cohesive devices in reading texts in the book tiếng anh 12-ban cơ bản = phương tiện liên kết trong các bài đọc trong sách giáo khoa tiếng anh 12 – ban cơ bản

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Declaration page……………………………………………………………………… i
Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………ii
Abstract.………………………………………………………………………………iii
Table of contents…………………………………………………………………… iv
Abbreviation ……………………………………………………………………… vi
List of tables and charts………………………………………………………………vii
PART A: INTRODUCTION 1
1. Rationale 1
2. Aims of the study 2
3. Scope of the study 2
4. Significance of the study 2
5. Method of the study 3
6. Design of the study 3
PART B: DEVELOPMENT 5
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW 5
1.1. Discourse 5
1.1.1. The concept of discourse 5
1.1.2. Discourse and text 5
1.1.3. Spoken and written discourse 6
1.1.4. Discourse analysis 7
1.1.5. Context in discourse analysis 8
1.1.5.1. Context of situation 8
1.1.5.2. Context of culture 8
1.1.6. Register and genre in discourse analysis 8
1.2. Cohesion 9
1. 2.1. Definition of cohesion 9
1.2.2. Cohesion vs. Coherence 9
1.2.3. Aspects of cohesion 10

1.2.3.1. Topical cohesion 10
1.2.3.2. Logical cohesion 10
1.2.4. Types of coheison 10
1.2.4.1. Grammatical cohesion 11
1.2.4.1.1. Reference 11
1.2.4.1.2. Substitution 12
1.2.4.1.3. Ellipsis 13
1.2.4.1.4. Conjunction 13
1.2.4.2. Lexical cohesion 14
1.2.4.2.1. Reiteration 14
1.2.4.2.2. Collocation 14
1.3. Textbook and the book for grade 12 in gerneral throughout Vietnam 15
CHAPTER 2: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 17
2.1. Grammatical cohesion 17
2.1.1. Reference 17
2.1.1.1. Anaphoric reference 17
2.1.1.2. Cataphoric reference 20
2.1.1.3. Exophoric reference 21
2.1.2. Conjunctions 22
2.1.2.1. Additive 23
2.1.2.2. Temporal conjunction 24

v
2.1.2.3. Adversative conjunction 24
2.1.2.4. Causal conjunction 24
2.1.3. Substitution 25
2.1.4. Ellipsis 26
2.2. Lexical cohesion 28
2.2.1. Reiteration 28
2.2.2. Collocation 30

2.2.2.1. Lexical collocation 31
2.2.2.2. Grammatical collocation 33
2.3. Summary of cohesive devices in the textbook 34
CHAPTER 3: IMPLICATION FOR TEACHING ENGLISH 36
3.1. Teaching cohesion through teaching reading 36
3.1.1. In terms of grammatical cohesion 36
3.1.1.1. Teaching conjunctions through teaching reading 36
3.1.1.2. Teaching reference through teaching reading 37
3.1.1.3. Teaching collocation 37
3.1.1.4. Teaching reiteration through teaching reading 38
3.1.2. Teaching cohesion through teaching writing 39
3.1.2.1. Teaching grammatical cohesion through teaching writing 39
3.1.2.2. Teaching lexical cohesion through teaching writing 39
PART C: CONCLUSION 40
1. Major findings 40
2. Suggestions for further study 41
REFERENCE 42
SOURCES OF DATA……………………………………………………………… 44
APPENDIX I:…………………………………………………… ………………… I
APPENDIX II: VI
APPENDIX III: VII
APPENDIX IV……………………………………………………………………… X
APPENDIX V: XI
APPENDIX VI: XII
APPENDIX VII: XIV
APPENDIX VIII: XV
APPENDIX IX XXI
APPENDIX X: XXII
APPENDIX XI XL
APPENDIX XII: XLI

APPENDIX XIII: XLII
APPENDIX XIV: XLIII
APPENDIX XV: XLIV
APPENDIX XVI: XLV
APPENDIX XVII: XLVI







vi
ABBREVIATION

GCSE: General Certificate of Secondary Education
DA: Discourse Analysis
Adj : Adjective
N: Noun
Quant: Quantifier
V: Verb
Adv: Adverb
Prep: Preposition
ELT: English Language Teaching
ESL: English as a Second Language
EFL: English as a Foreign Language
WTO: World Trade Organization
MOET: Ministry Of Education and Training

vii
LIST OF TABLES AND CHARTS

Table 1.1: Types of cohesion……………………………………………………….10
Table 1.2: Grammatical and lexical cohesion…………………………………… 11
Table 2.1: Different types of reference words for anaphoric ties……………… 17
Table 2.2: Different types of reference words for cataphoric ties……………….20
Table 2.3: Different types of reference words for exophoric ties……………… 21
Chart 2.1: The percentage of conjunctions in the textbook………………………23
Chart 2.2: The percentage of substitutions in the textbook…………………… 25

Chart 2.3: The percentage of ellipsis in the textbook…………………………… 26
Chart 2.4: The percentage of reiteration in the textbook……………………… 28
Chart 2.5: The percentage of collocation in the textbook……………………… 31
Table 2. 4: Different patterns of lexical collocation……………………………….31
Table 2.5: Different patterns of grammatical collocation……………………… 33
Chart 2.6: A comparison of grammatical and lexical cohesion in the textbook 35
Table 2.6: Different types of grammatical cohesion …………………………… 35
Table 2.7: Different types of lexical cohesion…………………………………… 35














