VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES
*** HÔ
̀
PHƯƠNG THA
̉
O A STUDY ON THE USE OF GRAMMATICAL COHESION
IN THE SHORT STORY “ALL GOLD CANYON” BY JACK LONDON
FROM SYSTEMIC FUNCTIONAL GRAMMAR PERSPECTIVE

(Nghiên cư
́
u viê
̣
c sư
̉
du
̣
ng liên kê
́
t ngư
̃
pha

Hanoi, 2014 VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES
*** HÔ
̀
PHƯƠNG THO A STUDY ON THE USE OF GRAMMATICAL COHESION
IN THE SHORT STORY “ALL GOLD CANYON” BY JACK LONDON
FROM SYSTEMIC FUNCTIONAL GRAMMAR PERSPECTIVE

(Nghiên cư
́
u viê
̣
c sư
̉
du
̣
ng liên kê

Field: English Linguistics
Code: 60220201
Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Hong Văn Vân
Hanoi, 2014
i

DECLARATION

I, Hồ Phương Tha
̉
o, hereby declare that the work in this thesis is the result of
my own research. It is recognized that should this declaration be found to be false,
disciplinary actions could be taken and penalties could be imposed in accordance
with university policies and rules.
Hanoi, December 2014

Hồ Phương Tha
̉
o iii

ABSTRACT

This study aims to find out grammatical cohesion in the story "All Gold
Canyon" by Jack London basing on the theoretical framework by Halliday and
Hasan (1976). The research findings show that grammatical cohesion is used in a
very high rate to connect the text together. Furthermore, among different types of
grammatical cohesive devices, reference and conjunction account for most of
cohesion with 74% and 24% respectively, which shows that the text is highly
cohesive. Substitution and ellipsis, in contrast, take up only 1% for each type. This
may indicate that there are few conversations among characters. In other words, the
imbalance use of cohesion helps depict the writing style of literary documents in
general and of Jack London in particular.
3.3.2.1. Reference 9
3.3.2.2. Sustitution 10
3.3.2.3. Ellipsis 11
3.3.2.4. Conjunction 11
3.4. Summary 12
v

CHAPTER 2: DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
1. The context of the chosen text 13
2. Grammatical cohesive devices in the story ―All Gold Canyon‖ 14
2.1. Reference 15
2.1.1. Anaphoric, cataphoric and exophoric reference 15
2.1.2. Realization of different types of reference 16
2.1.2.1. Personal reference 17
2.1.2.2. Demonstrative reference 21
2.1.2.3. Comparative reference 26
2.2. Substitution 27
2.3. Ellipsis 30
2.4. Conjunction 31
Part C – CONCLUSIONS
MAJOR FINDINGS, IMPLICATIONS, LIMITATIONS
AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDIES
1. Major findings 36
2. Suggestions for English learners in writing skill 38
3. Limitations and suggestions for further studies 40
3.1. Limitations 40
3.2. Suggestions for futher studies 40

REFERENCES 41
APPENDIXES . I
1

PART A. INTRODUCTION

1. Rationale of the study
Being a learner of linguistics, I started wondering myself ―what is the function of
language?‖ It comes as no surprise that I may see language as a medium of
communication; however, it cannot be restricted to the description of the nature of
language. Linguistics, thus, becomes an appealing field for me to conduct a research
to have deeper understanding this complex nature of language.
Along with other branches of linguistics, grammar appears to be a rich land in
which many scholars are engrossed in exploring it with different theories. The
linguistics history has seen developments of various approaches to grammar, known
as traditional grammar, universal grammar, descriptive grammar or generative
grammar. However, since the appearance of systemic functional grammar (SFG), it
has received a great attention from many followers in linguistics research. In
comparison with other approaches that focus on the rules, forms that structure
language, SFG accounts for how language is used in contexts for communicative
purposes (Halliday, 1994). It concerns with both spoken and written language. SFG,
therefore, can be considered the most useful tool for text analysis.
In Vietnam, thanks to credited scholars such as Cao Xuân Hạo (1991) with Tiếng
Việt: Sơ thảo ngữ pháp chức năng, Hoàng Văn Vân (2002/2005) with Ngữ pháp
kinh nghiệm của cú tiếng Việt: Mô tả theo quan điểm chức năng hệ thống, a number
of significant researches have been conducted from SFG perspective. This provides
us, learners at the Department of Postgraduate Studies, invaluable sources of

cohesion such as framework, elements and features are taken for study. The ground
for investigation in this study is the system of cohesion and grammatical cohesion
developed by Halliday and Hasan (1976). The illustration of text analysis is the
chosen story ―All Gold Canyon‖ by Jack London. 3

