PHÂN TÍCH các PHƯƠNG TIỆN LIÊN kết từ VỰNG TRONG THƯ yêu cầu TIẾNG ANH

Introduction
1. Rationale
In the late 1970s and 1980s, Discourse Analysis was greatly influenced by a number of
studies. Halliday emphasized the social functions of language. In Britain, Sinclair and
Coulhard developed a model for the description of Teacher-Pupil talk; other similar works
have dealt with Doctor-Patient interaction, interviews, debates and so on. Meanwhile, in
America, the work of Goffman, Sack and Jefferson is important in the study of
conversation, turn-taking, and other aspects of spoken interactions. Thus, Discourse
Analysis is a rapidly expanding field, providing insights into various aspects of language in
use and therefore of great importance to language teaching. Traditionally, language
teaching has dealt with pronunciation, grammar and vocabulary; but now it is Discourse
Analysis that raises our awareness of how to put this knowledge into action to gain
successful communication.
Business letters in general and letters of enquiry in particular have long been considered as
key documents in the business context due to the fact that Vietnam nowadays is step by
step adhering to the development in the world. Consequently, we have joined a lot of
international organizations and corporations; we also have signed international documents
particularly in the business transactions with other countries. Among those documents and
texts, business correspondence plays a key role. In fact, writing business correspondence is
becoming a more and more important task in many corporations and companies. The letter
of enquiry is indeed significant among various kinds of business letters thanks to its
frequency in use. So many factors have to be taken into consideration in the process of
writing a letter of enquiry; namely the format, the style, the language, so on and so forth.
Additionally, the knowledge of cohesion and coherence is greatly essential in discourse
construction and comprehension for communication. Cohesion and coherence are actually
regarded as the important aspects of language usage.
With all the reasons above, the author would like to choose “An Analysis of Lexical
Cohesive Devices in English Letters of Enquiry” as the topic of this study
2. Aims of the study
The main aims of the thesis are as follows:
1

1. To identify lexical cohesive devices used in English Letters of Enquiry.
2. To realize the role and contribution of lexical cohesive devices to successful
letters of enquiry.
3. The research questions of the study
In order to achieve the aims stated, the study is meant to find out the answer to 2 following
research questions:
1. What are the lexical cohesive devices used in English Letters of Enquiry?
2. How do lexical cohesive devices contribute to the success of a letter of enquiry?
4. Assumptions of the study
In conducting the research, I have assumed that there are some differences in the use of
lexical cohesive devices in English enquiry letters and in other kinds of text and each
lexical cohesive device plays a different role in terms of importance level in the success of
a letter of enquiry. I drew heavily, among many publications, on Brown and Yule’s (1983)
Discourse Analysis and on the classic study of Cohesion in English by Halliday and
Hasan (1976).
5. Significance of the study
Theoretical significance: This study contributes to verifying the correctness and
significance related to linguistic theories in discourse analysis by working on a certain kind
of discourse (Letters of Enquiry).
Practical significance: This thesis helps gaining an insight into the use of lexical cohesive
devices in the Letters of Enquiry.
6. Scope of the study
This study focuses on the lexical cohesive devices in only one kind of business
correspondence, namely the Letter of Enquiry in English. The paper explores the
process in which coherence is achieved in the formal written genre of letters of
enquiry. As explicitness, conciseness and unambiguity are fundamental qualities in
such a discourse, the main emphasis is put on lexical cohesive devices, such as
2
repetition or careful use of synonymy. Data analyzed is taken from 15 English letters
of enquiry chosen randomly.

7. Methodology
7.1. The data of the study
The data is taken from 15 English Letters of Enquiry chosen randomly from some foreign
corporations and organizations.
7.2. Methods of the study
To attain the aims of the study, the research shall conduct the following activities:
Firstly, set up a framework of lexical cohesive devices in order to find out the defining
characteristics of Letters of Enquiry as a genre.
Secondly, three previous studies on lexical cohesive devices used in other types of genre
are reviewed to latter compare with the use of lexical cohesive devices in letters of
enquiry.
Thirdly, various letters of enquiry are collected and analyzed in terms of lexical cohesive
devices: reiteration and collocations. All the 15 letters are analyzed to identify the lexical
cohesive devices used, their frequencies of occurrence are counted, and it is through this
process that the significance level of each device to the letters is made clear.
Finally, necessary comments and conclusions are made according to the data analyzed.
The approach to the study is both inductive and deductive, based on a collection of sample
letters of enquiry.
8. Design of the study
Within the scope mentioned above, the study consists of three main parts: introduction,
development, and conclusion
Part B (Development) is divided into four chapters. In the first chapter, Literature Review,
theoretical knowledge of cohesive devices and Letters of Enquiry is presented. The second
chapter deals with the literature review of some previous studies on the similar issue. The
third chapter, also the main one of the study, focuses on the analysis of the lexical cohesive
3
devices employed in the English letters of enquiry. In the last chapter, we attempt to
present some findings and implications.
Chapter I. Theoretical Background
1.1. Discourse and Discourse Analysis