- 1 -
PART A: INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale
In the interconnected and globalized world nowadays, knowing English is of great
importance. That forces students, especially high school students, to have to equip
themselves with the basics of English, so that they can enter the world more easily, and to
some extent, better their future life. To grade 12 students, this is more essential. Not only do
they need English in the future, but in the nearer view English is one of the core subjects in

the GCSE examination, and the entrance examination to university.
Tracing back to these two national examinations recently, the high occurrence proportion of
cohesive devices can not be denied. In my observation, except for phonetic parts, cohesive
devices, along with their usage and meaning, are useful tools in both reading texts, and
many sentences in such parts as writing, mistake correction, and multiple choice questions.
That is to say, the teaching of cohesive devices is essential to grade 12 students.
Moreover, on the process of mastering language in general, English in particular, to
Vietnamese secondary students, reading is seen as the crucial tool that aids the learning of
the other skills. However, it is a fact that, these days, many high school students do not have
adequate linguistic knowledge to read and understand a whole written text in English.
During my process of teaching high school students, I come to realize that one of the
foremost reasons for which students often make errors at sentence and discourse levels is
due to their inattention to the cohesive devices used in the context of texts. What they do is
to try to look up new words, and then translate the texts into Vietnamese. As a result,
students find it hard to understand the text or express their answers in the comprehension
check questions even though they know most of the words. Those who are given in advance
unfamiliar words still show their inability in recognizing sentences, and word relations,
which leads to the misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the meaning of the texts.
In addition, according to my past experience of being a final-year student at high school, as
well as during my observation at my working place, most of the teachers, both my former
ones and my present colleagues, do not teach students how to realize word relations through
the cohesive devices.
Apart from a variety of mentioned things, many people have done researches on linguistics
and discourse analysis; yet, no suggestions have been given to high school teachers and
students so that they can do tasks relating to cohesion more successfully. Consequently, the
decisive motivation in doing this research derives from the extremely important role of
cohesion in the text and also the difficulties of my students who lack the ability to make

- 2 -
proper recognition of cohesive devices in written texts in their textbooks. This research

spends a large part looking closely at grammatical and lexical cohesive devices, under the
theory of cohesion by Halliday and Hasan (1976), used in the textbook for grade-12 students
in general in terms of the frequency of occurrence
2. Aims of the study
While carrying out this research, the researcher, firstly, attempts to describe and analyze
cohesive devices in the English textbook for grade 12 students in general throughout
Vietnam in term of grammar and lexis. Then, the research aims at giving some implications
for teaching cohesion, as well as certain sample cohesive exercises for designing material
for the revision of GSCE examination and the entrance examination to university. Finally,
by doing this study, the researcher hopes to indicate striking features of cohesive devices so
as to help students understand the reading texts more effectively.
The following research questions are raised for exploration while carrying out the study:
1. What are the cohesive devices used in the textbook “Tiếng Anh 12 – Ban Cơ
Bản” for grade - 12 students general throughout Vietnam?
2. How can the findings help teachers and their students in the teaching and
learning the textbook for grade 12 students?
3. Scope of the study
Within the limited time and knowledge, only grammatical and lexical cohesion in the
textbook “Tiếng Anh 12” for grade - 12 students general throughout Vietnam edited by
Hoang, V.V et al (2010), Education Publication House are observed. Furthermore, the study
does not propose all the possible solutions to teaching and learning cohesion but only some
implications that are directly drawn from the textbook observation and the observation of
the tests for GSCE examination and the entrance examination to university over the past few
years. Only two skills, reading and writing, are chosen to present.
4. Significance of the study
 Theoretical significance: The study brings with it the task to verify the correctness
and significance of linguistic theory by working on the discourses of different issues in
social life mentioned in the researched textbook. It is hoped to prove the existing ideas on
cohesion to satisfy the individual’s question and, to some extent, hopefully to open a new
way of revising and preparing for candidates of the GCSE examination and the entrance

examination to university.
 Practical significance: This research gives out some practical applications, such as
combining linguistic theory and practice in analyzing written English discourses in the

- 3 -
researched textbook. In addition, the researcher hopes to give teachers and students a hand
with teaching and learning cohesion through reading and writing skills.
5. Method of the study
 Approaches and methods
The study can not reach its final page without a logical system of approaches and methods.
Both qualitative and quantitative approaches are applied. However, the latter is exploited
most of the time. The tackling methods are statistic and descriptive (getting the statistics
from the texts in the chosen textbook), analytical and synthetic (drawing striking features
from the book observation). Firstly, a number of materials on discourse analysis are
discovered to give the research a theoretical base. Then, it is ensured that none of the most
noticeable cohesive devices in the reading texts in the textbook for intermediate students at
grade 12 is missed their analysis and induction. Finally, the results are drawn out so that the
author can suggest some implications.
 Data collection and analysis
The grammatical and lexical cohesive devices to be studied will be taken from the textbook
“Tiếng Anh 12” for grade 12 students at intermediate level edited by Hoang,V.V et al
(2010), Education Publication House.
6. Design of the study
The thesis capacity is within 40 pages, structured as follows:
Part A: Introduction introduces the rationale, objectives, scope, significance, methodology
and the design of the study.
Part B: Development
Chapter 1: Literature review deals with the theories related to Discourse and Discourse
Analysis, cohesion, and the textbook.
Chapter 2: Findings and discussion of textbook observation analyses cohesive devices

in the reading texts in the textbook for intermediate grade 12 students, basing on the view of
Halliday and Hasan (1976)
Chapter 3: Pedagogical implication of the study gives implications for teaching and
learning cohesion basing on reading and writing skills.
Part C: Conclusion aims at summarizing the thesis by showing the study results and giving
concluding remarks. Some suggestions for further studies are also included to promise the
continuance of the author’s future work.



- 4 -

PART B: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW
1.1. Discourse
1.1.1. The concept of discourse
The term “discourse” has been given a numerous definitions to throughout the history of
linguistics. Widdowson (1979:98) defines discourse as follows:
“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.”

