Analysis oflexical

Chains andCoherence ina Children'sand News

StoryMarcelino Torrecilla N.

HUNOERTWASSER, F. C<=Ssnr>gfBnIes. 1952 (Frilgrreflto)

MARCEtlNO TORRECIllA N.

MA UNIV¡:RSITYOf lIVER?OOl, PROfESOR DE lA UNIVERSIDAD DEL NORTE Y

lAUNIVERSlOAD DEL ATlÁNTICO

(matorrec@yahoo,Com)

-

Este articulo tiene como objetivo zw

encontrar cadenas lexicales en dos:;¡::>

textos, un cuento infantil y unaV>wa:

noticia, y ver como dichos textoscrean coherencia. En este estudiolas cadenas fueron seleccionadas

bajo el criterio de que susmiembros estuvieran

semántica mente relacionados pormedio de sinonimia, antonimia,

hiponimia, meronimia y repetición.Bajo esta sistema de análisis, la

coherencia se encontró algodebilitada en partes de los dos

textos. Esto corroborarfa el hechode que la presencia de cadenas

lexicales no siempre hacen que lostextos sean coherentes. Otrosdescubrimientos interesantes

muestran la dependencia de lost This artide aims to find lexicaltextos ya sea en referencias

lexicales o gramaticales. ~chains in two texts, a children'sand news story, and see how they

PALABRAS CLAVE: Cadenas lexicales, ~ make for coherence. In the studyCohesión, Coherencia, Sinonimia,

<chains were selected under the

Antonimia, Hiponimia, Meronimia, criterion that their members wereRepetición semantically related by Synonymy,

Antonymy, Hyponymy ,Meronymy and Repetition.Under this analysis framework, itwas found coherence to be asomewhat flawed in parts of bothtexts. This would attest to the factthat the presence of lexical chainsdoes not always make textscoherent. Other interestingfindings show reliance of the textson either lexical or grammaticalreferences.

ooN

'EY WOROS: Lexical Chains,< Cohesion, Coherence, Synonymy,>

Antonymy, Hyponymy,Meronymy, Repetition.

1 Introduction

In this research lexical chains will belooked at and how these make forcoherence in two texts. Text 1 is achildren's story entitled«5eagull and the coming of Iight». Texttwo is a news story entitled«Corruption charges against billionairebrothers over Indian arms dea/».

The presence of lexical chainsshould be linguistic evidence that textsare not constructed in a disorganisedmanner and that the chains constitutea valuable resource that contributes tothe structuring and coherence of texts.However, it is also true that thepresence of lexical chains does notnecessarily mean that texts arecoherent, which makes thisphenomenon a complex issue. Theanalyses of the above-mentioned textswill provide the opportunity todiscover the lexical chains they areexpected to have and see whetherthese chains show that the texts arecoherent.

I shall start by presenting relevanttheories that will enable me to set outthe basis for the analyses anddiscussions. I shall then present thematerials and methods section inwhich analysis procedures, textsdescription and rationale for textchoice will be explained. Afterwards Ishall proceed to look at the resultsdescribing each chain in terms of typeof chain and relation of its members.Discussion of results will ensue whereI shall analyse the results in moredepth. Finally a conclusion willsummarise the main aspects of theresea rch work.

2 Relevant theories

I shall first start by setting out atheoretical explanation as regardscoherence, cohesion and lexicalchains.

2.1 COHERENCE ANO COHESION

Coherence is a mental process thattakes place in the reader's or listener'smind and not a factor related to thephysical text or the oral interaction.Gernsbacher and Givon (1995) assertthat:

Coherence is not an inherentproperty of a written or spokentext, Readers and Iisteners canindeedjudge with highagreement that one text is morecoherent than another. But neitherthe words on the page nor thewords in the speech confercoherence. (Gernsbacher andGivon ,1995: vii)

when someone reads or listens toa coherent text some assumptions aretacitly established between reader/writer and listener / speaker.Gernsbacher and Givon (1995)illustrate this by pointing out that:

a coherently produced text -spoken or written-allows the«receiver» (reader or Iistener) toform roughly the same text-representation as the «sender»(writer or speaker) had in mind.(Gernsbacher and Givon ,1995:vii)

40 ZONA PRÓXIMA N° 4 (2003) PAGS 38-61

«words on the page» as stated byGerl'lsbacher and Givon have more todo with cohesion. A kind of relationmust exist between them to conveycoherence. As far as cohesion isconcerned, Baker (1992) defines thisphenomenon as:

...the network of lexical,grammatical and other relationswhich provide links betweenvarious parts of a texto Theserelations or ties organise and, tosome extent create a text ... (Baker,1992: 1BO)

In reference to reading, it could bestated that cohesion is more related tothe physical written language, that isthe words that the reader can see ona surface, while coherence is rnorecon cerned with how the readerdiscerns such written language.In clarifying these two issues Baker(1992) states that: .

In the case of cohesion, stretchesof language are connected toeach other by virtue of lexical andgrammatical dependencies. In thecase of coherence, they areconnected by virtue of conceptualor meaning dependencles asperceived by language users.(Baker, 1992: 218)

In answering question l' Howdoes the presence of cohesion

• Out of two others related to coherence andcohesion.

ZONA PRÓXIMA N° 4 (2003) PAGS 37-61 "

contribute to the coherence of a tex!?Hoey (1996) states that:

...cohesion is oQjective, capable inprincipie of automatic recognition,while coherence is subjective and

judgements conceming it mayvary from reader to reader ifcohesion and coherence aredistinguished in this manner,question 1 becomes a questionabout how the presence of acohesive tie predisposes a readerto find a text coherent. (Hoey,1996:12)

A coherent text is made up ofelements that interact with each otherto convey meaning across a textoHasan (1984: 181) refers tocoherence as «the property of 'unity'of 'hanging together'». This feature isevidenced in example 1 below.However, it is not present in example2.

