Grammatical Cohesion Found in Modern English Version

GRAMMATICAL COHESION FOUND IN MODERN ENGLISH VERSION

PROLOGUE OF BEOWULF TEXT

A THESIS

OKIA KIKI PRAWASTI

REG. NO. 120705082

DEPARTEMENT OF ENGLISH

FACULTY OF CULTURAL STUDIES

UNIVERSITY OF SUMATERA UTARA

MEDAN 2016

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA GRAMMATICAL COHESION FOUND IN MODERN ENGLISH VERSION PROLOGUE OF BEOWULF TEXT

A THESIS

OKIA KIKI PRAWASTI REG. NO. 120705082

SUPERVISOR CO-SUPERVISOR

Prof. T Silvana Sinar, M.A., Ph.D Dr. Masdiana Lubis, M.Hum. NIP. 19571117 198303 2 002 NIP. 19570626 198303 2 001

Submitted to Faculty of Cultural Studies University of Sumatera Utara Medan in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Sarjana Sastra from Department of English

DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH FACULTY OF CULTURAL STUDIES UNIVERSITY OF SUMATERA UTARA MEDAN 2016

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA Approved by the Department of English, Faculty of Cultural Studies University of Sumatera Utara (USU) Medan as thesis for The Sarjana Sastra Examination.

Head, Secretary,

Dr. H. Muhizar Muchtar, M.S. Rahmadsyah Rangkuti, M.A. Ph.D

NIP. 19541117 198003 1 002 NIP. 19750209 200812 1 002

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA Accepted by the Board of Examiners in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of Sarjana Sastra from the Department of English, Faculty of

Cultural Studies University of Sumatera Utara, Medan.

The examination is held in Department of English Faculty of Cultural Studies

University of Sumatera Utara on 24 June 2016

Dean of Faculty of Cultural Studies

University of Sumatera Utara

Dr. Budi Agustono, M.S.

NIP. 19600805 198703 1 001

Board of Examiners

Dr. H. Muhizar Muchtar, M.S. ______

Rahmadsyah Rangkuti, M.A. Ph.D. ______

Dr. Masdiana Lubis, M.Hum. ______

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA AUTHOR’S DECLARATION

I, OKIA KIKI PRAWASTI, DECLARE THAT I AM THE SOLE AUTHOR

OF THIS THESIS EXCEPT WHERE REFERENCE IS MADE IN THE TEXT

OF THIS THESIS. THIS THESIS CONTAINS NO MATERIAL PUBLISHED

ELSEWHERE OR EXTRACTED IN WHOLE OR IN PART FROM A

THESIS BY WHICH I HAVE QUALIFIED FOR OR AWARDED ANOTHER

DEGREE. NO OTHER PERSON’S WORK HAS BEEN USED WITHOUT

DUE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS IN THE MAIN TEXT OF THIS THESIS. THIS

THESIS HAS NOT BEEN SUBMITTED FOR THE AWARD OF ANOTHER

DEGREE IN ANY TERTIARY EDUCATION.

Signed :

Date : June 24th, 2016

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA COPYRIGHT DECLARATION

NAME : OKIA KIKI PRAWASTI

TITLE OF THESIS : GRAMMATICAL COHESION FOUND IN

MODERN ENGLISH VERSION PROLOGUE OF

BEOWULF TEXT

QUALIFICATION : S-1/SARJANA SASTRA

DEPARTMENT : ENGLISH

I AM WILLING THAT MY THESIS SHOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR

REPRODUCTION AT THE DISCRETION OF THE LIBRARIAN OF

DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH, FACULTY OF CULTURAL STUDIES,

UNIVERSITY OF SUMATERA UTARA ON THE UNDERSTANDING THAT

USERS ARE MADE AWARE OF THEIR OBLIGATION UNDER THE LAW

OF THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA.

Signed :

Date : June 24th, 2016

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Great thanks to Almighty God, Allah SWT for blessing and giving me everything I need in finishing this thesis. Then, thank you so much for my beloved parents, my mom who has power from beyond her grave to support me, and my Dad Ir. Sudarto who always take care of me. My special gratitude is dedicated to my supervisor, Prof. T Silvana Sinar, M.A., Ph.D. and my Co-supervisor, Dr. Masdiana Lubis, M.Hum. Thanks for the guidance, advice, help, support and constructive comments during the writing of this thesis. A billion thanks to Dr. Muhizar Muchtar, M.S., the Head of English Department, Rahmadsyah Rangkuti, M.A., Ph.D., the Secretary, for their attention to all my academic affairs, and Dr. Budi Agustono, M.S., the Dean of Faculty of Cultural Studies of the University of Sumatera Utara. And for all the staffs, thanks for your valuable helps. Also, my sincere gratitude goes to all my lecturers in English Department who have taught and shared precious knowledge during my study. Big thanks are addressed to all my friends in class of 2012, especially to my closest friends, Indah Permata Sari, Tiffani Saraswati, Widya Ariska, Feny Yolanda, Miranda Amalia, Dian Zelina and Yayu Yohana. Thanks for every best moment we created together. And thanks to Ira and Ria for your support and all things we did in our boarding house. Also, thanks for the other dearest friends and all the people who have helped me in finishing this thesis directly or indirectly that I can not mention one by one. Finally, may this thesis be advantageous for the readers. And at last, thanks to the universe.

Medan, June 2014

Okia Kiki Prawasti No. Reg. 120705082

vii

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA ABSTRACT

Cohesive device is divided into two types which all of its types are used to relate word, phrase and sentence in text. Cohesive device consist of grammatical cohesion and lexical cohesion. This study is concerned with the grammatical cohesion analysis that is entitled Grammatical Cohesion Found in Modern English Version Prologue of Beowulf text. The objectives of this study are to analyze the types of grammatical cohesion and to explain the realization of grammatical cohesion used in Modern English Version Prologue of Beowulf text. This research is conducted by using qualitative method. The source of data is the Modern English version prologue of Beowulf, translated by Francis Barton Gummere in 1910 which were cited from Epic and Saga – Beowulf et.al.: The Five Foot Shelf of Classics, Vol. XLIX by Charles W. Eliot while the data are 37 lines containing the markers of grammatical cohesion. The data analysis applies the theory of cohesion from the Cohesion in English by Halliday and Hasan (1976). They divide grammatical cohesion into four types; they are reference, substitution, ellipsis, and conjunction. Based on the results of data analysis, the grammatical cohesion found in the prologue of Beowulf text helps the reader understand the meaning contained within the text. The types of grammatical cohesion found in the data are 52 references (86.66 %) which consist of personal, demonstrative and comparative reference. For personal reference, 1 personal reference exophora, 46 personal references anaphora and 1 personal reference cataphora are found. For demonstrative reference, 2 demonstrative reference anaphora and 1 demonstrative reference cataphora are found. And for comparative reference, 1 comparative reference cataphora is found. Moreover only 1 substitution (1.66 %) which is kind of nominal substitution found in the data, and 7 conjunctions (11.66 %) occur in this study. They are 4 additive conjunctions, 2 causal conjunctions and 1 temporal conjunction. However, grammatical cohesion type of ellipsis is not found in the data. It means that the type does not contribute in making the text cohesive.

Key words: Grammatical Cohesion, Prologue of Beowulf, Halliday and Hasan.

viii

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA ABSTRAK

Perangkat kohesi dibagi menjadi dua tipe dimana semua element dalam tipe itu digunakan untuk menghubungkan kata, frase dan kalimat dalam teks. Perangkat kohesi terdiri dari kohesi gramatikal dan kohesi leksikal. Penelitian ini berkaitan dengan analisis kohesi gramatikal yang berjudul Grammatical Cohesion Found in Modern English Version Prologue of Beowulf text. Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk menganalisis jenis kohesi gramatikal dan menjelaskan realisasi kohesi gramatikal yang digunakan dalam prolog Beowulf versi bahasa Inggris modern. Penelitian ini dilakukan dengan menggunakan metode kualitatif. Sumber datanya adalah prolog Beowulf versi bahasa Inggris modern, diterjemahkan oleh Francis Barton Gummere pada tahun 1910 yang dikutip dari buku Epic and Saga – Beowulf et.al.: The Five Foot Shelf of Classics, Vol. XLIX oleh Charles W. Eliot sedangkan datanya adalah 37 baris yang mengandung penanda kohesi gramatikal. Analisis data menggunakan teori kohesi dalam buku Cohesion in English oleh Halliday dan Hasan (1976). Mereka membagi kohesi gramatikal menjadi empat jenis; yaitu referensi, substitusi, ellipsis, dan konjungsi. Dari hasil analisis, kohesi gramatikal yang ditemukan dalam teks prolog Beowulf dapat membantu pembaca memahami makna yang terkandung dalam teks. Jenis kohesi grammatikal yang ditemukan pada data yaitu 52 referensi (86.66 %) yang terdiri dari referensi personal, demonstratif, dan komparatif. Pada referensi personal, ditemukan 1 referensi personal jenis eksofora, 46 referensi personal jenis anaphora dan 1 referensi personal jenis katafora. Pada referensi demonstratif, ditemukan 2 referensi demonstratif jenis anaphora dan 1 referensi demonstratif jenis katafora. Dan pada referensi komparatif, ditemukan 1 referensi komparatif jenis katafora. Selain itu, hanya 1 substitusi (1.66 %) yaitu jenis subtitusi nominal yang ditemukan pada data, dan 7 konjungsi (11.66 %) yang terdapat dalam penelitian ini; yaitu 4 konjungsi aditif, 2 konjungsi kausal dan 1 konjungsi temporal. Namun, ellipsis adalah jenis kohesi gramatikal yang tidak ditemukan pada data. Dapat disimpulkan bahwa ellipsis tidak berkontribusi dalam membentuk teks yang kohesif.