- 5 -
According to Halliday and Hasan (1989:38), discourse is seen differently in the simplest
way as a text and that “it is language that is functional.” McCarthy (1991: 5), on the other
hands, puts discourse in the relationship between language and the contexts in which it is
used. One year later, Crystal, in the book “Introduction to linguistics” (1992:25) considers
discourse to be “a continuous stretch of language larger than a sentence, often constituting
a coherent unit such as sermon, argument, joke, or narrative.”
Although discourse is understood and defined differently, the definition by Halliday and
Hasan, in which the discourse means language in use, seems to be the clearest to follow.
That is also the concept adapted in this research. Besides, as far as the scope of discourse is
concerned, discourse refers not only to spoken interactions and interviews, but also to
written and printed words, such as newspapers, articles, and letters. The discourses in the
research are written texts in textbook.
1.1.2. Discourse and text

The distinction between discourse and text has been paid much attention to for ages.
Although it is common knowledge that this distinction is not always visible, confusion of
these two terms may result in the failures of discourse analysis. There exist two opposite
points of view to the problem.
On the one hand, text and discourse are seen inconsistently. Widows (1979:98) makes a
very clear and explicit distinction between text and discourse. According to him, a text is the
combination of sentences with the relation of their grammatical cohesion, whereas discourse
is the use of such sentences for communicative purposes and discourse has coherence. Cook
(1989:168) considered text as “a stretch of language” doing nothing with context, while
discourse is also “a stretch of language”, but in context. Crystal (1992: 72), sharing the
same ideas with Widdowson, says that text should be used only for writing and discourse
for speech.
On the other hand, the two terms are said to be interchangeable. In their book “Cohesion in
English,’ Halliday and Hasan define text as follows:
A text is a unit of language in use. It is not a grammatical unit, like a clause or a sentence;
and it is not defined by its size. A text is sometimes envisaged to be some kind of super
sentence, a grammatical unit that is larger than a sentence but is related to a
sentence in the same way that a sentence is related to a clause, a clause to a group and
so on: by constituency, the composition of larger units out of smaller ones .But this is
misleading .A text is not something that is like a sentence , only bigger; it is
something that differs from a sentence in kind ….A text does not consist of sentences , it is
realized by , or encoded in , sentences.

- 6 -
(Halliday and Hasan 1976:1-2)
In their sense, “text” refers to “discourse”, and is “a passage of discourse.” Schiffrin
(1994: 363-364) supports this by stating that text is a linguistic product of discourse that can
be studied without reference to its contextual elements as an evidence of linguistic rules.
Salkie, (1995: IX) views text and discourse analysis is just one area of linguistics - “the
systematic study of language”; therefore, according to him “a text, or a discourse, is a

stretch of language that may be longer than one sentence. Thus, text and discourse analysis
is about how sentences combine to form texts.” Cohesion, then, is a principle factor in
determining texture since it is a means through which we can relate our utterances or
sentences.
In the present research, the second viewpoint is adapted. The term “discourse” is used with
no different meaning from “text.” In this sense, to analyze a text means to a discourse.
Therefore, in this study, text analysis of reading text also means discourse analysis.
1.1.3. Spoken and written discourse
Spoken and written discourses are different modes of discourse. Cook, (1989:50)
distinguishes them as follows:
“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, interview, and
trials- which have significant features in common with typical written discourse…Conversely,
there are at times when readers do have rights to affect written discourse. Written responds to the
market.”
Brown and Yule (1983:13), moving on the same route, differentiate spoken discourses from
written ones in terms of their various functions: the first is used for the establishment and
maintenance of human relationships (interactional use) and the second for the working out
of and transference of information (transactional use). In “Discourse analysis: an
introduction”, Paltridge (2006: 25) concludes that “speaking and writing draw on the same
underlying grammatical system but in general they encode meanings in different ways
depending on what they wish to present.”
In Cook’s opinion (1989: 128), whether the discourse is spoken or written profoundly
influences the choices of the appropriate cohesive ties. This present study focuses on
product of communicative process. Thus, though both spoken and written texts are made to
be persuasive and attractive, we just look into cohesion in written discourses
, not in the spoken ones. The question is how we can analyze a discourse. There is nothing
better than basing ourselves on disciplines of discourse analysis.
1.1.4. Discourse analysis

- 7 -
Discourse Analysis (DA) has been developed from the work 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 that of old grammarians.
British DA was mainly influenced by M.A.K. Halliday’s functional approach of language.
His framework emphasizes the social function of language and the thematic and
informational structure of speech and writing. De Baugrande (1980), Halliday and Hasan
(1976) as well as Prague School of linguists have made their significant contribution to this
branch of linguists in pointing out the links between grammar and discourse.
Yule (1996: 139) state in his book study of language
“ 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, 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."
Discourse analysis, therefore, is very important to understand or interpret a text. One of the
very key technical terms in DA is cohesion. A brief introduction about cohesion as a core
studying matter of this thesis will be discussed later on.


1.1.5. Context in discourse analysis
Context is an important aspect in discourse analysis. There is a dialectical relationship
between discourse and context: the context creates the discourse as much as the discourse
creates the context. Nguyen, H. (2000: 39) sees context as “the most elusive and fluid
concepts on modern linguistics.” Nunan (1993:7) emphasizes “Context refers to the
situation giving use to the discourse, and within which the discourse is embedded.”
According to him, context consists of both linguistics and non-linguistics. There are two
types of context in discourse, respectively context of situation, and context of culture.

1.1.5.1. Context of situation
Context of situation is an integral concept of discourse analysis. According to Eggins
(1994:30), context of situation is usually discussed under three variables: “what is talked
about, what the relationship between the communicators is; what role the language plays.”
Halliday (2002:52) thought of context of situation as a determining environment which
affects text meaning.