1.1.1. Discourse Analysis
Discourse analysis is concerned with the study of the relationship between language and
the context in which it is used. This has been developed from the works of different
disciplines in the 1960s and early 1970s, including linguistics, semiotics, psychology,
anthropology, and sociology. Discourse analysts study language in use: written texts and
spoken data of all kinds under the approach different from those old grammarians. There
have been numerous interpretations to what is meant by Discourse Analysis.
British discourse analysis was mainly influenced by M.A.K. Halliday’s functional
approach to language. Halliday’s framework emphasized the social function of language
and the thematic and informational structure of speech and writing. De Beaugrande (1980),
Halliday and Hasan (1976) as well as Prague School of linguists have made their
significant contribution to this branch of linguistics in pointing out the link between
grammar and discourse.
Yule (1996: 139) states: “In the study of language, some of the most interesting questions
arise in connection with the way language is ‘used’, rather than what its components are.
(…) We were, in effect, asking how it is that language-users interpret what other language-
users intend to convey. When we carry this investigation further and ask how it is that we,
as language-users, make sense of what we read in texts, understand what speakers mean
despite what they say, recognize connected as opposed to jumbled or incoherent discourse,
and successfully take part in that complex activity called conversation, we are undertaking
what is known as discourse analysis.”
As can be noticed clearly, the term “discourse analysis” is very ambiguous. For the sake of
research, we would like to take the definition from Hoa’s (2000) An Introducition to
Discourse Analysis as the base of our study: Discourse analysis is considered “as a study
of how and for what purposes language is used in a certain context of situation and the
linguistic means to carry out these purposes”
4
1.1.2. Discourse and Text
The Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics (1998) defines
discourse as follows: “Discourse is a general term for example of language use, i.e.

language has been produced as the result of an act of communication.” Sharing the same
concern, many other linguists have so far given definitions of discourse. Widdowson
(1979) states: “Discourse is a use of sentences to perform acts of communication which
cohere into larger communicative units, ultimately establishing a rhetorical pattern which
characterizes the pieces of language as a whole as a kind of communication.” Whereas
Crystal (1992: 25) says: “Discourse is a continuous stretch of language larger than a
sentence, often constituting a coherent unit such as a sermon, argument, joke or a
narrative.” Quite differently from the others, Halliday and Hasan (1976) give a simple
definition: “We can define text (discourse) in the simplest way perhaps by saying that it is
language that is functional.”
Linguists have paid much attention to the distinction between a discourse and a text since
confusion of these two terms may result in the failures of discourse analysis. Even though
that the distinction is not always clear and the two terms are used interchangeably by some
linguists. As in the above-mentioned definition of discourse by Halliday and Hasan, “text”
is employed to refer to “discourse”; they see “text” as a “semantic unit” characterized by
cohesion. The two authors state: “A text is a passage of discourse which coherent in these
two regards: it is coherent with respect to the context of situation, and therefore consistent
in register; and it is coherent with respect to itself, and therefore cohesive” (1976: 23). For
some other linguists, “text” is used for writing and “discourse” for speech. The third group
of linguists like Brown & Yule, Nunan, Widdowson, and Cook see discourse as a process
and text as a product. Brown & Yule argue that text is the representation of discourse and
the verbal record of a communicative act.
In this study, we would like to take Widdowson’s viewpoint of the difference and the
interrelationship between the two as the base: “Discourse is a communicative process by
means of interaction. Its situational outcome is a change in state of affairs: information is
conveyed, intentions made clear, its linguistic product is Text.” (1984: 100)
5
1.1.3. Discourse Context
1.1.3.1. Context
David Nunan (1993: 7) defines: “Context refers to the situation giving use to the discourse,

