5

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW, CONCEPTS, AND

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

This section discusses about literature review, concept and theoretical

framework. The literature review based on previous review such as journal review

and graduated review.

2.1 Literature Review

This writing reviews five researches which were written by previous students

of English Department, Faculty of Arts, Udayana University. Three international

journals about reference in grammatical cohesion are searched from the internet.

Firstly, Suwendra (2009), the research entitled “The Analysis of Reference in

the Sport Articles in The Jakarta Post” was using the theory proposed by Halliday and

Hasan (1976) and combined with David Nunan (1993). The research showed that

occurrence of reference items in the article made the text cohesive. The similarity

with this study was using the main theory of “Cohesion in English” proposed by

M.A.K. Halliday and Ruqaiya Hasan (1976) and combined with David Nunan (1993).

The differences of data analyzed by Suwendra was using sport article on The Jakarta

Post. He was analyzing types of reference items in sport article. However, this study

using tourism article and focused on the types and the presented of personal reference

on tourism article of Journey Magazine.

6

Secondly, Sri Mahendrani, I.A (2012) research entitled “The Analysis of

Reference Used in the News Texts of Balivision at TVRI Bali”. She focused to

analyze the types of reference used on news text, relation of context of situation, and

identification of references on news text. The analysis based on the theory proposed

by Halliday and Hasan (1976). The similarity with this study analyzed above using

the main theory of “Cohesion in English” proposed by M.A.K. Halliday and Ruqaiya

Hasan (1976). The differences with this study analyzed the types of personal

reference items such as: personal pronoun as subject or object and possessive

determiner in tourism article. However, Sri Mahendrani analyzed types of reference

such as personal reference, demonstrative reference and comparative reference in

news text as the data source.

Thirdly, Jana Utama, I.B.G (2006) research entitled “The Analysis of the

Reference items in the Short Story Dark Sky Over Village” concern on types of

reference items in the short story. He found that all types of references namely,

personal reference, demonstrative reference, and comparative reference in the short

story. The similarity of this study used the same theory of reference proposed by

Halliday and Hasan entitled Cohesion in English (1976). The differences, this study

analyzed types of personal references such as: personal reference as subject, personal

reference as object, and possessive determiner in tourism article, and then added with

the presented data of personal reference as of: exophoric and endophoric reference.

7

However, Jana Utama analyzed the reference items in general such as personal

reference, demonstrative reference, and comparative reference in the short story.

Fourth, Ari Karunia (2012) research entitled “Reference Used in The Article

of Travel Trade Gazette Asia”. This study talked about the types of reference items

and the presented of reference chains in the text of article. She found that all types of

references consist of: personal reference, demonstrative reference, and comparative

reference. The similarity is about the theory of reference proposed by Halliday and

Hasan entitled Cohesion in English (1976). The difference these papers, the theory

was combined with the theory of English Text: System and Structure purposed by J.R

Martin (1992), meanwhile this study was using the supporting theory proposed by

David Nunan (1993) in his book “Introducing Discourse Analysis”.

Fifth, Pradnyawati, Ni Kadek (2008) research entitled “Literature of

Ambiguous Reference Items in Jonathan Franzens Selected Essay from How To Be

Alone”. This study is focused on the type of ambiguous references lexically

described. The main theory of Cohesion in English proposed by Halliday and Hasan

(1976) and combined with the theory entitled Structure, Language, and Usage

proposed by Hulon Willis (1994). The similarity, both these papers used the same

theory purposed by Haliday and Hasan (1976). The difference in this paper, she is

used the supporting theory proposed by Hulon willis (1994) and focused on the types

of ambiguous reference do often occur and to analysis the types of ambiguous

reference lexically described, meanwhile this study is used supporting theory

8

proposed by David Nunan (1993) and focused analyzing the types of personal

reference consists of personal reference as subject, personal reference as object, and

possessive determiner occur in the tourism article.

An international journal from the article by S.N. Sarkar (1992) entitled

“English Text: System and Structure of Reference”. The system and structure of

reference and types of referential cohesion mostly occur in the English text. Based on

research, there are three of references mostly occurs in the English text: Personal

Reference, Demonstrative Reference, and Comparative Reference. The similarity

between this study is used the same theory purposed by Halliday and Hassan (1974)

Meanwhile, the difference of this study is focused on personal reference items

consists of personal reference as subject, personal reference as object, and possessive

determiner occur in the tourism article.

Akifa Imtiaz (2014) the international journal entitled “How a Text Binds

Together: Discourse Analysis of a Newspaper Article” used the theory proposed by

Halliday and Hasan (1976) provided with the concepts of referencing, ellipsis,

conjunction, substitution and lexical cohesion which have been analyzed in the

present study. The study found that the whole cohesive elements were in the text

which have ultimately contributed to clarify the overall meanings of the text by

binding it in a more organized way. It has been observed that news writers introduced

cohesion in order to give a sense of connection and order in the text.