- 8 -
1.1.5.2. Context of culture
Besides the language and context of situation we need to pay attention to the context of
culture. As stated by Malinowski (1923) “if you are not a member of the culture, you cannot
understand what is meant”. To recognize the text as meaningful, the readers or hearers need
to refer the text to a cultural context. It is important to know the culture of the given
language in interpreting and understanding the given messages.
1.1.6. Register and genre in discourse analysis
Register is an important factor that can not be ignored because this study focuses on
cohesion, which is supplemented by the concept of register. Halliday and Hasan (1976:22)
give the concept and components of the context of situation, which shows the features of
register by FIELD, TENOR and MODE. Field of discourse shows what is happening with
the nature of the social action that is taking place. Whereas, Tenor of discourse refers to
who is taking part, to the nature of the participants, their statuses and roles. Mode of
discourse regards to what part the language is playing, what it is that the participants are
expecting the language to do for them in that situation.
In terms of genre, Eggins (1994:32) believed
“Genre, or context of culture, can be seen as more abstract, more general - we can recognize a
particular genre if we are not sure exactly what the situational context is. Genre, then, can be
thought of as the general framework that gives purpose to interactions of particular types,
adaptable to the many specific context of situation that they get used in.”
1.2. Cohesion
1. 2.1. Definition of cohesion

There are various definitions of cohesion. McCarthy (1991:25) regards cohesion as surface
links between the clauses and sentences. Nguyen, H. (2000:23) states that “cohesion refers
to the formal relationship that causes text to cohere or stick together.” It also may be
defined as the formal linguistic realization of semantic and pragmatic relations between
clauses and sentences in a text (Quirk et al. 1985: 1423 cited in Cook. 1994: 29). Halliday
and Hasan in “Cohesion in English” (1976: 4-5) see cohesion as “part of the system of
language”, more exactly as “a semantic one” which refers to “relations of meaning that
exist with the text and that defined it as a text.” In their point of view, cohesion is expressed
through the stratal organization of language, and is expressed partly through the grammar
and partly through the vocabulary.
Definition of cohesion and its classification by Halliday and Hasan (1976) is the framework
for the present study.
1.2.2. Cohesion vs. Coherence

- 9 -
Cohesive devices in Salkie’s opinion (1995: X- XI) are the adhesives to stick the different
parts of a text together. However, according to him, to make a text, cohesive devices are
only one factor. Cohesion must be put in the relation to coherence. Nevertheless, in the
study of discourse analysis, it is very important to distinguish cohesion and coherence.
Palmer (1983, cited in Nguyen, H, 2000: 23) contrasted coherence from cohesion at the
point that coherence is “the type of semantic or rhetorical relationships that underline
texts.” This viewpoint is strongly agreed by Bell (1991, cited in Hoang, V.V, 1999: 13)
Cohesion is concerned with formal surface structures (syntax and lexis) to interact with
underlying semantic relations or underlying functional coherence to create textual unity.
Coherence, in contrast, is concerned with the sequencing of the configuration of the concepts
and relation of the textual world which underlies and are realised by the surface text.
It seems that coherence is the hidden link among ideas that the readers draw themselves
while reading the text; whereas, cohesion is a surface relation and it connects together the
actual words and expressions. Richards et al. (1992: 62) said that cohesion means the
grammatical and or lexical relationships between the different elements of a text, while

coherence is “the relationships which link the meanings of utterances in a discourse or of
the sentences in a text.” In other words, cohesion is a guide to coherence.
However, coherence and cohesion are interrelated, as Widdowson (1984) concludes “the
procedures of cohesion and coherence are not entirely distinct….” Coherence can be shown
out by cohesion, but the identification between coherence and cohesion sometimes can not
be made. Thus, coherence and cohesion are connected to each other in making ties within a
text. As what noticed by Tran, N.T. (1981:3), coherence is “content cohesion”, including
topical and logical cohesion.
1.2.3. Aspects of cohesion
To make a discourse coherent, the two vital factors which can not be omitted are topical and
logical cohesion. However, because the present study does not focus on these two, they will
not be discussed in details.
1.2.3.1. Topical cohesion
What topical cohesion concerns about is Theme and Rheme. Theme is usually expressed by
the least- most constituent of the sentence. It refers to what speaker nominates as the subject
of what he will think about in the Rheme. The function of theme is to connect back or link
to previous discourse and to serve as a starting of departure for further development of
discourse.
1.2.3.2. Logical cohesion

- 10 -
Logical cohesion, in Nguyen, H’s view (2000:28), is also powerful sentence connectors.
They demonstrate the logical relationship holding between sentences, thus creating or
expressing cohesion. There exist the following types of logical cohesive devices: and,
enumeration, addition, transition, concession, and comparison.
1.2.4. Types of cohesion
Types of cohesion and linguistic level are distinguished clearly in Halliday and Hasan's
book (1976).
Linguistic level at which “phoric” relation is established
Type of cohesion

Semantic
Lexicogrammatical Grammatical
Lexical
Reference
Substitution and ellipsis
Lexical cohesion
Table 1.1: Types of cohesion
(Source: Halliday and Hasan, 1976: 318)
Halliday and Hasan state that “cohesion is expressed partly through grammar and through
partly the vocabulary.” In his book An A-Z of ELT: a dictionary of terms and concepts used
in English Language Teaching, Thornbury (2006:32) confirms Halliday and Hasan’s idea
that by means of grammar and lexical, cohesion can help connect texts, either spoken or
written. The two types of cohesion, grammatical and lexical, can be classified as follows:
Grammatical cohesion
Lexical cohesion
Reference
 Exphoric reference
 Endophoric reference
- Personal
- Demonstrative
- Comparative
Substitution
 Nominal substitution
 Verbal substitution
 Clausal substitution
Ellipsis
 Nominal ellipsis
 Verbal ellipsis
 Clausal ellipsis
Conjunction

 Additive
 Adversative
 Causal
 Temporal
 Others

Reiteration
 Same word / repetition
 Synonym / near-synonym
 Superordinate
 General words

Collocation
Table 1.2: Grammatical and lexical cohesion
Halliday and Hasan add that conjunction, particularly, is “on the borderline of the two.”
However, it can be better to put it in the group of grammatical cohesion as it is “mainly