and within which the discourse is embedded.” According to him, context consists of two
types: linguistic and non-linguistic. Linguistic context is in fact referred to as co-text. It
surrounds or accompanies the piece of discourse under analysis. Non-linguistic context
was first noticed by the anthropologist Malinowski who created the terms “context of
situation” and “context of culture”. His idea was later taken up by Firth (1957) who placed
great emphasis on the “social context”. Firth saw the context of situation as crucial
determinants of utterance meaning. However, like Malinowski, Firth did not provide a
theoretical account of the effect of context on utterance meaning.
Lately, Halliday and Hasan (1976) focus on context of situation when they report the study
of Malinowski (1923). The three headings field, mode, and tenor which had been proposed
for these are considered highly general concepts for describing how the context of situation
determines the kinds of meaning that are expressed. Yet, according to Halliday and Hasan,
the linguistic features, which are typically associated with a configuration of situational
features – with particular values of the field, mode, and tenor - constitute a register.
1.1.3.2. Register
Generally speaking, there are different ways to define register. Halliday and Hasan (1976:
23) defines: “The register is the set of meanings, the configuration of semantic patterns,
that are typically drawn upon under the specified conditions, along with the words and
structures that are used in the realization of these meanings.” They acknowledge that the
concept of cohesion needs to be supplemented by that of register since the two together
effectively define a text.
Register is the linguistic feature of the text that reflects the social context in which it is
produced. It reflects the degree of formality of the particular text by using a characteristic
set of lexical and grammatical features that are compatible with the particular register. A
lower register is represented by the use of more colloquial and everyday-type vocabulary
and fewer complex grammatical forms while a higher register requires the use of lexical
6
items that are professional or academic in nature along with denser grammatical structure,
resulting in a more literate spoken or written text. Register is theorized by Halliday and
Hasan (1985) in terms of the contextual variables of field, mode, and tenor.

Field: In the view of Halliday and Hasan (1976: 22), the field of discourse is “the total
event, in which the text is functioning, together with the purposive activity of speaker or
writer.” Therefore, they argue that field includes the subject-matter as one element in it.
Field is also considered to refer to what is happening, to the nature of the social action that
is taking place. Hatim and Mason share the same idea in that field is different from subject
matter because one field maybe characterized by a variety of subject matters.
Mode: The mode of discourse refers to the medium of the language activity including
channel. Channel is an important aspect of mode. Hatim and Mason (1990) show their
view of mode as follows: “The mode of discourse refers to what part the language is
playing, what is that the participants are expecting the language to do for them in that
situation, the symbolic organization of the text, the status that it has, and its function in the
context, including the channel (is it spoken or written or some combination of the two?)
and also rhetorical mode, what is being achieved by the text in terms of such categories as
persuasive, expository, didactic, and the like.”
Tenor: As for Halliday and Hasan, “the tenor refers to the type of role interaction, the set
of relevant social relations, permanent and temporary, among the participants involved.” It
is the tenor that relays the relationship between the addresser and the addressee. In more
detailed, the tenor of discourse is considered to refer to who is taking part, their statuses
and roles. This also points out what kinds of role relationship got among the participants.
In summary, field, mode, and tenor of discourse are in a dialectical relationship. Hatim and
Mason (1990: 51) affirm this: “These three variables are independent: a given level of
formality (tenor) influences and is influenced by a particular level of technicality (field) in
an appropriate channel of communication (mode).”
1.1.3.3. Genre
Discourse is frequently studied from the perspective of register (level of formality) or
genre (communicative purpose, audience, and conventionalized style and format). A genre
is a culturally and linguistically distinct form of discourse such as narrative, exposition,
7
procedural discourse, etc. In recent years, genre has been a controversial topic for a large
number of linguists who form the two main trends.

For the systematic linguists, texts have their specific linguistic form to correspond to their
social purposes. Text is the realization of social practices and this relationship is mutually
predictive. This group of scholars put social context into two communication planes, one
of which is genre or context of culture, the other is register of context of situation.
The other linguists see the relationship between context and language in quite opposite
direction. They classify genre as smaller parts of registers. For instance, Couture (1986,
quoted in Swales, 1990:41) states: “Unlike register, genre can only be realized in
completed texts or texts that can be projected as complete, for a genre does more than
specify kinds of code extant in a group of related texts; it specifies conditions for
beginning, continuing, and ending a text.” According to Swales (1990) and Bhatia
(1993:13), “a genre is a recognizable communicative event characterized by a set of
communicative purpose(s) identified and mutually understood by the members of the
professional and academic community in which it regularly occurs.”
In short, the study follows the latter point of view in which genre is understood as a sub-
type of register as one register may include different genres. For example, a story can be a
myth, a legend, or a tale. The relationship among these elements is that language is
realized through registers, and registers are in turn realized through genres and texts.
1.1.4. Spoken and Written Discourse
Spoken and written discourses represent different modes for expressing linguistic meaning.
Despite some similarities, these two forms of discourse are basically different from each
other. The major difference between them is taken from the fact that spoken discourse is
changeable and written is permanent.
Spoken discourse is often less planned and orderly, more open to intervention by the
receiver while the written one is well structured and the possibilities for subordinate
participants are very limited. Brown and Yule (1983) suggest that spoken and written
discourse serve various functions: the first is used for the establishment and maintenance
of human relationship (interactional use); and the second for the working out of and
transference of information (transactional use).
8
This study focuses on cohesion in written discourse of letters of enquiries, regarded as the

product of a communicative process. Therefore, disciplines of discourse analysis must be
followed carefully.
1.2. Cohesion
1.2.1. The Concept of Cohesion
The concept of cohesion is closely connected with text. It is defined as the grammatical
and lexical relationship between different elements of a text. According to Yule (1996), a
text is usually considered to have a certain structure which depends on factors quite
different from those required in the structure of a single sentence. Some among those
factors are described in terms of cohesion, or the ties and connections which exist within a
text.
Halliday and Hasan (1976:4) also define cohesion in a similar way: “The concept of
cohesion is a semantic one; it refers to relations of meaning that exist within the text, and
that define it as a text.” They also point out that cohesion often occurs where the
interpretation of some elements in the discourse is dependent on that of another.
To summarize, cohesion refers to the linguistic elements that make a discourse
semantically coherent; or as Hoa (2000: 23) indicated “cohesion refers to the formal
relationship that causes texts to cohere or stick together”.
1.2.2. Cohesion vs. Coherence
The distinction between cohesion and coherence has not always been clarified partly
because both terms come from the same verb cohere which means sticking together. In
fact, cohesion is the network of different kinds of formal relations that provide links
between or among various parts of a text, and is expressed partly through the grammar and
partly through the vocabulary. Coherence, on the other hand, is understood as the quality
of being meaningful and unified. As for Nunan (1993), coherence is “the feeling that
sequences of sentences or utterances seem to hang together”. Coherence refers to the type
of semantic and rhetorical relationship that underlines texts.
If cohesion refers to the linguistic elements that make a discourse semantically coherent,
then coherence involves with what makes a text semantically meaningful.
9
Cohesion is the realization of coherence, and coherence is something created by the

readers in the act of reading the text. The two categories represent the interrelated aspects
that make a text or discourse coherent and different from random ones. In short, coherence
is embodied by a system of cohesive devices and cohesion is mainly used to ensure
coherence.
1.2.3. Cohesion and Discourse Structure
According to Halliday and Hasan (1976: 10), discourse structure is a type of structure – the
structure of some postulated unit higher than a sentence such as a paragraph, or some
larger entity such as episode or topic unit. The concept of cohesion is set up to account for
relations in discourse without the implication that there are some structural units that are
above the sentence. Cohesion, in this view, refers to the range of possibilities that exist for
linking something with what has been previously mentioned.
They also affirm the possibility of setting up discourse structure, including some entity as
paragraph or topic unit. The structure is considered to truly exist in these cases, at least in
certain genres or registers of discourse. Though we cannot show whether there is a
functional relation between two sentences, or a similar unit, we can specify a limited
number of possible structures, such as types of modification or subordination, transitivity
or modal expressions and the like. Instead, the two authors assure: “We have to show how
sentences, which are structurally independent of one another, may be linked together
through particular features of their interpretation; and it is for this that the concept of
cohesion is required.”
1.2.4. Types of Cohesion
According to Halliday and Hasan (1976), the classification of cohesion is based on the
linguistic form. The type of cohesion depends either on semantic relation in the linguistic
system or on lexico-grammatical relations. In other words, the cohesive relation can be
interpreted as being either lexicogrammatical in nature or semantic. It can be made clearer
in the following description:
Nature of cohesive relation Type of cohesion
Relatedness of form Substitution and ellipsis; lexical collocation
10
Relatedness of reference

Semantic connection
Reference; lexical reiteration
Conjunction
Table 1.1 : Type of Cohesion
(Source: Haliday and Hasan, 1976:304)
Reference, substitution and ellipsis are clearly grammatical; lexical cohesion, as the name
implies, lexical. Conjunction is on the borderline of the grammatical and the lexical; the set
of conjunctive element can probably be interpreted grammatically in terms of systems, and
some conjunctive expressions involve lexical selection. However, it is better to put it in the
group of grammatical cohesion as it is mainly grammatical with a lexical component
inside. Consequently, we can refer to grammatical cohesion and lexical cohesion as
follows:
Grammatical cohesion Lexical cohesion
Reference
• Exophoric
• Endophoric
- personal
- demonstrative
- comparative
Substitution
• Norminal substitution
• Verbal substitution
• Clausal substitution
Ellipsis
• Norminal ellipsis
• Verbal ellipsis
Conjunction
• Additive
• Adversative
• Causal

