Linguistic analysis of literary data
©2017
Textbook
214 Pages
Summary
Literary data is supposed to reflect real life situations and is at the same time written in a style of writing that is considered as highly elevated. Such reasons have prompted the contributors to this book to deal with this type of data. Such attempts range from semantics to stylistics and pragmatics. This book introduces linguistic analyses of literary data from different points of view. This involves dealing with various linguistic topics and different types of literary data. Hence, many models are presented to analyze the linguistic aspects of those topics in the light of the genre in which those topics are undertaken. Accordingly, different results are yielded from those analyses and this makes each type of analysis distinct from the other ones.
It is hoped that this work will be a useful source to all those – whether theoretically, practically, or both – interested in linguistics, pragmatics of literature, applied linguistics and literary stylistics.
It is hoped that this work will be a useful source to all those – whether theoretically, practically, or both – interested in linguistics, pragmatics of literature, applied linguistics and literary stylistics.
Excerpt
Table Of Contents
CHAPTER THREE
TOWARDS A MODEL OF LOCAL PRAGMATIC COHERENCE IN D. H. LAWRENCE'S
`SONS AND LOVERS' ... 51
3.1. Introduction ... 51
3.1.1 Pragmatic Relations vs. Semantic Relations ... 51
3.1.2 Models of Local Pragmatic Coherence ... 52
3.2. Degand's (1998) Techniques ... 82
3.3. Analyzed Examples for Illustration... 83
3.3.1 Speech Act and Epistemic Relations ... 83
3.4 Conclusions ... 87
References ... 88
CHAPTER FOUR
A MODEL FOR THE PRAGMATIC ANALYSIS OF ARGUMENTATION IN 'JANE EYRE' AND
'WUTHERING HEIGHTS' ... 92
4.1. Introduction ... 92
4.1.1. Models of Argumentation ... 92
4.2. An Eclectic Model ... 94
4.3. Data Analysis ... 97
4.4 Conclusions ... 102
References ... 103
CHAPTER FIVE
A PRAGMA-STYLISTIC STUDY OF SYMBOLISM IN JOSEPH CONRAD'S `HEART OF DARKNESS' ... 105
5.1 Introduction ... 105
5.2 Theoretical Background ... 107
5.2.1 Pragmatics and Literature ... 107
5.2.2 Stylistics and Literature ... 108
5.2.3 Pragmatic Stylistics ... 109
5.3 Model of Analysis ... 110
5.3.1 Eco's (1984) Pragmatic Model of Symbolism ... 110
5.3.2 Niazi and Gautams' (2010) Pragma- Stylistic Model ... 111
5.3.3 Al-Hindawi and Abu-Kroozs' (2012) Pragma-Rhetorical Tropes Model ... 116
5.4. Data and Analysis ... 119
5.4.1 Data ... 119
5.4.2 Analysis... 119
5.4.3 Results and Discussion ... 128
5.5 Conclusions ... 129
References ... 131
CHAPTER SIX
A PRAGMATIC STUDY OF GOSSIP IN RICHARD BRINSELY SHERIDAN'S `THE SCHOOL FOR SCANDAL' .. 134
6.1. Introduction ... 134
6.2. Definition ... 135
6.3. Functions of Gossip ... 136
6.3.1 Knowledge ... 136
6.3.2 Friendship ... 137
6.3.3 Influence ... 138
6.3.4 Entertainment ... 138
6.4. Eggnis and Slade's (1997) Generic Structure of Gossip ... 139
6.4.1 Different Stages of Gossip ... 139
6.4.2 The Generic Pragmatic Structure of Gossip as Developed in this Study ... 141
6.5. Data Analysis and Findings ... 146
6.5.1 Illustrative Examples for the Pragmatic Analysis ... 146
6.5.2 Findings ... 151
6.6. Achievement of the Functions of Gossip ... 152
6.7 Conclusions ... 153
References ... 154
CHAPTER SEVEN
A MODEL FOR THE PRAGMATIC ANALYSIS OF GOSSIP IN J. AUSTEN'S `EMMA' ... 157
7.1. Introduction ... 157
7.2. Definition ... 158
7.2.1 Models of Gossip ... 159
7.2.2 An Eclectic Pragmatic Model ... 160
7.3. Data Collection and Description ... 173
7.3.1 Data Collection ... 173
7.3.2 Data Description ... 173
7.4. Data Analysis and Findings ... 173
7.4.1 Data Analysis ... 173
7.4.2 Findings ... 183
7.5. Conclusions ... 184
References ... 184
CHAPTER EIGHT
A COGNITIVE PRAGMATIC STUDY OF INNER VOICE IN THE FILM `ELEGY OF A VOYAGE' ... 187
8.1. Introduction ... 187
8.2. Literature Review ... 188
8.2.1 Pragmatics ... 188
8.2.2 Cognitive Pragmatics ... 189
8.2.3 Narrative as a Mode of Understanding ... 190
8.2.4 The Narrator's Inner Voice in Films ... 191
8.2.5 Elegy of a Voyage ... 192
8.3. Model of Analysis ... 193
8.3.1 Van Dijk's (1977) Model of Analysis ... 193
8.3.2 Booth 's (1991) Model of Analysis ... 194
8.3.3 Sperber and Wilson 's (1995) Model of Analysis ... 194
8.3.4 Gilles Fauconnier's (2006)Model of Analysis ... 195
8.4. Data and Analysis ... 198
8.4.1 Data ... 198
8.4.2 Analysis... 199
8.4.3 Illustrative Analyzed Examples : ... 199
8.5. Conclusions ... 208
References ... 210
7
Preface
Literary data are supposed to reflect real life situations and written with styles of writing
that are considered as highly elevated ones. Such reasons have prompted the contributors to
this book to deal with this type of data. Such attempts range from semantics to stylistics and
pragmatics. This book introduces linguistic analyses of literary data from different angles.
This involves dealing with various linguistic topics and different types of literary data.
Hence, many models are presented to analyze the linguistic aspects of those topics in the light
of the genre in which those topics are undertaken. Accordingly, different results are yielded
from those analyses and this makes each type of analysis distinct from the other ones.
It is hoped that this work will be a useful source to all those, whether theoretically or
practically, or both, interested in linguistics, pragmatics of literature, applied linguistics and
literary stylistics.
8
Contributors
1. Prof. Dr. Fareed Hameed Al-Hindawi, Babylon University.
2. Asst. Prof. Dr. Musaab A. Raheem Al-Khazaali, Kufa University.
3. Dr. Ramia Fuaad Mirza, University of Baghdad.
4. A. Lect. Hassan H. Abukrooz, Kufa University.
5. A. Lect. Akram Nadhum Raheem, Islamic University in Najaf.
6. A. Lect. Susan Abdulhadi Kadhim, Kufa University.
9
CHAPTER ONE
A STYLISTIC STUDY OF SYNONYMY IN W. WORDSWORTH'S
POETRY
Fareed H. H. Al-Hindawi
Musaab A. Raheem Al-Khazaali
1.1. Introduction
This chapter deals with the role of synonyms in propounding the main themes in
Wordsworth's poetry that is considered one of the best representatives of the romantic poets.
Thus, his style can be a portrait for this movement.
Wordsworth's poetry generally reacts against the thought and literary practices of the
preceding century. His major subject, like most Romanticists, matter is the beauty and
satisfactions derive from nature. Romanticists believe in naturalism and realism in the place
of morality. They believe that man should not be conformed or stereotyped to one norm of
code rather derive pleasure from what he derives from nature (see Abrams, 1953; Moulin,
2005: 1-2). His style, thus, is worth researching because it is a picture of his age.
The hypotheses of this work are built upon the belief that Wordsworth attempts to make
his poetry coherent mainly by using synonyms, and this coherence is mainly a thematic one.
Verschueren (1999: 135-6) points out that thematic coherence, in certain cases, is called
'relevance'. It is connected with the study of information structure and/or thematic structure.
Following van Dijk (1977), this coherence can also be classified into two types: local (which
deals with thematic unity at the level of stanza) and global (which deals with that unity at the
level of a whole poem).
To test the hypothesis, componential analysis, which is thought, here, to be a useful tool
in this regard, is conducted.
Moreover, the work provides a theoretical background on synonymy and the approaches
of analyzing it. The selected approach is applied to a number of poems randomly selected to
verify or reject the hypothesis adopted. In so doing, the current research attempts to answer
the following questions:
10
a. What is the role of synonymy in creating coherence in Wordsworth's poetry?
b. Is synonymy a stylistic marker in his poetry?
c. Can the componential analysis approach be usefully applied to literary texts?
1.2. Synonymy
When it comes to giving a clear, precise and correct definition of synonymy, many
difficulties arise. There are numerous approaches with numerous definitions of synonymy
and types of synonyms, because synonyms may differ in many ways.
Thus, it would be imprecise to define synonymy as identity of meaning since there are no
two terms with completely identical meaning. Hence, other definitions have emerged.
Generally speaking, synonymy denotes the phenomenon of two or more different linguistic
forms with the same meaning. Those linguistic forms are called synonyms, e.g. peace and
tranquility, or capacity and ability can be substituted for one another in certain contexts (For
more details, see Crystal, 2003: s.v. synonymy).