- 11 -
grammatical with a lexical component in it” (Halliday and Hasan, 1976: 6). The detail of
each type is briefly explained as follows.
1.2.4.1. Grammatical cohesion
1.2.4.1.1. Reference
According to Halliday and Hasan (1976: 31) the interpretation of a word is not necessarily
based only on its own right, but it can make reference to something else provided that the
reference is either to some other parts of the text or to the world experienced by the sender
and the receiver of the text. That is, the information to be retrieved is the referential
meaning, and the cohesion lies in the continuity of reference.
Reference, in Halliday and Hasan’s viewpoint, can be accounted as “exophoric” or
“endophoric” functions.
Reference

(Situational) (Textual)
Exophora Endophora

(To preceding text) (To following text)
Anaphora Cataphora

(Types of reference; source: Halliday and Hasan, 1976: 33)

“Exophoric reference directs the receiver „out of „the text and into an assumed shared
world” (McCarthy, 1991: 41). Endophoric function, in contrast, refers to the text itself in its
interpretation (Brown and Yule, 1983: 92). Endophoric reference is divided into two
classes: anaphoric relations which involve looking back in texts to find the referent and
cataphoric relation which looks forward for their interpretation.
Without regard to these functions, Halliday and Hasan (1976: 31-84) classify reference into
three types Personal Reference, Demonstrative Reference, and Comparative Reference.
 Personal Reference is a reference by means of function into a speech situation
through the category of the person in the form of personal pronouns, such as: I, me, you,
him, etc or personal determiner like mine, your, her, etc.
 Demonstrative Reference is reference by means of location on a scale of proximity
such as this, these, here, now (near proximity), that, those, there, then (far proximity), or, the
(neutral proximity)
 Comparative Reference is indirect reference by means of identity or similarity,
such as same, identically, identical, equal (identity -general comparison), similar, additional

- 12 -
(general similarity - general comparison), other, different, else, differently, otherwise
(different), better, more, so, less, equally (particular comparison).
1.2.4.1.2. Substitution
Substitution can be defined as the replacement of one item by another to avoid repetition in

the text. Halliday and Hasan (1976:89) distinguish substitution from reference in terms of
linguistic system, in which “reference is a relation on the semantic level, whereas
substitution is a relation on the lexicogrammatical level, the level of grammar and
vocabulary, or linguistic form.” They classify substitution into 3 types: nominal, verbal and
clausal. Most of the substitutes are pro-forms within sentences, which are used across
sentences. In specific words, substitutes may be pro-forms for adverbials, pro-forms for
predicate and predication, and also pro-forms for the direct object clause. According to
Halliday and Hasan (1976: 91), nominal substitution includes “one”, “ones”, “same”,
verbal substitution consists of “do”, and clausal substitutes are “so”, “not”.
1.2.4.1.3. Ellipsis
Similarly to substitution, ellipsis is used to avoid repetition, as Salkie (1995:56) said that the
aim of ellipsis is to “leave out a word or phrase rather than repeat it.” It is often regarded
as “substitution by zero.” Nevertheless, Halliday and Hasan (1976:142) argue that although
substitution and ellipsis embody the same fundamental relation between parts of a text (a
relation between words or groups or clauses), they are two different kinds of mechanism,
and hence show rather different patterns. They also add that ellipsis is an omission of certain
elements from a sentence or clause and can only be recovered by referring to an element in
the preceding text. Therefore, ellipsis is normally an anaphoric relation. In Halliday and
Hasan’s viewpoint (1976:146), ellipsis is divided into three subtypes, namely, nominal
ellipsis, verbal ellipsis, and clausal ellipsis.
1.2.4.1.4. Conjunction
According to Halliday and Hasan (1976: 226), conjunctive elements are cohesive not in
themselves but indirectly by virtue of their specific meaning. It means that they are not
primarily devices for reaching out into the preceding text but they express certain meaning
which presupposes the presence of other components in discourse. In other word,
conjunction does not depend either on referential meaning or identity or
association of wording. There are four types of conjunction:
 Additive: According to Halliday and Hasan (1976: 244) additive relation
consists of additional information to the text. The conjunctive relation, are: and,
or, furthermore, beside, likewise, similarly, that is, in other word, for instance, etc.

- 13 -
 Adversative: The adversative relation is contrary relations which happen in the
component of what being said (1976: 250). The adversative relations are: yet, but, however,
at the same time, in fact, at least…
 Causal: According to Halliday and Hasan (1976: 260) causal relation includes the
relation from combination clauses or sentences which clausal effect exists. The causal
relation are; so, because, for this reason, as a result, then, here.
 Temporal: According to Halliday and Hasan (1976: 261) temporal relation is
expressed in its simplest form by sequential relation conclusion and summary.
The temporal relations are; next, before then, first, finally, in the end, in short, to sum up.

1.2.4.2. Lexical cohesion
Lexical cohesion is established in a text by the choice of words. According to
Halliday and Hasan, lexical cohesion looks at the way aspect of vocabulary links parts of
text together. It is established through vocabulary, and hence at the lexicogrammatical level
(1976: 6). There are two types of lexical cohesion: reiteration and collocation.
1.2.4.2.1. 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, super-ordinates, and general words (ibid: 278). Repetition is the way we
repeat exactly a lexical item mentioned previously in the text. However, the overuse of
repetition can make the text monotonous. Therefore, synonyms and near-synonyms, words
with the same or similar meaning, are used to avoid unnecessary repetition. Super-ordinate,
according to Halliday and Hasan (1976:280), is any item whose meaning includes that if the
earlier one. The two authors (ibid: 281) also add general words into this category. They state
that general words are cohesive only when they have the same referent as whatever they are
presupposing, and when they are accompanied by “the”, “this”, “that”, “these”, and
“those.”

