安徽大学学位归档材料之三

安徽大学硕士学位论文中、外文摘要

2004年　4　月　26　日

Acknowledgements

I wish to avail myself of this opportunity to express my sincere thanks to all those who have offered me help in the course of writing this thesis.

My thanks are particularly extended to Professor ZhuYue —— my supervisor, who has struck me with his expertise on which my thesis is based and constructed. I am grateful to him for his instruction, patience, kindness and advice.

Likewise, I express my heartfelt gratitude to all the teachers of the School of Foreign Studies of Anhui University, especially to Professor Hong Zengliu, Professor Chen Zhengfa, Professor Li Yongfang, Professor Zhou Fangzhu, Professor He Gongjie, Professor Cheng Yongsheng and Professor Zhang Zuwu for their lectures.

I am also grateful to Professor Yin Fulin, who is the dean of the School of Arts & Law of Anhui University of Technology for his advice and encouragement.

Lastly, I would like to express my indebtedness to my wife —— Mrs. Li Ying, who has not only given me the necessary moral support but also typed the thesis for me.

Many linguists, including Halliday, hold the view that register plays an important role in the formation of cohesion (Zhang Delu, 1999). The author thinks that this conclusion is too general, for register is the variety of language used in a given situational context, which is examined on three parameters: the field of discourse, the mode of discourse, and the tenor of discourse. So if register is a controlling factor of cohesion, the functional tenor should be the crux, because it is for functional tenor that a text is composed and the message is conveyed.

This thesis focuses on the study of the relation between cohesion and functional tenor in the light of theories of the functional grammar. The author believes that functional tenor in the register plays a great role in cohesion and many choices of cohesive devices in a text are decided by the functional tenor of the text.

In order to illustrate the author’s belief, this thesis is organized into four chapters. Chapter One is a survey on the theories of cohesion and functional tenor, especially the competing theories about the determining factors in the formation of cohesion. Chapter Two and Chapter Three are the discussions of the relations between nonstructural cohesion, structural cohesion and functional tenor respectively. Chapter Four is the conclusion of this thesis.

In the discussion of the relation between nonstructural cohesion, structural cohesion and functional tenor, the author collects some texts of two different functional tenors in the field of bank at random and makes some careful analysis. Half of the texts are expository entries in the English encyclopedias, and the rest are persuasive advertisements in English magazines. It is found in the analysis that the occurrence and frequency of cohesive devices vary regularly with the functional tenor of the text, and cohesive devices contribute to the achievement of functional tenor. However, there are some exceptions. For example, the functional tenor of texts makes no difference in the frequency of substitution and ellipsis.

Based on the study of textual cohesion and two different functional tenors, the author suggests in what way and to what degree textual cohesion and functional tenor are related to each other.

In addition, the author points out that this thesis is only a preliminary study on the relation between cohesion and functional tenor. It is expected that this finding can be of some help in the future study in this field.

包括韩礼德在内的许多语言学专家都认为语域一致性是语篇形式标志成为衔接标志的决定因素。作者认为这一结论过于笼统，因为语域是情景语境中三个变量（语场、语旨和语式）的变异而形成的各种各样的语言变体。如果说语域是衔接标志形成的决定因素，那么功能语旨一定起着重要的作用，因为任何语篇都是围绕特定的功能语旨（即交际目的或意图）而展开的，并为实现这一功能语旨来组织语篇的。

本文从功能语法角度探讨了衔接与功能语旨的关系。作者认为功能语旨在语篇衔接中起着重要作用，衔接手段的选择受语篇的功能语旨所支配。

为了证明作者的观点，本文分为四大章节。第一章节回顾了有关衔接和功能语旨的理论，以寻求作者的理论基点。第二章节和第三章节分别讨论了非结构衔接与结构衔接和功能语旨的关系。第四章节得出结论。

在讨论语篇衔接和功能语旨的关系中，作者对所收集的两类不同功能语旨的有关“银行”方面的语篇进行了分析。一类选自英语杂志的劝说性广告；另一类选自英文百科全书中的词条。分析结果表明，语篇中衔接手段出现的频率随着语篇的功能语旨不同而产生变化，同时又对语旨的实现起着促进作用。但是，及物系统中的“过程”、非结构衔接中的“替代”和“省略”似乎是个例外，它们在两类语篇中的出现频率没有明显差异。

基于语篇衔接和功能语旨关系的讨论，本文指出了语域对语篇衔接的影响方式与程度。作者同时也认为本文只是对衔接与功能语旨关系的初步研究，有其局限性。但作者期望本文研究结果会对未来同一领域的研究有所启示。

关键词：语篇 结构衔接 非结构衔接 衔接机制 功能语旨

Chapter One Introduction ---- A Survey on Cohesion and Tenor of Discourse

1. Background knowledge about cohesion

In 1976, Halliday and Hasan published their book Cohesion in English. In this book, five kinds of cohesive devices ?reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction and lexical cohesion ?were discussed in detail. Ever since its publication, the book has aroused the interest and enthusiasm of many linguists. The definition and the scope of cohesion have caused much debate.

According to Halliday and Hasan (1976), cohesion is a kind of semantic relation: if the interpretation of any term in a text requires reference to some other items in the text, there is cohesion. Widdowson H.G. (1978), however, argues that cohesion exists when the development of proposition is found between different parts of a sentence or between sentences. Again, he says that if the combination of sentences makes a text, the connection between sentences is grammatical cohesion. In the view of Crystal (1985), cohesion refers to the syntactic and semantic connection of linguistic forms in the surface structure. Petofi (1990) thinks that there are two kinds of cohesion. One is text cohesion, referring to text structure, words of the same semantic field, etc., while the other is compositional cohesion, referring to the cohesion which results from the communication topic, connection, co-reference, etc.. There is no widely accepted definition of “cohesion” among the linguists and scholars.

As far as the scope of cohesion is concerned, no agreement can be reached, either. Halliday and Hasan (1976) refer to cohesion as the semantic relation between a linguistic form and its referential counterpart that can be found in the text. Their study focuses on the ideational function of cohesion. Subsequently, some other linguists, such as Vandijk (1977) and Fries (1983), argue that since cohesion is a kind of semantic relation, it should also be related with textual meaning and interpersonal meaning instead of being limited to ideational meaning. Then, Halliday and Hasan (1985) enlarge the scope of cohesion to include parallel structure, theme-rheme structure, given-new structure, etc.. Hu Zhuanglin (1994) and Zhang Delu (1999, 2000) believe that transitivity structure and mood structure have also cohesive function.

2. Background knowledge about the tenor of discourse

The term “tenor” was first mentioned by Spencer and Gregory (1964). Later, Gregory (1967) makes further study on the tenor of discourse. According to the work of Malinowski and Firth and other linguists, Gregory puts forward his own classification of elements in the context of situation. He puts the elements into three categories: field of discourse, tenor of discourse, and mode of discourse.

According to Gregory (1978), tenor of discourse reflects how the addresser interacts with the addressee and includes the intention of communication. He further explains that the exact nature of the addressee relationship depends upon divisions of social structure, which determines the number and type of roles we could play, either in relation to social or logical attributes or to personal attributes. These divisions may be determined by economic variables, by education, by profession, by sex, and so on. Every person who belongs to a given society will fit in some of the categories, and his status, within the community, will depend on the groups that he can claim membership in.

Tenor can express the degree of formality of the relationship or it may reflect the role that language is playing in the situation. So Gregory (1978) divides the tenor of discourse into two: personal tenor and functional tenor.

Personal tenor is concerned with the social roles of participants together with their status relationship and personalities. It thus handles the degree of formality, familiarity and technicality of linguistic exchanges (Morley G.D., 1985).

Functional tenor, in the view of Morley G. D. (1985), embodies the area formerly handled by role; it is concerned with the social function or role of an utterance, identifying the purpose for which the language is being used, such as description, directions, request, etc..

The interaction of individuals involves not only the status relationship but the intent of communication. Any communication is undertaken to achieve certain intention. For example, advertising is to persuade potential customers to buy products or services, and news broadcasting is to offer the audience information, etc.. All these intentions comprise the functional tenor of context of situation. Gregory (1978) categorizes functional tenor into four: “phatic”, “expository”, “persuasive”, and “didactic”.

Cheng Qilong (2001) holds cohesion to be the one that concerns the realization between the interconnected conceptual meaning and the formal expression. He believes that formal cohesion can be categorized into componential and structural, and that the realization of the formal cohesion can be lexical, phonetical and structural as well.

This thesis classifies cohesion into non-structural cohesion and structural cohesion, which is in agreement with the division of cohesion made by Halliday and Hasan (1985). Structural cohesion consists of thematic structure, transitivity structure, and mood structure, while non-structural cohesion includes reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction and lexical cohesion. The formal realization of cohesion is termed as cohesive device in this thesis. This thesis will make contrastive study on different cohesive devices in written English of two different functional tenors. One is persuasive, and the other is expository.

As to the theory of cohesion so far, few people explore the elements that determine the choice of cohesive devices in a text, though some linguists like Ehrlich (1990) and Martin (1992) to some extent state that conversational situation and conversational intent have great influence on the surface structure of a text. They fail to find out how great the influence is on cohesion and in what way. Halliday (1976) also makes such a comment that the continuity of register is the key element which determines the transition of a linguistic form into a cohesive device. However, it disappoints us that he does not go any further to tell us how register affects the formation of cohesion in a text. With this question in mind, the author of this thesis tries to make further study on the relation between cohesion and functional tenor of the register in order to tell the readers in what way and to what degree they are related to each other.

This chapter focuses on non-structural cohesive devices. Some tentative explorations into their contribution to functional tenor will be detailed, in order to see what lies between the non-structural cohesion and functional tenor of texts.

Here non-structural cohesion as stated in Chapter One refers to the lexical cohesion and the other four cohesive devices including reference, substitution, ellipsis and conjunction.

2.1 Lexical cohesion and functional tenor

The content of a text tenor conforms to its functional tenor. In order to achieve functional tenor, the writer or speaker always tries to make the information offered relevant enough to the functional tenor to draw the reader抯 or listener抯 attention.

In this section, some basic quantitative researches are made into the collected texts of two different functional tenors 棗 exposition and persuasion, with the purpose to see how functional tenors influence the choice of lexical cohesion and how lexical cohesion contributes to the realization of functional tenors.

2.1.1 Theoretical basis

As a linguistic phenomenon, the cohesive relation of lexical items has been probed and discussed by many linguists. Saussure (1915:15) points out that a word can always evoke everything that can be associated with it in one way or another. But he does not go any further about it, let alone cohesion. Later, Firth (1957) discusses the relationship between words in terms of “location”. He believes that a reader or listener would know a word by the company it keeps. Still, Firth fails to make further study in this respect. It is Halliday and Hasan who begin to make a serious study of lexical cohesion. They define lexical cohesion as “the cohesive effect achieved by the selection of vocabulary” (Halliday and Hasan, 1976:274), and they also state that lexical cohesion “comes about through the selection of items that are related in some way to those that have gone before” (Halliday and Hasan, 1994:330).

Hoey (1991) says that the study of the greater part of cohesion is the study of lexis, and the study of cohesion in text is to a considerable degree the study of patterns of lexis in text. In his analysis, he focuses on the repetition patterns of lexical items. Hoey (1991:83) divides lexical cohesive devices into nine, which are listed below in decreasing order of importance:

1. Lexical repetition
2. Complex lexical repetition
3. Simple mutual paraphrase
4. Simple partial phrase
5. Antonymous complex paraphrase
6. Other complex paraphrase
7. Substitution
8. Co-reference
9. Ellipsis

However, his classification is much too complex and overlaps with grammatical cohesion. In this thesis, the classification of Halliday and Hasan (1986) is adopted: lexical cohesion mainly includes reiteration and collocation.

Reiteration is a form of lexical cohesion which involves the repetition of a lexical item. At one end of the scale, a general word is used to refer back to the lexical item, while at the other end of the scale, a number of things in between such as a synonym, a near-synonym, or a superordinate are used (Halliday and Hasan, 1976). Thus, reiteration takes the form of two kinds of chain: an identity chain and a similarity chain. An identity chain consists of lexical items referring to the same entity such as recursion of an identical item or expressions with reference to the identical item while a similarity chain contains items referring to similar subjects or items saying similar things. Items entering into the similarity chain are related according to one of such meaning relations as synonymy, antonymy, hyponymy and metonymy.

Collocation in discourse is the association between lexical items that have a tendency to co-occur regularly. If lexical items in any pair or cluster, be they dense or loose, are associated in some way or other, or co-occur in some recognizable lexical-semantic relation in discourse, they produce a cohesive force (Halliday, 1985:312. Halliday & Hasan, 1976:284). The patterns of co-occurrence and those patterns of “what goes with what” play an important role in the realization of functional tenor.

Roughly, collocation can be classified into three types (Jiang Zhiweng, 1998): ① Habitual collocation. This type of collocation refers to the predictable co-occurrence of lexical items that result from their natural or habitual combination. For example, we expect a pretty woman, but a handsome man. ② Text-oriented collocation. This refers to the continuous co-occurrence of lexical items in a meaningful text. For example, in a weather report, we would expect cohesive clusters of words about geographic areas and weather conditions. ③ Collocation of sense variation. This refers to the particular co-occurrence of lexical items, one of which has changed its usual sense, and is endowed with a particular significance. For instance, we have a list of color names that have picked up new meanings in co-occurrence with different words.

It is obvious that the collocation of the second type is within our concern, for this type of collocation is often used to achieve cohesive function.

2.1.2 Data analysis

Since lexical cohesion includes reiteration and collocation, the author takes the identity chain, the similarity chain, and collocation as the lexical cohesive devices, and the study of them will help to find out whether the form of lexical cohesion varies with functional tenor of texts.

Table 2.1 shows the occurrence of identity chains, similarity chains and collocation sets in the texts¹collected for my analysis.

Table 2.1 Lexical Cohesive Devices Employed in Each Text

It is shown in this table that there are more identity chains than similarity chains, and much fewer collocation sets than the other two cohesive devices in the six texts analyzed. But if we look into each individual text, it is found that things are different.

For example, Text One has more identity chains (eight in number) than

similarity chains (three in number), with three collocation sets. However, in Text Two, there are more similarity chains (eight in number) than identity chains (six in number), with only one collocation set. Specifically speaking, the texts which have more identity chains than similarity chains are Text One, Text Four, and Text Five. When taken a close look at, they are all advertisements of banks. The other three texts, which are introductions to banks, have more similarity chains than identity chains. As far as collocation set is concerned, the texts that have more than one collocation set are advertisements of banks. Those texts that have only one collocation set are all the introductions to banks.

Therefore, the conclusion can be drawn that the introductions to banks have more similarity chains than advertisements of banks, but the latter have more identity chains. This shows that lexical cohesive devices vary with the functional tenor of the texts.

Now let us see how the lexical cohesion contributes to the functional tenors of texts. To save the reader抯 time, the author just takes Text Three and Text Four as examples.

Text Three is an introduction to “Bank of England”, taken from the New Columbia Encyclopedia (1975). Text Four is an advertisement of “Citybank Singapore” taken from Time (May 25,1998). Text Three has a total of 312 words, and Text Four 224; Text Three contains fourteen sentences, while Text Four eighteen.

It is known that the more frequently a lexical item occurs, the better it is highlighted. Halliday (1964) points out that lexical cohesion in its clearest form is carried out by two or more occurrences, in close proximity, of the same lexical item, or of items paradigmatically related in the sense that they may belong to the same lexical set. So the lexical items of the highest frequency in the two texts need to be found out first, for repetition is the striking instance of reiteration.

Table 2.2 shows the words that most frequently occur in the two texts.

In contrast, in Text Four which is also about a bank, the two words that have higher frequency are “you / your” and “money”. It seems that “your money” is the main concern of Text Four rather than the bank. This is different from Text Three, and the difference is made by the functional tenors. Text Two is an advertisement of the Citybank of Singapore. Its functional tenor is to persuade the potential customer to invest their money in the bank. That is why “you”,” “money”, “bank” and “we” are frequently used. “You” here refers to the potential customers, “money?refers to the customers?money, “bank” refers to the Citybank of Singapore or the bank itself, and “we / us / our” is of course the representative of the Citybank of Singapore. Together the four words may tell us the relationship between “your money” and “our bank”, “what we offer” and “what you can get”.

The analysis of the other collected texts also supports this finding. The repetition of words in the expository entries directly and overtly reflects the functional tenor by repeating the word “bank” being introduced and the bank items. In contrast, the repetition of words in persuasive advertisements of banks contributes to the functional tenor by repeating any possible words, including but not confined to the bank being advertised, to achieve persuasion.

2.1.2.2 Identity chains

Table 2.1 shows that there are fewer identity chains in the text of expository entry (for example, Text Three) than in the text of persuasion (for example, Text Four).

There are three identity chains in Text Three. The longest one is the chain of “Bank of England”, which has identity ties in most of the sentences. The break is filled in by another chain, the chain of “a commercial bank”, the predecessor of “Bank of England”. The other one is the chain of “Great Britain”, which occurs in Sentence One, Sentence Four, and Sentence Five. The three chains highlight the functional tenor of Text Three in that they foreground the “Bank of England” and its predecessor, the “commercial bank” in Great Britain.

In contrast, in Text Four, there are twice more identity chains. The longest two are the chain of “you” and that of “your money”, with six and five identity ties respectively. Both “you” and “your money” have a large coverage and appear in most sentences of Text Four, which obviously shows that this text concerns your money. The other four chains are the chains of “Citibank”, “Singapore”, “expertise” and “we / us”. It is safe to say that the identity chains in Text Four give us a deep impression that “we” offer you “expertise” about “your money” in “Citibank of Singapore”. It corresponds with the functional tenor of Text Four, which is to persuade potential customers to invest in the bank.

2.1.2.3 Similarity chains

Let us look at Table 2.3 and locate the differences between the two texts in the similarity chains.

In Text Three, the relationships between items in each chain fall into four types: near-synonymy, antonymy, hyponymy, and metonymy. However, in Text Four, the four chains belong to only one kind of relationship 棗 near-synonymy.

Table 2.3 Similarity Chains in Text Three & Four

The longest and most complex chain in Text Three is that of the“bank”, which holds two hyponyms such as “commercial bank” and

“central bank”, and four metonyms such as “office”, “branch”, “the issue department” and “the banking department”. The second longest chain in Text Three is that of “Great Britain”, which covers two synonyms: “United Kindom” and “British Isles”, and three metonyms: “Scotland”, “Northern Ireland” and “London”. The other chains are of the relationship of near-synonymy (fund / bond, affairs / business, control / handle, stand on / locate in), metonymy (government / governor), and antonymy (public / private). All the similarity chains in Text Three, whether they are noun chains or verb chains, tell us either the history or location of the bank or the function of the bank. That is to say, they are all closely related to the functional tenor of the text.

In the four chains of Text Four, two are concerned with “bank”. One is “Citibank / global bank”, which refers to “Citibank Singapore”, while the other is “US$ 50,000 / equivalent”, which is the minimum sum to open an account in Citibank Singapore. The other two chains are concerned with “your money”. One is “one thing / expertise / what we can offer”, which refers to the expertise of investing your money. The other one is “offer / give”. The goal or object of the verb “offer” is “expertise” and that of the verb “give” is “treasury and investment information on the money market”. All these indicate that the four chains in Text Four meet the need of the functional tenor.

In the process of analyzing all the collected texts, it can be found that just like the identity chains, similarity chains in the expository entries are exclusively about the bank itself or its function, while similarity chains in persuasive advertisements are about the advantages of the bank to achieve persuasion.

2.1.2.4 Collocation sets

2.1.3 Summary

2.2 Reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction and functional tenor

In this part, the relationship between functional tenor and the other four non-structural cohesions, i.e., reference, substitute, ellipsis, and conjunction will be the focus of study.

2.2.1 Theoretical basis

2.2.1.1 Reference

According to Halliday and Hasan, reference refers to the items that have the property of rementioning, “that抯 to say, instead of being interpreted semantically in their own right, they make reference to something else for their interpretation” (Halliday & Hasan, 1976:31). So reference is a semantic relation. Pragmatically speaking, reference includes situational reference and textual reference. Therefore reference items may be exophoric or endophoric; and if endophoric, they may be anaphoric and cataphoric. In general, there are three types of references: personal, demonstrative, and comparative.

Personal reference is reference by means of function in the speech situation, through the category of persons. Demonstrative reference is reference by means of location, on a scale of proximity. Comparative reference is indirect reference by means of identity or similarity (Halliday & Hasan, 1976). All the three are shown clearly in the following table.

Table 2.4 Reference

2.2.1.2 Substitution

③ Clausal: so, not
2.2.1.3 Ellipsis

Ellipsis generally refers to that form of substitution in which the item is replaced by nothing. For example:

Give me one dollar the first day and two for the next.

The nominal group “two” is presupposing, meaning “two dollars”, and so is “the next”, meaning “the next day”.

Like substitution, ellipsis is a relation within the text, and in the great majority the presupposed item is in the preceding text. That is to say, ellipsis is normally an anaphoric relation. Ellipsis can also be nominal, verbal and clausal.

Conjunctive elements express certain meaning which presupposes the presence of other components in the discourse. In general, conjunctive adjuncts are of three kinds:

A. Adverbs, including: ① simple adverbs (coordinating conjunctions): but, so, then, next, etc.

②compound adverbs in 杔y: accordingly, subsequently, actually, etc.

③ compound adverbs in there- and where-: therefore, thereupon, whereas, etc.

B. Other compound adverbs, e.g. furthermore, nevertheless, anyway, instead, besides; and prepositional phrases, e.g. on the contrary, as a result, in addition

C. Prepositional expressions with 憈hat” or other reference items, e.g. as a result of that, instead of that, in spite of that, because of that

There are various classifications of the types of conjunction. This thesis adopts the classification offered by Halliday and Hasan (1976), who divide conjunctions into four categories: ① additive ② adversative ③ causal ④ temporal.³

2.2.2 Data analysis

Now the author would like to probe into the occurrence of the four cohesive devices in the collected texts⁴, with the purpose to see what relation lies between the cohesive devices and functional tenor. The occurrence of all the cohesive devices is shown in Table 2.5.

Table 2.5 Frequency of the Four Cohesive Devices in the Given Texts⁵

Table 2.5 shows that the highest occurrence of four cohesive devices is the reference, with a total occurrence of 222 in the given texts. Conjunction and ellipsis are only 23 and 14 respectively in total. Substitution takes the least share with a total occurrence of 3. Each individual text carries the same feature, that is, reference takes overwhelmingly the largest share.

Now let us rearrange these figures in two groups according to their functional tenors, and see whether there is any relation between these figures and the functional tenor.

Table 2.6 shows that persuasive advertisements have more cohesive devices than expository texts with the total ratio of 142 to 120. Both the advertisements and the expository entries have much more references as their cohesive devices. The largest gap lies in the occurrence of conjunctions. In the advertisements, the total number of conjunctions is 21, while in the entries the total is only 2. The occurrence of the ellipsis in the advertisements happens to be the same as that in the entries. As for the occurrence of the substitute, in different functional tenors, there is only a slight difference.

Table 2.6 Frequency of Cohesive Devices in Different Functional Tenors

It can be clearly seen from Graph One that the occurrence of the cohesive devices in the expository entries goes up steadily with the length of the texts. However, it is not true with the persuasive advertisements. For example, Text One and Text Four are of almost the same length, with the total number of words of 225 and 227 respectively, but Text One possesses more cohesive devices, with the total of 54. In Text Four, the number is only 38. This means that the occurrence of cohesive devices in persuasive advertisements does not vary with the length of the text. Long texts may have lower occurrence of cohesive devices, and short texts may employ higher occurrence of cohesive devices.

Table 3.7 shows that in the advertisements almost no actors are related with “bank”, but 26 goals are bank terms, and there are four beneficiaries. But in the entries, more actors and goals are bank terms, 15 and 43 respectively. Nearly all the actors are bank terms. (Remember most of the material processes in the entries are in the passive form, so there are few actors in the entries.)

3.2.2.3 Circumstances

All the types of circumstances in the collected text are listed in Table 3.8.

Table 3.8 tells us that circumstances in the entries surpass those in the advertisements in number and in type. In the advertisements of the four types of circumstances employed, location comes out first in number, which covers more than half of the total. And there are no circumstances of extent, cause, role, matter and angle in the advertisements. However, in the entries, nearly all the types of circumstances can be found with the exception of angle. Of all the types in the entries, location, manner and role take larger shares, with 20, 15 and 11 respectively. In introducing banks, emphasis is often laid on the history, function or role, and operation of the bank. Thus, time, place, role and manner are naturally more needed in the circumstances.

Table 3.8 Types of Circumstances in the Collected Texts

In the advertisements, location enjoys a higher and more frequent occurrence in all the texts. In addition, all the locations are about place, no location of time occurs, and the location of place is not confined to the field of bank. It is because present tense is often used in persuasion. So there is no need for location of time, but the location of time is always needed to locate the situation of the shifts of ways for persuasion.

3.2.3 Summary

Based on the above analysis, it can be concluded that transitivity structure as a whole contributes to and is confined by the functional tenors of the texts analyzed.

It is no surprising that the material processes outnumber all the other five processes in a great degree in both persuasive advertisements and the expository entries. First, the material process is the process of “doing”. Moreover, the collected texts are all about “doing” something with the entries introducing banks, and the advertisements advertising banks. However, they hav