However, for some other scholars, synonymy is the relation that holds between bound
morphemes, lexemes, lexical units, phrases, clauses, sentences and propositions. Thus,
synonymy can be classified either into lexical and propositional synonymy, or into lexical,
phrasal and propositional synonymy. The first division, in which lexical synonymy comprises
phrasal synonymy, can be explained in the following manner (see O'Grady et. al., 2005: 55).
1.2.1 Lexical synonymy
Lexical synonymy is concerned with bound morphemes, lexemes, lexical units and
phrases. It is a sense relation that holds between two or more lexical units with the same
sense in the given contexts in which they are interchangeable (Crystal, 2003: s.v. synonymy).
Cruse (2000:157) asserts that a level of synonymity can be recognized through a scale
which consists of absolute synonymy, cognitive synonymy and near-synonymy. Absolute
synonymy is set as the complete identity of all meanings of two or more lexemes in all
contexts. However, it is unnatural for a language to have absolute synonyms, or lexemes with
exactly the same meaning. Firstly, the function or use of one of them would gradually
become unnecessary or unmotivated and, as a result, it would soon be abandoned or dropped
out. Secondly, their interchangeability in all the contexts can neither be demonstrated nor
proved, for, on the one hand, the number of contexts is infinite, and, on the other hand, the
exceptions from absolute interchangeability are inevitable.
11
Therefore, the lexicons of natural languages do not have absolute synonymy as their
feature. It is generally accepted that absolute synonymy is impossible or unreal. It is regarded
only as a referential point on the alleged scale of synonymity or the initial criterion for the
defining of synonymy (Ibid: 157).
As there are no two lexemes with completely the same meaning and no real synonyms,
cognitive synonymy is what most semanticists would regard as synonymy. Lyons (1996: 63)
claims that many theories of semantics would confine the notion of synonymy to what he
calls descriptive or cognitive synonymy, which is the characteristic of descriptive meaning.
Near-synonyms are lexemes whose meaning is relatively close or more or less similar
(mist/fog, stream/brook, dive/plunge). However, the given definition of near-synonymy is
vague, because there isn't a precise correlation between synonymy and semantic similarity.
Near-synonymy is associated with overlapping of meaning and senses. The senses of near-
synonyms overlap to a great degree, but not completely (Murphy, 2003: 155). Moreover,
unlike cognitive synonyms, near-synonyms can contrast in certain contexts:
He was killed, but I can assure you he was NOT murdered, madam. (Cruse, 2000: 159)
1.2.2 Propositional and Cognitive Synonymy
It deals with clauses, sentences and propositions. It can be explained by means of
paraphrase when the propositional contents of sentences are identical:
Mary fed the cat.
The cat was fed by Mary.
It was the cat that Mary fed. (Cann et al., 2009: 9)
Such similar meanings are different only in stylistic syntactic structures. The core
content is the same.
Synonymy is a paradigmatic relation that enables lexically simple units to have the same
meaning as lexically complex units, and vice versa, e.g. ophthalmologist and eye specialist.
Hurford and Heasley (1983:104) assert that synonymy is possible between words
belonging to different parts of speech (as between the verb sleeping and adjective asleep).
To put it in simple terms there exists a synonymy relation between two words if they
share the same meaning. We will give an example of what the lexico-semantic resource
considers to be synonyms. The (near-) synonymy is represented by means of a so-called
synset. Synsets are groupings of synonyms. For example nature, universe, creation, world,
cosmos, and macrocosm form one synset. One word can belong to more than one synset, if it
12
has more than one sense. There is another sense of the word nature, which is part of the
synset that comprises nature, wild, natural state, and state of nature.
In literature, there is a debate about the definition of synonymy. A summary of some
views in this regard will be introduced in addition to an explanation of which notion accords
with the objectives of this.
Cruse (1986) proposes a scale of synonymy. He argues that since the point of semantic
identity, i.e. absolute synonymy is well-defined and the other end-point, the notion of zero
synonymy, is far more diffuse, a scale of semantic difference is more satisfactory. The
definition of absolute synonyms Cruse (Ibid: 30) provides is as follows: "Two lexical units
would be absolute synonyms if and only if all their contextual relations (...) were identical."
He then continues with examining an illustrative sample of possible candidates for absolute
synonymy. None of the pairs satisfies the criteria. He (Ibid) concludes by stating that "if they
exist at all, they are extremely uncommon." Only in technical domains one can find absolute
synonyms, for example bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), and mad cow diseases are
two names for the same thing. Next on the scale are the so-called cognitive synonyms.
Thus, cognitive synonyms must be identical in respect of propositional traits, i.e. they
must yield the same truth-value, but they may differ in respect of expressive traits. Examples
are father-daddy, cat-pussy, and infant-baby. Cognitive synonyms arise where certain
linguistic items are restricted to certain sentences or discourses. Their cognitive counterparts
(synonyms) take their place in other sentences and discourses.
Cruse (Ibid: 33) introduces these precincts under two headings: (i) pre-supposed meaning
and (ii) evoked meaning. Presupposed meaning refers to the semantic traits of a lexical item
that place restrictions on its normal syntagmatic companions. Drink takes for granted an
object that has the property of being liquid. Grilling is usually used for raw food such as meat
or green peppers, and toasting for bread. In the above example the collocational restriction is
systematic. In other cases the restrictions can only be described by listing all collocants.
These restrictions are referred to with the term idiosyncratic collocational restrictions. An
example is the pair umpire-referee. Evoked meaning is a consequence of different dialects
and different registers in a language. Examples of geographical variety are autumn and fall,
lift and elevator. Difference in register gives rise to cognitive synonyms such as matrimony
and marriage. Both absolute synonyms and plesionyms (near-synonyms) are distinguished
from cognitive synonyms by the fact that they yield sentences with different truth-conditions.
Two sentences which differ only in respect of plesionyms are not mutually entailing but there
13
may well be unilateral entailment. Cruse (Ibid) hence categorises hyponyms/hypernyms
under the plesionym.
Zgusta (1971) considers absolute synonymy as characteristic of all three basic
components of meaning: designatum, connotation, and range of application. The term
designatum refers to a referent of a single word in the extralinguistic world. Synonyms
should have agreement in designatum. Connotation is a semantic term referring to the feeling
or attitudinal value that a lexical element such as pass away distinguishes from dies. The term
range of application refers to the fact that certain words are used in certain contexts. If there
is a difference in one or more of the components, words are near-synonyms only.
1.3. Palmer's (1981) Conception of Synonymy
According to Palmer (1981: 89-91), there are no real synonyms, i.e. no two words with
the same meaning. Thus, there are five basic ways in which synonyms can be considered as
different:
a. Some of the synonyms belong to different dialects of language. Fall, for instance, is used in
the U.S.A for the British equivalence autumn.
b. The different words used for the same meaning are due to the change in style. Degrees of
formality and colloquiality will affect the use of synonyms. For instance, gentleman is more
formal than man.
c. Some words can be said to be distinct in their emotive or evaluative meanings, and their
cognitive meaning remains the same. The function of such words is to influence attitudes. For
example, the words politician=statesman and the like.
d. Some words, which are similar in meaning, may differ in their collocational contexts.
Thus, 'rancid' collocates with butter and bacon, and added with eggs or brains.
e. Some words are regarded as similar by lexicographer and dictionary maker. This is a loose
sense of synonymy.
Crystal (2003: 450) summarizes the definition of synonymy as " a term used in
semantics to refer to a major type of sense relation between lexical items[...]if items are close
enough in their meaning to allow a choice to be made between then in some contexts".
14
1.4. Approaches for Analyzing Synonymy
1.4.1 Traditional Truth-conditional Approach
This approach depends on relating truth-conditional equivalence to mutual entailment. It
results in the notion of cognitive synonymy. It is mainly a propositional relationship.
Cognitive synonymy can be explained by virtue of relations that hold between sentences or
propositions that contain pairs of cognitive synonyms. Cognitive synonyms require truth-
conditional equivalence of the sentences which contain them.
Propositions are abstract entities which represent the semantic structure of sentences, and
they are characterized by truth values (while sentences are characterized by truth conditions),
i.e. they express something true or false. Cognitive synonymy can be described through
implication (Lyons, 1996: 63) and entailment (Cruse, 2000: 158). Implication is a logical
operation. It is the relation between two assertions that can be true or false. X is the cognitive
synonym of Y if, and only if, the proposition containing one of the synonyms X implies the
proposition with identical syntactic structure in which X is replaced with Y. As a result, such
propositions only differ in the presence of the given synonyms and they are mutually implied,
for synonymy itself is a symmetrical relation (if X is synonymous with Y, then Y is
synonymous with X, and vice versa). In other words, cognitive synonyms are propositionally
equivalent. Given that statesman and politician are cognitive synonyms, a substitution test,
which is a diagnostic test for judging synonymy and contextual restrictiveness of lexemes,
can be applied. Namely, interchangeability of synonymous pairs is tested by means of
substitution of one synonym with another in the same context. Synonyms are interchangeable
only in certain environments, so this test can be utilized to illustrate the difficulties in finding
the pairs of absolute synonyms. The proposition The statesman spoke at the conference
implies the proposition The politician spoke at the conference. Since the first proposition is
true, the second one must necessarily be true, and vice versa.
