A study of grammatical and lexical cohesive devices in some written discourses from the course book english for chemistry

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY - HANOI
COLLEGE OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES
POST-GRADUATE DEPARTMENT

PHẠM THỊ VÂN ANH

A STUDY OF GRAMMATICAL AND LEXICAL COHESIVE
DEVICES IN SOME WRITTEN DISCOURSES FROM THE COURSE
BOOK “ENGLISH FOR CHEMISTRY”
(Nghiên cứu phương tiện liên kết ngữ pháp và từ vựng thông qua một số
văn bản trong giáo trình “Tiếng Anh chuyên ngành Hóa Học”)

MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS
ENLISH LINGUISTICS
CODE: 602215

HANOI - 2009


VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY - HANOI
COLLEGE OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES
POST-GRADUATE DEPARTMENT

PHẠM THỊ VÂN ANH

A STUDY OF GRAMMATICAL AND LEXICAL COHESIVE
DEVICES IN SOME WRITTEN DISCOURSES FROM THE COURSE
BOOK “ENGLISH FOR CHEMISTRY”
(Nghiên cứu phương tiện liên kết ngữ pháp và từ vựng thông qua một số
văn bản trong giáo trình “Tiếng Anh chuyên ngành Hóa Học”)

MA MINOR THESIS
ENLISH LINGUISTICS
CODE: 602215

Supervisor : Dr. Trần Xuân Điệp

HANOI - 2009


iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements
List of tables
List of abbreviations
Part A: INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………..

1

1. Rationale……………………………………………………………………….....

1

2. Aims of the study…………………………………………………………...…..

2

3. Scope of the study…………………………………………………………..….....

2

4. Methods of the study………………………………………………………..….....

2

5. Design of the study…………………………………………………………….....

2

Part B: DEVELOPMENT…………………………………………………………

4

Chapter 1: Literature review and theoretical background ……………………..

4

1.1 Literature review…………………………………………………………..…...

4

1.2. Theoretical background………………………………………………….…....

4

1.2. 1. Discourse and discourse analysis……………………………………...…....

5

1.2.1.1. Concept of discourse………………………………………………….…...

5

1.2.1.2. Discourse and text…………………………………………………….…....

5

1.2.1.3. Spoken and written discourse……………………………………………...

5

1.2. 1. 4. Discourse analysis…………………………………………………….…....

6

1.2.1.4.1. Context in discourse analysis…………………………………………....

6

1.2.1.4.2. Register and Genre in discourse analysis………………………….….....

7

1.2. 2. Cohesion and Coherence…………………………………………………....

8

1.2. 2.1. Cohesion vs. Coherence…………………………………………………....

8

1.2. 2.2. Aspects of Coherence……………………………………………………...

8

1.2. 2. 2.1. Topical Coherence…………………………………………………..…...

8

1.2. 2. 2. 2. Logical Coherence………………………………………………….…...

9

1.2. 2. 3. Types of Cohesion…………………………………………………….…...

9

1.2. 2. 3. 1. Grammatical Cohesion……………………………………………...…...

9

1.2. 2. 3. 2. Lexical Cohesion…………………………………………………...…...

12


v

1.2. 3. English for Specific Purposes (ESP)……………………………………….

13

1.2. 3. 1. Concept of ESP……………………………………………………….…....

13

1.2. 3. 2. Characteristics of ESP discourse……………………………………...…...

14

1.2.4. Summary……………………………………………………………………

14

Chapter 2: Analysis of Grammatical and Lexical Cohesive Devices in some 16
written discourses from the course book “English for Chemistry”……………….
2.1. An overview of the analysis……………………………………………………

16

2.2. Analysis of Grammatical and Lexical Cohesive Devices in some written 16
discourses from the course book “English for Chemistry”………………………..
2.2.1. Grammatical cohesive devices………………………………………………..

