Cohesion as described by Halliday (1991) is one of the features that combine to make up the textual component in grammar. The textual components include the structural components (theme – rheme), information and focus structure (the given and new) and cohesion (Grammatical and Lexical). Halliday and Hasan (1976), refer to grammatical cohesion as including reference, substitution and ellipsis while the lexical refers to the different forms of lexical repetitions. Therefore, cohesion as Halliday and Hasan (1976) describe is a semantic relation that is realized through the lexico grammatical system. These elements as pointed out determine the texture of a text.
As recent work argues, the real link between micro and macro movement processes occurs at the meso level, between the individual and the broad macro context. However, the exact ties at this level between the talk of interaction and social construction of issues in the public domain remain uncertain in framing theory. William Gamson's path-breaking work on political talk suggests a composite issue-oriented process by which people combine media speeches, popular speeches, and personal descriptions to frame political issues. He argues that people selectively combine these three based on their proximal relations to and uses of each type of discourse for a particular issue. However, Gamson does not provide an particularised theory as to when people find it most reasonable and conceivable to combine such distinctive speeches into clear
Abstract— Semantic textual similarity(STS) assess the degree of semantic similarity between pair of sentences. Every sentence is built using syntactic rules and semantic relations. To estimate the similarity there is a need to generate syntactic and semantic features. These features are combined using regression models. Semantic features will only deal with the meaning of individual words between the sentence pair.
According to Kövecses (2010, 4): “Conceptual domain A is conceptual domain B, which is called a conceptual metaphor”. A conceptual metaphor consists of two conceptual domains, in which one domain is understood in terms of another. A conceptual domain is any coherent organisation of experience that is motivated by and grounded in our bodily experience. The two domains that participate in conceptual metaphor are the conceptual domain from which we draw metaphorical expressions to understand another conceptual domain. This view is also supported by Croft (1993) who claims that: “Domains play a central role in the definition of a metaphor as a mapping of conceptual structure from one domain to another.
2.2 Grammatical metaphor Grammatical metaphor is one of the most interesting theoretical notions developed by Halliday (1985/1994) within Systemic-Functional Grammar (SFG). Functional Grammar defines metaphors as variations in the expression of meaning rather than just variations in the use of words. Functional Grammar looks at metaphors from a different perspective, not asking “how is this word used?” but “how is this meaning expressed?” or “how is grammar structured to make the text effective in the achievement of purpose?” There is a kind of transference going on, the transfer of representation between different grammatical categories. The difference in the message is the kind of meaning variation which Halliday (1994) calls Grammatical
Catford presented three types of translation based on three criteria: the extent of translation (full vs. partial translation), the grammatical rank at which the translation equivalence is established (rank-bound translation vs. unbounded translation) and the levels of language involved in translation (total translation vs. restricted translation). The second type is the one related to the notion of equivalence. In rank-bound translation, the equivalence exits in each word or morpheme in the source language while in the unbound translation, the equivalence is not related to a particular rank but we can find it at sentence, clause or other levels. He distinguishes between the formal corresponding and (textual equivalence). He defines the second one as "any TL text or portion of text which is observed on a particular occasion …, to be the equivalent of a given SL text or portion of text."
Clause combining is basically concerned with the clausal relationship traditionally studied in terms of coordination and subordination. Lehmann defines it as a "relation of dependency or sociation between the clauses” (182). For Foley and van Valin, clause linkage is the unification of the "internal morphosyntax of the clause with the complex structures of the sentence, and ultimately, of discourse" (238). They study clause linkage in terms of the binary positions of the characteristics like [+ -] dependency and [+ -] embeddedness. According to them, complex sentences have three types of nexus as illustrated in the figure 1.
A semantic role is a relationship that a participant has with the main verb in the clause. While syntactic analysis focuses on sentences and all the function words in a sentence, the semantic analysis focuses primarily on meaning, i.e. on the proposition expressed in a sentence. A proposition is meaningful and it can be expressed either in different sentences or in parts of sentences. In order to do semantic analysis, we have to distinguish inflection from a proposition.
At the beginning the author puts emphasis on how native speakers of a language decide if a text is a combination of unrelated sentences or is it a whole unified sentence based on hearing or reading it by the native speakers. The book ‘Cohesion in English’ showed the differences that identify the two aspects of the text, a unified whole and collection of unrelated sentences. It is informed that there are empirical factors which are text characteristics, they should be found in order to save as basis in the text. In a grammatical unit consistency is formed by a sentence supported by a clause to a group of clauses. A text is highly regarded as an exclusive semantic unit in the meaning related by a sentence or clause, however, it does not only resides sentences but encoded in sentences.
One such field is the grammatical side of a language, Latin, modern German, and Icelandic had an extensive declension system English language too had such system once in the past. Old English was distinguished between the nominative, accusative, dative and genitive cases and for strongly declined adjectives and some pronouns also a separate instrumental case (which later completely coincided with dative), the dual number was also distinguished from the singular and plural. Simplification of declension occurred during Middle English period, when the accusative and the dative cases were merged into a single oblique case of pronoun that also replaced the genitive case after prepositions. Nouns of modern English were no longer decline for case, except for the genitive. All modern linguistics was historical in orientation at the beginning; every study including the study of modern dialects looked at their origins.