The Syndetic And Asyndetic Coordinations English Language Essay

The Syndetic And asyndetic Coordinations slope Language EssayThe concept of gumminess is a semantic angiotensin-converting enzyme it refers to dealing of meaning that exist within a text, and that define it as text. Cohesion add ups where the interpretation of some(prenominal) element in the chat is underage on that of an other(a). The mavin presupposes the other, in the sense that it cannot be effectively decoded demur by recourse to it. When this happens, a congress of coherency is numerate down up, and the twain elements, the presupposing and the presupposed, argon in that locationby at least potenti onlyy integrated into a text.Carter defines cohesion as the demonstrable pattern of the texts integrity, the marks of its hanging in concert (245).Coordination is a part of the system of a talking to. As a ray of cohesion, coordination is a impact utilise in a language to melt units to make other units. It is part of the rudimentary efficiency of language fini shed which simple units like phrases and the simple denounce argon re-cycled to make all-night and perhaps some(prenominal) complex units. Coordinationinvolves the middlemaning of units, in coordination the units atomic number 18 cistron of the aforementivirtuosod(prenominal) level. In relating coordination to cohesion in poetic texts, reference needs to be made to the structural definition of metrical compositionsAs Bloom assertsPoems atomic number 18 not things get ahead save rowing that refer to other intelligence services and those words refer to still other words, and so on into the densely overpopulated human existences of literary language. Any poem is an inter-poem, and any reading of a poem is an inter-reading. You cannot write or t apiece or think or level read without imitation, and what you imitate is what another person has done, that persons writing or pedagogy or thinking or reading. Your relation to what informs that person is tradition. (107-1 08).Bloom is similarly of the judgement thatWhat makes executable reading and writing is not a private anterior action which serves as origin and moment of plenitude except an open series of acts, some(prenominal)(prenominal) identifiable and lost, which work together to be something like a language discursive possibilities, systems of convention, clichs and descriptive systems. (110)1.1 investigate PROBLEMPoetic text may appear as break necktie of words on the page. Yet, it makes powerful impressions and has a huge communicatory effect. What text-forming resources contrisolelye to this appargonnt meaningfulness? And in what ways are these resources employed in poetic text? How does this knowledge illumine our rationality of text and caryopsis? These problems are communicate in the present battlefield.1.2 OBJECTIVES OF THE considerThe objectives of this study are as followsTo examine the language of the selected poems of ChicayaUtamsisBOW repeat.To provide a di e understanding and appreciation of the elements of coordination as employed in the poems.As Leech ShortassertThe poet does large-mindedle things with language in meter aesthetic effect cannot be detached from the creative manipulation of the linguistic code inherent in the language. (2)This study, hence, come down out to analyze some six selectedpoems of TchikayaUtamsititled Bow Harp.1.3 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDYSince researches in this area of study drive home not been exhaustively conducted, it is hoped that this studymay run through its own contri moreoverion as it applies to summary ofcoordinations in poetic texts.1.4 setting OF THE STUDYThis research project is concerned with the abridgment of BOW HARP which was originally written in French by TchicayaUtamsi and translated into English by Gerald Moore.The selection of the particular poems to be analyzed in this study is base on the recurrent themes they reflect and the belief that the poems manifest significantl y the thematic concerns of the poet. The poems are selected and analyzed to discover how coordination is commitd in explicating certain contentedness of the poet .The study endeavors to discuss the concept of coordination as it relates to cohesion.The present study centralizees on the level of coordination and textual cohesion in the text.Hence, particular attention is addicted to the prominent coordinating features such as copulativeions, and, or, yet.1.5 METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDYThe research examines coordination against the compass of cohesion. The thematic federal agency of the text forming resources is analyzed in the mannequin of joints. The poetic texts are closely examined and used as a background to the analysis.Nevertheless, reference has been made to articles, journals and other scholarly books.THE POET TCHICAYA U TAMSITchicayaUTamsi(1931-1988), the oldest of a contemporaries of important Congolese writers, is one of the few whose reputation has reached beyond the bound of francophone Africa and France. While recognizing him as one of the leading contemporary African poets, critics and readers dwell strangely reserved. Tchicayas writing defies