and but or as cohesive devices in english written discouse - a contrastive analysis with vietnamese equivalents and implications for teaching writing skill at utehy

1

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES
o0o

NGUYỄN THỊ NĂM

AND/BUT/OR AS COHESIVE DEVICES IN ENGLISH
WRITTEN DISCOURSE - A CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS
WITH VIETNAMESE EQUIVALENTS
AND IMPLICATIONS FOR TEACHING WRITING SKILL AT UTEHY

(And/But/Or như các phương tiện liên kết
trong văn bản tiếng Anh – Phân tích đối chiếu với các yếu tố tương đương
trong tiếng Việt và ứng dụng trong việc dạy kỹ năng viết
tại trường Đại học Sư phạm Kỹ thuật Hưng Yên)


M.A. MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS


Field: English Linguistics
Code: 60. 22. 15

Hanoi, 2010


2

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES
o0o

NGUYỄN THỊ NĂM

AND/BUT/OR AS COHESIVE DEVICES IN ENGLISH
WRITTEN DISCOURSE - A CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS
WITH VIETNAMESE EQUIVALENTS
AND IMPLICATIONS FOR TEACHING WRITING SKILL AT UTEHY

(And/But/Or như các phương tiện liên kết
trong văn bản tiếng Anh – Phân tích đối chiếu với các yếu tố tương đương
trong tiếng Việt và ứng dụng trong việc dạy kỹ năng viết
tại trường Đại học Sư phạm Kỹ thuật Hưng Yên)


M.A. MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS


Field: English Linguistics

Code: 60. 22. 15
Supervisor: Dr. Nguyễn Huy Kỷ






Hanoi, 2010


6

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Declaration i
Acknowledgments ii
Abstract iii
Table of contents iv
List of tables vi
PART A: INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale of the study 1
2. Objectives of the study 3
3. Methods of the study 3
4. Scope of the study 4
5. Significance of the study 4
6. Organization of the study 4
PART B: DEVELOPMENT
Chapter 1: Literature Review 6
1.1. Discourse 6

1.1.1. Discourse and Text 6
1.1.2. Spoken and Written Discourse 8
1.2. Cohesion 9
1.2.1. The Concept of Cohesion 9
1.2.2. Cohesion and Coherence in Discourse 10
1.2.3. Cohesion and Discourse Structure 10
1.2.4. Cohesive Devices 10
1.3. Conjunctions as Cohesive Devices 12
Chapter 2: AND/BUT/OR as cohesive devices in English written discourse 13
2.1. AND 15
2.2. BUT 19
2.3. OR 20



7

Chapter 3: AND/BUT/OR in English written discourse in a contrastive analysis
with Vietnamese equivalents 24
3.1. AND vs. VÀ 24
3.2. BUT vs. NHƢNG 27
3.3. OR vs. HAY/HOẶC 29
Chapter 4: Implications for teaching writing skill at UTEHY 31
4.1. Suggestions for teaching and materials 32
4.2. Suggested types of exercises 33
PART C: CONCLUSIONS
1. The achievement of the objectives of the study 36
2. The effectiveness of the methods used 37
3. Limitations of the study 37
4. Suggestions for further study 38

REFERENCES 39





















8


LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: The Frequency of The Implications of AND
Table 2: The Frequency of The Implications of BUT
Table 3: The Frequency of The Implications of OR

Table 4: The Frequency of The Implications of AND/BUT/OR
Table 5: Vietnamese equivalents to AND denoting the examined implications
Table 6: Vietnamese equivalents to BUT denoting the examined implications
Table 7: Vietnamese equivalents to OR denoting the examined implications
