4. Methods of the study
The study is undertaken with a view to examine how grammatical cohesion is used to
develop a text. Given the scope of this study, the quantitative and qualitative methods
will be employed. That is to say, this study will focus on the collection and analysis
of the study as data to explain a particular phenomenon. Counting and measuring
would be common forms for this method. These statistical results will be followed
by qualitative method which is used to gain an understanding of the underlying
reasons and the effectiveness of the application of grammatical cohesive devices in
Jack London’s ―All Gold Canyon‖ as well. The base for procedures and
conventions applied in the study is the theoretical framework of Halliday’s.

5. Structure of the study
The study consists of three main parts: introduction, development and conclusion.
 The introduction presents the rationale of study, the aim and the scope of the
study. It also presents the methods employed for analysis and the outline of the
study structure.
 The development is subdivided into two chapters
Chapter 1 provides the theoretical background of the study in which the main
concepts of systemic functional grammar are reviewed to establish the framework
for analysis and discussion in Chapter 2.
Chapter 2 analyzes the short story ―All Gold Canyon‖ using Halliday and Hasans’
(1976) grammatical cohesion system as the theoretical framework.

its structures are best analyzed and understood with reference to the functions they
carry out. Functional theories of grammar differ from former theories of grammar,
in that the latter seeks to define the different elements of language and describe the
way they relate to each other as systems of formal rules or operations. Meanwhile,
5

the former defines the functions performed by language and then relates these
functions to the linguistic elements that carry them out. This means that functional
theories of grammar tend to pay attention to the way language is actually used in
communicative context.

3. Cohesion
To begin with, in order to see how different things in a text ―hang together‖ to make
a text, it is important to define the notion of the text and texture.
3.1. Text and its texture
―Language is a means of conveying and obtaining information‖ (Valeika and
Buitkiene, 2006: 7). To achieve this, the units of language must perform appropriate
functions. All languages are formed of words and sentences. These sentences must
be bound together to make a text. A text is the text if there is mutual dependence
between sentences. Text can be defined as ―any passage, spoken or written, of
whatever length that forms a unified whole‖ (Halliday and Hasan, 1976: 1). In order
to create a text as a unified whole, it is necessary to know what makes text coherent.
―In its deep structure, the text is a sequence of mutually related clauses, which after
the application of appropriate textualizing operations, are turned into text sentences‖
(Valeika and Buitkiene, 2006). Furthermore in order to create mutually connected
sentences the meaning that is semantic relation of the words is important as words
and context are inseparable. Therefore, the meaning and logical relation of words
and sentences are important when creating a coherent text.
A text distinguishes from non-text by its texture. Texture ―is the property that
ensures that the text ―hangs together‖‖ (Halliday and Hasan, 1976). A text without

Type of cohesion
Relatedness of form
Relatedness of reference
Semantic connection
Substitution and ellipsis; lexical collocation
Reference; lexical reiteration
Conjunction
Figure 1 : Type of cohesion
(Source: Haliday and Hasan, 1976: 304)
7

Reference, substitution and ellipsis belong to grammatical; lexical cohesion, as the
name implies, lexical. Conjunction is on the borderline of the grammatical and the
lexical; the set of conjunctive element can probably be interpreted grammatically in
terms of systems, and some conjunctive expressions involve lexical selection.
However, it is better to put it in the group of grammatical cohesion as it is mainly
grammatical with a lexical component inside. Thus, we can refer to grammatical
cohesion and lexical cohesion as follows:
Grammatical cohesion
Lexical cohesion
Reference
 Exophoric
 Endophoric
- personal
- demonstrative
- comparative
Substitution
 Norminal
substitution
 Verbal substitution

 Adverb + Adjective
 Adjective + Prepostion
Figure 2: Grammatical and Lexical Cohesion

