a contrastive analysis of lexical and grammatical cohesion in inaugural speeches by the u s president barrack obama and vietnamese former president

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Candidate’s statement ....................................................................................... i
Acknowledgements ..........................................................................................ii
Abstract ...........................................................................................................iii
Table of contents ............................................................................................. iv
PART A: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 1
1. Rationale ...................................................................................................... 1
2. Aims of the study ......................................................................................... 2
3. Research question ........................................................................................ 2
4. Scope of the study ........................................................................................ 2
5. Methodology ................................................................................................ 3
6. Organization of the study ............................................................................. 3
PART B: DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................... 4
Chapter 1: Theoretical Background .................................................................. 4
1.1. Discourse ................................................................................................... 4
1.1.1. Define “discourse” and “text” .......................................................... 4
1.1.2. Spoken and written discourse .......................................................... 5
1.2. Discourse context ....................................................................................... 6
1.2.1. Context of situation .......................................................................... 6
1.2.2. Context of culture ............................................................................ 6
1.3. Contrastive analysis ................................................................................... 7
1.4. Cohesion..................................................................................................... 7
1.4.1. Definition ......................................................................................... 7
1.4.2. Cohesion & coherence ..................................................................... 8
1.4.3. Grammatical cohesion and lexical cohesion .................................... 8
1.4.3.1. Grammatical cohesion ......................................................... 8
1.4.3.2. Lexical cohesion ................................................................ 15
Chapter 2: A contrastive analysis of Obama and Nguyen Minh Triet’s
inaugural speeches in terms of grammatical cohesive devices ...................... 20

v

2.1. Reference ................................................................................................. 20
2.1.1. Anaphoric reference ........................................................................ 20
2.1.2. Cataphoric reference ....................................................................... 21
2.2. Substitution .............................................................................................. 22
2.3. Ellipsis ...................................................................................................... 23
2.4. Conjunctions ............................................................................................ 23
2.5. Frequency of occurrences of grammatical cohesive devices ................... 25
Chapter 3: A contrastive analysis of Obama and Nguyen Minh Triet’s
inaugural speeches in terms of lexical cohesive devices ................................. 27
3.1. Reiteration ................................................................................................ 27
3.1.1. Repetition ........................................................................................ 27
3.1.2 Synonym .......................................................................................... 29
3.1.3. Antonym.......................................................................................... 30
3.1.4. Hyponym ......................................................................................... 31
3.2. Collocation ............................................................................................... 32
3.3. Frequency of occurrences of lexical cohesive devices ............................ 34
PART C: Conclusion ......................................................................................... 37
1. Conclusion ................................................................................................ 37
2. Implications on teaching and learning writing .......................................... 38
3. Limitations of the research ......................................................................... 39
4. Suggestions for further studies................................................................... 39
References ........................................................................................................... 40
Appendices
Appendix 1: Nguyen Minh Triet’s inaugural speech .......................................I
Appendix 2: Barrack Obama’s inaugural speech ...........................................IV

1

PART A: INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale
English is one of the most important languages in communication.
Nowadays, people all over the world learn English to communicate with each
other, therefore, the language has become an international language. Vietnam is
not an exception. English is more and more popular in Vietnam, where it becomes
a subject in Vietnamese education system. No one can deny the role of English in
connecting people all over the world together and bringing many chances for
people to integrate into the global economy.
Because of the significance of English, Vietnamese learners try to find
many ways to master the second language, such as through movies, stories, music
and even pictures. Another good way that many learners choose is learning
English through speeches made by famous people. For example, in Japan, there
used to be a tendency of studying English through the USA‟s president Obama‟s
speeches and in Vietnam, not few learners try this way.
However, there is a truth that Vietnamese learners of English often make a
variety of mistakes and errors when using the target language. Many of learners
have difficulty in using English fluently and smoothly. They often use the second
language by putting words together to produce a sentence. As a result, the
language is incoherent. It is necessary to use cohesive devices, especially in terms
of vocabulary and grammar, which can cohere ideas in a context together to avoid
the incoherence of texts. Thanks to these devices, which can help to make the
language items connected, learners can use the second language as native
speakers.
In reality, many researchers have spent a lot of time on studying cohesive
devices in general and in specific context. Nevertheless, no one has studied about
cohesive devices in president Obama‟s speech. Barrack Obama, who is the first

color-skinned president of America, has a big influence on Americans‟ mind. His
words are admired by people all over the world. His words cause much curiosity