17

2.2.1.1. References……………………………………………………………….…......

18

2.2.1.1.1. Anaphoric reference………………………………………………….….....

18

2.2.1.1.2. Cataphoric reference………………………………………………….….....

21

2.2.1.1.3. Exophoric reference…………………………………………………….......

23

2.2.1.1.4. A comparison of anaphoric, cataphoric and exophoric reference………......

23

2.2.1.2. Conjunction……………………………………………………………….......

24

2.2.1.3. Substitution……………………………………………………………..…….

27

2.2.1.4. Ellipsis………………………………………………………………….…......

28

2.2.1.4.1. Nominal Ellipsis……………………………………………………...…......

28

2.2.1.4.2. Verbal Ellipsis………………………………………………………..…......

29

2.2.1.4.3. Clausal Ellipsis……………………………………………………….…......

30

2.2.2. Lexical cohesive devices……………………………………………….............

31

2.2.2.1. Reiteration……………………………………………………………...…......

31

2.2.2.1.1.Repetition……………………………………………………………...….....

32

2.2.2.1.2.Synonym……………………………………………………………...….......

35

2.2.2.1.3.Super-ordinate and general………………………………………….…........

35

2.2.2.2. Collocation……………………………………………………………………

37

2.2.2.2.1. Lexical collocation
2.2.2.2.2. Grammatical collocation
2.2.3. Summary……………………………………………………………..................

41

PART C: CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………

42

1. Recapitulation……………………………………………………………................

42

2. Implications……………………………………………………………....................

43


vi

2.1. Implications for teachers and students of EC…………………………………….

43

2.2. Suggestions for materials design…………………………………………………

44

3. Limitations of the study…………………………………………………………….

44

4. Suggestions for further research………………………………………….................

44

REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………. 45
Appendix I
Appendix II
Appendix III
Appendix IV
Appendix V
Appendix VI


vii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ESP: English for Specific Purposes
GE:

General English

EC:

English for Chemistry

HNUE: Hanoi National University of Education
N:

Noun

Adj:

Adjective

V:

Verb

Prep: Preposition


viii

LIST OF TABLES IN THE STUDY

Table 1 : Grammatical and lexical cohesive devices – Absolute count
Table 2 : Grammatical cohesive devices – Absolute count
Table 3 : Frequency of occurrence of anaphoric reference
Table 4 : Frequency of occurrence of cataphoric reference
Table 5 : A comparison of anaphoric, cataphoric cataphoric reference
Table 6 : Conjunction - Absolute count

Table 7 : Frequency of occurrence of ellipsis
Table 8 : Lexical cohesive devices – Absolute count
Table 9 : Frequency of occurrence of repetition
Table 10: Number of occurrence of topic words
Table 11: Frequency of occurrence of lexical collocations
Table 12: Frequency of occurrence of grammatical collocations


ix

LIST OF GRAPHS IN THE STUDY

Figure 1: Grammatical and lexical cohesive devices - Frequency of occurrence
Figure 2: Grammatical cohesive devices - Frequency of occurrence
Figure 3: Anaphoric, cataphoric cataphoric reference- Frequency of occurrence
Figure 4: Frequency of occurrence of conjunction
Figure 5: Lexical cohesive devices – Frequency of occurrence


1

PART A: INTRODUCTION

1. RATIONALE
Cohesion plays an important role in the comprehension of a written discourse. This
is due to the fact that comprehension is a process that occurs within the reader and is at
least partially dependent on cohesion and coherence. Cohesion is used to show how
sentences which are structurally independent of one another may be linked together.
Cohesion exists within a text and is not the same as coherence, which is something the
reader establishes in the process of reading. The importance of cohesion in text is major

since it provides semantic continuity and permits coherence and comprehensibility. The
more explicit cohesive relationships are, the easier a text is to understand. The coherence
of a text can be created through lexical and grammatical cohesive links and other cohesive
factors. When a reader is able to see how these cohesive factors contribute to the linking of
sentences and ideas in a text, he not only can understand the text but can produce the text
more easily as well.
However, recognizing the relations within the text to obtain coherence is not easy
for learners of English, especially non-English major students. Most of them find it
difficult to understand and produce a text. This is because of the insufficient awareness of
both teachers and learners in teaching and learning English, i.e. learning English is learning
vocabulary and grammar. Moreover, students often learn words in isolation, not in
combinations. Meanwhile, in order to understand a reading text, the readers need to pay
attention to not only vocabulary and grammar but also other factors that create links
between the ideas in the text, i.e cohesive devices.
Since a better understanding of cohesion undoubtedly helps teachers and students
improve their teaching and learning. As a teacher of English in general and of EC in
particular, I decided to study some discourse features of EC texts to help improve the
effectiveness of teaching and learning of EC at HNUE. Due to the limitation of time and
knowledge, my study just focuses on grammatical and lexical cohesive devices which are
used in written discourses of EC.


