Substitution

UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN

exists a ‘small set of linkers’ that are said to perform different cohesive roles in text textures which need to be accounted for. The main kind of logical relations expressed by these continuatives is basically to ‘add’ through the use of: ‘so [did he]’, ‘even’, ‘only’, and ‘just’, so that comparison may be realised. Similarly, continuative features like:

‘already’, ‘finally’, ‘at last’, ‘still’, ‘again’, facilitate the realisation of time.

Moreover, since continuatives are used as categories in the realisation of logical relations, they are normally placed at the beginning of the clause, typically next to finite verbs. Martin and Rose (2003) observe that, as a result of this placement, they might also serve as a means of managing our expectations in the discourse. With conjunctions, cohesive relations in discourses are negotiated into a different type of semantic relations;

one which is no longer a site for instruction, but a specification of the way in which what is to follow is systematically connected to what has gone before. The conjunctive relations are, therefore, not attached to any particular sequence in the expression.

Consequently, if two sentences cohere by virtue of some form of conjunction, this does not mean that the relation between them could subsist only in that particular order. This argument reiterates Halliday and Hasan’s (1976) submission that, conjunction is not really an element in the semantic relations that is realised in the grammar of the language, but it is rather the functions these conjunctive devices perform by relating linguistic elements that occur in succession but are not related by other structural means.

Cohesive ties realised through conjunction are embodied through the process of predication, minor predication, and time sequence or through two separate sentences. The most common and the simplest conjunctive element is said to be ‘and’, which is integrated into linguistic structures realised in the form of a particular structural relations, especially that of coordination. The lexical element ‘and’, according to Halliday and Hasan (1976: 234), is used as a cohesion means to link one sentence to another, and the coordination relation which is represented by ‘and’, may obtain between pairs of items functioning more or less anywhere in the structure of the language; these pairs may be nominal groups, verbs or verbal groups, adverbs or adverbial groups; or they may be clauses. These pairs, when joined by a conjunctive coordinator, ‘and’, function as a single complex structure.

UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN

constitute the text’s texture. The concept of substitution is, therefore, an attempt to account for motives as to why some lexical items are used in place of others; why a verb is substituted for a noun or why a clause is substituted with another lexical item.

Apparently, emphasis in the cohesive roles of substitution as a grammatical relation is on the wording or phrases rather than in the meaning.

Substitution is used in order to avoid repetition of a particular item; the substituted items are always exchangeable with the items which they substitute.

Apparently, to account for the various ways in which substitution occurs in structures, the different types of substitution are identified and defined, accordingly, based on the grammatical function each substitute performs in the structure rather than its semantic value. These classifications include: nominal (replacement of nouns with lexical items such as ‘one’, ‘ones’ and ‘some’), verbal (use of ‘do’ to replace the verb), and clausal substitutions (the replacement of a clause with items such as ‘so’ and ‘not’). These descriptions are made based on the functions and place of occurrence of the substituted item in the structure of a sentence.

2.10.3.1 Types of substitution: nominal substitution

Nominal substitution is described as a grammatical condition in which the

‘one/ones’ are used as substitutes which constantly function as head of a nominal group, and has the capacity to replace only an item which is itself head of a nominal. The substitute ‘one/ones’ presupposes some noun that is to function as the head of the nominal group; it is therefore like ‘a sort of counter which is used in place of the repetition of a particular item’ (Halliday and Hasan, 1994: 89). However, when a substitute acts as a modifying item, it replaces only the head-word and not any other element in the nominal group. At some other instances, the presupposed item is buried deep inside a complex structure; the hearer generally has no difficulty in recovering it and this complexity extends to a situation in which the substituted item may [even] differ from the presupposed item even in number.

Furthermore, substitution is considered as an endophoric referential feature which is essentially confined in the texture of texts. In nominal substitution, for instance, the head of a nominal group is substituted by an item which is itself the head of the substituted nominal group. Apparently, the substitute ‘one’, including its plural form

‘ones’, always functions as the head word in the nominal group, and therefore can substitute only for an item which is itself the head of a nominal group.

UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN

2.10.3.2 Verbal substitution

Verbal substitution, on the other hand, refers to the use of the English verbal substitute ‘do’ with the usual morphological scatter: ‘do’, ‘does’, ‘did’, ‘doing’, and

‘done’ (Halliday and Hasan, 1976:113). The verbal substitute, ‘do’, is typically associated with contrast, which usually occurs in the context of some other item which contrasts it with another element in the presupposed clause. Consequently, since the substitute signals that information is to be recovered from elsewhere, though it is

‘‘phonologically unaccented’’ or non-prominent, it is not just a mere backward reference feature but a positive confirmation, a marking of the fact that the lexical verb still functions well.

However, apart from functioning as the verbal substitute ‘do’ also occurs in Modern English as a lexical verb, general verb (the pro-verb) or as a verbal operator. This implies therefore that, in spite of the distinctions, these classes of the verb are all related to each other and they form a range of shared meanings that criss-cross into the shade of interpretation of each other, thus projecting indefinite semantic relations.

The substitute ‘do’ is said to be always anaphoric and occasionally cataphoric since it operates only within intra-sentential relations, therefore having no impact on textual cohesion. But as an anaphoric item, it presupposes cohesive relations within the same sentence, so that there is already a structural relation linking the presupposed to the presupposing clause, though it frequently substitutes an element in a preceding sentence thereby considered as a primary source of cohesion within the text. Verbal substitute is also said to occur exophorically under appropriate conditions, especially in warnings given to someone who has been caught doing something inviolable.

2.10.3.3 Clausal substitution

Clausal substitute, on the other hand, refers to the replacement of the entire clause in the structure. Three types of grammatical conditions are identified as necessitating the occurrence of clausal substitution in grammatical structures. These include grammatical provisos that situate: report, condition and modality. The replacement of a clause may take either the positive or negative form; the positive is usually expressed by ‘so’, while the negative is conveyed by ‘not’ (Halliday and Hasan, 1976: 131).

Furthermore, the reported clause which is substituted by ‘so’ or ‘not’ is in most cases always declarative; whatever the mood of the presupposed clause. There is

UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN

however no substitute for interrogative or imperative structures such as indirect questions and commands, and therefore no clause substitutes occur for verbs such as: ‘wonder’

‘order’ or ‘ask’. However, there is substitution of elements in the initial position of expressions, and so the substitute has the effect of making ‘so’ to be in the thematic position in the clause. The second context for clausal substitution is that of conditional structure. Conditional clauses are often substituted by ‘so’ and ‘not’; like in expressions such as: ‘if not’, ‘assuming so’ and ‘supposed not’, that signal conditional statement.

In addition, modal clauses are also substituted; this is a situation in which ‘so’ and

‘not’ elements are used as substitutes to replace clauses expressing modality. Modality herein refers to the speaker’s assessment of probabilities inherent in the situation which demonstrate recognition of rights and duties in expressions using either the modal forms of the verb such as: ‘will’, ‘would’, ‘can’, ‘could’, ‘may’, ‘might’, ‘must’, ‘probably’,

‘certainly’, and ‘surely’, which are frequently followed by a clausal substitute ‘so’ or

‘not’ depending on the modality. With specifications already noted, expressions demonstrating certainty do not accept any substitution in the positive, though they do in the negative.