2

and urge the author to conduct this thesis on his inaugural speech. The reason to
choose the inaugural speech is that everyone knows each presidential speech has
to go through a long process of editing and revising before it is given to public. All
of its words, sentences are written and polished carefully because it is not only the
product of an individual, but it is also the face of a nation.
For above reasons, the author of this paper aims to focus on lexical and
grammatical cohesive devices used in Obama‟s speech in comparison with expresident Nguyen Minh Triet‟s speech. By contrastively analyzing of the two
speeches, the paper is expected to aid learners of the second language to avoid
making errors and use the language as natively as their mother tongue.
2. Aims of the study
This thesis aims at:
- giving a general theoretical background of lexical and grammatical
cohesive devices.
- describing and analyzing lexical and grammatical cohesive devices used
in two speeches made by two representatives in similar situational context but
different cultural context to reveal similarities and differences.
3. Research question
With the above purposes, the study intends to answer the following
research questions:
1. How are lexical and grammatical cohesive devices used in Obama‟s and
Nguyen Minh Triet‟s inaugural speeches?
2. What are the similarities and differences between lexical and
grammatical cohesive devices used in two inaugural speeches?
4. Scope of the study

In order to fulfill the aims of the study and answer two research questions, the
author of this thesis only focuses on contrastively analyzing lexical and
grammatical cohesive devices in two inaugural speeches made by the USA‟s
president Obama and Vietnamese president Nguyen Minh Triet.


3

5. Methodology
Firstly, a variety of materials related to cohesive devices, notably, lexical
and grammatical cohesive devices, is read through and selected to build up a
theoretical background for the research. Then, cohesive devices used in two
speeches are collected and classified for description, analysis and statistics.
Contrastive method is used to find out the similarities and differences of lexical
and grammatical cohesive devices used in two speeches.
6. Organization of the study
This organization of the study is composed of three parts as follows.
Part A is the introduction, which includes rationale, aims of the study,
research question, scope of the study, methodology and organization of the study.
Part B starts with chapter 1 – the theoretical background that includes with
discourse, discourse context and then contrastive analysis. The rest of the chapter
1 deals with cohesion, which consists of definition, cohesion and coherence,
grammatical and lexical cohesion.
Chapter 2 discusses the contrastive analysis of Obama and Nguyen Minh
Triet‟s inaugural speeches in terms of grammatical cohesive devices, which are
composed of reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunctions and the frequency of
occurrence of grammatical cohesive devices in both speeches.
Chapter 3 is the contrastive analysis of Obama and Nguyen Minh Triet‟s
inaugural speeches in terms of lexical cohesive devices, which emphasizes on
reiteration, collocation and frequency of occurrences of lexical cohesive devices.

The last part concludes the main points of the thesis and gives some
implications on teaching and learning writing and suggestions for further studies
as well.
The rest of the paper is some references for further reading and study.


4

PART B: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER 1: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
1.1. Discourse
1.1.1. Define “discourse” and “text”
The term “discourse” and “text” has been remaining confusion among
analysts. Some of them believe that these two concepts are interchangeable and
some others see these in contrary view. Whatever it is, “discourse” and “text” are
two most notable linguistic phenomenon. Therefore, the clarification of them is
necessary for learners and teachers of linguistics.
There are several definitions for discourse. Nunan, D. (1993:5) defines
discourse as a unit of language, which is formed by some related sentences.
Similarly, “Discourse is a continuous stretch of (especially spoken) language
larger than a sentence, often constituting a coherent unit, such as a sermon,
argument, joke or narrative.” (Crystal 1992: 25 cited in Nunan 1993:5).
Furthermore, “discourse is stretches of language perceived to be meaningful,
unified and purposive” (Cook 1989: 156 cited in Nunan 1993: 6). In conclusion,
discourse is a linguistic unit that is coherent with some specific purposes.
Whereas, “Text is a piece of naturally occurring spoken, written, or signed
discourse identified for purposes of analysis. It is often a language unit with a
definable communicative function, such as a conversation or a poster” (Crystal
1992:72 cited in Nunan 1993:6). Halliday & Hasan in Cohesion in English (1976)
consider text as “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” and it may be spoken or
written.
Nunan (1993) refers text as “any written record of a communicative event”
and discourse as “the interpretation of the communicative event in the context”. In
addition, Widdowson (1984:100) pointed out that “discourse is a communicative
process by means of interaction. Its situational outcome is a change in a state of


