Substitution

Substitution, like reference, is a form of cohesive relation in that different words, phrases and
clauses are linked, joining them into a text-level linguistic unit. Only a few words act as
substitutes. One, ones and same are nominal substitutes, which means they are words that can
take the place of nouns. The verb do in all its forms do, does. did, done, has done, has been
doing and so on is the verbal substitute, taking the place of verbs or parts of verbs. The
clausal substitutes so and not take the place of clauses and parts of clauses.
Look at the word one in the following sentence from Bram Stoker's Dracula. What does the
word one presuppose here? "I trust that your journey from London has been a happy one, and
that you will enjoy your stay in my beautiful land." You'll see that the nominal one substitutes
for the noun journey in this example.
Substitution is similar to reference in that one word presupposes another word or words, but
reference and substitution are not the same. Compare the meaning of it and one in the
following two examples.
1.4
1. I have a red pen. Do you want it?
2. I need my red pen. Do you want the blue one?
In 1.4.1, you've seen that it refers to "the red pen that I have". The personal reference it in the
second sentence presupposes the exact same thing that was already mentioned in the first
sentence. In 1.4.2, you've recognised that one in the second sentence substitutes for pen, but
we are now talking about a different pen than the pen mentioned in the first sentence.
Substitution involves repudiation, which means that we are still referring to the same general
class of things, but to a different specific item in that class. In 1.4.2 the nominal substitute
one repudiates red with blue, so we are still talking about pens, but a blue pen, not a red one.
The substitute one presupposes the head pen, but repudiates the modifier red.
The nominal substitute one is not the same as the cardinal number one. Cardinal numbers are
used for counting: one dog, two cats, three sheep and so on. Look at the following example
sentences and determine what ones substitutes for. "I need my red pens. You can have the
blue ones." Here you can see that ones substitutes for pens and repudiates red again, but we
don't know how many pens we are talking about. The nominal substitutes are not counting
things, but are instead replacing their antecedents.
Look at the sentences in 1.5, more examples from Dracula, and determine what do in 1.5.1
and so in 1.5.2 presuppose.
1.5
1. If this book should ever reach Mina before I do, let it bring my goodbye.
2. Lord Godalming had slipped away for a few minutes, but now he returned. He held up a
little silver whistle as he remarked, "That old place may be full of rats, and if so, I've got an
antidote on call."
In 1.5.1 do substitutes for "reach Mina" and repudiates the book with I. (The sentence is still
about the general case of "reaching Mina", but the specific thing that is doing the reaching is
now I, not the book.) This do is a verbal substitute. It doesn't have any meaning on its own,
unlike the lexical verb do in "Do your homework, please" which means "perform" or
"attempt to complete". We can only interpret the verbal substitute do in 1.5.1 by looking at its
co-text "If this book should ever reach Mina".
In 1.5.2 the clausal substitute so presupposes "that old place may be full of rats". This is a
clause because it contains both a subject "that old place" and a verb "may be". However, we
can see that the substitute so should be read as "... and if that old place is (not 'may be') full of
rats, I've got..." This is the repudiation.
The clausal substitute not functions as so, except that it changes the polarity of the clause it
substitutes for. Polarity refers to whether the verb is positive ("It is almost time to go") or
negative ("It isn't time to go yet"). Polarity doesn't have anything to do with whether the
meaning is positive or negative, so "Fraser lost his job" displays positive polarity, even
though Fraser will be unhappy about being laid off.
In 1.6, look at how the clausal substitutes so and not allow the someone to affirm or deny
something without repeating an entire clause.
1.6
1. Lily: Is she going to the party?
Ngozi: I think so. (so = "she is going to the party")
2. Lily: Is she going to the party?
Ngozi: I think not. (not = "she is not going to the party")
It is especially noticeable here that so and not substitute for some-thing someone else said.
Substitution, like all cohesive relations in texts, doesn't only take place within the words that
the producer uses. We can also make links between things we say or write and things others
have said or written.
Ellipsis
Like substitution, ellipsis involves the replacement of one thing with another. However,
instead of using words as substitutes, in ellipsis we replace words with nothing. This may
seem odd in theory, but in practice we do it constantly. When you read "Mia went home and
ate dinner" you know Mia did two things: went home and ate dinner. You interpret Mia as the
subject of the verbs went and ate, even though Mia was only mentioned once. There is
nominal ellipsis, the omission of a noun which can be found elsewhere in the co-text. The
sentence could have been written "Mia went home and Mia ate dinner", but it was not
necessary to do so because the subject of the second verb, ate, couldn't be anyone else but
Mia. (Using Mia twice may in fact be somewhat confusing. We are so accustomed to nominal
ellipsis in sentences like this that seeing Mia as the subject of ate may lead us to wonder if
this is a different person also named Mia.)
We sometimes have trouble spotting these omissions when we read or hear language,
probably because we are so used to interpreting ellipsis without thinking about it. Slowing
down our interpretation of language to identify ellipsis is not something we normally do, but
we certainly use ellipsis in speaking and writing quite commonly.
In the short novel The Metamorphosis, Franz Kafka describes a man's reaction to having been
turned into a large insect. Look at the following excerpt and identify places where Kafka
omitted the subject he from the words.
1.7
"He felt a slight itch up on his belly; pushed himself slowly up on his back towards the
headboard so that he could lift his head better; found where the itch was, and saw that it was
covered with lots of little white spots..."
You will have seen that he appears in meaning, although not in the words, before three verbs:
(he) pushed, (he) found and (he) saw. Kafka relied on his readers' successful interpretation of
ellipsis, making additional uses of he unnecessary.
As with substitution, there are three types of ellipsis: nominal ellipsis, verbal ellipsis and
clausal ellipsis. It is verbal ellipsis when all or part of the verb is omitted, but is understood
from the sur-rounding text. Similarly, clausal ellipsis entails the omission of an entire clause,
or at least both the subject and the verb of the clause.
1.8
1. He said that he'd eaten sushi before. He hadn't, but it seemed embarrassing to admit the
truth.
2. Over three hours the CEO talked about the company, changes to procurement procedures
and new health regulations.
In 1.8.1 eaten sushi before has been omitted after "He hadn't" in the second sentence. This is
verbal ellipsis because part of the verb had eaten has been omitted, but the subject he remains
in the text. The second sentence is interpreted as "He hadn't (eaten sushi before), but it
seemed embarrassing to admit the truth."
In 1.8.2, the CEO and talked about have been omitted before both "changes to procurement
procedures" and "new health regulations" in the second sentence. This is clausal ellipsis as
both the subject the CEO and the verb talked have been omitted. This is interpreted as "Over
three hours the CEO talked about the company, (the CEO talked about) changes to
procurement procedures and (the CEO talked about) new health regulations. We can see that
the words the CEO talked about are optional in the text's written form, but are present in the
text's meaning whether or not they appear.
Conjunctions
Conjunctions are used to show specific types of connection in texts. Comedian Rodney
Dangerfield said, "My wife and I were happy for twenty years. Then we met." The temporal
conjunction then shows that there is a time relation between the first sentence and the second,
that is, the first one happened before the second one. Dangerfield's joke relies on the
conjunction, as most listeners would likely assume at first that he meant he and his wife were
happy together for twenty years after they met.
Although it is common for receivers of texts to assume that sentences heard or read first also
come first chronologically, this doesn't have to be so. Consider "He let himself in quietly.
First, of course, he had to find his door keys, not the easiest thing to do noiselessly in his
current state." In the preceding sentences the second clause in the sequence, "he had to find
his door keys", comes chronologically before the first clause "He let himself in...", as
indicated by the temporal conjunction first.
The four types of conjunction and their simplest forms are as follows:
1. Temporal then (time relation) "I went home then I ate dinner." As explained above, then
shows that the two events are linked in chronological sequence. (Don't confuse the temporal
conjunction then in this example with the demonstrative reference then in "It starts at 5
o'clock. I'll see you then." Here then presupposes "at 5 o'clock.")
2. Causal so (cause-and-effect relation) "I went home so I could eat dinner." Here so shows
that the first clause "I went home..." caused the possibility ("could") of eating dinner.
3. Adversative but (unexpected relation) "I went home but there was nothing for dinner." By
using but the author makes it explicit that going home led to the expectation of eating dinner,
which in this case was not possible ("nothing for dinner").
4. Additive and-adding relation "I went home. And before I knew it, dinner was served."
Additive and is sometimes confusing.
People are tempted to say that and means then here because they guess that "going home"
happened before the "serving of dinner". However, this is information the reader is inserting
into the text based on knowledge of eating dinner at home. The and in the clause simply tells
the reader to take the clauses as being related, or add them, but doesn't specifically say what
kind of relation the two clauses have.
We can sometimes interpret the relation between clauses without a conjunction by relying on
other available information. If you read "It's cold. Wear a jacket", you know that being cold is
unpleasant and that wearing a jacket keeps you warm. You take the two clauses and attempt
to make them coherent based on your knowledge of the world. (Coherence, the relation
between texts and their receivers, as opposed to cohesion, the relation between words in a
text, will be discussed in detail in the next chapter.) There is enough relation between cold
and jacket that we could describe them as weak collocations of each other, which helps us see
the relation between the clauses despite the fact that the conjunction is left implicit. The text's
writer could also choose to make the relation between clauses explicit. In "It's cold, so wear a
jacket", the causal conjunction so provides the explicit link between cold and wear a jacket.
"Because it is cold, wear a jacket" shows the same relation, this time through the use of the
causal conjunction because. In these examples the causal conjunctions so and because
provide an explicit link, one that is visible in the text and doesn't only exist in the reader's
mind, and so they are cohesive.