Entailment is the relation between two sentences or propositions where ''the
propositional content of one proposition includes that of the other. Mutual entailment is the
relation in which the propositional contents of sentences are identical, so the truth of one
requires the truth of the other, and vice versa ''(Cann et al., 2009: 8). A proposition containing
one synonym is mutually entailed by the same proposition containing the other. The
following propositions are mutually entailing: John bought a
violin entails and is entailed by John bought a fiddle; I heard him tuning his fiddle entails and
is entailed by I heard him tuning his violin; She is going to play a violin concerto entails and
15
is entailed by She is going to play a fiddle concerto. Notice that fiddle is less normal in the
last example, while leaving truth conditions intact, which shows that fiddle
and violin are not absolute synonyms. (Cruse, 2000: 158).
In that respect, considering different argumentations, cognitive synonyms might be
differentiated on the basis of different registers, styles or dialects they belong to, or by virtue
of different connotations, collocations, etc. What they have in common is the same sense.
This approach will not be adopted in this study because of the following reasons:
a. It deals only with the cognitive aspects of the words rather than the stylistic or social
aspects.
b. It is basically related to propositions neglecting single lexemes.
c. It relies on the semantic process of 'entailment' rather than other linguistic processes.
1.4.2 Componential Analysis and Semantic Features Approach
Lexical meaning is arguably at least as relational as it is referential. A very different
theoretical approach to the analysis of lexemes, especially synonyms, developed in linguistics
rather than philosophy, exploits the systematic relationships among words by breaking their
meaning into distinctive features, and then words can be categorized according to their shared
and opposing features. This is the tenet of what is called Componential Analysis (See Curzan
Adams, 2009: 224). The problems of Componential Analysis, which include those of
semantic features, are discussed in Lyons (1977: 317-335) and re-examined in Leech (1981:
117-122). The latter argues that Componential Analysis has the goal of explaining word
sense, not encyclopedic knowledge, and that prototypic categories should be contained in a
psychologically realistic theory of reference. In order to deal with the fuzziness of meaning,
he proposes an extension of the analysis of word-meaning which includes Componential
Analysis and has three levels:
1. 'Word-sense', as the entire 'conceptual unit'.
2. 'Components or features' by Componential Analysis.
3. On the third level both word senses and features, seen as prototypic categories, are 'broken
down into fuzzy sets of attributes' (Ibid:121, cf. 117).
An obvious advantage of semantic feature decomposition approach is that it allows us to
group entities into natural classes (much as we do in phonology). Hence, man and boy could
be grouped together as [+human, +male] while man and woman could be put in a class
16
defined by features [+human, +adult] (O'Grady et. al., 2005: 207). Thus, this is very useful
for the analysis of the deep featured shared by synonymous words and expressions.
According to the componential model, Kim (2008: 2) asserts that words display what is
called distinctive features (or distinctive semes), which are, in a way, the building blocks that
words consist of and can be broken down into. The distinctive features are binary in the sense
that they can be either X or not X (indicated by +/-). This applies to all aspects of a word,
including its semantic content. Thus, the semantic difference between 'man' and 'boy' is a
matter of a couple of semantic components:
'man' 'boy'
+ + male
+ + human
+ - adult
- + child
This is a very useful method of distinguishing members of a lexical set (words that are
semantically related such that they overlap): clean pure unadulterated (+ unmixed).
To sum up, componential analysis is "a semantic theory which has developed from a
technique for the analysis of kinship vocabulary [...] It claims that all lexical items can be
analyzed using a finite set of components (or `semantic features'), which may, it is felt, be
universal" (Crystal, 2003:91). This approach will be adopted for the data analysis of this
work because it focuses on the deep features of the words that can be shared by other words
in the linguistic system. Moreover, it can be applied to both single lexical items and
propositions. The selected model for analysis can be represented in Fig. 1 below.
Fig. (1): A Model for Analysis
Thematic
coherence
Components
Synonyms
17
1.5. Data Collection, Description and Analysis
1.5.1 Data Collection and Description
The data are collected from various poems written by W. Wordsworth. They are
randomly selected to be more representative for the results of the study. The first poem is The
Solitary Reaper. Wordsworth's preface to the 1800 Lyrical Ballads argues that poetry
contains a natural delineation of human passions, human characters, and human incidents.
It oughtn't to be judged by the presence of artificial, poetic diction. Rather, the language of
conversation in the middle and lower classes of society can be its medium. The Solitary
Reaper exemplifies these beliefs. Written seven years after Lyrical Ballads, it describes a
nameless listener's delight in a young woman's melancholy song in an unknown language as,
working by herself in a Scottish valley, she swings a sickle, reaping grain. Four eight-line
stanzas, each closing with two couplets and all written in octosyllabic lines, have a musical
lilt. Short lines deliver the rhymes at a quick pace. Sentences normally need two or more such
short lines to complete, so that few lines are strongly end-stopped; most freely enjamb (see
McSweeney, 1996: 22).
The other poems are selected from the lyrical Lucy. The Lucy poems provoked a lot of
speculations about William Wordsworth's life none of which were made conclusive. The
Lucy Poems are elegiac about a person unknown but many critics believe that Lucy was
Wordsworth's sister Dorothy and the poems express his fear of losing her (Cutajar, 2010: 15).
1.5.2 Data Analysis
The following examples are presented to illustrate the results of the analysis conducted
in the data via using the ''Componential Approach''. Some reference to the contextual features
and views, however, will be introduced to provide a clear idea about the analysis.
(1)
The Solitary Reaper
Behold her, single in the field,
Yon solitary Highland Lass!
Reaping and singing by herself;
Stop here, or gently pass!
Alone she cuts and binds the grain,
18
And sings a melancholy strain;
O listen! for the Vale profound
Is overflowing with the sound.
No Nightingale did ever chaunt
More welcome notes to weary bands
Of travellers in some shady haunt,
Among Arabian sands:
A voice so thrilling ne'er was heard
In spring-time from the Cuckoo-bird,
Breaking the silence of the seas
Among the farthest Hebrides.
Will no one tell me what she sings?--
Perhaps the plaintive numbers flow
For old, unhappy, far-off things,
And battles long ago:
Or is it some more humble lay,
Familiar matter of to-day?
Some natural sorrow, loss, or pain,
That has been, and may be again?
Whate'er the theme, the Maiden sang
As if her song could have no ending;
I saw her singing at her work,
19
And o'er the sickle bending;--
I listened, motionless and still;
And, as I mounted up the hill,
The music in my heart I bore,
Long after it was heard no more.
In this poem, one can find that the poet attempts to make use of synonymy to show or
represent one of his basic themes, i. e., the theme of isolation and loneliness. This theme is
one of the recurrent notions in the romantic poetry, in general and W. Wordsworth, in
particular ( see Preston, I960)
The lexical definitions of the words that are used to indicate this theme will be given
according to Hornby (2007) (see Table (1)).
a. Solitary: adj. done alone/ enjoying being alone/ alone (person, place, animal...)/
single.
b. By herself: alone/ without anyone else.
c. Farthest: at the greatest distance in space, direction or time.
d. Far-off: distant/ far away/remote.
According to the componential analysis approach, these words can have the mutual
features [+ isolation] and [+ loneliness]. These synonyms help building up the thematic
coherence of the poem because they are related to one of the main themes of the poem. This
proves what Abrams (1953: 23) asserts that "although, Wordsworth sang of joy and love, he
did not avert his eyes from anguish or evil, but often represents a ``dark world". He (Ibid)
mentions that "Wordsworth is pre-eminently the poet of solitude... no poet is more
emphatically the poet of community". Wordsworth, therefore, has an acute sense of his own
being that sharpens his awareness of other beings, and his intention is to require us his
audience to acknowledge the being of his narrative personae and so to bring them within the
range of conscience and of natural sympathy.
Rural loneliness has been described as the proper environment or condition for the right
contemplation of nature. The Romantic poets prefer the tranquility and serenity of the rural
environment to the contamination and complexity of the city life by implied contrast. The
poet, his life in the rural environment makes the poet think deeply and have a right view of
life.
20
Table (1): Componential Analysis of Isolation Items.
Lexical item
Number of features
Recurrent features
Solitary
4
[+loneliness]
[+isolation]
By herself
2
Farthest
2
Far-off
3
(2)
From "Lucy"
Strange fits of passion have I known:
And I will dare to tell,
But in the lover's ear alone,
What once to me befell.
When she I loved look'd every day
Fresh as a rose in June,
I to her cottage bent my way,
Beneath an evening moon.
Upon the moon I fix'd my eye,
All over the wide lea;
With quickening pace my horse drew nigh
Those paths so dear to me.
And now we reach'd the orchard-plot;
And, as we climb'd the hill,
The sinking moon to Lucy's cot
Came near and nearer still.
In one of those sweet dreams I slept,
Kind Nature's gentlest boon!
And all the while my eyes I kept
On the descending moon.
21
My horse moved on; hoof after hoof
He raised, and never stopp'd:
When down behind the cottage roof,
At once, the bright moon dropp'd.