Kata kunci: Kohesi gramatikal, prolog Beowulf, Halliday dan Hasan.

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA TABLE OF CONTENTS

AUTHOR’S DECLARATION ...... v COPYRIGHT DECLARATION ...... vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ...... vii ABSTRACT ...... viii ABSTRAK ...... ix TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... x LIST OF TABLES ...... xii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background of the Study ...... 1 1.2 Problem of the Study ...... 4 1.3 Objective of the Study ...... 5 1.4 Scope of the Study ...... 5 1.5 Significance of the Study ...... 5 CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 2.1 An Overview of Discourse Analysis ...... 6 2.1.1 Definition of Discourse ...... 6 2.1.2 Function of Discourse ...... 8 2.1.3 Types of Discourse ...... 9 2.2 Cohesion ...... 10 2.3 Grammatical Cohesion ...... 12 2.3.1 Reference...... 12 2.3.2 Substitution ...... 15 2.3.3 Ellipsis ...... 16 2.3.4 Conjunction ...... 18 2.4 Relevant Studies ...... 20 CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3.1 Research Method ...... 23 3.2 Data and Source of Data ...... 23 3.3 Data Collecting Method ...... 24 3.4 Data Analyzing Method ...... 25

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS AND FINDING 4.1 Analysis ...... 28 4.1.1 References ...... 28 4.1.2 Substitution ...... 41 4.1.3 Conjunction ...... 42 4.1.4 The Realization of Grammatical Cohesion ...... 44 4.2 Finding ...... 45 CHAPTER V CONLUSION AND SUGGESTION 5.1 Conclusion ...... 48 5.2 Suggestion ...... 49 REFERENCES ...... 50 APPENDIX

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Reference ...... 28 Table 2: Reference ...... 29 Table 3: Reference ...... 30 Table 4: Reference ...... 30 Table 5: Reference ...... 31 Table 6: Reference ...... 31 Table 7: Reference ...... 32 Table 8: Reference ...... 32 Table 9: Reference ...... 32 Table 10: Reference ...... 33 Table 11: Reference ...... 32 Table 12: Reference ...... 33 Table 13: Reference ...... 34 Table 14: Reference ...... 34 Table 15: Reference ...... 34 Table 16: Reference ...... 35 Table 17: Reference ...... 35 Table 18: Reference ...... 36 Table 19: Reference ...... 36 Table 20: Reference ...... 36 Table 21: Reference ...... 37 Table 22: Reference ...... 37 Table 23: Reference ...... 37 Table 24: Reference ...... 38 Table 25: Reference ...... 38 Table 26: Reference ...... 38 Table 27: Reference ...... 39 Table 28: Reference ...... 39 Table 29: Reference ...... 40 Table 30: Reference ...... 40

xii

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA Table 31: Reference ...... 40 Table 32: Reference ...... 41 Table 33: Reference ...... 41 Table 34: Substitution ...... 41 Table 35: Conjunction ...... 42 Table 36: Conjunction ...... 42 Table 37: Conjunction ...... 42 Table 38: Conjunction ...... 43 Table 39: Conjunction ...... 43 Table 40: Conjunction ...... 43 Table 41: Findings ...... 45

xiii

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of The Study

Discourse is linguistic communication seen as a transaction between speaker and hearer, as an interpersonal activity whose form is determined by its social purpose. Van Dijk (in Howcroft and Trauth, 2005: 107) defines discourse as a specific form of language use (spoken or written) and a specific form of social situation. Furthermore, Wodak and Meyer (2009: 162-163) state that discourse is commonly used in various senses including (a) meaning-making as an element of the social process, (b) the language associated with a particular social field or practice, and (c) a way of constructing aspects of the world associated with a particular social perspective.

The study that concern in analyzing discourse is called discourse analysis.

Fairclough (2013: 348) defines discourse analysis is generally taken to be the analysis of ‘texts’ in a broad sense – written texts, spoken interaction, the multi- media texts of television and the internet, etc. The object of study in discourse analysis, as it is developed in the field of linguistics, is the structure and function of language in use. Discourse analysis pays particular attention to the ways that language in context is organized at and above the level of the sentence.

Some factors that support a good discourse are described in term cohesion.

Cohesion is expressed partly through the grammar and partly through the vocabulary.

Therefore, cohesion includes two types, namely grammatical cohesion and lexical cohesion (Halliday and Hasan, 1976: 5). Lexical cohesion refers to the relationships

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA between or among words in a text. It is concerned with content words and primarily related to field. The field is discovered through the content words within a text

(Gerot and Wignell, 1994: 177). Lexical cohesion occurs when two words in a text are semantically related in some ways; they are related in terms of their meaning.

Grammatical cohesions are forms of cohesion realized through grammar

(Halliday and Hasan, 1976: 6). Grammatical cohesion is divided into four kinds.

They are reference, substitution, ellipsis, and conjunction. Grammatical cohesion is used as one way to have a cohesive discourse. Indeed, grammatical cohesion whether it is seen as a process or a product or both is an attempt to give a general view of discourse analysis and its relation to cohesion in general and grammatical cohesion in particular. Grammatical cohesion refers to the logical and structural rules that govern the composition of clauses, phrases and words in a language. Grammatical cohesion plays an important role in making a text read well both to the readers in constructing the meaning from a text and to the writer in creating a text that can be easily comprehended. Halliday and Hasan (1976: 1) define a text may be spoken or written, prose or verse, dialogue or monologue. Poetry or poem is kind of verse that breaking of certain grammatical rules in its writing which makes the meaning of the poem is difficult to understand. Miller (1989: 20) assumed that the language of poetry differs from other language primarily in its greater use of structural and formal elements to convey meaning. However, relations of meaning always exist within the text. For example,

LO, praise of the prowess of people-kings of spear-armed Danes, in days long sped, we have heard, and what honor the athelings won!

(Modern English translation of Beowulf by Gummere line 1-3)

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA The example above shows the referential cohesion. It is kind of anaphoric reference since it points listeners or readers backwards to what is previously mentioned. The word “athelings” refers back to “people-kings of spear-armed

Danes”. But, to get its relations of meaning we can not just look within the given text but also look outside the text to figure out the supporting information. In this case, we need to know the meaning of the words “people-kings of spear-armed Danes” and

“athelings” in order to find their relation. Leech (2014: 29) states that in studying cohesion, we pick out the patterns of meaning running through the text, and arrive at some sort of linguistic account of what the poem is ‘about’.

Based on glossary of Beowulf which is obtained from http://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/b/beowulf/study-help/full-glossary-for-beowulf

‘spear Danes’ means ‘the tribe of Scyld Scefing’. While ‘Scyld Scefing’ is ‘early

Danish king’ or the first king in the Danish royal line (Meyer, 2012: 295). Simply, the word ‘spear Danes’ can be defined as the name of tribe of the first king in the

Danish royal line. Therefore, the words ‘spear-armed Danes’ means the tribe that are grouped in armed force, and the words ‘kings of spear-armed Danes’ means the kings, including the first king of Danish and all of his descendants, who lead the armed force. Moreover, the word ‘people’ in “people-kings of spear-armed Danes” refers to the ‘kings of spear-armed Danes’. Then, the word ‘atheling’ was an Old

English term used in Anglo-Saxon England which is designated for son of a king, man of royal blood, nobleman, chief, prince, king, Christ, God, man, hero and saint.

Related to the previous example of reference, “athelings” means kings which refers to “people-kings of spear-armed Danes”.

This study discusses about the grammatical cohesion found in Modern

English version prologue of Beowulf which is translated by Francis Barton Gummere

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA in 1910. Gummere was an influential scholar of folklore and ancient languages.

Gummere’s translation of Beowulf poem really captures the feel of the Old English.

It remains the most successful attempt to render in modern English something similar to the alliterative pattern of the original.

Beowulf is an Old English epic poem written by anonymous Anglo-Saxon poet. It consists of 3182 alliterative lines including the prologue which is consisted of

52 lines. Rosenfeld (2008) says a prologue is a short scene or chapter at the very beginning of a narrative—it is the very first part of the narrative will be read, and it comes before the first scene and chapter. Thus, the prologue is, as it were, a preface to the story, in which alone is anything allowed to be said to the audience outside the argument, for the convenience of the poet, the story or the actor (Harris, 2004: 15).

The Modern English version prologue of Beowulf epic poem is chosen as the source of data because poem always has a different language than the other kind of text. Beowulf is the oldest and the most popular Old English heroic epic poem and it is often cited as one of the most important works of Anglo-Saxon literature.

Moreover, since the prologue of Beowulf used in this study is transliterated from Old

English, there are some Old English terms which are difficult to be understood and it is challenging to be researched. Furthermore, the element of grammatical cohesion will make the reader understand what the prologue of poem is about.

1.2. Problem of the Study

According to the background of the study above, the researcher intends to answer two questions:

1. What types of grammatical cohesion are found in Modern English version

prologue of Beowulf text?

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA 2. How is grammatical cohesion realized in the Modern English version prologue of

Beowulf text?

1.3 Objective of the Study

Concerning the problems mentioned above, this study is intended to find out the two objectives of the study:

1. To find the grammatical cohesion in Modern English version prologue of

Beowulf text.

2. To explain the realization of grammatical cohesion found in Modern English

version prologue of Beowulf text.

1.4 Scope of the Study

This study is focused on grammatical cohesion found in Modern English version prologue of Beowulf text which is translated by Francis Barton Gummere.

This study uses the theory of Halliday and Hasan in analyzing the use of cohesion.