• Temporal
• Others
Reiteration
• Same word/repetition
• Synonym/near synonyms
• Superordinates
• General words
Collocation
• Noun + Noun
• Adjective + Noun
• Verb + Noun
• Noun + Preposition
• Adjective + Preposition
• Adverb + Adjective
• Verb + Preposition
11
• Clausal ellipsis
Table 1.2: Grammatical and Lexical Cohesion
1.2.4.1. Grammatical Cohesion
Reference
In the view of Halliday and Hasan (1976: 32), reference is a semantic relation and “since
the relationship is on the semantic level, the reference item is in no way constrain to match
the grammatical class of the item it refers to”. The two scholars also distinguish situational
and textual reference by contrasting exophora and endophora. Then they conclude that
reference items may be exophoric or endophoric; and if endophoric, they may be anaphoric
or cataphoric.
Substitution
Substitution is a relation in the wording rather than in the meaning and within the text. It is
the use of substitute word or phrase to avoid repetition. Most of the substitutes are pro-
forms within sentences, which can be used across sentences. There are three types of

substitution: norminal, verbal, and clausal substitution.
Ellipsis
Ellipsis is an omission of certain elements from a sentence or a clause and can only be
recovered by referring to an element in the proceeding text. The former is non-cohesive,
and the latter is cohesive. Elliptical cohesion always appears anaphoric. Ellipsis can be
repetition. This is quite similar to substitution in terms of three types: norminal ellipsis,
verbal ellipsis, and clausal ellipsis.
Conjunction
Conjunction differs from substitution, ellipsis and reference in the fact that it is not a
device for reminding the readers of previously-mentioned entities, actions, and states of
affairs. It is not in the kind of anaphoric relation. It is, however, a truly cohesive device
because it signals relationship that can only be understood through reference to other parts
of the text. There are four types of conjunction: temporal, causal, additive and adversative.
12
1.2.4.2. Lexical Cohesion
Lexical cohesion was first advanced in terms of collocation by Firth (1957) and later
developed by Halliday (1961, 1966). Lexical cohesion occurs when two words in a
discourse are semantically related in some way. Halliday and Hasan (1976) classify lexical
cohesion into two main categories: reiteration and collocation.
Reiteration
Reiteration, according to Halliday and Hasan (1976: 318) is “the repetition of a lexical
item, or the occurrence of a synonym of some kind, in the context of reference; that is,
where the two occurrences have the same referent.” Reiteration involves repetition,
synonyms and near synonyms, superordinates, and general words.
Collocation
Collocation is known as the tendency to co-occur in the same lexical environment without
depending on any semantic relationship.
Within the scope of this minor thesis, we would like to focus on the analysis of only lexical
cohesive devices used in English enquiry letters.
1.3. The Letter of Enquiry in English and its properties

1.3.1. Business Letters
1.3.1.1. Definitions
Business correspondence is one of the principle means used by the enterprises to keep in
touch with its customers; and customers form their impressions of the enterprise from the
tone and the quality of the letter it sends out. It, therefore is often believed to be the
“ambassador” of an enterprise. A great deal of business in the world is conducted by this
means. Thus, it is extremely important to be able to write good business letters that
represent one’s self and one’s firm to take the best advantages.
No intelligent, forward-thinking businessman would tolerate a rude, careless or untidy
salesman or representatives. Yet thousands of letters go out everyday that reflect discredit
upon the firm they represent, letters that antagonize as surely as an offensive or bad-
mannered individuals. Such letters could do more harm than good, for often they destroy
13
the very confidence and goodwill they seek to establish and maintain. Therefore, the form
of the letter with good quality paper and attractive letterhead plays its significant role, but
what is more important to decide its success or failure is the message it carries. The
business correspondence requires the writer to express himself or herself accurately in a
language that is plain, clear, courteous and readily understood. The entire success of good
business letter writing is to write simply and in an easy and natural style.
1.3.1.2. Why to use the business letter
When comparing oral and written communication, a variety of reasons for putting things in
writing are found out as follows:
• Written documents serve as permanent records. Clearly, while talks and memories
can fade away, written documents allow people to store data.
• Written channels are more effective than oral ones for presenting numerical data
and complex information.
• Written channels are more convenient for the recipient than oral ones. This remark
seems more obvious in international business as talking on the phone requires
immediate comprehension while a fax or a letter enables the receiver to process the
information more accurately.