5

affairs: information is conveyed, intentions made clear, its linguistic product is
text”.
Although some linguists try to put “discourse” and “text” apart, it cannot be
denied that they can be used interchangeably. Discourse is a “process” and text is
a “product”. For this idea, in this study, I will use the term “text” to refer to any
written discourse and the two inaugural speeches made by two presidents –
Barrack Obama and Nguyen Minh Triet – are analyzed as “products”.
1.1.2. Spoken and written discourse
There should be a distinction between spoken and written discourse – two
modes expressing linguistic meaning. Apart from some of their similarities, they
represent different features, in which the biggest one is spoken discourse is
changeable while written discourse is permanent or unchangeable.
It cannot be denied that spoken language is a kind of verbal
communication. Speakers can use gestures or body language to state what he/she
wants to receivers. This is impossible for written language, which is non-verbal.
Its only means of manifestation is texts. According to Nunan (1993:8), although
spoken language existed before written language, “written texts are much more
than merely talk written down”. And because of the existence of the agricultural
culture rather than hunting and gathering, people needed „permanent records‟. He
pointed out that both written and spoken discourse is used to “get things done, to

provide information and to entertain”. A speaker does not have to take much
notice of grammatical rules and spend much time on planning what he/she intend
to deliver to his/her receiver as a writer. On the other hand, with face-to-face
interactions, the receiver can see the speaker‟s attitude and behavior rather than
that of the writer, whose expressions are transferred into texts. According to
Brown and Yule (1983:13), both spoken and written discourse serves the
interactional and transactional purpose. The former is used for human relationship
and the later is for transferring information.


6

Speech may be considered as both written and spoken discourse. In this
study, the researcher analyzes transcriptions of the two inaugural speeches made
by President Obama and Ex-President Nguyen Minh Triet as two written
discourses with the formal use of lexical and grammatical rules.
1.2. Discourse context
1.2.1. Context of situation
It is significant to recognize the context of situation of a discourse. Readers
and hearers can easily get what speakers and writers mean when they know the
context of situation. Nunan (1993:7) states that “context refers to the situation
giving rise to the discourse, and within which the discourse is embedded”.
Therefore, so as to understand and analyze a discourse, it is essential to focus on
the context in which it is embedded.
In this study, the context of the two discourses is speeches delivered in
public after the two presidents were inaugurated.
1.2.2. Context of culture
In order to understand a discourse, aside from the language used in the
discourse and many other features, it is necessary to know the context of culture.
Only when you are a part of the culture, can you capture what is said and

expressed in the discourse.
In this thesis, two inaugural speeches of two leaders from two different
cultures – Vietnam and America are mentioned and analyzed. It is indispensable to
comprehend some significant features of these two nations or two literary styles in
specific beforehand. Obviously, two inaugural speeches are aimed at two different
receivers/hearers. Nguyen Minh Triet‟s speech was delivered to Vietnamese
people, who are citizens of a socialist country while Barrack Obama‟s speech is
for citizens of a federal constitutional republic. It is also necessary to revise some
of main features of two cultures in this paper. For a long time, the democracy
exists in America but it is manifested through the appearance of many parties in a
nation and these also create some of prominent characteristics that are truly


7

America: individualism, high competition and privacy. In Vietnam, there is also
democracy; however, this feature is much different from that of America. The
democracy is expressed in the unity and solidarity of citizens. In addition,
Vietnamese people do and think basing on the collective spirit. These different
features between two nations may lead to the differences in writing two inaugural
speeches because these two are made for political purposes and delivered to
different audiences. In addition, the political institutions and ideologies of authors
are reflected in inaugural texts.
In conclusion, both context of situation and culture are integral in analyzing
the discourses since they have a big influence on the literary style, especially,
inaugural speeches written by Presidents.
1.3. Contrastive analysis
Before finding any similarities and differences between two discourses, it is
necessary to understand contrastive analysis. According to James (1980), the
history of contrastive analysis (CA) starts with Lado‟s Linguistics across cultures

(1957). In his book, Lado stated that “those elements which are similar to the
learner‟s native language will be simple for him, and those elements that are
different will be difficult” (Lado, 1957). James also believed that two earlier books
on the linguistic integration of immigrants to the USA – Weinreich (1953) and
Haugen (1956) gave Lado his impetus. James (1980: 3) gave a provisional
definition of CA as “CA is a linguistic enterprise aimed at producing inverted (i.e.,
contrastive, not comparative) two-valued typologies (a CA is always concerned
with a pair of languages), and founded on the assumption that languages can be
compared”. He considered CA as inter-language study and applied linguistics.
In short, contrastive analysis is the systematic study of a pair of languages
to identify their similarities and differences. In this study, the similarities and
differences between two inaugural speeches in terms of grammatical and lexical
cohesive devices will be figured out.
1.4. Cohesion


8

1.4.1. Definition
Cohesion is understood as the grammatical and lexical relationship within a
text or sentence. It can be also defined as the links that hold a text together and
give it meaning. Nguyen Hoa (2000:23) defines cohesion as the formal
relationship that makes texts cohere or stick together. According to Halliday &
Hasan (1976:4), “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”. Cohesion happens
where the interpretation of some elements in the discourse is dependent on that of
another. Also according to them, cohesion is part of the system of a language and
is expressed through the strata organization of language. It is manifested partly
through the grammar and partly through the vocabulary. Therefore, it can be
referred that cohesion includes grammatical and lexical cohesion.

