the omission of personal pronouns in the subject position and more

often employs lexical repetition. As a result, it was proved that cohesive devices exhibit

differences in their patterning across these two languages, therefore, the further studies are

required to determine the influence of the type of the language on the choice of cohesive

devices.

2

ІNTRODUCTІON

Cohesіon іs one of the most іmportant categorіes of text. Varіous scholars, dependіng on

the approach to the study of the text (lіnguіstіc or psycholіnguіstіc), consіder the terms

coherence and cohesіon from dіfferent perspectіves. Іn the early seventіes, when text analysіs

was stіll іn іts early stages, many іmportant works were publіshed dealіng wіth the terms

coherence and cohesіon that were іntroduced by Hallіday & Hasan (1976) and later on were

wіdely dіscussed and developed by many scholars (Widdowson, 1979; Beaugrande &

Dressler, 1981; Brown & Yule, 1983; Schiffrin, 1987; McCarthy, 1991; Hoey, 1991; Bex,

1996; Campbell, 1994; Tanskanen, 2006).

The most wіdely known study іs that of Hallіday & Hasan (1976), where they іdentіfy

fіve general categorіes of cohesіve devіces that create cohesion and coherence іn texts:

reference, ellіpsіs, substіtutіon, conjunctіon, and lexіcal cohesіon. Accordіng to Hallіday &

Hasan, cohesіon іs the grammatіcal and lexіcal lіnkіng wіthіn a text or sentence that holds a

text together and gіves іt meanіng (Hallіday & Hasan, 1976). Іt іs related to a broader concept

of coherence. There are two maіn types of cohesіon: grammatіcal cohesіon whіch іs based on

structural content, and lexіcal cohesіon whіch іs based on lexіcal content and background

knowledge.

The Russіan linguists, such as Galperіn (1981), Moskalskaya (1981) and Khlebnіkova

(1988) paіd a lot of attentіon to thіs іssue. Accordіng to Galperіn, cohesіon іs specіal types of

bonds, provіdіng a contіnuum, logіcal sequence (temporal and/or spatіal), іnterdependence of

separate lіnks, facts, actіons, and so forth (Гальперин, 1981).

The hypothesis

Although cohesive devices have been examined in different genres, still relatively

little attention has been given to the comparison of cohesive devices in the literary texts in the

English and Russian languages. The belongіng of the text to a partіcular functіonal style plays

an іmportant role whіle classіfyіng the types and functіons of cohesіon, that is why one

particular style, i.e. lіterary texts were taken into іnvestіgatіon. As the English and Russian

languages belong to different types of languages, analytic and synthetic respectively, this led

to the hypothesis that cohesive devices in the source language and the target language might

exhibit differences in their functioning and occurrences.

The aim and the objectives of the research

The aіm of the present paper іs to analyze the functioning and frequency of cohesіve

devіces іn Englіsh and Russіan lіterary texts.

To achіeve the aіm, the followіng objectіves were pursued:

3

to present formal and functіonal characterіstіcs of the analyzed cohesіve devіces іn a

lіterary text іn Englіsh and іts translatіon іnto Russіan;

to analyze the results of the frequency and functіonіng of the іtems of cohesіve

devіces іn the researched texts іn Englіsh and Russіan.

to establish variations of cohesive devices in these two types of languages, i.e.

English and Russian.

The Research methods

Qualitative research method was adopted to interpret the data retrieved from the text.

Content analysis method was implied in order to distinguish cohesive devices in texts, while

comparative analysis method was carried out to highlight the similarities and differences

between the most frequently used cohesive devices. Quantitative research method was

implied to quantify the results in terms of numbers and percentages. Thus, through collecting

and analyzing researched data and presenting results through both: narrative and numerical

forms, the mixed-method approach were adopted.

The scope of the research

The research was conducted on the material of the following literary texts: “An

American Tragedy” by Theodore Dreiser, which was the source text and іts translatіon іnto

Russіan by Vershynina, i.e. target text. Both texts were of approximately the same length:

25.000 words.

For the analysis of distribution of cohesive devices in the English and Russian literary

texts, the following cohesive devices were taken into account: reference (personal and

demonstrative), substitution, ellipsis and lexical cohesive devices (repetition, synonymy,

antonymy, hyponymy, and meronymy).

The relevance and significance of the research

The present study contrіbutes to the development of the study of cohesіon іn general. Іts

fіndіngs can be used for comparatіve analysіs wіth regard to the same genre of two dіfferent

languages – the synthetіc and the analytіc, such as Englіsh and Russіan. Іt could have

іmplіcatіons for teachers and researchers іn the fіeld of teachіng Englіsh as a foreіgn language

because of the fact that teachіng cohesіon to foreіgn language learners wіll іmprove the

qualіty of theіr readіng and wrіtіng.

The research outline

The outlіne of thіs paper іs as follows. Іntroductіon presents the hypothesis, the aіm and

objectіves of the thesіs. The Literature Review presents a brіef overvіew of the lіterature on

the phenomenon of cohesіon and coherence as such. Thіs іncludes provіdіng a lіterature

revіew on the text and texture, cohesіon and coherence and cohesіve devіces themselves. The

4

methodology that was used to carry out the research іs presented іn the thіrd sectіon. Thіs

sectіon contaіns an explanatіon regardіng the data selectіon. The analysіs and results compose

the fourth sectіon of thіs study whіle conclusіons compose the fіfth sectіon.

5

1. The Literature Review

This chapter provides an overview of the theoretical background on which the present

study is based. While incorporating explanations of text and discourse, cohesion and

coherence, it is structured to examine the related literature to the cohesive devices, introduced

by Halliday & Hasan (1976): reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction and lexical

cohesion, and how they are used to organize sentences into one whole text.

1.1 Text and Discourse

Halliday & Hasan (1976) noted that we cannot discuss cohesion without mentioning

text, texture and tie. A number of scholars have been trying to provide a definition of the text

(van Dijk, 1972; Widdowson, 1979; de Beaugrande & Dressler, 1981; Halliday & Hasan,

1976; Brown & Yule, 1996; Cook, 1996; Gee, 2014) but have not reached a concrete

definition of it, as the term has been defined from different perspectives. Halliday & Hasan

defined the term text as any authentic stretch of written or spoken language that forms a

unified whole. They claimed that it is not a grammatical but a semantic unit (Halliday &

Hasan, 1976, 2). Werlich (1976, 23) pointed that a text is an extended structure of syntactic

and textual units that is marked by both coherence and completion, while a non-text consists

of random sequences of linguistic units in any temporal and/or spatial extension.

According to Widdowson (1979), a text is a collection of formal objects held together

by patterns of equivalence or frequencies or by cohesive devices. Fowler (1991, 59) believed

that a text is made up of sentences, but there exist separate principles of text-construction

beyond the rules for making sentences. As the definition presented by Fowler suggests, very

little requirements that have to be realized in order to be ascribed to the category of texts, the

account presented by De Beaugrande & Dressler (1981, 19) might be important. They saw a

text as a communicative occurrence which meets seven standards of textuality: cohesion

(which is related to surface structures of texts), coherence (which is related to deep structures

of texts), intentionality (which reveals itself through goal-directed use of language),

acceptability (which creates conditions for the topic development), situationality (which is

concerned with the being of text situationally relevant), intertextuality (which is based on the

experience of earlier encountered texts), and informativity (which deals with the ability of the

text to present the new information).

Brown & Yule (1996, 190) asserted that text is a verbal record of a communicative

event. They noted that, although a number of scholars have been trying to provide an

6

explanation for how a text as forming a text is identified by speakers of English, the account

provided by Halliday and Hasan (1976) is the most comprehensive.

Kamenskaya (1990,47) believed that the text is the most complex structure that ensures

the communication, and in order to perform its functions, grammatical, lexical and other

means are used. She suggested that the text is a basic unit of communication, and the units of

lower levels of the language system take part in the communication only indirectly. The text

has a specific structure; it is a sign object, which provides the implementation of the

communication function in accordance with the author‘s plan (Каменская,3, 51).

Galperin (1981,18) came to the conclusion that the text is the result of the language

producing process, having completeness, objectified in the form of a written document,

literary processed in accordance with the type of the document. It is a composition consisting

of the name (title) and a number of special units (super-phrasal unities) combined with

different types of lexical, grammatical, logical, stylistic connection having a certain focus and

pragmatic function.

What distinguishes the text from something that is not a text is texture (Halliday &

Hasan, 1976, 2). Halliday & Hasan believed that the texture can express the property of being

a text. They claimed that in order for a passage of English to be perceived as a text, certain

linguistic features have to contribute to its total unity and give it texture. They considered the

following example:

Wash and core six cooking apples. Put them into a fireproof dish.

From the two sentences it is clear that when we mention them, we mean apples. In this

case them refers back to six cooking apples and it is called anaforic reference. The anaforic

function presented by them gives cohesion to the sentences so that they are interpreted as a

whole and together constitute a text. The texture there is provided by the cohesive relation

between them and six apples as they refer to the same thing. It is mentioned that the identity

of referenceis not the only meaning relation that gives texture (Halliday & Hasan, 1976, 3).

Thus, they believe that what makes any length of text meaningful and coherent is termed

texture.

Paltridge (2011, 130) suggested that the unity of texture refers to the way in which

patterns of cohesion create both cohesive and coherent texts and it results where there are

language items tying meaning together in the text in which it occurs. He claimed that the basis

for texture is semantic.

Halliday defined texture as being a matter of meaning relations (1989, 71) and that the

meaning of words to each other as well as to the world outside the text is connected by a tie.

The term tie is used by Halliday & Hasan as a single instance of cohesion or one occurence of

7

a pair of cohesevily related items (1976, 3). We can call the relationship between them and six

cooking apples, in the example used above, as a tie. Any segment of the text can be

characterized in terms of the number and kinds of ties and with the help of the ties the text can

be analysed in terms of its cohesive properties. The different types of cohesive ties will be

overviewed later in this chapter; they are: reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction and

lexical cohesion.

1.2 Cohesion and coherence

Cohesion is a principle factor in determining texture since it is a means through which

we can relate our utterances or sentences. The notions cohesion and coherence are sometimes

confused in linguistics although one has to be clearly distinguished from another. As for

cohesion, researchers have not reached a consensus on a clear definition of it (Grabe &

Kaplan 1996). Different linguists defined the term differently (Halliday & Hasan, 1976;

Widdowson, 1979; Brown & Yule, 1983; Hoey, 1991; McCarthy 1991; Dooley & Levinson,

2001). The concept of cohesion was introduced by Halliday & Hasan and is viewed by them

as a semantic one and refers to relations of meaning that define a text as a text (1976, 4). This

semantic aspect of cohesion has a relation with the reader who interprets the elements in a

given co-text depending on the other element within the same co-text. Halliday and Hassan

(1976, 4) claimed that “Cohesion occurs where the interpretation of some element in the

discourse is dependent on that of another. The one presupposes the other in the sense that it

can not be effectively decoded except by resources to it”.

After Halliday & Hasan’s (1976) work about cohesion concept had been published,

many scholars tried to explain different aspects of it, among which are Dooley & Levinsohn’s

(2001) framework which was based primarily on Halliday & Hasan‘s (1976) and Brown &

Yule’s (1983) view. Dooley & Levinsohn (2001) have offered their own classification of

cohesive devices, i.e. descriptive expressions, identity, lexical relations, morpho-syntactic

patterns, signals of relations between propositions (conjunctions), and intonation patterns.