1.5 Significance Study

There are two significances of the study, theoretical significance and practical significance. Theoretically, the results of this study are expected to enrich the study of discourse analysis especially grammatical cohesion. Practically, it will be useful as additional reference for the next researchers who are interested in the study of grammatical cohesion or in analyzing the same object. Also, it helps the readers to understand the grammatical cohesion.

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2.1 An Overview of Discourse Analysis

2.1.1 Definition of Discourse

The term discourse may be defined in different ways and its meaning varies according to the context where it is used. Discourse has often been viewed in two different ways: a structure, i.e. unit of language that is larger than the sentence; and the realization of functions, i.e. as the use of language for social, expressive and referential purpose (Schiffrin, 1994:339). Discourse, as defined by Foucault (in

Weedon, 1987: 108), refers to ways of constituting knowledge, together with the social practices, forms of subjectivity and power relations which inhere in such knowledges and relations between them. Discourses are more than ways of thinking and producing meaning. They constitute the 'nature' of the body, unconscious and conscious mind and emotional life of the subjects they seek to govern.

Halliday (1978: 96) argues “Discourse is a multidimensional process and text as its product not only embodies the same kind of polyphonic structuring as it is found in grammar, (in the structure of the clause, as message, exchanges and representation), but also since it is functioning at a higher level of the code, as the realization of semiotic orders ‘above’ language, may contain in itself all the inconsistencies, contradictions and conflicts that can exist within and between such high order semiotic systems”.

Fowler (in Mills, 1997: 6) states that discourse is speech or writing seen from the point of view of the beliefs, values and categories which it embodies; these

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA beliefs etc. constitute a way of looking at the world, an organization or representation of experience—‘ideology’ in the neutral non-pejorative sense. Different modes of discourse encode different representations of experience; and the source of these representations is the communicative context within which the discourse is embedded.

The definitions above show that discourse can be summed up as a form of language in oral and written form whose existence is always related to the context, including the social status, and situation. Discourse, as a linguistic unit both oral and written, is the most complete or the highest language unit, above the sentence or above the clause, and has a complete element.

Related to discourse, there is a study of discourse called discourse analysis.

Discourse analysis is the study of language, in everyday sense in which most people use the term (Johnstone, 2009: 2). Stubbs (1983:1) defines discourse analysis as (1) concerned with language use beyond the boundaries of a sentence/utterance, (2) concerned with the interrelationships between language and society and (3) as concerned with the interactive or dialogic properties of everyday communication.

Another definition of discourse analysis is quoted from Allen and Corder (in

AZZOUZ, 2009: 15) that discourse analysis is taken to be the investigation into the formal devices used to connect sentences together.

A discourse analysis is based on the details of speech (and gaze and gesture and action) or writing that are arguably deemed relevant in the situation and that are relevant to the arguments the analysis is attempting to make. A discourse analysis is not based on all the physical features present, not even all those that might, in some conceivable context, be meaningful, or might be meaningful in analyses with different purposes (Gee, 2005: 106).

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA The objective of discourse analysis is to examine the discourse as one of the exponents of language related to its function as a mean of communication. Discourse analysis focused on the function of language as a mean of interaction between the writer and the reader or the speaker and listener. Thus, the function of language as a mean of communication becomes clear with the analysis of discourse.

2.1.2 Function of Discourse Analysis

Nowadays, the understanding of discourse is required to acquire knowledge and information. With discourse, one can convey the idea completely. The only thing to do with discourse is how to figure out the meaning or interpret the implied meaning contained in it. A discourse is consisted of combination of sentences that can give understanding to the reader. Discourse analysis will discuss about how to capture the information or message, and also about how to learn a language.

Discourse analysis also attempts to interpret a discourse which is not covered by semantics, syntax and other branch of linguistics. Through discourse analysis, the elements of a language will be understood and translated become an information. It is because the discourse analysis is used to analyze the language in use. Discourse analysis was born from the realization that the issues contained in the communication is not limited to the use of sentences or parts of sentences, function of speech, but also includes the structure of message which is more complex and inherently.

It can be concluded that the function of discourse is defined to organize a larger idea of a writer or a speaker (that the sentence failed to do) and to arrange the idea into a coherent statement so that the recipients will easily comprehend what the writer or speaker means and what they actually want to convey. In addition, the study of discourse can dig up the facts, implied idealism in a discourse to find out the

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA intention and purpose of the author in a discourse. The study of discourse allows to analyses the phenomena that occur in the environment from different perspectives and figure out the values contained in a discourse.

2.1.3 Types of Discourse

Traditionally discourse type is distinguished into four types according to its structural features or the purpose for which it is written: descriptive, expositive, argumentative and narrative. Brooks and Warren (in Lee, 2003: 89-92) states that description is the kind of discourse concerned with the appearance of the world. It tells what qualities a thing has, what impression it makes on our senses. It aims to suggest to the imagination the thing as it appears immediately before an observer. The aim of the writer of description is to make reader see or hear something as vividly as the writer himself has seen or heard it, to make him get the feel of the thing, the quality of a direct experience.

Exposition is the kind of discourse which explains or clarifies a subject. That is, as the word exposition quite literally means, it sets forth a subject. Its appeal is to the understanding. Description and narration may lead to understanding, but they lead to it by presenting the qualities and movement of their subject. Exposition, however, leads to understanding by explaining something about its subject.

Argument involves understanding in that it aims to convince of the truth or desirability of something, but its aim is to convince, not merely to explain. The aim of the writer of exposition is to explain something, to make clear to the reader some idea, to analyze a character or a situation, to define a term and to give directions. He may wish, in other words, to inform him.

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA Argumentative is the kind of discourse used to make the audience (reader or listener) think or act as the arguer desires. It is sometimes said that the purpose of argument is not double, as just stated, but single―in other words, that its purpose is to lead the audience to act. In the final analysis there is justification for this view, for a way of thinking means by implication a way of acting, and acting is the fulfillment of a way of thinking. In other words, argument is a piece of writing or speech in which the writer or speaker organizes his ideas and uses language to support his opinions or to change the attitudes of the reader or listener.

Then, Prince (in Lee, 2003: 93) defines narrative is the recounting (as product and process, object and act, structure and structuration) of one or more real or fictitious events communicated by one, two, or several (more or less overt) narrators to one, two, or several (more or less overt) narrates (the addressee of the narrator). In order for discourse to be a narrative, it needs an event that happens, an action which is performed by somebody, a character who performs some action, and somebody who reports the event or action, whether that person is implicit or explicit.

2.2 Cohesion

According to Gerot and Wignell (1994: 170) cohesion refers to the resources within language that provide continuity in a text, over and above that provided by clause structure and clause complexes. Halliday and Hasan (1976: 5) state that cohesion is a part of the system of a language which is expressed partly through the grammar and partly through the vocabulary. Halliday and Hasan assert that cohesion 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.

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA In fact, the presupposition is an important aspect in cohesion because it extracts the unrelated sentences by the connected one. Thus, meaning relations of any sentence depending on the surrounding elements. In other words “cohesion refers to the range of possibilities that exist for linking something with what has gone before. Since this linking is achieved through relations in meaning” (Halliday and

Hasan 1976: 10).

In discussing cohesion, there is an important matter namely a text. A text refers to any passage, spoken or written, of whatever length, that does form a unified whole. A text maybe spoken or written, prose or verse, dialogue or monologue

(Halliday and Hasan, 1976: 1). Furthermore, Halliday and Hasan also state that a text is a unit of language in use. It is not a grammatical unit, like a clause or a sentence; a text is best regarded as a semantic unit: a unit not of form but of meaning. A text does not consist of sentences; it is realized by, or encoded in, sentences.

Cohesion is the first standard of textuality; it refers to the surface relations between the sentences that create a text .i.e. to create connected sentences within a sequence. The formal surface of the text components works according to grammatical forms and conventions. It helps the reader /hearer to sort out the meaning and uses.

There are two types of cohesion, grammatical and lexical cohesion (Halliday and Hasan, 1976: 6). Grammatical cohesion refers to the various grammatical devices that can be used to make relations among sentences more explicit. Lexical cohesion refers to the relationships between or among words in a text. It is concerned with content words and primarily related to field. There are two kinds of lexical cohesion namely reiteration and collocation. Reiteration consists of repetition, synonym, hyponym, meronym, and antonym.

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA 2.3 Grammatical Cohesion

A cohesive tie which is shown through grammar is called as grammatical cohesion. Grammatical cohesion is the cohesion expressed through the grammar system (Taboada, 2004: 160). Moreover, Halliday and Hasan (1996: 6) define grammatical cohesions as forms of cohesion realized through grammar. Grammatical cohesion can be divided into four kinds. They are reference, substitution, ellipsis, and conjunction.

2.3.1 Reference

Gerot and Wignell (1994: 170) state that reference refers to system which introduce and track the identity of participants through text. A participant or circumstantial element introduced at one place in the text can be taken as a reference point for something that follows (Halliday, 1994: 309). Reference is a relation on the semantic level (Halliday and Hasan, 1976: 32).

Further, Halliday and Hasan (1976: 33) differentiate the reference in the following diagram:

Reference:

[situational] [textual] exophora endophora

[to preceding text] [to following text] anaphora cataphora

Diagram 2.1 Types of reference

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA Exophoric reference points to the situational context for the interpretation of a specific item. It always refers to something that is not part of a given text and is therefore not cohesive (Halliday and Hasan, 1994: 18).

For example:

1. Mike: Hey John, did you just see that?

John: Yes, that was amazing.

The example above illustrates an instance of exophoric reference. In the given conversation Mike sees something which he does not explicitly identify as a concrete object. He simply assumes that his conversational partner John saw the same thing as he did and asks him about it. The reader does not get to know what the two friends are talking about. “That” as reference item in the conversation points outside the text to something that was witnessed by the two interlocutors and, consequently, information about it cannot be retrieved from elsewhere in the text. A potential reader has to use his/her own imagination to create a context, which makes exophoric reference “an essential element in all imaginative writing” (Halliday and Hasan

1994: 18).

Endophoric reference (textual reference) is the interpretation of an element in a text by referring to a thing as identified in the surrounding text. Endophoric reference is divided into two parts; they are anaphoric (to preceding text) and cataphoric (to following text) reference. Anaphoric is when a relation presupposes something that has gone before, while cataphoric is happened when a relation presupposes by something in the following part.

For example:

2. Bale played a leading character in the movie. The movie will makes him

famous.

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA Here, the word ‘’him’’ presupposes ’’Bale’’ in the preceding sentence (anaphora).

3. Knowing that he is not living in this place anymore, I will talk to Louis

tomorrow.

The word ‘’he’’ presupposes ‘’Louis’’ in the following part (cataphora).

Halliday and Hasan (1976: 37) classify reference into three types, they are: personal, demonstrative, and comparative. Personal reference is reference by means of function in the speech situation, through the category of person. The category of personal consists of three classes of personal pronouns, possessive determiners

(usually called ‘possessive adjectives’), and possessive pronouns. The examples of personal reference are: I, me, my, mine, you, your, yours, we, us, our, ours, he, him, his, they, their, theirs, them, one, one’s, it, its, she, her, hers.

For example:

4. It was a message from Louis. He said, “I will pick you up at 8 a.m.”.

The pronoun “he” and “I” presuppose the proper name “Louis” in the preceding sentence.

Demonstrative reference is reference by means of location, on a scale of proximity (near, far, neutral, time), e.g. this, these, that, those, here, now, then, there, the. For example:

5. We are going to graduate this year. This will be our main target now.

The pronoun “this” presupposes to the word “We are going to graduate this year”.

Comparative reference is indirect reference by means of identity or similarity, e.g. same, equal, identical, identically, such, similar, so, similarly, likewise, other, different, else, differently, otherwise, more, fewer, less, further, additional, so + quantifier (e.g. so many), better, comparative adjectives, and adverbs, etc.

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA For example:

6. It is different book as the one I gave to you last week.

Comparative reference is used in that sentence namely the word “different” to point forward to the referent “the one I gave to you last week”.

2.3.2 Substitution

Halliday and Hasan (in Brown and Yule, 1983: 201) assume a simple substitution view where an analyst who has worked and reworked relatively small chunks of expression may simply be replaced by another in the text. Substitution is the replacement of one item by another in a text and it is a relation in the wording rather than in the meaning. Substitution is a relation between linguistic items, such as words or phrases. In terms of the linguistic system, substitution is a relation on the lexicogrammatical level, the level of grammar and vocabulary, or linguistic ‘form’

(Halliday and Hasan, 1976: 88-89).

Since substitution is grammatical relation, a relation in the wording rather than in the meaning, the different types of substitution are defined grammatically than semantically. The criterion is the grammatical function of the substitute item. In

English, the substitute may function as a noun, as a verb, or as a clause.

There are three types of substitution, they are: nominal (one, ones, same), verbal (do), and clausal (so, not) substitution. Nominal substitution is the replacement of a part or the entire of nominal group by a word. The words include to this type of substitution are one/ones, and same. The substitute one/ones in nominal always functions as a Head of a nominal group while same which is accompanied by the substitutes the entire nominal group. For example:

7. I gave her a white rose. But, she wants the red one.

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA The word one substitutes rose, which is the Head of the nominal group a white rose.

8. I lost my way in the galleries. The same thing happened to me.

The meaning of the second sentence is ‘‘I also lost my way in the galleries’’

(Halliday and Hasan, 1976: 109).

Verbal substitution is a substitution of a verbal group. The verbal substitute is

‘do’, and it functions as head of a verbal group. For example:

9. I don’t know the meaning of half those long words, and, what’s more, I

don’t believe you do either.

The word “Do” in that sentence substitutes for ‘‘know the meaning of half those long words’’ (Haliday and Hasan, 4976: 112).

Clausal substitution is a substitution in which what is presupposed is not only an element within the clause, but the entire clause itself. The words used as the substitution are so and not. For example:

10. Everyone seems to think he’s guilty. If so, no doubt he’ll offer to resign

The word “So” in this sentence substitutes for ‘’he is guilty’’.

11. A: we should recognize the place when we come to it.

B: yes, but supposing not: then what do we do?

The word “not” in this sentence substitutes for ‘’we don’t recognize the place when we come to it’’ (Haliday and Hasan, 1976: 134).

2.3.3 Ellipsis

Biber (in Varhánek, 2007: 9) states that ellipsis is the omission of elements which are precisely recoverable from the linguistic or situational context. Halliday

(1994: 309) defines ellipsis as a clause, or a part of a clause, or a part (usually including the lexical element) of a verbal or nominal group, may be presupposed at a

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA subsequent place in the text by the device of positive omission. Ellipsis is simply

‘subtitution by zero’. It means that something is left unsaid but still can be understood. Although substitution and ellipsis embody the same fundamental relation between parts of a text (a relation between words or groups or clauses—as distinct from reference, which is relation between meanings), they are different kinds of structural mechanism, and hence show rather different patterns (Halliday and

Hasan, 1976: 142).

Ellipsis occurs when―something which is present in the selection of underlying (systematic) options is omitted in the structure-whether or not the resulting structure is in itself “incomplete” (Halliday and Hasan, 1976: 144). There are three types of ellipsis, depending on the structural unit within which ellipsis occurs: nominal ellipsis, verbal ellipsis, and clausal ellipsis. According to Halliday and Hasan, nominal ellipsis refers to ellipsis within the nominal group. Verbal ellipsis means ellipsis within the verbal group. In other words, it is technically defined as a verbal group, of which the structure does not fully express its syntactic features - all the choices being made within the verbal group system. Clausal ellipsis is a kind of ellipsis in which the omission occurs within a clause. Clausal ellipsis functions as verbal ellipsis, where the omission refers to a clause. Here are the examples of ellipsis:

12. How did you enjoy the exhibition? - A lot (of the exhibition) was very

good, though not all (nominal ellipsis).

The words “of the exhibition” on the parenthesis above is actually omitted from the sentence. Some words are omitted, but it can be understood.

13. What have you been doing? – swimming (verbal ellipsis).

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA The words “I have been” is omitted. Therefore, it called as verbal ellipsis. It should be “I have been swimming”.

14. What was the Duke going to do? – Plant a row of poplars in the park

(clausal ellipsis).

In the answer, the modal element is omitted: the subject “Duke” and, within the verbal group, the finite operator “was”.

2.3.4 Conjunction

Halliday and Hasan (1976: 303) state that conjunction is on the borderline of the grammatical and lexical cohesion. It means that the set of conjunctive elements can probably be interpreted grammatically in terms of systems, but such an interpretation involves lexical selection in terms of meaning. In describing conjunction as a cohesive device, we are focusing attention not on the semantic relation as such, as realized throughout the grammar of the language, but on one particular aspect of them, namely the function they have of relating to each other linguistic elements that occur in succession but are not related by other, structural means (Halliday and Hasan, 1978: 227).

Conjunction consists of five categories: additive, adversative, causal, temporal, and other conjunction (Halliday and Hasan, 1976).

Additive conjunction is expressed by the words and, and also, nor, and…not, or, or else, furthermore, in addition, besides, alternatively, incidentally, by the way, that is, I mean, in other words, for instance, thus, likewise, similarly, in the same way, on the other hand, by contrast, etc.

Adversative relation which means contrary to expectation covers some words include yet, though, only, but, however, nevertheless, despite this, in fact, actually, as

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA a matter of fact, at the same time, instead, rather, on the contrary, at least, rather, I mean, in any case, in either case, which ever way it is, anyhow, at any rate, however it is, etc.

The causal relation consists of the words so, then, hence, therefore, consequently, because of this, for this reason, on account of this, as a result, in consequence, for this purpose, with this in mind, for, because, it follows, on this basis, arising out of this, to this end, in that case, in such an event, that being so, under the circumstances, otherwise, under other circumstances, in this respect, in this regard, with reference to this, otherwise, in the other respect, aside from this, etc.

Temporal conjunction includes then, next, after that, just then, at the same time, previously, before that, finally, at last, first…then, at first…in the end, at once, thereupon, soon, after a time, next time, on other occasion, next day, an hour later, meanwhile, until then, at this moment, up to now, etc. The other conjunctive items involve now, of course, well, anyway, surely and after all.

Here are the examples of each,

15. He picked her up and took her to the hospital. And he waited for her until

she finished doing medical tests (additive).

16. He has apologized for his mistake. Yet she doesn’t forgive him

(adversative).

17. She stayed up all night to finish her assignment. So she feels very sleepy

now (causal).

18. She studied in London for two years. Then she will come back here

(temporal).