1.4.2. Cohesion & coherence
Taking the viewpoint of Hoang Van Van (2006), cohesion is concerned
with formal surface structures to interact with underlying semantic relations or
underlying functional coherence to create textual unity. Contrary, coherence is
concerned with the sequencing of the configuration of the concepts and relation of
the textual world which underlies and is realized by the surface text.
1.4.3. Grammatical cohesion and lexical cohesion
1.4.3.1. Grammatical cohesion
Grammatical cohesion may be understood as the surface marking of
semantic links between clauses and sentences in written discourse, and between
utterances and tunes in speech. It can be classified into four groups: reference
substitution, ellipsis and conjunction.
 Reference
Halliday and Hasan (1976) stated that “reference is a semantic relation”.
Reference is used in discourse to avoid repetition. Also, according to them,
“instead of being interpreted semantically in their own right, they make reference
to something else for their interpretation”.


9

For example:
Three blind mice, three blind mice.
See how they run! See how they run!
(Halliday & Hasan 1976: 31)
In the above example, they refers to three blind mice and link two clauses
together.
In case of reference, the information to be recalled is the referential
meaning, the “identify of the particular thing or class of things that is being
referred to; and the cohesion lies in the continuity of reference, whereby the same

thing enters into the discourse a second time” (Halliday & Hasan 1976:31). From
their point of view, reference is divided into two main types: exophoric and
endophoric reference, and if endophoric, they may be anaphoric and cataphoric.
Each of them is shown by either pronouns (he, she, it, they…) or the article the.
Exophoric reference is considered as situational reference, which refers to a thing
as identified in the context of situation, whilst, endophora is recognized as textual
reference, which refers to a thing as identified in the surrounding text. Endophora
is composed of two kinds: anaphora and cataphora. By anaphoric reference, we
mean someone or something that has been identified previously is referred back.
Cataphoric reference is the opposite of anaphora. It is the use of a word or a phrase
to refer forward to another word or phrase which will be used later in the
discourse.
The following example will illustrate types of reference:
It was the night before the day fixed for his coronation, and the young
King was sitting alone in his beautiful chamber. His courtiers had all taken
their leave of him, bowing their heads to the ground, according to the
ceremonious usage of the day, and had retired to the Great Hall of the
Palace, to receive a few last lessons from the Professor of Etiquette; there
being some of them who had still quite natural manners, which in a
courtier is, I need hardly say, a very grave offence.


10

(Oscar Wilde, 1988)
All the reference items are bold and underlined. We can see from the
example above, “his”, “him” refers back to “the young King” in the first
sentence; “their”, “them” refers back to “courtiers”. This is known as
anaphoric reference. The article “the” in “the night”, “the day”, “the young
King”, “the ground”, “the Great Hall, “the Palace”, “the professor of

Etiquette” refers to the night, the day, the young King, the ground, the Great Hall,
the Palace and the professor of Etiquette that the author knows and wants to share
with his audiences. This phenomenon is called exophoric reference.
By cataphoric reference, let‟s consider this example cited in Nguyen Hoa
(1998):
This should interest you, if you are keen on boxing. The world heavyweight
championship is going to be held in Chicago next June. (Quirk, 1973 cited
in Nguyen Hoa 1998:35)
“This” in the first sentence refers to what the speaker/writer is going to say
– “the world heavy weight championship”.
Exophoric reference contributes to the creation of text, in that it links the
language with the context of situation; but it does not contribute to the integration
of one passage with another so that the two together form part of the same text.
Hence it does not contribute directly to cohesion as we have defined it. For this
reason, in this thesis, we only take endophoric reference for analyzing in the two
speeches.
 Substitution
Substitution is the replacement of one item for one another. As Halliday &
Hasan (1976:89) pointed out “substitution is a relation between linguistic items,
such as words or phrases…In terms of the linguistic system, substitution is a
relation on the lexicogrammatical level, the level of grammar and vocabulary, or
linguistic form”. The substitute item must have the same structural function as


11

what it substitutes. Substitution is classified into three types: nominal, verbal and
clausal substitution.
- Nominal substitution: functions as Head of a nominal group and can
substitute only for an item which is itself Head of a nominal group.