They claimed that the conjunction device contains four elements including associatives,

additives, adversatives, and developmental markers.

According to McCarthy (1991, 26), cohesion is a guide to coherence, and coherence is

something created by the reader when he or she participates in the act of reading. Brown &

Yule (1996, 67) also claimed that coherence is impossible without the reader. Hoey (1991,

12) supported his idea and believed that cohesion is a property of the text while coherence is a

facet of the reader’s evaluation of a text.

8

While cohesion refers to the overt semantic relations in the text, coherence refers to

semantic and pragmatic relations between the parts of the text which are interpretable against

the background of specific world knowledge (de Beaugrande & Dressler, 1981). Although

cohesion and coherence are related notions, they are clearly distinct. According to

Widdowson (1978, 12), the distinguishing feature is that coherence is neither necessary nor

sufficient to account for coherence. Coherence is viewed as the relationship between

illocutionary acts; the utterances are not considered to be coherent unless the actions

performed by the utterances are recognized. However, most researchers in their definitions of

coherence agree that it refers to the connectivity of ideas in a text.

It has been widely discussed whether cohesion is a necessary but not sufficient criterion

of coherence (Halliday & Hasan 1976; Halliday, 1985). It has also been claimed that cohesion

is neither necessary nor sufficient for the text coherence, and a text can be coherent without

formal cohesive devices (Hoey, 1991). As both cohesion and coherence in text are relevant,

they both can contribute to discourse organization: cohesion being at the surface level of the

text, while coherence being an underlying phenomenon in the text.

Russian linguists claim that the concepts of cohesion and coherence belong to the basic

concepts of the theory of coherent text (Брчакова, 1979; Тураева, 1986; Милевская, 2001;

Селиванова, 2004). They are considered to be its main characteristics and a necessary

condition of texture. However, the approach of the mentioned above scholars to these

concepts and phenomena, their definition and the use of different concepts diverge.

It is necessary to make some terminological clarification and define the limits of the use

of terms such as "coherence" and "cohesion" according to the Russian linguists. Although

some linguists use these concepts as synonyms in their work, a number of researchers insists

that cohesion cannot be confused with the coherence (Москальская, 1981; Тураева, 1986;

Макаров, 2003; Милевская, 2003). In particular, Milevskaya gives the following definition

of this difference: "Cohesion is the property of the text elements, and coherence is the

property of the text as a whole" (Милевская, 2001, 61). Besides terminological differences,

differences in the interpretation of their meaning are observed. Mostly the concept of

coherence is applied to the content of the text, to which particular importance is the

communicative situation and the set of knowledge of the addressee and the recipient of the

text. Cohesion, on the contrary, is a global organization of the text which is "visible" text

connectivity that is achieved by means of individual language levels. Some authors use the

term coherence distinguishing the different aspects of it. For example, according to

Moskalskaya (1981, 17), the coherence of the text is not only a phenomenon of meaning. It

9

manifests itself in the form of structural, semantic and communicative integrity that relate to

each other as a form, content and function.

In the 1981 study by Galperin (1981,125), cohesion is seen as a form of communication

- grammatical, semantic, lexical - between different parts of the text that define the transition

from one variable context of the text to another". Coherence is not identified with the

cohesion, as coherence is a property of the text, and cohesion is the property of the elements

of the text, not less than the sentence. "Coherence is understood as the integrity of the text,

which consists in the logical-semantic, grammatical (especially syntactical) and stylistic

relatedness and interdependence of its constituent sentences. The coherence of the text is the

result of interaction of logical-semantic, syntactic and stylistic types of cohesion

"(Москальская, 1981, 46).

According to Makarov (2003, 195), coherence is a broader concept than cohesion, as it

covers not only formal grammatical aspects of the relationship statements but also semantic-

pragmatic aspects of meaning in discourse. The formal coherence of the text (cohesion)

relates to the substantive connection (coherence), serving as a refinement of categories and

the integrity of the information content of the text.

In general, coherence means the conceptual and semantic integrity of the text, whereas

cohesion is the use of appropriate language units, forms and explicit connectors. The main

types of cohesive devices are discussed in the sections which follow.

1.3 Cohesive devices

There are many different ways for making a cohesive text. Cohesion is considered to be

realized through the use of cohesive devices. The evolution of linguistics evoked the necessity

to investigate the contribution of cohesive devices to the text. Different models of cohesion

were recognized with their categories of cohesive devices that create coherence in texts. Let

us consider some of them.

Galperin (1981) identifies the following means of cohesion: grammatical (with its text-

forming function (this group is represented by conjunctions, participial, pronouns), logical

(which find expression in various forms of listing, for example, a), b), etc., which fit into the

logical and philosophical concepts of sequence, temporal, spatial, causal relationship. These

funds are easily decoded by the recipient of the message), associative (which include

retrospection, the connotation, the subject-evaluative modality. These types of communication

are not observed in the scientific texts, imaginative (an example of which is metaphor),

compositional and structural (which break the sequence and logical organization of the

10

message by all kinds of spatial descriptions of events, phenomena, actions that are not directly

related to the main theme of the story), stylistic (which is when stylistic features of the

sequence are repeated in sentence structures and paragraphs. The identity of the structures

involves some degree of semantic proximity) and rhythmic-forming (which is the

characteristic of poetry).

According to Halliday & Hasan (1976), cohesion is classified into two broad types:

grammatical (reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunctions) and lexical (repetition, synonymy,

antonymy, meronymy). Grammatical cohesion refers to the structural content and lexical

cohesion refers to language content. Both types of cohesion and their divisions are presented

in Table 1:

Table 1. Types of Cohesion Based on Halliday and Hasan (1976).

Later on, Hasan (1984) reworked this classification and add hyponymy which was also

discussed by Paltridge (2011). Although cohesive devices can be classified according to

11

various criteria, Khlebnikova & Khudiakov provide classification referring to Halliday &

Hasan‘s (Хлебникова, Худяков, 2005, 156). Similarly, Zamel (1983, 22) and Widdowson

(2004, 64) refer to Halliday & Hasan‘s work. Paltridge (2011, 131) suggested that the main

patterns of cohesion are reference, substitiutuion and ellipsis, conjunction and lexical

cohesion. The classification provided by Paltridge (2011) is very similar to Haliday &

Hasan‘s. Although the scholars took a special look at Halliday & Hasan‘s discussion and

generally agree with their classification, they disagree in certain areas and on certain issues.

(Brown & Yule, 1983; Schiffrin, 1987; McCarthy, 1991; Carter et al., 2000). Tanskanen

(2006, 25) criticises the fact that Halliday & Hasan describe mainly grammatical cohesion,

and that it is preferred to lexical cohesion despite the fact that grammatical cohesion is more

easily recoverable from the text than lexical cohesion.

Taking everything into account, most of the researchers agree with the classification of

cohesive devices presented by Halliday and Hasan. Thus, the major groups of cohesive

devices introduced by Halliday & Hasan will be taken into consideration. The study will

employ the following types of cohesive ties: reference, substitution, ellipsis and lexical

cohesive devices. Conjunction, another type of grammatical cohesive device discussed by

Halliday & Hasan, will not be taken into consideration as it is different in nature from

reference, substitution and ellipsis. While reference, substitution and ellipsis are clearly

grammatical because they involve closed systems such as of person, number, proximity, degree of

comparison, or presence/absence, conjunction is on the border-line of the grammatical and lexical

(Halliday & Hasan, 1976, 303). Hoey (1991) advocates discounting conjunction as a cohesive tie

on account of its quite different function in text formation, referring that it is better treated as part

of a larger system of semantic relations between clauses. Due to its frequent occurrence in the

text and the limitation of the scope of the present study, we will not focus attention on

conjunction. Since the main focus of the current study is on examining both grammatical and

lexical cohesive devices, an elaborate explanation of both will be presented in the sections

which follow.

1.3.1 Types of grammatical cohesion

According to Halliday & Hasan (1976), cohesion is classified into two types:

grammatical and lexical. The basic categories of grammatical cohesion provided by the

scholars mentioned above can be classified into a small number of distinct categories, i.e.

reference, substitution, ellipsis, and conjunction. Grammatical cohesive devices help to sort

12

out the grammatical structure in order for it to be clear and comprehensible. Table 2 illustrates

the grammatical cohesive devices based on Halliday & Hasan’s classification (1976):

Table 2. Types of Grammatical Cohesion according to Halliday & Hasan (1976).

Grammatical Cohesion

Reference Substitution Ellipsis Conjunction

Personal Nominal Nominal Additive

Existential Possessive

Demonstratives Verbal Verbal Adversative

Comparatives Clausal Clausal Causal

Temporal

1.3.1.1 Reference

Every language has certain items which have the property of reference. Instead of being

interpreted semantically, one makes reference to something else for their interpretation.

Reference is the type of cohesion, which is characterized by the specific nature of the

information that is to be retrieved. According to Halliday & Hasan (1976, 31), the cohesion

lies in the continuity of reference by which the same thing appears in the discourse the second

time. This continuity of reference binds the text together.

In the 1976 study by Halliday & Hasan, reference is seen as a semantic relation, not a

grammatical one. It can create a meaningful link when there are following references to a

single entity. The reference is defined as the evoking of an entity by a speaker through the use

of a lexical item in a text. (Halliday & Hasan, 1976, 32).

The above mentioned scholars concluded that the items which have the property of

reference in the English language are personals, demonstratives and comparatives (Halliday

& Hasan, 1976, 31). Personal reference functions through the category of person; the

demonstrative reference is reference by means of location; the comparative reference is

represented through identity or similarity (Halliday & Hasan, 1976, 37). Consider the

following examples representing each type of reference respectively according to the

classification described above:

(1) Of the group the mother alone stood out as having that force and determination

which, however blind or erroneous, makes for self-preservation, if not success in life. She,

more than any of the others, stood up with an ignorant, yet somehow respectable air of

conviction. (TD, 3).

13

The sentence (1) illustrates personal reference where the third person personal pronoun

she refers to mother.

(2) Oh, not so very long, Clyde. About a month, now, I guess. Not more than that. (TD,

177).

The determiner that in the sentence (2) refers to a month. The sentence (2) represents the

demonstrative reference.

(3) The principal thing that troubled Clyde up to his fifteenth year, and for long after in

retrospect, was that the calling or profession of his parents was the shabby thing that it

appeared to be in the eyes of others. For so often throughout his youth in different cities in

which his parents had conducted a mission or spoken on the streets—Grand Rapids, Detroit,

Milwaukee, Chicago, lastly Kansas City--it had been obvious that people, at least the boys

and girls he encountered, looked down upon him and his brothers and sisters for being the

children of such parents. (TD, 12).

Such parents refers back to the nominal group his parents. The sentence (3) is the

example of comparative reference. Let us consider each type of reference separately.

Personal reference functions through the category of person. This system of reference,

where the items of the category of personals refer to something by specifying its function or

role in the speech situation, are referred to as person, where ‘person’ is used in the special

sense of ‘role’. The traditionally recognized categories in this system are first person, second

person and third person, converging with the number categories of singular and plural

(Halliday & Hasan, 1976, 44). Buitkienė (2005, 3) claims that the basic referential category of

the first and second person is deictic. The first and second persons I and you preserve their

deictic sense. The third persons, he, she, it, or they, can also be used deictically, but they

function more anaphorically or cataphorically. Therefore, only he, she, it, and they perform a

cohesive function. Possessive determiners are considered to be a separate and independent

group of personal reference.