Substitution, Ellipsis, and Conjunctions

Substitution, ellipsis, and conjunctions are fundamental cohesive devices in discourse,

ensuring clarity and coherence in communication.

Substitution replaces a word or phrase with another, avoiding redundancy. Nominal

substitution uses one, ones, and same to replace nouns (I need a red pen. Do you want the
blue one?). Verbal substitution employs do and its forms to replace verbs (She sings
beautifully, and so does he). Clausal substitution involves so and not, replacing entire clauses
(Will he attend? I think so). Unlike reference, substitution does not indicate the same entity
but a similar alternative within a category.

Ellipsis omits understood words, streamlining expression. Nominal ellipsis removes a noun
but retains meaning (I need my red pens. You can take the blue [ones]). Verbal ellipsis omits
part of a verb phrase (He said he had eaten sushi. He hadn’t [eaten sushi]). Clausal ellipsis
omits entire clauses or subjects and verbs (She will come to the party. I think so [she will]).
Ellipsis enhances textual cohesion while maintaining interpretability.

Conjunctions establish logical relations between clauses. They are classified as:

1. Temporal (then, first, next) – He arrived, then we left.

2. Causal (so, because, therefore) – She studied hard, so she passed.
3. Adversative (but, however, yet) – It was cold, but he didn’t wear a coat.
4. Additive (and, moreover, besides) – She sings, and she plays the piano.

These cohesive devices ensure clarity and coherence in academic and literary writing.