Aspects of Cohesion: A Stylistic Study of

Arthur Miller's All My Sons

سمات الترابط النصي: دراسة أسلوبية لمسرحية آرثر ميلر جميعهم أبنائي

by

Abdel-Aziz Jamal Hanouna

Supervised by

Professor. Khader T. Khader

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

Master Degree of Linguistics and Translation

March /2019

زةـــــة بغــة اإلســــــــــالمیــــــــــــامعـالج

ــاث العلـــمي والدراسـات العلیــعمادة البح

اآلدابــــة ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــكـــــلـــــــــیـ

لغویـــــات وترجمــــــــــــــــةماجســـــتیر

The Islamic University of Gaza

Deanship of Research and Graduate Studies

Faculty of Arts

Master of Linguistics & Translation

I

إقـرار

أنا الموقع أدناه مقدم الرسالة التي تحمل العنوان:

Aspects of Cohesion: A Stylistic Study of

Arthur Miller's All My Sons

سمات الترابط النصي: دراسة أسلوبية لمسرحية آرثر ملر جميعهم ابنائي

أقر بأن ما اشتملت عليه هذه الرسالة إنما هو نتاج جهدي الخاص، باستثناء ما تمت اإلشارة

إليه حيثما ورد، وأن هذه الرسالة ككل أو أي جزء منها لم يقدم من قبل االخرين لنيل درجة

أو لقب علمي أو بحثي لدى أي مؤسسة تعليمية أو بحثية أخرى.

Declaration

I understand the nature of plagiarism, and I am aware of the University’s policy on

this. The work provided in this thesis, unless otherwise referenced, is the researcher's

own work and has not been submitted by others elsewhere for any other degree or

qualification.

:Abdel-Aziz Jamal Hanouna Student's name اسم الطالب:

:Abdel-Aziz Jamal Hanouna Signature التوقيع:

:Date 04/03/2019 التاريخ:

III

Abstract

This study aimed at investigating and analyzing the different types of cohesion

devices used in Arthur Miller's play All My Sons. In addition, the study aimed at

explaining the function of every cohesive tie used by the playwright, and examines

the most and the least frequent types used in the play. To achieve these goals, the

researcher adopted Halliday and Hasan's (1976) model in categorizing the different

types of cohesive devices as the main tool for the analysis of the text. The chosen

sample of this study is a play All My Sonwritten by an American playwright- Arthur

Miller. The researcher has chosen such a play since it represents the significance and

necessity of cohesive devices in any piece of written discourse. The design of this

research contains both the qualitative and quantitative types of data. The results of

the study showed that using cohesion is highly important to keep the text meaningful

and understandable. The findings of the study also showed that the total number of

the utilized cohesive devices in the text is 5049 ties. The frequency of grammatical

cohesion, which shared 4799 ties 95.05%, is more than the lexical one, which shared

250 ties 4.95%. The findings also showed that references were the most frequent

grammatical cohesive device, which shared 3924 ties 81.77% while substitution was

the least frequent type with 49 ties 1.02%. Moreover, the most frequent lexical

cohesive tool was repetition, which scored 183 ties 77.20% whereas synonyms were

the least frequent type with 5 ties 2%. Based on the findings of the study a number of

suggestions were presented for further research areas.

IV

دراسةملخص ال

هدفت هذه الدراسة الى دراسة وتحليل أدوات الربط النسقية المستخدمة في مسرحية آرثر وات التي من تلك األد ةميلر جميع اوالدي. كما هدفت الدراسة الى دراسة وظيفة كل أدا

تكرار وتلك األقل وتتحقق هذه الدراسة من األدوات األكثر ،كما .استخدمها الكاتب المسرحتبنى الباحث منهجية هاليدي وحسن لتصنيف ،الدراسةتكرارا في النص. ولتحقيق اهداف هذه

األنواع المختلفة لألدوات موضوع الرسالة كمنهجية أساسية لتحيل النص. العينة المختارة اختار اوالدي للكاتب المسرحي األمريكي آرثر ميلر. وقد هملهذه الدراسة هي مسرحية جميع

الباحث هذا النص االدبي للدراسة التحليلية لكونها تجسد أهمية أدوات الربط النسقيةفي أي نص مكتوب. واشتمل تصميم هذه الدراسة على كل من المنهج الكمي وضرورتها

ن استخدام أدوات الربط النسقية غاية في أوالوصفي كمنهجية للبحث. واظهرت نتائج الدراسة ن العدد اإلجمالي ألدوات أظهرت الدراسة أيضا أمعنى ومفهوم. و اء النص ذاألهمية إلبقا

. كما واظهرت النتائج ان تكرار أدوات الربط 5049الربط النسقية المستخدمة في النص هو والذي فاق عدد أدوات الربط النسقية %95.05 4799النسقية النحوية في النص بلغت

. من جهة أخرى أوضحت النتائج بان %4.95 250المعجمية بشكل ملحوظ والتي بلغت 3924أدوات الربط النسقية المرجعية النحوية هي األكثر تكرار في النص حيث بلغت

، بينما كانت أدوات الربط النسقية االستبدالية النحوية األقل تكرار في النص حيث 81.77%جمية ذات التكرار الداللي . إضافة الى ذلك، برزت أداة الربط النسقية المع%1.02 49بلغت

كانت أداة الترادف بينما% 77.20مرة 183كاألداة األكثر استخداما بالنص حيث بلغ عددها . بناء على نتائج هذه الدراسة تم تقديم عدد من %2 حاالت فقط 5األقل استخداما مسجلة

. االختصاصاالقتراحات لمجاالت بحثية مستقبلية في نفس

V

اقتباس

) و��ق � ذي ��� ���� ���ء �� ���� در��ت (

]76يوسف: [

VI

Dedication

To my father, you left fingerprints of grace on our lives. Your

absence is presence, my teacher.

To my mother, for her endless support and selflessness.

To my brothers and sisters, for their love.

To my friends and teachers

I dedicate this research.

VII

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

All thanks are extended for almighty Allah. All praise is directed to

Allah who enables me to write this research. As Prophet Mohammad, peace be

upon him, said: " he who is thankless to people, is thankless to Allah ". This

thesis could not have been completed without the support of many individuals.

I would like to extend my sincere thanks and gratitude to my supervisor Prof.

Khader Tawfeek Khader for his endless support, guidance, advice, and

encouragement during this long road to completion.

My love and appreciation are extended to my mother and father for her

continuous prayers and for encouraging me to undertake this journey and for

her unyielding support as my journey progressed. My deep love to my father

who strongly motivated me to go a head during my journey. I would also like

to express my love and appreciation to my brothers, sisters and relatives

whose love, encouragement, support, and high expectations for my success

have always served as a continuous source of motivation throughout my life.

My deepest thanks go to the examiners, Dr. Abdalah kuraz and Dr.

Mosheer Amer who kindly accepted to examine my study. My deep

appreciation is to Dr Prof. Khader Tawfeek Khader who taught me this

strategy and encouraged me when it was just an idea and remained supportive.

My thanks go to Prof. Mosheer Amer one of my teachers at the Department of

English at the Islamic University. My deepest thanks to my teachers Raouf

Asfour and Ramiz Hanounah.

Finally, I reiterate my cordial acknowledgement and high appreciation

to those who helped me in this study, my thanks and gratitude will go with you

forever as we continue our educational journey.

VIII

List of Contents

I .......................................................................................................................... إقـرار

II ................................................................................................................... نتیجة الحكم

Abstract .................................................................................................................. III

IV ............................................................................................................. ملخص الدراسة

V ......................................................................................................................... اقتباس

Dedication ............................................................................................................... VI

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.................................................................................... VII

List of Contents ..................................................................................................... VIII

List of Tables ........................................................................................................... X

List of Figures ......................................................................................................... XI

List of Appendices ..................................................................................................XII

Chapter I Background of the Study ...................................................................... 1

1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 2

1.2 Statement of the Problem.................................................................................... 4

1.3 Significance of the Study .................................................................................... 5

1.4 Research Objectives ........................................................................................... 5

1.5 Research Questions ............................................................................................ 6

1.6 Summary of the first chapter............................................................................... 6

Chapter II Literature Review ................................................................................ 7

1.2 Theoretical Framework....................................................................................... 8

2.2 Definitions of key terms ..................................................................................... 9

2.2.1 Style ................................................................................................................ 9

2.2.2 Stylistics ......................................................................................................... 10

2.2.3 Text ................................................................................................................ 11

2.2.4 The Concept of Cohesion ............................................................................... 12

2.2.5 The place of Cohesion in linguistics ............................................................... 12

IX

2.2.6 The place of Cohesion in the Semantic System ............................................... 13

2.3 Halliday and Hasan's Model .............................................................................. 13

2.3.1 Types of Cohesion .......................................................................................... 14

2.3.2 Grammatical Cohesion ................................................................................... 14

2.3.3 Lexical Cohesion ............................................................................................ 19

2.3.4 Types of lexical cohesion ............................................................................... 19

2.4 Brief introduction about All My Sons ................................................................. 20

2.5 Brief introduction about the characters .............................................................. 20

2.6 Previous Studies ................................................................................................ 21

Commentary ........................................................................................................... 26

Chapter III Methodology ..................................................................................... 28

3.1 Research Design ................................................................................................ 29

3.2 Research Sample ............................................................................................... 29

3.3 Research Methodology ...................................................................................... 29

3.4 The tool of The Study ........................................................................................ 30

Chapter IV Cohesion in the Text All My Sons ................................................... 32

4.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 33

4.2 Data management .............................................................................................. 33

4.3 Data analysis, results and dissection .................................................................. 34

4.4 Discussion and Examples of the References Subcategories. ............................... 38

4.5 Examples and Discussion of Endophoric subcategories in the text All My Sons . 41

4.6 Examples and discussion of References in the text All My Sons ......................... 44

4.8 Conclusion & suggestions ................................................................................. 57

References .............................................................................................................. 59

Appendices ............................................................................................................ 64

X

List of Tables

Table (2.1): Type of Conjunctions ........................................................................... 18

Table (4.1): the distribution of cohesive devices in the text All My Sons .................. 34

Table (4.2): the distribution of Grammatical Cohesion in the text All My Sons ........ 36

Table (4.3): the distribution of references subcategories in the text All My Sons ...... 37

Table (4.4): Examples of References Subcategories in the Text All My Sons ........... 39

Table (4.5): the distribution of Endophoric subcategories in the text all my sons ..... 40

Table (4.6): Examples of anaphoric references from the text All My Sons ............... 42

Table (4.7): Examples of cataphoric references from the text All My Sons ............... 42

Table (4.8): Type of References in the Text All My Sons ......................................... 43

Table (4.9): Examples of personal references from the text All My Sons ................. 44

Table (4.10): Examples of Demonstrative References from the Text All My Sons .... 45

Table (4.11): Characters Reference Density in the Text All My Sons ....................... 46

Table (4.12): The Distribution of Ellipsis Subcategories in the Text All My Sons..... 47

Table (4.13): The Distribution of substitution Subcategories in the Text All My Sons ........................................................................................................................ 49

Table (4.14): Examples of Substitution Subcategories in the Text All My Sons ........ 50

Table (4.15): The Distribution of Conjunctions Types in the Text All My Sons ........ 51

Table (4.16): The Distribution of Reiteration Subcategories in the text All My Sons 53

Table (4.17): Examples of General nouns From the Text All My Sons ..................... 56

XI

List of Figures

Figure (4.1): the distribution of cohesive devices in the text All my sons ...................... 35

Figure (4.2): the distribution of Grammatical Cohesion in the text All My Sons ........... 36

Figure (4.3): the distribution of references subcategories in the text all my sons .......... 38

Figure (4.4): the Distribution of Endophoric subcategories in the text All My Sons ...... 41

Figure (4.5): Type of References in the text All My Sons ............................................... 43

Figure (4.6): The Distribution of Ellipsis Subcategories in the Text All My Sons ......... 47

Figure (4.7) The Distribution of Substitution Subcategories in the Text All My Sons ... 49

Figure (4.8): The distribution of Conjunctions Types in the Text All My Sons ............. 51

Figure (4.9): The Distribution of Reiteration Subcategories in the Text All My Sons ... 54

XII

List of Appendices

Appendix (1): Examples of the distribution of references in Act I ........................... 65

Appendix (2): Examples of the distribution of references in Act II .......................... 73

Appendix (3): Examples of the distribution of references in Act III ......................... 81

Appendix (4): The distribution of ellipsis and substitution in act I ........................... 89

Appendix (5): The distribution of general nouns in act I .......................................... 93

Chapter I

Background of the Study

2

Chapter I

Background of the Study

1.1 Introduction

Language is one of Allah's wonderful creations. It is difficult for human

beings to communicate their views and ideas without language. Therefore, without

language there could not be educational activity, law making, lecturing, and nothing

like talking, singing, writing and exchanging views, or even a chance for the

existence of a book. Therefore, it is essential for human beings to acquire and learn

language. In fact, learning any language in the world, including English, does not just

include the sound system and the letters but also its literature.

Literature and language are interrelated terms since language is the system of

sounds and words, while literature is the thought that writers express by words.

Literature is an important component in any language since it represents the values,

culture, traditions of the native speakers. It is also a representation of the different

aspects of the language such as grammar, semantic and syntax. So, teaching and

learning literature has gone beyond the purpose of pleasure. Analyzing literature

helps the learners to learn English language more efficiently. According to Carter

and Long (1991), there are three models of why teachers use literature in the

educational process: the cultural model, the language model, and the personal growth

mode. Therefore, Long (2005) in his quotation provides us with a holistic image

about the importance of literature.

Literature is the expression of life in words of truth and beauty; it is the

written record of man's spirit, of his thoughts, emotions, aspirations; it is the history,

and the only history, of the human soul. It is characterized by its artistic, its

suggestive, its permanent qualities. Its object, aside from the delight it gives, is to

know man, that is, the soul of man rather than his actions; and since it preserves to

the race the ideals upon which all our civilization is founded, it is one of the most

important and delightful subjects that can occupy the human mind. (p. 12)

3

Literature has various genres, such as poetry, novel, short story and drama. In

this study, the researcher will deal with a specific genre in literature, which is drama.