Personal pronouns are common cohesive devices in both languages, English and

Russian. But Russian is characterized by grammatical gender, where the noun that has

masculine gender requires the use of the masculine personal pronoun while referring to it. In

English, in contrast, inanimate nouns do not convey gender information and almost in every

case, if singular, can be referred to by it.

Halliday & Hasan (1976, 57) define demonstrative reference as a form of verbal

pointing where the speaker identifies the referent by locating it on a scale of proximity.

Demonstrative reference is expressed by the adverbial demonstratives here, there, now and

then, nominal demonstratives this, these, that, those, and the definite article the. Due to the

14

absence of the articles in the Russian language and the limitation of the scope, the definite

article the will not be taken into account in the present study.

Regarding comparative reference, Nunan (1993) claims that it is expressed by using

adverbs and adjectives in order to compare and contrast items within a text. Halliday & Hasan

(1976, 37) suggest that comparative reference contributes to textual cohesion by setting up a

relation of contrast expressed by such adjectives as same, identical, equal, adjective in a

comparative degree, and adverbs such as identically, likewise, so, such, etc. These three types

of references can be summarized in the following table:

Table 3. Types of References based on Halliday and Hasan (1976, 38).

Personal Demonstratives Comparatives

Existential Possessive this/that, these/those,

here/there,

definite article: the

same, identical, similar(ly),

such, different, other, else

more, so many, better.

I/me, you,

we/us, he/

him, she/ her,

it,they/ them

one

my/mine,

your/yours,

our/ours, his,

her/hers, its,

their/theirs,

one’s

Paltridge claims that reference refers to the situation where the correspondence of an

item can be reclaimed from either within or outside the text (2011,131). He, as well as Brown

& Yule (1996,192), Johnstone (2002, 101), Hatch (1992, 224), and McCarthy (1991, 35),

classifies the reference into four patterns: anaphoric, cataphoric, exophoric, and homophoric

reference (Paltridge, 2011, 131). Anaforic reference describes an item which refers back to

another word or phrase used earlier in a text. When a word or phrase refers forward to another

word or phrase which is used later in a text, it is called cataphoric reference. Exophoric

reference is where the identity of the item can be retrieved looking outside the text to the

situation in which the text occurs to identify the item being referred to. When the identity of

the item can be retrieved with the help of reference to cultural knowledge in general, rather

than the specific context of the text, we have homophoric reference (Paltridge, 2011, 131-

132).

Halliday & Hasan similarly distinguish situational and textual reference (1976, 33).

They call situational reference exophora or exophoric reference and contrast it to textual –

endophora, which is the reference within the text. In case of exophoric reference, it may be

anaphoric or cataphoric. It is essential for both types of references, endophoric and exophoric,

„that there is a presupposition that must be satisfied; the thing referred to has to be identifiable

15

somehow“ (Halliday & Hasan, 1976, 33). As the research focuses on literary texts of two

languages, the focus will be only on endophoric reference.

In contrast to Halliday & Hasan, Brown & Yule differentiate between reference and co-

reference (1996, 192). They concluded that the reference is only an option that can help to

create cohesion if it is repeated. According to Brown and Yule, reference is an entity being

the evoking or naming that entity in the text, while co-reference is the subsequent naming or

evoking of that entity by the speaker. They claimed that each reference to the entity changes

the mental representation of that entity. Brown & Yule also distinguish correct and successful

reference. Correct reference is the use of reference which can elicit the referent. However, the

audience may not recognize the reference or misinterpret the meaning that was conveyed by

the speaker. In order to be classified as successful, the reference has to evoke the same

meaning as the speaker intends to express (Brown & Yule, 1996).

Martin & Rose distinguish a bridging reference, where an item refers to something that

has to be inferentially retrieved from the text or situation and to be presumed indirectly (2005,

131). Each of these types of reference described above makes the contribution to creating the

cohesion in the text and to the ways the reader interprets the text as he/she reads it. Further

another type of cohesive relation, which takes two different forms, such as substitution and

ellipsis, will be discussed.

1.3.1.2 Substitution and ellipsis

Another way in which the cohesion is achieved in a text is through the use of

substitution and ellipsis. Halliday & Hasan (1976, 88) describe these terms as processes

within a text. Substitution is seen as the replacement of one item by another, and ellipsis as

the omission of an item. They suggest that substitution and ellipsis are similar processes.

Ellipsis can be defined as the form of substitution in which the item is replaced by nothing.

But the mechanism involved in the case of ellipsis is rather different although both of them

are complex. Foley & Hall assert that substitution and ellipsis serve avoiding the unnecessary

repetition of words or phrases in speech or writing (2003, 328). There are many points in

which ellipsis and substitution overlap, and there is no clear boundaries between them. Both

ellipsis and substitution have the function of avoiding unnecessary repetitions and introducing

the new information. Further, the overview of substitution, ellipsis and their differences

between reference will be discussed.

In the process of communication we try to shorten our utterance by following the

principle of economy. To avoid repetitiveness and monotony in speech, we use substitution.

16

Substitution is defined as a grammatical relation in the wording rather than in the meaning.

On the basis of it, substitution in English can be categorized according the grammatical

function of the substitute item as nominal, verbal, and clausal. The linguistic items that occur

as nominal substitutes are: one, ones, same. The only verbal item is do. The words used as

clausal substitutes are so and not (Halliday & Hasan 1976, 89).

In the nominal group, nominal substitutes can substitute for any countable noun:

(4) I’ve come to know quite a few girls since I’ve been here. Nice ones. (TD, 35).

In the above example, ones substitutes for the noun girls.

According to Halliday & Hasan (1976, 91), the substitute one/ones can only function

„as Head of a nominal group, and can substitute only for an item which is itself Head of a

nominal group“. In sentence (4), girls is Head of the nominal group a few girls and ones is

Head of the nominal group nice ones.

In case of verbal substitution, the verb or a verbal group can be replaced by the verb do,

e.g.:

(5) “Do you dance?” “Yes,” answered Clyde. “Well, so do I”. (TD, 37).

In sentence (5), do substitutes dance and functions as the Head of the verbal group. The

position of the verbal substitute is usually in the end of the group.

The clausal substitution stands for the item which substitutes for a clause. In this type of

substitution what is presupposed is the entire clause. The clauses can be usually substituted by

so and not. Consider the following example:

(6) Oh, he’s all right. I started him off in the shrinking room. Is that all right?” “Yes, I

think so. (TD,39).

(7) That’s as good a place as any for him to begin, I believe. But what do you think of

him by now?” “Not much. He’s all right, I guess. (TD, 40).

In example (6) so presupposes the clause that is all right. In the sentence (7) not serves

as a substitute for what do you think of him by now. From the examples above, we can see the

clausal substitution can take two forms: positive (so) and negative (not).

Regarding the Russian language, Simmons claimed that substitution is "not a viable

category of cohesion in Russian" (1981, 64). Similarly to the English language, it can be

categorized into three types: nominal, verbal and clausal.

Halliday & Hasan (1976, 142) define ellipsis simply as ‘substitution by zero’. Definition

of ellipsis can be based on a well-known concept that something is left “unsaid, but

understood nevertheless”. Ellipsis implies that something that is left unsaid can be easily

recoverable while referring to the context.

17

Harmer (2006, 142) suggests that ellipsis is the deliberate omission of words in a

sentence whereas the meaning is still obvious. Acording to Carter et al. (2000, 78), the main

function of ellipsis is to avoid redundancy which is caused by repetition of words. Paltridge

(2011, 141) claims that with ellipsis the essential element is omitted from the text, and it can

be retrieved by referring to a preceding item in the text.

Similar to substitution, ellipsis is a relation within a text and the pressuposed item

mainly can be retrieved from the preceding text. Halliday & Hasan (1976, 144) concluded that

ellipsis is normally an anaphoric relation, but there could be cases where ellipsis, as well as

substitution, can be exophoric.

Ellipsis can be classified into three subcategories which coincide with the types of

substitution: nominal, verbal and clausal. Consider the examples:

(8) At one moment he had a keen desire to close his eyes and shut her out. At another to

look only at her constantly—so truly was he captivated. (TD, 56).

(9) You’ve heard of that, haven’t you?” “Yes, sir, I think I have”. (TD, 13).

(10) “That she wanted you to but you hadn’t made up your mind?” “Yes”. (TD, 14).

Sentence (8) represents the nominal ellipsis, the ellipsis within the nominal group:

moment after another is omitted. Sentence (9) is the example of verbal ellipsis which occurs

within a verbal group: heard is omitted after have in the second sentence. Finally, clausal

ellipsis is observed when a modal or propositional element of a clause can be elided (Halliday

& Hasan, 1976, 197). Sentence (10) illustrates this type of ellipsis: she wanted you to but you

hadn’t made up your mind is omitted.

McCarthy differentiates between two types of clausal ellipsis: yes/no ellipsis and WH-

ellipsis (1991, 44). Consider the examples:

(11) “You say you didn’t intend to marry her if you could help it, before you went up

there?” “Yes.” (TD, 14).

(12) Perhaps there was some one, like one of those dandies whom he saw on the streets

with the prettiest girls, with whom she had gone. But where? (TD, 21).

Sentence (11) represents yes/no ellipsis: I did not intend to marry her is omitted. In case

of sentence (12), WH- ellipsis is illustrated: was someone with whom she had gone is omitted.

Although Halliday & Hasan (1976) differentiate between ellipsis and substitution

defining them as closely related but still two different types of cohesive relations, Thompson

accounts for them as one category (1996, 153). Thompson divides ellipsis into two types:

ellipsis proper or “a gap”, and substitution, where a gap is filled with "a substitute form”. The

Russian language, due to its belonging to the synthetic type of the language, is presumed to be

rich in ellipsis in comparison to English.

18

The differences between reference, substitution and ellipsis should be pointed out.

Paltridge (2011, 142) suggests that one difference in the case of referenceis that the

information can be retrieved by the means of referring a long way back in the text, while

substitution and ellipsis are mainly limited to the preceding clause. Another important

difference is that in case of reference, both items refer to the same thing, it has the same

antecedent, while with substitution and ellipsis, there are always some differences between

the second item and the first one, i.e. they have different antecedents.

To sum up, substitution and ellipsis are interrelated notions, and they both are forms of

presupposition. As the ellipsis often creates the context for substitution, they can be often

found together. They both help to identify something new from already existed information,

contributing to the cohesion within the text.

1.3.2 Types of lexical cohesion

Unlike grammatical cohesion, lexical cohesion is achieved by the selection of

vocabulary (Halliday & Hasan, 1976, 274). According to Paltridge (2011, 133), lexical

cohesion refers to connections in meaning between content words and the relationship

between them. Among other scholars who investigated lexical cohesion were Hoey (1991),

McCarthy (1991), Morris & Hirst (1991), Martin (1992), Paltridge (2011). The Table 4

illustrates the categories of lexical cohesion suggested by the scholars mentioned above:

Table 4. Categories of Lexical Cohesion by Halliday & Hasan (1976), Hasan (1984),

Halliday (1989), McCarthy (1991), Morris & Hirst (1991), Hoey (1991), Martin (1992),

Paltridge (2011).

Halliday & Hasan Hasan Halliday McCarthy

1. Reiteration

2. Collocation

1. Repetition

2. Synonymy

3. Hyponymy

4. Meronymy

5. Antonymy

1. Repetition

2. Synonymy

3. Collocation

1. Equivalence

2. Inclusion:

3. Specific-

general

4. Inclusion:

5. General–

specific

Morris & Hirst Hoey Martin Paltridge

19

1. Reiteration

2. Collocation

1. Simple and

complex

lexical

repetition

2. Simple and

complex

paraphrase

3. Substitution

4. Co-reference

5. Ellipsis

6. Deixis

1. Taxonomic

2. Nuclear

3. Activity

sequence

relation

1. Repetition

2. Synonymy

3. Antonymy

4. Hyponymy

5. Meronymy

6. Collocation

As it is shown in the Table 4, Halliday & Hasan (1976, 318), like Morris & Hirst (1991)

make a distinction between two forms of lexical cohesion: reiteration and collocation.

Reiteration is seen as the repetition of the lexical item, or the occurrence of some kind of a

synonym, in the framework of reference, i.e. two occurrences having the same referent

(Halliday & Hasan, 1976, 319). Collocation is defined as a type of cohesion that “is achieved

through the association of lexical items that regularly co-occur” (Halliday & Hasan, 1976,

284).

Halliday & Hasan’s analysis of lexical cohesion is regarded as incomplete and

insufficient by some researchers, such as Stotsky (1983), Hoey (1991), Tanskanen (2006),

Mahlberg (2009). They find that not enough attention was paid to the lexical cohesion. As it

was admitted by Hoey (1991), lexical cohesion was given the shortest treatment, comprising

only less than twenty pages. Regardless of the criticism, Halliday & Hasan were the first who

paid attention to these complex relations that contribute to the unity of text and texture

(Tanskanen, 2006, 35).

Later on, Hasan investigated lexical cohesive devices again (Hasan, 1984) and redefined

the categories into five: repetition, meronymy, hyponymy, synonymy, antonymy, disregarding

collocation because of its intersubjective nature. Paltridge’s (2011) classification is similar to

Hasan’s (1984) and includes the same five categories and collocation as the sixth category.

Halliday (1989) revised his model of lexical cohesion presented in his earlier study Cohesion

in English (Halliday & Hasan, 1976). Unlike Hasan (1984) and similar to Paltridge (2011), he

included collocation in his model and defined three categories of lexical cohesive devices:

repetition, synonymy and collocation (Halliday, 1989).

20

McCarthy claims that it is arguable whether collocation belongs to the notion of lexical

cohesion (McCarthy, 1991, 65). Disregarding repetition and collocation, he indentifies four

types of lexical cohesion: equivalence, inclusion (specific – general), inclusion (general –

specific) and opposition, which closely correspond to the notions presented above, such as

antonymy, synonymy and hyponymy (McCarty, 1991).

Hoey (1991) in his book Patterns of Lexis in Text claims that “lexical cohesion is the

only type of cohesion that regularly forms multiple relationships. If this is taken into account,

lexical cohesion becomes the dominant mode of creating texture. In other words, the study of

the greater part of cohesion is the study of lexis, and the study of cohesion in text is to a

considerable degree the study of patterns of lexis in text” (Hoey, 1991, 10). He classified

lexical cohesive devices into eight categories: simple lexical repetition, complex lexical

repetition, simple paraphrase, complex paraphrase, substitution, co-reference, ellipsis, deixis.

Hoey, like Hasan (1984), ignores the collocation and does not include it in his classification.

Martin (1992) redefined and modified Halliday & Hasan’s (1976) model of lexical

cohesion and categorized lexical cohesive devices into three types: taxonomic, nuclear and

activity sequence relations. In case of taxonomic relations, they are almost identical with

those presented by Hasan (1984) and Halliday (1989). Nuclear relations are similar to the

relations identified by Halliday & Hasan (1976) as collocation. Activity sequence relations are

organized into hyponymy taxonomy.

Table 4 demonstrates that there are more similarities than differences in taxonomies

suggested by the scholars discussed above. As repetition, meronymy, hyponymy, synonymy

and antonymy appear in almost all the classifications, while collocation in fewer, lexical

cohesion in this paper is based on the taxonomy of Hasan (1984), and is subdivided into five

types: 1) repetition; 2) synonymy; 3) antonymy; 4) hyponymy; 5) meronymy;. The detailed

description of each category will be given in the rest of this section.

Repetition

Repetition is an important cohesive device. A paragraph can be constituently and

coherently whole in meaning by using repetition. For example:

(13) Go ahead, Oscar," he called to the boy in charge of Clyde. "He's green at this stuff,

but I think he'll do," he added to his assistant, as Clyde and Oscar disappeared in the

direction of one of the elevators. Then he walked off to have Clyde's name entered upon the

payroll. (TD, 36).

21

Through this kind of lexical repetition, when Clyde is repeated in each sentence,

sentences in the example above become a coherent text in meaning.

Hoey (1991) differentiates between simple and complex repetition. Simple lexical

repetition is observed when a lexical item that has already occurred in a text is repeated in

terms of a closed grammatical paradigm. Sentence (14) illustrates simple lexical repetition:

(14) "Well, I can't see that he's so much," replied Gilbert. But what he sees in all that to

make it worthwhile to come here is more than he can guess. (TD, 68).

In sentence (14), sees is a simple lexical repetition of see.

Complex lexical repetition appears when two lexical items share a lexical morpheme,

but they are not formally identical, or when they are formally identical but perform different

grammatical functions, for example:

(15) Running away from one situation and another just to start all over somewhere else

- perhaps only to be compelled to flee from something worse. No, he could not run away

again. (TD, 154).

In sentence (15) run away represents a complex lexical repetition of running away as

they share a common lexical morpheme but have different grammatical function. To sum up,

repetition allows a speaker or writer to say something repeatedly in order to add some new

information. The present study is based on Hasan’s taxonomy (1984); consequently, complex

and simple repetition will be analysed under the same heading, i.e. Repetition.

Synonymy

Synonyms are words that have basically the same meaning and provide some variety in

the writer’s word choices, helping the reader to stay focused on the idea being discussed. In

English, as well as in Russian, it is considered to be a bad style to continuously repeat the

same word in a text. Synonyms are used to refer to the same concept but in a different way

(Paltridge, 2011, 135). Synonymy refers to words which have similar meaning such as boy and

fellow in the following example:

(16) … the defence in this instance did not propose to permit a boy as innocent as

Clyde, trapped by circumstances - as counsel for the defence would be prepared to show - to

be railroaded to the electric chair merely to achieve a victory for the Republican Party in

November. I'll be perfectly willing to go before the presiding judge with them, and if they can

show him any evidence they have or hope to have, or that there are any distant known

witnesses to be secured who can help prove this fellow's innocence, why, then, well and good.

(TD, 222).

22

Synonymy has been discussed by linguists from different points of view (Cruse 1986;

Miller & Fellbaum 1990; Saeed (1997); Murphy, 2003). In this study synonymy is understood

rather widely and includes under one term synonymy such notions as the repetition of a

synonym, near synonym, and the use of a general word, differentiated by Halliday & Hasan

(1976).

Antonymy

Antonymy is another semantic relation that contributes to the cohesion in the text.

Antonymy expresses opposite or contrastive meaning (Paltridge, 2011, 139). It is the semantic

relation that holds between two words that can (in a given context) express polar notions. Let

us consider the example:

(17) Trouble or no trouble - disgrace or no disgrace - I'll do what I can to help him if

he's innocent - if there's even the faintest reason for believing so. But guilty? No! Never! If

this boy is really guilty, he'll have to take the consequences. (TD, 212).

Sentence (17) illustrates an example of antonymy, a relationship between lexical items

such as innocent and guilty, which have opposite meanings.

Saeed (1997) distinguishes five types of antonyms, i.e. simple (dead / alive), gradable

(rich / poor), reverses (go / return), converses (above / below) and taxonomic sisters (red /

blue). In the present study we include all the types of antonymy presented above under one

term Antonymy.

Hyponymy and Meronymy

Hyponymy is the semantic relation when the meaning of one word is included into the

semantic field of another word. It is a kind of relation between a more specific word and a

more general word or class to member relationship (Paltridge, 2011, 139). For example, cat is

a hyponym of mammal and mammal is a hyponym of animal; therefore cat is a hyponym

of animal. Hyponymy often functions in discourse as a means of lexical cohesion by

establishing referential equivalence to avoid repetition.

Meronymy describes pairs of lexical items related whole to part. Meronymy differs from

hyponymy in transitivity. Hyponymy is always transitive while meronymy not. Meronyms are

words that express the whole concept through its part. For example, finger is a meronym of

hand because a finger is part of a hand. Similarly, wheels is a meronym of car, as in he

bought new wheels meaning that he bought a new automobile.

23

Cruse (1986) claims that meronymy has a typical prototypic structure and classifies its

main features as: necessity (necessary and optional parts to their wholes), integrity (the parts

which are more integral to their wholes than others), discreetness (the parts which are more

clearly separated from their sister parts than others), motivation (the parts that have an

identifiable function regarding their wholes), and congruence (the features of range, phase,

and type).

24

2. The Research Results

In this section, the hypothesis will be addressed, i.e. the cohesive devices in the source

language and the target language might exhibit differences in their functioning and

occurrences and the results of the research will be revealed. Firstly, this chapter describes in

details the methods and procedure used in implementing the current research. Secondly, an

elaborate examination of the cohesive devices used in English and Russian literary texts is

presented. Finally, each type and sub-type of these cohesive devices will be presented and

described separately.

2.1 Methodology and procedure

The present analysis aims to investigate the frequency and functioning of cohesive

devices in the English and Russian literary texts. First 25,000 words from the book “An

American Tragedy” by Theodore Dreiser and first 25,000 words from its translation into

Russian by Vershynina were analyzed with the purpose to examine the prevailing cohesive

devices and note their differences and similarities in the analysed texts. In the current research

Halliday & Hasan’s (1976) taxonomy of grammatical cohesive devices was used, i.e.

reference, substitution and ellipsis were investigated. Conjunction was not taken into account

due to its very frequent occurrences and the limitation of the scope. Lexical cohesive devices

were researched according to Hasan’s (1984) classification, i.e. repetition, synonymy,

antonymy, hyponymy, and meronymy were examined.

The procedure of conducting the research was as follows:

to study and examіne scіentіfіc lіterature on the phenomenon of cohesіve devіces

and іts treatment by dіfferent lіnguіsts;

to descrіbe and systemіze cohesіve devіces found іn the Englіsh fіctіon book;

to analyze cohesіve devіces used іn the translated іnto Russіan fіctіon book;

to determіne the frequency of occurrence of cohesіve devіces іn both languages;

to make a comparatіve analysіs of the most frequently used іtems іn the Englіsh and

Russіan languages.

The mixed-method approach was used. Firstly, qualitative method was used to interpret

the data found in the text. Secondly, the quantitative research method was adopted to quantify

the found cohesive devices in terms of percentages. Finally, the comparative analysis was

used to underline the similarities and differences between the identified cohesive devices in

the analysed texts. Two texts, i.e. the source and the target texts were investigated carefully

25

and the results of the research are presented in the sections that follow. At the beginning,

general overview of cohesive devices found in the English and Russian texts will be

presented, and then each type will be discussed separately.

2.2 General overview of frequency of cohesive devices in English and Russian

literary texts

The general distribution of cohesive devices in the source and target texts is as follows:

in the English text lexical cohesion accounts for 57, 85 % of the total, reference– 38, 28 %

and substitution and ellipsis – 3, 87%; in the Russian text lexical cohesive devices comes up

to 68, 03 %, reference is represented by 27, 54 %, and substitution & ellipsis – 4, 43 %. (see

Figure 1, 2). Firstly, lexical cohesive devices comprise the majority of cohesive devices in the

source text and target text. The result was predictable as many scholars claim that lexical

cohesion predominates (Hoey, 1991; Hasan 1984). Secondly, the research shows that the

items of reference constitute the second major group of cohesive devices in both languages.

The difference is that the distribution of reference is higher in the English language in

comparison to the Russian language. In case of the distribution of ellipsis and substitution, it

has to be admitted that they do not constitute the majority of cohesive devices. The following

sections of the current research discuss the distribution and functioning of the analysed

cohesive devices in the researched texts.

Figure 1. Distribution of Cohesive Devices in the English Text.

Lexical Cohesion; 57,85%

Reference; 38,28%

Substitution and Ellipsis; 3,87%

English

Lexical Cohesion

Reference

Substitution and Ellipsis

26

Figure 2. Distribution of Cohesive Devices in the Russian Text.

The overall distribution of each type of cohesive devices in the English and Russian

texts is displayed in the Figures 3, 4 below.

Figure 3. The Overall Distribution of Cohesive Devices in the Source Text.

Lexical Cohesion; 68,03%

Reference; 27,54%

Substitution and Ellipsis; 4,43%

Russian

Lexical Cohesion

Reference

Substitution and Ellipsis

Personal Reference 26,98%

Demonstrative Reference 11,30%

Repetition 45,65%

Synonymy 5,23%

Antonymy 0,79%

Hyponymy 2,70%

Meronymy 2,60%

Ellipsis 1,92%

Substitution 1,95% English

27

Figure 4. The Overall Distribution of Cohesive Devices in the Target Text.

Among all the cohesive devices in the source text, repetition constitutes the absolute

majority which is 45, 65 %; personal reference accounts for 26, 98%; demonstrative

reference– 11, 30 %; synonymy – 5, 23 %; hyponymy – 2, 70 %; meronymy 2, 60 %;

antonymy – 0, 79 %.

Among all the cohesive devices in the target text, repetition also comprises the absolute

majority which is 55, 13 %; personal reference accounts for 19, 27 %; demonstrative

reference– 8, 26 %; synonymy – 5, 92 %; hyponymy – 2, 50 %; meronymy 3, 48 %; antonymy

– 1 %.

In the following sections of the paper, each of cohesive devices will be discussed in a

more detailed way.

2.3 Reference in the English and Russian literary texts

The first type of cohesive devices investigated in this research belongs to the group of

referential cohesive relations. The frequency of the items of reference in the source and target

text is presented in Figures 5 below. For the analysis personal and demonstrative references

were taken into account. Personal reference includes the occurrences of reference expressed

by possessive pronouns as well. It is important to mention that while investigating the

examples of demonstrative reference, the definite article the was not taken into an account

Personal Reference

19,27%

Demonstrative Reference 8,26%

Repetition 55,13%

Synonymy 5,92%

Antonymy 1%

Hyponymy 2,50%

Meronymy 3,48% Ellipsis 2,07%

Substitution 2,36%

Russian

28

because of its very frequent occurrence in the source text and its absence in the target text. As

it can be seen from Figures 5, the prevailing type of referential items in both texts is personal

reference. Personal reference in the source text constitutes 70,47 %. In the target text

personal reference comes up to 69,99 % of all the occurrences of reference. Demonstrative

reference stands for the rest 29,53 % in the source text, and 30,01 % in the target text. The

figures of the items of reference are similar in the English and Russian texts.

Figure 5. The Relative Frequency of the Items of Reference in the English and Russian

Literary Texts.

Reference in the English text. Personal reference in the source text outnumbered

demonstrative reference by more than two times (see Figure 6). Personal reference stands for

70,47% of all the occurrences of reference, and demonstrative reference comes up to the rest

29,53 %.

70,47%

29,53%

69,99%

30,01%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Personal Demonstrative

Source Text

Target Text

70,47%

29,53%

Reference in English

Personal

Demonstrative

29

Figure 6. Distribution of Reference in the English text.

Personal reference in the English text. In the present study the phenomenon of 3rd

person personal pronouns such as she, he , it and they and possessive pronouns such as his/her

and their have been investigated because first and second person personal and possessive

pronouns do not show the relation between sentences but merely point to the speaker,

consequently they perform deictic function. Figure 7 below demonstrates that the most

frequently used personal pronoun in the researched text is he, comprising 35 % of all

occurrences. The possessive pronoun his is on the second place according to its appearance

and come up to 16 %. It can be explained by the fact, that the main character is a man named

Clyde, so the author often uses personal pronoun he and possessive pronoun his to refer to the

man. References she, it, her comprise 14%, 14% and 13 % from all the occurrences

respectively. They and their are the least frequent and stand for 6 % and 2 % respectively.

Figure 7. Distribution of Personal Reference in English.

In the analysed text it was noticed the repetition of the same personal and possessive

pronoun which can be identified as the antecedent to whom it is referred to. In this way,

cohesive chains are created. To illustrate:

(18) Clyde, who was happy to the point of ecstasy in meeting Ratterer again, nodded a

cheerful assent. He boarded his wagon and continued his deliveries, yet for the rest of the

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Personal Reference

he; 35%

she; 14% it; 14%

they; 6%

his; 16% her; 13%

their; 2%

he she it they his her their

30

afternoon his mind was on this approaching meeting with Ratterer. And at five-thirty he

hurried to his barn and then to his boarding house on the west side, where he donned his

street clothes, then hastened to Henrici's. He had not been standing on the corner a minute

before Ratterer appeared, very genial and friendly and dressed, if anything, more neatly than

ever. (TD, 75).

In sentence (18) all personal pronouns he and possessive pronouns his refer back to

Clyde anaphorically. The items can function not only anaforically but cataphorically as well.

Consider the following example:

(19) "What about her?" asked Clyde, keenly curious, for to him she seemed exceedingly

beautiful, most fascinating. “Sondra? Oh, nothing, except she's been in with about eight

different men around here since I've been here. She fell for Doyle". (TD, 48).

Sentence (19) illustrates the cataphorical reference: her refers forward to Sondra.

Demonstrative reference in the English text. In the text the following demonstrative

references were identified: that, this, there, here, these, and those. The demonstrative

references were listed starting from the most frequently used and ending with the least

frequently occurred one. Figure 8 shows demonstrative reference that constitutes 45 %, this

comprises 26 %, there and here stand for 10 % each, these and those – 7 % and 3 %

respectively.

Figure 8. Distribution of Demonstrative Reference in English.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Demonstrative Reference

this 26%

that 45%

these 7%

those 3%

here 10%

there 10%

there

here

those

these

that

this

31

The demonstrative references that and this prevailed in the researched text, while those

and these were the least frequently observed. In most cases demonstratives followed by

lexical items are used to refer back to what was said or done. For example:

(20) "And I say, I tack heem an' think on heem. Pretty nice bag, eh?" she added,

holding it aloft and turning it about. "Tell me," she added with provoking and yet probably

only mock serious eyes and waving the bag toward Roberta, "what shall I do with heem?

Keep heem an' go with heem to be his sweetheart or give heem back? I like heem pretty

much, that bag, you bet." (TD, 89).

In sentence (20) the demonstrative that followed by the lexical item bag is used to refer

to the above mentioned by the speaker bag.

In some cases the demonstrative reference is expressed by place adverbs such as here

and there. Let us consider the example:

(21) "Let's get off here, will you - shall we? What do you say? We're almost to Fonda

anyhow. And we can have more fun here." (TD, 98).

Sentence (21) shows the place adverb here refers to the city Fonda where the action of

the novel took place.

Reference in the Russian text. Figure 9 demonstrates that personal reference

constitutes 69, 99 % of all the occurrences of reference in the novel, and demonstrative

reference stands for the rest 30, 01%.

Figure 9. Distribution of Reference in the Russian text.

69,99%

30,01%

Reference in Russian

Personal

Demonstrative

32

Personal reference in the Russian text. The distribution of personal reference in the

target text is presented in Figure 10 below. As it is apparent from this figure, он, она, его, ее

constitute the major part of the personal references found.

Figure 10. Distribution of Personal Reference in Russian.

Like in the source text, they can be used anaphorically and cataphorically. To illustrate:

(22) Четырнадцати лет Оскар бежал из Джерси-Сити в товарном вагоне и с

тех пор сам пробивал себе дорогу в жизни. Он, как и Клайд, безрассудно стремился

броситься в водоворот наслаждений, которым казалась ему окружающая жизнь, и

готов был на любые приключения, но при этом не знал свойственного Клайду нервного

страха перед последствиями. (ТД, 27).

(22) – А ты их видел, Клайд? – спросил Ретерер; он вообще покровительствовал

Клайду и теперь старался ободрить его и втянуть в общий разговор. – Шил и

Хегленд? Нет, не помню, – ответил Клайд. (ТД, 33).

In sentence (22) personal pronoun он refers back to Оскар anaphorically. Sentence (22)

shows cataphorical reference expressed by их referring forward to Шил и Хегленд.

From the comparative analysis of personal pronouns in the English and Russian texts, it

was found out that text in the source text is rich in the usage of personal pronouns, and the

text in the target text tends to avoid pronouns where possible by omitting a pronoun, i.e. zero

nomination, or pronouns are replaced by lexical items. Consider the following example:

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

он 40%

она 20%

оно 1%

они 7%

его 18%

ее 10%

их 4%

он

она

оно

они

его

ее

их

33

(23) …a sight that so astonished and troubled Clyde that he could scarcely speak. He

had forty dollars in his pocket, and the cost of drinks here, as he had heard from the others,

would not be less than two dollars each, but even so, think of him buying drinks for such a

woman at such a price! And his mother and sisters and brother at home with scarcely the

means to make ends meet. And yet he bought and paid for several, feeling all the while that

he had let himself in for a terrifying bit of extravagance, if not an orgy, but now that he was

here, he must go through with it.

(24) Клайд едва не онемел от испуга. (0) В (0) кармане всего сорок долларов, а он

слышал от других, что здесь каждый бокал стоит не меньше двух долларов.

Подумать только, что он тратит такие деньги! И угощает такую женщину! А дома

(0) мать, сестра, братишка, и они едва сводят концы с концами… И все же (0)

заказывал и платил, чувствуя, что ужасно, (0) невозможно расточителен, прямо

устроил какую-то оргию… Но раз уж он здесь, (0) надо держаться до конца.

Having compared sentence (23) and its translation into Russian, the shifts in the

cohesion chains can be observed. A cohesive chain in English is realized through proper noun

and personal pronouns: Clyde, he, his, he, his, he, he, he, he. In Russian, in sentence (24) the

cohesive chain is presented by: Клайд, (0), (0), он, он, (0), (0), (0), (0), он, (0). As the

Russian language is synthetic, the translated sentence contains seven zero nominations of the

participant. This difference is caused by the grammatical differences these two languages

have.

Demonstrative reference in the Russian text.

Figure 11. Distribution of Demonstrative Reference in Russian.

