MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
HANOI OPEN UNIVERSITY

M.A THESIS

THE COHESIVE DEVICES
IN THE ENGLISH 7
(Phương tiện liên kết
trong sách giáo khoa tiếng anh lớp 7)

DUONG VIET LINH

Field: English Language
Code: 8.22.02.01
Supervisor: Dr. Mai Thị Loan

Hanoi, 11/2020


CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY
I, the undersigned, hereby certify my authority of the study project report
entitled THE COHESIVE DEVICES IN THE ENGLISH 7 submitted in
partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master in English
Language. Except where the reference is indicated, no other person’s work
has been used without due acknowledgement in the text of the thesis.
Hanoi, 2020

Duong Viet Linh

Approved by
SUPERVISOR

(Signature and full name)
Date:……………………

i


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my special and sincere thanks to my supervisors, Dr Mai Thi
Loan, who gave me enthusiastic instructions, precious support, and critical feedback
on the construction of the study. This has always been one of the decisive factors in
the completion of this thesis.
I also express my profound gratitude to all doctors, lecturers and staff members of
the Hanoi Open University for their valuable lectures and useful advice that are a
great of help to fulfill the study.
I would like to send my deep sense of thanks to the teachers and the seventh-grade
students at Kim My Secondary School, Ninh Binh Province for their cooperation
and the valuable information they provided in my research field.
I would like to send my heartfelt gratitude to my family and all of my friends who
have a great source of endless care and support.
Last but not least, I am also thankful to many writers whose important ideas and
notions are exploited and developed in the study.

ii


ABSTRACT
The study aims at finding out the grammatical and lexical cohesive devices in the
English 7 “Tiếng Anh 7” for seventh-grade students. In this paper, some theories of
discourse and cohesion leading to the basic background for the study are discussed.

According to that, the theory of cohesive devices by Halliday and Hasan (1976) is
the major framework. Throughout investigating 12 units in the textbook, the author
found out that the most prominent cohesive device is collocation, then conjunctions,
reference and repetition. It was suggested that during the process of teaching,
teachers should instruct students in understanding and employing these cohesive
devices correctly; To study about two types of cohesion, three research instruments
are used in chapter two and three such as observation, test delivery for 200 seventhgrade students and interviews with 05 English teachers at Kim My Secondary
School, Kim Son District, Ninh Binh Province. After analyzing, the author draws a
different frequency of use and teachers’ and students’ attitudes towards cohesion.
The research results show that lexical cohesion is used more frequently than
grammatical cohesion; students and teachers basically comprehend the importance
of cohesion. Furthermore, most of the students often commit grammatical cohesion
errors than lexical cohesion errors. The research also presents some implications for
teaching cohesion and certain sample cohesion exercises to upgrade the currently
used book. It is hoped that the results of this research would be of some use for
further study in the field.

iii


LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Table 2.1 Deictic element in nominal ellipsis .............................................
Table 2.2 Enumerative elements in nominal ellipsis ...................................
Table 2.3 Clausal ellipsis ............................................................................
Table 2.4 Grammatical Cohesion ...............................................................
Table 2.5 Lexical Cohesion ........................................................................
Table 4.1 Percentage of different types of reference words for anaphoric ties
Table 4.2 Percentage of different types of reference words for cataphoric
ties ...............................................................................................................
Table 4.3 Percentage of different types of reference words for exophoric ties

Table 4.4 Percentage of different types of lexical collocations in the English
textbook 7 (New Program) ..........................................................................
Table 4.5 Percentage of different types of grammatical collocations in the
English textbook 7 (New Program) .............................................................
Table 4.6 The result of multiple-choice task ................................................

10
11
12
15
16
26
29

Figure 1.1 Constant theme pattern .............................................................
Figure 1.2 Linear theme pattern .................................................................
Figure 1.3 Spilt rheme pattern ....................................................................
Figure 4.1 The percentage of conjunctions in the English textbook 7 (New
Program) ....................................................................................................
Figure 4.2 The percentage of ellipsis in the English textbook 7 (New
Program) ....................................................................................................
Figure 4.3 A comparison of reference, conjunction, substitution and ellipsis
in the English textbook 7 (New Program) .................................................
Figure 4.4 The percentage of types of reiteration in English textbook 7
(New Program) ..........................................................................................
Figure 4.5 A comparison between lexical collocation and grammatical
collocation .................................................................................................
Figure 4.6 The percentage of wrong grammatical cohesion in the test .....
Figure 4.7 The percentage of wrong lexical cohesion in the test ..............