8

3.3.1. Lexical cohesion
In Halliday and Hasan’s point of view, lexical cohesion deals with the meaning in
text. ―This is the cohesive effect achieved by the selection of vocabulary‖ (Halliday
and Hasan, 1976). It concerns the way in which lexical items relate to each other and
the role played by certain basic semantic relations between words to make textual
continuity. The two basic categories of lexical cohesion are reiteration and collocation.
3.3.1.1. Reiteration
Reiteration is ―the repetition of a lexical item, or the occurrence of a synonym of
some kind, in the context of reference; that is, where the two occurrences have the
same referent‖ (Halliday and Hasan, 1976). To make it clearer, Mc Carthy (1991)
also state that ―reiteration means either restating an item in a later part of discourse
by direct repetition or else reasserting its meaning by exploiting lexical relation‖.
The authors classify reiteration into four sub-types: the same word, a synonym/near-
synonym, a superordinate, and a general word. For example, ―a boy‖ can be
replaced in the following sentences with ―the boy‖ (the same word), ―the lad‖ (a
synonym/near-synonym), ―the child‖ (a superordinate), and ―the idiot‖ (a general
word) (Halliday and Hasan, 1976: 279).
3.3.1.2. Collocation
Collocation refers to the semantic and structural relation among words, which
native speakers can use subconsciously for comprehension or production of a text.
From the viewpoints of Halliday and Hasan (1976), ―word combination‖ or ―word
co-occurrence‖ is known as collocation. There are two sub-types of collocation:
grammatical collocation and lexical collocation.
3.3.2. Grammatical cohesion

us outside the text for interpretation. Only endophoric reference is cohesive and it
contributes to the integration of the passage with another to form coherent text.
Endophoric reference can be divided into two areas: anaphoric and cataphoric.
Anaphoric refers to any reference that points ―backwards‖ to previously mentioned
information in text. Whereas, cataphoric reference points the reader or listener
―forward‖. It draws us further into the text in order to interpret.
10

Eg: John is a big man. He loves children.
anaphoric
Thinking about her work, No is so proud.
cataphoric
Functionally speaking, there are three main types of cohesive reference. They are
personal, demonstrative and comparative references. Let us look at the examples of
each type as follow:
Mikhail Gorbachev didn’t have to change the world. He could have chosen to rule
personal reference
much as his predecessors did.
Recognizing that his country had to change, Gorbachev could have become a
cautious modernizer in the Chinese fashion, promoting economic reform and
sponsoring new technology while holding firm against political change. This did not
demonstrative reference
happen.
A: Would you like these seats ?
B: No, as a matter of fact, I’d like the other seats.
comparative reference
(Source: Nunan, 1993: 23)
3.3.2.2. Substitution
Halliday and Hasan (1976) state that substitution takes place when one feature
replaces a previous word or expression. In Bloor and Bloor (1995: 96), the two

3.3.2.4. Conjunction
Conjunction differs from other cohesive ties because it reaches the meaning by
using other features in the discourse. Bloor and Bloor (1995: 98) describe
conjunction as a ―cohesive tie between clauses or sections of text in such a way as
to demonstrate a meaningful pattern between them‖. In other words, conjunction is
used to connect sentences and clauses together into one text. Halliday and Hasan
(1976: 242-243) classify conjunction into four types: additive, adversative, causal
12

and temporal. Firstly, additive conjunction acts to add meaning among sentences. It
is signaled through and, also, moreover, in addition, besides, etc. Whereas,
adversative conjunction acts to indicate ―contrary to expectation‖. It is realized by
some typical conjunctions like but, yet, though, however, on the contrary, etc.
Thirdly, causal conjunction expresses ―result, reason and purpose‖. This kind of
relation is expressed by some items such as: so, hence, therefore, however,
consequently, because, etc. The last conjunctive category is temporal that creates a
unified and tied discourse. That is to say, discourse appears as a process of an
episode with the development of a time sequence. There are three main types of
temporal relation namely simple, complex and conclusive temporal relation.
3.4. Summary
This chapter has reviewed some basic concepts related to the study. It presented the
system of English cohesion which is represented in two main types: grammatical
cohesion and lexical cohesion. For the scope of study, only the theoretical
background of grammatical cohesion would be the framework for my chosen text
analysis in the following chapter.