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA 2.4 Relevant Studies

Halliday and Hasan’s model in analyzing cohesion was used by some researchers to do their research. First, The study of “The Use of Cohesive Devices in

Selected Short Stories of Ernest Hemyngway: A Discourse Analysis” by Rosalina

Lbn. Tobing (2008). The objectives of her study are to find out the types of cohesive devices and frequency of each type of cohesive devices occurred in selected short stories of Ernest Hemingway. She finds the five types of cohesive devices (reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction, and lexical cohesion) in the three selected short stories of Ernest Hemingway (The Light of the World, Hills like White Elephants, and

A Clean, Well- Lighted Place). All types of substitution (nominal, verbal, clausal) are found In the Hills like White Elephants. But, verbal substitution is not found in the text of The Light of the World and clausal substitution is not found in the text of A

Clean, Well- Lighted Place. The percentage of the usage of all cohesive devices in these three selected short stories can be seen that reference is 61,18%, substitution is

2,39%, ellipsis is 15,92%, conjunction is 25,90%, and lexical cohesion is 4,58%. the most dominant cohesive devices in these three selected short stories is reference with

61,18%, then followed by conjunction with 25,90%, ellipsis with 15,92%, and lexical cohesion is 4,58%, and the least one is substitution with 2,39%.

Another researcher is Yoan Inanda (2008). Her study entitled “An Analysis of

Lexical Cohesion in the Cover Story of Tempo”. The objectives of this study are to find out whether the lexical cohesion exist in the chosen cover stories of Tempo and which lexical item occurs the most in the chosen cover stories. From the result of the study, she finds that Repetition occurs predominantly (238 items = 69,19%) successively followed by synonymy (61 items = 17,73%) , antonymy (27 items =

7,85%), meronymy (12 items = 3,49%) and hyponymy (6 items = 1,74%) as the

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA lowest number occurs in the text (cover stories). Repetition occurs predominantly in all texts since there are the cover stories that become the headline news of Tempo.

Those texts are effective in giving brief information and descriptions about important topics.

Elpan Juandi Simanjorang (2010) conducted research entitled “An Analysis Of

Grammatical Cohesion On Abstracts Of Students’ Theses Of Linguistics Department

Postgraduate Studies Of University Of Sumatera Utara”. The objectives of this study are to find out the grammatical cohesion and the dominant type of grammatical cohesion used in the chosen abstracts. This research concluded that Conjunction is the most dominant grammatical cohesion existed in abstract of students’ theses.

From 141 lexical cohesions in the ten chosen abstracts, 103 data (73.1%) is conjunction. The second dominant grammatical cohesion existed in the chosen abstracts are reference 35 data (24.8%). The third dominant grammatical cohesion existed in the chosen abstracts are substitution 2 data (1.4%) and the less dominant grammatical cohesion existed in the chosen abstracts are ellipsis 1 data (0.7%).

Then study entitled “An Analysis Of Lexical Cohesion In Selected Articles Of

Jakarta Globe E-Paper” By Putroe Wulandari (2014). The objectives of this study are to find out the lexical cohesion categories and the dominant lexical item applied in the selected articles of Jakarta Globe E-paper from January until March 2014. From the analysis, she finds the lexical cohesion categories found in the selected articles of

Jakarta Globe E-Paper from January until March 2014 are repetition which occurs predominantly (203 items=76.32%) successively followed by synonymy (29 items=10.9%), meronymy (13 items=4.89%), antonymy (12 items=4.51%), and hyponymy (9 items=3.38 %) as the lowest number occurs in the text (twelve selected articles). 2. Repetition occurs predominantly in all texts/news because the author

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA wants to emphasize the topic of the texts/news by using the most dominant words dealing with the topic to make the reader understands about the topic of the texts/news.

Besides the difference of the objectives of study, there are some differences between the four previous studies with this current study. First, the four previous studies and this study use the different data. The first previous study uses three selected short stories of Ernest Hemingway, the second previous study uses cover stories of Tempo, the third previous study uses the chosen abstract, the fourth previous study uses selected articles of Jakarta Globe E-paper and this study uses the prologue of poem as the data source. Second, the first previous study analyses the use of cohesive device including the grammatical and lexical cohesion, the second and the fourth previous study only analyses the lexical cohesion while the third previous study and this current study analyses the grammatical cohesion but using the different method. Since these three studies analyze the same subject, the four previous studies are used as references in this current study.

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Research Method

Wahyuni, (2012: 18) state that a methodology assumes there is a logical order the researcher needs to follow in order to achieve a certain predetermined result. This study uses qualitative research method in answering the research problems.

Qualitative research methods were developed in the social sciences to enable researchers to study social and cultural phenomena. It is related with data which is usually not in the form of numbers. Furthermore, Bogdan and Taylor (in Moleong,

1975: 5) stated that qualitative methodologies refer to research procedures which produce descriptive data: peoples own written or spoken words observable behaviour. Thus, the writer concludes that this study as a qualitative research since the data is not in the form of numbers and the result of the analysis is explained descriptively in written words.

3.2 Data and Source of Data

Schreiber (in Given, 2008: 185) defines the term data refers to collection of information. A more detailed definition includes types of data that combine to be the collected information such as numbers, words, pictures, video, audio and concept.

For qualitative researchers, the term data most often is associated with words.

The data of this study are 37 lines having the markers of grammatical cohesion found from 57 lines of a poem prologue. As the data source, the writer gets the data from the Modern English version prologue of Beowulf translated by Francis

Barton Gummere in 1910 which were cited from Epic and Saga – Beowulf et.al.: The

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA Five Foot Shelf of Classics, Vol. XLIX by Charles W. Eliot (Editor) retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?isbn=161640174.

Beowulf is the longest surviving poem in Old English and commonly cited as one of the most important works of Old English literature. It tells a story of a strong and brave warrior, Beowulf and his battles against monster Grendel, Grendel’s mother and against an unnamed dragon. Davis (2013: 11) states “Beowulf is, indeed, the most successful Old English poem because in it, the elements of language, metre, themes, structure are all most nearly in harmony”. Thus, the writer is curious about the grammatical cohesion in Modern English version prologue of

Beowulf.

3.3 Data Collecting Method

Marshall and Rossman (2006: 97) state that qualitative researchers typically rely on four methods for gathering information: (a) participating in the setting, (b) observing directly, (c) interviewing in depth, and (d) analyzing documents or material culture. A document is a text-based file that may include primary data

(collected by the researcher) or secondary data (collected and archived or published by others).

Based on the statement, the writer chooses one of the data collecting methods to be applied in this study that is analyzing documents. The writer analyses the data in order to collect the lines having the markers of grammatical cohesion to be analyzed further.

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA

3.4 Data Analyzing Method

In analyzing the data, three current flows of activity are used. Miles,

Huberman and Saldana (2014: 8) present three streams in analyzing the data after the process of data collecting.

Miles, Huberman and Saldana (2014: 8-10) describe the major phases of data analysis as follows:

Data Data Display Collection

Data Conclusion: Condensation Drawing/Verifying

Figure 3.1 Components of Data Analysis: Interactive Model

(6) Data condensation refers to the process of selecting, focusing, simplifying,

abstracting, and/or transforming the data that appear in the full corpus (body)

of written-up field notes, interview transcripts, documents, and other

empirical materials. Data condensation is not something separate from

analysis. It is a part of analysis.

Thus, in this study, the data are condensed through the process of

selecting and focusing. The writer condenses the data by focusing on lines

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA that contain the markers of grammatical cohesion and selecting 37 lines from

52 lines of Beowulf prologue as a data analysis.

(7) Data display is the second phase to analyze the data. A display is an

organized, compressed assembly of information that permits conclusion

drawing and action. In the qualitative research, the data can be displayed in

the form of table, graphic, phi chard, pictogram and other equivalent of them.

Therefore, in this study, the data are displayed in table. The tables are

divided into three columns which will display the Line, Cohesive Item, and

Presupposed. The lines where the cohesive items found are displayed in Line

column. The words or phrases containing the markers of grammatical

cohesion found from the lines are displayed in Cohesive Item column. And

the words or the phrases that the cohesive item refers to are displayed in

Presupposed column. Then the data are organized and researcher gives a

further explanation related to the data display.

(8) The third stream of analysis activity is conclusion drawing and verification.

Conclusions are verified as the analyst proceeds. Verification may be as brief

as fleeting second thought crossing the analyst’s mind during writing, with a

short excursion back to the field notes, or it may be thorough and elaborate,

with lengthy argumentation.

In this study, the researcher is drawing conclusion from the finding of

data analysis. The researcher describes the result of analysis by drawing

conclusion/verification as the answer of the problems of analysis.

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA In order to figure out the percentage value from each type of grammatical cohesive devices, the general statistics formula will be used. The formula is:

퐹 풙 = ×ퟏퟎퟎ% 푁

In which: x : the percentage of types of grammatical cohesion

F : the number of each types of grammatical cohesion

N : the total number of grammatical cohesion items

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS AND FINDING

Grammatical cohesions are forms of cohesion realized through grammar that can be divided into four types; reference, substitution, ellipsis, and conjunction

(Halliday and Hasan, 1976: 6). This chapter aims to analyze and discuss the research findings. The data are taken from lines having grammatical cohesion found from the

Modern English version prologue of Beowulf translated by Francis Barton Gummere

(1910). In analyzing the data, the writer reads and uses some additional references to find out the meaning of some Old English terms and some specific vocabulary of

Beowulf. Some of the additional references used are Beowulf: A New Verse of

Translation by Seamus Heaney (2000) and Beowulf: A Verse Translation into

Modern English by Edwin Morgan (1967). In displaying the data, the writer uses tables for each kind of cohesive devices and the analysis begins with reference, followed by substitution, ellipsis and conjunction.

4.1 Analysis

4.1.1 Reference

Table 1: Reference

Cohesive Line Presupposed Item (1) Lo, praise of the prowess of people-kings people -kings of (2) of spear-armed Danes, in days long sped, athelings spear-armed Danes (3) we have heard, and what honor the athelings (preceding text) won!