7
7
8
32

iv

30
41
44
46

37
38
40
45
47
48


TABLE OF CONTENTS
Certificate of originality .............................................................................................. i
Acknowledgements .................................................................................................... ii
Abstract ..................................................................................................................... iii
List of tables and figures ........................................................................................... iv
Table of contents .........................................................................................................v
Abbreviations ........................................................................................................... vii
Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................1
1.1. Rationale ..........................................................................................................1
1.2. Aims and objectives of the study .....................................................................2

1.3. Research questions ...........................................................................................2
1.4. Methods of the study ........................................................................................2
1.5. Scope of the study ............................................................................................3
1.6. Significance of the study ..................................................................................3
1.7. Structure of the study .......................................................................................3
Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ..........................................................................5
2.1. Theoretical background of discourse ...............................................................5
2.1.1. Definition of discourse ..............................................................................5
2.1.2. Modes of discourse ...................................................................................5
2.2. Theoretical background of cohesive devices ...................................................6
2.2.1. Topical cohesion .......................................................................................6
2.2.2. Logical cohesion .......................................................................................8
2.2.3. Grammatical cohesion ...............................................................................8
2.2.4. Lexical cohesion......................................................................................15
2.3. Previous studies ..............................................................................................18
2.3.1. Previous studies overseas ........................................................................18
2.3.2. Previous studies in Vietnam ....................................................................20
2.4. Summary ........................................................................................................22
Chapter 3: METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................23
3.1. Setting of the study.........................................................................................23
3.2. Research approach .........................................................................................23
3.3. Methods of the study ......................................................................................24
3.4. Data collection ...............................................................................................24
v


3.4.1. Test ..........................................................................................................24
3.4.2. Interview .................................................................................................25
3.5. Procedures ......................................................................................................25
3.6. Summary ........................................................................................................25

Chapter 4: FINDINGS AND DICUSSING ..............................................................26
4.1. Lexical and grammatical cohesion in the English textbook ..........................26
4.1.1. Grammatical cohesion .............................................................................26
4.1.2. Lexical cohesion......................................................................................39
4.2. Cohesion used by students .............................................................................45
4.2.1. A detailed analysis of the result of test ...................................................45
4.2.2. Grammatical cohesion used by students .................................................47
4.2.3. Lexical cohesion used by students ..........................................................48
4.3. Suggestions for teaching and learning cohesion ............................................49
4.3.1. Suggestions for teaching cohesion ..........................................................51
4.3.2. Suggestions for learning cohesion ..........................................................57
4.4. Summary ........................................................................................................57
Chapter 5: CONCLUSION .......................................................................................58
5.1. Recapitulation ................................................................................................58
5.2. Concluding remarks .......................................................................................58
5.3. Limitation of the research ..............................................................................60
5.4. Suggestions for further research ....................................................................60
REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................
APPENDICES...............................................................................................................

vi


ABBREVIATIONS
AP

Adjective phrase

Adj


Adjective

Adv

Adverb

Adv P

Adverb phrase

N

Noun

No

Number

NP

Noun phrase

PP

Prepositional phrase

Prep

Preposition


Quant

Quantity

V

Verb

vii


Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1. Rationale
Today, learning English is of great importance in the interconnected and
globalized world. In order to reach the world easier and to some degree improve
their future life, students, particularly secondary students, need to be fashioned with
the basics of English. It is more critical for seventh-grade students. English is not
only relevant in the future, but in the nearest perspective, English is one of the main
subjects in the high-school entrance exam.
Tracking back to high-school entrance exams recently, we can see that the
high proportion of cohesive devices cannot be ignored. In my view, cohesive
devices, along with their usage and meaning, are valuable tools for both reading
texts and other phrases such as writing, error correction and multiple-choice
questions. It can be said that cohesive device teaching is important for seventhgrade students.
Furthermore, reading is seen as a vital resource for learning the other skills
of the mastery cycle in general, English in particular for high school students from
the Vietnamese language. Nevertheless, many secondary students do not currently
have adequate language skills to read and comprehend a written whole text in
English.
During my process of teaching secondary students, I understand that one of

the key reasons why students sometimes make errors at the sentencing level is
because they do not pay attention to the cohesive devices that are used in texts. As a
consequence, even though most of the words are known, students find it difficult to
comprehend the text or articulate their responses in questions that they discuss.
Someone who is given foreign terms beforehand is often unable to understand
sentences and word associations, which contribute to the misinterpretation of the
context of texts or misinterpretation.
Moreover, according to my previous experience of being a secondary student
and my observation at my place of work, several teachers, both my former and
present colleagues, do not teach students how to create word connections through
unified tools.
In addition to a number of items listed, a lot of people studied linguistics and
examined discourses; however, high school professors and students were not given
1