For example:
Mum: Do you like that pink skirt?
Daughter: No, I like the purple one
It is clear that “one” is used to substitute for “skirt”
- Verbal substitution: is the use of the verb “do” as head of a verbal group,
in the place that is occupied by the lexical verb and it always stands final in the
group.
For example:
Mum: I like that Christmas carol
Daughter: I do too
“Do” substitutes for the verbal group “like that Christmas carol”.
- Clausal substitution: is a substitution in which what is presupposed is not
an element within the clause but an entire clause. In English, the words used for
substitution is “so” and “not”.
For example:
The Johns may come this afternoon. If not, they’ll come tomorrow
“If not” means “If the Johns may not come this afternoon”.
 Ellipsis
Ellipsis can be understood as that form of substitution in which the item is
replaced by nothing. In other words, it is the omission of an item or a relation
within the text, and in the great majority of instances the presupposed item is
present in the preceding text. Where there is ellipsis, there is a presupposition, in
the structure that something is to be supplied, or understood. In cohesion, ellipsis
always appears anaphoric relation. As same as substitution, ellipsis figures
nominal, verbal and clausal.


12

- Nominal ellipsis: On the experiential dimension, a nominal group may be

formed by Deictic + Numerative + Epithet or Classifier + the Thing, which is
exemplified in These (deictic) three (Numerative) blue (Epithet) jackets (the
Thing). The Deictic is usually a Determiner; the Numerative is numeral or
quantifier; the Epithet an adjective. The function of Head is normally served by
the common noun, proper noun or pronoun expressing the Thing. When the Thing
is omitted, one element in the Modifier must take the role of the Head, however,
the reader can understand the omitted thing from the presupposition.
For example:
Mum: Which jacket do you like best?
Daughter: I like the blue (jacket)
It can be seen from the above example is that, I like the blue is omitted
jacket and the blue is functioned as the Head.
- Verbal ellipsis: is the omission of a verbal group in sentences. An
elliptical verbal group presupposes one or more words from a previous verbal
group. Verbal ellipsis is composed of two types: lexical ellipsis and operator
ellipsis. The former one is the type of ellipsis in which the lexical verb is missing
from the verbal group while the later is ellipsis „from the left‟, in other words, the
omission of operators and the lexical verb always remains intact. These two types
of ellipsis can be seen in two following instances:
E.g.1.
Mum: Have you called your father yet?
Daughter: Yes, I have (0).
E.g.2.
Mum: Has your sister been reading comic books?
Daughter: No, learning.
In lexical ellipsis, the operator is kept and any verbal group which ends the
sentence is elliptical as the example 1, in contrary, in operator ellipsis, all words
except the last are omitted as seen in example 2.

13

- Clausal ellipsis: is the omission of the Subject, Complement, Predicator
and Adjunct .In short, the whole clause can be omitted.
For example:
I think that he is the best employee in his company. His boss should know
(that he is the best employee in his company).
 Conjunction
Taking the viewpoint of Nunan, D. (1993:26), conjunction is different from
reference, substitution and ellipsis in that it is not a device for reminding the
reader of previously mentioned entities, actions and states of affairs. It is a
cohesive device because it marks the connections that can only be known through
reference to other parts of the text. It links words, phrases and sentences to form a
logical semantic relationship. There are four big types of conjunction: additive,
adversative, causal and temporal.
- Additive conjunction: The words and, or and nor are considered as
additive conjunctions, in which and and or are positive form and nor is negative
form of additive. Other conjunctions including in addition, furthermore, besides…
are also classified into this type.
For example:
… our schools fail too many and each day brings further evidence that the
ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries…
And signals the additional information.
- Adversative conjunction: The adversative relation is the opposing to the
content of what is being said. Adversative conjunction can be featured in yet, but,
however and though, nevertheless, … For instance:
All this time, Tweedledee was trying his best to fold up the umbrella, with
himself in it….But he couldn’t quite succeed, and it ended in his rolling
over, bundled up in the umbrella, with only his head out.
(Halliday & Hasan 1976: 250)

14

But is the connection between two sentences and the information in two
sentences represents a contrastive relation.
- Causal conjunction: Conjunctions such as so, thus, therefore, accordingly,
because of… are ranked into causal conjunction.
As we consider the road that unfolds before us, we remember with humble
gratitude those brave Americans who, at this very hour, patrol far-off
deserts and distant mountains.
The two clauses are linked with the causal conjunction as.
- Temporal conjunction: Clauses in a discourse are tied together by their
temporal relation, because a discourse is not a collection of unrelated processes,
such as a dictionary of quotations. Temporal conjunction is expressed in first,
then, after that, next, when, before, after…
There are three main types of temporal relation: simple temporal relation,
complex temporal relation and conclusive temporal relation. The first type is the
relation between two events, which occur in sequence. The two events may
happen simultaneously or previously. In the sense of simple temporal relation, we
have then, next, afterwards, after that, subsequently, just then, at the same time,
simultaneously, earlier, before, then/that, previously. For example:
The bartender promptly taught me how to make this refreshing cocktail.
You will need some wine, lemonade, orange juice, midori, strawberry juice
and sugar. Then, you stir and shake the mixture. After that, add some ice
and serve yourself.
Then and after that express sequential relation.
The second type of temporal relation, complex temporal relation, can be
manifested by at once, (just) before, presently, later, next day, all this time, five
minutes later, until then… The following instance can exemplify this type:

He will come tomorrow morning, until then, you should not get out of this
room.
Until then connects two clauses together.


15

The last type of temporal relation is conclusive one. It is different from the
other two types in the sense that it is one-directional. It concerns with finally, at
last, in the end, eventually, to conclude with, to sum up, in short, at length, briefly,
to resume, to get back to the point… It can be seen in the illustration:
With a swipe of my magnetic key, I enter a beautiful room with a furnished
bathroom and view overlooking the city. Eventually, I have the opportunity to
contemplate the opulent Presidential suite…
(Travellive Magazine – Published in May)
Eventually links the two sentences and also conclude the author‟s point.
1.4.3.2. Lexical cohesion
Not only grammatical cohesion but lexical cohesion plays a significant role
in creating a discourse. It cannot be denied that vocabulary can express the soul of
a discourse and make the discourse more beautiful. It also realizes the author‟s
master of using the language. A discourse can be understood when vocabulary
items are related semantically. Halliday & Hasan (1976) clarified lexical cohesion
into two categories: Reiteration and Collocation.
 Reiteration
According to Halliday & Hasan (1976:278), “reiteration is a form of lexical
cohesion which involves the repetition of a lexical item, at one end of the scale;
the use of a general word to refer back to a lexical item, at the other end of the
scale; and a number of things in between the use of a synonym, near-synonym or
super-ordinate”. Notably, a reiterated lexical item is usually accompanied by a
reference, normally, the or a demonstrative. Reiteration not only concerns the

repetition of the same lexical item but also the occurrence of a related item, which
originates from a synonym or near synonym of the original to a general word
dominating the entire class. Reiteration includes four sub-types: repetition,
synonyms, antonyms and super-ordinate.
- Repetition


16

Repetition happens when the same lexical item with the same meaning is
repeated in the same discourse. For example:
Last night, he saw a ghost. The ghost wore white clothes.
The word ghost is repeated in the second sentence to link these two ones
together.
- Synonym
Synonym means that two or more words have the same meaning and they
are interchangeable without loss of meaning. In other words, it refers to the
relation between different words expressing the same meaning or nearly the same
meaning for a particular person, object, process or quality. In English, we can see
many pair of synonymous words such as gastronome and gourmet or taste and
enjoy in the following example:
Visiting the restaurant, gastronomes will be surprised by the refined décor,
which features the blend of Oriental and Occidental style. In addition,
gourmets will have the opportunity not only to taste an array of fresh
seafood but also enjoy special Thai cuisine.
- Antonym
Contrary to synonym, antonym means that a word, which has the same part
of speech and opposite meaning to another word. Let‟s have an example:
That ugly man is a very excellent boss and his beautiful wife is his
employee.

Ugly is opposite with beautiful; boss with employee.
Antonym is divided into four subtypes: contrary, complementary, relational
opposite and ordered series.
+ Contrary antonym refers to those pairs of opposites that are gradable.
He is tall although both of his parents are short.
+ Complementary relation consists of a set of only two opposites.
The Tiger won in the quarterfinal but they lost in the final round.


17

+ Relational opposite refers to two opposite words which are mutually
dependent and co-existent.
He is a teacher and she is a student.
+ Ordered series: each item in the series is against the others, but there are
more than two opposites and each item is arranged in rank or in order.
There are seven days in a week: Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday,
Friday, Saturday and Sunday.
- Super-ordinate
Super-ordinate means that the later noun is synonymous with the previous
one in the sense of higher level of generality. There are two kinds of superordinate: immediate super-ordinate or hyponymy and general super-ordinate or
general word (Mc. Carthy 25; 66 cited in Tam, P.T 2003)
+ Immediate super-ordinate or hyponymy:
In the rush hour, streets are crowded with cars and motorbikes. Other
vehicles also contribute to the traffic jam of this city.
Vehicle in the example is the super-ordinate of car and motorbike.
+ General super-ordinate or general word:
General super-ordinate is very common in English. The class of general
noun is a small set of nouns having generalized reference within the major noun
classes. We can use people for person, man and woman… or things for inanimate

concrete count and so on. Examples are:
People, person, man, woman, child, boy, girl