In example 1 there is a connectionbetween a little girl and she. Sherefers to the same little girl. This isalso the case with a lovely little teddybear and it and home and home. InHasan's terms example 1 «... hascertain kinds of meaning relationsbetween its parts that are not to befound in the second. It is thesemeaning relations that are constitutiveof texture». (Hasan, 1985:71). Textureis termed by other authors likeMcCarthy as textuality. McCarthy,(1991 :65) describes textuality as «thatproperty of text which distinguishes itfrom a random sequence ofunconnected sentences».

Onces upon a time there was a

Example 1 Example 2

He got up on the buffalo

§ havebookeda seat

1 have put .t away in the cupboard

I have not eaten

went out for a walk

and when

and

and

Hasan (1985: 71) Hasan (1985: 72)

Meaning relations in Hasan's example1 are mostly realised by grammaticalchoices when a little girl is replacedby pronominal she. Relations suppliedby lexical choices are realised by therepetition 01 home. This illustrateshow grammar and lexis work togetherto build a texto

At this point, it is worth stating thatour interest will be locused on thelexical choices 01 two texts. UsingHasan's example served the twololdpurpose 01 showing coherence in atext and the interdependencebetween grammar and lexis.In what lollows, I shall provide a brieldescription 01 different kinds 01semantic relations between members01 ties that will include bothgrammatical and lexicallinks. I shalllocus special attention on the latter.

2.2 RElATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEMBERS

OF T1ES

Ties play an important part in theconstruction 01 texture. In example 1above a little girl and she constitute atie. Home-home constitute another tie.This involves two semantically relatedelements as a requisite to lorm a tie.The relationship between ties, as

described by Hasan (1985:73-74), lallinto the categories 01: co-referentiality,Co-classification and Co-extension. Inco-referentiality relations the twomembers 01 the tie reler to the samething or persono For instance inexample 1 it relers to the same lovelylittle bear previously mentioned.

In Co-c1assification relations thetwo members 01 the tie are different.However, the process orcircumstances they are involved in isthe same. For example, when we say:Ana lives in Peru. Pedro does too

the experience 01 living is sharedby two different members 01 the tie:Ana and Pedro. The third type 01relation is Co·extension in which thetwo members 01 the tie «reler tosomething within the same generalfield 01 meaning» (Hasan, 1985: 74).

In My sister likes apples andbananas the two members 01 the tie(apples - bananas) belong to fruit asthe same general field 01 meaning.

Relations that lall under <<thesamegeneral lield 01 meaning» should beput within boundaries; otherwise, wecould include words that do notbelong in a tie connection. In order tomark boundaries around the concept01 «general field 01 meaning» in

" ZONA PRÓXIMA N° 4 (2003) PAGS 38-61

relation to co-extension ties Hasan(1985:80) puts them under thefollowing relations: SYNONYMY, ANTONYMY,

HYPONYMY, MERONYMY AND REPETITION.

As regards 5YNONYMY Hasan (1985)states that:

...the experiential meaning ofthetwo lexical items is identical; thisdoes not mean that there is totaloverlap of meanings, simply that50 far as one kind of meaninggoes, they 'mean the same:(Hasan, 1985:80)

Examples like shut and close; aidand help fall into a synonymouscategory.

ANTONYMY is described as «theoppositeness of experiential meaning .The members of our experiential tiesi/ver and golden are an example ofthis kind of meaning relaticin» (Hasan,1985: 80).

As regards HYPONYMY, this involvesthe relation between a specific and amore general word. Hyponymy isdescribed by Singleton (2000) asfollows:

the relation between more specific(hyponymous) terms (e.g .spaniel) and less specific(superordinate) terms (e.g. dog) isdefined in terms of one-way ratherthan two-way entailment .Thus Iown a soaniel entai/s I own a dog,but I own a dOf) does not entai/IOWI7 a soaniel. (Singleton,2000:70)

ZONA PRÓXIMA NQ 4 (2003) PAGS 37-61

This means that if we talk about aspaniel we will always be talkingabout a dogo However, if we talk abouta dog we will not be necessarilytalking about a spaniel.we could betalking about a German shepherd or aterrier.

MERONYMY involves a part related toa whole. In describing MERONYMY

Singleton(2000) explains that:

this relation covers part-wholeconnections.X is a meronym of Y ifit can form the subject of thesentence An X is a part of a Y. Y insuch a case is labelled a holonymof X. For example, finger is ameronym of hand and hand is aholonym of finger on the basis ofthe way in which the two words

.feature in the sentence: A finf)er isa par! of a hand.(Singleton,2000:74)

Book and page present ameronymy relation. We could say thatpage is part of book.

REPETllQN is viewed by Hoey(1991)in the followingterms:

..';t allows a speaker or writer tosay something again in order thatsomething new may be added.The simplest form of repetilion isalso the simplest kind of lexicalrelation, namely the link that mayexist between two tokens of atype. (Hoey, 1991 :52)

Repetition can be seen in thefollowing extract from «Krishna 's Birth»,an Indian legend.

Old King Ugrasena of Mathura hadtwo children, Prince Kamsa andPrincessDevaki. While KingUgrasena was a good king, PrinceKamsa was a ruthless tyrant. NowPrincess Devaki was to wed anobleman named VASUOEVA. Kamsaout of the love he bore for hissíster decided to be the bride andgraom's charioteer for the day.while Kamsa drave the chariotbearing Devaki and VASUOEVA out ofthe wedding hall, a voice from theheavens boomed ínformingKamsa that Devaki's eíghth childwould be his slayer.

Relations of co-referentiality, co-c1assification and co-extension arecohesive devices that play animportant part in connecting the twomembers of a tie contributing totexture (Hasan, 1985: 74) .lt couldalso be added that they contribute tocoherence of texts. It is worthmentioning that these relations are

semantic and «such semantic relationsform the basís for cohesion betweenthe messages of a text» (Hasan, 1985:73).

2.3 lEXICAl CHAINS

lexical words are likely to be found ina relation of co-extension. In thisrespect, Hasan (1985: 80) states that«The two terms of a co-extensional tieare typically línguistic units that werefer to as content words' or lexicalítems'». These items are found in arelation of SYNONYMY, ANTONYMY, HYPONOMY,

MERONYMY ANO REPETlTION. The text belowshows these relatíons except forANTONYMY.