What fond and wayward thoughts will slide
Into a lover's head!
'O mercy!' to myself I cried,
'If Lucy should be dead!'
'Tis past, that melancholy dream!
Nor will I quit thy shore
A second time; for still I seem
To love thee more and more.
Among the mountains did I feel
The joy of my desire;
And she I cherish'd turn'd her wheel
Beside an English fire.
'Myself will to my darling be
Both law and impulse; and with me
The girl, in rock and plain,
This poem shows the odd processes of human consciousness especially that of lovers;
the poem is an intimation of death of a loved one. It explicates the fear and grief of losing
one's beloved.
The poem is in a form of a narrative told to the people who know what it means to be in
love in a language occasionally stilted with poetic inversions that may be ascribed to the
awkwardness of confessing an apparently trivial and neurotic incident. The sudden
disappearance of the moon stimulates the thought of a possible more grievous disappearance
in the narrator's mind. The moon is a traditional symbol of change. In the poem the moon is
peculiarly fixed in the intensity of the narrator's gaze while he rides and yet it is also oddly
mobile as it descends and drops with uncanny speed which is made mysterious by an optical
illusion (see Cutajar, 2010).
22
Nevertheless, this quirky psychological aberration is given a prophetic meaning in the
poem by the fact that the other Lucy poems are epitaphs for someone who has died.
In (2), the poet again uses synonymous expressions and words to emphasize another
important theme in the romantic poetry which is `love'. The componential analysis of these
lexical items depends on The Merriam-Webster Dictionary (2004) as follows (see Table (2)):
a. Passion: love/affection/strong feeling or emotion.
b. Lover: one who loves/ beloved.
c. Loved: did love/ fall in love with.
d. Dear: fond/affectionate/loved/lovable.
e. Sweet: darling/lover.
f. Fond: dear/affectionate/loving.
g. Desire: love/affection/fond.
h. Darling: dearly loved/sweet/lover.
As shown in this analysis, the poet does not use these words at random, rather he
attempts to motivate the theme of love in the mind of the reader. The componential feature of
such expressions is [+love]. Romantic poets incline to love, real love as a rejection for the
ugliness of reality. Thus, this poem is unified by this current theme through synonymous
words and lexical items expressing `love'. See table (2) below.
Table (2): Componential Analysis of Love Items.
Lexical item
Number of features
Recurrent features
Passion
3
[+love]
Lover
2
Loved
2
Dear
4
Sweet
2
Fond
3
Desire
3
Darling
3
(3)
From "Lucy"
'The floating clouds their state shall lend
To her; for her the willow bend;
Nor shall she fail to see
Even in the motions of the storm
Grace that shall mould the maiden's form
By silent sympathy.
23
'The stars of midnight shall be dear
To her; and she shall lean her ear
In many a secret place
Where rivulets dance their wayward round,
And beauty born of murmuring sound
Shall pass into her face.
'And vital feelings of delight
Shall rear her form to stately height,
Her virgin bosom swell;
Such thoughts to Lucy I will give
While she and I together live
Here in this happy dell.'
Thus Nature spake -- The work was done --
How soon my Lucy's race was run!
She died, and left to me
This heath, this calm and quiet scene;
The memory of what has been,
And never more will be.
A slumber did my spirit seal;
I had no human fears:
She seem'd a thing that could not feel
The touch of earthly years.
No motion has she now, no force;
She neither hears nor sees;
Roll'd round in earth's diurnal course,
With rocks, and stones, and trees.
This poem enacts an aura of mysteriousness by putting together a number of statements
that seem to contradict each other suggesting the powerlessness of language to pin down the
nature of Lucy's ethereal existence. The poet's inability to put his grief into words refers to a
24
depth of feeling which is beyond expression, beyond poetic means; a feeling that is ineffable
and indescribable. This is yet another epitaph for Lucy in which the poet's words gain
peculiar power from contradictions resulting in a pattern of inscrutable ambiguity that
delineates the absoluteness of death and our "human fears" (Cutajar, 2010).
In (3), the poet can be noticed to be using other synonymous expressions and items to
assert the theme of silence which is related to the global theme of the poem which is `death'.
The analysis of the words and expressions components depends on Collins Cobuild
Advanced Dictionary of American English (2007) (see Table (3)):
a. Silent: speechless/quiet/soundless/noiseless/mute/hushed.
b. Secret: unknown/private/hidden.
c. Died: hidden/lifeless/motionless/forceless/speechless.
d. Quiet: silent/hush/calm/lull.
e. Slumber: sleeping/motionless/quiet/rest.
f. No motion: motionless/quiet/restful/
g. No force: forceless/calm/silent.
Table (3): Componential Analysis of Death Items.
Lexical item
Number of features
Recurrent features
Silent
6
[+motionless]
[+silence]
Secret
3
Died
5
Quiet
4
Slumber
4
No motion
3
No force
3
As one can see, these lexical items and phrases have mutual features such as [+silent]
and [+motionless]. Such componential features are related to the themes of silence and death.
These themes are one of the distinctive aspects of the romantic poetry, and they represent the
focus on passion and individuality in such school of literature. In (3), the poet tries to create
or build the theme of Lucy's death gradually by referring to certain notions related to dying
such as silence and quietness. Then, he explicitly points to death using the word `died'.
Finally, he refers to other expressions associated with death and silence such as `no motion',
`slumber' and `no force'. This process is used to keep the whole poem parts and stanzas stick
to the main topic, leading to `thematic coherence'.
25
1.6 Conclusions
On the bases of the findings arrived at by the analysis, this study has come up with the
following results:
1. Wordsworth's poetry depends on synonymy as a means for creating `thematic
coherence'.
2. Synonymy is a stylistic marker of his poetry.
3. Componential analysis is a useful tool for the analysis of synonymy, when applied to
literary texts.
4. Not only is synonymy related to local themes (that are related to certain stanzas) in
poems but also to `global' ones.
5. Romantic themes such as death, love, and isolation have different deep semantic
features structures, leading to different literary significance.
References
-Abrams, M. H. (1953). The Mirror and the Lamp: Romantic Theory and the Critical
Tradition. London: Longman.
-Cann, R., Kempson, R. Gregoromichelaki, E. (2009). Semantics: An Introduction to
Meaning in Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-Collins Cobuild Advanced Dictionary of American English (2007). Boston: Thomson.
-Cruse, A. (1986 ). Meaning in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
-Cruse, D. A. (2000). Meaning in Language: An Introduction to Semantics and
Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
-Crystal, D. (2003). A Dictionary of Phonetics and Linguistics. London: Blackwell.
-Curzan, A. Adams, M. (2009). How English Works. London: Longman.
-Cutajar, M. (2010). ''Poetry analysis: the Lucy poems, by William Wordsworth''. In:
http://www.helium.com/items/1750427-lucy-poems-wordsworth
-Hornby, A. S. (2007). Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
-Hurford, J. R., Heasley, B. (1983). Semantics: A Coursebook. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
-Kim, Ebensgaard Jensen (2008). Translation and Translation Theory. London: Longman.
-Leech, Geoffrey (1981). Semantics. (2nd ed.). Harmondsworth: Penguin.
-Lyons, John (1977). Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
26
-Lyons, John (1996). Linguistic Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-McSweeney, Kerry(1996). Performing 'The Solitary Reaper' and 'Tears, Idle Tears'',
Criticism: A Quarterly for Literature and the Arts (38:2): 281-302.
-Moulin, J. (2005). "Remanent Romanticism in Modern Poetry", Cercles (12): 1-13.
-Murphy, M. L. (2003). Semantic Relations and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
-O'Grady, W., J. Archibald, M. Aronoff J. Rees-Miller (2005). Contemporary Linguistics.
Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's.
-Palmer, F. R. (1981). Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-Preston, John (1969). "The Moral Properties and Scope of Things': The Structure of The
Solitary Reaper." Essays in Criticism (19), pp: 60-66.
-The Merriam-Webster Dictionary (2004). Massachusetts: Merriam-Webster.
-van Dijk, Teun A. (1977). Text and Context. London: Longman.
-Verschueren, Jef (1999). Understanding Pragmatics. London: Arnold.
-Zgusta L. (1971). Manual of Lexicography. Janua Linguarum, Series Maior (39). Prague:
Academia.
27
CHAPTER TWO
SEMANTIC CLAUSE RELATIONS IN LITERARY DISCOURSE
Akram Nadhum Raheem
2.1. Literature Review
2.1.1 Introduction
Every language has a limited number of expressions and words part of whose function is
to make explicit the semantic relationships between units in a discourse. These words and
expressions act as signals of those relationships between units which are the basis of the
realization of active contextual meanings. Recently, much attention has been given to the role
of these words and expressions in signaling not only the relations between clauses and
sentences in different kinds of discourse or texts, but also in unfolding the underlying
rhetorical organization of these texts and discourses.
As such, highlighting these lexical signals is considered to be the first step towards
unfolding the underlying rhetorical and relational organization of texts (Hoey, 1983:85).
Therefore, words are no longer viewed as having stable meaning; rather, they have dynamic
and creative meaning contextually negotiable between the encoder and the decoder
throughout the communication process (ibid: 86).