suggestions to work more effectively with regard to cohesion. Consequently, the
main impetus in carrying out this work is the critical role of coherence in the text, as
well as the difficulties of my students who are incapable of properly understanding
coherent devices in their written texts. This study focuses primarily on the
grammatical and lexical cohesive tools used in the textbook for seventh-grade
students in general for their frequency of occurrence according to the theory of
cohesion by Halliday and Hasan (1976).
1.2. Aims and objectives of the study
The study aims to clarify cohesive devices in the English textbook for
seventh-grade students in general in aspects of grammar and lexis.
To achieve the above aim the study focuses on the following objectives:
- To clarify grammatical and lexical cohesion in the English textbook.
- To find out how students use cohesion in the English textbook.
- To give suggestions for teaching and learning cohesion.

1.3. Research questions
To achieve the above aim and objectives, the thesis focuses on clarifying the
following questions:
- What are the cohesive devices used in English 7?
- How do students use cohesion in the English textbook?
- What are the positive results do teachers and students achieve?
1.4. Methods of the study
To accomplish this thesis, we will, firstly, go through a number of materials
on discourse analysis and grammar to build up a theoretical background for the
research. The study takes the theory of discourse analysis as a base on which the
most noticeable cohesive devices of reading texts on the English 7 are examined.
In order to achieve the objectives of the study, we have to follow both
qualitative and quantitative approaches, which are strategic methods in the study.
The tackling methods are statistic (getting the statistics from texts on the English 7
as mentioned in the scope of the study, finding the students’ cohesive errors through
the test, analytical (examining in detail the statistics and also analyzing the data
obtained from the textbook, synthetically (drawing striking features from the course
book observation, the test and the interview analysis)
Data will be collected, analyzed and based on the English 7. Test for students
is extremely important data collection instruments in the way that based mainly on
2


the results of the test and the interview. The study only suggests some implications
that are directly drawn from the textbook.
1.5. Scope of the study
Due to the limited time and knowledge, the study just briefly focuses on
grammatical and lexical cohesion in the reading section in the seventh-grade
English textbook with 12 units and 4 reviews in English 7 (new program). This
textbook includes two volumes 1 and 2 with 6 units of each.

For surveys, the author shall investigate 200 seventh-grade students at Kim
My Secondary School, Kim Son District, Ninh Binh Province.
Moreover, the study will not try to recommend all the possible solutions to
teach and learn cohesion and design materials but only propose some implications
that are directly learned from the textbook observation, test and interview analysis.
1.6. Significance of the study
As a study on the cohesive devices for seventh-grade students according to
English 7 (new program). This work would be benefit for the target population,
their English teacher and others interested in the field.
As for English teachers, the problems which teachers frequently concern
about are exploring the cohesive devices to motivate their students in reading and
writing skills. Some remarks on cohesive devices are used during lessons to help
and guide students in reading and writing skills such as grammatical and lexical
cohesion. In this way, some of the student’s errors on cohesion can be handled so
that students can correct interpretation of ideas communicated in the text.
Furthermore, regarding the researchers who are interested in the same or
related field, the researcher hopes this paper could work as a reliable source of
reference and a basis for them to develop their works.
1.7. Structure of the study
The study is structured in three main parts:
Chapter 1: Introduction offers the rationale of the study, aims, scope,
significance, methods and structure of the thesis. This part gives a general look at
the study.
Chapter 2: Literature review shall represent theories on discourse and
cohesion, types of cohesion such as topical cohesion, logical cohesion, grammatical
cohesion and lexical cohesion. This chapter also deals with the previous studies and
theoretical background on which the thesis is defended and set up.
3



Chapter 3: Methodology presents research methods used in the research.
Chapter 4: Findings and discussions focus on three main parts such as
findings and discussions of textbook observation, test result and interview.
Chapter 5: Conclusion provides the recapitulation; concluding marks,
limitations and suggestions for further study.

4


Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Theoretical background of discourse
2.1.1. Definition of discourse
There are many definitions of discourse. According to Widdowson (1979),
discourse is “a use of sentences to perform acts of communication which cohere
into larger communicative units, ultimately establishing rhetorical pattern which
characterizes the pieces of language as a whole as a kind of communication” (p.98).
Halliday and Hasan (1989) supposed, discourse is seen differently in the
simplest manner as a text and that “it is language that is functional” (p.38).
McCarthy (1991) put discourse in the relationship between language and the
contexts in which it is used (p.5). Crystal in the book “Introduction to linguistics”
(1992) defined discourse to be “a continuous stretch of language larger than a
sentence, often constituting a coherent unit such as sermon, argument, joke, or
narrative” (p.5).
While discourse is interpreted and described in a different manner, Halliday
and Hasan's description of language in use appears clearest. This is the term that has
also been applied to this study. In addition, the conversation applies not only to
talking and chatting, but also to written and printed words such as magazines,
documents and letters. The discourses in the research are written texts in textbook.
2.1.2. Modes of discourse
Discourse includes two different modes such as spoken and written

discourse. According to Cook (1989), “spoken discourse is often considered to be
less planned, more open to intervention by the receiver. There are some kinds of
spoken discourse, however -like lesson, lectures, interviews, and trials- which have
significant features in common with typical written discourse, etc. Conversely, there
are at times when readers do have rights to affect written discourse. Written
responds to the market” (p.50).
Brown and Yule (1983, p.13), going along the same lines, differentiate
spoken discourse from written discourse in their distinct functions such as one is
used to establish and sustain human relationships (interaction) and the other to build
and move knowledge (transactional use). In “Discourse analysis: an introduction”,
Paltridge (2006: 25) concludes that “speaking and writing draw on the same

5


underlying grammatical system but in general they encode meanings in different
ways depending on what they wish to present”.
According to Cook (1989, p.128), it is necessary for the choice of correct
coherent connections to determine whether the debate is talked about or written.
The focus of this study is on the communication process element. Therefore, while
spoken and written texts are made persuasive and appealing, we only look at unity
in written speech, not speakers.
2.2. Theoretical background of cohesive devices
A network of lexical, grammatical and other relations that connect different
elements of text is called cohesion. The text in a paragraph is organized by these
cohesions and they even create a new one to some extent. For example, by
referencing to other words and expressions in the former or latter sentences as well
as paragraphs, readers are required to interpret words and expressions. Being a
surface relation, cohesion performs the function of linking the actual words and
expression between various sentences within a text. The study performed by

Halliday in 1976 also indicates that the various linguistic means are referred by
cohesion. The linguistic means include grammatical, lexical as well as phonological
relationship of different parts of a text. Consequently, cohesion can be said to refer
to the formal relationship making text unite. The grammatical, logical, as well as
lexical relationship of sentences within a text, indicates cohesion. Indeed, the
occurring of cohesion usually takes place when a word or expression in the
discourse has the implementation depends on the other. Moreover, the system of a
language cannot lack cohesion.
On the other hand, there is coherence. Cohesion and coherence have a close
connection; however, they usually make readers confused in distinguishing between
these two. Cohesion requires readers to search for the word or expression that
appears in the former or latter sentence of a text. By contrast, coherence requires
readers to find the thought that the author hides inside. With the assistance of
cohesion, readers would find it easier to understand the coherence of the discourse.
In short, both cohesion and coherence are essential to the success of a discourse.
2.2.1. Topical cohesion
Two main problems of topical cohesion are theme and rheme. The key
material that is brought to the front clause is the subject or themes of the clauses.
Each sentence includes details to be understood by the author. Within this context,
6


additional details can be given by the other sentences. The aim of the topic is to
connect the text with previous or present text in order to further improve the speech.
Theme is divided into two categories which are unmarked and marked. Each
is different from that of the unmarked theme. The grammatical subject is the theme
with regard to declarative sentences. The subject of question is the query word,
while the word imperative is the subject of an order. On the other hand, the topic of
the marked is different because the theme of the sentence does not need to be a
subject. An adverbial can be selected as an alternative to replacing the subject.