[human]

Creature

[non-human animate]

Thing, object

[inanimate concrete count]

Stuff

[inanimate concrete mass]

Business, affair, matter

[inanimate abstract]

Move

[action]

Place

[place]

Question, idea

[fact]


18

According to Halliday & Hasan (1976), a general noun in cohesive function
is almost always accompanied by the reference item the.
 Collocation
A collocation is two or more words that often go together. Oxford
Dictionary Online defines collocation as a pair or group of words that are
habitually juxtaposed. For example: we often say fast food instead of quick food.
“Collocation refers to the restrictions on how words can be used together; for
example, which prepositions are used with particular verbs, or which verbs and
nouns are used together” (Richards et. al. 1985:46 cited in Tam, P. T. 2003).
Hoang Van Van (2006:84) wrote that collocation refers to lexical cohesion that is
achieved through the association of lexical items that regularly co-occur. Under
collocation, there are three subtypes: resultative, modificational and contextual.
- Resultative: refers to the relation of one item leading to the outcome of
another item such as kill – die, rain- wet, dark – night, praise – please…
- Modificational: refers to the relation holding between an item and one of
its inherent qualities such as run – fast, bright – sun, dark – light…
- Contextual: Contextual collocation is different from the other two is that
the word items do not represent a cause-effect relation, but expectation can be
made between the process and the participant. For example: house – built, doctor
– examine, teacher – teaching….
Up to now, the theoretical background of lexical and grammatical cohesive
devices in language has been investigated. Obviously, these devices help to link,
stick and cohere language items together and make them more natural. Under
grammatical cohesion, four devices – reference, substitution, ellipsis and

conjunction – are taken into account while two big sub-types of lexical cohesion –
reiteration and collocation – are analyzed. It cannot be denied that the use of
cohesive devices in texts is indispensable and every writer must be aware of the
importance of these devices to make their writings precise and unambiguous. In


19

different texts, their appearance is more or less to ensure the coherence of the
texts; as a result, the texts will be understandable by audiences.
An investigation into how grammatical and lexical cohesive devices are used
in US president Barrack Obama‟s and Vietnamese former president Nguyen Minh
Triet‟s inaugural speeches was conducted and the result of which will be presented
in the next chapters. Firstly, grammatical and lexical cohesive devices are sorted
out in two speeches and calculated for percentages of frequency in two inaugural
texts. Then, these data will be compared and given conclusions about similarities
and differences in using the devices. Criteria for analyzing two inaugural speeches
are shown in the following table:
Table 1: Criteria for analyzing two inaugural speeches
Cohesive devices

English speech (%)

Vietnamese speech
(%)

Anaphoric reference

?

?

Cataphoric reference

?

?

Substitution

?

?

Ellipsis

?

?

Conjunction

?

?

Repetition

?

?

Synonym

?

?

Antonym

?

?

Hyponym

?

?

Collocation

?

?


20

CHAPTER 2: A CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS OF BARRACK OBAMA

AND NGUYEN MINH TRIET’S INAUGURAL SPEECHES IN TERMS OF
GRAMMATICAL COHESIVE DEVICES
This chapter gives a contrastive analysis of the two speeches made by
Barrack Obama and Nguyen Minh Triet in terms of grammatical cohesive devices
– reference, substitution, ellipsis and conjunction – that play significant roles in
creating a coherent text. Firstly, the occurrence of these devices is figured out,
analyzed and contrasted in two inaugural speeches. Then, their frequencies in two
contexts are compared and taken out the similarities and differences of using
grammatical cohesive devices in different texts and languages.
2.1. Reference
After analyzing the two speeches made by U.S president Barrack Obama
and former president Nguyen Minh Triet, many cases of reference are found.
2.1.1. Anaphoric reference
Many anaphoric items are used to link sentences together and make the
speech more coherent in Obama‟s one. Following are some illustrations:
I thank President Bush for his service to our nation, as well as the generosity and co-operation he
has shown throughout this transition.

His and he are anaphoric references referring back to “President Bush”,
which has been said before. These link parts of the sentence into a coherent unit.
In addition, the pronoun we and possessive adjectives our are repeated
many times referring to Americans, who are the author and his audiences.
....Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is
badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our
collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been
lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our healthcare is too costly; our schools fail too many; and
each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and
threaten our planet.

Many other anaphoras can be found in the text as in the following example:

Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They
will not be met easily or in a short span of time.


21

The word They in the above sentences refers to “the challenges” before. Or
in other examples, anaphoric reference is clearly seen:
The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it
works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that
is dignified.