THE most powerful earthquake tostrike India for more than half acentury rocked the subcontinenton Fríday, killing more than 1,500people as it toppled buildings andhouses in India and Pakistan. Thefinal toll ís expected to rise evenfurther as rescuers search forbodies buried under debris andaftershocks are expected to rackthe regíon for days.

aftershocks

earthquake strike India-----ubcontinent

""'India _ _ Pakistán

III

region

Taken from Tho Da/Iy Te/egrap/J o( JBnuary26 2001

Example 3

44 ZONA PRÓXIMA N° 4 (2003) PAGS 38-61

In the extract above earthquakeand aftershoek are co-hyponyms

of a super-ordinate that we could call«violent movements of the earth».There is repetition with raeked andraek and these enter in a synonymousrelation with strike and toppled.India and Pakistan are geograficallyco-meronyms of the subcontinent.Words in the above extract joined bythe arrows, solid and dotted linescohere lexically forming lexical chainsthrough co-extension.

A lexical chain is made up ofelements that are semantically relatedwith each other usually through co-extensional connections.

The tables below show the chainsformed in example 3:

Strike India Earthquake

Rocked Subcontinent AftershocksToppled India

Rack Pakistan

Region

As shown in example 3 a memberof a chain may appear in the text andreappear somewhere else maintaininga semantic link. McCarthy (1991)states that:

Reiteration is not a ehanee event:writers and speakers makeconseious ehoiees whether torepeat, or find a synonym or asuperordinate (McCarthy, 1991:66)

Referring to Jordan (1985) McCarthy (1991 :66) affirms that:

ZONA PRÓXIMA N° 4 (2003) PAGS 37-61

...researeh suggests a linkbetween reiteration usingsynonyms and the idea of 're-entering' important topie wordsinto the discourse at a later stage,that is to say bringing them baekinto focus, or foregraunding themagain. (McCarthy, 1991 :66)

2.3.1 Types of Chains

Regarding the sort of relationsbetween members of chains, Hasan(1985) c1assifies them asidentity and similarity and states that:

The relation between themembers of an identity ehain isthat of co-referenee: everymember of the ehain refers to thesame thing, event, or whatever. ..(Hasan, 1985: 84)

As regards similarity chains, Hasan(1985) describes its members asbeing

...related to eaeh other either byeo-elassifieation or co-extension ...with items {in theehain} that refer to non-identiealmembers of the same elass ofthings, elients ete. or to membersof non-identieal ,but relatedclasses of things, events ete.(Ha san, 1985: 84)

Identity and similarity chains servethe purpose of giving the tex! ordering.Georgakopoulou and Goutsos (1999)refer to this when they affirm that:

identity and similarity chaini;organise the whole of the text indifferent ways: the former pro videa backbone of organísation whilethe lalter exploít the text's lexicalresources (Georgakopoulou andGoutsos, 1999: 111)

It is worth adding that thepresence of cohesive devices in chainsdoes not always guarantee that thetext is coherent. In what follows,Enkvist (1978b: 110-11) cited inBaker (1992: 218-219) provides anexample of a cohesive text that showsno coherence.

I bought a ford .The car in whichPresident Wilson rode down theChamps Elysees was black. BlackEnglish has been widely discussed.The discussions between thepresidents ended last week. Aweek has seven days. Every day Ifeed my cal. Cats have four legs.The cat is on the mal. Mat hasthree letters.

Example

Despite the cohesive devices aspeaker of English would immediatelynotice that this text lacks coherence.What then exactly makes forcoherence and texture in a text?

This question is answered byBaker (1992) by affirming that:

...what actually gives texture to astretch of language is not thepresence of cohesive markers butour abilíty to recognise underlying

semantic relations which establishcontinuity of sense. The mainvalue of cohesive markers seemsto be that they can be used tofacilitate and possibly control theinterpretation of underlyingsemantic relations. (Baker, 1992:219)

Lexical chains can be seen asindicators of cohesion in a textoHowever, this does not mean thatsuch a text is an indicator ofcoherence. The visible chaining effectmay signal that the text is connectedin some way without this meaning thatthe text is good: it is quite possible tohave a text that displays chains with allkinds of semantic relations (synonymy,hyponymy, meronymy) along withanaphoric references and goodparagraph organisation and yet talkabout insane things. Such a text canbe regarded as cohesive, but notcoherent. How the lexis in a text isconnected is a feature that can bec1early seen. However, how suchlexical connections create coherence isquite a problematic question.Coherence is an abstract and intangi-ble phenomenon that depends on theknowledge that the reader brings tothe text and also on the text'scontents. If the reader is ignorant ofcertain genre' s text constructionpattern and lexis s/he will find the texttotally incoherent. In this case the textwill only make sense for thosemembers of the community whoshare the knowledge to understandthe contents of the texto The ignorantreader attempting to understand will

46 ZONA PRÓXIMA N° 4 (2003) PAGS 38-61

not be able to establish a bridge withthe texto

The relationship betweencoherence and cohesion is thencomplex and many factors should betaken into account. It should remain ahuge problem for linguistics how wecan work out coherence by followingcohesive markers.

Determining the presence of'underlying semantic relations' in thetwo texts 1will analyse, is of utmostimportance. More specifically, it will becrucial to determine whether or notthe members in the lexical chains ofthe texts can be identified as havingsemantic relations that pro motecoherence. I shall now present thematerials and methods that will enableme to develop the analyses.

3 The study: Materials andMethods

The research question for this study is:what are the lexical chains in two textsand how do they make for coherence?The two texts chosen to answer thesequestions were a children's story (Text1) entitled «5eagull and the comingof Iight» from Nootka people of BritishColumbia and rewritten by Dr.Wilhelm.This story was downloaded from theInternet and it can be accessed athttp://www.storyfest.com/tales.html.Text 2 was a news story taken fromThe Electronic Telegraph of October10, 2000 entitled «Gorruption chargeagainst billionaire brothers over /ndianarms dea/».

