COHESIVE DEVICES IN READING TEXTS IN THE BOOK TIẾNG ANH 12 BAN cơ bản

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF
LANGUAGE AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF
POSTGRADUATE STUDIES
===========

BÙI THỊ NGA

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)
M.A. MINOR THESIS

Field: Linguistics
Code: 60 22 15

HÀ NỘI, 2011


VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF
LANGUAGE AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF
POSTGRADUATE STUDIES
===========

BÙI THỊ NGA

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)
M.A. MINOR THESIS

Field: Linguistics
Code: 60 22 15
Supervisor: Nguyễn Thụy Phương Lan, M.A

HÀ NỘI, 2011


i

DECLARATION PAGE
I certify that this minor thesis is entirely my own work. I have provided fully
documented references to the work of the other. The material in the thesis has not
been submitted for assessment in any other course of study.

Signature: Bùi Thị Nga

Date: October, 2011


ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This thesis would not have been possible without the assistance and support of
many individuals. I wish to acknowledge and express my appreciation of these people
for their invaluable contributions.
Firstly and foremost, I would like to express my deep gratitude to my
supervisor, Nguyen Thuy Phuong Lan M.A, University of Language and International
Studies - Vietnam National University, Hanoi, for her valuable guidance and
suggestions, encouragement and enthusiasm throughout my study.

Secondly, I take this opportunity to show my sincere thanks to all my teachers
during my M.A course at ULIS -VNU for their informative and interesting lectures,
which laid the foundation for my study.
I am also grateful to my colleagues at Pham Cong Binh High School for their
continuous help and encouragement.
On the completion of this paper, I must acknowledge my debt to the authors
whose work I used for my reference.
Last but not least, I wish to convey my thanks to my family for their
understanding and supports.


iii

ABSTRACT
The study aims at finding out the grammatical and lexical cohesive devices in the
textbook “Tiếng Anh 12” for grade 12 students in general throughout Vietnam. The
reason for choosing grammatical and lexical cohesion as the main objects of the study
lies in their popularity in linguistic fields and the tests for examinations at upper
secondary schools these days. In this paper, some theories of discourse and cohesion
leading to the basic background for the study are discussed. According to that, the
theory of cohesive devices by Halliday and Hasan (1976) is the major framework.
Besides, the source of the study is reading texts; hence, features of written discourse
are necessary base to characterize the study. Throughout investigating 16 units in the
textbook, the author found out that the most prominent cohesive device is collocation,
then conjunctions, reference and repetition. It was suggested that during the process of
teaching, teachers should instruct students in understanding and employing these
cohesive devices correctly.


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


v

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


vi
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
i

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
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
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.


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.”

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.

(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
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.
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
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
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

Reference

Lexicogrammatical

Grammatical

Substitution and ellipsis

Lexical

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
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

Lexical cohesion
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
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)
Exophora

(Textual)
Endophora

(To preceding text)
Anaphora

(To following text)
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

(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.
 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
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.
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