Therefore, this study aims at identifying vocabulary 3 items in a corpus of a literary text as
a means of signalling the clause relations that hold between different parts of the text. This
study also aims at classifying these lexically signalled clause relations. It is hypothesized that
the different types of clause relations which are used in literary texts help the reader to
interpret the message being communicated by the writer about the way in which the literary
discourse should be interpreted. The writer is telling his/her reader to interpret the
juxtaposition of the parts of his/her discourse in a particular way.
2.1.2 Winter's (1977) Semantic Theory of Clause Relations
Winter's semantic theory of clause relations is based on the notion that adjacent clauses and
sentences complement the meaning of each other. That is to say, the semantics of one
28
sentence is completed by the semantics of another which constitute the contextual
significance of both sentences. The process of interpreting one sentence depends to a greater
extent on the meaning of the preceding sentence or group of sentences.
According to Winter (1977: 37), clause relations refer to a system of predictability of
context; That is, given a sentence with its preceding context, the lexical selection of the next
sentence is frequently predictable. Therefore, the existence of a preceding context of a given
sentence is a crucial factor in the process of interpreting that sentence.
Following Winter (1977: 38), these lexical items can be divided according to their clause-
relating function into three groups; voc.1, voc.2, and voc.3. The first two groups are
grammatical, the third is lexical. The first includes subordinators, the second sentence
connectors or conjuncts, the third includes lexical items which Winter calls 'lexical signals'.
Winter (1982) rephrases his definition of clause relations as:
"A clause relation is the shared cognitive process whereby we interpret the
meaning of a clause or a group of clauses in the light of their adjoining clause or
group of clauses. Where the clauses are independent we can speak of 'sentence
relation'. (p: 178).
Consequently, Winter's developed definition has resolved the conflation between the
sentence and the clause, because independence is the first grammatical requirement of the
sentence, in the traditional definition, though not enough for its meaning in a complete
utterance unit. And since the sentence in Winter's (ibid.) definition consists of more than one
clause grammatically grouped together by subordination, it follows that the clause in its
independent form contains inadequate information and requires lexical realization by
adjoining clauses to be fully understood.
As an illustration, Winter (ibid:185) asserts that though the clause 'There is a problem' is
perfectly grammatical, it remains incomprehensible and needs a lexical realization by the
adjoining clauses. He also terms this clause as 'unspecific clause' which requires semantic
completeness by answering the question ' What is the problem?', i.e., it must have a lexical
realization from the adjoining clauses which he terms as 'specific clauses'.
2.1.2.1 Definition of Clause Relations
Winter's clause relational approach has culminated in a broader definition presented by
Hoey Winter (1986:123) in which they expand Winter's definition (1982) by accounting
for the reader/writer communicative interaction. The reader is the decoder or interpreter of
29
the combination of sentences or clauses in the light of the preceding ones, whereas, the
writer, as encoder of the message, makes all the possible choices from lexis, grammar and
intonation in the creation of the combination of clauses or sentences in the same discourse.
Thus, Hoey Winter (1986: 123) provide a new definition of clause relation where emphasis
is laid on writer-reader communicative interaction:
"A clause relation is the cognitive process, and the product of that process, whereby
the reader interprets the meaning of a clause, sentence, or group of sentences in the
same discourse. It is also the cognitive process and the product of that process
whereby the choices the writer makes from grammar, lexis, and intonation in the
creation of a clause, sentence, or group of sentences are made in the context of the
other clauses, sentences, or groups of sentences in the discourse.
Therefore, this study adopts the aforementioned definition of clause relation to be the
operational definition due to the fact that it bridges the shortcomings in all previous
definitions.
As such, the following section aims at providing a general background discussion of the
organization and patterning of expository discourse. Thus, it introduces Winter's semantic
theory of clause relations, identifying the categories of these relations and ways of their
signalling with special emphasis on lexical signalling which is the main concern of this study.
The rest of the chapter is devoted to the contributions made by Hoey, Jordan and Crombie to
Winter's semantic theory of clause relations. Winter's semantic theory of clause relations has
undergone several stages towards a deeper understanding into the semantic and logical
relations in language. He starts his investigation in a report about the sentence and the clause
in scientific English written in collaboration with Huddleston, Hudson, and Henirici (1968).
In a supplementary work , Winter (1971) provides a semantic analysis of clause relations. In
his work he distinguishes between outer clause relations (connection between sentences) and
inner clause relations ( connection by subordination) in scientific and non-scientific material.
He also presents his first definition of clause relations: a clause relation is the way in which
the information of one clause is understood in the light of the other clause. ( ibid:42).
Winter considers the definition as a broadening to an earlier definition of concessive
relation given by Quirk (1954). In his Ph.D work Winter (1974) makes initial reference to
vocabulary 1, vocabulary 2 and vocabulary 3 items. These items are found to have a binary
value within a larger semantic whole of two basic clause relations: 'logical sequence' and
'matching relations'. In a comprehensive treatment of lexical signalling of clause relations in
English, Winter (1977:35) defines clause relations as "a system of predictability of context,
30
that is, given one sentence within its preceding contexts the lexical selection of the next
sentence is frequently predictable. Here, our interest is in prediction or how one part of the
sentence (i.e. the clause) is made explicit in advance by some connective or paraphrase of this
connective in signalling the clause relations. Winter ( ibid:17,49) offers the following three
examples to show how the three types of lexical items: 'by-ing', 'thereby' and 'instrumental'
are classified as vocabulary 1, 2and 3 respectively in the signalling of the binary clause
relation of instrument- achievement:
Example (1):
(1a) By appealing to scientists and technologists to support his party,
(1b) Mr. Wilson won many middle class votes in the election.
Example (2):
(1) Mr. Wilson appealed to scientists and technologists to support his party,
(2) he thereby won many middle class votes in the election.
Example (3):
Mr. Wilson's appeals to scientist and technologists to support his party were instrumental in
wining many middle class votes in the election.
Winter (1982: 178) has rephrased his definition to read A clause relation is the shared
cognitive process whereby we interpret the meaning of a clause or a group of clauses in the
light of their adjoining clause or group of clauses. Where the clauses are independent we can
speak of 'sentence relation' . According to Winter, this definition has resolved the conflation
between the sentence and the clause, because independence is the first grammatical
requirement of the sentence, in the traditional definition, though not enough for its meaning
in a complete utterance unit. And since the sentence in Winter's definition (ibid:183) consists
of more than one clause grammatically grouped together by subordination, it follows that the
clause in its independent form contains inadequate information and requires lexical
realization by adjoining clauses to be fully understood. As an illustration, Winter (ibid:185)
asserts that though the clause 'There is a problem' is perfectly grammatical, it remains
incomprehensible and needs a lexical realization by the adjoining clauses. He also terms this
clause as 'unspecific clause' which requires semantic completeness by answering the question
' What is the problem?', i.e., it must have a lexical realization from the adjoining clauses
which he terms as 'specific clauses'.
Winter's clause relational approach has culminated in a broader definition presented by
Hoey Winter (1986:123) in which they expand Winter's definition (1982) by accounting
for the reader/writer communicative interaction. The reader is the decoder or interpreter of
31
the combination of sentences or clauses in the light of the preceding ones, whereas, the
writer, as encoder of the message, makes all the possible choices from lexis, grammar and
intonation in the creation of the combination of clauses or sentences in the same discourse.
The definition of clause relations final shape is provided by Hoey Winter (1986: 123)
where emphasis is laid on writer-reader. To facilitate communicative interaction:
A clause relation is the cognitive process, and the product of that process, whereby the
reader interprets the meaning of a clause, sentence, or group of sentences in the same
discourse. It is also the cognitive process and the product of that process whereby the choices
the writer makes from grammar, lexis, and intonation in the creation of a clause, sentence, or
group of sentences are made in the context of the other clauses, sentences, or groups of
sentences in the discourse.
According to Winter (1977) there exists a finite number of words, verbs, nouns and
adjectives, which perform jobs in texts comparable to the grammar words and to which a text
structuring function is assigned. The list of these words as proposed by Winter (1977)
includes (108) items such as: addition, affirm, basis, cause, change, compare, concede,
conclude, contrast, deny, differ, equal, error, example, feature, follow, instance, instrumental,
kind, lead to, like(ness), mean, means of, opposite, problem, reason, resemble, similar,
situation, way etc.
According to Winter, these lexical items signal the relations between clauses in a
text. His theory of clause relations is based on the assumption that a finite number of lexical
items, which he calls 'voc 3' items, indicate the special relation between adjacent clauses or
sentences, and how the interpretation of one clause depends in some way on the interpretation
of the other in the paragraph. In other words, the semantics of one sentence is completed by
the semantics of the other which constitutes the contextual significance of the two of them.
2.1.2.2. Winter's (1977) Classification of Lexical Items
According to Winter (1977), these lexical items can be divided according to their clause-
relating function into three groups; voc.1, voc.2, and voc.3. The first two groups are
grammatical, the third is lexical. The first includes subordinators, the second sentence
connectors or conjuncts, the third include lexical signalling.