The rationale for the choice of thetwo texts lay in the purpose to

discover how two texts belonging todifferent genres constructed lexicalchains. It is worth stating that thestudy of more texts would have beendesirable, as this would produce moreobjective findings.

Once the texts were selectedsentences in both texts werenumbered in arder to refer to thelocation of the members of the chainin the texts. The members that madeup a chain were arranged in separatetables with the number of thesentence where they appear in thetexts on the left-hand side.

Each table was alphabeticallylabelled. The analysis was developedby first establishing a criterion on whatthe lexical items needed to beincluded in a chain. To meet thiscriterion the items had to besemantically related by SYNONYMY,

ANTONYMY, HYPONYMY, MERONYMY orREPETlTION. The items were sorted andthe chains started to be built. Thewords that met the criterion wherehighlighted in different colours and putin tables.

Finally, an overview of lexicalwords of both texts on pages 16 (Text1, p. 48) and 19 (Text 2, p. 51) waspresented. This overview was aimedto show the following aspects:

lexical words in isolationTheir position and proximitywith each otherHow they appear along bothtexts

The overview should also providethe reader with a quick look to deter-

ZONA PRÓXIMA N° 4 (2003) PAGS 37-61 47

mine which text is more lexicallybased.

4 Results

The organisational method previouslyused enabled me to present thelexical chains lound in both texts. Ishall first start by describing them interms 01the type 01chain and thecohesive devices displayed by itsmembers.

4.1. TEXT 1

In text 1 box becomes the first lexicalword lorming a chain. I shall label thischain A . This is an identity chain. Itsmembers are related by co-relerentialitythrough lexical repetition. Al (box) is asimilarity chainwith its members relatedby repetition. A2 (box) is an identitychain with its members displayingmeaning relation through repetition. InA2 there is a meronymy relation withlid asa co-meronymy 01box. B (Seagull)is an identity chain made up 01 23members related by co-relerentialitythrough repetition. C (water) is anidentity chain. Here there is a co-relerentiality relation between water.There is also an equivalence relationbetween water and rain. D (streams)is a similarity chain. Its members relateby co-extensionthrough hyponymy withstreams, riversand sea asco-hyponyms01the super-ordinate «Bodies01Water».Although this super-ordinate is notexplicitly expressed in the text, it helpsus to establish the relation.

Chain E(people) is an identity chainwhose members relate by co-relerentialitythrough repetition. F1 (Iight)is a similarity chain. Its members displayan antonymous relation.

F2 (Iight) is a similarity chain whosemembers are related by co-extensionthrough hyponymy with stars. moonand sun as co-hyponyms 01the super-ordinate «Heavenly Bodies».Light mayalso be seen as a co-meronym 01stars,moon and sun. G (rose) is a similaritychain and its members are connectedby co-extension through antonymy. H(raven) is an identity chain made up 0116 members. Connection is displayedhere by co-relerentiality throughrepetition.

I (contained) isa similaritychainwithits member being tied by co-extensionthrough synonymy and repetition . J(asking) is a similarity chain whosemembers are connected by near-synonymy.

48 ZONA PRÓXIMA N° 4 (2003) PAGS 38-61

Lexical chains in text 1: Seagull and the coming of Iight

A B e D3. bex 10 seagull 3 water 5 streams4. bex 11 seagull 4 water rivers

bex 12 seagull 5. water sea14 seagull 5 raio

Al 15 seagull (twice)6. bex 16 seagull8. box 18 seagull9. box 19 seagull

20 seagullA2 21 seagull 3 (times)

12.bex 22 seagull14.bex 25 seagull15.box 27 seagull29.lid 29 seagull

box 33 Seagull34. box 34 seagull36. bex 37 seagull37. lid 41. seagull42. box 42 seagull (twice)

Lexical chains in text 1: Seagull and the coming of Iight

E Fl G H1. peeple 11 light 4 rase I 16 raven2 people (twice) 13 darkness 5 fell 17 raven10 people 18 raven14 people F2 19 raven16 peeple 28 light 22 raven19 people 29 light 24 raven (twice)

30 light 25 raven (twice)31 stars 26 raven32~ 31 raven

33 raven35. light 35 raven37.light 39 raven38 lioht* 41 raven39. moan 44 raven40 moan

• Underlined words are replaced by pronominals.

ZONA PRÓXIMA N° 4 (2003) PAGS 37-61 "

I J43. ball ollire 6 contained 17 asking

44.ball ollire' 8 contained begging

Iighl 9 held demanding

lighl pleading

sun coaxing45 day flallering

lighl

An overview of Lexical wordsinText 1

Seagull and the Coming of Ught

lo People

2. Deoole people

3. box4. QQx water QQx5. faino streams rivers flowed sea.

6. QQx7.8. QQx9. QQxlO. People boxes Seagull.

1lo Seaaull12. SeaQull QQx13.14. people Seagull illl&15. Seagull box Seagull

16. People RAVEN - Seagull

17. RAVEN TRIED askino, beoainq, demandinQ, oleadina, coaxina, flattering.

18. RAVEN Seagull's

19. RAVEN SeaQull People.

20. Seagull2lo SeaQull SeaQull Seagull' s

22. RAVEN Seagull

23.24. RAVEN RAVEN

25. RAVEN Seagull RAVEN

26. RAVEN27. " Seagull,

28.29. SeaQull lid QQx30.3lo RAVEN32.

50 ZONA PRÓXIMA N° 4 (2003) PAGS 38-61

RAVEN

boxSeaQull

33. RAVEN34. Seaaull35. RAVEN36.37.38.39.40.41. RAVEN42 SeñglJII

43.44.

45.