classification. His intensely personal worldview and poetic expression construct his own individual mythology, which sets him apart from all neat literary categories. His poetry is often severalised as hermetic. At the identical time the poets translucent mastery of his medium precludes his being dismissed as obscure or unintelligible.At times Utamsis own words would viewm to confirm his link with the surrea rocks. The surrea joust poets highly individualistic message was dictated by his subconscious being, which he believed to be the echo of the universal consciousness. It was expressed by an arbitrary association of words which, at prototypal reading, the poet often understood no better than the reader. Thisis very different from Utamsis dense and at times esoteric imaginativeness, by whi ch he expresses his profound and passionate identification with the suffering of Africa and, more(prenominal)(prenominal) than particularly, of the Congo. Utamsis imagery is distinguishable from that of the surrealists because of its coherent scheme of reference and worldview.CHAPTER TWOLITERATURE surveil2.0. INTRODUCTIONThis chapter is devoted to throwing some light on the theoretical aspects of the research work. The verge coordination is central to this study. Nevertheless, stemmas of coordination as a branch of linguistic study, how it has been explained and used in other genres will be looked at in enunciate to set-up a conceptual framework that would help to make things clear and target the foundation for subsequent analysis.2.1. The Concept in Focus2.1.1 CoordinationHaspelmath(2000) defines coordination as syntacticalal constructions in which two or more units of the equal type are deepend into larger units and still have the likesemantic dealing with other sur rounding elements (1).Bloomfields similar definition of coordination contrasts it with subordinationEndocentric constructions are of twain kinds, co-ordinative(or serial) andsubordinative(or attributive). In the former type the solution phrase belongs to the said(prenominal) form-class as devil or more of the constituentsIn subordinativeendocentric constructions, the resultant phrase belongs to the same form-class as one of the constituents, which we call the head. (195).Both of these definitions are syntactic, and emphasize the balanced syntacticrelationship mingled with get upd items. In addition, both definitions utter that the social organisation resulting from coordination is of the same type (semantic in Haspelmathsdefinition, syntactic in Bloomfields) as the twin(a) items. Yuasa and sadock in agreement with the observation of Bloomfield further mention 5 criteria that confirms the presence of coordinationReversibility changing the erect of the conjuncts does not fal l upon the truth conditions.Application of the coordinate structure constraint the constituents of one article cannot be questioned distributively.No backward anaphora a pronoun in the commencement ceremony clause cannot co refer with a full NP in the second clause.Multiple conjuncts are possible.All the conjuncts are equally asserted. (87-111.)Halliday and Hasan (1976) describe coordination as an intrasentential structural device. However, they do include that sets of destines similar to coordination do exist e superfluously if they share analog structure, and view coordination as a structure of the paratactic type (223)CathrineFabricius-Hansen and Ramm, W. (2005) describe coordination as being used as a sum of clause combining and information packaging at discourse level and differs from a sentence duration by explicitly instructing the reader to keep the two propositions together in discourse processing. For guinea pig in giveing a discourse structure, licensing the inf erence of certain discourse relations to hold between the conjuncts, while blocking others. As a means of constructing (more) complex (clause/VP) constituents from simpler ones of the same syntactic category, coordination can be compared to certain kinds of adjunction, i.e. syntactic subordination (175-213).Coordination has been viewed by various scholars as processes used by languages to combine units to make other units. Or as a part of the basic efficiency of language through which simple units like phrases and the simple sentence are re-cycled to make longer and perhaps more complex units. deuce (2009) re-categorizes coordinators as existing in a semantic clinewith disjuncts. By this he means a scale of varying levels of coordination whilecoordinators such as and establish an equivalent and non-adverbial relationship betweentwo clauses such that nevery is subordinate to the other, disjuncts like sinceestablishsome full vizor of indirectness and an adverbial relationship betwee n the clauses (421076-1136).2.2. Types of CoordinationSyndetic and Asyndetic coordinationHaspelmath and Quirk et al define asyndetic and syndetic coordination as Coordinate constructions lacking tangible coordinator (asyndetic coordination) or having some overt linking devices such as conjunctions and, but, or, nor, for, so, yet.(syndetic coordination).a). Slowly and stealthily, he crept towards his victim.