2

The texts used for this study are taken from the EC course book used for second
year students in Faculty of Chemistry at HNUE. The course book was designed by our ESP
teachers and was confirmed in 2008. It contains six units, from unit 1 to unit 6. We take six
reading texts from these six units as written discourses of EC from which we analyze
grammatical and lexical cohesive devices.
2. AIMS OF THE STUDY

The aims of the study are:
-

giving an overview of theoretical background of discourse and discourse
analysis; cohesion, coherence and cohesive devices; concept of ESP and ESP
discourse.

-

describing and analyzing grammatical and lexical cohesive devices in the
course book of EC for second year students in Faculty of Chemistry at HNUE.
The findings are expected to be applied to the teaching and learning of EC.

3. SCOPE OF THE STUDY
Within the framework of a minor M.A thesis, the study just mainly focuses on
grammatical and lexical cohesive devices, their frequency of occurrence, in the six reading
texts of EC taken from the textbook used for second year students in Faculty of Chemistry
at HNUE.
4. METHODS OF THE STUDY
Description, analysis, statistics are the principal methods used in this study to
identify grammatical and lexical cohesive devices, their frequency of occurrence in some
written discourses of EC.
5. DESIGN OF THE STUDY
The study includes three main parts: Introduction, Development, and Conclusion.
Introduction presents the rationale, the scope, the methodology and the design of the
study.
Development consists of two chapters:


3

- Chapter 1: gives the theoretical background of the study with the theories related to
three main sections: discourse and discourse analysis, cohesion and
coherence, ESP.
- Chapter 2: provides an analysis of grammatical and lexical cohesive devices in some
written discourses taken from the textbook of EC used for second year
students in Faculty of Chemistry at HNUE.
Conclusion provides a recapitulation of the study, implications to teachers and students in
improving the teaching and learning of EC, limitations of the study and suggestions for
further research.


4

PART B: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL
BACKGROUND

1.1. LITRERATURE REVIEW
For several years, the analysis of cohesion in texts has been a key topic in the study
of discourse. Cohesion refers to the relations of meaning that exists within a text. It is part
of the system of language which has the potentials for meaning enhancement in texts.
In Vietnam, many studies of discourse features of written discourses of different
disciplines have been conducted. For example, in 2004, cohesive devices in application
letters was studied by Le Thi Mai Hien. This study found that cohesion proved to be a
decisive factor for successful application letters. In the same year, a study of cohesive
devices in information and communication technology (ICT) advertisements was carried
out by Nguyen Thi Bich Lien. She found that all kinds of cohesive devices were used in
the discourse and that discourse analysis of cohesive devices could help a lot in translating
ICT ads correctly. Moreover, a study of cohesive devices in Electronics and

Communications conducted by Mai Thi Loan in 2006 shown that lexical cohesion is used
much more often than grammatical cohesion.…
In sum, all these studies have found that cohesion plays an important role in
cohering the ideas in the texts which help readers understand the texts easily. However, no
study of cohesive devices in EC texts has been conducted so a study of how cohesive
devices are used in EC texts is needed to be carried out to improve the teaching and
learning of EC.
1.2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
This part deals with theoretical topics such as concepts of discourse, discourse
context, cohesion and coherence, cohesive devices, register and genre which are relevant to
the purpose of the study as well as the background of ESP in general.