50%

28%

7% 1%

9%

4% 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

этот, эта, этому, этой, это

тот, та, то

эти, этими

те

тут

там

34

Demonstrative reference constitutes 30, 01 % of all the occurrences of referential items

in the target text. Demonstrative reference such as: этот, эта, этому, этой, это comprises

half of all the occurrences. Тот, та, то stand for 28 %, эти, этими – 7 %; тут and там

comes up to 9 % and 4 % respectively; те is least frequently used and comprises only 1 %.

(see Figure 11).

In most cases demonstrative reference in the source text coincides with the

demonstrative reference in the target text. The demonstrative pronouns used in the English

text are most often retained in the Russian text. To illustrate:

(25) The rear forty feet of this very commonplace floor was intricately and yet neatly

divided into three small bedrooms. This particular small room lay immediately to the rear of

the mission hall itself, and into it before or after speaking or at such times as a conference

seemed important, both Mr. and Mrs. Griffiths were wont to retire - also at times to meditate

or pray. (TD, 7).

(26) Остальная часть квартиры представляла собою сложную и хитроумную

комбинацию комнат и комнатушек. Эта комнатка-кладовая примыкала

непосредственно к залу, где происходили молитвенные собрания, и сюда удалялись

мистер и миссис Грифитс для размышления и для молитвы перед проповедью, или

после нее, или в тех случаях, когда им надо было о чем-либо посовещаться. (ТД, 7).

In sentence (25) the demonstrative pronoun this points back to the rear forty feet of this

very commonplace floor. In the translated into Russian text (see sentence (26), the

demonstrative referenceэта refers back to остальная часть квартиры. The examples

presented above shows that the English demonstrative pronoun is retained in the Russian

translated text.

Some cases show that demonstrative pronouns do not always coincide in the analysed

texts. In most cases the demonstrative pronoun is omitted in the target text. For example:

(27) He was so very slender, keen, hatchet-faced and well-dressed that Clyde was not

only impressed but overawed at once--a very shrewd and cunning-looking person. His nose

was so long and thin, his eyes so sharp, his lips thin, and chin pointed. "Did you see that tall,

gray-haired man with the Scotch plaid shawl who went through here just now?" (TD, 19).

(28) Он был так строен, энергичен и превосходно одет, и у него было такое

жесткое, колючее лицо, что Клайд почувствовал не только смущение, но даже

благоговейный страх: видно, это очень хитрый, коварный человек, – у него такой

длинный тонкий нос, тонкие губы, такой пронзительный взгляд и острый

подбородок… – Только что вышел (0) высокий седой человек с шотландским пледом,

видели? (ТД, 18).

35

In sentence (27) the demonstrative reference that refers back to he. In the target text the

demonstrative reference is omitted. All in all, the difference in the distribution of the cases

when demonstrative reference in the English text coincides with the demonstrative reference

in the Russian one, and the cases when they do not coincide is inconsiderable as they

comprise approximately half of all the occurrences each.

To sum up, the distribution of personal and demonstrative references in the English and

Russian text are almost the same. The personal reference outnumbers the demonstrative

reference in more than two times in the analysed texts. Another common feature for both

languages is the anaphorical and cataphorical use of the items of reference. The analysis

revealed the differences between the researched texts. In case of personal reference, the

source text is rich in the usage of personal pronouns while the target text avoids pronouns

where possible by zero nomination or by replacing the pronouns by lexical items. Concerning

demonstrative pronouns, in some cases the use of it coincide and in another ones the source

text tends to omit the items of demonstrative reference.

2.4 Substitution and ellipsis in the English and Russian literary texts

Due to the low frequency of ellipsis and substitution in the analysed texts, the results are

not presented in diagrams. The items of substitution & ellipsis comprise 3, 87 % of all

cohesive devices in the source text and 4, 43 % in the target text.

Figure 12 shows that nominal substitution and ellipsis in the source text account for 18

% of all manifestations. Verbal substitution and ellipsis stands for 22 %, and clausal

substitution took 60%. The distribution of the substitution and ellipsis in the target text was as

follows: nominal substitution – 4%; verbal substitution – 45 %; clausal substitution – 51%.

(see Figure 13).

36

Figure 12. Distribution of Items of Substitution and Ellipsis in the English and Russian Texts.

Substitution in the English and Russian texts. Taking into consideration nominal

substitution in the source and target texts, few cases where instances of substitution coincided

in both languages were found. The majority of cases showed that nominal substitution in

English is replaced by lexical repetition in the Russian text. For example:

(28) You'll never get another coat like that in this city. If you do, I'll make you a present

of this one. (TD, 78).

(29) Второго такого жакета не найти во всем городе. Если найдете - я подарю

вам этот жакет. (ТД, 67).

In the sentence (28) coat is substituted with the word one. In sentence (29), the lexical

repetition is used: жакет is repeated.

Nominal substitution in the source text was typically used in the dialogic language. To

illustrate:

(30) “That leaves me sorta stumped now. Are you willing to go and see a doctor? - But

the trouble with that is they're hard to find - the ones who'll do anything and keep their

mouths shut.” (TD, 54).

In case of verbal substitution, the substitute in English may coincide with the substitute

in Russian. For example:

Nominal; 18%

Nominal; 4%

Verbal; 22%

Verbal; 45%

Clausal; 60%

Clausal; 51%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

English Russian

Nominal

Verbal

Clausal

37

(31) …and with the organ supported by a leather strap passed over the shoulder of

Griffiths, senior, the missionward march was taken up. During all this time Clyde was saying

to himself that he did not wish to do this any more. (TD, 4).

(32) … и, когда органчик был перекинут на ремне через плечо Грифитса-

старшего, семейство направилось к миссии. Все это время Клайд говорил себе, что

больше он не желает делать этого.. (ТД, 5).

The verb do in sentence (31) refers back to the action described in the previous

sentence, and functions as a substitute. In sentence (32) which presented the Russian

example, the verb делать is a substitute. In the Russian language the verb делать has a wide

semantics, and it can coincide with the English verb do. Examples in sentence (31) and

sentence (32) illustrate that in the target text the same substitute is used as in the source text

displayed by the verb делать.

Clausal substitution in the English texts can be realized by substitutes so and not. To

illustrate:

(33) "Oh, not so very long, Clyde. About a month, now, I guess. No more than that." "I

thought so.” (TD, 66).

(34) Had you, up to this time, been able to put aside any money for a rainy day?" "Not

really." (TD, 143).

In sentence (33) so presupposes the clause no more than that. In sentence (34) not

serves as a substitute for had you, up to this time, been able to put aside any money for a rainy

day. The clausal substitution takes two forms: positive (so) and negative (not).

In the target text the clausal substitution is displayed by так and нe. Consider the

following examples:

(35) – Не так давно, Клайд, кажется, около месяца, не больше.– Я так и думал.

(ТД, 58).

(36) – И вы не сумели к тому времени отложить немного на черный день? – Не

особо. (ТД, 57).

In sentence (35) так presupposes the clause не так давно, Клайд, кажется, около

месяца, не больше. In sentence (36) не functions as a substitute for и вы не сумели к тому

времени отложить немного на черный день.

To sum up, in the Russian language similarly to the English one, the substitution can be

categorized into three types: nominal, verbal and clausal. English more often uses nominal

substitution, while Russian prefers lexical repetition in this case.

38

Ellipsis in the English and Russian texts. Regarding the usage of ellipsis in the source

and target languages, in most cases Russian operates the same patterns of ellipsis as English

does. For example:

(37) Her premeditated explanation was that recently she had been thinking of having

her younger brother and sister come and live with her. And since both were likely to come

soon, she thought it best to prepare for them (TD, 100).

(38) Она заранее придумала объяснение: она собирается вскоре выписать к себе

младшего брата и сестру. И должна устроиться так, чтобы оба могли поселиться

вместе с нею. (ТД, 98).

In sentence (37) the pronoun both refers back to the nouns brother and sister while in

the Russian displayed by sentence (38), the pronoun оба points back to брата и сестру.

Thus, the English and Russian texts illustrate the same patterns of ellipsis.

As English language has greater number of analytic forms, different patterns of ellipsis

are observed. For example:

(39) "I know one thing. I am not going to flirt around with others like you are doing out

here. Yes, I wouldn’t." (TD, 46).

(40) Я знаю только одно, я не собираюсь флиртовать с другими, как Вы это

делаете. Да, точно не буду заигрывать. (ТД, 45).

Sentence (39) demonstrates that wouldn’t is a modal verb, and it can be fulfilled out by

the verb flirt. It can be explained by the fact that English has many analytical forms which

allow the omission of the verbs whereas Russian, being a synthetic language, does not. The

Russian text, illustrated by sentence (40), uses synonym заигрывать of the word

флиртовать. The omission of the personal pronoun я is observed, but this does not cause

any difficulty in understanding, as the word combination буду заигрывать shows the person,

number, tense, voice, and mood. The target language operates endings and inflectional

suffixes in order to mark morphological categories in the verb.

In conclusion, it was found out that linguistic phenomenon of the items of substitution

and ellipsis demonstrates similarities and differences. There are cases where instances of

substitution and ellipsis coincide in both languages though languages exhibit different

patterns of the cohesive devices discussed in this section due to the their different

grammatical structure. Ellipsis and substitution can serve for the economy of language, and

for the formation of more lively and realistic sounding discourse.

39

2.5 Lexical cohesive devices in the English and Russian literary texts

In the previous sections, different types of grammatical cohesion were discussed:

reference, substitution and ellipsis. In order to complete the picture of cohesive relations,

lexical cohesive devices, i.e. repetition, synonymy, antonymy, meronymy, and hyponymy will

be examined.

The analysis showed that repetition comprises the absolute majority in both languages,

i.e. 78, 92 % and 81, 04 % in the source and target languages respectively (see Figure 13).

Synonyms demonstrate the following distributional pattern: 9, 05 % in the English text and 8,

70 % in the Russian one. Antonyms are not used extensively: 1, 37 % in the source text and 1,

48 % in the target text. Hyponymy constitutes 4, 68 % and 3, 67 % in the English and Russian

texts respectively. The distribution of meronymy is similar to hyponymy in the analysed texts:

4, 50 % and 5, 11 % accordingly.

Each type of lexical cohesive devices will be overviewed in a more detailed way in the

sections that follow.

Figure 13. Distribution of the Items of Lexical Cohesive Devices in the English and Russian

Literary Texts.

Repetition in the English and Russian texts. Repetition is the prevailing type of lexical

cohesion in both texts. Repetition is considered to be the most important and obvious type of

lexical relation. It shows the relation between the sentences in the text and allows the reader

not to lose himself/herself in the text. Consider the examples:

78,92%

9,05%

1,37% 4,50% 4,68%

81,04%

8,70%

1,48% 5,11% 3,67%

0,00%

10,00%

20,00%

30,00%

40,00%

50,00%

60,00%

70,00%

80,00%

90,00%

Repetition Synonymy Antonymy Meronymy Hyponymy

Source Text Target Text

40

(41) Other boys did not do such things, and besides, somehow it seemed shabby and

even degrading. On more than one occasion, before he had been taken on the street in this

fashion, other boys had called to him and made fun of his father, because he was always

publicly emphasizing his religious beliefs or convictions. Thus in one neighborhood in which

they had lived, when he was but a child of seven, his father, having always preluded every

conversation with "Praise the Lord," he heard boys call "Here comes old Praise-the-Lord

Griffiths." (TD, 3).