32
2.1.2.2.1 Vocabulary 1: The Subordinators of English
Winter (1977:14-15) lists a set of subordinators which he terms vocabulary 1 items. He
considers these items as a closed-system. Then, he divides them up into two groups: the first
group is the subordinators of clauses which include: 'after', '(al)though', '(as though)', 'apart
from-ing', etc.
In a supplementary work, Winter (1971) provides a semantic analysis of clause relations.
In his work he distinguishes between outer clause relations ( connection between sentences)
and inner clause relations ( connection by subordination) in scientific and non-scientific
material. He also presents his first definition of clause relations: a clause relation is the way
in which the information of one clause is understood in the light of the other clause. (
ibid:42).
Winter considers the definition as a broadening to an earlier definition of concessive
relation given by Quirk (1954). In his Ph.D work Winter (1974) makes initial reference to
vocabulary 1, vocabulary 2 and vocabulary 3 items. These items are found to have a binary
value within a larger semantic whole of two basic clause relations: 'logical sequence' and
'matching relations'. In a comprehensive treatment of lexical signalling of clause relations in
English, Winter (1977:35) defines clause relations as a system of predictability of context,
that is, given one sentence within its preceding contexts the lexical selection of the next
sentence is frequently predictable. Here, our interest is in prediction or how one part of the
sentence (i.e. the clause) is made explicit in advance by some connective or paraphrase of this
connective in signalling the clause relations. Winter ( ibid:17,49) offers the following three
examples to show how the three types of lexical items: 'by-ing', 'thereby' and 'instrumental'
are classified as vocabulary 1, 2and 3 respectively in the signalling of the binary clause
relation of instrument- achievement:
Example (1):
(1a) By appealing to scientists and technologists to support his party,
(1b) Mr. Wilson won many middle class votes in the election.
Example (2):
(1) Mr. Wilson appealed to scientists and technologists to support his party,
(2) he thereby won many middle class votes in the election.
Example (3):
Mr. Wilson's appeals to scientist and technologists to support his party were instrumental in
wining many middle class votes in the election.
33
Winter (1982: 178) has rephrased his definition to read "A clause relation is the shared
cognitive process whereby we interpret the meaning of a clause or a group of clauses in the
light of their adjoining clause or group of clauses. Where the clauses are independent we can
speak of 'sentence relation' . According to Winter, this definition has resolved the conflation
between the sentence and the clause, because independence is the first grammatical
requirement of the sentence, in the traditional definition, though not enough for its meaning
in a complete utterance unit. And since the sentence in Winter's definition (ibid:183) consists
of more than one clause grammatically grouped together by subordination, it follows that the
clause in its independent form contains inadequate information and requires lexical
realization by adjoining clauses to be fully understood. As an illustration, Winter (ibid:185)
asserts that though the clause 'There is a problem' is perfectly grammatical, it remains
incomprehensible and needs a lexical realization by the adjoining clauses. He also terms this
clause as 'unspecific clause' which requires semantic completeness by answering the question
' What is the problem?', i.e., it must have a lexical realization from the adjoining clauses
which he terms as 'specific clauses'.
Winter's clause relational approach has culminated in a broader definition presented by
Hoey Winter (1986:123) in which they expand Winter's definition (1982) by accounting
for the reader/writer communicative interaction. The reader is the decoder or interpreter of
the combination of sentences or clauses in the light of the preceding ones, whereas, the
writer, as encoder of the message, makes all the possible choices from lexis, grammar and
intonation in the creation of the combination of clauses or sentences in the same discourse.
The definition of clause relations final shape is provided by Hoey Winter (1986: 123)
where emphasis is laid on writer-reader to facilitate communicative interaction:
A clause relation is the cognitive process, and the product of that process, whereby the
reader interprets the meaning of a clause, sentence, or group of sentences in the same
discourse. It is also the cognitive process and the product of that process whereby the choices
the writer makes from grammar, lexis, and intonation in the creation of a clause, sentence, or
group of sentences are made in the context of the other clauses, sentences, or groups of
sentences in the discourse.
According to Winter (1977) there exists a finite number of words, verbs, nouns and
adjectives, which perform jobs in texts comparable to the grammar words and to which a text
structuring function is assigned. The list of these words as proposed by Winter (1977)
includes (108) items such as: addition, affirm, basis, cause, change, compare, concede,
conclude, contrast, deny, differ, equal, error, example, feature, follow, instance, instrumental,
34
kind, lead to, like(ness), mean, means of, opposite, problem, reason, resemble, similar,
situation, way etc.
According to Winter these lexical items signal the relations between clauses in a text. His
theory of clause relations is based on the assumption that a finite number of lexical items,
which he calls 'voc 3' items, indicate the special relation between adjacent clauses or
sentences, and how the interpretation of one clause depends in some way on the interpretation
of the other in the paragraph. In other words, the semantics of one sentence is completed by
the semantics of the other which constitutes the contextual significance of the two of them.
According to Winter (1977) these lexical items can be divided according to their clause-
relating function into three groups; voc.1, voc.2, and voc.3. The first two groups are
grammatical, the third is lexical. The first includes subordinators, the second sentence
connectors or conjuncts, the third include lexical signalling.
2.1.2.2.2. Vocabulary 2: The Sentence Connectors of English
Vocabulary 2 represents the second set of the closed-system items in English. Winter
calls these items as sentence connectors of English. They are also called as adverbial adjuncts
which are classified by Jakobson (1964), Greenbaum (1969) and Quirk et al. (1972) into
conjuncts and disjuncts. Halliday Hasan (1976) call them conjunctions. These have been
divided into two groups: The first group includes: 'accordingly', 'in addition', 'also', 'as such',
'as a result', 'at least', 'at the same time', 'basically', 'besides', 'in any case', 'in such
circumstances', 'in comparison', 'consequently', 'on the contrary', 'differently', 'equally',
'essentially', 'for example', 'for this reason', 'further more', 'in general', 'however', 'indeed', 'in
fact', 'in short', 'in other words', 'in this way', 'instead', 'meanwhile', 'moreover', 'nevertheless',
'otherwise', 'on the other hand', 'therefore', 'thereafter', 'yet', etc. The second group includes
the correlatives: 'not only (but) also', 'for one thing... for another', 'in the first place...in the
second', 'on the one hand... On the other', 'firstly', 'secondly', 'finally', etc.
According to Winter (1977:45) "Vocabulary 2 nearly always signals independence for
both of its members. In contextual terms, this means that for vocabulary 2 we have the
information of both members being presented as if they were new to the context. Vocabulary
2 items are typically placed in the second member of their clause relation. Thus they make
more explicit the clause relation between their matrix clause and the preceding clause or
sentence.
35
2.1.2.3 Vocabulary 3: The Lexical Items of Clause Relations
In his article Winter (1977) shows that there exists a finite number of words, verbs, nouns
and adjectives, which perform jobs in texts comparable to the grammar words and to which a
text-structuring function is assigned. The list of these words as proposed by Winter (ibid:20)
includes (108) items such as: achieve, addition, affirm, basis, cause, change, compare,
concede, conclude, contrast, deny, differ, equal, error, example, feature, follow, instance,
instrumental, kind, lead to, like(ness), mean, means of, opposite, problem, reason, resemble,
similar, situation, way, etc. which perform a pivotal function in texts. They encapsulate
information which the writer has encoded in the text and guide the reader into how
information is interrelated. According to Hoey (1983:21) the so far mentioned vocabularies 1
and 2 constitute the grammatical system of signalling, whereas, vocabulary 3 items constitute
the lexical system of signalling. In the examples (4a, b and c) below the relation is expressed
by the vocabulary 3 item 'follows' can be paraphrased by the vocabulary 1 item 'after' as in
(4b) or the vocabulary 2 item 'thereafter' as in (4c):
Example (4a):
The rifle clubs have banned the use automatic and semi-automatic weapons. The move
follows the police raids.
Example (4b):
After the police raids, the rifle clubs have banned the use of automatic and semi-automatic
weapons
Example (4c):
The police raided the rifle clubs. Thereafter, the rifle clubs banned the use of automatic and
semi-automatic weapons.
Winter (ibid:23) suggests that what makes vocabulary 3 lexical is that they are chosen
in the same way as other lexical items, namely as nouns, verbs and adjectives in the syntax of
subject, verb, object, or complement of the clause. Their lexicality is clearly apparent in their
ability to be qualified or premodified like any other open-ended lexical items. For instance,
the vocabulary 3 item 'example' can be modified by an open-ended item like 'striking' in order
to spell out the relation of `generalization'. However, vocabulary 3 items are differentiated
from other ordinary lexical items by their need to be 'filled out' or lexically realized. The term
'lexical realization' has been employed by Winter (ibid:26) to refer to the open-ended creative
lexical choices which extend outside the sentence or clause boundary within the semantic
structure of the clause relations. The vocabulary 3 item follows in example (4a) above refers
36
back to the open-ended lexical choices of the previous sentence and signals the chronological
sequence relation. Winter considers lexical realization as a crucial condition for labeling
vocabulary 3 items as a closed-system.