5

1.2.1. Discourse and discourse analysis
1.2.1.1. The concepts of discourse
In the history of linguistics, many linguists have so far given definitions of
discourse. Each of them has his own idea about discourse, however, I would like to pay
attention to the definitions that are appropriate to the purpose of my thesis.
Crystal (1992:25) defines discourse as follows: “Discourse is a continuous stretch of
language larger than a sentence, often constituting a coherent unit such as sermon,
argument, joke or narrative”. Mc Cathy (1997) states that discourse are the study of the
relationship between language and the contexts in which it is used. Cook (1989:156) has an
other way to define: “Discourse is stretches of language perceived to be meaningful,
unified and purposive”.
1.2.1.2. Discourse and Text
There seems to be two different ideas around the terms „discourse‟ and „text‟. Some
linguists assume „discourse‟ and „text‟ are different concepts. Cook (1989:158) assumes
that discourses are stretches of language perceived to be meaningful, unified and purposive

whereas text is a stretch of language interpreted formally without context. For some other
linguists, „text‟ is used for writing and „discourse‟ is for speech.
However, Halliday and Hasan (1989) state “A text is a passage of discourse which
is coherent in these two regards: it is coherent with respect to the context of situation, and
therefore consistent in register and it is coherent with respect to itself, and therefore
cohesive”. Moreover, Brown and Yule (1983: 6) argue that text is the representation of
discourse and the verbal record of a communicative act.
1.2.1.3. Spoken and Written discourse
Spoken and written discourses are different from each other in terms of forms and
functions. Meanwhile written discourse complies of complete sentences with
subordination, rich lexis and frequent modifications via adjectives and adverbs, spoken
contains incomplete sentences. Furthermore, written discourse, compared with spoken
discourse, is more complex, elaborate, and explicit. It differs from face-to-face interaction
in the manner that coherence is constructed. Tannen (1982) has noted that “cohesion is


6

established in spoken discourse through paralinguistic and non-verbal channels (such as
intonation, gesture, and eye-gaze), while cohesion is established in writing through
lexicalization and complex syntactic structures which make connectives explicit” (p. 3). A
writer apparently should learn to make us of appropriate signaling expressions to assist
reader in organizing their comprehension of the text. Meyer (1982) has evidenced that
when signaling devices are employed to label relationship in text, there is a facilitating
effect on reading comprehension for native speakers.
In sum, although spoken and written discourse have the general function of
communication, they serve various functions, the former concerned with the establishment
and maintenance of human relationship (interactional use) and the latter with the working
out and transferring of information (transactional use) (Brown and Yule,1983:13).
This study focuses on the written discourse only, specifically, written discourse of

EC. In order to analyze a discourse, it is necessary to look into the disciplines of Discourse
Analysis.
1.2.1.4. Discourse Analysis
Discourse analysis is the study of the relationship between language and the context
in which it is used. Yule(1996) states that “…we, as 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”. Therefore, in order to understand or interpret the message of a spoken or written
discourse we need to analyze it basing on the disciplines of Discourse Analysis. One of the
key factors that contributes to the making of a discourse is Context, the next are Register
and Genre.
1.2.1.4.1. Context in discourse analysis
Discourse analysis is fundamentally concerned with the general principles of
interpretation by which people normally make sense of what they hear and read. In trying
to derive a text‟s meaning, language users actually relate the text to the situation,
environment or context in which it is found. Consequently, context is an important aspect
in discourse analysis. According to Celce-Murcia (2000:11), context is all the factors and


7

elements that are non-linguistic and textual but which affect spoken or written
communicative interaction. Linguists have mentioned various types of context, but here, I
just pay attention to two main types, that is context of situation and context of culture.
Context of situation
Context of situation is an integral factor in discourse analysis. Many linguists agree
that a text can be understood or interpreted thoroughly only when the context of situation is
referred to. In Malinowski‟s viewpoint, context of situation refers to the environment of
the text. According to Eggins (1994:30), context of situation is usually discussed in three

variables: what is talked about; what the relationship between the communicators is; what
role the language plays.
Context of culture
In order to have an adequate understanding of the meaning of a text, it is necessary
to provide not only information about the immediate environment but also the total cultural
background as Malinowski stated “If you are not a member of the culture, you cannot
understand what is meant”.
1.2.1.4.2. Register and Genre in discourse analysis
The term „register‟ is used as a general term for situational varieties. According to
Halliday (1985), a register may be defined as a variety of language used in a particular
context. Gain & Redman (1986) point out that “Register are varieties of language defined
by their topics and context of use” namely the language of economics, law, finance,
banking, medicine, etc.
Halliday and Hasan (1989) use the terms „field‟, „mode‟, „tenor‟ as the features of
register. The three terms can be defined as follows:
Field: refers to what is happening and what language is being used to talk about.
Mode: specifies the medium and channel of communication. The two basic modes
are spoken and written.
Tenor: refers to the type of role interaction, the set of relevant social relations,
permanent and temporary, among the participants involved. In other words, tenor refers to
who is taking part, their statuses and roles.


8

Discourse is not only understood through register but genre as well. Eggins
(1994:32) considers that genre or context of culture can be seen as more abstract, more
general. It can be thought of as the general framework that gives purpose to interactions of
particular types, adaptable to the many specific contexts of situation that they get used in.
1.2.2. Cohesion and Coherence

1.2.2.1. Cohesion vs. Coherence
Cohesion and coherence are terms used in discourse analysis and text linguistics to
describe the properties of written texts.
In a text, a sequence of sentences tend to convey information about a certain topic, and by
doing so, they use related words, providing the text with quality of unity. This property of
sentences to „stick together‟ to function as a whole is known as cohesion and it has been
defined by Halliday and Hasan (1976: 04) “Cohesion occurs where the interpretation of
some elements in the discourse is dependent on that of another. In cohesion, features like
repetition of items as well as complex relations of collocation and structural semantic sense
connections across sentence boundaries are examined”. Guy Cook (1989) states that
cohesion refers to formal links between sentences and between clauses. In other words,
cohesion refers to the formal relationship that causes texts to cohere or stick together.
Coherence, as Nunan (1993), is the feeling that sequences of sentences or
utterances hang together and make sense.
Although cohesion and coherence are different from each other, they have a close
relationship in making a perfectly communicative text. Cohesion contributes to the
successful coherence of a text and coherence is something created by the reader in the act
of reading the text.
1.2.2.2. Aspect of coherence
1.2.2.2.1. Topical coherence
Topical coherence is one kind of content cohesion of discourse in which all the
sentences are about the same topic. That means only one specific topic is discussed
throughout a written discourse to achieve the coherence of the discourse. Moreover, the
topic is maintained through devices that help to repeat it.


9

Topical coherence concerns the terms Theme and Rheme. Theme is expressed by
the left-most constituent of the sentence. It refers to what the speaker nominates as the

subject of what he will talk about in the Rheme. The functions of a Theme are to connect
back or link to previous discourse and to serve as a starting of departure for further
development of discourse. Moreover, Halliday and Hasan (1976: 38) states that “the
Theme is the starting point for the message; it is the ground for which the clause is taking
off” and “if the message is organized as a Theme-Rheme structure… the Theme should be
at the beginning, rather than at the end or at some other specific points”. The Theme is not
necessarily a nominal group. It may be an adverbial group or prepositional phrase. Or
sometimes in English the Theme is announced explicitly by means of some expression like
as for…, with regard to…, about…
1.2.2.2.2. Logical coherence
Logical coherence is an important aspect of a discourse as it leads to the
appropriate interpretation of a discourse or a text. All segments of a discourse are
considered logical only when they together constitute and maintain a closely dialect logical
semantic relationship.
Logical coherence is determined by logical cohesive devices such as addition,
enumeration,

transition,

summation,

opposition

result,

inference,

reformulation,

replacement, contrast, concession and comparison.

1.2.2.3. Types of Cohesion
According to Halliday and Hasan in their seminar work (1976), there are five
categories of cohesive devices that signal cohesion, including reference, substitution,
ellipsis, conjunction and lexical ties. The cohesion theory of Halliday and Hasan proposed
that these linguistic signs play the main part in the development of coherence of a text. In
other words, they make explicit the logical relations that are already present in the mental
process of the writer. The types of cohesion can be divided into two main types:
grammatical and lexical cohesion.
1.2.2.3.1. Grammatical cohesion
Grammatical cohesion may be defined as the surface making of semantic links
between clauses and sentences in written discourse and between utterances and tunes in


10

speech. These links can be grouped in four types: reference, ellipsis, substitution and
conjunction.
a. Reference
Reference is a relation on semantic level. It is used to avoid repetition. Halliday and
Hasan (1976:32) states that “instead of being interpreted semantically in their own right,
they make reference to something else for their interpretation”.
Reference can be divided into: anaphoric, cataphoric, exophoric, personal,
demonstrative, and comparative reference. Each of them is presented by either pronouns
(eg. he, she, it, him, her…) or the article „the‟.
Anaphoric reference is a cohesive device which points the reader or listener backwards to
a previously mentioned entity, process or state of affairs.
- Hydrogen, the first element in the periodic table, is a very widely distributed
element. Its most important compound is water, H2O.
The possessive adjective its refers back to Hydrogen. This is an anaphoric reference.
Cataphoric reference is a cohesive device which points the reader or listener forwards.

- It is the lightest of all gases, density being about 1/14 that of air. It does not
support respiration, but is not poisonous. Hydrogen is a good conductor of heat as
compared with other gases.
The pronoun it refers forwards to Hydrogen.
Exophoric reference is a kind of reference which refers to the situation.
Personal reference is reference by means of function in speech situation and through the
category of person. It can be expressed by pronouns: he, his, she and determiner the.
Demonstrative reference is a form of verbal pointing by the speaker who identifies the
referent by locating it on the scale of proximity in terms of space and time. It is expressed
through determiners: this, that, these, those and adverbs: here, there.
Comparative reference serves to compare items within a text in terms of identity and
similarity. It is expressed through words such as same, identical, equal, identically,
addition, other, different, else, differently, otherwise, better, more, so, less, equally.


11

b. Substitution
Substitution is the use of substitute word or phrase to avoid repetition. According to
Halliaday and Hasan “substitution is the relation between linguistic items, such as words or
phrases and in terms of linguistic level, it is a relation on the lexicogrammatical level, the
level of grammar and vocabulary”. In other word, substitution is a process of replacement
of one item by another within a text. There are three types of substitution: nominal, verbal
and clausal. Nominal substitutes are: one, ones, same, verbal substitute consists: do, clausal
substitutes include: so, not.
c. Ellipsis
Ellipsis is the omission essential structure elements from a sentence or clause, and
the missing part can always be retrieved from another structure within a sentence or
beyond a sentence. The purpose of using this device is not to burden the text with needless
substitution or repetition. Like substitution, ellipsis can be studied in terms of nominal,

verbal and clausal.
d. Conjunction
Conjunction differs from reference, substitution, and ellipsis in that it is not a
device for reminding the reader or listener of previously mentioned entities, actions, and
states of affairs. In other words, it is not what linguistics calls an anaphoric relation.
However, it is a cohesive device because it signals relationships that can only be fully
understood through reference to other parts of the discourse. There are four types of
conjunction recognized in English: adversative, additive, temporal, and causal.
Adversative: however, nevertheless, in fact, on the other hand, on the contrary, yet,
though, etc.
- A large number of artificial carbon compounds unknown in nature have been
produced in the laboratory. However, all these compounds, both natural and artificial,
have certain distinct characteristic properties.
Additive: and, furthermore, in addition, besides, in other words, for instance, likewise,
thus, etc.


12

-

Acids and bases, two classes of chemical compounds that display generally

opposite characteristics
Causal: so, for this reason, because, hence, therefore, consequently, otherwise,
account for this, as a result, etc.
- The presence of carbon dioxide in the blood stimulates breathing. For this
reason, carbon dioxide is added to oxygen or ordinary air in artificial respiration and to
the gases used in anesthesia
Temporal: then, after that, finally, at last, until then, next, just then, etc.

- Firstly, organic compounds are more sensitive than inorganic compounds to
physical and chemical influences
1.2.2.3.2. Lexical Cohesion
In order to understand completely cohesive relations in discourse analysis, it is
necessary not only to take into account grammatical cohesion but also lexical cohesion.
This is the cohesive effect achieved by the selection of vocabulary. Lexical cohesion arises
from the semantic connections between words. Halliday and Hasan (1976: 288) divided
lexical cohesion into two main categories: Reiteration and Collocation.
Reiteration: In Cohesion in English (1976:278), Halliday and Hasan define reiteration as
follows: Reiteration is a form of lexical cohesion which involves the repetition of a lexical
item, the use of a general word to refer back to a lexical item, and a number of things in
between – the use of a synonym, near-synonym, or super-ordinate.
From the definition above, we can see clearly that reiteration involves repetition, synonym,
near synonym, antonym, super-ordinate, and general words. Those can be explained
through examples as follows:
-

Repetition:
- When groups of atoms combine as a subunit, the subunit is usually treated
as a single symbol.