(42) Ведь другие ребята не занимаются такими вещами, тут есть что-то

жалкое и даже унизительное. Не раз, еще прежде чем его стали вот так водить по

улицам, другие ребята дразнили его и смеялись над его отцом за то, что тот всегда

во всеуслышание распространялся о своей вере и убеждениях. Отец всякий разговор

начинал словами: «Хвала господу», – и все ребята по соседству с домом, где они жили,

когда мальчику было семь лет, выкрикивали, завидев отца: – Грифитс, Грифитс!

«Хвала господу» Грифитс! (ТД, 3).

In the example (41) the following lexical items constitute the cohesive chain: boys,

boys, boys. In the Russian text, illustrated by example (42), the cohesive chain is: ребята,

ребята, ребята. As both examples demonstrate, cohesive chains in the source and target

texts coincide.

Concerning the repetition of proper names in the English text, in most cases it does not

undergo changes in the Russian text. To illustrate:

(44) In one way and another, from casual remarks dropped by his parents, Clyde had

heard references to certain things this particular uncle might do for a person. He had a son

who must be about Clyde's age, and several daughters, two at least, all of whom must be, as

Clyde imagined, living in luxury in Lycurgus. News of all this had apparently been brought

west in some way by people who knew Asa and his father and brother. As Clyde pictured this

uncle, he must be a kind of Croesus, living in ease and luxury there in the east. (TD, 5).

(45) Из случайных замечаний, оброненных родителями, Клайд понял, что дядя

многое мог бы для него сделать, если б только захотел, что он прижимистый,

оборотистый делец, что у него в Ликурге великолепный дом и большая фабрика

воротничков и рубашек, на которой работает не менее трехсот рабочих. У дяди есть

сын, примерно одного возраста с Клайдом, и дочери – кажется, две. Все они жили в

роскоши в этом далеком Ликурге, – воображал Клайд. Эти сведения, по-видимому,

так или иначе доходили на Запад через людей, знавших Эйсу, и его брата, и их отца.

Клайд представлял себе дядю каким-то Крезом, живущим в довольстве и роскоши

там, на Востоке. (ТД, 5).

41

In example (44) the lexical chain is: Clyde, Clyde's, Clyde, Clyde, where the repetition

of the proper name is observed and a cohesive effect is created. In example (45), the lexical

items are as follows: Клайд, Клайдом, Клайд, Клайд. The above discussed examples show

that cohesive chains containing the repetition of the proper name coincide in the source and

target texts.

Regarding the repetition of proper names in English, it should be mentioned that it is

often rendered into Russian by personal pronouns. For example:

(46) In the face of so great a calamity, it was very hard for her, as Clyde could see, to

get this straightened out, instantly at least. Although, as Clyde had come to know, it could be

done eventually, of course. (TD, 12)

(47) Клайд видел, что перед лицом такого огромного несчастья ей трудно найти

ответ, – по крайней мере, сразу. Но в конце концов – он был уверен – ей, несомненно,

это удастся. (ТД, 12).

In example (46) lexical repetition of the proper name is observed: Clyde, Clyde; while

in its translation, English repetition of proper name is rendered by the personal pronoun он

(see example (47).

The researched material shows that the patterns of repetition in the source and target

language manifest differences. Consider the examples:

(48) "Why, at Biggs and Beck's they have lots of three quarter mink and beaver coats

for that much, and classy styles, too." "Maybe, maybe. But not that coat," insisted Mr.

Rubenstein stubbornly. "Just look at it again. Look at the collar. You mean to say you can

find a coat like that up there? If you can, I'll buy the coat for you and sell it to you again for a

hundred dollars. Actually, this is a special coat. It's copied from one of the smartest coats

that was in New York last summer before the season opened. It has class. You won't find no

coat like this coat." (TD, 36).

(49) – У Бигса и Бека за эту цену сколько угодно жакетов – и бобровые и из норки,

и тоже шикарные. – Может быть, может быть. Но это все не то, – упрямо

повторял мистер Рубинстайн. – Только взгляните на него еще раз. Взгляните на

воротник! Неужели вы думаете, что найдете там такой жакет? Если найдете , я

сам куплю его и отдам вам за сто долларов. Это совершенно исключительная вещь:

копия одного из шикарнейших жакетов, которые продавались в Нью-Йорке перед

началом сезона. Первоклассная вещь. Вам нигде не найти такого. (ТД, 37).

In example (48) the repetition of the noun coat is observed. As example (49) shows, the

cohesive patterns in the source text are rendered differently. In the Russian text the noun coat

is substituted by pronouns то and такого or omitted. The noun вещь refers anaphorically to

42

the noun жакет which is a hyponym of вещь. The found distinctions are caused by the the

fact that two languages belong to different grammatical systems.

There were cases where the repetition in English was rendered into Russian by the use

of synonymy:

(50) …dese fellows here are good sports, all o' dem. Dey're no four flushers an' no

tightwads, eider. Whenever dere's anyting on a good time or sumpin' like dat, dey're on

nearly all of 'em. An' dey don't mooch or grouch in case tings don't work out right, neider. I

know dat, cause I been wit 'em now, lots o' times." He gave Clyde the impression that these

fellows were all the best of friends. (TD, 32).

(51) Ребята у нас хорошие и повеселиться умеют. Не подведут и не

наябедничают. Коли что где затевается – вечеринка или что другое, – все тут как

тут. И не ворчат и не распускают нюни, коли что не ладится. Уж я знаю, ведь у нас

тут всякое бывало! Из его болтовни Клайд понял, что все мальчики в отеле живут

очень дружно. (ТД, 30).

The example (50) demonstrates lexical repetition of the lexical item fellows, whereas

the translated text in example (51) uses synonymy instead of the repetition: ребята –

мальчики.

To sum up, repetition is widely used in the English and Russian texts. The analysis

reveals that two languages exhibit differences in patterning, which can be explained by the

differences in their grammatical systems and lexis. Repetition in the source language can be

rendered into the target language by same unit repetition, synonymy, hyponymy and ellipsis.

Lexical repetition functions as a means of expressing thoughts as accurately as possible and

makes a contribution to the text organization.

Synonymy in the English and Russian texts. The second most frequent lexical relation

in the researched texts is synonymy. It comprises 9, 05 % of all the occurrences of lexical

cohesive devices in the source text, and 8, 70 % in the target text. The analysis shows there

are cases where instances of synonymy coincide in both texts. Consider the following

examples:

(52) And while Clyde paid for them, she posed before the mirror, adjusting them to her

taste. When she was not looking at herself in a mirror, she was studying the bill of fare and

deciding what she liked - lamb with mint jelly - no omelette, no beef - oh, yes, filet of mignon

with mushrooms. (TD, 35).

(53) И пока Клайд расплачивался, она вертелась перед зеркалом, пристраивая

фиалки по своему вкусу. В те минуты, когда Гортензия не смотрелась в зеркало, она

43

изучала меню и выбирала, что ей нравится: барашек в мятном желе… нет, омлет она

не любит и ростбиф тоже… Ах, вот что: филе-миньон с грибами… (ТД, 36).

In the above presented examples (52) and (53) the verb posed refers anaphorically to

looking which is its synonym, and similarly the verb смотрелась points back to its synonym

вертелась. The relationship between these lexical items contributes to the text cohesion.

Thus, from the example it is seen that patterning in both languages is similar.

There are cases where English synonymy is rendered into Russian by repetition. For

example:

(54) At the sixth floor the boy departed. At the eighth Clyde and an old lady stepped

forth. Openly, however, he preserved a masklike solemnity, seemingly effacing all facial

evidence of thought. He took the change and went out. (TD, 27).

(55) На шестом этаже этот мальчик вышел. На восьмом вышли Клайд и

пожилая дама. Однако лицо его сохраняло торжественную неподвижность, словно

маска, лишенная всяких признаков мысли. Он взял мелочь и вышел. (ТД, 26).

Lexical chains, which establish cohesion in the English and Russian texts, clearly differ.

The example (54) illustrates a cohesive chain which is realized through synonyms: departed,

stepped forth, went out. In the translated text, on the other hand, the cohesive chain consists of

the lexical repetition: вышел, вышли, вышел. Thus, synonyms and the repetition of the same

lexical items in the source and target texts are the most frequent and clearest instance of

lexical cohesion. The relations of the items of lexical cohesive devices discussed above play a

significant role in creating a cohesive tie in both texts.

Antonymy in the English and Russian texts. In contrast to repetition and synonymy,

antonymy is not extensively used in the source and target texts. It comprises 1, 37 % and 1, 48

% of all the occurrences of lexical cohesion respectively. Antonymy connects two items that

have opposite senses. To illustrate:

(56) And was the moral and spiritual atmosphere of a place that made him work so

much and kept him out so late every day just the place to work? And for so little pay. (TD,

33)

(57) Да и подходящая ли моральная и духовная атмосфера в этом отеле, где его

заставляют работать так много и задерживают каждый вечер так поздно? Да и

платят так мало. (ТД, 34).

In example (56) the lexical chain contains antonyms: much – little. By the adjective

much, a large amount is meant. In contrast, the adjective little in the second sentence means

small in size or amount. The relation between these lexical items can be defined as converses

(Saeed, 1997) because they describe a relation between two entities from alternative

44

viewpoints, i.e. much – little. In Russian, the lexical chain is presented by the lexical items:

много – мало. In both languages antonyms describe opposite or contrastive meaning and

parts of their meaning derives from this contrast.

Hyponymy in the English and Russian texts. Hyponymy refers to classes of lexical

items where the relationship between them is in “a class to member” type relationship

(Paltridge, 2011, 135). It includes the use of superordinate. Consider the examples:

(58) For by now, in imitation of Doyle, whom he had studied most carefully and to great

advantage, he had dressed himself with a new brown suit, cap, overcoat, socks, stickpin and

shoes as near like those of his mentor as possible. And the outfit was so excellent - so much

so that he was far more attractive than he had ever been in his life. (TD, 31).

(59) Старательно и не без пользы для себя подражая Дойлу, он обзавелся новым

коричневым костюмом, кепкой, пальто, носками, булавкой для галстука и

ботинками, по возможности такими же, как у его ментора. И одежда очень шла

ему, чрезвычайно шла, – он казался теперь привлекательнее, чем когда-либо. (ТД, 32).

In the example (58), suit, cap, overcoat, socks, stickpin, and shoes can be described as

co-hyponyms of the subordinate word outfit. In the Russian text, the nouns костюмом,

кепкой, пальто, носками, булавкой для галстука и ботинками are hyponyms of одежда.

In this case the cohesive pattern used in the source text is rendered in the target text.

The analysis shows that there are cases when patterns of hyponymy do not coincide in

the English and Russian text. For example:

(60) "Sure," he agreed, gallantly, and forthwith she signaled the young Negress who

had returned as waitress, and in a moment a small table was put before them and a bottle of

whisky with soda on the side - a sight that so astonished and troubled Clyde that he could

scarcely speak. He had forty dollars in his pocket, and the cost of drinks here, as he had

heard from the others, would not be less than two dollars each, but even so, think of him

buying drinks for such a woman at such a price! (TD, 42).

(61) Девица сделала знак негритянке, и через минуту перед ними оказался столик,

а на нем бутылка виски и содовая. Клайд едва не онемел от испуга. У него в кармане

всего сорок долларов, а он слышал от других, что здесь это стоит не меньше двух

долларов. Подумать только, что он тратит такие деньги! И угощает такую

женщину! (ТД, 43).