Seagull

lid

Seagull'sSeagull

RAVEN

box

4.1. TEXT 2

Text 2 presents the Hinduja brothersmaking up chainA,the most prolificone.This isan identity chainwith its membersbeing related by co-referentialitythroughrepetition. This chain is built on lexicaland grammatical choices 18 and 20respectively.Lexicalehoieesare in italiesin the table. B (charge) is a similaritychain with its members displayingconnection by co-extension throughnear-synonymyand repetition .CGudge)is an identity chain with its membersbeing tied by co-referentiality throughrepetition. D (try) is a similarity chain inwhich relation by its members is realisedby co-extension through synonymy. E(the law) is a similarity chain with itsmembers being related by co-extensionthrough hyponymywith the lawand thejudieiaryas co- hyponyms of a super-ordinate that we could call «Regulatorsof Justice»F(received) isalso a similaritychain whose members are related byco-extension through repetition. G (30million) is a similarity chain with itsmembers being related by co-extension

ZONA PRÓXIMA N° 4 (2003) PAGS 37-61

through hyponymy with money as asuper-ordinate of co-hyponyms millianand commissian. H (Bollywood Filmlndustry) is a similarity chain with itsmembers relating by co-extensionthrough hyponymy. Here «The filmworld» would be the super-ordinate ofthe members of this chain. I (Royalty) isa similarity chain whose members arerelated by co-extension throughhyponymy with «FamousBritish People»as the super-ordinate of the membersof this chain. There is also a co-referentiality relation with Mrs. Blairreferring back to Cherie Blair.J (own) isa similaritychainwith its members beingtied by co-extension through synonymyand repetition. K (accounts) isa similaritychain. lts members are related by co-extension through hyponymy with«Financial Holdings» as the super-ordinate of the members of this chain.L (oil) is a similarity chain with itsmembers being related by co-extensionthrough hyponymy. «$ourceof Fortune»would be the super-ordinate of themembers of this chain.

Lexical chains in text 2: Corruption charges agains bil/ionaire brothers over Indianarms deal

A B I

1. Tlle HindL!Ja brothers 1 charged 6. Royalty

phi/anthropists 4 accused Politicians

2. Srichand and Gopichand Hinduja, 11 charped 7 Peter Mandelson

3. Gandhi's 8ssociates 8 . Tony

4. brothers e d1erie Blair

5 The Hind¡gas I 19 judge I MrsBlair

6. philantflropists 20 judge

Thp. HindlJias~ J9 the HindL!jas o 100wn

10. thp. Hindtli<l5 (twice) I 19 tI)' I 16 have

11. The Hindllias 20 arraigo 210wn

12 brothers

The brothers E K

13 The brothers 29 the law 16 accounts

14 Gandl1i associates 30 the judiciary 21 one bank

15 brothers Financial

16 The brothers (twice) F institutions

lZ The Hindlljas brothers 3 received

thp. HindlJi<ls 15 received L

18 brorher5 21 received 4 oil

19 The Hindt!Ja brothers banking

20 The Hinciuiil brothers (twice) G communications

21 The Hlndujas 3 E 30 mili ion

ThE' Hinrlllias 14 E 30 mili ion

22 brothers 15 commission

23 thf' bro1hers (twice) E 5.53 million

24 thf> brothers (twice) 21 money

26 The brothE"rs

30 The three Hinduja brothers H

The1hree Hindlli<l brothers 9 . Bollywood film industry

31 The 1hree Hincluia brothers Hollywood

The three Hinduia brothers Cannes Film Festival

31 . Law·abiding persons 10 film makers

• Underlined words are replaced by pronominals.

52 ZONA PRÓXIMA N° 4 (2003) PAGS 38·61

1. Hinduia brothers.

An overview of lexical words in text 2Corruption charge against billionaire

Brothers over Indian arms deal

philanthropists

2 Srichand and Gooichand Hinduia.

34.

Gandhi's'associatesbrothers. oi/. banking communications.

5 The Hindujas

6

78 TONY

philanthropists.

CHERiE BLAIR

The Hinduias

PETER MANDELSON

ROYALTY POLlTIClANS

. MRS BLAIR

9 members Bollywood film industry-----Cannes Film Festival.10 the HinduiasHinduias (elebrilies film makers.11 the Hinduias

Holl)'J!Yoodthe Hinduiª-L-

The

12

13

1415

brothers

the HindlW

The Hinduias

Gandhi associates

------------ __ brothers

iudae______ --'@l\l!l;)1Jthwe"-DHJlinwdUjabrothers.20 iudge ~he Hinduias.

16

17

1819

the Hinduias

brothers

the Hinduias

the Hinduja brothers

the Hinduias

21 The Hindujas.

The Hinduias

ZONA PRÓXIMA N° 4 (2003) PAGS 37-61 S3

2223

24 the Hinduias

25

26 the Hinduias

2728

lhe brolhersthe Hinduias

philanlhropislS,The Hinduias

The Hinduias

29 I thp lawl30 The lhree Hinduja brolhers lhe Hinduias________________________ 1 lhe iudiciarvl

31 the Hinduias law-abidina oersons

32

5. Discussion

5,1. TEXT 1

I shall now proceed lo discuss how theabove-described chains show coherence.Numbers in parentheses indicate theposition 01the sentences in the texts.

Box is a key lexical choice in the textWe find it establishing the first semanlicrelation lorming chain A joining sentences(3) and (4). box in (4) relers to thesame box in (3). In chain Al repetitionjoins (6), (8) and (9) and allows theauthor to reveal the contents 01the boxes.Chain A2 contains most boxes. Semanticrelations in this chain start in (12) andend in (42) relerring to the same box.Chain 8 (seagulO displays a semanticrelation between its members by means01repetition. Seagull in (10) relers to thesame Seagull to the end 01the storyestablishing a cohesive 'continuity' linebetween these sentences. Chain (8) is the

the Hinduias

most prolific one with Seagull appearing23 times. The lirst mention 01 Seagullcan be seen in (10) with each of the fírstpeople as its antecedent. This accounts lorthe lirst lexical cohesion in which thewriter presents the Seagull as a member01 the fírst people. From (10) to (42)Seagull is located in sentences 11,12, 14to 16; 18 to 22; 25, 27, 29, 33,34, 37,41,42. Seagull appears in a good number01c1usters01adjacency sentences withvery lew breaks. In chain C the threemembers water, water, raín in adjacencysentences establish a strong meaning.Chain D, adjacent with C, continuesbuilding the text by drawing on hyponymyto linish a continuity line that started wilhwater in (3) and ended with sea in (5).Chain E establishes a meaning relalionthrough repetition. In the text the writer

54 ZONA PRÓXIMA N° 4 (2003) PAGS 38-6\

establishes that the first people are thesame as the animal people. This isrealised by the two lexical choices in (2) -first people and animal people-.

From this point on these choices areused separately first people in (10) andanimal people in (14) and the samenessbetween the two is clear lar the reader.

Chain Fl establishes a tie between(11) and (13) through antonymy todescribe the initial existence 01 light andlater on its absence due to seagull'srelusal to open its box. Stars, moon andsun in chain F2 play an important part inthe construction and cohesion 01 almosthall 01 the tex! connecting (28) to (45),Although the super-ordinate «Heavenly80dies. does not appear in the text ahyponymy relation could be established.Light also plays an important part in theconstruction 01 the stars, the moon andthe sun .It would be possible to establisha meronymy relation here speculating thatlight could be seen as a co-meronym 01the stars, the moon and the sun. Wecould say that the three 01 them havelight It is the moon ,but it has litt/e lighl.In any case what appears to be c1ear is thestrong cohesive 'continuíty' line existingbetween light-stars; light-moon; liglu-sunin the text Chain G is related to C andsupplies a meaning relation by means 01opposition to describe the process raingoes through. This joins (4) and (5). H(raven) is a prolilic chain with ravenappearing 16 times semantically tied byrepetition. Members 01 this chain can beunambiguously identilied joining a goodnumber 01 sentences c10sely located inthe tex!. In chain I (contain) synonymyand repetition establish the semanticrelation that connect the three members01 this chain in the tex! joining (6), (8)and (9). In chain J (asking) we lind astrong cohesive lexical chain with a

ZONA PRÓXIMA N° 4 (2003) PAGS 37-61

relation established by near-synonymythat consolidates the meaning intentionthat the writer wants to give in this solesentence.

Two salient characteristics can be seenin the chains 01 tex! 1. First 01 all, thespecial use 01 repetition as a predominantlexical choice. Another one is the proximity01 the members 01 the chains. This can beseen by looking at the lew breaks 01 mainlexical choices. A major break can beseen in chain A2 when box is broken in(16) and laregrounded in (29).

The break signals a shift in the storyand at this point we have other chainsgetting involved, namely raven andseagull. From (16) on these two chainsappear signilicantly contributing to thedevelopment 01 the story. Another breakcan be seen in chain E when people isbroken in (3) and laregrounded in (10)At this break point chain A gets involved tocontinue the story.

5,2. TEXT 2

Text 2 presents chain A (The Hindujasbrothers) upon which most 01 the storyrevolves. Lexical repetition 01 the TheHindujas brothers establishes thesemantic relation lor the cohesion 01 thischain. This creates a 'continuity line' thatmakes it c1ear lor the reader to determineantecedents 01 The Hindujas brothersthroughout the text Repetition shouldalso contribute to The Hindujas brothersbeing unambiguously identilied. TheHindujas brothers appear in all thesentences 01 the text except lor(7),(8),(25),(29) and (32) where thereare no explicit mentions 01 them.

The rest 01 the chains lorm lexicalenvironments that extend the inlormationrelated to the central chain - The Hindujas

brothers- and contribute to the unlolding01 the story.

One 01 these lexical enviroriments isrelated to Justice and involves ehains: B,C, D and E. Another one involves ehains Fand G and is related to lIIega/ rnaneyreceived by The Hindl!ias. A third oneinvolves chains H and 1 and is concernedwith The Hindujas' socia/lile. A fourth oneis included in chains J ,K,L and is relatedto The Hindujas' possessians.

Repetition, synonymy and hyponymyprovide semantic relations in the lield 01

justice (Chains B,C,DE) This is the case 01ehain B Charged (11), accused (4) andcharged (1) whieh establish a lexiealeohesive line between these threesentenees. Sentences (19) and (20)display strong lexieal cohesion involvingmembers 01 ehains C and D.

Hyponymy and repetition establishthe semantie ties lor the field 01 lIIegalrnoney received by The Hindujas (ChainsF-G). Under the urnbrella 01 rnoneyseveral related lexical items playacohesive part in the construetion andrelation 01 (3), (14) and (15).

For the lield 01 The Hindujas' sociallile (Chains H-I) hyponymy providessemantie relations with a high degree 01proximity between the lexieal ehoiees inthese two ehains. This can be evideneedin (6) to (10) where lexieal words relatedto The Hindujas' social lile predominate.Hyponymy and synonyrny serve as therelations lor the field 01 The Hindujas'possessions (J,K,L) with own (10), have(16) and awn (21) establishing acohesive link with ehain K.

Text 2 forms a baekbone chain withThe Hindujas brothers as the maineharacters of the news story. This ehainbuilds eohesion both lexically andgrammatically by using repetition andpronominals respeetively with a slight

preponderanee of grammatical choiees.The rest of the ehains add furtherinformation in other fields where thebrothers are involved. These ehains buildeohesion through deviees like: synonymy,repetition and hyponymy.

1I we compare the two texts it can beconcluded that Text 1 is markedly morelexically constructed than Tex! 2. In fact,grarnmar ehoiees in tex! 1 have a lowrepresentation with only sevenpronominals replacing lexical ehoiees. Thisis not the case with text 2 where relianeeon grammar is more evideneed espeeiallywhen it comes to building the main ehain,the one made up by The Hindujasbrothers.

If we first eonsider those ehainswhose members contribute to thedevelopment of topie in both texts it isworth noticing that semantic relations bythe members of these chains in tex! 1 arerealised by lexical repetition. This isevidenced in ehain A (boxes), B (seagull),E (people) and H (raven). These ehainsgo along good portions of text l.