9

PART A: INTRODUCTION

1. Rationale of the study
No one denies the importance of the English language in the present time as a
global language because it has become more dominant around the world than any other
languages. It is used as an official language in more than 44 countries and has played an
important role in dealing with international relations especially in such fields as science
and technology, business, commerce and diplomacy. These reasons motivate people all
over the world to learn English as a foreign language.
However, learning any foreign languages in general and English in particular is
not easy. It is a lengthy and effortful process to master English as a native speaker because
of a variety of factors. Linguistic knowledge of English accounts for learners‟ ability to
combine phonemes into morphemes, morphemes into words, and words into sentences.
That means, when people speak or write they have to convey a certain message by
organizing their thoughts and ideas into strings of words to produce sentences, and then
combine sentences together to create higher units of discourse. But how to combine
sentences to each other and to the rest of the context has been a big question for linguists.
Communication is possible only when sentences which create discourse hang together so
that discourse has its unity and the product of our creation would make sense. In other
words, knowledge of cohesion and coherence is essential in discourse construction and
necessary for successful communication. In discourse, cohesion has an interrelation with
coherence; the former is a guide to and part of the latter in both spoken and written
language. Awareness of coherence as a quality that makes a text conform to a consistent
world picture, to experiences, culture, and convention and cohesive devices as the
linguistic means by which elements of a text are arranged and connected is vital for
learners of English.
Up to now, there have been many studies by various linguists on this aspect. Each
discusses the issue from different angles. Thus, they give out different ways of classifying
and naming cohesion. In English, Quirk (1972) primarily covers three main factors of
sentence connection. The first is the implication in the semantic content. A reader normally

10
assumes that there is a relationship between sentences. The second is lexical equivalence
which means successive sentences are connected to some extent through their vocabulary
or the equivalence in the lexical items or repetition of phrase. The third is syntactic devices
which are grouped under following entries: time and place relaters, logical relaters,
substitution, discourse reference, comparison, ellipsis and structural parallelism.
In 1976, with the book Cohesion in English, Halliday and Hasan say that the
concept of cohesion accounts for the essential semantic relations whereby any passage of
speech or writing is enabled to function as text. They discuss the cohesive relationships
under five main headings: reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction and lexical
cohesion. And the most apparent type of explicitly marked cohesive relationships existing
between one sentence or clause and another in discourse is indicated by conjunctions.
Unlike Quirk (1972), they treat time and place relaters, logical connectors, discourse
reference, comparison as reference items.
Guy Cook (1989) on the other hand, includes also verb forms, parallelism,
repetition and lexical chain as cohesive devices – formal links within the sentence or across
the sentence boundaries. What is more, Brown and Yule (1983) go into the study of how to
interpret a text basing on cohesive devices especially reference in text. They emphasize on
types of reference. They include endophora (anaphora and cataphora) and exphora. The
former means reference which can be interpreted depending on the context of the text
itself. The latter means reference which can be interpreted relying on textual context but on
situation (the factor lies outside language elements). Winifred Crombie‟s investigation
(1985), however, is fully concentrated on semantic relations in discourse and the study of
which, for Crombie, involves the study of discourse values.
In Vietnamese, Tran Ngoc Them (1985) has written an insightful book about
cohesion. He discusses ten cohesive devices namely repetition, antithesis, synonymic
substitution, association, linearity, pronoun substitution, weak ellipsis, loose conjunction,
strong ellipsis and tight conjunction. Diep Quang Ban (2004), however, states that

reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction and lexical cohesion are five major cohesive
devices.
Based on the knowledge, many MA theses about cohesive devices were also
conducted. Most of them made an analysis of cohesive devices in certain types of


11
discourse such as information and communication technology advertisements, letters of
enquiry, job application letters and business contract discourse.
Although a number of theses on cohesive devices in different types of discourse
were conducted, they didn‟t focus on any single word as a cohesive device in order to have
a deeper analysis. That has given the author of this study the idea to examine the uses of
conjunctions as cohesive devices in English written discourse. And the three conjunctions
AND/BUT/OR are chosen as they are the most central coordinators.

2. Objectives of the study
With the above mentioned background, this study is targeted at
- Giving a systematic presentation of the uses of the three central coordinators
AND/BUT/OR as cohesive devices and their frequency of occurrence in English written
discourse.
- Making contrastive analysis of AND/BUT/OR as cohesive devices and their
equivalent realizations in Vietnamese.
- Putting forward some suggestions as effort to help English-major students at
HYUTE to overcome the consequences of interference when learning writing skill.
In order to achieve the objectives stated, the study is meant to find out the answer
to the following research questions:
1. How are the three coordinators AND/BUT/OR used as cohesive devices in
English written discourse?
2. Are VÀ/NHƢNG/HAY-HOẶC in Vietnamese the only equivalents of
AND/BUT/OR in English as cohesive devices?

3. Methods of the study
This study of AND/BUT/OR as cohesive devices in English written discourse is
based on the communicative view-point of language teaching and learning. Therefore, the
methods of descriptive and comparative analysis are used. The study is presented in order
from general theories to detailed descriptions, with theories presented first, then examples
given to clarify the theories.