It refers to “government” and they refers to “families” before.
Above are some instances to exemplify for anaphoric reference in Obama‟s
inaugural speech. In the whole text, we can find 32 cases of anaphoras.
In comparison with Obama‟s speech, we found less anaphoric items in
Nguyen Minh Triet‟s speech. Totally, there are about 4 cases. Let us consider
some examples:
Tôi thật sự xúc động, xin chân thành cảm ơn các vị đại biểu Quốc hội đã tín nhiệm bầu tôi tiếp tục
giữ chức vụ Chủ tịch nước Cộng hòa xã hội chủ nghĩa Việt Nam trong nhiệm kỳ Quốc hội khóa
XII. Tôi nhận thức sâu sắc rằng đây là vinh dự lớn, đồng thời cũng là nhiệm vụ nặng nề mà Đảng,
Quốc hội và nhân dân cả nước trao cho.

We can see that the anaphoric reference đây refers back to the preceding
clause. This anaphoric reference can save a lot of space and can avoid repetition in
clauses but still makes the idea clear as it helps to link the preceding clause to the
following.
Shortly, it is the anaphoric reference that produces a coherent text in both
discourses. Clearly, this type of grammatical cohesive device appears in Obama‟s
speech more than in Nguyen Minh Triet‟s one.

2.1.2. Cataphoric reference
In terms of cataphoric reference, Obama also used many cataphoras more
than Nguyen Minh Triet in their inaugural speeches. In the English version, 4
cases of cataphoric reference are found. Let us take some examples:
Our journey has never been one of short-cuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the
faint-hearted - for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and
fame.

Those in this case refers to “who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the
pleasures of riches and fame” backwards. Or two words their and they in the


22

following example are clear illustrations of cataphoric reference. They refers
forward to “the cynics” in the last sentence. These cataphoras connect clauses
together to make the text more logical and coherent.
Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free
men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to
courage. What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them…

In Vietnamese version, only one cataphoric item is found, in the passage
below:
Thắng lợi này là nguồn cổ vũ, động viên to lớn để chúng ta bước vào nhiệm kỳ Quốc hội khóa
XII, một nhiệm kỳ với nhiều thời cơ, vận hội mới, đồng thời cũng không ít khó khăn và thách thức
nhưng nhất định sẽ giành thắng lợi to lớn và toàn diện. Tôi sẽ tập trung vào những nhiệm vụ trọng
tâm sau:

And after sau is some tasks that the author wants to emphasize.
It can be seen clearly that reference plays an essential role in helping the

text connected and coherent. Accordingly, readers or hearers can easily understand
and catch what the author likes to communicate.
2.2. Substitution
Since speeches are made to deliver in public and they express the leaders‟
strength and power, all words used in two speeches require precision, clarity and
avoid ambiguity, it is quite difficult to find substitute words or phrases in these
two versions. In the English version, only 2 substitute words are found. Let us
consider an example:
The state of our economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act - not only to create new
jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids
and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its
rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise healthcare's quality and lower its cost. We
will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will
transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we
can do. All this we will do.

All this in the two last sentences are used to substitute for clauses before in
order to avoid repetition of texts.


23

In contrary to the English version, Vietnamese speech made by our former
president does not use any substitution.
2.3. Ellipsis
It should be known the fact that these two speeches are, somehow, made for
political purpose. Accordingly, ambiguity and misunderstanding should be
avoided and as a result, ellipsis does not happen constantly in both texts.
Ellipsis in Obama‟s inaugural speech appears here and there. Let us
consider some examples:

Homes have been lost; jobs (have been) shed; businesses (have been) shuttered. Our healthcare is
too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use
energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.

It is easy to see that have been in the above sentences are ellipsis, but
readers or hearers can understand the meaning of these expressions without them.
Or it is the same when the author omits When we are in the following utterance:
We are the keepers of this legacy. (When we are) Guided by these principles once more, we can
meet those new threats that demand even greater effort - even greater co-operation and
understanding between nations.

Some other ellipsis can be recognized in other text, however, all of ideas of
the author can be understood clearly in sentences without them. For example:
For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West; (they) endured the lash of the whip and
ploughed the hard earth.

Or
They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; (they saw America as)
greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction.

As discussed above, since these speeches are, by some means, for political
purpose, the author did not use much ellipsis to make the speech precise and
unambiguous. In Vietnamese text, we cannot find any ellipsis words or phrases.
2.4. Conjunction
As mentioned above, conjunction links words, phrases and sentences to
form a logical semantic relationship. Maybe for this reason, in Obama‟s speech,
we can find a variety of conjunctive units. Looking through the text, there are 67