1.2.4.2.2. Collocation
Collocation is an important tool to make parts of a text bind together. Richard et al
(1992:62) explains “collocation refers to the restrictions on how much words can be used
together, for example, which prepositions are used with particular verbs, or which verbs
and nouns are used together.” Collocation refers to the semantic and structural relation

- 14 -
among words, which native speakers can use subconsciously for comprehension or
production of a text. Halliday and Hasan argue the case of collocation as follows:
The cohesive effect … depends not so much on any systematic relation-ship as on their
tendency to share the same lexical environment, to occur in COLLOCATION with one
another. In general, any two lexical items having similar patterns of collocation – that is,
tending to appear in similar context – will generate a cohesive force if they occur in adjacent
sentences.
(Halliday & Hasan, 1976: 286)
In short, collocation refers to words that keep company with each other. In terms of
structure, there are two types of collocation: grammatical collocation and lexical
collocation (Halliday and Hasan, 1976:284).
 Grammatical collocation often contains a lexical content word and grammar
function words, i.e. a noun, an adjective, a verb plus a reposition. Some main kinds of
grammatical collocation include V+ prep, Adj + Prep, N + Prep, Prep + N.
 Lexical collocation is lexically restricted word pairs where only a subset of the
synonyms of the collocators can be used in the same lexical content. Lexical collocation
does not contain prepositions but consist of various combinations of nouns, adjectives,
verbs, and adverbs. The following common patterns are involved: Adj + N, Quant + N, V +
N, N + V, V + Adv, V + V, Adv + Adj, N + N.
1.3. Textbook and the book for grade 12 in general throughout Vietnam
Textbook is probably among the most quintessential equipments of teaching in general and
language teaching and learning in particular. Hutchison and Torres (1994: 315) once
confirm that teaching and learning can not happen without textbook. Cunning Worth (1995)

considers textbook as “a syllabus” in which the learning objectives are presented. Sheldon
(1998:237) agrees with Cunning by adding that textbook both shows the ELT program and
“offers consider advance for both students and teachers when they are being used in the ESL
or EFL classroom.”
In brief, a textbook is a guide map for both teachers and students to know exactly what are supposed
to be covered. To grade 12 students, who are working hard for their exams, the use of their
textbook is even more essential in order to be sure that they have already gone through all
they need.
In Vietnam, to advocate the recent adoption of a market economy as well as the entry into
ASEAN Bloc and WTO, the English language curriculum has been changed, which led to
the arrival of the new textbooks at high schools in 2006 with the changes from a grammar
and vocabulary focus to a skill focus.

- 15 -
The new English textbook for grade 12, called “Tiếng Anh 12”, was composed by a group
of lecturers of Vietnam National University, Hanoi, University of Languages and
International Studies. It was first published in 2006. The syllabus for “Tiếng Anh 12” is the
continuation of the textbook for grade 10 and 11. The book is designed under theme-based
approach with 16 units. Besides a “test yourself” after every two or three units to examine
how well students have achieved in the previous units, these 16 units are set up in the
following order:
1. Home Life 7. Economic reforms 13. The 22
nd
SEA Games
2. Cultural Diversity 8. Life in the future 14.International Organizations
3. Ways of socializing 9. Deserts 15. Women in Society
4. School education system 10. Endangered species 16. The Association of Southeast
5. Higher education 11. Books Asian Nations
6. Future jobs 12. Water sports
These topics cover 6 themes, according to the book “Hướng dẫn thực hiện chuẩn kiến thức

kĩ năng môn Tiếng Anh trung học phổ thông” (Vu, T.L. & Nguyen, H.C., 2010: 36-40).
Theme 1: You and me - unit 1, unit 2, unit 3
Theme 2: Education - unit 4, unit 5, unit 6
Theme 3: Community - unit 7, unit 8
Theme 4: Nature - unit 9, unit 10
Theme 5: Recreation - unit 11, unit 12, unit 13
Theme 6: People and places: unit 14, unit 15, unit 16
There are 5 parts in each unit. Each part is carried out in a period of forty-five minutes.
They are arranged as follows:
A. reading -> B. Speaking -> C. Listening -> D. Writing -> E. Language Focus
Reading is the beginning part of each unit. Each reading passage is about 300 words in
length. These passages closely relate to the themes of the units. According to “tài liệu bồi
dưỡng giáo viên” (MOET, 2006:60), the passages at secondary levels are written with
simple and easy style. Nevertheless, some passages in “Tiếng Anh 12”, such as in unit 7, are
long and rather difficult for students to understand as there are a lot of difficult new words.
It takes time to elicit. That is the reason why, in order to help students to know the passage
well, teachers sometimes need to show students how to guess the answers basing on the
cues and cohesive signals instead of looking up for all new words and structures.
SUMMARY: To sum up, in this part, some terms in discourse analysis are defined.
Among which, cohesive devices – the subject of the thesis – are discussed in details.
Accordingly, there are four subcategories of grammatical cohesive devices, namely
references, substitutions, ellipsis, and conjunctions. The two types of lexical cohesive
devices include reiteration and collocation. Besides, features of the chosen reading texts in
the research textbook are also described.


- 16 -

CHAPTER 2: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
OF TEXTBOOK OBSERVATION
This chapter aims at exploring the frequency of cohesive devices through textbook
observation. It should be repeated that the analyzed book is named “Tiếng Anh 12,” by
Hoang, V.V et al. (2010) for grade 12 students at intermediate levels throughout Vietnam.
The book is divided into 16 themes, with two or three units in each theme. Yet, no texts
present the most typical features of each theme; therefore, all the texts in the book, except 4
reading texts in 4 Test Yourself parts, are put into the observation. The main method used is
statistics. Table and chart demonstrations are used to analyze the statistical data.
2.1. Grammatical cohesion
As being stated earlier, grammatical cohesion in Halliday and Hasan’s viewpoint includes 4
subcategories, namely, reference, substitution, ellipsis and conjunction. The following is
the details of each type used in the reading texts.
2.1.1. Reference
With table 1 in the appendix, it has been proved that reference is among the most prominent
cohesive devices in reading texts in the observed textbook with 658 instances. Basing on the
theory in chapter 2, reference is divided into 3 main types: anaphoric, cataphoric and
exophoric. Further discussion of each type is presented in the next texts.
2.1.1.1. Anaphoric reference
Anaphoric reference means referring to backwards. In this study, reference takes up 357
items. The table below summarizes different patterns of reference in reading texts in the
book.
Anaphoric reference
Number of items
Percentage (%)
Total number
Definite article
166
46.5
357