Vocabulary 3 items not only signal relations that hold between clauses, but they also
have other special connective roles. Winter (ibid:28) identifies three types of these roles:
First, Winter draws the attention to what he terms 'items of metastructure' like; situation,
problem, solution, evaluation. These are found to be the lexical signals which serve a larger
clause relational function signalling the organization of the whole text. According to Hoey
(1979:32) It is this extension to the notion of vocabulary 3 to cover whole discourses which
enables us to demonstrate the ways in which discourses signal their structure. The second
type is represented by certain vocabulary 3 items like 'attitude' which can perform an
attitudinal function similar to that performed by vocabulary 2 attitudinal disjuncts such as
'fortunately', 'essentially', etc. These represent the speaker's comment on the truth-value of
what he is saying. The third type includes a number of vocabulary 3 items such as 'move'
(n.), 'event', 'action' etc. that may function anaphorically or retrospectively providing
information about the content of previously mentioned clause or sentence. In example (4a)
above the vocabulary 3 'move' in the second sentence connects the two sentences
anaphorically to the action taken in the second sentence.
2.1.3 The Criteria of Closed-System Semantics
It is quite obvious that these lexical items cannot be defined in dictionary terms as any
other words; therefore, Winter (1977) tried to figure out a solution for this difficulty. He
proposes four criteria in order to facilitate the identification of the closed-system semantics
on the semantic continuum between open-system and closed-system. These four criteria are
designed to make the process of distinguishing the vocabulary 3 items from the ordinary
lexical items.
2.1.3.1. Criterion 1: The Closed-system Vocabulary
Winter's claim that vocabulary 3 items belong to a closed-system is based on two
principles: First, most of the vocabulary 3 items can either directly or indirectly paraphrase
the connective semantics of the closed-system vocabularies 1 or 2 or both. The vocabulary 3
item 'reason' is paraphrased by the vocabulary 1 item 'because'. Direct paraphrase happens in
two ways, one where a vocabulary 3 item has a correspondences with items in vocabulary 2
37
by anaphoric function, for example the item 'contrast' is paraphrased by vocabulary 2 item 'in
contrast' or 'in comparison' and so on. The other way where vocabulary 3 is paraphrased by
vocabulary 2 and 1 in turn, like the vocabulary 3 item 'concede' which is paraphrased by
vocabulary 2 item 'in addition' and vocabulary 1 item 'even though'. On the other hand,
indirect paraphrase can be viewed where the lexical items of vocabulary 3 provide an internal
part of the semantics made by vocabularies 1 and 2
The second principle is that some vocabulary 3 items like 'error' which do not directly
and indirectly paraphrase vocabularies 1 or 2 may behave in the same way as those which do.
In other words, they may perform the same function done by vocabulary 3 items in that they
relate clauses and sentences to each other in meaning not covered by vocabularies 1 and 2.
This function is typically performed by the vocabulary 3 item 'error' which signals the
relation of Error-correction as in the example below:
Example (5):
(1) Sir, may I indicate an error in the photograph caption on page 72 ...? (2) The Graph
Zepplin was not designed for helium, nor did it have ... (3) The Hindenberg was designed for
helium ...
The signalling role of vocabulary 3 item 'error' in the above example is that of cataphoric
reference.
2.1.3.2 Criterion 2: The Characteristic Vocabulary of Questions
In his second criterion, Winter (1977: 42) states that "vocabulary 3 items can have the
same lexical selective powers as the closed-system WH-items such as 'what', 'where', 'when',
etc. Thus, based on Winter's (ibid.) observation, the relation between WH- items and
vocabulary 3 item can be made more explicit by showing what typical questions are elicited
by the second member of the relation. Thus, the relation between the first and the second
sentence in the following example can be elicited by the WH- question ' What did
George.W.Bush achieve by invading Iraq?' The vocabulary 3 item 'achieve' shows the
relational signalling of both members as that of Instrument-Achievement. In other words, the
vocabulary 3 items may perform a complementary role when there is a need for more precise
specification of information, which means that vocabulary 3 items complement the
selectional function of WH- items.
In his later analyses of clause relations, Winter (1982: 207) considers the questioning
technique as one of the major tools in unfolding the grammar and semantics of the clauses in
38
adjoining sentences. Therefore, he asserts that for every clause there must be a question
which it is answering ( p: 207).
2.1.3.3 Criterion 3: The Paraphrasing of Clause Relations
One of the defining features of vocabulary 3 items is their ability to paraphrase directly
or indirectly the connective semantics of vocabularies 1 and 2 respectively. In his discussion
of lexical signalling, Hoey (1986:26) asserts that paraphrase is crucial evidence for the
existence of a third vocabulary serving the same signalling functions as subordinators and
conjuncts. In terms of our discussion of Winter's semantic theory, we observe that when a
sentence like that in example 3 above can be paraphrased by either example 2 or 1 in the
same discourse or context, this means that the vocabulary 3 item. i.e., 'instrumental' in the
example must serve the signalling function of the vocabulary 2 item, i.e., 'thereby' or
vocabulary 1 item 'by-ing'.
Winter (1977:42) distinguishes between two kinds of semantics involved in the clause
relations between vocabularies 1, 2 and 3. The first is the underlying semantics contributed
by both members of the relation. The second is the interpretative semantics of the connectives
themselves. That is to say, the second kind of semantics is the one involved with the third
criterion. Therefore, we may say that all of the vocabulary 3 items share the same feature
which is the ability to paraphrase the interpretative semantics of vocabularies 1 and 2.
2.1.3.4 Criterion 4: The Anticipation of the Clause Relation as a Necessary
Part of Lexical Realization
Winter (1977:57) states that the anticipation of the clause relation depends on the
organization of the immediate context to come, either within the matrix clause which has the
anticipatory feature or within the immediate context of the sentences to come in its
paragraph. This anticipatory element is often signaled by a vocabulary 3 item which
provides a strong semantic link beyond sentence or clause boundaries. Winter (ibid:59) states
the following example:
Example (6):
(1) There is a significant contrast between the national mood now and in 1964. (2) Then,
despite the minuteness of Labour's majority, there was some sense of exhilaration: a feeling
that new opportunities were opening up for the country as a whole. (3) Now, this is missing.
39
The vocabulary 3 item contrast in the above example anticipates the compatible lexical
realization which follows in the very next sentence. In other words, any vocabulary 3 item
has the ability to perform two predictive roles; first, it predicts the order of information in the
adjoining sentences or clauses. Second, it organizes our open-ended creative lexical choices
on the basis of predictability and compatibility.
2.1.4 Applications of Winter's Semantic Theory of Clause Relations
Winter's semantic theory of clause relations has received much attention by many
scholars in the field of semantics and also in the field of discourse analysis in an attempt to
bridge the gaps and adapt it in text/discourse analysis . As such, the following sub-sections
aim at highlighting some of those attempts in brief.
2.1.4.1 Hoey (1979 (1983)
Hoey (1979) has been able to develop a new model for discourse analysis derived from
Winter's model of clause relations. Hoey (1983) states that "the clause relation is not so called
because it relates only clauses. Rather, it is so described because all systems for signalling
relations are rooted in the grammar of the clause. This means that clause relations in
discourse may be between clauses, groups of clauses, paragraphs, or even whole texts. Hoey
(ibid:16) states that the relation does not respect the syntactic boundaries, though its
realization is necessarily rooted in the grammar of the clause. According to Hoey (1983:18)
the notions 'clause' and 'sentence' should be treated as conflated, and 'sentence' should be
interpreted as also including part of a sentence. Hoey's work concentrates on what he terms
the minimal discourse pattern of problem-solution.
2.1.4.2 Jordan's (1984) Contribution to the Theory of Clause Relations
Jordan's application of clause relations represents a further development of Winter (1982).
Like Hoey (1979), Jordan presents a comprehensive analysis of the four basic metastructures
of information situation-problem-solution-evaluation. Various possible combinations of the
items of metastructure which depends on the writer's purpose and the reader's knowledge
have been demonstrated. Jordan's work is also complementary in that it covers a greater range
of every-day English texts whose signalling items are treated in special indices to facilitate
their learning and teaching. For instance, under the index j: key words, Jordan (ibid: 154)
introduces a general survey of vocabulary 3 items signalling the four metastructural items
40
arranged in alphabetical order. Jordan provides a survey of vocabulary 3 items which, though
specific to certain corpus, can apply in most contexts. Jordan's work offers an insight into the
structure of everyday English texts and the role of various signalling systems in structuring
and organizing these texts.
2.1.4.3 Crombie's Relational Approach (1985)
Crombie's relational approach to syllabus design is inspired by Winter's (1977) clause
relational approach in which she finds the notion of vocabularies 1, 2 and 3 is usefully
relevant. Crombie has criticized the structural and notional syllabuses because they
concentrate on discrete linguistic or semantic items. They do not take adequate account of
language as coherent discourse. Instead, she proposes that language syllabuses should not
only concentrate on linguistic items but also on coherent spoken and written discourse
Although she draws attention to the importance of Winter's and Hoey's work on
signalling in texts, she disagrees with them on a number of issues. The most important one
concerns Hoey's claim that all systems for signalling relations are rooted in the grammar of
the clause (Hoey 1983:18). Crombie's disagreement is based on two observations. First, she
believes that Hoey's claim contradicts Winter's statement (1982: 7) that intonation is as
important as the grammatical devices of signalling. Second, she believes that Winter's notion
of vocabulary 3 runs counter to the point Hoey is making, concluding that the problem results
here from the attempt to reconcile the term clause relation with the term cognitive process.