• Written channels may enable the sender to convey his/her message more
effectively. Writers can present their ideas in the most efficient way, even in
difficult situations.
• Written channels are less expensive than oral ones for reaching large group of
people or transmitting information over long distances.
Among written means of correspondence, business letters nowadays seem not as
convenient as some other electronic ones like e-mails, telexes, faxes, cables, which can be
transmitted in just a few seconds. Letters; however, may be the best means of
communication in many cases – when the corresponding context is highly formal or when
an important, reliable document with signs and stamps is needed.
1.3.2. General Description of Letters of Enquiries
14
1.3.2.1. What is a Letter of Enquiry?
Actually, the letter of enquiry can be referred to as request letter or inquiry letter or letter
of inquiry. Among various kinds of business letters, letters of enquiry seems to occupy a
considerable proportion. As the name states, a letter or enquiry is one type of business
letters which is written to enquire something. The letter of enquiry is useful when you need
information, advice, names, or directions. There are two types of inquiry letters: solicited
and unsolicited.
You write a solicited letter of inquiry when a business or agency advertises its products or
services. For example, if a software manufacturer advertises some new package it has
developed and you can't inspect it locally, write a solicited letter to that manufacturer
asking specific questions. If you cannot find any information on a technical subject, an
inquiry letter to a company involved in that subject may put you on the right track. In fact,
that company may supply much more help than you had expected (provided of course that
you write a good inquiry letter).
The letter of inquiry is unsolicited if the recipient has done nothing to prompt your inquiry.
For example, if you read an article by an expert, you may have further questions or want
more information. You seek help from these people in a slightly different form of inquiry
letter. As the steps and guidelines for both types of inquiry letters show, you must

construct the unsolicited type more carefully, because recipients of unsolicited letters of
inquiry are not ordinarily prepared to handle such inquiries.
A businessperson will inevitably have to write many letters of enquiry. The need for
information or special favours, services, or products arises daily in almost every type of
business. The reasons for writing a request letter are diverse. They can be to obtain
information (such as prices or technical data), to receive printed materials (such as
booklets, catalogues, price lists, and reports), to receive sample products, to order
merchandise, to engage services (including repair or maintenance services), to make
reservations (at hotels, restaurants, theaters, etc.), or to seek special favours (such as
permission, assistance, or advices), so on and so forth.
15
While certain requests, such as ordering merchandise, are routine matter, the general
guidelines for business letter writing are especially important when writing any request.
Tact and courtesy are essential when the writer want the recipient to act. And if we want
him to act promptly, our letter must encourage him to do so. Therefore, all letters of
enquiry should
- be specific and brief
- be reasonable
- provide complete, accurate information
1.3.2.2. Genre and Register of Letters of Enquiry
Genre: a genre is a culturally and linguistically distinct form of discourse. As mentioned
previously, communicative purpose, audience, and conventionalized style and format of
the text are features related to genre, but it is communicative purpose that shapes the genre
and gives it internal structure. A letter of enquiry belongs to business correspondence
genre, and therefore it attempts to sound “businesslike”
Register: Enquiry letters are registered by a mixture of language: official, formal and
expressive. All of these make it a unique kind of text.
Field: The field of enquiry letters is nothing than the field of business. For this, the
language used in enquiry letters tends to be standard, regular but flexible.
Tenor: The tenor of enquiry letters is interpersonal relationship which is the relationship

between writers and readers because we are working on written discourse.
Mode: The mode of letters of enquiry is in the form of formal written discourse.
Under “Mode”, we would like to discuss the following parts:
a. Length of discourse
In this study, we would like to concentrate on “neutral” letters of enquiry, i.e. not too short
and not too rhetorical. The right length includes the right amount of information. If senders
leave out vital information, they may loose the opportunity to be answered and acted on
their enquiries.
16
Totally, enquiry letters are rather short and simple, mostly presented in only one page. If
we take sentence unit to measure the length of discourse of this kind of business letters,
then they have the average length of only around 4 sentences.
Among 15 selected letters for this study, the shortest one consists of 3 sentences and the
longest is of 5 sentences.
b. Kinds of sentences
The study of letters of enquiry shows that the common trend is to use compound and
complex sentences. A paragraph often consists of one or two sentences so it conveys a lot
in a sentence. The following is a typical starting paragraph of enquiry letters which tells
the reader what sort of firm the writer is from and how the reader’s firm is known.
We are a large record store in the center of Poitiers and we are indebted for your
address to the Trade Delegation of Japan in Hanoi. [Enquiry Letter (EL) 2]
Our analysis of 61 sentences taken from surveyed letters of enquiry shows that simple
sentences account for approximately only 23% (14/61 sentences) while the rate of 77% is
for compound and complex sentences (47/61 sentences). In addition, most of simple
sentences are the ones that come in the last paragraph to create a constructive look for the
letter. Below are some examples.
We look forward to hearing from you soon [EL 2]
We thank you in advance for your trouble. [EL 8]
c. Length of sentences
Many linguists’ surveys show that the easiness and difficulty in reading a text is related to

