ENGLISH LANGUAGE SERIES General Editor: Randolph Quirk Title no: David Cry and Derek Daty Tas A. Gordon Aucune ce To Ents Foxy 4 Geoey N. Leech Cohesion in English sn srrenucnion 10.7 Valen Adams MLALK. Holiday and Rogiya Haan M.A. K. HALLIDAY Professor of Linguistics University of Sydney Rodney Hudseston Dwight Bolinger RUQAIYA HASAN Associate Professor School of English and Linguistics bic oc ose 2 Macquarie Universit ‘Walker Nash . a CGofreyN. Leech and Michael H. Short Derek Aridge Wiler Nah 00 ENGL AND THE CaM Sidney Greenbaum Richard D. Cureton Pop Fsiaia] Patrick J. Dey LONGMAN London and New YorkLongman Group Limited Longman Howe, Bare Mil Harlow, Enel CMD 3 Pal nt Aol Compan ago he ld ahd nh Unie Sis of Ame by Langman fc, Nw York (© Longman Group Lined 1975 Al sight carved no pt of thi pubcton may be epee, oan edna oy yy me {lcrome, mechan pbeasopying, rowing or thee, wihoat Site the poor ween perminon Bf the Paha or Tree Fermin soe coping the Une Kingdom ined by the Ss msm A i Toes Cr Rk London Fine pubsed 1976 Frac inpeeion 1995, ISBN O-582-SS041-b roduc by Longman Singapore Pubishers (Lad Foreword ‘Throughout more than a century of oustanding progres in linguistics ~ and especialy from the time of the jnegrammatte ~ the most impressive land apparently most abiding suceases have been in work atthe elemental fend of language structure: the description and relation of phonological tanits. Nor, when they were presed into reluctant service, did the eate~ gories and insights evalved for phonology get us fr in explicating lin~ fuistic organization at othcr ‘level’, the morphological and syntactic. ‘Moreover, even in the feutfl reaisance of syntactic studies during the third quarter of this eenuey, work hs been viewally confined to relations ‘within the sentence, This limitation, though to some extent vigorously ‘defended on theoretical grounds, has notin general been because no relo~ ‘vance to linguistic structure was scn in the relations between sentences, inthe connections which resulted in the impression of well-formed paca graphs of longer stretches of discourse. But as with semanties ~ another land indeed closely related area which linguists have hestated to enter, often justifying thir disocation on closely-argued theoretical grounds ~ i was not unreasonably held tht relations ‘beyond the sentence" involved 1 complex interplay of linguistics with other concems such a rhetoric, Assets and pragmatics, for which the theoretical Foundationsand frame work were t0 shaky’ to support ambitious model building, And that in any case linguists had enough on hand to get their sentential house furnished "Means, literary critics (for whom of course text structure has been a traditional concer) and social anthropologists (for whom text and tale ‘onstrate fandamental evidence) hogan themselves 10 look at the con structs evolved by de Sausure, the Prague Schoo), and other linguists. One thinks for example of Lévi-Strauss, Dell Hymes, Roland Barthes, 25 out. standing exponents of structuraigm in brosdacale textual analysis And among linguists, there have always been those who have persisted intheenturtosubrve Hear nd other humanisi diiptins by extend th work tocmbrce tyne and other peso thea sen the ‘ovement Mic! Haldsy nd Rayan have ong benepely Save. The prow of Golding and he ver of Yeu ae ae the mata sete ovale Hinge erin bythe former, whi che later has tna ‘cohesion’ ber sei fel, ening witha doctoral disci st the Univertyof Edinburgh and conning wich noc ppes we she worked for several iil years in he Communion Research Cente at University College London. Ding the whol of ths pei, dhe two author have worked in ow cooperation nd muta infec acsey aware of scrim Englth studs of profound intrest for both Ings and res bt sgorouly explored to ge extent by nether "We are singly fortanate thot ware ble o correct some ofthese rare defen in the dectigion of Engish with the work o 50 tne Seely equipped a eam, As Engh as increasingly come into world-wide She, there as aren coresponingly increasing eed for mor informa sion om the language an! the ways in which it is used The English Langue Series to mest hi ned ant ply pat afer sim slang the dy and teaching of nglah by providing up-to-date and scholarly wean of tpie mot revit to pen English — n= Gling is hitory and tradon, sound ptters i grammar 1s lexclogy its ch waricy and complexity in specch and wting, an its standard in Bin, the USA, sn the eter poncpal areas where the Tangoage ed University College London May 1973, RANDOLPH QUIRK Preface ‘This book originated as one of a series of studies of the English language and modem English texts which were undertaken by the Nuffield Pro- gramme in Linguistics and English Teaching at University College London. ‘The aim of these sedis was to provide an account of aspects of contem= porary English which would be both founded on theory and also applic able in practice: a description of che sytem, but one which, since i¢ was based on evidence from texts of different varieties, including both spoken and written, would be wel in application to farther text studies. ‘A rclatively neglected aspect ofthe linguistic system is its resources for text constuction, the range of meanings that are specifically associated with relating what is being said or writen to its semantic environment. ‘The principal component of these resources is chat of cohesion. Cohesive relations are relations between two oF more clement in a text that are independent of the structure; for example berween a personal pronoun and an antecedent proper name, such s John... he. A semantic relation of | this kind may best up either within a sentence or Between sentences with the consequence that, when it croses a sentence boundary it has the effet ‘of making the two sentences cohere with one another. The various kinds fof cohesion had been outlined by M. A. K. Halliday in his writings on styles, and the concept was developed by Rugaiya Hasan in her Uni~ versity of Edinburgh doctoral thesis. “The eatlier chapters of thi book were frst published as Grammatical Cohesion in Spoken and Weiten English, Part, by Rogaiya Hasan, Com= munication Research Centre (University College London) and Long- ‘mans, Green & Co, Programme in Linguists and English Teaching: Papers No. 7, 1968. Ths contained Chapters 1,2 and 3 in theie original fort. The Tater chapters were written in collaboration by Rugaiya Hasan and M. A. K, Halliday, and were prepared for publication inthe follow-up series (Schols Counc Programme in Linguists and English Teaching: Papers