(Quirk et al50)And Asyndetic coordination as when the relationship of coordination is not marked overtlya). Slowly, stealthily, he crept towards his victim. .(Quirk et al50)Though there exist a relatively meliorate put up for subclasses of adjectives in asyndetic coordination, but the order is tell to be relatively free when a coordinator is present.2.3 Asyndetic Coordination2.3.1 AsyndetonKane (1988) states that despite its redoubtable name asyndeton is nothing more than a different way of use a list or a series, Asyndeton uses no conjunctions and separates the terms of the list with commas. It differs from the conventional treatment of lists and series, which is to use only commas between all items however the last two, these being fall in by a conjunction. Asyndeton is linked to asyndetic coordination. Asyndeton produces a hurried rhythm in the sentence.Corbett (1971) cites Aristotles observation that asyndeton was especially conquer for the conclusion of a discourse, because there, perhaps more than inother places in the discourse, we may want to produce the emotional reaction thatcan be stirred by, among other means, rhythm, (470).Asyndeton is the in lieu of conjoining constructions in which there are no coordinators ( too referred to as juxtaposition) monosyndeton, in which there is one coordinator and polysyndeton, in which more than one coordinator is used.2.4. Syndetic Coordination2.4.1 PolysyndetonPolysyndeton is regarded as a way of handling a list or a series, places a conjunction (and, or) after every term in the list (except, the last). It is said to differs from the conventional treatment of lists and series, which is to use only commas between all items except the last two, these being joined by a conjunction(Kane1988). Polysyndeton is linked to Syndetic coordination , as opposed to Asyndeton which is linked to Asyndetic coordination.2.5 Monosyndetic and Bisyndetic CoordinationCoordinations may either have a single coordinator (monosyndetic) or twocoordinators (bisyndetic).Haspelmath (2000) proffers some relevant constituency tests for monosyndetic coordination(i) Intonation In certain cases, English and forms an chanting groupwith the following phrase, not with the antecedent phrase.(ii) Pauses In English, it is much more natural to pause before andthan after and.(iii) Discontinuous order In special circumstances, the coordinands maybe separated by other material, as when a coordinand is added as anafterthought. In English, the coordinator must be next to the secondcoordinand (e.g. My uncle will light tomorro w, or my aunt). Not my uncle or will come tomorrow, my aunt.(iv) (Morpho)phonological alternations When the coordinator or one ofthecoordinand undergoes (morpho)phonological alternations in theconstruction, this is evidence that they form a constituent together. (121)2.6. The Nature of Coordination2.6.1 Contrastive Coordination2.6.2 Conjunction and DisjunctionHaspelmath (2000) states that many languages distinguish between normal coordination such as A and B, X or Y, which may also be referred to as conjunctionand what might be called contrastive coordination both A and B, either X or Y. The semantic difference he views is that in contrastive coordination, it is emphasized that each coordinand belongs to the coordination and each of them is considered separately.Hence, it creates opposing flavor of meaning inherent in the text because two things cannot be separately similar. And like conjunction, Haspelmath (2000) regard disjunction scratchs as often poly divisional.Dickens (2009) states that Disjuncts showing some coordinator-like properties, so they are grouped on a continuum with coordinators (1089).Halliday and Hassan (1976) see conjunction as a cohesive device that relates sentences.Conjunctive elements they stateare cohesive not in themselves but indirectly, by legality of their unique(predicate) meanings they are not primarily devices for reaching out into the preceding text, but express certain meanings which presuppose the presence of other components in the discourse (226).As similarly describe by Bloor and Bloor (1995).Halliday and Hasan (1976) indicate that connexion relations are not tied to any particular sequence in the expression.Nevertheless, they implore that amongst the cohesion forming devices within text, conjunction is seen as the least directly identifiable relation. Conjunction they assume act as semantic cohesive tie within text in four categoriesAdditive, adversative, causal and temporal. Additive conjunction acts to structural ly coordinate or link by adding to the presupposed item and are signaled through and, also, too, furthermore, additionally, etc. Additive conjunction may also act to negate the presupposed item and is signaled by nor, andnot, either, neither, etc. adversative conjunctions act to indicate contrary to expectation (250) and are signaled by yet, though, only, but, in fact, rather, etc. Causal conjunction expresses result, reason and purpose and is signaled by so, then, for, because. adversative coordination seems always binary it must consist of two coordinands, so is set forth as causal and then is described as temporal (227).Halliday and Hassan acknowledge that conjunction is derived from