In relation to the previouslymentioned ehains Hasan (1985) statesthat

this particular identity chain is textoexhaustive, i.e. it runs frorn thebeginning te lile end 01the tex/. This,/ would suggest tentatively, is acharacteristic af shart narratives: textsaf this categary narmally cantain atleast ane texl-exhaustive identitychain. (Hasan, 1985: 84)

It could be speeulated that the choice01 lexieal repetition would faeilitate readingfor ehildren who should unambiguouslyrecognise the word previously relerred to.

As regards tex! 2 ehain A, TheHindujas brothers, draws on lexical

56 ZONA PRÓXIMA N" 4 (2003) PAGS 38-61

repetition and pronominals to establishsemantic relations with pronominalshaving a more marked representation. Itcould be suggested that text 2, a moremature teX!aimed at an adult readership,relies much more on grammaticalrelerences that such readers would beable to work out with ease.

It is wor:th stating that even thoughthe previous analysis and discussionshowed lexicalchains with their memberssemantically related, this does not makethe texts totally coherent.

There are cases 01 deviation withsentences that appear to be "out 01place•. This is seen in sentence 2 in text 1when inlormation about the fírst peopleappears somewhat abruptly in the middle01 a stretch 01 sentences telling about Iheboxes. In text 2 sentences 5, 23, 26appear a bit disconnected from the maintopie. These sentences are included inchains, yet appear rather odd in the tex!.Sentence 27 is strange, as it appearscompletely detached at a point where thereader would not expect such a piece 01inlormation.

As lar as genre is concerned inrelation to chain building teX! 1 heavilydraws on lexical choices to build the chainlor its main characters,whereas text 2relies on lexicogrammatical items to buildThe HindLljas, the main and most prolificchain. Chains in text 1 revolve aroundmore than one character (seaguf/, raven.and box) while in teX! 2 The Hindujasappear as the predominantcharacters.Moretexts would have to beanalysed to establish more solidconclusions. It is important to take intoaccount factors such as: writer and type ofnewspaper.

These can play an important part inexplaining a variety 01 leatures in texts.

ZONA PRÓXIMA N° 4 (2003) PAGS 37-61

6. Conclusion

This study aimed to find lexical chainsin two texts and see how they madefor coherence. The analysis anddiscussion above presented made itpossible to establish that both textscontained lexical chains with theirmembers being semantically related.

In answering the question howthese chains in both texts make forcoherence, it could be stated thatcoherence is evidenced as themembers of the chains maintainsemantic relations.

However, such coherenee is a bitundermined when some ehain-Iinkedsentences appear isolated from themain topie. This is espeeially the casewith text 2.

It was also found that whereas text1- the children's story- heavily drew onlexical repetition to construct itschains, text 2 -the news story- reliedmuch more on grammaticalreferences.

It is my belief that both texts havea leaning towards coherence thatshould enable a reader who knowsthe English language to establish abridge with them. GReferences

8AKER. M. (1992)In otller words. London: Routledge.

ENKVIST. N.E (19788)Coherence, pseudo~coherence, and nan-coherence. In J. Ostman (ed.), Cohesíon andsemantics : Repore 011 Texl Unguislics. Abo: TheResearch Institute of the Abo Akademi Foundation.

GERNSBACHER, MA AND GIVON,1 (1995)Coherence as a mental entity. In Gernsbacher andGivon (eds).Coherence in Spontaneous Texts.Amsterdan: John Benjamins Publishing Company:pp. VII-X.

GEORGAKOPOULOU. G AND GOUISOS, D.(1999)Discourse Ana/ysis. Edinburgh: EdinburghUniversity Press.

HALLlDAY, MAK. AND HASAN. R. (1976)Cohes/on in English. London:longman,

HALLlDAY, M.A.K. AND HASAN, R (1985)Language Context 8nd Text.Oxford: OxfordUnivers¡ty Press.

HASAN, R. (1984)'Coherence and cohesive harmony'. In Flood, J.(ed.), Understanding Reading Comprehension.Newark: lnternational Reading Association, pp.181-219.

HOEY, M. (1996)Patterns of Lexis in Text.Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

McCARIHY, M. (1991)Discourse Anafysis for Language Teachers.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

SINGLElON. D (2000)Language and The Lexicon. landan: Amold.

S8 ZONA PRÓXIMA N° 4 (2003) PAGS 38-61

APPENDIX

Text 1

Seagull & the Coming 01 Light http://storypalace.ourfamily.com/ childo 18.html

1 When the Great Spirit made allthings, the first People were given gifts incarved cedar boxes. 2 The lirst peoplewere the animal people who were herebelore uso3 In one box there was water. 4And when that box was opened, all thewater came out 01 the box and rose to thesky in the shape 01 c1ouds. S.lt then lelllrom the sky as rain, and lormed thestreams and rivers that Ilowed out to thesea. 6. Another box contained all themountains. 7 They were taken out, andplaced where they still stand to this day.8.Yet another box contained all the seeds01 things that grow. 9 And another boxheld the wind, which blew out, and blewthe seeds to the lour corners 01 the world.10. Each 01 the First People opened theirboxes, that is, all except Seagul1.11 And inSeagull's box was all the light 01 the world.12 But Seagull c1utched the box tightly. 13And so it was: In the beginning there wasonly darkness. 14 The animal people allasked Seagull to open the box. 15 Seagullrelused, squeezing the wooden box tightlyunder one 01 Seagull's wings.