In example (60) nouns whisky with soda are in lexicosemantic relation. They are

hyponyms of the noun drinks. In example (62) the demonstrative pronoun это is used

instead, which anaphorically refers back to виски и содовая. Thus, the cohesive patterns used

in the source and target text differ.

45

Meronymy in the English and Russian texts. Meronymy refers to lexical items that are

in a “whole to part” relationship with each other. Consider the examples:

(63) Once in Schenectady, since no one knew him there, of course he might say (the

thought came to him as an inspiration) that he was a newly married man - why not? He was

old enough to be one, and that his wife, and that in the face of inability to care for a child

now, was "past her time" (he recalled a phrase that he had once heard Higby use), and that

he wanted something that would permit her to escape from that state. What was so wrong

with that as an idea? A young married couple might be in just such a predicament. (TD,

135).

(64) И ведь в Скенэктеди, где его никто не знает, он может сказать (эта

мысль вдруг осенила его), что молодой муж, - почему бы и нет? Он уже достаточно

взрослый и вполне может быть женатым человеком. Он скажет, что у его жены

"прошел срок" (он вспомнил фразу, слышанную от Хигби), а так как им невозможно

сейчас иметь ребенка, то он хотел бы получить какое-нибудь средство, которое

помогло бы ей в ее состоянии. Право, это неплохая мысль! Юная супружеская пара

легко может оказаться в таком затруднительном положении. (ТД, 136).

In example (63) there is the relationship between man and wife in relationship to the

item a young married couple. Man and wife are the meronyms of a young married couple.

The cohesive items in the source text are rendered into the target text, i.e. муж and жены are

the meronyms of юная супружеская пара.

Meronymy is helpful in descriptions of the characters where it is used to reveal

characters’ appearances, to exemplify:

(65) The boy moved restlessly from one foot to the other, keeping his eyes down, and

for the most part only half singing. A tall and as yet slight figure, surmounted by an

interesting head and face - white skin, dark hair - he seemed more keenly observant and

decidedly more sensitive than most of the others--appeared indeed to resent and even to suffer

from the position in which he found. (TD, 4).

(66) Мальчик, опустив глаза, беспокойно переминался с ноги на ногу и подпевал

не очень усердно. Высокий, но еще не окрепший, с выразительным лицом, белой кожей

и темными волосами, он казался самым наблюдательным и, несомненно, самым

чувствительным в этой семье; ясно было, что он недоволен своим положением и даже

страдает от него. (ТД, 4).

In the example (65) foot, head, face, skin, hair are meronyms used to present the

physical appearance of the boy. Similarly in the target text, the nouns ноги, ногу, лицом,

кожей, волосами are meronyms of the noun мальчик, used to describe his appearance

46

creating the clearer picture of him. In most cases found in the researched texts, the cohesive

patterns of meronymy coincide and build the cohesive links in the text.

47

CONCLUSIONS

After carrying out the research, the following conclusions can be made:

Cohesive patterns in the English and Russian literary texts vary, and are differently

rendered from one language to another.

The differences of cohesive patterns are based on different grammatical structure of

the investigated languages, and differences in the languages’ lexis.

The prevailing cohesive devices in both languages are items of lexical cohesion.

Repetition is the most often used semantic relation which is the basic type of lexical

relation. In most cases the cohesive chains coincide in both languages, although there

are cases where repetition in the source language is rendered into the target language

by same unit repetition, synonymy, hyponymy and ellipsis. Regarding the repetition

of proper names in English, it is often rendered into Russian by personal pronouns.

English synonymy can be rendered into Russian either by synonymy or by repetition.

Antonymy is not extensively used in the source and target texts. The cohesive

patterns of meronymy and hyponymy in most cases coincide in both languages. The

latter is often used to describe the characters and to reveal their appearances.

Reference is the second most extensively used cohesive device, although English

language uses reference more often. In case of personal reference, the difference is

marked by a possibility of the Russian language, being a synthetic one, to omit

personal pronouns in the subject position by employing zero nomination. Concerning

demonstrative reference, the source text tends to omit these items of cohesive

devices as well.

In case of substitution and ellipsis, Russian more often uses lexical repetition and

synonymy. The differences are found due to the fact that English has a greater variety

of substitution forms and the distribution of analytical forms.

48

SANTRAUKA

Šio darbo tikslas - išnagrinėti tarpfrazines ryšio priemones ir jų funkcijos anglų ir rusų

kalbos literatūros tekstuose,o taip pat pristatyti kiekybinį šių tarpfrazinių ryšio priemonių

pasiskirstymą tekstuose. Analizė buvo parinktos Amerikoniškoji tragedija Theodoro

Dreiserio. Darbe taikytas lyginamasis ir turinio analizės metodai. Šio tikslo įgyvendinimui

buvo iškelti šie uždaviniai: 1) susipažinti su kalbine literatūra aptariančia diskurso analizę, jos

ištakas ir vystymąsi 2) aptarti terminus tekstas ir diskursas, kohezija ir koherencija, 3) aptarti

ir ištirti tarpfrazinio rišlumo priemones, veikiančias skirtinguose anglų ir rusų kalbos 4)

palyginti tarpfrazinio ryšio priemonių dažnį šiuose kalbuose. Tyrimas atskleidė, kad visuose

tekstuose vyrauja leksinis ryšys ir referencija. Skirtingos kalbų struktūros lemia tarpfrazinių

ryšio priemonių vartojimą. Rusų kalba yra fleksinė, todėl žodžių formos sudaromos galūnių ir

priesagų pagalba. Anglų kalba analitinė, kurioje pagrindinį vaidmenį vaidina funkciniai

žodžiai. Anglų kalboje dažnai sutinkama substitucija / elipsė. Šios ryšio priemonės būdingos

dialoguose, kur labai svarbus ekonomiškumo principas. Tai galime paaiškinti tuo, kad

apsakymų įžanginiuose paragrafuose ne tiek daug dialogų. Rusų kalboje vietoj substitucijos /

elipsės vartojamas leksinis pasikartojimas ir sinonimai. Leksinės ryšio priemonės (t.y. leksinis

pasikartojimas, sinonimai, antonimai, meronimai, hiponimai) vyrauja abiejose kalbose.

49

REFERENCES

Bex, T. (1996). Variety in Written English: Texts in Society, Societies in Text. London:

Routledge.

Brown G. & Yule G. (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics.

Cambridge University Press.

De Beaugrand, R., & Dressler, W. (1981). Introduction to Text Linguistics. London:

Longman.

Buitkienė, J. (2005). Variability of Cohesive Devices Across Registers. Studies about

Languages. Retrieved from http://www.kalbos.lt/zurnalai/07_numeris/03.pdf

Campbell, K. S. (1994). Coherence, Continuity and Cohesion: Theoretical Foundations for

Document Design. Denton. TX: University of North Texas Press.

Carter, R., Hughes, R. & McCarthy, M. (2000). Exploring grammar in context.

Cook, G. (1996). Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cruse, A. (1986). Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: CUP.

Dooley, A., & Levinsohn, S. (2001). Analyzing Discourse: A Manual of Basic Concepts.

Dallas: SIL International.

Foley, M., & Hall, D. (2003). Advanced Learners' Grammar. Harlow: Longman Group.

Francis, G. Anaphoric Nouns. Discourse Analysis. Monographs No.11. University of

Birmingham: English Language Research, 1985.

Gee, J.P. (2014). An Introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. London and

NewYork: Routledge.

Johnstone, B. (2002). Discourse Analysis. Molden: Blackwell Publishing.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1989). An Introduction of Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.

Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.

Halliday, M. A. K., Hasan, R. (1991). Language, Context and Text: Aspects of Language in a

Social-semiotic Perspective. Oxford University Press.

Hasan, R. (1984). Coherence and Cohesive Harmony. In: Flood, J. (ed.) Understanding

Reading Comprehension. Delaware: International Reading Association, p. 181 - 219.

Hatch, E. (1992). Discourse and Language Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Harmer, J. (2006). How to teach writing. New Jersey: Pearson Education.

Hoey, M. (1991). Patterns of lexis in text: Describing English language. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Johnstone, B. (2002). Discourse Analysis. Molden: Blackwell Publishing.

50

Martin, J.R. (1992). English Text: system and structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

McCarthy, M. (1991). Discourse analysis for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Miller G., & Fellbaum C. (1990). Semantic networks of English. Cognition, 41, 197-229.

Morris, J., & Hirst, G. (1991). Lexical Cohesion Computed by Thesaural Relations as an

Indicator of the Structure of Text. Association for Computational Linguistics.

Murphy, M. L. (2003). Semantic Relations and the Lexicon – Antonymy, Synonymy, and other

Paradigms. Cambridge: CUP.

Nunan, D. (1993). Introducing discourse analysis. London: Penguin English.

Paltridge, B. (2011). Discourse Analysis: An Introduction. London, New York: Continuum.

Saeed, J. (1997). Semantics. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data.

Schiffrin, D. (1987). The handbook of discourse analysis. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

Stotsky, S. (1983). Types of Lexical Cohesion in Expository Writing: Implications for

Developing the Vocabulary of Academic Discourse. College Composition and

Communication.

Simmons, S. (1981). Cohesion in Russian: A Model for Discourse Analysis. American

Association of Teachers of Slavic and East European Languages.

Tanskanen, Sanna-Kaisa. (2006). Collaborating towards Coherence: Lexical Cohesion in

English Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publishing.

Thompson, G. (1996). Introducing Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.

Van Dijk, T. (1985). Handbook of Discourse Analysis. London, San Diego, New York,

Austin, Boston, Orlando, Sydney, Tokyo, Toronto: Academic Press Inc.

Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., Svartvik, J. (1995). A Comprehensive Grammar of the

English Language. Harlow: Longman.

Werlich, E. (1976), A text grammar of English. Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer.

Widdowson H.G. (1979). Exploration in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Yule, G. (1985). The Study of Language. London: Cambridge University Press.

Zamel, V (2013). Teaching Those Missing Links in Writing. ELT Journal. Retrieved from

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/31433831_Teaching_those_missing_links_i

n _writing1

Брчакова Д. (1979). О связности в устных коммуникатах. Москва.

Гальперин И.Р. (1981). Текст как объект лингвистического исследования. Москва:

Наука.

Звегинцев В. А. (1976). Предложение и его отношение к языку и речи. Москва.

51

Каменская О.Л. (1990). Текст и коммуникация. Москва: Высшая школа.

Красных В. (1998). От концепта к тексту и обратно (к вопросу о психолингвистике

текста). Вестник Московского университета, серия 9, №1. – Москва.

Макаров Н.Л. (2003). Базы теории дискурса. – Москва: Гнозис.

Милевская Т.В. (2003). Грамматика. Ростов на Дону: РГУ.

Москальская О. И. (1981). Грамматика текста. Москва: Наука.

Николаева Т. М. (1997). Актуальное членение предложения. Москва: Русский язык:

энциклопедия.

Селиванова Е.А. (2004). Основы лингвистической теории текста и коммуникации.

Киев: Брама.

Тураева З. Я. (1986). Лингвистика текста: (Текст: структура и семантика). Москва.

Хлебникова И. (1998). К проблеме средств связи между предложениями в тексте (на

материале английского языка). – Москва: Наука.

52

SOURCES

Dreiser, T. (1925). An American Tragedy. United States: Boni & Liveright.

Драйзер Т. (2005). Американская трагедия. Пер.Вершинина З. Москва: Эксмо-Пресс.