coordination, they argue that Conjunction is not simply coordination extended so as to operate between sentences, noting that one difference between coordinate and and copulative and is that coordinate and can link any number of items, whereas conjunctive and cerebrate pairs of sentences. They view conjunctions as expressing one or other of a small number of very general relations (238).In the same vein Halliday and Matthiessen (1999) in relation to its cohesive function state that In conjunction, the various logical-semantic relations of expansion that attend clause complex structures are deployed instead as a source of cohesion.They argue that among other resources which construe clauses and clause complexes into longer stretches of discourse without the formality of further grammatical structure are conjunction and lexical cohesion (530-31).Halliday and Matthiessen (1999) in extending the notion of language resources as tools of coarseening and reaching out into meaning view that specific kinds of expansion or projection can be construed as either paratactic or hypotactic, insisting that some level of partial association exist, where some form of combinations are favored, while others are disfavored.They explain another kind of expansion in terms of conjunctive rel ations employing such conjunctions as and, or, but, instead, besides as an elongate, alternative, replacement, reservation, contrast. A third kind occurs with the use of adverbs function as conjunctions marking either the enhancing clause or correspondingly the one being enhanced (520-1).Scott Drellishak (2004) in his thesis A Survey of Coordination Strategies in the Worlds Languages quotes Gleitman (1965) as viewing conjunction as one of many syntactic processes that serve the purpose of indicating contrast or reducing repeat tie sentence that does not indicate contrast or reduce repetition is described as not serving any purpose. (268)2.7. Phrasal CoordinationIf two expressions have different semantic roles it will not be possible to coordinate them. Although it is sometimes said that the coordinands must belong to the same phrasal category for instance, (tea) NP or (in a NigerianRestaurant) PP is said to be incorrect because it consists of an NP and a PP. However, coordinati on of different phrasal categories is often possible when both have the same semantic role.Also in phrasal coordination, the order of conjoined words can be influenced by the tendency for the shorter word to come first and within phrasal coordination, there can be ellipsis of the determiner (Quirk et al 610).2.8. Clausal CoordinationWhen two or more clauses are coordinated, certain clause constituents are often ellipted from all but one of the clauses. More often than not, the effect of ellipsis is no more than to suggest a closer connection between the content of the clauses but sometimes the effect is to indicate that there is a combined process rather than two separate processes.And and or as clause linkers are restricted to initial position. Coordinated clauses with and and or are sequentially fixed in relation to the preceding(prenominal) clause and cannot be transposed without producing ungrammaticality in sentence structure (Quirk et al 553), a clause containing a conjunct m ay be linked to a preceding clause by one of the coordinating conjunctions (and, or, but) but not all the conjuncts admit each coordinator (Quirk et al552-553).2.9. Taxis in coordinationThe term taxis in English grammar means order of battle of units of thinkers, thought, sentence constituents, structures that are grammatical constructs. In English grammar, taxis is categorized into two broad partsI). ParataxisII). HypotaxisParataxis refers to the organization of clausal units on a parallel level employing coordinating conjunctions as the case may be. The center point of coordination is considered to be parataxis. The elements placed side by side does not register a dependency relation and exists in no specified order of fact.Lakoff (1971) and Martin (1983) view Parataxis as the hallmark of coordination. Most often, the equality of the clauses is said to be clear both grammatically and semantically. Different units can be joined with Coordination at any level. The conjoined unit s, elements thus linked exhibit same semantic and syntactic category. This instance of conjoining equal grammatical structures (coordination) form our counsel in this study and deviates from Hypotaxis which is the organization of constituents on a dependency relation with the use of subordinating conjunctions it forms the basis of subordination in English grammar.2.10. symmetric and asymmetric coordinationCoordinate constructions are said to have symmetrical properties such that conjuncts are paratactically construed, that a conjunct is not subordinated to another conjunct, that conjuncts have the same syntactic and semantic function on the other hand they have asymmetric properties such as command relationship between the first and the second conjuncts. This case is referred to as balanced and unbalanced case of coordination.2.11. Approaches to Coordination summary and Coordination in Different GenresIn poetic texts, the study of