A study of correlative conjunctions as cohesive devices (with reference to the upper-secondary english textbooks)

A study of correlative conjunctions as cohesive
devices
(with reference to the upper-secondary english
textbooks)


Vũ Hồng Quang


Trường Đại học Ngoại Ngữ
Luận văn ThS. Chuyên ngành: English linguistics; Mã số: 60 22 15
Người hướng dẫn: Assoc. Prof. Trần Hữu Mạnh
Năm bảo vệ: 2009


Abstract: Correlative conjunctions are taught in Upper Secondary School. However, there is
little attention is paid on this area of grammar. This study conducted a research of correlative
conjunctions as cohesive devices with reference to the Upper Secondary English textbooks. The
correlative conjunctions in this study are “both … and”, “either …or”, “neither … nor”, and “not
only… but also”. They are correlative conjunctions which are taught in the Upper Secondary
English textbooks. Sentences that contains correlative conjunctions are collected and analysed
both syntactically and semantically to prove that correlative conjunctions can be used as
cohesive devices. This study also suggested tips for teaching and learning these conjunctions.

Keywords: Tiếng Anh; Văn bản; Liên từ; Phương tiện liên kết văn bản

Content:


iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
Declaration
Acknowledgements
Abstract
Table of content
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Rationale
1.2. Aims and objectives
1.3. Scopes of the study
1.4. Methodology
CHAPTER 2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
2.1. Discourse and Text
2.2. Textuality, cohesion and coherence
2.2.1. Textuality
2.2.2. Cohesion
2.2.2.1. Substitution and ellipsis
2.2.2.2. Conjunction
2.2.2.3. Reference
2.2.2.4. Lexical cohesion
2.2.3. Cohesion and Coherence
2.3. Segmenting Texts into Units
2.3.1. Using the sentence as the unit of segmentation
2.3.2. Using the T-unit as the unit of segmentation
2.3.3. Using the proposition as the unit of segmentation
2.3.4. Using the F-unit as the unit of segmentation
2.4. Semantic relations
CHAPTER 3. SYNTACTIC AND SEMANTIC RELATIONS OF
CORRELATIVE CONJUNCTIONS
3.1. Introduction

3.2. The syntax of correlative conjunctions
i
ii
iii
iv
1
1
1
1
2
3
3
9
9
10
10
11
12
13
14
16
16
17
18
18
20
24

24
25

v
3. 2.1. Correlatives and their conjunctions
3.2.2. Correlative with phrasal coordination
3.2.3. Correlative with sentential coordination
3.2.4. Correlative with conjunction phrases of different syntax.
3. 2.5. Correlatives are focus particles
3.2.5. Correlative conjunctions of “not only … (but)” are used to link two
sentences.
3.3. Semantic relations of Correlative conjunctions
CHAPTER 4. CONCLUSION
4.1. Summary
4.2. Some implications for teaching and learning correlative conjunctions
4.3. Some implications for materials
4.4. Some Implications for Translation
4.5. Conclusion
REFERENCE
25
25
27
28
29
31

32
37
37
37
38
41

42
43




1
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Rationale
”In the world of human beings, you won't find a language by itself - the Dutch language
strolling the canals, or the English language having a nice cup of tea, or the German
language racing madly along the autobahn. You only find discourse.” Robert de
Beaugrande (1997: 36)
It is unimaginable of a world without language. We get through our days exchanging
various oral and written language (or, talk and text). We live by language or discourse, not
in discrete audio or visual units but in connected sound waves and orthographic forms to
which we assign meaning on the basis of our past experience with them and on the basis of
the situations in which these waves and forms are used.
Discourse analysis is concerned with the contexts in and the processes through which we
use oral and written language to specific audiences, for specific purposes, in specific
settings. We might one cannot understand language fully without looking at language use.
My research focuses on correlative conjunctions in English. I attempt to make my
description both semantic and syntactic.
There are at least three reasons why I believe it is important to focus on correlative
conjunctions. Firstly, the correlative conjunctions will enrich our potential for interpreting
the linguistic phenomena in English. Secondly, although there has been some research in
exploring conjunctions in general, little attention has been given to the study of correlative
conjunctions. Thirdly, our students have some difficulties in understanding and using
correlative conjunctions.
1.2. Aims:

The study is descriptive in nature and aims at finding correlative conjunction use is to
connect discourse segmental units with reference to the Upper-secondary English textbook
1.3. Scope of the study:
The study concerns the contrastive analysis of correlative conjunctions which are taught in
the Upper-secondary English textbook such as both … and, either … or, neither… nor, not
only … but also in English. The data for the study are from novels in English, textbooks,
and other sources.