12
For the data, I have chosen at random the samples from several written discourse
types such as novels, short stories, magazines and newspapers. The data are also selected
from many different grammar books. Firstly, the data are analyzed to identify discourse
devices, their frequency of occurrence in English. Then the contrastive analysis between
AND/BUT/OR in English and their realizations in Vietnamese are made. All of this will
lead to the point of finding effective solutions to improve writing skill of students at Hung
Yen University of Technology and Education (UTEHY).

4. Scope of the study
The scope of this study, however, allows a very limited choice of one aspect of
discourse analysis, that is, cohesion in English. Within a limited time and knowledge as
well as shortage of reference materials, it is not the author‟s ambition to investigate various
types of cohesive devices but discuss only the three conjunctions AND/BUT/OR – their
performance as means of cohesion and their frequency of concurrence in English and in
Vietnamese. AND/BUT/OR will be discussed as cohesive devices within the sentence, in
other words, between clauses in a sentence.
In the last part, implications, this study is limited to the first-year English-major
students at Department of English, UTEHY and writing skill only.

5. Significances of the study

Theoretical significance: This study contributes to verifying significance related to
linguistic theories in discourse analysis by providing learners of English with some
theoretical base and fundamental background for clarifying the relationships that are
linguistically encoded by virtue of conjunctions in general and AND/BUT/OR in
particular.
Practical significance: This study helps learners of English be more aware of the
role of AND/BUT/OR as cohesive devices in creating discourse. Thus, the study may help
learners to avoid errors easily made by the negative interference of most non-native
speakers. Furthermore, this study can make a certain contribution to teaching and learning
English as a foreign language owing to some suggested exercises in the last part.



13
6. Organization of the study
The study is divided into three parts.

The first part is the introduction, including rationale, objectives, methods, scope,
significances and organization of the study.
The second part is the development, including four chapters.
Chapter 1: A presentation of some theoretical preliminaries needed for the study of
coordinators AND/BUT/OR as cohesive devices in English written discourse. Within the
chapter, discourse will be studied to highlight the function of conjunctions in creating
discourse. There is a better focus on conjunctions and cohesive devices.
Chapter 2: A detailed description of the three coordinators AND/BUT/OR as
cohesive devices.
Chapter 3: A comparative analysis between the coordinators AND/BUT/OR and
Vietnamese equivalents in which Vietnamese is regarded as the compared language with
English – the target one. The purpose of the comparison is to identify the Vietnamese
linking system equivalent to the implications by AND/BUT/OR.

Chapter 4: Some implications for teaching writing skill at UTEHY.
The final part is the conclusion. This is to summarize the thesis by showing the
achievement of the objectives of the study and the effectiveness of the methods used. Then
the limitations of the study are given. Some suggestions for further study are also included
at the end to promise the continuance of the author‟s future work.



\










14


PART B: DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER 1
LITERATURE REVIEW

1.1. Discourse
1.1.1. Discourse and Text
In the history of linguistics, many different definitions of discourse and text are

given by different linguists. Let us, first of all, look at the following definitions of
discourse which take our greatest attention.
Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics (1989)
defines: “Discourse is a general term for examples of language use; i.e. language has been
produced as the result of an act of communication.”
Widdowson (1979) states: “Discourse is a use of sentences to perform acts of
communication which cohere into larger communication units, ultimately establishing a
rhetorical pattern which characterizes the pieces of language as a whole as a kind of
communication.”
Crystal (1992) says: “Discourse is a continuous stretch of language larger than a
sentence, often constituting a coherent unit such as sermon, argument, joke or a narrative.”
Guy Cook (1989) classifies language into two different types as potential objects of
study: one abstracted in order to teach a language or literacy or to study how the rules of
language work; and another which has been used to communicate something and is felt to
be coherent. This latter kind of language – language in use for communication is called
discourse. It is defined as “a stretch of language perceived to be meaningful, unified and
purposive.”
Nunan (1993) defines: “Discourse can be defined as a stretch of language
consisting of several sentences which are perceived as being related in some way. And the
sentences are related not only in terms of the ideas they share but also in terms of the jobs
they perform within the discourse, that is, in terms of their functions.”


15
From these extracts it can be seen that the term discourse is understood and defined
differently. Each definition has its own values in the field of linguistics. However, for the
purpose of this study, I would like to pay more attention to the following definition given
by Halliday and Hasan (1989). They give a simple definition: “We can define text
(discourse) in the simplest way perhaps by saying that it is language that is functional.”
Above are some definitions of discourse. What about text? Is text the same or

different from discourse? This has become a big question for many linguists since
confusion of these two terms may result in the failures of discourse analysis. In fact, there
is disagreement about the meaning of these two terms.
For some linguists, discourse is considered to differ from text and should be kept
separate. Crystal (1992) stated that text should be used for writing and discourse for
speech. Cook (1989) considered text is a stretch of language interpreted formally, without
context whereas discourse is a stretch of language in use, perceived to be meaningful,
unified and purposive.
For other linguists, text and discourse refer to one and the same subject and may be
used interchangeably. According to the above mentioned definition of discourse by
Halliday & Hasan, text is used to refer to discourse; they see text as a “semantic unit”
characterized by cohesion. Halliday & Hasan (1976) stated: “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”. Brown & Yule (1983) argue that “text is the representative of
discourse and the verbal record of a communicative act”. Nunan (1976) used the term text
to refer to any written record of communicative event. The event itself may involve oral
language or written language. He reserved the term discourse to refer to the interpretation
of the communicative event in context.
To sum up, it seems to be difficult to make a clear distinction between these two
terms. Whether discourse and text refer to the same thing or not is still a controversial
issue. And, of course, it is not our intention to do this in this study. In other words, in this
study, the term discourse will be used with the same meaning as text, and the data are
collected in such a way as to contain only the language in communication.
As far as the scope of discourse is concerned, discourse refers not only to spoken
interactions but also to written words. And the study of discourse, either spoken or written


16
is known as discourse analysis. In other words, the term Discourse Analysis is used to

cover the study of spoken and written interaction. Discourse analysts study language in
use: written text of all kinds, and spoken data from conversation to highly institutionalized
forms of talk. Thus, for the purpose of this study, it is necessary to point out the differences
between spoken and written discourse in the following part.

1.1.2. Spoken and Written Discourse
Spoken and written discourses represent different modes for expressing linguistic
meanings. Examples of spoken discourse are conversations, interviews, lectures…whereas
letters, stories, novels…are written discourse. Despite some similarities, these two forms of
discourse are basically different from each other. The major difference between them is
rooted from the difference between spoken and written language.
Apart from obvious differences between speaking and writing like the fact that
writing includes some medium which keeps record of the conveyed message while
speaking involves only air, there are certain dissimilarities that are less apparent.
The first is lexical density – the density with which the information is presented.
Written language has more lexical or content words per clause, thus it is dense whereas
spoken language is sparse. In other words, written language is more densely packed with
information than spoken language.
The second feature is complexity of grammar which is typical of spoken language.
In spoken language we can not see clearly sentence or paragraph boundaries and the
sentences are less structured. There are many incomplete sentences with little
subordination. Meanwhile written language complies of complete sentences with
subordination, rich lexis and frequent modifications via adjectives and adverbs. They tend
to be extremely simple in their grammatical structure).
The last feature is situation. With written language the situation has to be inferred
from the text as there is no common situation, as there is in face-to-face interaction. In
addition, the words themselves must carry all of the shades of meaning which in face-to-
face interaction can be conveyed by non-verbal behavior. Then again, there is no
opportunity for the readers to signal that they do not understand. The writer must make
assumptions about the readers‟ state of knowledge.

17
Naturally, this division into two ways of producing discourse is quite
straightforward but we can not say that this language is better than the other. However, it is
a fact that written language gives us a more understanding of the systematic feature of
language. Therefore, written discourse often has a neat message organization, division of
paragraphs, good layout and the writer is frequently able to consider the content of his
work for almost unlimited period of time which makes it more coherent, having complex
syntax. Written discourse is more specific, more exact and more coherent than spoken
discourse. These are the reasons why this study focuses on written discourse only.
When talking about discourse we can not leave behind one of its very key technical
terms, that is cohesion which will be discussed in the next part.

1.2. Cohesion
1.2.1. The Concept of Cohesion
When speaking or writing we often want to make some links with other things that
we are saying or writing. There are several ways of doing this and they provide cohesion in
the use of language. So what is cohesion?
Actually, the term text in Indo-European languages derived from the Latin word
exium meaning cohesion, so the concept of cohesion is closely connected with text.
According to Halliday and Hasan (1979), “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 element in the
discourse is dependent on that of another.
From the above definitions, it can be concluded that cohesion is a term used to
mention the formal link that glues a chain of sentences to create what is called discourse or
text. It refers to the connection of all parts or elements of a text. Without it, a text would be
just a chaotic and even meaningless collection of sentences. In other words, cohesion refers
to the linguistic elements that make a discourse semantically coherent; or as Nguyen Hoa

(2000) indicated “cohesion refers to the formal relationship that causes texts to cohere and
stick together”. Therefore, it is necessary to examine how ideas cohere together so that the
content cohesion may be obtained and all can create a coherent and cohesive discourse. So
in the next part the question “What is meant by cohesion and coherence?” will be
discussed.


18



1.2.2. Cohesion and Coherence in Discourse
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.
Cohesion involves the form of language rather than the content or context, 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.
Cohesion, therefore, is understood as a guide to coherence.
In short, cohesion and coherence are two facets of discourse closely related to each
other, making each depend on the existence of the other. Coherence is embodied by a
system of cohesive devices and cohesion is mainly used to ensure coherence. According to
Nunan, “Coherent texts – that is, sequences of sentences or utterances which seem to „hang
over‟ – contain what are called text-forming devices”.

1.2.3. Cohesion and Discourse Structure
According to Halliday and Hasan (1979) “Discourse structure is, as the name
implies, a type of structure; the term is used to refer to the structure of some postulated unit
higher than the sentence, for example the paragraph, or some larger entity such as episode

or topic units.”
Within the sentence, we can specify a limited number of possible structures, such
as types of modification, transitivity or model structures. However, we can not in the same
way list a set of possible structures for a text, with sentence classes to fill the structural
roles. 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 interpretations; and it is for this that the concept of cohesion is required.”

1.2.4. Cohesive Devices


19
It is viewed by Halliday and Hasan (1979) that “A text has textual and this is what
distinguishes it from something that is not a text.” And the primary determinant that create
textual is cohesive relations within and between sentences. They attracts less notice within
a sentence, because of the cohesive strength of grammatical structure; since the sentence
hangs together already, the cohesion is not needed in order to make it hang together.
However, there is a sense in which the sentence is a significant unit for cohesion precisely
because it is the highest unit of grammatical structure: it tends to determine the way in
which cohesion is expressed. And the cohesive relations are there all the same.
Cohesive relations can be established within a text provide cohesive ties to bind a
text together. In their book Halliday and Hasan (1979) give a very comprehensive
description and analysis of these devices. According to them, cohesion is partly expressed
by grammar and partly by vocabulary. They also identify five different types of cohesion:
reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction and lexical cohesion. Therefore, we can refer
them to grammatical cohesion and lexical cohesion as follows:

Grammatical cohesion
Lexical cohesion
Reference

 Exophoric
 Endophoric
- Personal
- Demonstrative
- Comparative
Substitution
 Nominal substitution
 Verbal substitution
 Clausal substitution
Ellipsis
 Nominal ellipsis
Conjunction
 Additive
 Adversative
 Causal
 Temporal
 Others


Reiteration
 Same word / repetition
 Synonym/near synonyms
 Super-ordinates
 General words
Collocation
 Noun + Noun
 Adjective + Noun
 Verb + Noun
 Noun + Preposition
 Adjective + Preposition

 Adverb + Adjective




20
Cohesive devices not only function as formal links but also indicate different sorts
of relationships existing in any segment of discourse. Within the scope of this study, the
next part will give a close look into the matter of conjunction as a cohesive device in
discourse.

1.3. Conjunctions as Cohesive Devices
As a matter of fact, English conjunctions play a dominant role in creating a system
of grammatical sentences of English. Thus, it is doubtless that a large number of celebrated
grammarians in the world pay much attention to English conjunctions. Given such that
considerable importance, I have endeavored to get informed by as many valuable
documents as possible.
Cook (1989) defines conjunctions as grammatical items: “Conjunctions are words
and phrases which explicitly draw attention to the type of the relationship which exists
between one sentence or clause and another”. Those words may simply add more
information to what has already been said (and, further more, add to that) or elaborate or
exemplify it (for instance, thus, in other words). They may contrast new information with
old information, or put another side to the argument (or, on the other hand, however). They
may relate new information to what has already been given in terms of causes (so, because,
consequently, for this reason) or in time (formally, then, in the end, next) or they may
indicate a new departure or a summary (by the way, well, to sump up, anyway).
Halliday and Hasan (1979) as well as Nunan (1993) view conjunction as a cohesive
relation. They agree that conjunction is rather different in nature from the other cohesive
relations such as reference, substitution and ellipsis…. It is not a device for reminding the
reader of previously mentioned entities, actions and states of affairs. In other words, it is

not simply an anaphoric relation. However, it is a cohesive device because it signals the
relationships that can be fully understood through reference to other parts of the text.
According to them, there are four different types of conjunction: temporality,
causality, addition and adversity:
 Temporality: then, after that, finally, at last…
 Causality: so, consequently, for this reason…
 Addition: and, or, furthermore, similarly, in addition, moreover…


21
 Adversity: but, however, on the other hand…
According to Quirk and Greenbaun (1973), sorts of English conjunctions include:
coordinating conjunctions (or more simply coordinators) and subordinating conjunctions
(subordinators) and correlatives.
Michael Swan (1995), however, denotes the English conjunction in brief. He only
deals with coordinating conjunctions and / but / or and subordinating conjunctions because
/ when / that / which.
Although these linguists have different definitions and classifications of
conjunctions, they share the same idea that conjunctions are words that join different
words, phrases and clauses together. These cohesive ties are really important as they turn
separate clauses, sentences and paragraphs into units of connected discourse which refers
back and forth to each other. Language learners need to know both how and when to use
them. Their presence or absence in discourse often contributes to style, and some
conjunctions can sound very pompous when used inappropriately.

Summary:
This chapter has been concerned with some of the most important issues of
discourse and cohesion. As you can see, the term discourse is understood differently by
different linguists. Some identify discourse with text, while others consider discourse and
text as two different entities. Having adopted the definition of discourse by Halliday and

Hasan, this study treats discourse and text as being two notions referring to one and the
same thing; that means they can be used interchangeably. And written discourse – the
focus of this study, is more specific, more exact and more coherent than spoken discourse.
In addition, it can be denied that cohesion and coherence have a close relationship with
each other. Cohesion is mainly used to create coherence by a set of cohesive devices.
This chapter concludes by presenting the use of conjunctions as cohesive devices.
At this point we finish Chapter 1 and turn to Chapter 2, where we will look at the use of
AND/BUT/OR as cohesive devices in English written discourse and the cohesive relations
they make within a sentence.





22




CHAPTER 2
AND/BUT/OR AS COHESIVE DEVICES
IN ENGLISH WRITTEN DISCOURSE

According to Quirk‟s point of view (1972) explicit indicators of coordination are
termed as coordinating conjunctions. And a coordinator is organized at the process of
conjoining units which are equal status. In other words, coordination involves the linking
of units which are constituents of the same levels. These units can be single words, phrases
or clauses. The examples are as follows:
My husband and I are going to travel around the world.
The box was long but narrow.

(Single words coordinated)
He had breakfast and got out of the house quickly.
You can sleep in the sofa or in my room.
(Phrases coordinated)
She was very tired, but she stayed the whole evening.
He has long hair, and he wears jeans.
(Clauses coordinated)
In this study, the three coordinators AND/BUT/OR are observed in the way they
join two clauses to form a compound sentence. In other words, only clausal coordinators
are examined.
As mentioned above, AND/BUT/OR are the most central coordinators which can
join two equal clauses. In addition, according to Quirk and Greenbaun (1973), they are
restricted to initial position in the clause as in:
Mary plays table tennis, and her sister plays badminton.
Thus, clauses beginning with a coordinator cannot be moved in front of the
preceding clause without producing unacceptable sentences or at least changing the
relationship of clauses. It is impossible to say:


23
And her sister plays badminton, Mary plays table tennis.
AND/BUT/OR also do not allow another conjunction to precede them but they can
precede other conjunctions and subordinators as illustrated in the following examples:
He was unhappy about it, and yet he did what he was told.
He asked to be transferred because he was unhappy and because he saw no
prospect of promotion.
What‟s more, when joining two clauses AND/BUT/OR allow ellipsis of the subject
if the subject is co-referential with that of the preceding linked clause:
I may see you tomorrow, or (I) may phone later in the day.
Another feature is that AND and OR can link subordinate clause:

I wonder whether you should speak to him personally about the matter or whether
it is better to him.
BUT, however, is restricted to linking a maximum of two clauses, and can link only
certain types of subordinate clause.
He said that John would take them by car but that might be late.
Last but not least, unlike BUT, coordinators AND and OR can link more than two
clauses, and the final instance of these two conjunctions can be omitted:
John might take them by car, or Mary might go with them by bus, or I might order
a taxi for them.
Above are some syntactic features of coordinators AND/BUT/OR introduced by
Quirk and Greenbaun (1973). This gives us the background knowledge to examine their
semantic implications which will be discusses in the next part. The semantic implication of
these three coordinators will be presented based on the viewpoint of Quirk and
Greenbaums in their book A University Grammar of English. However, to avoid repetition,
in this section, we:
- Firstly, try to analyze the semantic implications of each coordinator to work out
the cohesive effects it makes between clauses in a sentence.
- Secondly, seek whether there will be other implications that have not been
mentioned.
- Finally, analyze 100 samples of each coordinator taken at random from some
written discourse to put the semantic implications in the order of their frequency of
occurrence.


24

2.1. AND
Basing on Quirk‟s view point, AND denotes the relationship between the contents
of the clauses, and the relationship between two clauses is explicated by adding an
adverbial, which is inserted in parenthesis (wherever possible). Within the scope of the

study, the type of implication with sentences consisting just two clauses is illustrated.
Here, eight separate cases of semantic implication of AND are shown as follows:
Firstly, AND is used to denote that the event in the second clause is a consequence
or result of the event in the first.
He heard an explosion and he (therefore) phoned the police.
The consequent clause “he phone the police” is resulted from the causal clause “he
heard an explosion”. Therefore, it is impossible to transfer the order of the clause without
changing the meaning of the sentence:
He phoned the police and he heard an explosion.
There is no existence of a cause-effect relationship in the renewed sentence.
Let‟s look at another example:
Willie heard the weather report and promptly board up this house.
In this sentence, it is also impossible to transfer the order of the clause without
interfering its meaning. With this implication, AND is either “and as a result” or “and
therefore”.
Secondly, AND is used to suggest that one event is chronologically sequential to
another, but it is not the implication of cause-effect relationship.
She washed the dishes and (then) she dried them.
In the sentence above, there is no implication of cause-effect relationship. The
writer only wants to emphasize the order of the action or the process of the action (“drying
the dishes” comes after “washing them”).
It should be noted that there is no implication of chronological sequence if the
clause is given in a contrast sequence to that of chronological sequence.
Tashonda sent in her applications and waited by the phone for a response.
I was led up to Mrs. Strickland, and for ten minutes we talked together. (Maugham,
1919)
He followed me, and entered the apartment on my heels. ((Maugham, 1919)


25

The implication is perceived mainly depending on the order in which the two
clauses are taken to be conjoined. This order cannot be reversed in any case. In this case
AND can be understood as “and then”.
Thirdly, AND suggests that one idea is in contrast to another. AND could be
replaced by BUT when this implication is presented.
Robert is secretive and (in contrast) David is candid.
This sentence can be paraphrased by using BUT instead of AND.
Robert is secretive but David is candid.
Thus, we can say “contrast” is one implication which can be denoted by AND.
Besides, AND is used when the second clause is a comment on the first.
They disliked John – and this is not surprising.
Charlie became addicted to gambling – and that surprise no one who knew him.
In addition, AND is often used before the second clause to introduces an element of
surprise in view of the content of the first.
He tried hard and (yet) he failed.
His failure gives surprising to listeners because nobody thinks that his great effort
made him failed. Here too, AND could be replaced by BUT, sometimes by YET.
Another example is that:
Hartford is a rich city and suffers from many symptoms of urban blight.
What‟s more? AND is used when the first clause is dependent upon the second,
conditionally (usually the first clause is an imperative).
Give me some money and I’ll help you escape.
Use your credit cards frequently and you’ll soon find yourself deep in debt.
It should be noted that, for the conditional implication to apply, it is unusual that:
- The second clause has a modality auxiliary.
- The verb of the first clause is an imperative or contains a modal auxiliary.
Besides, the second clause can have the simple present with future reference.
Give me the bride and you get the job.
In other cases, AND is used before the second clause when it makes a point similar
to the first.