coordination is quite fragile and limited. For instance Miller (2007) explores biblical Hebrew poetry and the relationship of coordination to communicative gapping is what forms her point of heighten. She comes up with the findings that asyndetic coordination is the hallmark of biblical Hebrew poetry and especially proterozoic poetry (41-60).Millers head contains 123 lines from the book of Isiah.Svetlana Petrova Michael Solf (2008) explore rhetorical relations and verb placement in the early Germanic languages. It presents a diachronic study about the distinction between coordination and subordination in discourse it focuses on disused High German and on other early Germanic languages.Petrova and Solf consider other kinds of data, roughlyly from declaratives, in support of the involve that verb placement serves certain discourse functions in early Germanic languages.They come up with the finding that Verb fronting seems to have a clear functional purpose, as it is used to mark episode boundaries in Old High German. The s tudy goes further in identifying some correlations between verb placement and discourse-structuring phenomenon in Old English, Old Saxon, and Old Norse, with similar discourse-structuring functions. A cross -linguistic approach is espouse in the study as opposed to functional approach in analysis.Ash Asudeh and Richard Crouch (2002) examine Coordination and Parallelism in Glue Semantics exploring points of converging and divergence between approach to coordination and similar Categorial Grammar (CG) approaches. The research discusses balance in connection with the Coordinate Structure Constraint. The paper presents an account of the semantics of coordination, close in within the theory of Glue Semantics.The goal of a GLUE derivation as explicated in the study is to consume all the lexical set forth to produce a single conclusion stating the meaning of the sentence. Further take a firm stand that Semantic ambiguity results when there are alternative derivations from the same se t of premises.This study shares rough-cutplace interest with the present one as both relates coordination to instances of cohesion. While this study argues for glue approach to coordination the present study differs on the ground of functional approach of analysis.David Bell (2007) examines both the oftenness and function of SIA (sentence initial and) and cognate (sentence initial but) in academic writing and its vastness in understanding language in literary texts.While coordinator and is more frequent in academic prose than but, SIA is much less frequent than blood relation. self-contained data show a marked difference in the use of SIA and SIB across different genres of academic writing with SIA and SIB being far more prevalent in the humanities journals. Furthermore, the study shows that SIA, when compared with other additive connectives such as moreover, furthermore, in addition, etc., is the most frequently occurring additive marker in academic writing, while SIB is the second most preferred connective after however.With regard to function, the study goes on to argue that both SIA and SIB in academic writing function in three very similar ways (i) to mark off a discourse unit by indicating the last item on a list (ii) to indicate the development of an argument and (iii) to indicate adiscontinuity or shift with a previous discourse unit. This is in line with Halliday and Hassans (1975) view as regard the function of SIA and SIB. The study further asserts that whereas the most common function of SIA is that of indicating the last item on a list, the most common use of SIB is in the development of arguments. It argues that SIA and SIB perform special functions than the alternatives of asyndetic or zero coordination, the use of discourse markers that share their broad semantic function Moreover, furthermore, in addition, and however, respectively, or intrasentential coordination cannot perform.The study proffers that the features throw in SIA and SIB to preface a wider range of lexico-grammatical units such as interrogatives, stance adverbs and other discourse connectives and to create a tighter cohesive fit. It comments that it is these special features of cohesion which are held to explain the occurrence of SIA and SIB in academic writing. The focus here is on the use of SIA and SIB in academic discourse, it excluded occurrences of SIA and SIB in academic writing from other modes such as in transcripts of conversations, in quotes from apologue or in poetic texts which is the sole focus of the present research.Halliday and Hasan (1975) on SIA as part of their larger discussion of conjunction as one cohesive device in the concept of cohesion describes coordination as an intrasentential structural device while conjunction is seen as a cohesive device that relates sentences. In their examination of conjuncts, SIA is described as star sign an additive relationship between sentences while but is described as an adversative. Hallid ay and Hasan note that one difference between coordinate and, and conjunctive and, is that coordinate and can link any number of items, whereas conjunctive and links pairs of sentences (235).Halliday and