an analysis of cohesive devices in reading texts in textbook “tiếng anh 10” at an upper secondary school in binh thuan province

VIETNAM ACADEMY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES
GRADUATE ACADEMY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES

Lê Đức Hòa

AN ANALYSIS OF COHESIVE DEVICES IN
READING TEXTS IN TEXTBOOK “TIẾNG
ANH 10” AT AN UPPER SECONDARY
SCHOOL IN BINH THUAN PROVINCE

MA THESIS IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE

HO CHI MINH CITY, 2020


VIETNAM ACADEMY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES
GRADUATE ACADEMY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES

Lê Đức Hòa

AN ANALYSIS OF COHESIVE DEVICES IN
READING TEXTS IN TEXTBOOK “TIẾNG
ANH 10” AT AN UPPER SECONDARY
SCHOOL IN BINH THUAN PROVINCE

Field: English Language
Code: 8220201
Supervisor: Lê Hương Hoa, Ph.D.

HO CHI MINH CITY, 2020

DECLARATION BY AUTHOR
I, the undersigned, hereby declare that the thesis entitled “an Analysis
of cohesive Devices in Reading Texts in Textbook “Tiếng Anh 10” at An
Upper Secondary School In Binh Thuan” is the result of my own research for
the Degree of Master of Arts in English Language. The thesis has not be
submitted for any other degree or professional qualification to any other
universities or institutions.
Except for reference made, this thesis contains no material previously
written or published by another person.
Author’s Signature

Lê Đức Hòa

Approved by
SUPERVISOR

Lê Hương Hoa, Ph.D.
Date:……………………

i


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This thesis is accomplished with great effort and is contributed by a
great deal of enthusiasm and assistance from many people. I would like to
express my special thanks to the people who made it possible.
First and the foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude and
high appreciation to my supervisor, Dr. Lê Hương Hoa for her helpful

support. If it had not been for her advice, and comments from her, I would
have not completed this thesis.
Second, I would like to send my special thanks to all of the teachers at
Nguyen Van Troi upper secondary school for all their help and suggestions
during the progress of completing this thesis.
In addition, I am so grateful for all of the assistance from my
colleagues and friends whose support and encouragement help me to get this
thesis accomplished.
The last sincere gratitude goes to my dear family. It is their endless
love, support and enthusiasm that have motivated me to complete this thesis.

ii


TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION BY AUTHOR.................................................................................. i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .........................................................................................ii
ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................vi
LIST OF TABLES.......................................................................................................vii
LIST OF CHARTS .................................................................................................... viii
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................ix
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................... x
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................ 1
1.1. Rationale..................................................................................................... 1
1.2. Aim(s) and objectives of the Study ............................................................ 2
1.3. Research Questions .................................................................................... 3
1.4. Scope of the Study ..................................................................................... 3
1.5. Significance of the Study ........................................................................... 3
1.6. Research Methods ...................................................................................... 4
1.7. Structure of the Study................................................................................. 4

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................... 6
2.1. Theoretical background .............................................................................. 6
2.1.1 Discourse................................................................................................................ 6
2.1.2 Discourse analysis ................................................................................................. 7
2.1.3. Cohesion ............................................................................................................... 7
2.1.3.1. Grammatical cohesion ...................................................................................... 8
2.1.3.2. Lexical cohesion ..............................................................................................14
2.2. Previous studies on cohesive devices....................................................... 17
2.3. An overview of the English Textbook “Tiếng Anh 10” .......................... 19
2.3.1. The concept of the textbook...............................................................................19
2.3.2. Description of the textbook “Tiếng Anh 10”....................................................19
iii


2.3.3. The role of the textbook “Tiếng Anh 10” in teaching and learning English ..20
2.4. Chapter Summary..................................................................................... 20
CHAPTER 3: GRAMMATICAL COHESIVE DEVICES IN READING
TEXTS IN TEXTBOOK “TIẾNG ANH 10” ......................................................22
3.1. Reference .................................................................................................. 22
3.1.1. Anaphoric reference .............................................................................. 22
3.1.2. Cataphoric reference ............................................................................. 25
3.1.3. Exophoric reference .............................................................................. 27
3.2. Conjunctions............................................................................................. 30
3.2.1. Additive conjunction ..........................................................................................32
3.2.2. Temporal conjunction ........................................................................................33
3.2.3. Adversative conjunction ....................................................................................33
3.2.4. Causal conjunction .............................................................................................35
3.3. Substitution............................................................................................... 36
3.4. Ellipsis ...................................................................................................... 37
3.5. Grammatical cohesive devices in textbook “Tiếng Anh 10” ................... 40

3.6. Chapter summary ..................................................................................... 42
CHAPTER 4: LEXICAL COHESIVE DEVICES IN READING TEXTS IN
TEXTBOOK “TIẾNG ANH 10” ...........................................................................43
4.1. Reiteration ................................................................................................ 43
4.2. Collocation ............................................................................................... 46
4.2.1. Lexical collocation .............................................................................................47
4.2.2. Grammatical collocation ....................................................................... 49
4.3. Lexical cohesive devices in textbook “Tiếng Anh 10”............................ 51
4.4. A Comparison of grammatical and lexical cohesive devices in textbook
“Tiếng Anh 10” ............................................................................................... 52
4.5. Chapter summary ..................................................................................... 52

iv


CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION ...............................................................................54
5.1. Recapitulation .......................................................................................... 54
5.2. Concluding remarks ................................................................................. 55
5.3. Implications .............................................................................................. 57
5.4. Limitations of the study ........................................................................... 60
5.5. Suggestions for further study ................................................................... 61
REFERENCES...........................................................................................................62
APPENDIX 1: List of References in reading texts in “Tiếng Anh 10”.....................I
APPENDIX 2: List of Conjunction in reading texts in “Tiếng Anh 10”............... VI
APPENDIX 3: List of substitution in reading texts in “Tiếng Anh 10” ................ IX
APPENDIX 4: List of ellipsis in reading texts in “Tiếng Anh 10”.......................... X
APPENDIX 5: List of reiteration in reading texts in “Tiếng Anh 10” .................. XI
APPENDIX 6: List of collocation in the reading texts in “Tiếng Anh 10”........ XIX
APPENDIX 7: Exercises for teaching cohesive devices ....................................XXX
APPENDIX 8: Answer keys for suggested exercises ................................... XXXIX

v


ABSTRACT
This research focuses on the types and the functions of cohesive
devices which are used in the reading tests in the textbook “Tiếng Anh 10”
written by Hoàng Văn Vân, et al. (2016). Cohesive devices are made up of
reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction, reiteration and collocation. The
reason for taking the textbook is because during the teaching process, the
researcher comes to realize that Students have a tendency to misinterpret
ideas conveyed in the texts due to lack of grammatical and lexical knowledge
of English language. Furthermore, the textbook ‘Tiếng Anh 10’ is first used to
teach at the researcher’s school this year. Therefore, the researcher wants to
have an overall viewpoint on cohesive devices used in the book and then
makes some suggestions for teaching and learning English with the book
effectively.
The data sources are taken from ten reading tests in the textbook
“Tiếng Anh 10”. In the study, the descriptive, statistical and analytical
methods are used to dealt with the data, based on Halliday & Hasan’s (1976)
theory of cohesion.
After analyzing the data, the author found out that the occurrence
frequency of both lexical and grammatical cohesive devices almost have the
equal percentage of 51.9% and 48.1% respectively. Moreover, among six
types of cohesive devices, reference, conjunction, reiteration and collocation
have a relatively high frequency of occurrence. On the other hand,
substitution and ellipsis are found in a small number in these ten reading texts.
Based on the findings, some suggestions are made for the teaching and
learning of reading skill in the textbook for grade 10 students.

vi


LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: The percentage of different types of anaphoric reference ................ 23
Table 2: The percentage of different types of cataphoric reference ............... 26
Table 3: The percentage of different types of exophoric reference ................ 28
Table 4: The percentage of different types of reference ................................. 29
Table 5: The percentage of different types of conjunction ............................ 31
Table 6: The percentage of different types of substitution ............................ 36
Table 7: The percentage of different types of Ellipsis .................................... 37
Table 8: The percentage of different types of Grammatical cohesive devices.......41
Table 9: The percentage of different types of reiteration ............................... 43
Table 10 The percentage of different types of collocation ............................. 47
Table 11: The percentage of different patterns of lexical collocation ............ 48
Table 12: The percentage of different patterns of grammatical collocation ... 49
Table 13: The percentage of different types of lexical cohesive devices ....... 51

vii


LIST OF CHARTS
Chart 1: The percentage of different types of reference ................................. 30
Chart 2: The percentage of different types of conjunction ............................. 31
Chart 3: The percentage of different types of substitution ............................. 36
Chart 4: The percentage of different types of ellipsis .................................... 38
Chart 5: The percentage of different types of Grammatical cohesive devices ... 41
Chart 6: The percentage of different types of reiteration ................................ 43
Chart 7: The percentage of different types of collocation .............................. 47
Chart 8: The percentage of different types of lexical cohesive devices ......... 51