the length of sentences. Although the average length of each sentence in letters of enquiry
is of 35 words – means rather long – discourse of enquiry letters is fairly easy to read. This
results from the principles to make a successful letter: clear, concise, informative
(complete), correct, courtesy, concrete, conversational, constructive and conventional.
The shortest sentences in 15 selected letters vary in a very wide range from 2 to 20 words
whereas it is from 24 to 47 words per sentence for the longest one. We would like to take
some longest examples here as illustration for the fact that a sentence in enquiry letters
usually conveys a lot.
17
We would be very grateful if you let us know whether this enquiry is still valid and if
so, would you let us have the above-mentioned samples and your specification, upon
receipt of which we will be able to prepare a detailed quotation for you. [EL 10]
From the description in your catalogue, we feel that your Lotus range is the one most
suitable for our demand, and should be glad if you would send us your quotation for
men’s and women’s coats, in both small and medium size, to be delivered C.I.F.
Alexandria. [EL 11]
d. Paragraphs
In order to help the reader to comprehend the letters, it is very common for the writer to
put each separate idea in a separate paragraph. The majority of letters of enquiry consists
of three or more paragraphs divided as follows:
(1) First paragraph: mentions of which firm the writer is on behalf and how he/she
knows about the reader’s firm.
(2) Middle paragraphs: consists of one or more than one paragraphs clarifying the
exact request(s).
(3) Final paragraph: expresses gratitude to the recipient’s attention and anticipated
response to the request.
The survey shows that 8/15 discourses of enquiry letters, equal to over 50%, consists of 3
paragraphs, 4 letters have 4 paragraphs each, 2 letters have 2 paragraphs each, and only
one is of 5 paragraphs.
e. Mood and Voice

Mood: Through working on 15 chosen letters, it is realized that imperative sentences are
used seldom in comparison with the declarative ones, which are the main occurrences in
letters of enquiry. The imperatives can be counted for totally only 5 times (in EL 3, 4, 9,
15, 11) and are often related to the inquiry or request. For instance:
Please quote your latest price and state the time of delivery and the most favourable
terms of payment,… [EL 4]
When quoting, kindly send us a range of samples of the goods. [EL 9]
18
Voice: Style of letters of enquiry should not be so simple that it becomes discourteous. It is
normally suggested that the passive voice should be one of stylistic devices for formal
style documents. However, the study among selected letters shows completely contrary
results. The body part of most letters is often written in active voice with the repeated use
of subject “we”.
The passive is rarely used as we could realize only 4 cases (in EL 3, 5, 14, 15) during the
study of letters for the paper. Following are some instances.
The work would have to be completed before the end of February and you would be
required to sign a contract to that effect. [EL 3]
Your name and address have been given to us by the Japan-Vietnam Trade
Association. [EL 5]
Delivery would be required within three months of the order. [EL 14]
The prices are preferred to be CIF London including packing. [EL 15]
Chapter II. Literature Review
Thanks to the open-door policy renovation process, Vietnam is now expanding its
relationship with the other nations in economic, scientific and technical field. English has
19
been widely used in almost every field, particularly in business. As a popular means of
communication, English is considered a key to success in international business ventures.
Regarding a variety of tasks facing the Vietnamese in business area, we cannot help
mentioning business letters writing. Business letters are becoming more and more popular
in the country today. Therefore, the question “how to write effective business letters” has

become a challenging issue for both experienced businessmen, i.e. the people who are
actually involving in the business activities, and inexperienced people, i.e. those who are
learning business correspondence writing. Considerable researches have been carried out
with attempt to satisfactorily answer the above-stated question by looking inside various
aspects of business letters, and the usage of lexical cohesive devices is a significant one.
The author has consulted a number of such studies and would like to review here some
among them due to the sake of later comparing and analyzing the data of lexical cohesive
devices in Letters of Enquiry. The data analysis of these papers is presented in order to
make a distinction between the use of lexical cohesive devices in Enquiry Letters and other
types of business letters. Unfortunately, the first two papers do not give the statistics of
collocation. We, therefore, can present the findings of reiteration only.
The first researched was an M.A. thesis named “A Contrastive Analysis of English and
Vietnamese Sales Letters” by Tran Thi Thanh Hai (2001). After examining thirty English
sales letters, Hai comes to the conclusion of the frequency of occurrence of reiteration as
follows.
Table 2.1. The frequency of occurrence of reiteration in English sales letters
Types of reiteration Frequency of occurrence (%)
Repetition 69.4
Synonyms 14.7
Near-synonyms 4.9
Superordinate 11
20
Graph 2.1. Frequency of occurrence of lexical cohesive devices in
English sales letters
The data found shows that in English sales letters, repetition takes up the highest portion
(69.4%); Synonyms come next with the percentage of 14.7%. Superordinates are of a little
higher percentage than synonyms with 11% and antonyms (4.9%) ranks the fourth.
Antonyms are of the smallest proportion in English sales letters. These figures can lead us
to the conclusion that repetition is by far the most frequently used lexical cohesive device,
so it is considered the most effective one in sales letters to create cohesion and cohesion. In

