Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Year 3, group 3
FN 25417
A DISCUSSION OF THE VARIOUS COHESIVE DEVICES IN ENGLISH
BASED ON A COMPARISON OF A PROSE TEXT AND A POEM
We could draw various comparisons between texts of genres as different as these of the
memoir and the poem in terms of theme, form, language, influence on the reader We
could continue the list almost endlessly. And, although we could certainly find a number of
similarities, we cant disregard their inherent characteristics which differ essentially. In this
paper I will attempt at drawing a dividing line between these two literary forms with respect
to the cohesive devices used in them. The two texts on which I will focus are an excerpt of the
memoir of the American poet Sarah Manguso Two Kinds of Decay in which she tells about
the years of harrowing treatment she was forced to endure because of a severe disease and a
poem by the Nobel Prize laureate Seamus Heaney Personal Helikon. Apart from my
personal admiration for these works, the reason I chose them is that, although they might not
be the most exemplary pieces of the respective genres, they present us with plenty of room for
analysis.
Before comparing the two text I will discus each of them separately starting by the prose
one:
With my own1 (personal cataphoric reference to I) blood in me (personal cataphoric
reference to I), I (exophoric reference) couldn't feel, and I(exophoric reference) couldn't
move, but (adversative conjunction) with other people (generalized exophoric reference)'s
blood in me (personal anaphoric reference to I), and with chemicals in me (personal
anaphoric reference to I), I (exophoric reference) could do those things (anaphoric
demonstrative reference to feel and move). The new blood became mine (personal
anaphoric reference to I) as soon as (temporal conjunctions) it (anaphoric reference to the
new blood) entered me (personal anaphoric reference to I). Or (additive conjunction)
maybe it (anaphoric reference to the new blood) took a moment to mix with what was there
(anaphoric demonstrative reference to my blood). Or (additive conjunction) maybe it
(anaphoric reference to the new blood) took an hour or a day. My (personal anaphoric
reference to I) blood came out dirty and went in clean. It (personal anaphoric to my blood)
came out hot and went in cold. It (personal anaphoric to my blood) came out old and went in
new. And (additive conjunction) the new, cold, clean blood was better (anaphoric comparative
reference to the new cold clean blood) than the blood I (exophoric reference) made myself
(personal anaphoric reference to I).
The lexical items which contribute to lexical cohesion are underlined. All other devices are
marked in yellow and an explanation is provided in brackets.
a clothbound copy of his (anaphoric personal reference to Heller) new novel, whatever it
(anaphoric reference to new novel) was, and (additive conjunction) that he (anaphoric
personal reference to Heller) was happy I(exophoric reference)'d read his (anaphoric personal
reference to Heller) famous book so many times and that I (exophoric reference)'d loved it
(anaphoric reference to his famous book) enough to send someone (exophoric reference) out
to have it (anaphoric reference to his famous book)signed for me (personal anaphoric
reference to I).
Six months later (temporal conjunction), I (exophoric reference) received the diagnosis
that would become the focus of my (personal anaphoric reference to I) life, and (additive
conjunction) Heller died four years after (temporal conjunction) that (anaphoric reference to
receiving the diagnosis) after (temporal conjunction) a long, slow recovery from the
same (cataphoric comparative reference to disease) disease.
Two kinds of Decay is a poignant story we see a world of suffering through the eyes
of the author. This personal, almost intimate, point of view is evident even in our rather
formal analysis. A brief look is enough to see that personal references to I- the narrator are
abundant even throughout this short passage. Typically for the memoir genre this puts the
focus on the narrator and its personal experience. This could also account for the fact that
complex emphatic conjunctions are almost lacking. Sometimes the sequencing of the events
in the narrative seems a bit illogical because it follows a personal psychologically grounded
order, to a great extent founded on associations. The narrative is kept clear and no ambiguity
arises - there is only one instance of ellipsis and none of substitution whereas there are plenty
of examples of lexical cohesion: at the very beginning the repetition of blood and the
antonym couples come in- go out, clean - dirty, cold - hot, new - old contribute to the
cohesion of the text. Further in the passage we come across reiteration of book and bookrelated items which support the overall impression of a cohesive whole. The same is the
situation with the sale- related vocabulary: customers, register, buy, etc.
In the passage there are quite few generalized references which again come to prove the
focus of the narrative is inside it in a way, it doesnt aim at any universal conclusions or
morals. It just tells the story of a personal experience and we can see this quite clearly in the
cohesive devices used in the text.
Now we will turn to the second text which is object of our study - Seamus Heaneys
Personal Helikon.
As a child, they (generalized exophoric reference) could not keep me (cataphoric personal
refernce to I) from wells
And (additive conjunction) old pumps with buckets and windlasses.
I (exophoric reference) loved the dark drop, the trapped sky, the smells
Of waterweed, fungus and (additive conjunction) dank moss.
One (substitution: a well), in a brickyard, with a rotted board top.
I (exophoric reference) savoured the rich crash when (temporal conjunction) a bucket
3
result in ambiguities because the thematic focus is given in the very beginning and there is no
way to miss that these two refer to wells.
When it comes to lexical cohesion, this is what not only makes the text of the poem
cohesive, it is the reason for its emotional impact. First, the framework of the poem is largely
due to a collocation - an antonym couple child - adult and it marks a development within the
poem. Whats more the final adult dignity corresponds to they, the adults, in the first stanza
but the difference is that while in the beginning they signified a kind of outer authority in
opposition to the narrator- child, at the end the voice of the speaker is also encompassed in
the adults. Then we have a whole set of vocabulary related to wells buckets,
windlasses, pumps, bottom. Then, words related to the flora associated with the wells:
waterweed, fungus, moss, roots, ferns, foxgloves. But what seems most interesting
is the development of the earth-related vocabulary: at the beginning it is soft mulch but in
the final stanza we come across slime which has rather negative connotations. This
corresponds to the idea already discussed that in this stanza we hear the voice of the adults
and not the enthusiasm of the child.
Other interesting items of lexical cohesion are these involved in the semantic field of
voice at the beginning we find rich crash, echo, call, clean new music. At the very
end we see rhyme which apart from the meaning related to poetry, has another associated
with child song. If we look at it from that prospective we can see in that development the
speakers desperate attempt to revive his childhood pleasures.
Having in mind these two texts are not typical representatives of their genres, we cant
attempt at drawing too general conclusions but we can try at least to sum up what was already
discussed in terms of characteristic usage of cohesive devices. The poem being a lot shorter
explains to a certain extent why there are a lot more instances of substitutions in it compared
to the prose text. The poem in consideration relies heavily on lexical cohesion since it
conveys, spreads, and reinforces the main idea through its images. With the prose text the
reference items was what hold it together along with the temporal conjunctions a necessity
imposed on the text by the retrospection it involves. However this is a devices very rarely
used in poetic forms which may account for the fact that temporal conjunctions dont have
significance in poems.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
1.
2.
3.
4.