Despite the importance of the subject matter, the rheme, known as the clause
statement, plays a significant part in giving the same subject in other sentences.
Readers need to look at both themes and rhemes in linked text, to see what trends
emerge. In a broad scale of the entire debate, there are some textual options for the
relation between theme and rheme In particular, as follows.
- Constant theme pattern:
Theme 1
Rheme 1
Theme 2 (= Theme 1)

Rheme 2

Theme 3 (=Theme 1 = Theme 2)
Rheme 3
Figure 1.1: Constant theme pattern
(Source: Halliday and Hasan, 1976)
In this pattern, the beginning of the first clause is repeated at the begging of
the next ones. For example:
Peter (Theme 1) is ten years old (Rheme 1). He (Theme 2) likes playing
soccer in his free time (Theme 2).
- Linear theme pattern
Theme 1
Rheme 1
Theme 2 (= Rheme 1)

Rheme 2

Theme 3 (=Rheme 2)

Rheme 3


Figure 1.2: Linear theme pattern
(Source: Halliday and Hasan, 1976)

7


In this theme pattern, the rheme of the former sentence is considered as the
theme of the latter one. For example:
Nam (Theme 1) is having his breakfast (Rheme 1). The breakfast (Theme
2) was prepared by his mother (Rheme 2).
- Spilt rheme pattern
Theme 2
Rheme 2
Theme 1

(=

Rheme

1a)

Rheme 1 (a+b)
Theme 3 (= Rheme 1b)

Rheme

3
Figure 1.3: Spilt rheme pattern
(Source: Halliday and Hasan, 1976)

The rheme of this pattern has two or more components that one by one
becomes the theme of following sentences. For example:
I (Theme 1) have two younger sisters: Chau and Anh (Rheme 1). Chau
(Theme 2), 19 years old, love cooking (Rheme 2). Anh (Theme 3), 15 years old,
likes listening to music in her free time (Rheme 3).
2.2.2. Logical cohesion
Another powerful sentence connector is logical cohesion. The logical
relationship holding between clauses are demonstrated by logical cohesive devices
that are created or expressed through sentences. Logical cohesive devices consist of
the following types: and, contrast, comparison, result, additional, concession,
reformulation and replacement, transition, inference, summation, enumeration and
opposition.
2.2.3. Grammatical cohesion
Grammatical cohesion can be considered as the surface connection of
sentences and clauses in written discourse. With respect to speech, the link between
utterances and tunes are grammatical cohesion. There are four types of grammatical
cohesion: reference, substitution, ellipsis and conjunction. The table below shows
four types of grammatical cohesion, which will be explained in detail:
a. Reference
Being a relation on the semantic level, reference is used in order to avoid
repetition. In the study of Halliday and Hasan (1976:32), the grammatical class of

8


referred item cannot be matched by the reference item because of the semantic level
of the relation.
This study also classifies reference into three catalogs: exophoric reference,
anaphoric reference and cataphoric one. As for exophoric reference, the information
from the context of the situation is not enough for readers to understand. Therefore,

readers are required to look for additional information outside the text in order to
interpret the mentioned information. On the other hand, anaphoric and cataphoric
can be grouped into endophoric reference. Anaphoric reference leads readers
backward to the information mentioned previously. By contrast, readers are led
forward to find the referred information in the latter sentences by cataphoric
reference.
Three types of reference that are already mentioned above are personal,
demonstrative, and comparative reference. Firstly, a reference that refers to the
category of person is called personal reference. Secondly, demonstrative reference
refers to the proximity location of mentioned item in the text. Besides, “the”, a
definite article, is considered as neutral proximity and also a reference. Moreover,
there is comparative reference which refers indirectly by means of similarity.
Comparative reference can be divided into two smaller catalogs: general and
particular. General comparative reference indicates sameness between mentioned
things, in terms of identity (the same…), similarity (similar…) and difference
(another one...). Through particular reference, comparability between things is
expressed. This kind of comparative reference compares things in term of quantity
and quality. In terms of quantity, a comparative quantifier or an adverb of
comparison that becomes the sub-modifier of a quantifier (such as as many as…)
express the particular comparison. In terms of quality, adjectives or adverbs that are
sub-modifiers of an adjective (such as higher…) express the comparison.
b. Substitution
The process of one item being replaced with another within a text is known
as substitution. Substitution indicating the relationship of sentences has the purpose
of avoiding repetition. In the study of Halliday and Hasan (1976: 88), substitution is
explained as the relationship of linguistic items like words, phrases or items of
linguistic level. Likewise, lexical-grammar relation which is on the level of
grammar and vocabulary is also a part of substitution.

9



Substitution includes noun, verb and clause. Most of the substitutes are used
across sentences, which is known as pro-form. Nouns, adverbials, predicate and
prediction as well as direct object clause may have substitutions as pro-forms.
c. Ellipsis
The structure of clauses and sentences where exists missing information is
called ellipsis. The presupposed clause carries the missing information and the
presupposing one is ellipsis. Similar to substitution, ellipsis also consists of three
types: nominal, verbal and clausal. Both substitution and ellipsis embody the
fundamental relation of different parts within a text that is a relation of words,
groups or clauses. However, there are distinctions in patterns of these two dues to
differences in the structural mechanism. Being an omission of certain elements from
a clause or sentence, ellipsis can only be recovered by referring to a part in the
previous text. Resulting from this reason, ellipsis is usually regarded as an
anaphoric relation. In other words, it is common to consider ellipsis as zero
substitution.
There are three types of ellipsis: nominal, verbal and clausal.
The first type of ellipsis mentioned is nominal one. Nominal ellipsis
happens when some modifying elements take the function of the omitted head
within the nominal group. These elements consist of not only deictic (determiners)
but also enumerative (numerals and other qualifiers), together with epithets
(adjectives) and classifiers (nouns). Especially, deictic and enumerative elements
become the head more often than the others (Halliday and Hasan, 1976). Besides,
these two can be used exophorically when performing the function of heads in
nominal ellipsis. Based on the generalized sense or the context of situation, these
heads are interpreted.
The following table describes deictic elements in details:
Table 2.1: Deictic element in nominal ellipsis
Deictic elements in nominal ellipsis

Deictic proper
Post-deictic
Specific deictic
Non-specific deictic
Adjectives:
Either, neither, all, both, Same, identical, other(s),
Possessives:
different, regular, usual,
- nominal:
some, each, any…
certain, famous, wellMy mother’s, John’s, …
known, obvious, typical,
- pro-nominal:
odd …
My, your, her…; mine,
yours, hers…
10


Demonstratives:
This, that, these, those,
which
(Source: Halliday and Hasan, 1976)
Another kind of element of nominal ellipsis is enumerative. Three types of
enumerative elements are ordinals, cardinals and indefinite qualifiers.
Table 2.2: Enumerative elements in nominal ellipsis
Enumerative elements in nominal ellipsis
Ordinals

Cardinals


Indefinite quantifiers

First, second, next, last, The three, these three, all Many, more, much, most,
third, fourth…
three, the same three, any several, few, a little, a bit,
three…
lots, hundreds …
Example
- Would you like to have
some more water?
- No, thanks. This is my
fourth. (fourth (glass of)
waster)

Peter was the first guest to - Did your students finish
come to the restaurant, the assigned task in time?
following by these three. - Most did (Most students)
(these three guests)

(Source: Halliday and Hasan, 1976)
As for epithets and classifiers that are remaining elements of nominal
ellipsis, people prefer choosing substitution to ellipsis when writing (Halliday and
Hasan, 1976: 167).
Secondly, verbal ellipsis also plays an important role in discourse.
According to Halliday and Hasan (1976:167), the occurrence of verbal ellipsis is
when a verbal group has structure that does not express fully its systemic features.
Lexical ellipsis and operator ellipsis are two types of ellipsis. Examples of these two
are as follow:
- Lexical ellipsis:

+ Is she coming? – She may be; I don’t know
+ He didn’t pass the exam, did he?
- Operator ellipsis:
+ Are you doing your homework? – No, drawing
+ What should I do next? – Do your best.
One of the differences between lexical ellipsis and operator one is the
omission of the verb. Lexical ellipsis has the lexical verb omitted from the verbal
11


group, which is different from operator ellipsis involving the omitted operator
ellipsis. Another difference is the appearance of the subject. Lexical ellipsis has its
subject in contrast to operator ellipsis. Having the function of supplying, confirming
and repudiating a lexical verb, operator ellipsis has a close connection to its
previous statement or question. As a result, other preceding elements of the lexical
verb are able to be omitted. Besides, question tags can clearly exemplify lexical
ellipsis. The initial element of lexical ellipsis must be kept, despite the similarity in
the omission of other preceding elements in operator ellipsis.
Other than the information mentioned above, these two kinds of ellipsis can
also be differed by systemic features of verbal groups, which are: popularity,
finiteness, voice and tense.
Last but not least, it is clausal ellipsis. External ellipsis can also be involved
in verbal ellipsis. This is when other structural elements of the clause are omitted.
Clausal ellipsis includes propositional, as well as modal, together with general and
zero ellipsis.
Table 2.3: Clausal ellipsis
Clausal ellipsis
Propositional

Modal


General

Omission of the Omission of the All element
complement
and subject and the one omitted
the
adjunct
+ finite operator +
lexical ellipsis
operator ellipsis

Zero
but Entire
omitted

clause

Examples
Who was in charge What are you Justin is singing – Your dog ate her
of this assignment? going to do this Justin Timberlake? cake. – Who told
- Anna was
weekend?
you?
- Go to the beach
with my friends
(Source: Halliday and Hasan, 1976)
As for propositional ellipsis, when there is mood as well as polarity
expressed in the clause, propositional ellipsis occurs. On the other hand, modal
ellipsis normally results from WH-question that omits mood in the clause. The table

also indicates that propositional ellipsis is implied by lexical ellipsis. On the
contrary, modal ellipsis is implied by operator one. Another element of clausal
12


ellipsis is general. Due to the presence of WH-element or another single clause
element, general ellipsis occurs. The purpose of these elements is to get more
information or further specification. Finally, there is zero ellipsis. Zero ellipsis of
which the clause is omitted entirely can be replaced with the substitute “so”. Take
the sentence from table 4 for example. Instead of saying “Who to you?”, people can
have another way to ask “Who told you so?”
d. Conjunction
The fourth kind of grammatical cohesion is conjunction by which cohesive
relations are indirectly expressed through certain meanings. And the presence of
other components in the discourse is presupposed by these meanings (Halliday and
Hasan, 1976:226). As a consequence, referring to other parts of the text, people can
understand fully the relationship that is signaled by conjunction (Nunan, 1993:26).
In short, conjunction plays a role in binding parts of a text and marking the
difference of these stages.
The study of Halliday and Hasan (1976) indicates there are four kinds of
conjunction: additive, adversative, causal and temporal. These four are
distinguished in term of external conjunction (ideational meaning) as well as
internal conjunction (interpersonal meaning).
The first type of conjunction is additive. Additive can be divided into
different catalogs as simple, complex, comparative and appositive. The simple type
of additive includes and, nor, or. However, coordinate relations established between
verbs, adverbs, nominal, verbal, adverbial or prepositional groups and clauses such
as both… an, either… or, neither… nor can be confused with additive. Therefore,
the need of distinguishing these two is important in order to identify conjunction.
(Halliday and Hansan, 1976).

As for complex, it is divided into emphatic and de-emphatic. The emphasis
of additional point connected to the previous one is known as emphatic. It can also
be used in stressing some alternative interpretations. Some examples of emphatic
include moreover, besides, further additionally, alternatively… De-emphatic is the
way in which information is introduced as afterthought, such as incidentally, by the
way…
With respect to comparative, it consists of some words express similarity
such as likewise, similarly, in the same way… or dissimilarity like by contrast, on
the other hand… Appositive is another catalog of additive conjunction. It consists
13


of phases expressing expository such as I mean, in other words… and
exemplificatory such as for example, for instance…
Secondly, there is adversative by which a contrary point is provided to
readers. Adversative can be divided into four types: proper, contrastive, corrective
and dismissive. Some common proper adversatives are yet, however, but…
Contrastive adversatives include but, on the other hand, actually, at the same time,
in fact… Corrective adversatives have some typical phases like on the contrary, at
least, instead… In any case, at any rate, anyhow… are some of dismissive
adversatives that are used commonly.
The third type of conjunction is causal. Through causal conjunction, the
connection between sentences is established. This can also be considered as a cause
– consequence relationship. Causal conjunction can be divided into four types:
general, specific, conditional and respective. Some general causal conjunctions are
so, thus, because of… Specific causal conjunctions include as a result, for this
reason, for this purpose… Phases such as under the circumstances, then… belong to
conditional causal one. Some typical respective causal conjunctions are with regard
to this, in this respect, otherwise…
Finally, temporal that is the last of type conjunction indicates a temporal

relationship between sentences. There are four types of temporal conjunctions:
simple, complex, sequential or conclusive and summarizing. Simple temporal
conjunctions have some distinctive words such as then, next, afterwards… The
complex one consists of phases like this time, the last time, at once, meanwhile,
until then, at the moment… There are typical phases of conclusive temporal
conjunctions, including in the end, at first, at last, finally… To sum up, up to now,
briefly, up to this point… are some phases to identify summarizing temporal
conjunction.

14


Table 2.4: Grammatical Cohesion
Grammatical Cohesion
Reference

Substitution

Ellipsis

Conjunction

Personals

Nominal

Nominal

Additive


One/ones,
We, I, you, Our/ ours, the same
they, he, she, my/mine,
it, one
your/yours,
their/theirs,
his,
her/hers its,
one’s
Existential

Possessive

Demonstratives
These/
those,
here/there

Verbal

so,

And, or, or else, and
also, by the way,
furthermore, likewise,
in other words, thus,
on the other hand…

Verbal


this/that, do

Definite article
The

Adversative
Though, but, however,
yet, only, in fact,
rather, at least, on the
contrary, in any case, I
mean…

Clausal
Not, so

Clausal

Causal
Because, otherwise,
then, so, therefore…

Comparatives

Temporal

Other, else, such, different,
same, similar(ly), identical

First,
next,

then,
before that, final, at
first, formerly, at
once, to sum up, in
conclusion…
(Source: Anastasia Tsareve, 2010)

2.2.4. Lexical cohesion
Lexical cohesion is the way that people weave items within text together.
Not only is the creation of cohesion within a text but also the increase of textually
within a discourse provided by grammatical cohesion together with lexical
cohesion. The occurring of lexical cohesion is when there are semantical relations
between vocabulary items within a discourse. Lexical cohesion is considered as one
15


of the most outstanding features of cohesion. Indeed, Eggins (1994:101) had a
statement that: “Lexical relation analysis is a way of systematically describing how
words in a text relate to each other, how they cluster to build up lexical sets or
lexical settings”. In the study of Halliday and Hasan, lexical cohesion is divided
into two main types, which are reiteration and collocation.
Table 2.5: Lexical Cohesion

Reiteration

Lexical Cohesion
Repetition
Synonyms
Super-ordinate
General word


Collocation
(Source: Halliday and Hasan, 1976)
a. Reiteration
The first type is reiteration, which consists of repetition of lexical items.
Being reiterated, the item can be a repetition of an earlier item as well as a synonym
or near-synonym, and even a super-ordinate or a general word.
The method of repeating exactly a lexical item mentioned in the previous
sentences, clauses or texts are called repetition. Moreover, the purpose of repetition
is logical emphasis. This is vital in directing readers what main words and phrases
of utterances they should pay attention to in order to understand the discourse as the
way the author expects.
The use of synonyms or near synonyms provides another form of lexical
equivalence. This well-known method has a function of avoiding unnecessary
repetition. Synonyms or near-synonyms are words that share the same meaning with
the others. When a part of speech or word class changes, this cohesive device can be
referred to synonyms or near synonyms.
With respect to super-ordinate, this occurs when the previous noun has a
synonym in the latter one and this synonym covers higher level of generality.
Furthermore, words that provide more general concept than super-ordinates are
known as general words, or have other names as general super-ordinate words.
Halliday and Hasan indicate in their study that the condition for general words to be
considered as cohesive is when they refer the same as what they are assuming
before, and when there is a combination of a reference item “the” or one of the
demonstratives (this, that, these, those).
16


b. Collocation
Richard Osberge (1985, p.46) stated in his book that “collocation refers to

the restriction on how words can be used together; for example, which prepositions
are used with particular verbs, or which verb and nouns are used together”.
Collocation is also defined by Mc Cathy (1990, p.158) as the ability of cooccurrence between words of language.
In fact, rather than using alone, words are used together and the meaning of
a sentence depends on the words that make up the sentence. The meaning of other
words governs word meaning, which has a tendency to occur in its environment.
Despite numerous word combinations, common and regular words are tended to be
used in order to have a natural speech or writing. These regular combinations or
words are named collocation by linguistics.
In short, words that go together with each other are known as collocation.
There are two types of collocation, resulting from the differences in the structure.
These two are grammatical collocation and lexical collocation.
With respect to grammatical collocations, the combination of grammatical
collocations often includes a lexical content word accompany a grammar function
word such as a noun, a verb or an adjective plus a preposition. The grammatical
collocation has four main kinds. The first one is a verb plus a preposition, the
second one is an adjective plus a preposition, the third one is a noun plus a
preposition and the last one is a preposition plus a noun. When grammatical
collocations occur, people call the open-class word as the dominant or the base.
This word is essential in determining collocation that is the word it can collocate
with.
Another element of collocation is lexical collocations. They are word pairs
that are lexically restricted and just only a subset of the collocation that has the
same meaning can be used in similar lexical content. Rather than containing
prepositions, lexical collocations include numerous combinations of nouns, verbs,
adjectives and adverbs. The common patterns of lexical collocations are as follow: a
noun plus a noun, an adjective plus a noun, a quantitative plus a noun, a verb plus a
noun, a noun plus a verb, a verb plus an adverb, a verb plus an adjective, a verb plus
a verb and an adverb plus an adjective (Richard Osberge, 1985, p.46).


17