addition, it is undeniable that the other lexical cohesive devices also play an indispensable
role in the creation of cohesion and cohesion in sales letter writing.
The second study is also an M.A. thesis written by Le Thi Mai Hien which is “An Analysis
of Cohesive Devices in English Application Letter” (2004). The process of researching on
twenty English application letters has enables her to reach the following results.
Table 2.2. The frequency of occurrence of reiteration in English application letters
Types of reiteration Frequency of occurrence (%)
Repetition 53.4
Synonyms 10.4
Near-synonyms 11.3
Superordinate 24.9
21
Graph 2.2. Frequency of occurrence of lexical cohesive devices in English application
letters
Repetition in English application letter also occupies the first position among the four
kinds of reiteration with up to 53.4%. Differently from English sales letters, superordiates
rank the second with a considerably higher percentage, 24.9% compared with 11%.
Synonyms and Near-synonyms account for nearly the same portion, which is respectively
10.4% and 11.3%. However, unlike in sales letters, near-synonyms in application letters
seem to play a more important part, with 11.3% compared with 4.9%.
The next study we would like to review is another M.A. thesis by Phuong To Tam (2003)
“An analysis of Coherence and Cohesion and a Contrastive Analysis of Lexical Cohesive
Devices in English and Vietnamese”.
Unlike the two other mentioned papers, the data for this study is not from business
correspondence but from a chapter (chapter 5) on International Trade in the textbook
“International Business – An Integrated Approach” by John J. Wild, Kenneth L. Wild, and
Jerry C. Y. Han (1998). The attention of the study is paid to considering contrastive
analysis of lexical cohesive devices (including reiteration and collocation) in English
(source language) in the original textbook and their equivalents in Vietnamese (target
language) in the translation version. The author attempts to collect data in both English

version and Vietnamese one to see the frequencies as well as similarities and differences of
each device and sub-device of lexical cohesive devices in the discourse of both languages.
22
Here, we would like to review the results found in the English language only for the sake
of relevance of statistics to this minor thesis. The data analysis is presented as follows.
Table 2.3. Repetition – Categories and Frequencies of Occurrence
Types of repetition Frequency of occurrence (%)
Noun + Noun Phrase 63
Proper Names 12.4
Other content words 15
Tittles 9.6
Graph 2.3. Repetition – Categories and Frequencies of Occurrence
The table and graph above shows the categories and frequencies of occurrence of repetition
in English in a chapter from a business textbook. It is clearly seen that repetition is most
often seen with nouns and noun phrases. All the other types of repetition (proper names,
other content words and titles) range from 9.6% to 15% accounting for a quite small
portion in the total.
Table 2.4. Synonyms – Categories and Frequencies of Occurrence
Types of synonyms Frequency of occurrence (%)
Nouns 47
Verbs 42
Adjectives 11
23
Graph 2.4. Synonyms – Categories and Frequencies of Occurrence
Graph 2.4 illustrates the categories and frequencies of occurrence of synonyms. While
synonyms is most found with nouns (47%) and then verbs (42%), synonyms of adjectives
accounts for more than 10% and none with adverbs. This can be explained by the fact that
nouns and verbs act as subjects and predicates, sometimes, these parts in sentences should
be emphasized by using synonyms with different shapes of meaning.
Table 2.5. Antonyms – Frequencies of Occurrence

Types of synonyms Frequency of occurrence (%)
Nouns 23
Verbs 29
Adjectives 48
Graph 2.5. Antonyms – Frequencies of Occurrence
24
Table 2.5 reveals the frequencies of occurrence of antonyms of different parts of speech. It
is clearly seen that unlike synonyms, antonyms happen mostly with adjectives, of 48%,
next comes to the verbs of nearly 30% and the least in nouns.
The paper by Phuong To Tam then focus on different types of collocations in English in
which she classified collocations (in terms of structure) into two main types: Noun-
collocations with noun as one element and the others without the appearance of nouns.
Table 2.6. Percentage of Noun-collocations and other types
Types of collocations Frequency of occurrence (%)
Noun-collocations 75
Others 25
Graph 2.6. Percentage of Noun-collocations and other types
As can be seen from the graph, noun-collocations dominate all other types of collocations
with up to three quarters of the whole pool. The other types occupy for only 25% of all the
cases.
In summary, it is noticeable that many researches on cohesive devices and particularly
lexical cohesive devices have been carried out in many discourses and genres. However,
none has been done to English letters of enquiry. Thanks to the results gained from these
studies, we can see more clearly the distinction in the use of lexical cohesive devices in
letters of enquiry and in other kinds of texts.
Chapter III. Lexical Cohesive Devices in
English Letters of Enquiries
25