13

CHAPTER 2:
DATA ANALYSIS OF GRAMMATICAL COHESION USED

describes the beauty and tranquility of the valley in the first seven paragraphs. In the
valley, animals, plants, and their physical environment are in perfect harmony.
However, the tranquility of the place is shattered by the destruction of a resource-
oriented pocket-miner named Bill, who despoils and destroys the valley in search of
gold. Man's greed for gold leads to the destruction of the slope and even human's
death. At the end of the story, London describes a fight between Bill and another
gold-hunter and this fight ends with the death of the strange man.
2. Grammatical cohesive devices in the story "All Gold Canyon"
According to Halliday and Hasan (1976), grammatical cohesive devices include
reference, substitution, ellipsis and conjunction. These cohesive devices will be
analyzed in details basing on the framework built by Halliday and Hasan (1976).
All cohesive items in each type in the story will be collected, classified and then
significant characteristics of the story will be drawn out basing on the frequency of
use of different types of grammatical cohesion.
From the data collected (see Appendix I, II, III, IV), it can be seen that the total of
grammatical cohesive devices used in the story "All Gold Canyon" are 2198 ties, in
which reference accounts for the largest part with 1627 ties, presenting for 74%.
Conjunction comes second with 542 ties or 24%. Substitution and ellipsis explain for
the smallest percentage with only 1% of each type. The distribution of grammatical
cohesive devices in this story can be illustrated in the diagram below:

Diagram 1: The percentage of grammatical cohesion in the story
74%
1%
1%
24%
Reference
Substitution
Ellipsis
Conjunction

Obviously, anaphoric reference takes up the largest part with 79.8%. Anaphoric
reference is found in the whole story, but falls on mainly on personal pronouns and
determiners such as he, him, his, that and definite article the. Surprisingly,
exophoric reference ranks second with 170 ties accounting for 10.5%. Exophoric
reference does not refer readers backward or forward to connect the text. It is
understood basing on background knowledge of readers or listeners. Because in this
story, Jack London describes the beauty of a place in nature in seven first
paragraphs, exophoric reference tends to be employed in high rate here. Standing in
the last position is cataphoric reference with 9.7%. Interestingly, among 158 items
in this group, the definite article the is restored 123 times (see Appendix I).

16

2.1.2. Realization of different types of reference
Although a text can be analyzed in terms of anaphoric, cataphoric and exophoric
reference, this classification is mainly related to grammatical features of a text and
it helps to deal with grammatical exercise. However, in this study, a narrative is
studied in light of literature, the analysis of anaphoric, cataphoric and exophoric
reference is inappropriate. Instead, reference items in the narrative "All Gold
Canyon" should be dealt with in respect of three types classified by Halliday and
Hasan (1976) namely personal, demonstrative and comparative. Personal reference
is expressed through the category of person and it includes personal pronouns and
personal determiners. Demonstrative reference expresses the relation of location on
a scale of proximity while comparative reference is indirect reference expressed
through using identity or similarity. In this story, Jack London applies the different
types of reference unevenly. While personal and demonstrative reference occur
frequently, comparatives is hardly used. Personal reference ranks first with 825 ties,
representing for 51%, demonstrative ranks second with 775 ties, accounting for
48% and comparative reference ranks last with only 24 ties or 1%. The frequency of
use of reference in the story will be presented in the table below:

Totally, in the story, Jack London uses 825 personal reference ties including the
first, the second and third personal pronouns and determiners. The first person
pronouns and determiners which are illustrated as I, my, me in the story occupy 57
items accounting for 6, 9%; the second person pronouns and determiners presented
as you, your, yours take up 41 items presenting for 4.9%; and the third person
pronouns and determiners described as he/ his/ him/ himself/ they/ them/ their/
themselves/ it/ its/ itself/ that include 727 ties, making up 88,2% (see Appendix I).
The details of the distribution of personal reference are illustrated as follows:

Pronouns
Numbers of examples
Percentage (%)
I, my, me
57
6.9%
You, your, yours
41
4.9%
He, him, his, himself
568
69.0%
It, its, itself
85
10.3%
They, them, their,
themselves
26
3.1%
That
48