A trade agreement should be no problem, and (similarly) a cultural exchange could
be arranged.


26
Finally, AND is used when he second clause is a “pure” addition to the first.
He has long hair and (also) he wears jeans.
Two clauses in the sentence must have something in common to justify the relation
„addition”. In the above sentence, both clauses are about “appearance” and they are treated
equally. For this reason they can change the order without change in meaning.

However, during the time doing this study, we wonder whether those eight
implications are enough to explain AND when functioning as a cohesive device. In order
to find out the answer to this question, let‟s have a look at the following samples:
I’ll find her and (I’ll) tell her that I love her.
Why not write and warn him? And that will be all right.
The semantic implication of AND in these sentences is not one of the eight
implications mentioned above. Obviously, AND in these sentences can be replaced by “to”
or “in order to”. So we think we can introduce another implication, that is “purpose”.
However, it is very important to state that this implication is from our subjective thinking.

Finally, in order to find out the frequency of occurrence of each implication, it is
necessary to note that through 100 pieces of written discourse taken at random from
different sources, the implications are sorted out and tested. The frequency of occurrence
of each implication is counted and shown in the table below:

Table 1: The Frequency of The Implications of AND
Implications
Frequency of occurrence (%)
Pure addition

36
Chronological sequence
18
Similarity
13
Consequence (result)
9
Condition
7
Contrast
6
Comment
5
Purpose
4


27
Element of surprise
2

From the above statistic it can be said that AND is used very often to denote “pure
addition”, quite often to imply “chronological sequence” and “similarity”. However, it is
rarely used to suggest “purpose” and “element of surprise”.

2.2. BUT
It denotes the contrast of one statement with another. The contrast may be in the
unexpectedness in light of the first clause.
John is rich, but he is happy.
The second clause shows a contrast to the first clause, in other words, his happiness

is unexpected because some people believe that the property never goes with the
happiness. The sentence would be accepted when only wealth was regarded as a source of
unhappiness. The same thing happens in the following sentence:
Joey lost a fortune in the stock market, but he still seems able to live quite
comfortably.
She was not pretty, but her face was pleasing. (Maugham, 1919)
I watched his face for some change of expression, but it remained impassive.
(Maugham, 1919)
In other cases, the contrast may be restatement in an affirmative sense of what the
first part of the sentence implied in a negative way (sometimes replaced by on the
contrary):
He will never break her heart, but he will love her with all his heart.
The club never invested foolishly, but used the services of a sage investment
counselor.
John did not waste his time in the week before the exam, but he studied hard every
evening.

However, there are cases in which the explanation as “contrast” is not appropriate
to clarify the relationship between the coordinated clauses. Let‟s consider the samples
below:
You are allowed to stay at home, but (with condition that) you are always in bed.


28
It seems that in this sentence the contrastive relation between “You are always in
bed” and “You are allowed to stay at home” is not clear enough to satisfy the readers or
hearers. In stead, we can view it as the relationship of “condition”. “You are always in
bed” can be understood as the condition for “You are allowed to stay at home” to happen
(if you are always in bed, you can stay at home). Consequently, we believe that the
implication “condition” should be thought of as an implication of coordinator BUT.

Like in the case of coordinator AND, the implications examined are found and
tested through another set of 100 pieces of written discourse taken at random from various
sources. The result is shown in table 2 below. But, once again, it is important to note that
subjectiveness is inevitable in this analysis.

Table 2: The Frequency of The Implications of BUT
Implications
Frequency of occurrence (%)
Contrast
81
Condition
9

The results show that although “condition” can be thought of as an implication of
BUT, it is limitedly used.

2.3. OR
The coordinator OR offers a choice between one statement and another. Four
semantic implications by OR are characterized by the following features.
Firstly, OR usually expresses the idea that only one of the possibilities can be
realized, excluding one or the other. Yet, the preferred alternative tends to be put first.
You can study hard for this exam or you can fail.
You will do it today or tomorrow.
This sentence implies that there are two possibilities for you to do: if you decide to
do it today, you will not have to do it tomorrow. The content of some conjoining excludes
the possibility of both alternatives like in the example above. But even when both
alternatives are possible as in:
You can boil some eggs or you can make some cakes.