Hasan distinguish a further use of SIA, which they suggest comes closest to its structural function as a coordinator, they call it next in a series (236).They suggest that another example would be a series of points all contributing to one general argument. In this function, Halliday and Hasan argue that And retains some of the retrospective or retrojective effect, i.e. projecting backwards that and has as a coordinator (236).Here, SIA is viewed as signaling not the last item on a list but rather the continuation of an ongoing list of items. The study explicates that however, apart from the cases cited higher up where cohesive And operates similarly to coordinator and, the typical consideration for SIA is one where there is a total, or almost total shift in the participants from o ne sentence to the next, and yet the two sentences are very definitely part of a text (235).Another common context in narrative fiction for this shift is at the boundary of dialogue and narrative.What have been shown here is that SIA and SIB provide special features of cohesion that alternative forms of coordination do not.Schiffrin (1986, 1987, 2006) examines vox and turn-initial and in conversation. She argues that and has two roles in talk An ideational role where it coordinates idea units what she calls a discourse coordinator role, and an interactional or pragmatic or discourse marker role where it continues a speakers action, i.e. marking the speakers upcoming utterance as a continuation of the content and structure of an interaction, and these two functions most often occur simultaneously (1987 128). As a marker of functionally scard idea units, the presence of and signals that the speaker identifies an upcoming unit as structurally coordinated or equivalent to a prior uni t. In this way, and can differentiate among other things in narrative, support and position in arguments and explanations, and can also differentiate discourse topics. However, Schiffrin stresses that identifying the nature of these units depends on textual information beyond and itself (1987 141).In Summary Halliday and Hasan (1976), and Schiffrin (1986, 1987, 2006),see SIA as bracketing discourse units, continuing discourse units, or signaling a shift between discourse units and what determines the discourse function of these signaled discourse units is constructed by the interaction of the linguistic properties of and with the discourse context in which it occurs.Sotirova (2004), using the works of D.H. Lawrence, has argued that SIA, as well as other connectives, are used by Lawrence to signal perspectival shifts in free indirect way of life (227).Huttar (2002) has examined the use of both discourse-initial and (DIA) and SIA in poetry. Huttar argues that DIA is often used to est ablish an imagined context already in progress or imagined prior events from which the present utterance is understood to continue. An extremely common form of DIA is that of a question addressed in response to an implied interlocutors statement and often expressing surprise at the previous implied statement. cottier (2003) on the other hand examines the use of SIA and SIB in news showpapers over a one hundred year period. She used a 100,000-word corpus of newspaper articles a mixture of local and national syndicated articles, general news, and feature articles published between 1900 and 1995. Over this period, she noted an increasing occurrence of SIA/B and concurrent fall in temporal connectives. Among other factors, cottier argues that these connectives help to create local and global coherence in news narratives, introduce new speakers and ideas, and link a series of short paragraphs. Cotter sees this increasing use of SIA/B as indicative of a diachronic shift from more tex t-centered to more reader-centered prose.Dorgeloh (2004) looked at SIA in a corpus of British English made up of LOB (Lancaster-Oslo/Bergen, 1961) and FLOB (Freiburg Lancaster-Oslo/Bergen, 1991). She indicates a decline in the use of SIA in both academic and newspaper writing. From her analysis she concludes that in written Modern English, SIA, where it does occur, marks functional shifts on a more global level of discourse (1777).From the literature reviewed, it becomes evident that there is prevalence in the use of additive and in academic discourse, prose, conversation, literary texts, newspapers, and in the humanities and social science fields generally. In frequency and function additive and is reckoned to be the most frequently occurring, followed by but in poetic texts functionally, Huttar argues that and is often used to establish an imagined context already in progress or imagined prior events from which the present utterance is understood to continue while Halliday and Has an (1976), and Schiffrin (1986, 1987, 2006),regard and as bracketing discourse units, continuing discourse units, or signaling a shift between discourse units.The subsequent analysis consider to what extent the frequency and functional assertions are based.This research departs from much of the previous studies, by presenting a functional linguistic analysis which was proffered by Halliday et al. Earlier researches often focus on the