In fact, the researcher chooses drama because it got the least attention in the field of

stylistic analysis. According to Morgan (1987), drama can be defined as a

communicative art, which consists of a number of lines performed, by a number of

actors for the purpose of reaching and affecting the public. Khader (2007) also

defined drama as a kind of literary work carried on the stage in which the story is

revealed to the audience through dialogue, presenting, characters placed in a situation

of conflict and confrontation.

In this study, the researcher tries to shed light on a very important area in

stylistics, which is cohesion as a tool to analyze a literary text. According to

Sachkova (2012), the root of the term stylistics comes from the Greek word "stylos"

which means a pen. In fact, stylistics refers to the study of the language of literary

texts in particular. Moreover, there are many different approaches are concerned with

the analysis of the literary works. Lyons (1970) mentioned that stylistics is not

limited to a particular kind of linguistic analysis, but it is a word that is applied to

various kinds of linguistic analysis. Thus, different scholars had different approaches

to approach a given literary text. However, in this study the researcher is concerned

with Halliday's (1970) approach, which goes under the descriptive linguistics. The

aim of this approach is textual description, which describes a written or spoken text

through using cohesive devices.

Cohesion refers to the internal consistency of a text, and it is vital for written

or spoken discourse. Because, any written or spoken text without cohesion devices is

not meaningful. For this purpose, the researcher tries to illuminate more about the

different types of cohesion and the important role that cohesion plays in a play. The

researcher also highlights the types of grammatical and lexical cohesion and how

they are used in a play. As far as the term cohesion is concerned, many linguists,

stylisticians, and researchers of interest have given various definitions for cohesion.

In this regard, Halliday and Hasan (1976) stated that cohesion refers to the intra-

textual relations of the grammatical and lexical items that make the parts of the text

together as a whole to convey the complete meaning of it. Also, Van Dijk (1985)

defined cohesion as a term integrated with the making of coherence, which points to

4

the ties between the sentences of a given text. Furthermore, Clark (1996) argued that

cohesion refers to the forms in which the features of the syntactic, lexical and

phonological levels connect within and between sentences in a text. In this study, the

researcher adopts Halliday and Hasan's (1976) model in categorizing the different

types of cohesive devices to analyze the literary work.

The sample of this study is All My Sons, one of the literary works of drama

written by the famous American playwright, Arthur Miller, who was born in 1915 in

New York. Millers' father was a wealthy man until the great depression that hit

America in 1929. Therefore, Miller had to work since his childhood in different jobs

to help his family. Miller studied English literature and he wrote different plays such

as All My Sonand The Death of a Sales Man in which he portrays the struggle of the

American citizen to achieve the American dream. All My Sonwas written after the

World War II 1947 in which Miller depicts the story of a businessman who tried to

evade an occurring financial crisis at that time by selling broken machine parts to the

US air force. He threw the blame and the criminal act onto his business partner. In

addition, he established a business empire but in the end, his vicious crime never left.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

Most studies that have used stylistic analysis of literary works are based

either on a certain poem or a short story; nevertheless, less work has been done by

the use of the stylistic analysis approach on drama "plays." However, analyzing plays

stylistically have received little attention by the researchers of English language in

Gaza Strip. So, to address this problem, the researcher chooses All My Sonto be

analyzed stylistically.

Moreover, much concern in stylistics was focused on the four levels; the

semantic, lexical, morphological and phonological levels that are used to analyze any

given text, but fewer concerns were directed towards using cohesion and its devices

as major tools in the context of stylistic analysis. However, the researcher of this

study uses the cohesive devices as stylistic tool to analyze All My Sons. hence, the

researcher of the current study believes that if cohesion and cohesive tools happen to

be applied stylistically on a play, students, learners and readers can better understand

the importance and function of the cohesive devices used in a given play.

5

1.3 Significance of the Study

The current study aims at investigating the cohesive tools used in drama. In

fact, the researcher explicates all the types of cohesive devices used in English

language in general and their function in drama in particular. Therefore, the study

will raise the awareness of students, learners and readers about the cohesive types. It

also helps them to understand and analyze the literary text more effectively.

Moreover, recognizing the different cohesion devices enables those students who are

interested in writing a literary work to write more effectively. Moreover, recognizing

the functions of the cohesive tools will enable students, readers and learners to

understand texts of different genres such as political texts and public speeches more

effectively. Finally, this study enables students to use the cohesive ties in their

different writings appropriately.

1.4 Research Objectives

This research attempts to investigate the usage of grammatical and lexical

cohesion devices in All My Sons. Accordingly, the researcher aims to achieve the

following objectives.

1- To identify the patterns of lexical cohesion used in All My Sons.

2- To identify the patterns of grammatical cohesion used in All My Sons.

3- To highlight the most frequent pattern of lexical cohesion used in All My Sons.

4- To specify the least frequent pattern of lexical cohesion used in All My Sons.

5- To locate the most frequent pattern of grammatical cohesion used in All My

Sons.

6- To investigate the least frequent pattern of grammatical cohesion used in All My

Sons.

7- To evaluate the functional significance of the cohesive devices used in All My

Sons.

6

1.5 Research Questions

In the light of the previous objectives, the researcher states the following questions.

1- What are the patterns of lexical cohesion used in All My Sons?

2- What are the patterns of grammatical cohesion used in All My Sons?

3- What is the most frequent pattern of lexical cohesion used in All My Sons?

4- What is the least frequent pattern of lexical cohesion used in All My Sons?

5- What is the most frequent pattern of grammatical cohesion used in All My Sons?

6- What is the least frequent pattern of grammatical cohesion used in All My Sons?

7- What is the function of the cohesive devices used in All My Sons?

1.6 Summary of the first chapter

The first chapter introduced an introduction about the definition of language

in general and definition of literary language in particular. Then, it gave some

definitions about drama as a main genre of literature. Furthermore, this chapter

tackled the term stylistics as a main tool to analyze the literary texts and the term

cohesion as tool of these stylistics devices. The chapter also highlighted some

information about the sample of the study All My Son. Finally, it introduced the

significance, problem, objectives and the main questions of the study.

Chapter II

Literature Review

8

Chapter II

Literature Review

In this section, the researcher states all the required concepts and definitions

that are related to the core of the topic, and the previous studies relevant to the

current study. In fact, the researcher in this section tries to pave the way for the

readers to have a holistic image about the topic too. This chapter tackles the

definitions of the important terms such as drama, style, stylistics and text. It also

provides definitions about cohesion as tool to analyze texts. In addition, it focuses on

Halliday and Hasan's definition of cohesion and their classification of grammatical

and lexical cohesion.

1.2 Theoretical Framework

It is very important to be familiar with the nature of the language of drama

before starting with cohesion. Language is the stream through which we

communicate our thoughts and feelings. However, human beings select the type of

language to suit their purposes; for instance, the language of literature differs from

the one we use in politics or economics. In literature, language varies since it has

different genres such as drama, poetry, prose, novels and short stories. For example,

the language of poetry is characterized by the use of metaphors, rhymes and rhythms,

while short sentences dominate short stories. Therefore, the researcher will introduce

certain clues about the language of drama.

Khader (2007) defined drama as a literary composition meant to be enacted

on the stage in which the story is told through dialogue, presenting characters placed

in a situation of conflict and confrontation. Somers (2008) defined drama as a social

activity, which stimulates the social context of real life and the features of the

dramatic language. One more definition stated by Merria-Webster dictionary (n.d):

Drama can be defined as a written literary work that involves actions and dialogues

among characters to act out a story on the stage.

In the light of the previous definitions, the researcher assumes that what

distinguishes the language of drama is that it stimulates real life communication. In

other words, drama contains dialogues, which occur between two or more characters,

9

or it can be a monolog, where a character talks to itself. It also contains speech acts

since it stimulates real life communication. According to Searle (1969), speech acts

can be best defined as how to do things with words. The language of drama differs

from other genres because it is meant to be performed on the stage.

2.2 Definitions of key terms

2.2.1 Style

The word style means that everything has its own characteristics. For

example, everyone has a unique style in wearing clothes. Some prefer black suits

over other colors. We can also find style in football hence we can find every team

plays the ball with a different style. People around the globe who build their houses

with different styles. So, the word style can be found in every detail in our life, but

our concern in this study, is focused on what style means in language? Style in

language is concerned with the artful expression of an idea, and stylistics stands as

the bridge that connects the idea of style to the analysis of the literary texts and non-

literary ones through the tool of linguistics. In this study, the researcher is going to

introduce some definitions of style by different scholars.

The concept of style derived from the distinction made between langue and

parole by the Swiss linguist, Ferdinand de Saussure. According to him, “langue is

the code or system of rules common to the users of a language; parole, on the other

hand, is the particular selections from the system that individuals make on any one

occasion” Culler (1976). Like the choice, people make in conversation, official

communication or legal procedure. In this regard, style pertains to parole as this is

basically the way a writer or speaker employs or selects his words, phrases, and

sentences to achieve desired effect in any given context. Crystal and Davy (1969) argued that style might point to the selection of

language habits and linguistic peculiarities by a person to deliver a given massage to

the audience. Hence, the choice of these habits and peculiarities represents an

individual’s uniqueness. In addition, Wales (2011) stated that the word style stands

for the précised distinctive manner of expression in writing or speaking, just as there

is a perceived manner of doing things, like playing or painting. Furthermore, Khader

(2000) stated that style can be defined as a writer's choice of his favorite features of

10

language and linguistic devices to transfer a certain massage. Leech and Short (2007)

claimed that “Stylistics is a linguistic approach to literature, explaining the relation

between language and artistic function, with motivating questions such as “WHY”

and “HOW” more than “WHAT". In addition to that, Leech and Short (2010) have

summarized the use of the term style:

1. Style is a way in which language is used: i.e., it belongs to parole rather than to

langue.

2. Style consists of choices made from the repertoire of the language.

3. A style is defined in terms of a domain of language use e.g., what choices are

made by a particular author in a particular genre or in a particular text.

4. Literary stylistics is typically concerned with explaining the relation between style

and literary or aesthetic function.

As stated above through the mentioned definitions, the researcher states that

language is like a big shop that is equipped with different linguistic tools, and the

writer is a customer who can choose the appropriate tools according to his taste to

fulfill his job.

2.2.2 Stylistics

Stylistics, the combination of style and linguistics, its meaning varies based

on the theory that is adopted. When we carry out different activities that are

connected to our area of business, either in spoken or written forms, we often use

devices of thought and rules of language, but there are variations so as to change

meanings or to say the same thing in different ways. This is what the concept of style

is based upon: the use of language in different ways for achieving a common goal or

meaning.

As the researcher stated in this study that style stands for the tools that a write

chooses to deliver a message, stylistics is the big umbrella, which is concerned with

the study of these linguistic tools. In other words, stylistics is the study of style.

11

Verdonk (2002) defined stylistics as the analysis of distinctive expression in

language and the description of its purpose and effect.

Finch (2000) stated that stylistics is concerned with using the methodology of

linguistics to study the concept of style in language. He posits that every time we use

language, we necessarily adopt a style of some sort; we make a selection from a

range of syntactic and lexical possibilities according to the purpose of

communication.

Crystal and Davy (1969) said on stylistics, linguistics is the academic

discipline that studies language scientifically, and stylistics, as a part of this

discipline studies certain aspects of language variation. Furthermore, Leech and

Short (2007) claimed that Stylistics is a linguistic approach to literature, explaining

the relation between language and artistic function, with motivating questions such

as Why and How more than What.

Wales (2001) classified the term stylistics into two sub branches literary and

linguistic. Literary because it deals with literary texts and linguistic because it

derives its models or tools from linguistics. However, linguistic stylistics has also

referred to a kind of stylistics, which is not only focused on literary texts, but also on

the refinement of a linguistic model, which has potential stylistic analysis.

The researcher stated that applying the approach of Halliday and Hasan's

(1976) of cohesion goes under the category of linguistic stylistics. It is concerned

with applying a linguistic tool on a literary text and highlighting how such tool

functions in the text.

2.2.3 Text

Van Dijk (1972) stated that the word text includes any spoken or written

passage regardless of its length, and a text has certain peculiarities that distinguish it

from grouped words or utterances. In addition, Halliday and Hasan (1976) argued

that the word “text” refers to any passage, spoken or written, of whatever length, that

forms a unified whole, and a connected piece of language. Moreover, Widdowson

(1979) stated that a text is a collection of formal objects held together by patterns of

equivalence or frequencies or by cohesive devices.

12

2.2.4 The Concept of Cohesion

The root of the word cohesion comes from the verb cohere which stands for

the logical clustering of words, sentences and paragraphs in English language to

achieve connectedness between them. Marin (2009), stated that the study of cohesion

refers back to the 1960s of the previous century with the emergence of discourse

analysis. He also added that some linguists have referred to cohesion in their works,

but Halliday and Hasan carried out the first major thorough investigation in their

work cohesion in English (1976). Halliday & Hasan (1976) stated that cohesion

refers to the phonological, grammatical, lexical, and semantic ties of linking

sentences into larger units such as paragraphs and chapters to make them stick

together. According to Leech (1970), the intra-textual relation of lexical and

grammatical kinds unifies the parts of a text together into a complete unit of

discourse in order to convey the message of the text as a whole. In addition, Van

Dijk (1985) argued that cohesion is a term integrated with the making of coherence,

which points to the ties between the sentences of a given text. Leech and short (1981)

stated that cohesion is the formal tools that signaled connections in the text. Carter

and Nash (1990) argued that cohesion is the pattern of text's integrity, which hangs it

together. Gutwinski (1976) defined cohesion as the text-forming device, which ties

the sentences in a text together.

Also , Barker & Galasinki (2001) regarded cohesion as tool, which holds the

parts of a text together. It is concerned with how different units of a text holds up

together to form larger units, and this connection is achieved by the various

categories of cohesion. To sum up, cohesion is a semantic feature, which keeps the

parts of a text together to make it meaningful and understandable.

2.2.5 The place of Cohesion in linguistics

Halliday and Hasan (1976) stated that linguistically; language can be

expressed through three levels. The semantic level "meaning", the grammatical and

lexical "forms", and the phonological and orthographic one "writing and sounding".

In other words, to produce a meaningful piece of language, we should go through

three stages. First, we state the idea in our minds. Second, we choose the aspects of

13

grammar and vocabulary to express the idea. Finally, we choose the way to deliver

our idea either written or spoken.

In fact, the researcher stated the above discussion about the three level of

linguistics to figure out the place of cohesion in these levels. The researcher reached

to a conclusion that cohesion falls under the second linguistic level, which is the

lexicogrammatical one. Since cohesion can be expressed either through grammar

"grammatical cohesion" or by lexis "lexical cohesion".

2.2.6 The place of Cohesion in the Semantic System

According to Halliday and Hasan (1976), the semantic system of language

has three major components; the ideational, interpersonal and textual. The first

function of language "ideational" gives our thoughts and experiences the structure to

express them. The second one "interpersonal" serves the intrapersonal relations

between the users of the language. Finally, the textual function of language serves

the forming of cohesive and coherent texts.

Based on the dissection about the language semantic system, the researcher

concluded that cohesion falls under the textual component since it contributes to the

creation of a text.

2.3 Halliday and Hasan's Model

Halliday and Hasan were the first scholars who delved deeply in the

definition and classification of cohesion in their book Cohesion in English (1976).

They view cohesion as a semantic concept referring to meaningful relations within

the text, and give it the property of texture. It occurs where the interpretation of some

element in the discourse is dependent on the presence of another. One element

presupposes the other one and its interpretation requires going back to the former

one. Cohesion is part of the system of language and its potential lies in the systematic

resource of reference, ellipsis, and others that are built in language. Hence, cohesion

is not structural relation that holds the different parts of sentences, but rather is a

semantic one that links text parts based on their meaning relations and, in such case,

each element is interpretable by recourse to another.

14

Following Halliday and Hasan (1976), there were two contracted schools

about the role of cohesion in a text. The first group, which agreed with the view of

Halliday and Hasan that regard it as a semantic concept which gives the text its

definition and texture. Givon (1981) and Hoey (1980) introduced such works. The

second group which have different view argued that cohesion provides only

grammatical connections in the text and has nothing to do with understanding, which

is gained by coherence. Widdowson (2007) and Carrel (1982) introduced such

works.

To sum up, the researcher stated that cohesion is a tool, which provides

connectedness and meaning to the text by hanging the sentences and paragraphs

together. Hereunder, the researcher tackled the classification of cohesive types as

provided by Halliday and Hasan in their seminal work Cohesion in English (1976).

2.3.1 Types of Cohesion

Halliday and Hasan (1976) divided cohesion into two main groups. The first

group encompasses the grammatical cohesion and the second one includes the lexical

one. Grammatical cohesion is demonstrated in the text by using items such as

pronouns, prepositions, demonstratives and auxiliaries. Moreover, reference,

substitution, ellipses and conjunctions are tools of grammatical cohesion. On the

other hand, the devices of lexical cohesion are reiteration and collocation. Reiteration

is expressed by the use of repetition, synonymy, superordinate and general words.

While, collocation members include hyponymy, antonymy, meronymy, Ordered set,

and relations that are not systematic.

2.3.2 Grammatical Cohesion

According to Harmer (2004), cohesion refers to the different grammatical

tools, which makes the relations between sentences more explicit. However, cohesive

devices link the sentences of a given text together in a certain way. The purpose of

using these devices is to enable the reader to understand the items referred to, the

ones replaced and even the ones deleted.

Grammatical cohesion is classified according to the categories of reference,

substitution, ellipsis, and conjunction. According to Halliday & Hasan (1976) the

first three types are purely grammatical while the fourth category of conjunction

15

occurs in between the grammatical and lexical classification, but it is closer to the

former. Each one of these categories has three sub-divisions according to the

grammatical items used in realizing them.

2.3.2.1 Referencing

According to Eggins (1994), the purpose of referencing cohesion is to retrieve presupposed information in the text and must be identifiable in order to be cohesive. In written text, referencing shows how the writer presents participants and keeps track of them throughout the whole text. Referencing has two major types; exophoric referencing, which maintains information out of the immediate context of situation. While, endophoric referencing refers to information that can be retrieved from the immediate text.

In fact, endophoric referencing has two types: anaphoric and cataphoric. Anaphoric reference refers to information mentioned previously in the text. In other words, it points to information in the preceding part of the text. On the other hand, cataphoric reference signals forward to any information that will be presented in the following part of the text.

Crystal (2008) stated that anaphora is a way of interpreting a linguistic item

depending on some previously expressed item, which is referred to as the antecedent.

Anaphoric reference is one way of marking the identity between what is being

expressed and what has already been expressed. On the other hand, Bussman (1996)

argued that cataphora is a term that refers to a linguistic unit, which indicates

information directly following the utterance.

Halliday and Hasan (1976) mentioned that there are three main types of

cohesive references: personal, demonstrative, and comparative.

First, personal reference keeps track of function through the speech situation

using noun pronouns like “he, him, she, and her …etc., and possessive determiners

like mine, yours, his, hers, etc.

Second, demonstrative reference keeps track of information through location

using proximity references like this, these, that, those, here, there, then, and the.

16

Third, comparative reference keeps track of identity and similarity through indirect references using adjectives like same, equal, similar, different, else, better, more, etc. and adverbs like so, such, similarly, otherwise, so, more, etc.

2.3.2.2 Substitution

Whereas reference functions to link semantic meanings within a text, substitution differs in that since it operates as a linguistic link. According to Bloor and Bloor (1995), writers use substitution to avoid the repetition of a certain word. In other words, substitution is achieved in the text by replacing an item instead of another. Differs from reference, substitution is a relation between linguistic items such as words or phrases.

Halliday and Hasan (1976) stated that substitution is a grammatical relation that may function as a noun, verb, or clause. Therefore, they highlighted three various types of substitution: nominal, verbal, and clausal. In fact, when an item in the text is substituted, the replaced item performs the same function. In this regard, there are three possibilities; first, if the substituted item is a noun, the replaced item functions as a noun. Second, if the substituted item is a verb, the replaced item functions as a verb third, if the substituted item is an adjective, the replaced item functions as an adjective.

To give an obvious holistic image about the three types of substitution the researcher presents Kennedy's (2003) classification. Which pointed out that there are three types of substitution: nominal, verbal, and clausal substitution.

• Nominal substitution: In this type the writer, replace the noun or a nominal group by "one" or "ones". In nominal substitution (one-ones) always, operate as a head of nominal group. For example,

A: sales assistant; "would like the gray jacket or the blue one".

In this example, the item “one” replace the word “jacket”.

• Verbal substitution: In this type, the writer, replaces the verb or a verbal group by the verb "do". In verbal substitution "do" functions as a head of verbal group, and it is usually placed at the end of the group. For example,

A: Ahmed says "you play well".

B: So do you?

Here, "do” substitutes “play well”.

17

• Clausal substitution: In this type, the writer replaces the clause by “so” or “not”. For example,

A: we going to play football, are you coming?

B: I think so.

In this example, the clause “I am coming” is substituted with “so”.

2.3.2.3 Ellipsis

Hillier (2004) defined ellipsis as cutting out words phrases and sentences in the text. He also stated that there are two types of ellipsis, textual and situational ellipsis. The first type can be determined from elsewhere in the text, whereas the second one can be illustrated from the immediate situation. Furthermore, Hoey (1983) considered ellipsis as an omission that happens when part of a given sentence is incomplete. He added that the missing parts could be retrieved from another part of text. Thompson (2004) defined ellipsis as a tool used by the writer to avoid the repetition of a clause or a sentence. Cruse (2006) indicated that ellipsis depends on a conventional notion of a complete sentence. It happens when an utterance takes the form of an incomplete sentence, usually in a situation where (a) the missing parts are basic to the proper interpretation of the utterance, and (b) the hearer can easily recover them. Answers to questions are often elliptical.

To give an obvious holistic image about the three types of ellipsis the researcher

restores Kennedy's classification. Kennedy (2003) stated that ellipsis is the omission

of verb, noun or clause. He also pointed out that there are three types of ellipsis

nominal, verbal, and clausal substitution.

• Nominal ellipsis: In this type, the writer may delete a common noun, proper

noun or pronoun within the nominal group. For example,

I like tea, do you want some(o). In this example, the omission is concerned

with the noun “tea”.

• Verbal ellipsis: In this type, the writer omits a verb within the verbal group. For

example,

A: Have you finished your studying?

B: Not, yet (0).

18

Here, the word "yet" is used instead of I have not finish my reading.

• Clausal ellipsis: In this type, the writer may delete a clause and it functions as

verbal ellipsis, where the omission refers to a clause.

2.3.2.4 Conjunctions

Conjunction is a main type of cohesion devices and it appears in the text by using formal markers to connect the sentences, clauses and paragraphs to each other. Conjunction points to the way the writer enables the reader to make sense between what is about to be said to what has been said earlier. In fact, this type of cohesive tool is different in nature from the other cohesive types; i.e. reference, substitution, and ellipsis. In this regard, Halliday and Hasan (1976) stated that: Conjunctive elements are cohesive not in themselves but indirectly, by virtue of their specific meanings; they are not primary devices for reaching out into the preceding (or following) text, but they express certain meanings, which presuppose the presence of other components in the discourse. Halliday and Hasan (1976) categorized the types of conjunctions as the follows:

Table (2.1): Type of Conjunctions

Type of conjunction

Function Example

Additive

To add more information to what is

already in the sentence

and, also, furthermore, in addition, besides, that is, in other words, moreover to indicate comparison: likewise, similarly, in the same way To indicate dissimilarity: on the other hand, in contrast, alternatively

Adversative To indicate contrast between information

in each clause

but, however, although, yet, though, only, nevertheless, despite this, on the other hand, instead, on the contrary, anyhow, at any rate

Causal To indicate causality so, then, hence, therefore, consequently, because, for this reason, it follows, on this basis, to this end

Temporal To indicate time

then, next, before, after, during, when, at the same time, previously, finally, at last, soon, next day, an hour later, meanwhile, at this moment, first, second, third, in conclusion, up to now

19

The researcher added an extra type of conjunctions, which is the continuative

items, that is not included in Halliday and Hasan's model but they included it in their

book. The continuative items function as a conjunction between the parts of

dialogues, and it commonly happens at the beginning of a response of any dialogue

such as "now" and "well".

2.3.3 Lexical Cohesion

Lexical cohesion is considered as the most sophisticated cohesive tool and the

most complicated one to understand too. According to Halliday & Hasan (2001),

lexical cohesion is a semantic link that can be achieved in a text by the co-occurrence

of related vocabulary. It is about the way in which lexical components integrate with

each other so that textual continuity is created.

Wu (2010) argued that lexical cohesion is the most advanced cohesive category

and thus is the most difficult one to be comprehended. It establishes a cohesive effect

when associations are made among items within and beyond confines sentence. This

connection may be of equivalent meaning relation or a contrastive or of co-

occurrence.

2.3.4 Types of lexical cohesion

Halliday & Hasan (2001) stated the types of lexical cohesion as the following:

1) Reiteration: is when an expression or part of an expression is repeated. This is

very common in speech.

• Repetition: is simply repeated words or word-phrases, threading through the

text. While substitution and ellipsis avoid repetition, lexical repetition

exploits it for stylistic effect.

For example, what we lack in a newspaper is what we should get .In a word,

popular newspaper may be the winning ticket. (The lexical item "newspaper"

is repeated in the same form).

• Synonymy: Two lexical items are said to be synonymous if they are very

similar in meaning.

For example, you could try reversing the car up the slope. The incline isn‘t

all that steep.

20

• Superordinates: a word or a word-phrase whose meaning is included

within that of another word; a particular sub-class of a higher class.

For example, Ahmed bought a new Mercedes. He loves that car.

• General words: They can be general nouns, such as ‘thing’, ‘stuff’,

‘place’, ‘person’, ‘woman’, ‘man’, ‘human’, etc., or general verbs, such as

‘do’ or ‘happen’, which are higher level superordinate's: they are the

umbrella terms that can cover almost everything.

For example, Ali did not eat his cake. He dislikes that thing.

2) Collocation: is a type of lexical cohesion that depends not on any semantic

relation but on the tendency of items to co-occur in texts.

2.4 Brief introduction about All My Sons

Miller wrote All My Son to depict the American life during and after the World War II. The dominant theme of the play is getting money to achieve prosperity in life regardless the way to obtain it. He also tried to tell us that the reward depends on the kind of the deed and justice always wins at the end.

2.5 Brief introduction about the characters

1- The main characters • Joe Keller

• Kate Keller "mother".

• Chris Keller.

• Ann Deever.

• George Deever.

• Jim Bayliss

• Sue Bayliss

• Frank Lubey

• Lydia Lubey

• Bert

2- The unseen characters • Larry Keller

• Steave Deever.

21

2.6 Previous Studies Previous research can be considered as the first step towards a more profound

understanding of the general idea of this research. The researcher in this study has

reviewed some relevant studies that have been conducted to investigate the aspects of

cohesion in different genres. Accordingly, eleven relevant previous studies have been

selected to meet the purpose of this concern.

1- Hirst (2006)

This study investigated the readers’ perceptions and interpretations of lexical

cohesion in text for individual differences. Five participants were instructed to read

‘Reader Digest’ article and marked the word groups using different color for every

group. All of the word groups were transferred into a data sheet, where they stated

which pair or words as related, what the relationship was and its meaning. The data

were analyzed to examine the degree of individual differences in the response. The

finding showed that for both theory and as a practical tool to decide on the

commonly agreed on and the subjective aspects, the lexical cohesion was useful in

text understanding.

2- Hameed (2008)

This study tried to investigate the tools of grammatical and lexical cohesion

in a news article. The researcher adopted Halliday and Hasan's (1976) model of

cohesion theory to analyze the text. The sample of the study was a news article

entitled "Ruins with a view" issued in an American magazine in Sept (2004) and was

written by Calra power. The findings concluded that in this article there were "47"

conditions of referencing, "1" of substitution, "9" of conjunctions and "13"

conditions of ellipsis. In addition, there were nearly "50" conditions of lexical

cohesion. This paper indicated that lexical cohesion is highly important to connect

sentences and paragraphs and create meaning in the text.

3- Akindele (2011)

This study investigated the grammatical and lexical cohesive tools in two

academic papers. The researcher examined and identified all the cohesive devices

deeply. To achieve his purpose, he adapted the categorization of cohesive devices

conducted by Halliday and Hasan (1976) to create the relationship inside the text.

22

The result of the study stated that the writer should use both types of cohesive

devices to produce a meaningful text. It also focused on the importance of using

variety of grammatical and lexical cohesion to develop a well-unified text.

4- Al-Janabi (2013)

This study aimed at investigating the frequency and occurrence of lexical

adhesive devices in two short stories. The researcher of this study moved to a

different path from the majority of other studies related to cohesion analysis, which

is the comparative analysis. the paper was conducted to prove four hypotheses: a) the

ratio of reiteration in Arabic literary texts is higher than in English literary texts. b)

The number of synonym words in English is higher than in Arabic texts. c) Lexical

cohesive devices are more intensive in English literary texts than Arabic literary

texts. For this purpose, the researcher adopted Halliday and Hasan's (1976) cohesion

Model. The sample of this study was an English short story Clerical Errors written

by James Cozzens and an Arabic one Al Shebeh the gohst written by Eismat Abu

Hamdan. The findings proved the first hypotheses, which indicated that the ratio of

reiteration in the Arabic short story Al Shebeh the "ghost" is higher than the English

short story "Clerical errors". The second one showed that the frequency of word

repetition in Al Shebeh is higher than the Clerical errors. The third hypothesis

indicated that synonyms tend to be higher in English short story than the Arabic one.

Meanwhile, the fourth hypothesis, which proved incorrect, revealed that the lexical

cohesive devices are more intensive in Al Shebeh than in Clerical errors.

5- Jabeen, Mehmood & Iqbal (2013)

This study investigated the significance of ellipsis, substitution, and reference

as key components in creating connectedness and meaning between the parts of a

text. The sample of this study was a one-act play The Bear written by Anton

Chekhov. The researchers adopted Halliday and Hasan's approach in classifying

grammatical cohesion. The findings showed that ellipsis, substitution, and reference

have their own functions that contribute to the whole meaning of the play. It also

revealed that the use of these three cohesive devices help the reader to grasp the play

smoothly.

23

6- Salumee (2013)

This study was conducted to analyze the occurrences of cohesive devices in

literary and scientific texts. Therefore, the researcher stated three questions to be

answered in this study. First, do all the categories of grammatical and lexical

cohesive devices occur in both scientific and literary texts? second, "are cohesive

devices more in scientific texts than literary ones? Third, which is the most cohesive

type used in both texts?". To answer the former three questions the researcher choose

three scientific text and another three literary ones taken from the internet and written

by British writers. The researcher adopted the model of Halliday and Hasan's in

classifying cohesive types. After the process of analysis and applying the theory of

cohesion on these texts, the answer were addressed. The first one proved that all the

types of grammatical and lexical cohesive devices occur in both literary and

scientific texts. The second one proved that grammatical and lexical cohesive devices

are more frequent in scientific texts with 95% than in literary texts with 79%. The

reason for this difference is that scientific texts can be simplified more than literary

ones. That is because writers have the chance to use cohesive ties in the scientific

texts while the literary ones have abstract ideas, which hinder the writers from using

more cohesive ties. The third one proved that conjunctions turned to be the most

frequent type of grammatical cohesion, while repetition happened to be the most

frequent type of lexical cohesion.

7- Baleviciene (2014)

This paper aimed to analyze the impact of genre and the use of cohesive

devices. To achieve this goal the researcher chose a sample of two genres, the

literary genre and the legal one. The researcher adopted Halliday and Hasan's

approach to analyze the texts. The findings revealed that the genre has an evident

influence on the density and distribution of cohesive devices. It also demonstrated

that the most frequent type of cohesive devices used in fiction belongs to the group

of reference whereas the most frequent one used in legal documents belongs to the

group of lexical cohesion. Furthermore, the findings showed that the literary genre

demonstrates all possible types of substitution and ellipsis, whereas in the legal genre

this type of cohesive devices has very low frequency. In addition, conjunction was

24

identified as the least commonly employed type of cohesive devices in fiction as well

as in the legal context. Cohesive devices are important in all types of communication

as they signal to the addressee the connections between the sentences of the text

8- Aghdam and Hadidi, (2015)

This study aimed at analyzing and illuminating the occurrence of two types of

lexical cohesive devices, collocation and synonymy in a comparative approach. The

targeted sample of this study was academic and news genre. The sample of this study

contained 2000 words for each genre. To achieve the objective of their study the

researchers adopted the model, of Halliday and Hasan's (1976) for the analysis of the

text. The researchers analyzed and calculated the frequency of both collocation and

synonymy lexical cohesive devices in each genre. The results highlighted that in the

discussion sections of academic articles, synonymy was the most frequent type.

While the analysis of the news genre proved that collocations were the prominent

cohesive device. Furthermore, the frequency and percentage of synonymous words

were higher than collocation words in academic articles. On the other hand, the

frequency and percentage of collocation words are higher than synonymous words in

the news genre. The findings of this study carried out some implications to improve

students' writing awareness in the EFL classroom.

9- Oda, Latif and Salih(2015)

This study tried to investigate the occurrences of grammatical and lexical

cohesion in literary texts the chosen sample of this study was Hard Times a novel

written by Charles Dickens. The researchers applied the study on part one of the

novel. They used Halliday and Hasan's approach (1976) of cohesion to analyze the

text. The results revealed that part one contained "5174" conditions of cohesive

devices including "3110" grammatical and "2064" lexical ones. However, the total

number of grammatical cohesive devices was "3110" included "300" examples of

conjunctions, "59" of ellipsis, "33" of substitution and "2252" examples of

references. Furthermore, the study proved that the dominant type of conjunctions was

the adversative one, the clausal one of ellipsis, the verbal one of substitution and the

anaphoric one of referencing. On the other hand, lexical ties were counted "2064"

times including "1789" of reiteration and "275" of collocation. Regarding the

25

relation between the three major components of the novel, characters, themes,

imagery, and the distribution of the cohesive devices the results revealed the

following: First, there was a relation between the density of the cohesive devices and

the importance of the character's role in the novel. Second, cohesive related to

themes showed that "Facts .vs. Fancy" received "426" ties, which means it dominates

part one in the novel. Third, the portion of cohesive ties varied from one imagery to

another. The researchers concluded that the density and distribution of cohesive

devices used by Dickens are not random, but he purposefully used them to highlight

the importance of one element more than the other in part one.

10- Gatt (2017)

This study shed lights on cohesion as a key component to achieve textuality

and meaning in a text. Many EFL learners are unaware of cohesion's use and

significance in their writing as a product. Based on this issue, Gatt stated two aims in

this study. First, to find out students tendency towards using lexical cohesion in their

writing. Second, to figure out the most and the least lexical tie used by students in

their writings. For this purpose, the researcher choose a sample of 30 email written

by Kurdish EFL students at Garmian University. The researcher adopted Salkie

(1997) categorization of lexical cohesion as a tool to analyze student's emails. The

findings proved that there was a tendency for using lexical cohesion ties in student's

writings. It also showed that repetition was the most frequent types with 45% while

antonyms were the least one with 9%.

11- Afianti (2017)

This study investigated the importance of lexical cohesion as a key

component in creating meaning in a text. The researcher first aimed at analyzing the

aspects of lexical cohesion. Second, identifying the most and the least frequent type

of lexical cohesion. The sample of the study was a journal article entitled What is a

Good Research Project? Written by Brian Palrtidge. The tool of the study was

Paltridge (2000) classification of lexical cohesion to analyze the text. The findings

showed that repetition was the most frequent type, which counted 320 occurrences.

Meanwhile, hyponymy was the least frequent one with 12 occurrences.

26

12- HE (2017)

This study focused on analyzing and investigating how lexical cohesion is

used in the Queen’s Christmas Broadcast. The sample of this study consisted of five

samples performed by the queen from 2011 to 2015. The researcher stated this

question in the study, what are the types of lexical cohesion used in the Queen’s

speech? To fulfill this question the researcher adopted Halliday and Hasan's (1976)

model to analyze the speeches. The results showed that the most frequent type of

lexical cohesion was repetition while superordinate was the least frequent one.

However, the researcher stated that the importance of repetition that it emphasizes

and highlights the central point of the speech, which makes it understandable for the

audience. Moreover, repetition of certain words or phrases makes the context more

coherent. Thus, the whole speech will be more unified and well organized. The

researcher also argued that the study of lexical cohesion of English speech could also

give some importance to the pedagogical field.

Commentary

All the previously mentioned studies tackled the significance of cohesive devices as

key components that create meaning and textuality. Generally, all the previous

literature aimed to analyze the frequencies and occurrences of cohesive devices in

different samples to prove that cohesion is a major component for creating continuity

in meaning. In other words, such studies had a common objective, which is

investigating the frequencies of cohesive devices; however, there were some

differences in the investigated type. For example, six studies out of elven; Hirst

(2006), Al-Janabi (2013), Aghadam and Hadidi (2015), Gatt (2017), Afianti, (2017)

and HE (2017); Focused only on lexical cohesion. On the other hand, Hameed

(2008), Akindde (2011), Salumee (2013), Baleviciene (2014) and Oda, Latif and

Salih (2015) investigated both types, the grammatical and the lexical one. Jabeen,

Mehmed, and Iqbal (2013) focused only on grammatical devices. It is obvious that

many studies tackled about the lexical cohesion since it is highly important to make a

text cohesive and difficult to understand by readers and learners. While few studies

talked about grammatical cohesion as it is easier to understand.

27

Regarding the sample of study, there were many different samples as illustrated

in the following points:

• Hameed (2008) a news article.

• Akindele (2011) academic papers.

• Al-Janabi (2013) short stories.

• Jabeen mohmod and Tabal (2013) one – act play The Bear.

• Salumee (2013) literary and scientific text.

• Baleviciene (2014) litrrary and legal texts.

• Aghdam and Haddidi, (2015) academic and news years.

• Oda, ltif and Salih (2015) part one Hard Times.

• Gatt (2017) student's emails.

• Afianti, (2017) journal article.

• HE (2017) public speeches.

All the previous studies used the same tool to conduct the analysis, which is

Halliday and Hasan's (1976) approach. The current study agrees with the previous

studies in two aspects. First, it aims at investigating the frequencies of grammatical

and lexical cohesion. Second, it uses Halliday and Hasan's (1976) Model as a tool of

the study. Therefore, this study attempts to implement Halliday and Hasan's

approach on All My Sons, apply writer since such work was not traced before now in

Gaza strip's context.

Chapter III

Methodology

29

Chapter 3

Methodology

This chapter addresses the methodology used in this research. Accordingly,

more elaboration will be given about the following points.

3.1 Research Design

This study contains two types of data; qualitative data and quantitative data.

The qualitative that is basically descriptive which will be presented through the

investigation of the different cohesive devices, their importance, and function in the

target literary text. However, the quantitative data contains numerical values, and it

will be presented through investigating the frequencies of cohesive devices in the

form of tables in the section of results' discussion.

3.2 Research Sample

The chosen sample of this study is an American play All My Sonwritten by

Arthur Miller, one of the most famous American playwrights. The researcher

chooses Arthur Miller's play for its richness and value for the key objectives of the

current study. In addition, it is worth mentioning that All My Sonis being taught in

most universities globally and locally.

3.3 Research Methodology

The method of this study undergoes the big canvas of stylistic analysis

approach. In fact, the stylistic analysis approach is mainly concerned with

investigating the style of the writers by explicating the semantic, syntactic,

morphological, phonological and lexical levels of a text to illuminate the deviations

made by the writes to achieve their massage and meaning through the text itself. In

this study, the researcher is going to choose cohesion and its devices of the stylistic

analysis to analyze the play All My Sons. To achieve the objectives of the study, the

researcher adopts Halliday and Hasan's (1976) approach in categorizing the different

types of cohesive devices.

30

3.4 The tool of The Study

The researcher uses the approach of Halliday and Hasan in categorizing the

types of cohesion with some modifications on it to analyze the text "all my sons".

However, the researcher provides elaboration about the modifications in the

following.

A. Grammatical Cohesion Includes the Following Types:

1- References categories

• Endophoric and exophoric

• For the Endophoric it includes the cataphoric and anaphoric.

2- References types

• Personal reference

• Demonstrative reference

• Comparative reference

3- Ellipsis types

• Nominal

• Verbal

• Clausal

4- Substitution types

• Nominal

• Verbal

• Clausal

5- Conjunctions

• Additive

• Adversative

• Causal

• Temporal

31

• Continuative

The researcher here adds the type "continuative" to the list of conjunctions,

which it is not, included in the model but it is written in their book cohesion in

English (1967). The researcher adds the continuative items because it functions as a

conjunction between the dialogues and that suits the analysis of the current study.

B. Lexical Cohesion

The analysis of the current study focuses only on the following subcategories of

lexical cohesion that goes under the term reiteration.

• Repetition

• Synonyms

• General nouns

However, the researcher excludes the two subcategories of lexical cohesion,

collocation and superordinate. In fact, the researcher excluded the former two

subcategories since both of them carry the same function in the text. Furthermore, the

relation of two words might be a collocation and superordinate at the same time and

this might causes ambiguity to understand the relation between the words in texts

properly.

Chapter IV Cohesion in the Text

All My Sons

33

Chapter IV

Cohesion in the text All My Sons

4.1 Introduction

This chapter stand as the core of the present study since it presents the

conducted frequencies and percentages of the aspects of cohesion in the text "All my

sons". The text is divided into three acts and written in dramatic discourse as the

nature of written plays should be. Here, cohesion is analyzed in terms of the

conducted model for this study introduced by Hallidy and Hasan (1976) Cohesion in

English. Besides, the study adopts their views about the types of cohesion, which

provides five cohesive categories for analyzing texts as reference, substitution,

ellipsis, conjunction, and lexical cohesion. Furthermore, the sub-categories of these

devices such as nominal, clausal, and verbal substitution and ellipsis are analyzed

and exhibited. Consequently, the study analyzes the types of references such as the

exophoric , anaphoric and cataphoric and the five types of conjunctions such as the

additive, adversative, causal, temporal and continuative. However, as far as the

lexical cohesion is concerned, the study analyzes all the types with excluding the

superordinate and collocation.

4.2 Data management

The source of analyzed data of the present study is the text "All My Sons". In

order to fulfill the objectives and questions of the study the following procedures

have been considered.

1- The researcher surveyed the whole text to get a complete idea about the events,

setting, themes and characters of the text "All My Sons".

2- The researcher numbered the lines of each page of the text "All my sons" to

make the process of analyzing the text easier and to allow the readers of the

current study reach the analyzed data easily without confusion.

3- The researcher started with identifying and categorizing the frequent types of

references with the presupposed item of each reference occurred in act I, II and

III.

34

4- The researcher identified and categorized the frequencies and types of ellipsis

and substitution with the presupposed item of each one occurred in act I, II

and III.

5- The researcher identified and categorized the frequencies and types of

conjunctions occurred in act I, II and III.

6- The researcher identified and categorized the frequencies of repeated words in

act I, II and III.

7- The researcher highlighted the frequencies of synonyms in act I, II and III.

8- The researcher highlighted the frequencies of general nouns with the

presupposed item of each one in act I, II and III.

4.3 Data analysis, results and dissection

In the light of the previous procedures, the researcher comes up with the

results that address and fulfill the objectives and questions of the current study. The

results are presented in tables and charts for the purpose of analysis and

interpretation. Furthermore, discussions and examples of the results are consequently

introduced pursuant to each table as follows:

Table (4.1): the distribution of cohesive devices in the text All My Sons

Act I Act II Act III All My Son

Cohesion

Freq

uenc

y

Perc

enta

ges

Freq

uenc

y

Perc

enta

ges

Freq

uenc

y

Perc

enta

ges

Freq

uenc

y

Perc

enta

ges

Grammatical Cohesion 2021 94.75% 1873 95.51% 905 94.76% 4799 95.05%

Lexical cohesion 112 5.25% 88 4.49% 50 5.24% 250 4.95%

Total 2133 100.00% 1961 100.00

% 955 100.00% 5049 100.00

%

35

Figure (4.1): the distribution of cohesive devices in the text All my sons

Cohesion at the level of the text All My Son in table (1) shows that in act I, act

II and act III of text, Grammatical Cohesion occurs at the highest rates (93.35%,

94.74% and 92.44% respectively). As for reiteration, it appears very little: 5.25% in

the act I, 4.49% in act II and 5.24% in act III. The researcher states that the big gap

between the usages of the two types lies in the big number of using references since

the nature of the text forces the writer to do so. In other words, the nature of the text

depends mainly on the characters and the interaction between them. As a result of

this, the number of references dominates the cohesive devices.

36

Table (4.2): the distribution of Grammatical Cohesion in the text All My Sons

Act I Act II Act III All My Son

Grammatical Cohesion

Freq

uenc

y

Perc

enta

ges

Freq

uenc

y

Perc

enta

ges

Freq

uenc

y

Perc

enta

ges

Freq

uenc

y

Perc

enta

ges

Ellipsis 34 1.68 18 0.96 8 0.88 60 1.25

Substitution 15 0.74 22 1.17 12 1.33 49 1.02

Conjunctions 329 16.28 288 15.38 149 16.46 766 15.96

References 1643 81.30 1545 82.49 736 81.33 3924 81.77

Total 2021 100.00 1873 100.00 905 100.00 4799 100.00

Figure (4.2): the distribution of Grammatical Cohesion in the text All My Sons

37

Grammatical cohesion analysis at the level of the text All My Son in table (2)

demonstrates that the different types of Grammatical Cohesion come at different

rates with great differences as References occur the highest and Ellipsis the lowest.

In Acts I, II and III, References occur at 81.30%, 82.49% and 81.33%. On the other

hand, Ellipsis occurs at 1.68%, 0.96% and 0.88%. As for Substitution and

Conjunctions, Substation comes at second least: 0.74%, 1.17% and 1.33%. Although

Conjunctions comes at second most, a huge difference appears between them and the

occurrence of References with 16.28% in the first act, 15.38% in the second act and

16.46% in the third act. Therefore, in total of the text All My Sons, the different types

of Grammatical Cohesion occurs as 1.25% for Ellipsis, 1.02% for Substitution,

15.96% for Conjunctions and 81.77% for References.

Table (4.3): the distribution of references subcategories in the text All My Sons

Act I Act II Act III All My Son

References

Freq

uenc

y

Perc

enta

ges

Freq

uenc

y

Perc

enta

ges

Freq

uenc

y

Perc

enta

ges

Freq

uenc

y

Perc

enta

ges

Endophoric 1569 95.50 1509 97.67 724 98.10 3802 96.84

Exophoric 74 4.50 36 2.33 14 1.90 124 3.16

Total 1643 100.00 1545 100.00 738 100.00 3926 100.00

38

Figure (4.3): the distribution of references subcategories in the text all my sons

Referencing analysis of the text in table (3) illustrates the occurrence rates of

the types of References: Endophoric and Exophoric. There is a significant difference

in the use of Endophoric References from the use of Exophoric. In the Acts I, II and

III, Endophoric References are used at 95.50%, 97.67% and 98.10% respectively.

However, the Exophoric References are used at 4.50%, 2.33% and 1.90%. In All My

Sons, Endophoric References occur at 96.84%, while the Exophoric at 3.16%.

4.4 Discussion and Examples of the References Subcategories.

As illustrated above in table 3 the number of the Endophoric references is

remarkably higher than the exophoric ones. The researcher noticed that this huge

difference is expectable and goes with the nature of the text. In other words, the

dialogues between characters "dominate the nature of the text- All my sons.

Therefore, to keep the text cohesive and meaningful the playwright uses a large

portion of Endophoric references. For instance, the examples below illustrate the

playwright's intent behind using such Endophoric references in act one:

39

Table (4.4): Examples of References Subcategories in the Text All My Sons

Page Line No. Cohesion Item Category- Endophoric

Presupposed Item

4 2 I E Keller

4 2 I E Keller

4 2 It E Tobacco

4 4 Here E Paper

4 8 My E Keller

4 8 That E Sky

4 13 I E Keller

4 13 I E Keller

4 13 It E Paper

4 14 You E Keller

The examples above highlighted the importance of Endophoric references

that can be identifiable from the text itself. For example, the items "I" "you"

presuppose the character Keller. So, instead of repeating the same name the writer

uses the pronouns that refer to it to keep the text cohesive and meaningful.

On the other hand, a small number of exophoric references is used in the text

because the writer referred to some elements that are necessary for keeping the

meaning understandable. These exophoric references can be easily identified since

the write utilizes some elements that lead to them. Here are some examples of

exophoric references used in the text.

Example (1)

Then it cannot rain. (All my sons, p. 4. 4)

In the above example, the pronoun can be easily identified from the context. The

pronoun refers exophoric lly to the sky.

40

Example (2).

Who worked for nothing' in that war? When they ship a gun or a truck outa

Detroit before they got their price? (All my sons, p. 82. 23)

As stated above, the underlined pronouns cannot be identified from the text but it is

important to identify them to keep the stream of meaning and understanding.

Depending on the given the information the researcher elicits that these two

pronouns refer to merchants during the war.

Example (3)

Yesterday they flow in a load of papers from the state. (All my sons, p. 83. 22)

In this example, the underlined pronoun refers exophoric lly to the army.

Example (4).

They will probably report me missing. (All my sons, p. 83. 31)

In this example, the underlined pronoun refers exophoric lly to the army.

Table (4.5): the distribution of Endophoric subcategories in the text all my sons

Act I Act II Act III All My Son

Endophoric

Freq

uenc

y

Perc

enta

ges

Freq

uenc

y

Perc

enta

ges

Freq

uenc

y

Perc

enta

ges

Freq

uenc

y

Perc

enta

ges

Cataphoric 31 1.98 39 2.58 21 2.90 91 2.39

Anaphoric 1538 98.02 1470 97.42 703 97.10 3711 97.61

Total 1569 100.00 1509 100.00 724 100.00 3802 100.00

41

Figure (4.4): the Distribution of Endophoric subcategories in the text All My

Sons

Referencing analysis of the text in table (4) indicates that the Cataphoric and

Anaphoric types of References occur at significantly different rates, with Anaphoric

being more used. In Acts I, II and III Anaphoric References occur at 98.02%, 97.42%

and 97.10% with 97.61%. However, the Cataphoric References appear at much less

rates with 1.98% in Act I, 2.58 in Act II, 2.90% in Act III and 2.39% in the whole

text.

4.5 Examples and Discussion of Endophoric subcategories in the text All

My Sons

As shown in table 4 the number of cataphoric references is much less than the

anaphoric ones. The researcher states that this difference came as a result of the

different function of both references. In other words, the former functions to

presuppose information that comes after the pronoun. While, the latter functions to

presuppose information that has been mentioned before the pronoun. The researcher

stated that the playwright of the text used the cataphoric reference occasionally to

refer to a character or an idea that will come next in the text.

42

Table (4.6): Examples of anaphoric references from the text All My Sons

Page Line No. Cohesion Item Category- Anaphoric

Presupposed Item

6 1 I'm A Frank

8 1 I A Sue

10 1 You A Chris

11 5 They A Kids

13 5 Him A Larry

15 26 We A Chris and Keller

The list of the above examples shows the use of anaphoric references in the

text. For instance, the pronoun "I" refers backward to Frank, "you" refers backward

to Chris, "they" refers to kids, "him" refers to Larry, and "we" refers to Chris and

Keller. The researcher concludes that the first personal pronouns such as (I, we) and

the second person pronoun "you" are only used anaphorically.

Table (4.7): Examples of cataphoric references from the text All My Sons

Page Line No. Cohesion Item Category- cataphoric

Presupposed Item

12 17 She C Kate "mother"

12 18 She C Kate "mother"

12 28 Her C Kate "mother"

51 10 He C George

51 14 Him C George

The list of examples demonstrates the use of cataphoric references in the text.

For instance, the pronouns "she, her" refers afterward to Kate "mother" and" he, him"

refers afterward to George. The researcher stated that the playwright used such kind

of references to introduce a new character that is coming to take role in the text. In

addition, to give readers hints about the coming events in the text.

43

Table (4.8): Type of References in the Text All My Sons

Act I Act II Act III All My Son

type of reference

Freq

uenc

y

Perc

enta

ges

Freq

uenc

y

Perc

enta

ges

Freq

uenc

y

Perc

enta

ges

Freq

uenc

y

Perc

enta

ges

Demonstrative 159 9.68 140 9.06 49 6.64 348 8.86

Personal 1484 90.32 1405 90.94 689 93.36 3578 91.14

Comparative 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

Total 1643 100.00 1545 100.00 738 100.00 3926 100.00

Figure (4.5): Type of References in the text All My Sons

44

Referencing analysis of the text in table (5) shows that the two types of

Reference: Demonstrative and Personal occur at significantly different rates. In act I,

Demonstrative Reference occurs at 9.68% and the Personal at 90.32%. In act II, the

rates are almost the same with 9.06% for the Demonstrative and 90.94% for the

Personal. In the third act, however, little is changed as Demonstrative is used at a

lower rate (6.64%) and the Personal at a higher rate (93.36%). In total, the

Demonstrative occurred at 8.86% and the Personal at 91.14%.

4.6 Examples and discussion of References in the text All My Sons

As shown in table 5, the number of personal references is greatly higher the

demonstrative one. The researcher attributed this vast difference to the nature of the

text. In other words, the main concern of the text is the interaction of the characters

so; a large number of personal references is used to track the role and development of

the characters in the whole play.

Table (4.9): Examples of personal references from the text All My Sons

Page Line No. Cohesion Item Type Presupposed Item

5 1 I'm PR Keller

5 29 It PR Horoscope

6 4 We PR Frank and Keller

6 4 He PR Larry

41 8 You PR Chris

41 22 His PR Steave

42 5 Him PR George

42 7 Her PR Annie

58 4 Them PR Chris and Keller

79 28 Your PR Mother

82 12 Mine PR Keller

84 13 They PR The pilots

45

The above list of examples gives more clear idea about the use of the

personal references in the text. The researcher argued that the playwright used them

to keep tracking the characters through the whole play, so that he can keep the text

cohesive and meaningful. For instance, the pronoun "I am" refers to Keller, "he"

refers to Larry and "her" refers to Annie.

Therefore, the demonstrative references have limited functions in the text

such as tracking the place using the pronouns "here and there". Or to refer to some

objects and speeches using demonstrative pronouns " this, these, those, that".

Table (4.10): Examples of Demonstrative References from the Text All My Sons

Page Line No. Cohesion Item Type Presupposed Item

4 4 Here DR Newspaper

7 13 Here DR Keller's house

8 7 There DR Mr. Hubbard's house

11 12 That DR Seeing the jail

37 32 These DR Years

53 6 This D.R Grape juice

62 30 This DR The tree

67 26 This DR Larry's horoscope

67 11 Those DR the Heads

82 5 That DR Got Money

84 11 This DR Letter

The list of examples up there provide a clear image about the playwright's use

of demonstrative pronouns in the text. The researcher concluded that such type of

references is mainly used to presuppose places, objects or ideas. For instance, "here"

in first example refers to newspaper and "here" in the second one refers to the

Keller's house in which the play takes place. Furthermore, the demonstrative pronoun

"this" presupposes objects such as the grape juice, the tree, Larry's horoscope and the

46

Letter. Finally, the demonstrative pronoun "that" presupposes ideas such as seeing

the jail and getting money. The researcher argues that the demonstrative pronoun

"here" which refers to "Keller's house" is the most frequent demonstrative device

used by the playwright to indicate the unity of the place of the play.

The researcher concluded that an additional relation between the number of

references and the character or the objects used in the text. The more the number of

references the more the character or the object gets importance in the text. More

examples and explanation will be provided in the following:

Table (4.11): Characters Reference Density in the Text All My Sons

character No. of Rf. Act 1

No. of Rf. Act 2

No. of Rf. Act 3 Total

Keller 253 247 193 693

Chris 287 191 185 663

mother 171 96 71 338

Larry 76 23 48 147

Annie 315 212 102 629

George 28 228 0 256

Steave 36 61 0 97

Jim 32 16 31 79

Sue 13 56 1 70

Lydia 9 29 0 38

Frank 43 25 0 68

Bert 19 0 0 19

Tommy 9 0 0 9

As illustrated in the above examples the text analysis indicates that Keller is the most referred to character. The playwright used 693 references that are relevant to him and this density shows importance of the role this character in the whole text. Moreover, the analysis has shown that Chris and Annie has got the second highest

47

number of references with 663 ties for Chris and 629 for Annie. For mother and George the analysis proved that they received closed number of references in the third rank with 338 references for the mother and 256 ones for George.

The text analysis also proved that Jim, Sue, Lydia, Frank, Bert, and Tommy have least frequencies since they are all minor characters with limited roles in the text. Whereas, Larry and Steave has no speech role in the text but the writer used 147 references that are relevant to him and 97 ones relevant to Steave. This density showed their importance in the text although they have no speech roles.

Table (4.12): The Distribution of Ellipsis Subcategories in the Text All My Sons

Act I Act II Act III All My Son

Ellipsis

Freq

uenc

y

Perc

enta

ges

Freq

uenc

y

Perc

enta

ges

Freq

uenc

y

Perc

enta

ges

Freq

uenc

y

Perc

enta

ges

Nominal 1 2.94 2 11.11 1 12.50 4 6.67

Verbal 4 11.76 3 16.67 4 50.00 11 18.33

Clausal 29 85.29 13 72.22 3 37.50 45 75.00

Total 34 100.00 18 100.00 8 100.00 60 100.00

Figure (4.6): The Distribution of Ellipsis Subcategories in the Text All My Sons

48

Ellipsis analysis of the text in table (6) illustrates that the types of Ellipsis

occur at different rates with clear changes in style in the three acts. Regarding

Nominal Ellipsis, it occurs at 2.94%, 11.11% and 12.50% in the first, second and

third acts of All My Sons. As for Verbal Ellipsis, in the first and second acts it

appears at somewhat similar rate 11.76% and 16.67. However, a shift occurs in the

third act as this style is used at a higher rate: 50%. Finally, the use of Clausal Ellipsis

occurs at higher rates in the first (85.29%) and second (72.22%) acts but is at a much

lower rate in the third one with only 37.50%. In total, Ellipsis is used 6.67%

Nominal, 18.33% Verbal, and 75.00% Clausal.

4.7 Examples and discussion of Ellipsis Subcategories in the Text All My Sons

Referring to the playwright's use of ellipsis the researcher stated that it can be

easily noticed through the whole text. That is because the text depends mainly on

dialogues and such cohesive device is used frequently in the dialogues. The analysis

indicates that the author uses such cohesive device to avoid the repetition of a verb,

noun or clause with keeping the text meaningful and understandable. The below

examples clarify these points.

Example (1)

Frank: are you trying to buy something?

Keller: No. (All my sons, p. 5. 1)

In the above example, the word (No) expresses the use of clausal ellipsis since there

is a clause is omitted after it. The author used "No" instead of the whole clause," NO,

I am not trying to buy something".

Example (2)

Lydia: did the wind get your tree?

Keller: yeah, last night. (All my sons, p. 8. 30)

In the above example, the word (yeah) expresses the use of clausal ellipsis since

there is a clause is omitted after it. The author used "yeah" to avoid the repetition of

the whole clause," yeah, the wind got it last night".

Example (3)

Keller: I do not understand you, do I?

Chris: no, you do not. (All my sons, p. 16. 25)

49

In the above example, the underlined words illustrate the author's use of verbal ellipsis.

Since the verb understand is omitted to avoid the repetition of the verb.

Example (4)

Chris: I am relaxed.

Ann: are you? (All my sons, p. 42. 29)

Here in this example the word "relaxed" is omitted to avoid the repetition. And this

shows the author's use of nominal ellipsis.

Table (4.13): The Distribution of substitution Subcategories in the Text All My Sons

Act I Act II Act III All My Son

Substitution

Freq

uenc

y

Perc

enta

ges

Freq

uenc

y

Perc

enta

ges

Freq

uenc

y

Perc

enta

ges

Freq

uenc

y

Perc

enta

ges

Nominal 9 60.00 13 59.09 5 41.67 27 55.10

Verbal 5 33.33 3 13.64 5 41.67 13 26.53

Clausal 1 6.67 6 27.27 2 16.67 9 18.37

Total 15 100.00 22 100.00 12 100.00 49 100.00

Figure (4.7) The Distribution of Substitution Subcategories in the Text All My Sons

50

The substitution analysis of the text in table (7) shows that Substitution is

used at different rates without a clear pattern. In act I, for instance, Nominal

Substitution occurs at 60.00%, in act II at 59.09% and in act III at 41.67%. However,

Verbal Substitution occurs at 33.33% in the first act but occurs at very less

percentage in the second act (13.64%) and then rises greatly in the third act

(41.67%). Regarding Clausal Substitution, the use varies from one Act to another;

however, the differences are not as significant as in the use of Verbal Substitution. In

act I, it appears at a rate of 6.67%; in act II, 27.27%, but in act III at 16.67%. In total,

the various types of Substitution appear at different rates: 55.10% for Nominal,

26.53% for Verbal and 18.37% for Clausal.

Examples and discussion of Substitution Subcategories in the Text All My Sons

Regarding the use of substitution in the text, the researcher states that it has

the same function like ellipsis. The playwright used them to avoid the repetition of a

noun, verb, or clause. However, here the author substitutes them with another words

such as "do" in terms of verbs "one" in terms of nouns and "so, not" in terms of

clauses. The following examples clarify these points.

Table (4.14): Examples of Substitution Subcategories in the Text All My Sons

P. No Line – No Cohesion - Item Substitution-Type Presupposed Item

4 3 So Clausal It's going to rain

14 4 One Nominal Boy

81 8 Do Verbal Ask

In the first example the playwright replaces the whole clause "it's going to

rain" with "so" to avoid the repetition of it. In the second one, he replaces the noun

"boy" with "one". In third example, the author replaces the verb "ask" with "do" to

avoid the repetition of the verb.

51

Table (4.15): The Distribution of Conjunctions Types in the Text All My Sons

Act I Act II

Act III

All My Son

Conjunctions Fr

eque

ncy

Perc

enta

ges

Freq

uenc

y

Perc

enta

ges

Freq

uenc

y

Perc

enta

ges

Freq

uenc

y

Perc

enta

ges

Additive 130 39.51 108 37.50 55 36.91 293 38.25

Adversative 58 17.63 51 17.71 23 15.44 132 17.23

Causal 61 18.54 52 18.06 49 32.89 162 21.15

Temporal 37 11.25 54 18.75 15 10.07 106 13.84

Continuative 43 13.07 23 7.99 7 4.70 73 9.53

Total 329 100.00 288 100.00 149 100.00 766 100.00

Figure (4.8): The distribution of Conjunctions Types in the Text All My Sons

52

The conjunction's analysis of the text in table (8) shows that in act I, additive

conjunctions are the most frequent (39.51%) while continuative conjunctions are the

least frequent (13.07%) with temporal conjunctions coming second least (11.25%).

As for adversative and causal conjunctions, they appear at a close rate (17.63% and

18.54% respectively). In act II, the additive conjunctions remain the most frequent

(37.5%) and the continuative the least (7.99%). However, the adversative became

second least (17.71%) and the causal (18.06%) and temporal (18.75) appear at a

close rate. In act III, the additive conjunctions are the most frequent (36.91%) and the

continuative (4.7%) the least. As for the causal conjunctions, they are more frequent

than in the first and second acts (32.98%) indicating a big difference in style use. The

frequency of the adversative, temporal and continuative is 15.44%, 10.07% and

4.70%.

Examples and discussion of Conjunctions Types in the Text All My Sons

As illustrated above in table 8 the author of the text uses a large portion of

conjunctions. The researcher insured that conjunctions are highly important to the

hang up the parts of sentences to make them meaningful and understandable.

However, the researcher states that the difference between the previously mentioned

types of grammatical cohesion and convictions is that they presuppose nothing. In

other words, the function of conjunctions resides in the name of its type. For

example, the playwright used the additives to add a new idea, the adversatives to add

contrary one. While, he uses the causal for reasons and results and temporal to clarify

time's points. Finally, he uses the continuatives to serve the continuity of the

dialogues and speeches. The following examples clarifies these points:

Example (1)

Frank: he had been twenty-seven this month and his tree blows down. (All

My Sons,, p. 5. 25)

This example shows the use of additive "and" since it adds new information to the

previous sentence.

Example (2)

, p. 32. 27)onsSy MAll are not a murder. ( butKeller: that is a mistake

53

The underlined word expresses the use of adversative conjunctions in the text since it

adds a contrary idea to the previous one.

Example (3)

Mother: you think just because you like everybody, they like you. (All My

Sons,, p. 42. 3)

The underlined word expresses the use of casual conjunctions in the text since it

clarifies the reason of following sentence.

Example (4)

, p. 33. 25)onsSAll my I got here. ( since, kind of embarrassment wellAnn:

The first underlined word expresses the use of the continuative conjunction, which

happens frequently at the beginning of the response in the dialogue. While, the

second one is temporal conjunction since it highlights a period of time.

Table (4.16): The Distribution of Reiteration Subcategories in the text All My Sons

Act I Act II Act III All My Son

Reiteration

Freq

uenc

y

Perc

enta

ges

Freq

uenc

y

Perc

enta

ges

Freq

uenc

y

Perc

enta

ges

Freq

uenc

y

Perc

enta

ges

Repetition 86 76.79% 55 62.50% 42 84.00% 183 73.20%

Synonym 2 1.79% 3 3.41% 0 0.00% 5 2.00%

General words 24 21.43% 30 34.09% 8 16.00% 62 24.80%

Total 112 100.00% 88 100.00% 50 100.00% 250 100.00%

54

Figure (4.9): The Distribution of Reiteration Subcategories in the Text All My Sons

The reiteration analysis of the text in table (9) illustrates that the four types of

Reiteration are not used at similar rates. Repetition, for instance, appears at the

highest rate in all acts: 72.27% in act I, 57.89% in act II, 66.67% in act III and

66.06% in total. As for the occurrence of Synonyms, it is at a very low rate. In act I ,

it is used only 1.98%; in act II, it is used 3.16%; in act III, it is not used at all; and in

total it is used 1.81%.finally, General Words are used at close rates with more

occurrence in Act 2: 21.43%, 43.9%, 16% and 24.80% in total.

Examples and discussion of Reiteration Subcategories in the Text All My Sons

The above table highlights the author's employment of repetition through the

whole the text. The researcher indicated that the playwright utilized such device to

bring attention and emphasis to certain meaningful aspects of his text.

Example

Mother: be smart now, Joe. The boy is coming. Be smart. (All My Sons, p. 40. 20)

Here, the playwright used repetition to give more emphasis on the idea to be careful.

Hereunder, the most repeated words employed by the writer in the whole text.

55

• Favorable day.

• November the twentieth.

• Horoscope.

• The tree.

• Money.

• Business.

• Jail.

• Sick.

• Flu.

The researcher stated that the playwright used of each repeated word in the

previous list for a specific purpose. In other words, the repetition device helped the

playwright to give more focus on one theme more than the other. The more repeated

words about a theme the more importance it got in the text. For example, the

repeated word "horoscope" in the text helped the playwright to convey a message

that the American society was believing in astrology at that time. The repeated word

in the text "money" helped the playwright to highlight that the first priority for the

American society at that time was getting money regardless the used way to get it.

General nouns is a cohesive device, which involves the repetition of lexical

item and its more frequent in the spoken discourse rather the written one. Moreover,

they functions anaphorically when the preceded by a determiner such as "the" and

"that". The researcher stets that the use of such cohesive device is frequent in the text

All My Son since it's language stimulates the real life communication. The following

examples prove these points.

56

Table (4.17): Examples of General nouns From the Text All My Sons

P. No Line – No Cohesion – Item Type-general noun

Presupposed Item

25 22 That woman GN Mother

36 5 Thing GN The war

41 20 People GN Mother and Keller

40 20 The boy GN George

These examples show the playwright's application of general nouns in the

text. In the first one, the general noun "woman" is used instead of the word "mother".

In the second one, the general noun "thing" refers to the war. In the third one, the

general noun "people" presupposes "mother and Keller" in the text. In the last one,

the general noun "the boy" refers to George.

Synonyms are a cohesive tool which involves the repetition of a lexical item

by using it's synonym. The analysis shows the manifestation of using such device by

the author in the text.

Examples

• Cracked – broke. (All My Sons, p. 12. 20)

• Hates – despises. (All My Sons, p. 46. 29)

• Killed – murdered. (All My Sons, p. 70. 32)

These examples showed that the playwright used synonymy to extend lexical

choice and to add color and variety to the language of the text. In addition, it avoids

text's monotony and redundancy.

The researcher argued that the playwright did not use a large portion of

synonyms in the text since the language of the text is simple and represents the real

life communication. However, such device can be found more in texts, which

characterizes by sophisticated and complicated language.

57

4.8 Conclusion & suggestions

In this study, Arthur miller's All My Sonhas been thoroughly analyzed in

terms of the frequencies and percentages of cohesive devices based on the model of

Halliday and Hasan's model (1976). However, the researcher tackled all the types of

cohesive tools except two subcategories of lexical cohesion collocation and

superordinate. The analysis proves the significance of using such cohesive devices to

hang the parts of sentences and dialogues that serves the continuity of meaning in the

whole text. In terms of the answers that address the study's questions, the analysis

comes up with them as illustrated in the following:

1- The playwright used repetition, synonyms and general nouns of lexical devices

in the text.

2- The playwright implied references, ellipsis, substitution and conjunctions of

grammatical devices in the text.

3- Repetition is the most frequent type of lexical cohesion employed in the text and

shares the highest percentage of all the lexical cohesive devices in the text.

4- The least frequent pattern of lexical cohesion manifested in the text is synonyms,

which shares the least percentage of all the lexical cohesive devices in the text.

5- Reference is the most predominant grammatical cohesive type employed in the

whole text, which shares the highest percentage within the all instances of the

analysis.

6- Ellipsis is the lowest frequent pattern of grammatical cohesion used by the

author, which shares the highest percentage within the instances of grammatical

cohesion analysis.

7- The more number of references to an antecedent whether a character or

anything, means it is dominant and focus of attraction.

8- The more number of substitution and ellipsis makes discourse precise and

concise.

9- Different types of conjunctions make the discourse reasonable, logical and

descriptive.

10- Repetition and synonyms emphasize the character or object, which is being

repeated and used synonymously.

58

11- Synonymy extends our lexical choice and provides us with a countless

opportunities to avoid the repetition of words and add color and variety to the

language. In addition, it avoids text's monotony and redundancy

12- The role of every types of the cohesive tools has been thoroughly discussed and

illustrated with examples in chapter 4.

4.9 Suggestions

The present study proposes the following research areas for future studies:

1- A comparative analysis of cohesion with the Arabic translation of All My Sons.

2- A comparative analysis of cohesion with Miller's other plays.

3- A comparative analysis of cohesion with other American plays.

4- A comparative analysis of cohesion with other literary works.

5- A comparative analysis of cohesion with other genres such as news articles or

political articles.

6- A comparative analysis of cohesion with an Arabic play.

7- Grammatical analysis of cohesion for other literary works.

8- Lexical analysis of cohesion for other literary works.

References

60

References

Afianti, E. (2016). Lexical Cohesion Analysis of The Article What is a Good

Research Porject? By Brian Paltridge (Ph.D., thesis). Dian Nuswantoro

University.

Aghdam, S. H., & Hadidi, Y. (2015). Cohesion and coherence in political

newspapers and discussion sections of academic articles. International Journal

on Studies in English Language and Literature, 3(3), 11-22.

Akindele, J. (2011). Cohesive Devices in Selected ESL Academic Papers. African

Nebula,1(3).RetrievedonMay23,2014,fromhttp://nobleworld.biz/images/Akindel

e_AN3.pdf

Al-Janabi, M. (2013). Lexical Cohesion in Two Selected English and Arabic Short

Stories. Al-Ustath, 2(207), 61-88.

Baleviciene, D. I. (2014). Density and distribution of cohesive devices in the texts of

literary and legal genres (Doctoral dissertation). Lithuanian university of

educational sciences.

Barker, C. &Dariusz G. (2001). Cultural Studies and Discourse Analysis. A Dialogue on

Language and Identity. London: Sage.

Bussmann, H. (1996). Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics (G. P.

Trauth & K. Kazzazi, Trans.). London & New York, NY: Routlegde. Bloor, T.and Bloor, M. (1995). The Functional Analysis of English. London: Arnold

Carter, R. and Long, M. N. (1991). Teaching Literature. Harlow: Longman.

Carter, R. & Nash, W. (1990). Seeing through language: A guide to styles of English

writing. London: Blackwell.

Crystal, D., & Davy, D. (1969). Investigating English style. New York: Longman.

Crystal, D. (2008). A Dictionary of Phonetics and Linguistics. London: Blackwell. Culler, J. (1976). Saussure. Glasgow: Fontana/Collins.

61

Cruse, A. (2006). A Glossary of Semantics and Pragmatics. Edinburgh: University of

Edinburgh Press.

Eggins, S. (1994). An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London:

Pinter

Finch, G. (2000). Linguistic Terms and Concepts. New York: Macmillan.

Gatt, W. (2017). An Investigation of Lexical Cohesion in Kurdish EFL Students

Emails. Journal of the Faculty of Basic Education University of Mustansiriyah, 20(85), 798-802.

Gutwinski, W. F. (1970). Cohesion in literary texts: A study of some grammatical

and lexical features of English discourse.

Halliday, M.A.K & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.

Halliday, M.A.K. & Hasan, R. (2001) Cohesion in English. Beijing: Foreign

Language Teaching and Research Press

Halliday, M.A.K. (1970). Descriptive Linguistic in Literary Studies. In Freeman,

D.C.(ed.). Linguistic and Styles. United States of America: Holt, Rinehart and

Winston.

Hameed, H. (2008). Cohesion in Texts: A Discourse Analysis of a News Article in a

Magazine. Al-Fatih Journal, 4(37), 257-265.

HE, Y. (2017). Lexical Cohesion in English Public Speeches: Taking the Queen’s

Christmas Broadcast as Example. International Journal Of Arts And Commerce, 6(3).

Hillier, H. (2004). Analyzing Real Texts: Research Studies In Modern English language. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Hoey, Michael. (1983). On the Surface of Discourse. London: George Allen and

Unwin.

62

Jabeen, I., Mehmood, A., & Iqbal, M. (2013). Ellipsis, Reference & Substitution as

Cohesive Devices the Bear by Anton Chekhov. Academic Research

International, 4(6), 123-131.

Kennedy, G. (2003). Structure and Meaning in English. Harlow: Pearson Educated

Limited.

Khader, K. (2007). Introduction to Drama. Lectures presented to the students in The

Islamic University-Gaza.

Khader, K.T. (2000). Style in Drama: A Semiolinguistcs perspective. Delhi:Bahri

publication.

Leech, G. N. (1970). Towards a Semantic Description of English. Bloomington:

Indiana university press.

Leech, G. and Short, M. (2007). Style in fiction. New York: Pearson Longman.

Leech, G. and Short, M. (2010). Style in fiction. Harlow: Pearson Longman.

Long, William. J. (2005), English Literature. New Delhi: Kalyani Publisher.

Lyons. J. (1970) New Horizons in Linguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Martin. J. R. (2009) Discourse Studies. In M.A.K. Halliday & J. J. Webster (Eds.)

Continuum Companion to Systemic Functional Linguistics (pp.154- 165).

London & New York, NY: Continuum.

Miller, A. (2002). All My Sons. Beirut: York press.

Morris, J., & Hirst, G. (2006). The subjectivity of lexical cohesion in text. In

Computing Attitude and Affect in Text: Theory and Applications. pp. 41-47.

SpringerNetherlands.RetrievedApril6,2014,fromftp://ftp.sys.utoronto.ca/cs/ft

p/dist/gh/Morris+Hirst-2004-EAAT.pdf

Oda, A., Abdul-Lateef, A., & Salih, A. (2015). A Study of Cohesion in Charles

Dickens’s Hard Times (Part one). Journal of Basra Researches for Human

Sciences, 40(2), 29-50.

63

Paltridge, Brian. (2000). Making Sense of Discourse Analysis. Queensland: AEE

Publishing.

Sachkova E.V. (2012) Lectures on English Stylistics. Moscow: MIT.

Salumee, A. (2013). Full text Cohesion in literary and scientific texts Kerbela

university faculty of education department of English. Al-Bahith Journal, 7(1),

180-201.

Searle,J. R. (1969). Speech Acts. An Essay in the Philosophy of

Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University press.

Somers, J.W. (2008). Interactive Theatre: Drama as Social Intervention. Music and

Arts in Action. 1 (1), 61-87.

Short, M. H., & Leech, G. N. (2013). Style in fiction: A linguistic introduction to

English fictional prose. London: Routledge.

Thompson, Geoff. (2004). Introducing Functional Grammar. 2nd ed. London:

Hodder Education.

Van Dijk, T. A. (1977). Text and Context. New York: Belford Press.

Van Dijk, T.A. (1972). Some Aspects of Text Grammars. París: Mouton.

Verdonk, P., (2002) Stylistics, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wales, K. (2011). Dictionary of Stylistics, 3rd ed. New York: Routledge.

Webster, m. Drama. Merriam-Webster. Retrieved from https://www.merriam-

webster.com/dictionary/drama

Widdowson, H. (1979). Explorations in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford.

University Press.

Wu, S. X. (2010). Lexical Cohesion in Oral English. Journal of Language Teaching

and Research. Advance online publication. doi: 10.4304/jltr.1-1- 97-10.

Appendices

65

Appendix (1): Examples of the distribution of references in Act I

P.4

Line – No Cohesion - item Type Presupposed item

1 Your PR Keller

2 I PR Keller

2 I PR Keller

2 It DR Tobacco

4 Here DR Paper

8 My PR Keller

8 That DR Sky

10 This DR Beautiful

13 I PR Keller

13 I PR Keller

13 It PR Paper

14 You PR Keller

P.5

Line – No Cohesion - item Type Presupposed item

1 I'm PR Keller

2 here DR Keller

3 He PR Keller

5 Here DR Tobacco

8 You PR Paper

8 He PR Keller

8 That DR Sky

9 Them DR Beautiful

11 My PR Keller

11 You PR Keller

11 You PR Paper

12 You PR Keller

66

Line – No Cohesion - item Type Presupposed item

13 You PR Frank

13 My PR Keller

15 This PR Page of paper

15 You DK Frank

15 You PR Frank

16 Your PR Keller

17 That DR Tree

17 It PR Tree

18 You PR Frank

18 You PR Frank

19 I PR Frank

19 My PR Frank

21 They PR Keller family

21 I'm PR Keller

21 Her PR Kate "mother"

21 IT PR Tree

22 You PR Frank

24 He PR Larry

25 This DR Month

25 This DR Tree

26 I'm DR Keller

26 You PR Frank

26 His PR Larry

27 That DR Remembering birthday

28 I'm PR Frank

28 His PR Larry

29 You DR Frank

29 Him PR Larry

29 That DR Horoscope

29 It It Horoscope

67

P.6

Line – No Cohesion - item Type Presupposed item

1 I'm PR Frank

1 This DR Horoscope

4 We PR Frank and Keller

4 He PR Larry

6 You PR Frank

7 She PR Kate mother

11 His PR Person

12 Him PR Person

12 His PR Person

13 His PR Larry

14 I'm PR Frank

14 It PR Horoscope

15 His PR Larry

16 He PR Larry

17 I PR Frank

19 I PR Frank

19 You PR Jim

20 He PR Frank

21 He PR Frank

21 He PR Frank

21 His PR Frank

22 You PR Jim

22 You PR Jim

23 You PR Frank

23 You PR Frank

23 You PR Frank

24 My PR Jim

24 This DR Morning

24 You PR Frank

68

Line – No Cohesion - item Type Presupposed item

26 He PR Kid

26 His PR Kid

27 His PR Kid

28 He PR Kid

29 Her PR Girl

30 He PR boy

P.7

Line – No Cohesion - item Type Presupposed item

1 My PR Jim

1 He PR The boy

2 It PR Being doctor

3 You PR Frank

4 I PR Frank

5 Me PR Frank

5 You PR Jim

5 There DR The Movie

7 I PR Frank

7 IT DR Don Ameche

7 He PR Don Ameche

7 His PR Don Ameche

8 You PR Keller

8 You PR Keller

10 I PR Jim

13 Here DR Keller's house

15 We DR Keller's family

15 Her DR Annie

16 Here DR Keller's house

17 She PR Annie

18 Her PR Annie

69

Line – No Cohesion - item Type Presupposed item

18 She PR Annie

19 This DK Yard

19 Here PR Annie

20 Your PR Jim

21 Her PR Annie

24 My PR Jim

25 You PR Jim

27 MY PR Jim

27 My PR Jim

28 Me PR Jim

29 Here PR Mr. Adam

29 I PR Sue

29 Her PR Mrs. Adam

30 Her PR Mrs. Adam

P.8

Line – No Cohesion - item Type Presupposed item

1 I PR Sue

1 She PR Mrs. Adam

1 She PR Mrs. Adam

2 Her PR Mrs. Adam

3 You PR Jim

3 Her PR Mrs. Adam

4 She PR Mrs. Adam

4 It PR Lay down

4 You PR Jim

4 Her PR Mrs. Adam

5 You PR Jim

6 My PR Jim

6 I PR Jim

70

Line – No Cohesion - item Type Presupposed item

7 There DR Mr. hubbard's house

7 His PR Mr. hubbard

8 Me PR Sue

8 You PR Jim

8 His PR Mr. hubbard

9 Your PR Letter

9 Him PR Keller's son

9 I PR Jim

10 He PR Keller's son

12 You PR Sue

8 Him PR Jim

12 He PR Jim

13 Him PR Jim

14 I PR Sue

14 I PR Sue

15 Your PR Keller

17 You PR Sue

17 You PR Sue

18 You PR Letters

18 It PR Realistic

23 It PR Mixer

23 I PR Frank

23 It PR Mixer

24 It PR Mixer

24 It PR Mixer

25 I PR Frank

25 You PR Lydia

28 He PR Frank

29 Your PR Frank

71

P.9

Line – No Cohesion - item Type Presupposed item

2 She PR Annie

2 You PR Lydia

2 Her PR Annie

2 She PR Annie

3 I PR Sue

4 Me PR Sue

4 He PR Annie

5 I PR Sue

5 We PR Sue's family

5 She PR Annie

5 Her PR Annie

7 She PR Annie

8 I PR Keller

8 She PR Annie

9 Her PR Annie

9 She PR Annie

9 It PR Sadness

10 She PR Annie

11 I PR Keller

11 She PR Annie

13 Here DR Keller's house

14 I PR Lydia

14 I PR Lydia

15 I PR Keller

15 I PR Keller

16 It PR The war

16 My PR Keller

16 You PR Lydia

17 It PR Having sons

72

Line – No Cohesion - item Type Presupposed item

18 He PR A doctor

20 you PR Keller

20 I PR Lydia

24 Here DR Keller's house

24 You PR Lydia

26 I PR Lydia

27 I PR Frank

27 Me PR Frank

27 I'm PR Frank

28 Here DR Keller's house

29 I PR Lydia

73

Appendix (2): Examples of the distribution of references in Act II

P.41

Line – No Cohesion – Item Type Presupposed Item

8 You PR Chris

11 You PR Chris

12 You PR mother

14 It PR The Weather

14 I PR mother

15 He PR George

18 He PR George

18 He PR George

19 We PR dad and mother

19 I PR mother

20 We PR dad and mother

20 You PR Chris

20 Us PR dad and mother

21 You PR mother

22 His PR Steave

23 Him PR dad

23 It PR The idea

23 They PR Steave s' family

24 I PR mother

24 It PR opening the case

25 You PR mother

26 Him PR George

74

P.42

Line – No Cohesion - Item Type Presupposed Item

1 Us PR the Keller's family

3 You PR Chris

3 You PR Chris

3 They PR Steave s family

3 You PR Chris

4 You PR mother

4 Me PR Chris

5 Her PR Annie

5 Him PR George

7 Her PR Annie

8 You PR mother

8 It PR the topic

9 You PR Chris

10 They PR Steave s family

10 They PR Steave s family

11 She PR Annie

12 I PR Chris

13 You PR Chris

15 You PR Annie

15 They PR Steave s family

15 They PR Steave s family

16 You PR Annie

17 We PR Annie and Chris

17 Her PR Ann's mother

18 It PR married

19 I PR Annie

19 We PR Annie and Chris

19 Her PR mother

19 I PR Annie

75

Line – No Cohesion - Item Type Presupposed Item

20 My PR Annie

21 It PR the scheming

21 We PR Chris and Annie

21 Her PR mother

22 You PR Chris

23 Your PR Chris

24 He PR father

25 I PR Chris

26 You PR Chris

28 Me PR Chris

28 Her PR Keller's family

76

P.43

Line – No Cohesion - Item Type Presupposed Item

1 My PR sue

3 I PR sue

4 I PR Annie

4 I PR Annie

5 It PR sky

6 You PR sue

6 Your PR sue

7 He PR Sue's husband

7 Here DR Keller's house

8 They PR Keller's family

8 Him PR Sue's husband

9 He PR Sue's husband

10 My PR Annie

11 Your PR Annie

12 They DR Keller's family

12 Here PR Keller's house

12 You PR sue

14 I PR sue

14 My PR sue

15 Me PR sue

16 They PR Keller's house

18 I PR Annie

19 I PR sue

19 Your PR Annie

19 You PR Annie

20 I PR Annie

20 I PR Annie

21 You PR Annie

22 It PR getting married

77

Line – No Cohesion - Item Type Presupposed Item

22 Your PR sue

22 It PR getting married

23 Tour PR Annie

23 I PR sue

24 You PR Annie

25 I PR Annie

26 I PR sue

26 It PR sue

26 It PR getting married

26 Me PR sue

27 Your PR Annie

28 I PR Annie

28 I PR Annie

28 It PR getting married

28 I PR Annie

78

P.44

Line – No Cohesion - Item Type Presupposed Item

1 Me PR Annie

1 I PR Annie

2 He PR Chris

2 You PR sue

2 You PR sue

2 It PR the truth

2 He PR Chris

2 Me PR Annie

3 He PR Chris

3 You PR Annie

4 It PR getting married

4 Me PR Annie

5 You PR Annie

5 It PR money

5 I PR sue

6 My PR sue

7 He PR man

7 Her PR women

7 You PR Annie

8 Them PR somebody

9 That DR Resenting somebody

9 You PR Annie

10 I PR Annie

11 It PR see the bars

12 Hem PR man

12 He PR Jim

14 I PR sue

14 You PR Annie

15 It PR To go away

79

Line – No Cohesion - Item Type Presupposed Item

15 Me PR sue

16 I PR Annie

16 It PR Something

17 You PR Annie

17 You PR Annie

18 Her PR Keller's house

19 You PR sue

20 I PR sue

20 My PR sue

21 That DR being unhappy

22 He PR Jim

22 He PR Jim

23 You PR Annie

24 That DR Medical research

26 You PR Annie

26 Your PR Annie

26 It PR Medical research

29 He PR Chris

29 That DR sue

31 My PR Jim

31 He PR Sue's husband

80

P.45

Line – No Cohesion - Item Type Presupposed Item

1 He PR Jim

1 He PR Jim

3 It PR Compromising

4 He PR Jim

4 Him PR Jim

5 He PR Jim

5 It PR Annie

6 You PR Annie

6 He PR Jim

7 I PR Annie

7 You PR sue

8 It PR Jim isn't right

8 His PR Chris

9 He PR Keller

9 He PR Chris

10 It PR taking money

81

Appendix (3): Examples of the distribution of references in Act III

P. 73

Line – No Cohesion - Item Type Presupposed Item

10 You P.R Mother

10 You P.R Mother

12 I'm P.R Mother

12 Me P.R Mother

13 I'm P.R Mother

14 It's P.R Time

15 I P.R Mother

15 You P.R Jim

16 He P.R Somebody

17 My P.R Jim

14 They D.R People

20 You P.R Mother

20 It P.R Money

20 It P.R Money

22 I P.R Jim

22 That D.R The argument

23 You P.R Jim

24 You P.R Jim

26 I P.R Mother

26 You P.R Jim

26 He P.R Chris

26 He P.R Chris

82

p.74

Line – No Cohesion - Item Type Presupposed Item

1 He P.R Chris

2 They D.R Chris and Keller

4 She P.R Ann

4 That D.R Room

5 He P.R Chris

5 That D.R Room

6 Him P.R Chris

7 Him P.R Chris

8 I P.R Jim

8 I P.R Jim

9 It P.R Knowing the case

9 Me P.R Jim

10 I P.R Mother

10 That D.R Feeling

10 His P.R Chris

11 I P.R Mother

11 It P.R Knowing the case

13 That D.R Keller's crime

13 It P.R

13 You P.R Mother

14 It P.R Tallent

14 I P.R Jim

14 Him P.R Chris

15 You P.R Jim

15 He P.R Chris

16 He P.R Chris

16 We P.R People

16 These D.R Revolutions

19 You P.R Mother

83

Line – No Cohesion - Item Type Presupposed Item

20 Your P.R Mother

20 It P.R Star

20 Its P.R Star

20 It P.R Star

21 I P.R Jim

21 He P.R Chris

21 He P.R Chris

22 His P.R Chris

23 He P.R Chris

24 I P.R Jim

24 He P.R Chris

24 I P.R Jim

25 I P.R Jim

26 It P.R life

27 She P.R Jim's wife

27 She P.R Jim's wife

27 I P.R Jim

28 Her P.R Jim's wife

28 I P.R Jim

28 I P.R Jim

29 My P.R Jim

30 I P.R Jim

30 I'm P.R Jim

31 He P.R Chris

84

p.75

Line – No Cohesion - Item Type Presupposed Item

3 I P.R Jim

3 He P.R Chris

3 I P.R Jim

3 Him P.R Chris

4 Her P.R Kate

4 She P.R Kate

5 He P.R Jim

5 Here D.R Keller's house

6 His P.R Chris

7 I P.R Keller

7 Him P.R Jim

9 He P.R Jim

10 He P.R Jim

11 He P.R Jim

12 I P.R Keller

13 You P.R Keller

14 I P.R Keller

15 You P.R Keller

15 Your P.R Keller

15 You P.R Keller

16 This D.R Thing

16 This D.R Thing

17 She P.R Ann

18 Here D.R The room

18 She P.R Ann

19 I P.R Mother

19 She P.R Ann

20 You P.R Keller

20 You P.R Keller

85

Line – No Cohesion - Item Type Presupposed Item

20 Your P.R Keller

21 She P.R Ann

21 She P.R Ann

22 She P.R Ann

22 Here D.R Keller's house

23 She P.R Ann

24 Her P.R Ann

25 Me P.R Mother

26 I P.R Keller

26 I P.R Keller

27 She P.R Ann

27 It P.R The case

28 You P.R Keller

28 Me P.R Mother

29 I'm P.R Keller

29 You P.R Mother

29 I P.R Keller

29 I P.R Keller

29 I P.R Keller

30 Here D.R Keller's house

30 My P.R Keller

86

p.76

Line – No Cohesion - Item Type Presupposed Item

1 You P.R Joe Keller

1 I P.R Kate Keller

1 You P.R Joe Keller

1 I P.R Kate Keller

3 You P.R Kate Keller

4 You P.R Kate Keller

5 You P.R Joe Keller

5 Your P.R Joe Keller

6 You P.R Joe Keller

6 That D.R Yelling at Kate

6 It P.R Trouble

7 I P.R Joe Keller

7 Me P.R Joe Keller

7 I P.R Joe Keller

8 I P.R Kate Keller

9 He P.R Chris

10 I P.R Kate Keller

10 You P.R Joe Keller

10 Him P.R Chris

10 You P.R Joe Keller

11 Your P.R Joe Keller

11 I P.R Kate Keller

11 You P.R Joe Keller

11 It P.R

11 Him P.R Chris

12 You P.R Joe Keller

12 You P.R Joe Keller

13 I P.R Kate Keller

13 He P.R Chris

87

Line – No Cohesion - Item Type Presupposed Item

13 You P.R Joe Keller

13 You P.R Joe Keller

13 You P.R Joe Keller

15 I P.R Kate Keller

15 You P.R Joe Keller

15 Him P.R Chris

15 You P.R Joe Keller

16 You P.R Joe Keller

17 I P.R Joe Keller

18 Him P.R Chris

18 You P.R Joe Keller

19 I P.R Joe Keller

20 You P.R Joe Keller

20 He P.R Chris

20 You P.R Joe Keller

21 You P.R Joe Keller

21 Him P.R Chris

21 You P.R Joe Keller

21 He P.R Chris

22 You P.R Joe Keller

22 He P.R Chris

22 You P.R Joe Keller

23 He P.R Chris

23 Me P.R Joe Keller

24 You P.R Joe Keller

24 I P.R Kate Keller

25 I P.R Joe Keller

25 You P.R Kate Keller

25 You P.R Kate Keller

26 I P.R Joe Keller

88

Line – No Cohesion - Item Type Presupposed Item

26 I P.R Joe Keller

26 You P.R Kate Keller

27 You P.R Kate Keller

28 I P.R Kate Keller

28 It P.R Money

29 I P.R Joe Keller

29 It P.R Money

30 You P.R Kate Keller

30 I P.R Joe Keller

30 You P.R Kate Keller

30 I P.R Joe Keller

89

Appendix (4): The distribution of ellipsis and substitution in act I

P. No Line – No Cohesion - Item Type Presupposed Item

4 3 So CS It's going to rain

5 1 No CE I don’t want to be

5 5 One NS Guy – man

5 23 What? CE Is funny

6 7 Yeah CE She asked me

6 25 No CE I didn’t see him

8 16 Yeah CE You can take

8 30 Yeah CE The wind got it

9 11 I suppose CE There is somebody

9 15 Does VS Taking sons

9 16 One NS Son

9 26 Did I ? VE Understand

9 29 One NS Frank

10 16 Yeah NE I see

10 26 Nothing CE Is new

12 29 No CE I didn’t take

13 11 What? CE We did with mother

14 4 One NS Boy

14 7 Why? CE You asked her

15 6 Does VS Feel

15 7 Does VS Feel

15 10 Did VS See

15 22 I don’t VE Know

16 7 Yes CE I must be inspired

16 14 Yes CE I would leave the business

16 14 I would VE Leave

16 25 Don’t VS Understand

17 1 Yeah CE I take it

90

P. No Line – No Cohesion - Item Type Presupposed Item

21 5 Not CS His girl

25 5 Yeah CE I hang up my things

26 4 One NS Girl

26 6 No CE She is not getting divorced

26 15 Not CS Waiting for him

26 16 Not CS Waiting for him

26 29 Yes I'm VE Sure

27 9 No CE I am not waiting for him

27 27 No CE You are not right

29 3 One NS Person

29 23 Ones NS Neighbors

33 14 One NS Ann

35 2 Not CS Not like him

35 17 Yeah CE You were in command

37 28 No CE He didn’t tell me

38 26 I will VE Enjoy

38 30 No CE I am not ashamed

39 23 No CE He was not sick

91

The distribution of ellipsis and substitution in act II

P. No Line – No Cohesion - Item Type Presupposed Item

42 27 One NS Person

42 29 Are you? NE Relaxed

43 16 Yeah CE He is coming

43 18 I will CE Have a drink

45 12 Do VS Asked

46 1 Do VS Got

46 9 No CE He didn’t come

46 16 One NS Medicine

48 18 Ones NS Persons

50 26 Not CS shouldn't I smile

50 29 I will VE Come

50 16 Why? CE Shouldn't I bring him here

51 28 No CE You will not drive him

53 10 What? CE Is impossible

53 13 Yeah CE I have got nervous

55 10 I know CE What happened to him

57 15 Did VS Believed

60 7 Not CS Leaving out of here

61 11 One NS Woman- Lydia

61 16 Yeah CE I am not kidding

62 6 So CS I would like to see him

62 31 One NS Chris (son)

64 2 No CE I am not coming

64 11 Not CS General motors

64 14 Yes CE I went

64 27 Ones NS Persons

65 9 Why? CE You are sad

65 22 Yes CE I remember

65 24 One NS Thing

66 8 Not CS To come with us

66 24 So CS At home

92

The distribution of ellipsis and substitution in act III

P. No Line – No Cohesion - Item Type Presupposed Item

75 15 Do VS Have

75 20 One NS Person

77 28 One NS Chris

78 12 I will CE Do her something

78 27 One NS Son

80 34 To be NE Practical

81 8 Do VS Ask

81 8 Do VS Ask

81 9 Will VE Ask

81 10 Will VE Ask

81 20 One NS Principle

81 20 Will CE Tell him

84 4 Do VS Understand

93

Appendix (5): The distribution of general nouns in act I

P. No Line – No Cohesion - Item Type Presupposed Item

5 14 Thing GN To buy something by the magazine

6 29 That boy GN Jim's son

7 17 Beautiful girl GN Annie

7 18 Woman GN Annie

8 1 Dear GN Jim

8 6 Dear GN Sue

15 20 That girl GN Annie

23 4 Kid GN Annie

23 10 Gal GN Annie

23 17 Kid GN Annie

25 12 Dear GN Annie

25 22 That woman GN Mother

26 9 Man GN Annie's father "Steave"

28 20 Kid GN Annie

31 9 Thing GN Murdering 21 pilots

32 9 The man GN Annie's father "Steave"

32 18 Little man GN Annie's father "Steave"

33 8 That girl GN Annie

33 17 Thing GN Love parents

35 26 Thing GN Giving socks

36 5 Thing GN The war

38 7 The man GN Annie's father "Steave"

39 8 Kid GN Chris

40 20 The boy GN George

94

The distribution of general nouns in act II

P. No Line – No Cohesion - Item Type Presupposed Item

41 20 People GN Mother and Keller

42 15 Dear GN Annie

44 30 Dear GN Annie

45 8 Dear GN Annie

45 19 Dear GN Annie

46 21 Woman GN Sue

46 29 The woman GN Sue

47 19 That thing GN Shipping heads

47 21 The man GN Keller

47 23 Thing GN Being accused

47 24 Kid GN Annie

49 13 Kid GN Annie

50 10 The man GN Steave

52 21 The people GN Sue's family

54 22 Boy GN George

54 23 Boy GN George

54 30 Dear GN Chris

55 8 That man GN Steave

56 28 The same man GN Keller

56 30 The same man GN Keller

57 1 That man GN Steave

57 2 Thing GN Shipping heads

62 17 That girl GN Lydia

62 24 That girl GN Lydia

65 13 The man GN Steave

65 28 Kid GN George

65 30 The man GN Frank

67 9 Kid GN George

68 21 Darling GN Frank

70 12 That boy GN Larry

95

The distribution of general nouns in act III

P. No Line – No Cohesion - Item Type Presupposed Item

73 10 Dear GN Jim

75 17 Thing GN The case

78 1 A boy GN Larry

78 30 Dear GN Annie

78 30 The boy GN Larry

79 1 Dear GN Annie

79 1 Thing GN To marry Chris

85 8 Dear GN Chris