Personal pronoun
93
26.05
Personal determiner
61
17.09
Demonstrative pronoun
22
6.16
Comparative adjective
8
2.24
Demonstrative adverb
4
1.12
Comparative adverb
3
0.84
Table 2.1: Different types of reference words for anaphoric ties

As can be seen from the table, definite article, “the,” accounts for the largest part with 46.5
%. This figure is nearly twice as much as that of personal pronoun with 26.05 %. This result

- 17 -
does not bring about any surprise, because “no other item in English behaves exactly like
the” (Halliday and Hasan, 1976: 70). Moreover, in terms of meaning, according to Halliday
and Hasan (ibid: 70-71), “the” is “a specifying agent” through which a single individual or
subtype within the class assigned by the noun is recognized. Furthermore, “the” is believed
to use to refer to mentioned things in the text. For secondary students, whose language
competence is still at intermediate level, this anaphoric feature is very important. It makes

the texts simpler and easier to follow and understand. Some examples are given as follows:
If you are excited, you might jump up and down and wave as hard as you can to attract his
attention. This is the instance where big, obvious non-verbal signals are appropriate.
(Unit 3, page 31, “Tiếng Anh 12”)
Today, although their status varies in different countries, women in most parts of the world have
gained significant legal rights. The most important of these are: the right to have equal work
opportunities and pay to men, the right to vote, and the right to formal education.
(Unit 15, page 163,“Tiếng Anh 12”)
After definite article, personal pronoun ranks second with 93 items, making up of 26.05 %.
Similarly to definite article “the,” personal pronouns are commonly used to refer to relevant
persons or subjects that appear earlier before. It is noted that in this case, personal pronouns
are not the substitution for those persons or subjects. It is because the fact that “neither the
syntactic functions of the personal itself, not the syntactic function of its referent, has any
bearing on the anaphoric relation between the two” (Halliday and Hasan, 1976:54).
Anaphoric personal pronouns in the textbook “Tiếng Anh 12” gain their highest rate of
occurrence in unit 1, unit 5, and unit 11. The following are some examples from these units:
My mother is a very caring woman. She takes the responsibility for running the household. She is
always the first one to get up in the morning to make sure that we leave home for school having eaten
breakfast and dressed in suitable clothes.
(Unit 1, page 13, “Tiếng Anh 12” )
My roommate left the window open all the time, even when it as 10 degrees Celsius out, and
went to bed at 10 every night. When she got sick after midterms, she blamed my typing and having a
light on while she was trying to sleep.
(Unit 5, page 53, “Tiếng Anh 12” )

It is also observed from the frequency list that some particular personal pronouns are
exploited at higher frequency than the others. In sum of all reference items of personal
pronouns in the observed book, including anaphoric, cataphoric and exophoric reference,
the most common ones are “you” with 45 times, “we” 39 times, “it” 37 times. “I” is less
favorable with 20 instances, then “they” with 13, “us” with 7, and at the end of the line is

- 18 -
“them” with 4 items. Among these instances, anaphoric personal pronouns involve 34 cases
of “it”, 18 “I”, 13 “they”, 8 “we”, 4 “them”, 2 “us.”
According to Halliday and Hasan (1976:54), “all that has been said about personal pronouns
applies equally to the categories of personal, namely the possessive determiners and
possessive pronouns.” In here, possessive determiners and possessive pronouns are subtypes
of personal determiners. They, similarly to the definite article and personal pronouns, refer
anaphorically to the said-before objects. In the case of the reading texts in the book “Tiếng
Anh 12”, personal determiners are also used at high rate of frequency. They stand at the
third position with 17.09 %. Among 61 cases of personal determiners in the observed books,
“My” appears 21 times, their 12, mine 1, her 11, his 16, our 6, its 8. Let’s see some
examples of anaphoric personal determiners:
I come from a family of five people: my parents, my two younger brothers and I. My
mother works as a nurse in a big hospital. She has to work long hours and once a week she
has to work on a night shift. My father is a biologist. He works from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. in a lab,
but sometimes when there is a project, he doesn’t come home until very late at night.
(Unit 1, page 13, “Tiếng Anh 12” )
Significantly, more Asian students than American students agree that a husband is obliged
to tell his wife where he has been if he comes home late. The Asian wife can demand a
record of her husband’s activities. The American wife, however, trusts her husband to do the
right thing because he loves her not because he has to.
(Unit 2, page 21, “Tiếng Anh 12” )
It is surprising demonstrative pronouns account for only over 6 %, nearly 8 times less than
definite article although both of them refer to the location of something, typically some
entity - person or object - that is participating in the process. As being observed,
demonstrative pronouns often occur as elements within nominal groups or elliptical
elements. It is also analyzed from the course book that “this” and “these” are employed
more frequently than “that” and “those.” For example:
We do not whistle or clap our hands to get the person’s attention. That is considered impolite and

even rude.
(Unit 3, page 31, “Tiếng Anh 12” )
Many people believed that women’s natural roles were as mothers and wives. These people
considered women to be better suited for childbearing and homemaking rather than for involvement
in the public life of business or politics.
(Unit 15, page 163, “Tiếng Anh 12” )
Although comparison is one main part in the schedule of grade 12, comparative types,
including comparative adjective and comparative adverb, are not used frequently in the
reading texts in the course book for basic grade 12 students. Comparative adjective