Chart 9: The percentage of different types of cohesive devices ..................... 52

viii


LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Functions of reference ..................................................................... 9
Figure 2: Types and examples of substitutions ............................................... 11
Figure 3: Types and examples of ellipsis ........................................................ 12
Figure 4: Types and examples of conjunction ................................................ 14
Figure 5: Types of cohesion ............................................................................ 16

ix


LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

N

:

Noun

V

:

Verb

Adj

:

Adjective

Adv

:

Adverb

Prep

:

Preposition

etc.

:

et cetera

x


CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1. Rationale

Undoubtedly, in the interconnected and globalized world nowadays,

English plays an important role in our lives. It is considered as the language
that is widely used in science, aviation, computers, diplomacy, tourism,
international communication, the media and the internet. The fluent use of
English helps learners increase the chances of getting a good job and also
helps them go into the world with confidence. Being aware of the importance
of English, the Vietnamese government has paid special attention to
education, especially the teaching of English in the national education system
in which the Ministry of Education has developed the ten-year English
textbook series for Vietnamese Schools under the National Foreign Language
2020 Project. Obviously, the content of the textbooks focuses on developing
learners’ listening, speaking, reading and writing skills equally. Among these
skills, reading is considered a receptive skill that aids the learning of other
skills. It is claimed (Tomlinson, 1990) that a good reading competence is
essential for English language learners for professional and academic
purposes, and many curricula spend a lot of time on reading lessons for
learners so as to achieve such competence.
However, during the teaching process, the researcher comes to realize
that many students seem to have failed to grasp the content of reading texts
comprehensively despite having studied English for many years. Students also
have a tendency to misinterpret ideas conveyed in the texts. They try to
translate reading texts into Vietnamese word by word. Students find it
difficult to comprehend the text even when they know most of the words. One
explanation for this is the inability to perceive the cohesive signals of the
writer (Nutta,1982; Cook, 1989).

1


According to Connor (1984), “cohesive devices are indispensable
elements in documents that aim to align sentences and parts of text in an

appropriate manner” (p.79). These devices make a contribution to connecting
ideas in the text closely and logically. The accurate use of cohesive devices
helps readers and listeners to capture the relations between what comes first
and what comes next in a text (Zuhair, 2013).
Nguyễn Hòa (2000, p.11) states that basically, cohesion represented by
the relationship of grammar, logic and lexicon refers to the formal
relationship that causes texts to cohere or stick together.
Obviously, content in texts can only be conveyed logically and
coherently with the help of the means of linking sentences and paragraphs.
It is, therefore, important to help students grasp and distinguish the types of
cohesive devices viewed as the backbone of various types of text.
Apart from a variety of mentioned things, it is a fact that the textbook
“Tiếng Anh 10” (the ten-year English textbook for grade 10 students) is first
used to teach at the researcher’s school this year. Therefore, the researcher
wants to have an overall viewpoint on cohesive devices used in the book and
then makes some suggestions for teaching and learning English with the
course book effectively.
Those reasons mentioned above are the most important ones that have
stimulated the researcher to conduct “An analysis of cohesive devices in
reading texts in the textbook “Tiếng Anh 10” and recommended implications
for teaching and learning English at an upper secondary school in Binh
Thuan” as the topic of this study.
1.2. Aim(s) and objectives of the Study
The study attempts:
- To give a description of how the cohesive devices employed in the

2


textbook “Tiếng Anh 10”

- To make a detailed analysis of the cohesive devices in the textbook
“Tiếng Anh 10”
- To give some implications for teaching and learning cohesion in
reading texts in the textbook “Tiếng Anh 10”.
1.3. Research Questions
In order to achieve the objectives, the study aims at answering the
following research questions:
1. What cohesive devices are used in the reading texts in the textbook “Tiếng
Anh 10”?
2. How are the cohesive devices employed in the reading texts in the textbook
“Tiếng Anh 10”?
3. What are the solutions to the teaching and learning of reading skill in the
textbook for grade 10 students?
1.4. Scope of the Study
This study will focus on the cohesive devices found in the textbook
“Tiếng Anh 10” by Hoàng Văn Vân (2016). The theory of Halliday and
Hasan (1976) is used to analyze the use of cohesive devices in ten reading
tests in the textbook in terms of grammatical and lexical cohesive devices.
1.5. Significance of the Study
Theoretically, the study helps verify the correctness and significance of
linguistic theories of discourse analysis when they are used to analyze a
specific textbook.
Practically, this research gives grade 10 students and teachers a hand with
teaching and learning cohesion in reading texts in the textbook “Tiếng Anh 10”.

3


1.6. Research Methods
 Research Procedure

The research procedure includes three major steps. Firstly, ten reading
texts in “Tiếng Anh 10” are selected and scanned to find cohesive devices in
terms of both grammatical and lexical ones. Secondly, the selected samples
are described and categorized into tables. Lastly, the study analyzed and
compared findings of both grammatical and lexical cohesive devices to draw
conclusions.
 Research methods
To achieve the aims mentioned above, the descriptive, statistical and
analytical methods are used in the study. Firstly, the descriptive method
makes a contribution to build up the framework related to cohesion for the
study. Secondly, the statistical method is used to identify the types
of cohesive devices in the reading texts and calculate the frequency
of occurrence of each type. Finally, analytical methods are applied to analyze
the collected data in terms of grammatical and lexical cohesive devices.
1.7. Structure of the Study
The thesis contains five chapters and is organized as follows:
Chapter 1: Introduction consists of rational, aims and objectives, research
questions, scope of the study, significance of the study, research methods, and
structure of the study.
Chapter 2: The literature review deals with the theories of discourse and
discourse analysis, cohesion and the textbook.
Chapter 3: Cohesive devices in the reading texts in the textbook “Tiếng Anh
10” is the chapter that focuses on analysis of cohesive devices in the reading
texts in the textbook, based on the theory of Halliday and Hasan (1976)

4


Chapter 4: Implications for the teaching and learning cohesive devices in
reading texts gives several suggestions for teaching and learning cohesion in

the textbook “Tiếng Anh 10”.
Chapter 5: Conclusion aims at summarizing the thesis by showing the study
results, giving concluding remarks and making some suggestions for further
studies.

5


CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Theoretical background
2.1.1 Discourse
There are different definitions of discourse among linguists. According
to Crystal (1992, p.25) “Discourse is a continuous stretch of (especially
spoken) language larger than a sentence”. Similarly, Nunan (1993, p.5)
defines “discourse as a stretch of language consisting of several sentences
which is perceived as being related in some ways”. A discourse is an instance
of spoken or written language that has described internal relationship of form
and meaning (e.g. word, structures, and cohesion) that relate coherently to an
external communicative function or purpose and a given audience/
interlocutor. Furthermore, the external function or purpose can only be
properly determined if one takes into account the context and participants in
which the piece of discourse (Murcia, 2000, p.4). Similarly, Yule (2010)
added that the word discourse means language beyond a sentence. Thus, there
are some grammatical and lexical cohesive devices to hang a text together.
Cook (1995) states discourse is a stretch of language in use, taking on
meaning in context for its users, and perceived by them as purposeful,
meaningful, and connected. Here the quality of perceived purpose, meaning,
and connection is known as “coherence”. So, a discourse is a coherent stretch
of language.
Halliday and Hasan (1985, p.5) whose theory was used for the study states

that discourse is a functional language that does some jobs in some context,
rather than isolated words to sentences. Discourse is a language unit that is in
use. It is not like a grammar device, like a clause or a sentence. Discourse is a
unit of the semantic unit, not of form but of meaning. A discourse is not made up
of sentences. In general, the discourse is interpreted as a language in use.
6


2.1.2 Discourse analysis
Discourse analysts evaluate language in use, written texts, and all kinds
of spoken data under the method that is distinct from that of grammarians.
It is claimed (Brown & Yule, 1983, p.viii) that discourse analysis deals
with a wide variety of meanings covering different activities at the
intersection of many fields, from sociolinguistics, philosophic linguistics to
computational linguistics.
In 1993, Michael McCarthy states that the term “Discourse Analysis is
concerned with the study of the relationship between language and the
contexts in which it is used” (p.5)
Schiffrin (1994) considered discourse analysis as a branch of linguistics
which deals with linguistic units at levels above the sentence that is text and
conversation.
Discourse analysis is, therefore, very important for the comprehension
or understanding of the text. It is only by learning the language in use that we
can understand the meaning that the writers want to communicate.
2.1.3. Cohesion
Cohesion is one of the most important technical concepts used in
discourse analysis. There are various definitions of cohesion as follow.
Cohesion may be defined as the formal linguistic realization of
semantic and pragmatic relations between clauses and sentences in a text
(Cook, 1995). Here a description of cohesion may contribute to the

fundamental issue of discourse analysis. It is true that, in principle, cohesion
is neither necessary nor sufficient to create coherence, yet in practice a
discourse of any length will employ it. That most coherent texts are also
cohesive, however, does not imply that coherence is created by cohesion and
cohesion is a manifestation of certain aspects of coherence (Cook 1995, p.33).
7


Baker (1992, p.180) supports that cohesion is the network of lexical,
grammatical, and other relation which provide links between various parts of
a text. This relationship functions to convey meaning from the speakers’
mind, idea or thought, in order to make a sentence convey meaning and to get
readers easier to understand the whole meaning.
According to Halliday and Hasan (1976,

pp.

4-5),

cohesion

is

considered as a “part of the language system,” more precisely as a “semantic
one” referring to “relations of meaning that exist with the text and that
defined it as a text.” Cohesion is expressed in their view through the stratal
organization of language, and expressed in part through grammar and in part
through vocabulary. Cohesion is classified into two types, namely
grammatical cohesion and lexical cohesion. The grammatical is related to
grammar, and lexical is related to the vocabulary because “cohesion is

expressed partly through the grammar and partly through vocabulary”
Halliday and Hasan (1976, p.5). With the purpose of analysing cohesive
devices in reading texts in Textbook “Tiếng Anh 10”, this framework is
chosen to shed light on the study.
2.1.3.1. Grammatical cohesion
Grammatical cohesion is classified into four subtypes, namely
Reference, Substitution, Ellipsis and Conjunction. Below, the researcher
attempts to go into details with each type by reviewing some common
examples with a view to providing an overall background of grammatical
cohesion.
 Reference
According to Halliday and Hasan (1976, p.31), “the meaning of a word
is not necessarily based solely on its own right, but may make reference to
something else, given that the reference is either to some other parts of the
8


text or to the world encountered by the sender and the recipient of the text.
That is, the information to be obtained is the meaning of reference and the
cohesion lies in the continuity of reference.”
Reference, in the viewpoint of Halliday and Hasan, can be considered
as functions "exophoric" or "endophoric."

Figure 1: Functions of reference
(Halliday and Hasan, 1976, p. 33)
“The exophoric reference guides the receiver out of the text and into an
assumed shared world” (McCarthy, 1991, p. 41). On the other hand, they
comment, “the endophoric function applies to the text itself in its
interpretation” (Brown & Yule, 1983, p. 92). Endophoric reference is split
into two classes: anaphoric relations that involve looking back into texts to

find the reference and cataphoric connection that looks forward to interpreting
them.
Halliday and Hasan (1976, pp. 31- 84) divide reference into three
categories: Personal Reference, Demonstrative Reference and Comparative
Reference, without regard to these functions.
 Personal Reference is a reference by means of a speech situation

through the person's category in the form of personal pronouns such as: I, me,
him, you, etc., or personal determiner such as my, your, her, etc.

9


 Demonstrative Reference is position reference on a proximity scale

such as this, these, here, now (near proximity), that, those,

there, then

(Far

Proximity), or (neutral proximity).
 Comparative Reference is indirect reference through identity or

similarity:

same, identical, equal (identity-general comparison), similar,

additional (general similarity-general comparison), other, different, otherwise
(different), better, more, so, less, equal (special comparison).

 Substitution
As Cook (1990, p. 158) defines that substitution is a cohesive devices in
which one of closed set of words (for example: one, do, so) stand for a word,
phrase, clause or element of the context.
Another statement, Jackson (1988, p.103) states that substitution is
defined as grammatical relation, where one linguistic item is substituted for
longer one. McCarthy (1991, p. 45) states substitution is similar to ellipsis, in
that, in English it operates as nominal, verbal or clausal.
Halliday and Hasan (1976, p.89) differentiate substitution from
reference in terms of the linguistic system, in which “Reference is a relation at
the semantic level, while substitution is a relation at the lexico-grammatical
level, the level of grammar and vocabulary or linguistic structure.” They
classify substitution into three types: nominal, verbal and clausal. In 1968,
Halliday and Hasan (p.91) claimed that nominal substitution involves “same,”
“one,” verbal substitution consists of “do,' and clausal substitution is “not,”
“so”
From some statements above, the writer can draw conclusion that
substitution is used to substitute or replace one linguistic item by another one.
This linguistic item could be a word, a phrase, or a clause. The function of
substitution is to avoid the use of words repeatedly. Types and examples
10


of substitutions can be summarized as follows:

Substitution

Nominal

1. She has just bought a new novel. This one is really

interesting

Verbal

2. A: We went to the concert in the park this year.
B: Yes, we did too.

Clausal

3. A: Is it going to rain?
B: I think so

Figure 2: Types and examples of substitutions
 Nominal substitution: where the noun or a nominal group can be

replaced by one(s) or the same.
In the first example, “one” is used in place of the noun phrase “a new
novel”. Therefore, in this case, “one” is termed nominal substitution.
 Verbal substitution: the verb or verbal group can be replaced by

other verb: verbal substitute “do”. This functions as a head of verbal group,
and it is usually placed at the end of the group.
As for the second example, the verb “did” called verbal substitution in
B’s respond is used to replace the verbal phrase “went to the concert in the
park this year”.
 Clausal substitution: where a clause can be usually substituted by

“so” or“not”
Clausal substitution can be seen in the third example: “so” in B’s
repond substitutes the previous clause “it is going to rain” to avoid repeating it.

 Ellipsis
In the same way as substitution, ellipsis is used to avoid repetition.
Carthy (1991, p.43) defines ellipsis is the omission of elements normally

11


required by the grammar which the speaker or writer assumes are obvious
from the context and therefore need not be raised. Ellipsis is distinguished by
structure having some missing elements. Cook (1989, p. 20) states that ellipsis
is omitting part of sentence on the assumption that an earlier sentence or the
context will make the meaning clear.
Halliday and Hasan (1976, p.142) argue that although substitution and
ellipsis are part of the same fundamental relationship between parts of the text (a
relationship between words or groups or clauses), they are two different types of
mechanism and therefore show rather different patterns. It is also noted that
ellipsis is the absence of a certain component in the preceding text. Thus, ellipsis
is typically an anaphoric relationship. Ellipsis is split into three subtypes: nominal
ellipsis, verbal ellipsis and clausal ellipsis (Halliday and Hasan, 1976, p. 146).

Ellipsis

Nominal

1. We have two boys. Both [ ] are incredibly energetic.

Verbal

2. A: Have you been working?
B: Yes, I have [ ]

Clausal

3. I asked him who borrowed my dictionary on the table,
but he didn’t tell me [ ].

Figure 3: Types and examples of ellipsis
 Nominal ellipsis:
In the first example, so as to be completely understood, the sentences
must be filled with the noun “boys” in the gap. Nevertheless, they are omitted
as it is not necessary for the reader to figure out the meaning of the sentence.

12


 Verbal ellipsis:
Likewise, in the second case , there is no need to repeat the verb
“working” since it presupposes a word from the previous verbal group. The
full answer to A’s question is “Yes, I have been working.” Therefore, B's
response here is referred to as verbal ellipsis.
 Clausal ellipsis:
In the third example, The full sentence for this one is “I asked him who
borrowed my dictionary on the table, but he didn’t tell me who borrowed my
dictionary on the table”. The clause “who borrowed my dictionary on the
table” omitted is considered as an example of clausal ellipsis.
 Conjunction
According to Halliday and Hasan, It is the conjunctive components that
are coherent not in themselves but indirectly by virtue of their specific meaning.
This indicates that they are not solely intended to reach out to the preceding text,
but that they convey a certain meaning that presupposes the presence of other

components in the discourse. In other words, the relationship does not depend on
the referent either on referential meaning

or

identity

or

association of

wording. Four kinds of conjunction are explained in details below.
 Additive: According to Halliday and Hasan (1976, p. 244) “the

additive relationship is additional information to the text. The conjunctive
relation, are: and, similarly, in other word, likewise, or, furthermore, beside,
that is, for example, such as, etc.
 Adversative: It is claimed that the adversative relationship is the

opposite of that which occurs in the context of what has been said (Halliday &
Hasan, 1976). The adverse relationships are: yet, but, however, nevertheless,
at the same time, in fact, at least…
 Causal: According to Halliday and Hasan (1976, p.260), “the causal

13