Cohesive tie in the table above is kind of personal reference anaphora. Based on glossary of Beowulf which is obtained from

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA http://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/b/beowulf/study-help/full-glossary-for-beowulf

‘spear Danes’ means ‘the tribe of Scyld Scefing’. While ‘Scyld Scefing’ is ‘early

Danish king’ or the first king in the Danish royal line (Meyer, 2012: 295). Simply, the word ‘spear Danes’ can be defined as the name of tribe of the first king in the

English term used in Anglo-Saxon England which is designated for son of a king, man of royal blood, nobleman, chief, prince, king, Christ, God, man, hero and saint.

In conclusion, “athelings” means kings which refers to “people-kings of spear-armed

Danes” in line 1 and 2.

Table 2: Reference

Cohesive Line Presupposed Item (3) we have heard, and what honor the athelings won! athelings The earls (preceding text) (5) awing the earls. Since erst he lay

The cohesive tie in the table above is classified as personal reference anaphora. The word “earl”, or “eorl” in Old English, means a warrior or nobleman. A warrior is a person who fights in a battle or a war, and nobleman is a person from a family of high social rank. This word has the same meaning with the word

“atheling”. Since the word ‘athelings’ also presupposes to the phrase ‘people -kings

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA of spear-armed Danes’, then the words “the earls” also refer to the phrase ‘people - kings of spear-armed Danes’.

Table 3: Reference

Cohesive Line Presupposed Item (4) Oft Scyld the Scefing from squadroned foes Scyld the Scefing he (preceding text) (6) awing the earls. Since erst he lay

Scyld the Scefing or Scyld Scefing is the legendary ancestor of the Danish royal lineage and also known as Scyldings, the first king in the Danish royal line. So the word ‘he’ in line 6 presupposed to ‘Scyld the Scefing’ in the fourth line and it is kind of personal reference anaphora.

Table 4: Reference

Line Presupposed Cohesive (4) Oft Scyld the Scefing from squadroned foes Item

(7) friendless, a foundling, fate repaid him: him (8) for he waxed under welkin, in wealth he he 2× throve, Scyld the Scefing (9) till before him the folk, both far and near, him (preceding text) (10) who house by the whale-path, heard his his mandate, him (11) gave him gifts: a good king he! he (12) To him an heir was afterward born, him

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA The pronouns written above in the table presuppose to the proper name

‘Scyld the Scefing’. They are also called as personal reference anaphora since the presupposed item of the each pronoun is found in the preceding text.

Table 5: Reference

Cohesive Line Presupposed Item (12) To him an heir was afterward born, an heir

(13) a son in his halls, whom heaven sent a son Beowulf (following text) (18) Famed was this Beowulf: far flew the boast of him,

In the story of Beowulf, Scyld Scefing has a son named Beow, sometimes called Beowulf, but he is not the hero of the poem but a Danish king, son of Scyld

(Morgan, 1967:88). So, they are two ties in personal reference cataphora in the words

‘a son’ and ‘an heir’ presuppose to the proper name ‘Beowulf’ in the eighteenth line.

Table 6: Reference

Cohesive Line Presupposed Item (4) Oft Scyld the Scefing from squadroned foes, Scyld the Scefing his (preceding text) (13) a son in his halls, whom heaven sent

Another personal reference anaphora is the use of possessive adjective ‘his’ in the thirteenth line which presupposes the proper name ‘Scyld the Scefing’ in the fourth line.

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA Table 7: Reference

Cohesive Line Presupposed Item (14) to favor the folk, feeling their woe their the folk (preceding text) (15) that erst they had lacked an earl for leader they

Personal reference anaphora is stated in the pronoun ‘their’ and ‘they’ which presuppose the word ‘the folk’ in the fourteenth line.

Table 8: Reference

Cohesive Line Presupposed Item (15) that erst they had lacked an earl for leader an earl for Beowulf (18) Famed was this Beowulf: far flew the boast of leader (following text) him,

Cohesive tie found in the table above is described as personal reference cataphora. The phrase ‘an earl for leader’ presupposes to the proper name ‘Beowulf’ in the eighteenth line. An earl in the fifteenth line is also refers to the words ‘an heir’ and ‘a son’ in the twelfth and the thirteenth line.

Table 9: Reference

Cohesive Line Presupposed Item (4) Oft Scyld the Scefing from squadroned foes, Scyld the Scefing him (preceding text) (16) so long a while; the Lord endowed him,

The use of pronoun ‘him’ presupposes to the phrase ‘Scyld the Scefing’ in the fourth line. It indicates personal reference anaphora.

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA Table 10: Reference

Cohesive Line Presupposed Item (16) so long a while; the Lord endowed him, the Wielder the Lord (17) the Wielder of Wonder, with world's of Wonder (preceding text) renown.

The word ‘wielder’ means a controller or ruler. It is often used to describe

God or Lord; also in compounds, as ‘Wielder of Glory’, ‘Wielder of Worship’. So, the phrase ‘the Wielder of Wonder’ presupposes to the phrase ‘the Lord’ in the sixteenth line. It indicates personal reference anaphora.

Table 11: Reference

Cohesive Line Presupposed Item (4) Oft Scyld the Scefing from squadroned foes, Scyld the Scefing him (18) Famed was this Beowulf : far flew the boast (preceding text) of him,

The use of pronoun ‘him’ presupposes to the phrase ‘Scyld the Scefing’ in the fourth line, and it is also kind of personal reference anaphora.

Table 12: Reference

Cohesive Line Presupposed Item (18) Famed was this Beowulf : far flew the boast Beowulf of him, son of Scyld (preceding text) (19) son of Scyld, in the Scandian lands.

The cohesive tie in the table above indicates personal reference anaphora.

The pronoun ‘him’ and the phrase ‘Son of Scyld’ presuppose to the word ‘Beowulf’

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA in the eighteenth line. The word Beowulf in that line is not Beowulf the epic hero but

Beow-son of Scyld, the first Danish King.

Table 13: Reference

Cohesive Line Presupposed Item (18) Famed was this Beowulf1: far flew the boast of him, the boast of him it (preceding text) (20) So becomes it a youth to quit him well

The word ‘it’ presupposes to the words ‘the boast of him’ in the eighteenth line. It is classified as personal reference anaphora.

Table 14: Reference

Cohesive Line Presupposed Item (18) Famed was this Beowulf: far flew the boast of him, Beowulf a youth (preceding text) (20) So becomes it a youth to quit him well

The cohesive tie in the table above is identified as personal reference anaphora. The word ‘a youth’ refers back to the proper name Beowulf in the eighteenth line. ‘a youth’ also refers to the phrase ‘Son of Scyld’.

Table 15: Reference

Cohesive Line Presupposed Item (4) Oft Scyld the Scefing from squadroned foes, Scyld the Scefing him (preceding text) (20) So becomes it a youth to quit him well

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA The pronoun ‘him’ presupposes to the name Scyld the Scefing. It is identified as personal reference anaphora.

Table 16: Reference

Line Presupposed Cohesive (18) Famed was this Beowulf: far flew the boast of Item him,

Beowulf (21) with his father's friends, by fee and gift, his (preceding text)

(22) that to aid him, aged, in after days, him

The words ‘his’ and ‘him’ presuppose to the name ‘Beowulf’ in the eighteenth line indicating personal reference anaphora.

Table 17: Reference

Cohesive Line Presupposed Item (18) Famed was this Beowulf: far flew the boast of him, Beowulf an earl (preceding text) (25) shall an earl have honor in every clan.

The cohesive tie in the table above is identified as personal reference anaphora. The word ‘an earl’ presupposes to the proper name ‘Beowulf’ in the eighteenth line.

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA Table 18: Reference

Cohesive Line Presupposed Item (18) Famed was this Beowulf: far flew the boast of him, Beowulf he (preceding text) (26) Forth he fared at the fated moment,

The pronoun ‘he’ presupposes the name ‘Beowulf’ in the eighteenth line. So, its function is indicating personal references anaphora.

Table 19: Reference

Cohesive Line Presupposed Item (25) shall an earl have honor in every clan. clan They (preceding text) (28) Then they bore him over to ocean's billow

The pronoun ‘they’ presupposes to the word ‘clan’ in line 25. It indicates personal reference anaphora.

Table 20: Reference

Presupposed Line Cohesive Item (27) sturdy Scyld to the shelter of God. Scyld (28) Then they bore him over to ocean's billow, him (preceding text) (29) loving clansmen, as late he charged them, he

The pronouns ‘him’ and ‘he’ presuppose to the name ‘Scyld’ in line 27 or in the preceding text known as Scyld the Scefing. They are indicating personal reference anaphora.

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA Table 21: Reference

Cohesive Line Presupposed Item clansmen (29) loving clansmen, as late he charged them, them (preceding text)

The word ‘them’ refers to the word clansmen in the same line and it indicates personal reference anaphora.

Table 22: Reference

Cohesive Line Presupposed Item (30) while wielded words the winsome Scyld, Scyld the leader (31) the leader beloved who long had ruled.... (preceding text)

Cohesive tie in the table above indicates personal reference anaphora. The word ‘the leader’ presupposes to the name ‘Scyld’ in line 30 or in the preceding text known as Scyld the Scefing.

Table 23: Reference

Cohesive Line Presupposed Item In the roasted rocked a ring- dight vessel, ice (32) In the roadstead rocked a ring-dight vessel, flecked, (33) ice-flecked, outbound, atheling's barge: outbound, (34) there laid they down their darling lord there atheling’s barge (35) on the breast of the boat, the breaker-of- (preceding text) rings, On the breast of the boat, the breaker-of-rings (following text)

The word ‘there’ demonstrates the phrases in line 32, 33 and 35. It is indicating both demonstrative reference anaphora and cataphora.