- 19 -
references account for only 2.24 % with 8 items. They appear mostly in the text in which
there exists the comparison between such things as two cultures in unit 2, the past and the
present in unit 7 and 15, the present and the future in unit 8, etc. Comparative adverb and
demonstrative adverb stand at the lowest position. This low rate of anaphoric reference
shows that the texts are made the clearest and the simplest so that students can grasp them
more easily.
2.1.1.2. Cataphoric reference
Another category of endophoric reference, besides anaphoric reference, is cataphora. It is
used to refer forward to the following text. In spite of a small part in inferential ties,
cataphoric is proved to be quite necessary to vary the direction of reference and contribute
to the cohesion of the text. The percentage of different types of reference words for
cataphoric ties is illustrated in the table below
Cataphoric reference
Number of items
Percentage (%)
Total number
Definite article
82
59.85

137
Comparative adjective
43
31.39
Comparative adverb
4
2.92
Demonstrative adverb
3
2.1
Demonstrative pronoun
3
2.1
Personal pronoun
1
0.73
Personal determiner
1
0.73
Table 2.2: Different types of reference words for cataphoric ties
As it is shown from the table, like that in anaphora, definite article still owns the highest rate
of occurrence, with 59.85 %. It sounds a little bit strange because the definite article is often
used to refer back to the mentioned things. However, within texts for secondary students,
the clarity and simplicity are of great importance. Therefore, all concepts mentioned should
be made identifiable. Definite article here can only refer to a modifying element within the
same nominal group as itself. The following are some examples:
Robots will do most of the work in factories, so they will be cleaner places for fewer people to
work in them. Offices, too, will go electronic with the result that paper will almost completely
disappear.
(Unit 8, page 85, “Tiếng Anh 12” )

Like football, the game begins with the ball in the centre of the pool and both teams sprint for it
from their own goal lines
(Unit 12, page 129, “Tiếng Anh 12” )
Unlike the rate in the anaphoric category, in cataphora, comparative adjective makes up to
over 31.39 % of occurrence. As being counted, the most common anaphoric comparative
cataphoric items are “more,” “different,” “such,” and “other.” Besides, “same” and some
other adjective with their comparative forms are also exploited. For example:

- 20 -
This good advice shows how it is possible to read different types of books in different ways. For
example, you might pick up a travel book and read a few pages before going to sleep. It is enough
to dip into it and read bits here and there. In a word, this is “tasting”.
(Unit 11, page 118, “Tiếng Anh 12” )
The subsequent National Congresses of the Vietnamese Communist Party held in 1991,
1996, and 2001 continued to reaffirm its commitment to Doi Moi, and called for more
administrative and economic reforms. Under the Party’s guidelines, the Government adopted
the Land Law in 1993 and the Enterprises Law in 2000. These have laid legal grounds for
dissolving inefficient co-operatives, expanding more opportunities for farmers, and
encouraging both domestic and foreign private investment.
(Unit 7, page 75, “Tiếng Anh 12” )
However, it is surprising that comparative adverb is not a favorable type of reference. There
are only 4 items of comparative adverb belonging to the cataphoric ties although the
function of adverb is to suggest the idea of adding to the meaning of a verb. This small
percentage of occurrence is also applied to demonstrative adverb though it is the nature of
English language that comparative adverb, demonstrative adverb and comparative adjective
are almost the only source of cataphoric reference. The percentages of occurrence of the
rests of cataphoric reference, demonstrative pronoun, personal pronoun, personal
determiner, are 2.24 %, 1.49 &, 0.75 %, 0.75 %, and 0.75 % respectively.
2.1.1.3. Exophoric reference
Exophoric reference

Number of items
Percentage (%)
Total number
Personal pronoun
75
45.72
164
Definite article
59
35.98
Personal determiner
22
13.42
Comparative adjective
7
4.27
Demonstrative adverb
1
0.61
Demonstrative pronoun
0
0
Comparative adverb
0
0
Table 2.3: Different types of reference words for exophoric ties

Of all 16 texts covered, exophoric reference accounts for a relatively large rate. It shares
words outside of the text. Nevertheless, it is not difficult for students to grasp the reading
texts because students all have certain knowledge of the referent items. The most common

exophoric items are personal pronouns with 45.72 % of occurrence, definite article with
35.98 %, and personal determiner with 13.42 %. Comparative adjectives also appear 7 times
as exophoric reference items, while there is only 1 item belonging to demonstrative adverb
and none of comparative adverb, demonstrative pronouns.
The most popular personal pronouns used as exophora are “we,” “you,” and “it.” The
following are examples for exophoric reference items with these pronouns.

- 21 -
Preparing for a job interview can be stressful, particularly when you are called for the first
interview. Below are some pieces of advice that can help you reduce the feeling of pressure
and create a good impression on your interviewer.
(Unit 6, page 63, “Tiếng Anh 12” )
The topic of unit 6 is about interview. In the above sentence, both the writer and readers
understand that “you” here means the interviewee and “your” means the interviewee’s.
In the following sentence, “it” is also exophoric.
It has been estimated that a free trade area would be established in the region
by 2020
(Unit 16, page 173, “Tiếng Anh 12”)
Definite article “the” is widely exploited in the textbook, too. Look at the below example:

In the afternoon, after hospital, she rushes to the market, then hurries home so that dinner is
ready on the table by the time Dad gets home.
(Unit 1, page 13, “Tiếng Anh 12” )

“The” in the sentence is used with fixed phrases as a default. Readers have knowledge about
them; therefore, there is no need for the writer to explain them.
2.1.2. Conjunctions
Conjunctions or connectors make up a large part in the format of GSCE tests and the tests of
university entrance examinations. That may be the reason why they are also widely explored
in the textbook. The aim of this is to make students initially familiar with conjunctions and

have deeper understanding about how to use conjunctions through the sentences in the
reading texts.
Along with reference, conjunction plays an important role in making a text cohesive. There
are 315 items of conjunctions in total throughout the observed book. As being mentioned
previously, Halliday and Hasan classify conjunction into 4 subcategories, namely additive,
adversative, causal and temporal. The following chart presents the occurrence frequency of
these four types in reading texts in the book “Tiếng Anh 12” The details of each type are
shown in Appendix table 2: