Theoretical framework

A newspaper article is an example of a text. According to Halliday and Hasan (1976,

p.1), The word TEXT is used in linguistics to refer to any passage, spoken or written,

of whatever length, that does form a unified whole. In order to reflect the property of

text that newspapers possess, Halliday and Hasan (1976, p. 2) state, The concept of

TEXTURE is entirely appropriate to express the property of being a text. Mentioned

as well in Halliday and Hasan (1976, p.4) is the term TIE, which makes it possible

to analyse a text in terms of its cohesive properties, and give a systematic account of

its patterns of texture. The final component is cohesion, which occurs where the

INTERPRETATION of some element in the discourse is dependent on that of another.

The one PRESUPPOSES the other, in the sense that it cannot be effectively decoded

except by recourse to it (Halliday and Hasan 1976, p.4).

Halliday and Hasan (1976, p.2) provide this example for better understanding of each

constituent:

The
Wash and core six cooking apples. Put them into a
fireproof dish. word

them refers back to the six cooking apples in the first sentence. This referring-

back function is also known as anaphoric, which gives cohesion to both sentences so

both could be understood as a whole. Both sentences together constitute a text.

Consequently, the cohesive relation that exists between them and six cooking

apples provides the texture. (Halliday and Hasan 1976)

Halliday and Hasan (1976) mention five kinds of cohesive tie: reference, substitution,

ellipsis, conjunction, and lexical cohesion. This study will be solely examining

conjunctive adjuncts. It is imperative to differentiate conjunctive adjunct from

conjunction. Bloor and Bloor (2004, p.57) clearly indicate, The distinction between

conjunctions and conjunctive adjuncts can be a source of some confusion.

Halliday and Matthiessen (2014, p.110) address the disparities: The conjunctive

adjuncts cover roughly the same semantic space as the conjunctions; but whereas

conjunctions set up a grammatical (systemic-structural) relationship with another

clause, which may be either preceding or following, the relationship established by

conjunctive adjuncts, while semantically cohesive, is not a structural one (hence they

can relate only to what has gone before).

Halliday and Matthiessen (2014, p.88) state: one part of the clause is enunciated as

the theme; this then combines with the remainder so that two parts together constitute

a message. In regards to this, two elements need to be addressed: Theme and Rheme.
The theme is the element that serves as the point of departure of the messageThe

speaker chooses the Theme as his or her point of departure to guide the addressee in

developing an interpretation of the message; by making part of the message prominent

as Theme, the speaker enables the addressee to process the message. (Halliday and

Matthiessen 2014, p.89)

(Halliday and Matthiessen 2014, p.89) define rheme as: The remainder of the

message, the part in which the Theme is developed, is called in Prague school

terminology the Rheme.

As a whole, (Halliday and Matthiessen 2014, p.89) give the following explanation:

As a message structure, therefore, a clause consists of a Theme accompanied by a

Rheme; and the structure is expressed by the order whatever is chosen as the Theme

is put first.
Halliday and Matthiessen (2014, p.110) provide the following example, which

acknowledges that although adjuncts are frequently thematic, there are cases where

they may not be.

therefore the scheme was abandoned

Conjunctive adjunct therefore falls within the textual theme

the scheme was therefore abandoned

 Conjunctive adjunct therefore falls within the textual rheme
The conjunctive adjunctstypically operate in the clause as part of the Themethey

are not necessarily thematic; they may occur elsewhere in the clause (Halliday and

Matthiessen 2014, p.157)