16 And so the First People askedRaven - who was Seagull's cousin - totry. 17 Raven tried everything: asking,begging. demanding. pleading, coaxing,Ilattering. 18 But nothing worked, andRaven grew ever so angry at Seagull'srelusal. 19 Raven thought this thought:,Seagull is making it hard lor all ThePeople. 20 Seagull is causing so rnuchtrouble. 21 It would serve Seagull right ilSeagull had a thorn stuck in Seagull'slool». 22 And since whatever Raven

ZONA PRÓXIMA N° 4 (2003) PAGS 37-61

thinks, happens, Seagull suddenly criedout with pain. 23 ,My loot, my loot,something is stuck in my loot». 24 AndRaven offered to help, as il Raven didn'tknow what had happened. 25 But whenRaven reached lor Seagull's loot, andlound the thorn there, Raven did not pullit out.26 Raven pushed it in. 27 ,Oh, I amsorry, Seagull, but I can't see what I amdoing.28 II I only had a Iittle bit 01 light».29 And so, Seagulllifted the lid 01 the boxjust a crack, to let out as little 01 the lightas possible. 30 And all the specks 01 IightIifted into the heavens.31 And Raven wasthe lirst to see the Stars. 32 And theywere very beautilul. 33 Raven nowreached lor Seagull's loot again, and onceagain pushed the thorn deeper.34 Seagullcried out, Ilapping one wing but holdingthe box tightly with the other. 35 Ravensaid, 'I'm sorry, but there is not enoughIight. 36 Open the box some more!. 37And so Seagulllifted the lid a bit more,just enough to let out a round, pale Iight.38 It f10ated up to the sky. 39 And Ravenwas thelirst to see the Moon. 40 And itwas very beautilul. 41 Raven reacheddown lor Seagull's loot one more time,and pushed the thorn deep.

42 Seagull cried out! Both wings wentup,and Seagull dropped the box. 43 Thelid Ilew off, and out shot a great ball 01lire.44 It shot up, up. high into the sky,and even Raven could not look at thatlight so bright, that great light which is theSun. 45 And so it was that the lirst daycame. And in the beginning, there wasindeed Light.

From: NootkaPeople 01 British ColumbiaRewritten by: Dr. Wilhelmhttp://www.storyfest.com/tales.html

Text 2

Corruption charge against billionairebrothers over Indian arms dealBy Sandra Laville in London and RahulBedi in New Delhi

(1) THE Hinduja brothers, thebillionaire philanthropists who saved theMillennium Dome's laith zone, werecharged in India with corruption yesterdayover an arms deal 14 years ago. (2)Srichand and Gopichand Hinduja, who livein London and became British citizens las!year, deny involvement in the long-running Bolors arms scandal, whichcontributed to the downlall 01 the thenIndian prime minister Rajiv Gandhi. (3) Itwas alleged that Gandhi's associatesreceived a BO million sweetener to buyguns Irom the Swedish lirm.

(4) The brothers, who made their E2billion lortune in oil, banking andcommunications, are accused 01 bribingsenior politicians and civil servants tolacilitate the E802 million sale 01 thehowitzers to the India n army. (5) TheHindujas have lived in Britain lor manyyears and are jointly ranked as the eighthrichest people in the country. (6) Well-known philanthropists, they count royaltyand politicians among their friends.

(7) Srichand, 65, known as SP, gavePeter Mandelson El million to bail out thelaith zone.

(8)Tony and Cherie Blair were guestsat the lamily's Diwali party lastNovember,when Mrs Blair modelled achuridar kameez originally designed byone 01 SP's daughters. (9) As members 01the Bollywood film industry, India'sequivalent to Hollywood,the Hindujas areregulars at the Cannes Film Festival. (10)They own a villa in the French resort andmoor a yacht off the town, where they

host parties lor celebrities and lilmmakers.

(11) They were charged in theirabsence - along with their brotherprakashchand, who Iives in Geneva - withcorruption, criminal conspiracy andcheating, at a special court in New Delhi.(12) The brothers issued a statementsaving they were «extremely surprised, bythe development

(13) The case has dogged them loryears and dates back to 1986, when RajivGandhi's Congress government bought400 howitzerfield-guns Irorn Bolors. (14)The Swedish press c1aimed BO millionhad gone to Gandhi associates to sweetenthe deal.

(15) Counsel lor the Indian CentralBureau 01 Investigation, the CBI, which hasbeen inquiring into the scandal since1987, alleged that the brothers receivedcommission lrom Bolors worth 81 millionSwedish kronor, or E5.53 rnillion. (16) Hesaid: «They have three or lour Swissaccounts in which they put this money'.

(17) Commissions in delence dealsare outlawed in India, and il convicted theHinduja brothers could be sentenced toseven years in prison. (18) 8ut thebrothers would have to be extraditedbelore lacing the charges. (19) AjigBharihoke, the special judge, will beginhearing arguments next month aboutwhether there is enough evidence to trythe Hinduja brothers, listed 468th on theForbes billionaires' lis!. (20) II the judgedecides to arraign them, the CBI will seektheir extradition Irom the UK. (21) TheHindujas, who own at least one bank inSwitzerland and several other linancialinstitutions, issued a statement last monthc1aiming the money they received IromBolors had «no relation, to the Indian deal.

(22) Official sources said the brothers

60 ZONA PRÓXJMA N° 4 (2003) PAGS 38-61

had offered to «talk» to Indian officials inLondon or Geneva. (23) An official inNew Delhi said: «They are highlyconscious 01 their public standing in Indiaand the UK as philanthropists, having builtseveral hospitals and donated generouslyto other charitable causes. (24) They arewilling to go to extreme lengths to keeptheir lamily name trom beingbesmirched •. (25) The lamily, who first setup business in Iran in the Twenties, islndia's largest transnational company, withinterests in inlarmation technology,finance, chemicals, and the lilm industry.(26) They employ 20,000 people. (27)Srichand recently expressed his

ZONA PRÓXIMA N° 4 (2003) PAGS 37-61 "

determination to make a Hollywood epic.(28) The spokesman tor the Hinduja

Group in London said: «There has beenenough trial by press in this matter. (29) Itis time lor the law to take its course. (30)The three Hinduja brothers are relievedthat they are no longer at the merey 01 thepolitical pressures that have ruled thiscase lar the past 13 years and that thejudiciary will now make the correddecision. (31) They are law-abidingpersons and as in the past they shallabide by the legal process •. (32) Gandhi,who was voted out in 1989 andassassinated in 1991, also figures in theC81 charge sheet.