2.1.5. Classification of Clause Relations
The linguists Winter, Hoey and Crombie share a general agreement concerning the
classification of clause relations. However, they show differences in the terminology and the
scope of such relations.
Winter (1977) divides them into two broad classes; the logical-sequence relations and
the matching relations. Logical-sequence relations are the relations between successive
events or ideas, whether actual or potential, the most basic form of these relations being time
sequence, they answer the question of How does x event connect with y event (in time) ?.
They include three types of relations; condition-consequence, instrument-achievement, and
cause-consequence. On the other hand, matching relations are the relations where we match
things, actions, people, events, etc. for similar and different. They answer the question of
41
How does x compare with y in respect of z feature?. They are of two types; contrast and
compatibility (comparison).
Hoey (1983) adopts exactly the same division used by Winter (1977) i.e., logical-sequence
relations and matching relations for small passages, but for long passages and whole
discourses. Hoey uses the term 'discourse patterns' to indicate the rhetorical patterns such as
the problem-solution pattern, general particular pattern and so on.
According to Crombie (1985 a, XV), clause relations have a wider scope. Therefore,
Crombie (ibid, 15-28) divides clause relations into nine classes:
1. Temporal Relations: these relations are concerned with the temporal connection between
events, e.g. after he has seized Helen, he will leave Greece.
2. Matching Relations: these relations involve comparison of two things, events, or
abstractions in terms of some particular in respect of which they are similar (simple
comparison, e.g. the prince was afraid and so were his followers.), or different (simple
contrast, e.g. the one was good; the other, bad.).
3. Cause-Effect Relations: are four different semantic relations, each of which is concerned
in some sense with cause and effect. These relations are reason-result, e.g. we're in trouble
and his arrival is the reason. Means-result, e.g. his pressing the laver made the handle turn.
Means-purpose, e.g. Agamemnon surrendered the girl in order to propitiate Apollo. And
condition-consequence, e.g. if some arrives late again, I will tell him what I think of him.
4. Truth-Validity: each of the four relations here concerned directly or indirectly with truth
and validity. In (statement-affirmation, e.g. (1) all wild animals are dangerous, (2) I agree.)
the truth of a statement is affirmed, (in statement-denial, e.g. (1) the Greeks won, (2) they
lost.) the truth of a statement is denied, while in (denial-correction, e.g. he wasn't a doctor, he
was a teacher.) a denial involving a negated word preceded or followed by a statement in
which that word or expression is correlatively replaced, in (concession-contraexpectation,
denied e.g. although anxious, he appeared calm.) the validity of an inference is directly or
indirectly denied.
5. Alternation Relations: each one of these relations involves a choice between two things
or events. Contrastive alternation involves exclusive (i.e. P or not P) disjunction that is, it is a
choice involving a positive/negative opposition, e.g. whether he lives or dies, he will enter
history. On the other hand, supplementary alternation involves a choice between two or more
things, events or abstractions which are not treated as opposites, e.g. nobody insulted him or
hit him.
42
6. Bonding Relations: these relations are additive (i.e. non-elective) non-sequential relations
between conjoined or juxtaposed propositions unlike the alternation relations which are
elective (i.e. involve choice). There are four types of bonding relations; coupling, e.g. he was
furious and savage, contrastive coupling, e.g. he tried to remember what he heard but he
failed. Statement exemplification, e.g. drinking leads to many consequences, for example
addiction. Statement-exception, e.g. all the students passed except her.
7. Paraphrase Relations: the paraphrase relation involves restatement without amplification,
the same propositional content is stated in different ways in both members of the relation, or
it might involve a negated antonym, e.g. he is not tall, he's short.
8. Amplification Relations: the amplification relation involves the substitution of a specific
word or expression for a general one. There are three kinds of such relation; term-
specification, e.g. he was invited: John invited him. Predicate-specification, e.g. we knew that
Bob was married. Term-exemplification, e.g. play useful games for example chess.
9. Setting-Conduct Relations: these relations are of four kinds, each one of them involves
an adverbial, they are: event/state location, e.g. the spy was jumped over the walls of the
house. Event-direction, e.g. the boy entered his room. Event-manner, e.g. resentfully, David
viewed the destruction
2.2 The Analytic Framework and Text Analysis
2.2.1 Introduction
This chapter moves around the analysis of the novel under study which is Mark Twain's
"The adventures of Huckleberry Finn to find out the lexically signalled clause relations.
Thus, this chapter sheds light on the analytical framework, explains the obtained results, lists
the lexical signals that are used to signal the clause relations in the texts, and classifies the
resulting clause relations. The chapter will be supported by figures and tables to backup the
discussions.
2.2.2 The Analytic Framework
A bottom-up approach will be followed in the analysis of both novels under study, that
is the texts will be analyzed to find out the lexically signalled clause relations and the way by
which these relations are combined. This will be achieved by identifying the lexical items
which highlight such relations.
Hoey (1983) asserts that:
43
One of the first steps to analyze any discourse must be the identification of the
lexical signalling present in it. Lexical signals are the author's/speakers's
signalling of the intended organization and are therefore obviously of primary
importance; it is probable that they are one of the main means whereby a
reader/listener decodes a discourse correctly (p: 65).
Within the same context, Crombie (1985:72) maintains that discourse is full of clues and
signals and they allow readers or listeners to make relational predictions.
The analytic framework underlying the present work is basically derived from Winter's
semantic theory of clause relations (1977) and its subsequent developments proposed by
Hoey (1983), Jordan (1984), and Crombie (1985).
2.2.3 Text Analysis
The text analysis of both novels under study has revealed that there are ten different types
of lexically signalled clause relations holding between clauses, sentences and groups of
sentences. These relations are as follows:
1. Condition-Consequence Relation.
2. Term-Specification Relation.
3. Contrast Relation.
4. Preview-Detail Relation.
5. Cause-Consequence Relation.
6. Statement-Assessment Relation.
7. Comparison Relation.
8. Alternation Relation.
9. General-Particular Relation.
10. Generalization-Exception Relation.
For the easiness of reference, a brief discussion for each clause relation with an example
from the analyzed texts will be given. Lexical signals explicit in the clause relations are
grouped at the end of each relation.
2.2.4 Discussion of the Clause Relations
2.2.4.1 Condition-Consequence Relation
a. Description: In this relation, the instrument member specifies the means undertaken to
achieve a particular intended result or purpose.
44
b. Exemplification: In example (4.1) below, the vocabulary 3 item so as in the second
clause (1b) signals the consequence of the condition mentioned in the first clause (1a).
Example (4.1):
(1a) We went tip-toeing along a path amongst the trees back towards the end of the widow's
garden, (1b) stooping down so as the branches wouldn't scrape our heads.
(The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn,Chp.2, p.6)
2.2.4.2 Term-Specification Relation
a. Description: In this relation, the second member specifies or identifies an item or a term
introduced in the other member.
b. Exemplification: In example (4.3) below, the vocabulary 3 item 'things' mentioned in S
(5) operates as a two way signal. It functions cataphorically and anaphorically by linking
what precedes with what follows. It links what's mentioned in Ss (1), (2), (3) and (4) with Ss
(6), (7), (8) and (9) by signalling a definition for the term 'robbery'.
Example (4.3):
(1) Now, says Ben Rogers, 'what's the line of business of this Gang?' (2) 'Nothing only
robbery and murder,' Tom said. (3) 'But who are we going to rob? (4)
housescattleor'Stuff! (5) stealing cattle and such things ain't robbery, it's burglary, says
Tom Sawyer. (6) We ain't burglars. (7) That ain't no sort of style.(8) We are highwaymen.(9)
We stop carriages on the road, with masks on, and kill the people and take their watches and
money.'
(ibid: Chap.2, p. 9)
The Lexical Signals
thing(s) (5)
2.2.4.3 Contrast Relation
a. Description: This relation involves a comparison between two events, things or
abstractions in terms of something in respect in which they are different.
b. Exemplification: In the example (4.4) below, the vocabulary 3 item different
mentioned in S (4) operates as an anaphoric and cataphoric signal simultaneously. It
anaphorically signals that the relation between S (4) and the following sentences is that of
contrast. At the same time, this item cataphorically signals that the relation between S(4) and
Details
- Pages
- Type of Edition
- Erstausgabe
- Publication Year
- 2017
- ISBN (PDF)
- 9783960676324
- ISBN (Softcover)
- 9783960671329
- File size
- 2.2 MB
- Language
- English
- Institution / College
- University of Babylon
- Publication date
- 2017 (March)
- Keywords
- Semantics Pragmatics Stylistics English literature William Wordsworth D. H. Lawrence Charlotte Brontë Joseph Conrad Richard Brinsley Sheridan Jane Austen Elegy of a Voyage Aleksandr Sokurov Alexander Nikolajewitsch Sokurow Sons and Lovers Jane Eyre Wuthering Heights Heart of Darkness The School for Scandal Emma