2
1.4. Methods of data collection and analysis.
This study will be text-based. It will focus on the data of written English. A large archive
of texts of different types, including written speech, news reports, literature, legal texts,
academic texts, will be collected. Then correlative conjunctions will be extracted from
these texts and a corpus will be established.
The data were collected by choosing from novels by famous English writers in the 20
th

centuries, mostly won the Nobel Prize, from textbooks, and other sources.
The data collected will be analysed to find the bounding of correlative conjunctions in
terms of syntax and semantics.

44
REFERENCE
1. Bach, E. and Harms, R. (eds). 1968. Universals in linguistic theory. New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
2. Baker, M. (1992) In Other Words: A Course Book on Translation. London:
Routledge.
3. Beaugrande, R. A. de. 1980. Text, discourse and process. Toward a
multidisciplinary science of texts. Norwood NJ: Ablex.
4. Beaugrande, R. de and Dressler, W. (1981) Introduction to Text Linguistics.

London: Longman.
5. Blommaert, J. (2005). Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6. Brown, G. & G. Yule. 1983. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
7. Carrell, P.L. 1982. Cohesion is not coherence. TESOL Quarterly. 16(4): 479-488.
8. Carter, R. (1997). Investigating English Discourse. London: Routledge.
9. Connor, U. 1984. A study of cohesion and coherence in English as a second
language students’ writing. Paper in Linguistics: International Journal of Human
Communication, 17 (3), 301-16.
10. Crombie, W. 1985. Process and relation in discourse and language learning.
Oxford: Oxford Unitversity press.
11. Crystal, D. 1992. An Encyclopedic Dictionary of Language and Languages.
Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
12. Donnelly, C. 1994. Linguistics for writers. Buffalo: SUNY Press.
13. Gee, J. P. (2005). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method.
London: Routledge.
14. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J., editors,
Syntax and Semantics: Vol.3. Speech acts. Academic Press, New York NY.
15. Halliday, M.A.K. & R. Hasan 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
16. Harris, Zellig S. (1981.) Papers on Syntax. Ed. by Henry Hiż. (=Synthese Language
Library, 14.) Dordrecht/Holland: D. Reidel, vii, 479 pp.]
17. Harris, Zellig S. (1982.) "Discourse and Sublanguage". Sublanguage: Studies of
language in restricted semantic domains ed. by Richard Kittredge & John
Lehrberger, 231-236. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

45
18. Hatch, E. (1992). Discourse and Language Education. Cambridge/New York:
Cambridge University Press.
19. Hendriks, P., (2001). ‘Either’ as a focus particle. Natural Language and Linguistic
Theory (submitted for publication).

20. Hoey, M. (1983). On the surface of discourse. London: Allen & Unwin.
21. Hoey, M. (1991). Pattern of lexis in text. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
22. Hubbard, E. H. (1989). Reference cohesion, conjunctive cohesion and relational
coherence in student academic writing. Unpublished D Lit et Phil. Thesis: Unisa,
Pretoria.
23. Huddlestone, R. (1971). The sentence in written English. Cambridge: University
Press.
24. Jackson, H. (1990). Grammar and Meaning. A Semantic Approach to English
Grammar. London/New York: Longman.
25. Jaworski, A. and Coupland, N. (eds). (1999). The Discourse Reader. London:
Routledge.
26. Johnstone, B. (2002). Discourse analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.
27. Kintsch, W and Van Dijk, T. 1978. Toward a model of text comprehension and
production. Psychological Review 85 (5): 363-394.
28. Lieber, P.E. 1979. Cohesion in ESL students’ expository writing: A descriptive
study. PhD, New York University.
29. Longacre, R.E. (1996). The grammar of discourse. New York: Plenum Press.
30. McCarthy, M. (1991). Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
31. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, S., Svartvik, J., (2000). A Comprehensive
Grammar of the English Language. Longman, London.
32. Renkema, J. (2004). Introduction to discourse studies. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
33. Schiffrin, D. 1994. Approaches to Discourse. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
34. Schiffrin, D., Deborah Tannen, & Hamilton, H. E. (eds.). (2001). Handbook of
Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.
35. Schwarz, B., (1999). On the syntax of either or. Natural Language and Linguistic
Theory 17, 339–370.