9

Gorjian, B., et al, (1992) international journal entitled “Using Cohesive

Devices of References in English Political News Written by Persian Non-Native

Researchers”. This study is limited to the size of two sets of data. The data was taken

from “corpora” due to the fact that this work does not include a wide range of

computerized data but only 100 native articles and 100 non-native articles. The

researcher merely took an adapted checklist based on Halliday and Hassan (1976) and

four categories of references including cohesive, demonstrative, comparative, and

personal.

Based on the above international journals “Unforgiving Mount Rinjani” the

article used as the sample in this study. The similarity used the same theory proposed

by Halliday and Hassan (1976). The differences of these journals with this study was

using different object of study was using different object of study is focused on

personal references. However, those journals focused on cohesion and reference in

general.

2.2 Concepts

There are four concepts related to the topic of this study to be described

context, cohesion, text, and reference.

2.2.1 Context

Halliday and Hassan point out that context in the accompanying text. The

important concept in analyzing a discourse that is context because the research can be

understood that the message conveyed by the writer can be understood by the reader.

10

Halliday and Hasan (1985: 5). According to Nunan (1993: 7), context refers to the

situation – giving rise to discourse, and within which the discourse is embedded.

Based on the theory proposed by David Nunan, context can also be a bridge

that has a relationship between the text and the circumstances in which the text is

occur. According to Nunan (1993: 8) proposes two different types of context,

linguistics and non-linguistics. The linguistic context defines as the language that

surrounds or accompanies the piece of discourse under analysis. The non linguistic or

an experiential context includes linguistics experiential context. It consists of

communicative event (joke, story, lecture, greeting, conversation), topic, purpose of

the event, setting (location, time of day, season of year and physical aspects of the

situation) such as size of room, arrangement of furniture, the participants and their

relationship, the background knowledge and assumptions underlying the

communicative event.

2.2.2 Text

According to Halliday and Hasan (Halliday & Hasan, 1985), text is any living

language that plays some part in a context of situation. It is a social interactive event

and/or a social exchange of meanings. Halliday and Hassan (1976: 2) provided the

most appropriate definition of the ‘text’. A text is a text rather than a mere sequence

of sentences. In other words, text can be of any length. A text has texture and this is

what distinguishes it from something that is not a text. The texture is provided by the

cohesive relation. Texture is the important things to make the text meaningful and

11

coherent because without texture would just be a group of sentences do not have a

relation. Therefore, texture is created within text when there are properties of

coherence and cohesion outside of the apparent grammatical structure of the text. In

fact, many familiar texts occur as more than one sentence in grammatical structure,

such as warnings, titles, announcements, inscriptions, and advertising slogan. They

often consist of verbal, nominal, adverbial or preposition group only.

2.2.3. Cohesion

This section in this chapter discussed about the basic concept of cohesion.

Cohesion expressed through the strata organization of language since it is a semantic

relation. Language explained as a multiple coding system comprising three levels of

coding, or strata, these are: the semantic (meaning), the lexico grammar (forms), and

the phonology and graphology (expression). In everyday terminology, meaning is put

into sound or writing. (Halliday and Hasan, 1976: 5)

Diagram 2.1: Stratal Organization of Language

(the sematic system)

(the lexico grammatical system, grammar and

vocabulary)

(the phonological and orthographic system)

meaning

wording

Sounding/writing

12

At the level of wording (the choice of words and grammatical structures),

there is no clear - cut distinction between vocabulary and grammar. The guiding

principle in language is that the more general meanings are expressed through the

grammar, while the more specific meanings through the vocabulary. Cohesive

relation fit into the same pattern. Cohesion is expressed partly through the grammar

and partly through the vocabulary. Therefore, we can refer to grammatical cohesion

and to lexical cohesion.

2.2.4 Reference

Reference is a potentially cohesive relation, since the source of the

interpretation may itself be an element of text. Halliday and Hasan (1976: 31), they

proposed the definition of references the specific nature of information that is

signaled for retrieval. The information to be retrieved, in the case of reference is the

referential meaning, to identify of the particular thing or class of things that is being

referred to. Reference is semantic relation between meanings of particular instances

rather than between words or other items of linguistic form. Thus reference item is in

no way constrained to match the grammatical class of the item it refers to. In

addition, Nunan (1993), in his book entitled Introduction to Discourse Analysis

(1993), he states that the term of text refers to any written record of a communicative

event.

13

2.3 Theoretical Framework

This study has some theories which are needed to be applied in supporting

this paper. The main theory is proposed by Halliday and Hasan in their book entitled:

Cohesion in English (1976) and the theory proposed by Nunan (1993) in his book

Introducing Discourse Analysis.

Reference is the specific nature of information that is signal for retrieval. The

information to be retrieved, in the case of reference, is the referential meaning, the

identity of the particular thing or class of things that is being referred. Reference can

be divided into two terms, exophoric and endophoric. There are two kinds of

endophoric relations: anaphora and cataphora (Halliday and Hasan, 1976: 17).

Anaphora is the presupposition of something that has gone before, whether in the

preceding sentence or not. It is a form of presupposition that refers to some previous

item. In contrary, cataphora refers to the presupposition in the opposite direction,

with the presupposed element following.

2.3.1 Reference as One Aspect of Cohesion

In order to give further information about reference, Halliday and Hassan

(1976 : 32) propose three types of reference, as of :

A. Personal reference ( through the category of person)

Personal reference is reference by means of function in the speech situation,

through the category of person (Halliday and Hasan, 1976: 37). The items of the

reference are as follows:

14

Table 2.2 Personal Reference

Function

Determinative Possessive

Class

Singular

Masculine He/ him His His

Feminine She/ her Hers Her

Neuter It [its] Its

Plural They/ them Theirs Their

(Halliday, 1985: 295)

The category of reference includes the three classes of personal

pronouns, possessive determiners (usually called possessive adjectives) and

possessive pronouns.

a. Semantic distinction in the personal system

According to Halliday and Hasan (1976: 45), there is semantic distinction in

the personal reference. They stated that significant of the person system it is means of

referring to relevant person and objects, making use of a small set of option centering

on the particular nature of their relevance to the speech situation.

This system of reference is known as person where ‘person’ is used in the

special sense of ‘role’; the traditionally recognized categories are first person

and second person on one hand (I, you, we), and third person (he, she, it, they, one),

interesting with the number category of singular and plural. The former is called

speech roles; they are the roles of speaker and addressee. The latter, which we shall

15

call simply other roles, include all other relevant entities other than speaker and

addressee.

Table 2.3 Types of Speech Roles

(Halliday and Hasan, 1976 : 44)

b. Personal Pronouns, Possessive Determiners, and Possessive Pronouns

Possessive determiner consists of my, you, our, his, her, their, its, and one’s. The

use of possessive determiner can be seen in the example bellow:

(2:1) John’s house is beautiful.

His wife must be delighted with it.

(Halliday and Hasan, 1976: 55)

Speech Roles Other Roles

Speaker Addressee Specific

Generalized

Human One

I Me He Him It

Mine My You You His His It

More

than

one

We Us Yours Your She Her [its]

One ones

-one's

Ours Our Hers Her Its

They them

Theirs their

16

The last category of personal reference is the possessive pronouns. It embraces

mine, yours, his, hers, theirs, and its, for example:

(2:2) that new house is John’s

I didn’t know it was his.

(Halliday and Hasan, 1976: 55)

c. Some special kinds of personal reference

(i) Extended reference

The word it differs from all other personal reference, since it refers not

only to a particular person or object, some entity that is encoded

linguistically as a ‘participant’ a noun or nominal expression but also to

any identifiable portion of text. Only it has the property of extended

reference. For example:

(2:3) [ The Queen said]: ‘Courtesy while you’re thinking what to say. It

saves time’. Alice wondered a little at this, but she was too much in awe

of the queen to disbelieve it.

(Halliday and Hassan, 1976: 52)

The word it in it saves time refers to Courtesy while you’re thinking

what to say. The reference is still to a ‘thing’. However, not in the narrow

sense of a participant (person or object) but refers to the whole process or

complex phenomenon.

17

(ii) Generalized exophoric reference

The generalized personal one, we, you, they, and it have generalized

exophoric use in which the referent it treated as being it were imminent in

all context of situation (Halliday and Hassan, 1976: 53)

You and one refer to ‘any human individual’ and also to any self-

respecting individual.

We is used in similar way but more concretely, implying a

particular group of individuals with which the speaker wishes to

identify himself.

They is used to refer to ‘person unspecified’ and to person

adequately specified for purposes of discussion by the context.

It occurs as a universal meteorological operator in a few

expressions.

B. Demonstrative reference (through a scale of proximity)

Demonstrative reference is essentially a form of verbal pointing. The speaker

identifies the referent by locating it on a scale of proximity. This kind of reference

can be divided into selective category and non-selective or neutral category. The

selective category involves nominal demonstrative and adverbial/circumstantial

demonstrative. Below the figure of system are presented:

Figure of the system:

18

a. The selected adverbial demonstratives: here, then, now, and there.

The adverbial demonstrative refers to the location process in space or

time, and they normally do so directly, not via the location of some person or

object that is participating in the process. Thus, they typically function as

Adjunct in the clause, not as elements within the nominal group. They have a

secondary function as Qualifier, as in that man there ( Halliday and Hasan,

1976 : 57-58).

b. The selective nominal demonstrative: this, these, that, those

(i) Near and Not Near: this/ these versus that/those

(ii) Singular and Plural: this/that and these/those

Neutral the

Near

far

selective

Near: Far:

singular this that

participant

Plural these those

Place here there

Circumstance

Time now then

(Halliday and Hasan, 1976: 57)

19

(iii) Head modifier: this as pronouns and this plus following noun

(iv) Related to the last information of demonstrative reference, this and

that, they may be used without a following noun.

(v) Anaphoric and Cataphoric Demonstrative.

C. Comparative Reference ( through identity or similarity)

According to Halliday and Hasan (1976: 72), comparative reference is

indirect reference by means of identity and similarity. It involves two kinds of

comparison, i.e. general comparison and particular comparison.

a. General Comparison

Halliday and Hasan define general comparison as a comparison

in terms of likeness’ and ‘unlikeness’ where two things, for example, are said

to be the ‘same/similar’ or ‘different’. This type of comparison is expressed

by a certain class of adjectives and adverbs. The adjectives function in the

nominal group either as deictic or epithet. The adverbs function in the clause

as adjunct. Halliday and Hasan believe that the likeness between things

which is expressed by the general comparison may take one of the following

three forms:

1. It’s the same cat as the one we saw yesterday

2. It’s a similar cat to the one we saw yesterday

3. It’s a different cat from the one we saw yesterday

(Halliday and Hasan 1976: 37)

20

b. Particular Comparison

Particular comparison expresses comparability between things in

respect of quality and quantity: there must be a standard of reference by which

one thing is said to be superior, equal or inferior.

For example:

(2:4) We are demanding higher living standard.

(Halliday and Hasan, 1976 : 81)

It maybe some generalized situational referent – presumably ‘than we

have now’; so such instance like the example above is exophorically cohesive.

Superlative forms are non-referential because they are self-defining; they act

as defining modifier and being shown to be defining in the usual way by the

presence of the definite article.

The anaphoric comparative is less precipitately, which is identifiable

as resigned. The other expressions of comparative are so and such, which

have meanings of extremely and even perhaps there is nuance of such as you

would never have imagined.

For examples:

(2:5) the war scenes in the film were so terrifying.

(2:6) our neighbor is such a nuisance.

(Halliday and Hasan, 1976 : 84)

21

2.3.2 Endophoric and Exophoric Reference

According to Halliday and Hasan (1985: 75-76), any linguistic unit form a

text deals with two environments: the extra-linguistic environment (the context) one

which is relevant to the total text, and the linguistic environment the co-text) in which

the language accompanying the linguistic unit under focus.

The environment in which the presupposition is identifiable determines

whether the reference is endophoric relation (endophora) or exophoric relation

(exophora), (Halliday and Hasan, 1976). According to their different meaning

reference items may be exophoric or endophoric; and if endophoric, they may be

anaphoric (that is reference to the preceding text) or cataphoric (that is reference to

the following text).

Both exophoric and endophoric reference embody an instruction to retrieve

from elsewhere the necessary for interpreting the passage. The essential thing of

reference, both exophoric (situational) and endophoric (textual); there is a

presupposition that must be satisfied; the thing referred to has to be identifiable

somehow. Only endophoric reference is cohesive, since exophoric reference

contributes to the creation of text, it links the language with the context of situation

(Halliday and Hasan, 1976:34), for example:

(2:7)Three blind mice, three blind mice. See how they run! See how they run!

(Halliday and Hasan, 1976:31)

22

The item they refer to three blind mice in the previous sentence. It is called an

anaphora.

(2:8) I would never have believed it. They’ve accepted the whole scheme.

(Halliday and Hasan, 1976:56)

It in the first sentence is a cataphora since this item refers to the following sentence;

They’ve accepted the whole scheme.

The distinction of reference items is shown on the scheme bellow:

Reference

(Situational) (Textual)

Exophora Endophora

( to preceding text) (to following text)

Anaphora cataphora

(Halliday and Hasan, 1976: 33)

In referential cohesion, reference which is refers to situational element is the

precious and important thing than reference that is refers to other elements in a text.

Therefore, situational reference is claimed preceding textual reference. Logically, it

can be seen in entitling process (that refers to a thing in the context of situation)

through the situational reference (that refers to a thing that is identified to the text

environment).