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA Table 24: Reference

Line Presupposed Cohesive (29) loving clansmen, as late he charged them, Item

clansmen they (preceding text) (34) there laid they down their darling lord their

Personal reference anaphora is stated in the pronoun ‘they’ and ‘their’ which presuppose the word ‘clansmen’ in line 29.

Table 25: Reference

Line Presupposed Cohesive (30) while wielded words the winsome Scyld, Item

Scyld (34) there laid they down their darling lord darling lord (preceding text) (37) fetched from far was freighted with him. him

The word ‘Lord’ in that line means ‘a king’, so that the words ‘darling Lord’ refers to the name ‘Scyld’ or ‘Scyld the Scefing’ (the first Danish king), and the word ‘him’ also refer to the name ‘Scyld’. They are classified as personal reference anaphora.

Table 26: Reference

Cohesive Line Presupposed Item

(38) No ship have I known so nobly dight I (situational)

The cohesive tie in the table above is kind of personal reference exophora because the word “I” refers to someone that is not part of a given text. “I”, as

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA reference item in that line, points outside the text to someone whose information can not be retrieved from elsewhere in the text. The readers have to use their imagination to create a context related to that line. If we read the line by line of the prologue, it can be assumed that the pronoun “I” refers to the anonymous Anglo-Saxon poet, the writer of Beowulf.

Table 27: Reference

Cohesive Line Presupposed Item with weapons of (38) No ship have I known so nobly dight war and weeds of (39) with weapons of war and weeds of battle, battle, with so (40) with breastplate and blade: on his bosom lay breastplate and blade (following text)

Cohesive item found from the line in the table above is kind of comparative reference cataphora. The phrase ‘with weapons of war and weeds of battle, with breastplate and blade’ is an explanation that refers to the word ‘so’.

Table 28: Reference

Line Presupposed Cohesive (30) while wielded words the winsome Scyld, Item

Scyld (40) with breastplate and blade: on his bosom lay his (preceding text) (42) far o'er the flood with him floating away. him

The words ‘his’ and ‘him’ also refer to the name ‘Scyld’ in line 30 identified the personal reference anaphora.

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA Table 29: Reference

Cohesive Line Presupposed Item (36) by the mast the mighty one. Many a treasure Many a treasure these (preceding text) (43) No less these loaded the lordly gifts,

The word ‘these’ demonstrates the phrases in line 36. It is indicating demonstrative reference anaphora.

Table 30: Reference

Line Presupposed Cohesive (30) while wielded words the winsome Scyld, Item

(45) who in former time forth had sent him him Scyld a suckling (preceding text) (46) sole on the seas, a suckling child. child (47) High o'er his head they hoist the standard, his

The words ‘him’, ‘a suckling child’ and ‘his’ refer to the name ‘Scyld’ in line

30 are identified as personal reference anaphora.

Table 31: Reference

Cohesive Line Presupposed Item (29) loving clansmen, as late he charged them, clansmen they (preceding text) (47) High o'er his head they hoist the standard,

Personal reference anaphora is stated in the pronoun ‘they’ which presupposes the word ‘clansmen’ in line 29.

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA Table 32: Reference

Line Presupposed Cohesive (30) while wielded words the winsome Scyld, Item

Scyld (48) a gold-wove banner; let billows take him (preceding text) him (49) gave him to ocean. Grave were their spirits,

The word ‘him’ found in line 48 and 49 refers to the word ‘Scyld’ or known as Scyld the Scefing. They are indicating personal reference anaphora.

Table 33: Reference

Line Presupposed Cohesive (29) loving clansmen, as late he charged them, Item clansmen (49) gave him to ocean. Grave were their spirits, (preceding text) their (50) mournful their mood. No man is able

Personal reference anaphora is stated in the pronoun ‘their’ which presuppose the word ‘clansmen’ in line 29.

4.1.2 Substitution

Table 34: Substitution

Cohesive Line Presupposed Item mast (36) by the mast the mighty one. Many a treasure one (preceding text)

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA The cohesive tie in the table above is kind of nominal substitution. The word

‘one’ substitutes the word ‘mast’ and also head of the nominal group ‘the mighty one’.

4.1.3 Conjunction

Table 35: Conjunction

Cohesive Line Presupposed Item (3) we have heard, and what honor the athelings and Preceding clause won!

The word ‘and’ indicates additive conjunction which function is coordinate the sentences or clause and give clue that there is additional statement which support to the preceding sentence or clause.

Table 36: Conjunction

Line Presupposed Cohesive (6) awing the earls. Since erst he lay Item (7) friendless, a foundling, fate repaid him: Preceding sentence in line 6 (8) for he waxed under welkin, in wealth he for and 7. throve,

The use of the word ‘for’ indicates causal conjunction and it implies the reason for the preceding text.

Table 37: Conjunction

Cohesive Line Presupposed Item

(9) till before him the folk, both far and near, and Preceding clause

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA The word ‘and’ indicates additive conjunction which relates the words ‘both far’ and ‘near’ in line 9.

Table 38: Conjunction

Cohesive Line Presupposed Item (15) that erst they had lacked an earl for leader (16) so long a while; the Lord endowed him, (17) the Wielder of Wonder, with world's renown. (18) Famed was this Beowulf1: far flew the boast so Preceding text of him, (19) son of Scyld, in the Scandian lands.

(20) So becomes it a youth to quit him well

The use of the word ‘so’ has the relation of cause and effect with the preceding clause in line 15 to 19. Furthermore, it indicates causal conjunction.

Table 39: Conjunction

Cohesive Line Presupposed Item

(27) sturdy Scyld to the shelter of God. then Preceding text (28) Then they bore him over to ocean's billow,

The temporal relation is expressed by the word ‘then’. So it is called temporal conjunction.

Table 40: Conjunction

Cohesive Line Presupposed Item (39) with weapons of war and weeds of battle, Preceding and phrases. (40) with breastplate and blade: on his bosom lay

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA The cohesive ties found from the lines in the table above are kind of additive conjunction in the word ‘and’ which relates the phrases ‘with weapons of war’ and

‘weeds of battle’ in line 39, and also relates the phrase ‘with breastplate’ and the word ‘blade’ in line 40.

4.1.4 The Realization of Grammatical Cohesion

Grammatical cohesion in the Modern English version prologue of Beowulf that consists of 52 lines, translated by Francis Barton Gummere in 1910 is realized by reference 86.66 %, substitution 1.66 % and conjunction 11.66 %.

Reference is realized by having the highest frequency of occurrence. Personal reference is mostly found than any other types of reference which also occur within the Modern English version prologue of Beowulf. The personal reference is used to refer to function in speech situation, through the category of person such as first person, second person and third person for example: he, him, it, his, etc. Then, demonstrative and comparative references also occur but only in very small frequency of occurrence. In this case, the function of reference is to identify the participants through the text which help us to understand some terms within the prologue.

Substitution is realized by nominal substitution. It occurs in the Modern

English version prologue of Beowulf. That nominal substitution is reflected in the line 36 and accompanied by some modifying element which functions as defining word or clause in the particular context.

Conjunction is realized by three types of conjunction. They are additive, causal and temporal conjunction while adversative conjunction is not found in the

Modern English version prologue of Beowulf. First, additive conjunction is stated in

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA the line 3, 9, 39 and 40. Second, causal conjunction is reflected in line 8 and 20. Last, temporal conjunction is stated in line 28.

Moreover, Ellipsis is not occurred or not found in Modern English version prologue of Beowulf because Ellipsis is a type of grammatical cohesion which is rarely used in any other kind of text. However, the function of ellipsis is to simplify the sentences or the utterances which are expressed.

4.2 Findings

The result of data analysis showed grammatical cohesive devices expressed in the Modern English version prologue of Beowulf. This following table shows the whole findings of the types of grammatical cohesion.

Table 41: Findings

Types of Grammatical Cohesion Frequency Total Percentage

Exophora 1 Personal Anaphora 46

Cataphora 1 52 References 86.66 % Anaphora 2 Demonstrative Cataphora 1 Comparative Cataphora 1 Substitution Nominal 1 1 1.66 % Additive 4 Conjunction Causal 2 7 11.66 % Temporal 1

Total 60

As it is shown in the table, the kinds of grammatical cohesion realized in the modern English prologue of Beowulf poem are reference, substitution, and

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA conjunction. Moreover, the occurrence of reference appears to be the most in the text. The next type of grammatical cohesion applied in the text is substitution which has the lowest occurrence. The last type of grammatical cohesion found in the text is conjunction. However, there are some elements of grammatical cohesion which are not found such as clausal substitution, verbal substitution, ellipsis, and adversative conjunction.

The findings happened due to the structures of the text tend to be combined in a linear or sequence. Halliday and Hasan view cohesive relationships within and between the sentences as primary determinants of a text. Cohesion occurs when the interpretation of some element in the discourse is dependent on that of another

(Halliday and Hasan 1976: 4). In this analysis, personal reference and additive conjunction are the most common types of grammatical cohesion, whereas substitution is not represented widely and ellipsis is not occurred in the data of this study. There are 48 personal references occur and they are mainly used to track a participant or a thing through a piece of discourse.

The referential function of grammatical items is primarily realized in their anaphoric relation to preceding discourse because the readers are not initially familiar with participants, things or abstract notions within the text. Personal reference dominantly occurred in the text because the analyzed text is kind of epic poem that contain a story of Beowulf and there are some different participants or characters within the text and they always referring to another item that stands for it.

Additive conjunction is dominantly used after personal reference even though there are just 4 conjunctions found in the text. It means that conjunction is not widely used in the text of poem. Reference and conjunction are used extensively to establish cohesive relations that hold between words in the text.

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA The above analysis shows how grammatical cohesive devices are realized in the text. The line-by-line identification of grammatical cohesive devices in the text gave a clear illustration on how they work together to create a coherent text.

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS

5.1 Conclusion

Having found the results of the analysis of grammatical cohesion in Modern

English version prologue of Beowulf text translated by Francis Barton Gummere, the conclusion was drawn based on the finding of the types of grammatical cohesion in the text. The prologue text of Beowulf is formed by grammatical cohesion devices.

Grammatical cohesion functions as inter-sentence connectors and it contributes to the efficiency of the text. By understanding the grammatical cohesion devices applied in the prologue of Beowulf text, the readers will understand the meaning contained within the text.

The findings of the analysis show that 52 references (86.66 %) are found which consist of personal, demonstrative and comparative reference. For personal reference, 1 personal reference exophora, 46 personal references anaphora and 1 personal reference cataphora are found. For demonstrative reference, 2 demonstrative reference anaphora and 1 demonstrative reference cataphora are found. And for comparative reference, 1 comparative reference cataphora is found. Reference is the most type used in the text and it means reference is the grammatical cohesion type that gives higher contribution to relate the words, phrase and sentence in text and also to convey the meaning or information what the prologue of Beowulf is about.

Moreover only 1 substitution (1.66 %) which is kind of nominal substitution found in the data, and 7 conjunctions (11.66 %) occur in this study. They are 4 additive conjunctions, 2 causal conjunctions and 1 temporal conjunction. However,

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA grammatical cohesion type of ellipsis is not found in the text. It means that the type does not contribute in making the text cohesive.

5.2 Suggestions

The writer suggests for those who want to take cohesive devices study especially grammatical cohesion as the tool of their research, they must understand and learn more about this study. Based on the results of this study, among the four types of grammatical cohesion, ellipsis is not occurred or not found within the text. It shows that ellipsis is rarely used in any other kind of text and sometimes does not have any application in written discourse. It could be interesting to investigate about ellipsis in spoken discourse, especially in spontaneous speech in different study. The next researcher may take the different object of the research such as from advertisements, movie, television show, radio program, or the others so that it will make the research to be more interesting. It is suggested that the writer should be concerned about the use of grammatical cohesion used in presenting their idea. The findings of this research can be used as a reference to give better understanding for the future researcher, provide additional information and comparison that might be relevant to the study.

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA REFERENCES

AZZOUZ, Besma. 2009. “A Discourse Analysis of Grammatical Cohesion in Student’s Writing: A Case Study of Second Year Students, Mentouri University Constantine”. Dissertation. Algeria: Mentouri University Constantine. Brown, G and George Yule. 1983. Discourse Analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press. Davis, Gerald J. 2013. Beowulf: The New Translation. Retrieved from http://books.google.co.id/books?isbn=1304304914 (24 March 2016). Eliot, Charles W (Ed). 2010. Epic and Saga – Beowulf et.al.: The Five Foot Shelf of Classics, Vol. XLIX. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?isbn=161640174 (24 January 2016). Fairclough, Norman. 2013. Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1317864646 (25 January 2016). Gee, James Paul. 2005. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method. Hove: Psychology Press. Gerot, Linda and Peter Wignell. 2001. Making Sense of Functional Grammar. Sydney: Southwood Press. Given, Lisa M. 2008. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. Retrieved from http://www.stiba- malang.com/uploadbank/pustaka/RM/QUALITATIVE% 20METHOD%20SAGE%20ENCY.pdf (23 March 2016) Halliday, M. A. K. 1978. Language as social semiotic. London: Arnold. Halliday, M.A.K. 1994. Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold Publishers ltd. Halliday, M.A.K. and Ruqaiya Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. Harlow, Essex: Longman. Harris, Elizabeth. 2004. Prologue and Gospel. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0567040518 (27 January 2016). Heaney, Seamus. 2000. Beowulf: A New Verse of Translation. Retrieved from https://doctorkb.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/beowulf-seamus- heaney.pdf (24 March 2016) Howcroft, Debra and Eileen Moore Trauth. 2005. Handbook of Critical Information System Research: Theory and Application. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1845426746 (25 January 2016).

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA Inanda, Yoan. 2008. “An Analysis of Lexical Cohesion in the Cover Story of Tempo”. Thesis. Medan: University of Sumatera Utara. Johnstone, Barbara. 2009. Discourse Analysis. Malden. MA: Blackwell. Lee, Haruki. 2003. Discourse Type and The Three Levels of Meaning Revisited. Retrieved from https://www.kansai- u.ac.jp/fl/publication/pdf_education/06/6Lee.pdf (29 January 2016). Leech, Geoffrey. 2014. Language in Literature: Style and Foregrounding. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1317899938 (25 February 2016). Lumban Tobing, Rosalina. 2008. “The Use of Cohesive Devices in Selected Short Stories of Ernest Hemyngway: A Discourse Analysis”. Thesis. Medan: University of Sumatera Utara. Marshall, Catherine and Gretchen B. Rossman. 2006. Designing Qualitative Research. Retrieved from http://www.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm- binaries/10985_Chapter_4.pdf (25 March 2016) Meyer, Thomas. 2012. Beowulf: A Translation. Retrieved from https://books.google.co.id/books?isbn=0615612652 (24 March 2016). Miles, M.B, A. Michael Huberman and J. Saldana. 2014. Qualitative data analysis: a methods sourcebook. London: SAGE. Miller, Christanne.1989. Emily Dickinson: A Poet's Grammar. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0674250362 (25 February 2016). Mills, Sara. 1997. Discourse. Retrieved from http://profcohen.net/ltwl129/mills.pdf (29 January 2016). Morgan, Edwin. 1967. Beowulf: A Verse Translation into Modern English. Retrieved from https://books.google.co.id/books?id=LPO-MYhU2x8C (24 March 2016). Rosenfeld, Jordan. 2008. Make a Scene: Crafting a Powerful Story One Scene at a Time. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1582976899 (27 January 2016). Schriffrin, Deborah. 1994. Approaches to Discourse. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers. Simanjorang, Elpan Juandi. (2010). “An Analysis of Grammatical Cohesion on Abstract of Students’ Thesis of Linguistics Department Postgraduate Studies of University of Sumatera Utara”. Thesis. Medan: University of Sumatera Utara. Stubbs, Michael. 1983. Discourse Analysis: The Sociolinguistic Analysis of Natural Language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA Taboada, Maria Teresa. 2004. Building Coherence and Cohesion. Retrieved from https://books.google.co.id/books?isbn=1588115631 (24 March 2016). Varhánek, Tomáš. 2007. Ellipsis as a Means of Cohesion. Retrieved from dspace.upce.cz/bitstream/10195/24577/1/VarhanekT_Ellipsis%20as%20 a%20means_SJ_2007.pdf Ellipsis as a Means of Cohesion (29 January 2016). Wahyuni, Sari. 2012. Qualitative Research Method: Theory and Practice. Jakarta: Salemba Empat. Wodak, Ruth and Michael Meyer. 2009. Method for Critical Discourse Analysis. London: SAGE. Wulandari, Putroe. 2014. “An Analysis of Lexical Cohesion In Selected Articles of Jakarta Globe E-Paper”. Thesis. Medan: University of Sumatera Utara.

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA

APPENDIX

Beowulf (modern English translation) Translated by Francis Barton Gummere (1910)

1. Lo, praise of the prowess of people-kings of spear-armed Danes, in days long sped, we have heard, and what honor the athelings won! Oft Scyld the Scefing from squadroned foes, 5. from many a tribe, the mead-bench tore, awing the earls. Since erst he lay friendless, a foundling, fate repaid him: for he waxed under welkin, in wealth he throve, till before him the folk, both far and near, 10. who house by the whale-path, heard his mandate, gave him gifts: a good king he! To him an heir was afterward born, a son in his halls, whom heaven sent to favor the folk, feeling their woe 15. that erst they had lacked an earl for leader so long a while; the Lord endowed him, the Wielder of Wonder, with world's renown. Famed was this Beowulf1: far flew the boast of him, son of Scyld, in the Scandian lands. 20. So becomes it a youth to quit him well with his father's friends, by fee and gift, that to aid him, aged, in after days, come warriors willing, should war draw nigh, liegemen loyal: by lauded deeds 25. shall an earl have honor in every clan. Forth he fared at the fated moment, sturdy Scyld to the shelter of God.

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA

Then they bore him over to ocean's billow, loving clansmen, as late he charged them, 30. while wielded words the winsome Scyld, the leader beloved who long had ruled.... In the roadstead rocked a ring-dight vessel, ice-flecked, outbound, atheling's barge: there laid they down their darling lord 35. on the breast of the boat, the breaker-of-rings,2 by the mast the mighty one. Many a treasure fetched from far was freighted with him. No ship have I known so nobly dight with weapons of war and weeds of battle, 40. with breastplate and blade: on his bosom lay a heaped hoard that hence should go far o'er the flood with him floating away. No less these loaded the lordly gifts, thanes' huge treasure, than those had done 45. who in former time forth had sent him sole on the seas, a suckling child. High o'er his head they hoist the standard, a gold-wove banner; let billows take him gave him to ocean. Grave were their spirits, 50. mournful their mood. No man is able to say in sooth, no son of the halls, no hero 'neath heaven, — who harbored that freight!

Footnotes 1. Not, of course, Beowulf the Great, hero of the epic. 2. Kenning for king or chieftain of a comitatus: he breaks off gold from the spiral rings — often worn on the arm — and so rewards his followers.

UNIVERSITAS SUMATERA UTARA