-

Synonym:


13

- When heated in air, organic compounds burn away completely: the carbon
disappears in the form of carbon dioxide, the hydrogen and oxygen vanish

as water vapour, and the nitrogen escape in the form of the free element.
-

Super-ordinate:
- Many industries rely on large-scale chemical reactions to make products,
such as alloys, fertilizers, and building materials.

-

General word:
- At the present time a number of the natural organic compounds have been
synthesized by artificial processes. Moreover, a large number of artificial
carbon compounds unknown in nature have been produced in the
laboratory. However, all these compounds, both natural and artificial,
have certain distinct characteristic properties.

Collocation: In recent years collocation has emerged as an important category of lexical
cohesion and it is fast becoming an established unit of description in discourse analysis as
collocation is believed to be the most powerful force in the creation and comprehension of
all naturally occurring text. J.R. Firth (1957) defined collocation as „the company words
keep their relationship with other words‟. Another definition might be „the way words
combine in predictable ways‟.
1.2. 3. English for Specific Purpose (ESP)
1.2.3.1. Concept of ESP
Dudley-Evans and St John (1998) states that “A key feature of ESP work is to
research into how spoken and written texts work. In order to understand how these texts
work, we need to understand how they are used within a particular discipline or profession,
and how they attempt to persuade their audiences of the validity of their claims and
arguments”.
As for a broader definition of ESP, Hutchinson and Waters (1987) theorize, "ESP is

an approach to language teaching in which all decisions as to content and method are based
on the learner's reason for learning" (p. 19). Anthony (1997) notes that, it is not clear where
ESP courses end and general English courses begin; numerous non-specialist ESL


14

instructors use an ESP approach in that their syllabus are based on analysis of learner
needs and their own personal specialist knowledge of using English for real
communication.
1.2.3.2. Characteristics of ESP discourse
Anthony (1997) notes that there has been considerable recent debate about what
ESP means despite the fact that it is an approach which has been widely used over the last
three decades. At a 1997 Japan Conference on ESP, Dudley-Evans offered a definition.
The definition he and St. John postulate is as follows:
Absolute Characteristics


ESP is defined to meet specific needs of the learner.



ESP makes use of the underlying methodology and activities of the discipline it
serves.



ESP is centered on the language (grammar, lexis, and register), skills, discourse and
genres appropriate to these activities.

Variable Characteristics


ESP may be related to or designed for specific disciplines.



ESP may use, in specific teaching situations, a different methodology from that of
general English.



ESP is likely to be designed for adult learners, either at a tertiary level institution or
in a professional work situation. It could, however, be for learners at secondary
school level.



ESP is generally designed for intermediate or advanced students.



Most ESP courses assume some basic knowledge of the language system, but it can
be used with beginners.

1.2.4. SUMMARY
In this chapter, the theoretical foundation for my study has been discussed, i.e.
concept of discourse, distinction between spoken discourse and written discourse, cohesion
and coherence, context, register and genre in discourse analysis, cohesive devices such as

15

topical, logical, grammatical and lexical cohesive devices. I also attempted to look at the
definition of ESP, characteristics of ESP discourse.


16

CHAPTER 2: ANALYSIS OF GRAMMATICAL AND LEXICAL
COHESIVE DEVICES IN SOME WRITTEN DISCOURSES OF EC

2.1. An overview of the study
As a matter of the fact that cohesive devices take a very active role in the
construction of discourse. They are responsible for making the sentences of a text seem to
hang together, indicated by the use of semantically and grammatically related words.
Therefore, it is useful for students to master them if they clearly understand the role of
grammatical and lexical cohesive devices in making the text coherent. Understanding the
important role of cohesive devices, I decided to do a research on them with the hope to
help my students learn English more easily and more effectively.
The study aims at exploring the frequency of grammatical and lexical cohesive
devices through the data collected from the course book analysis. The course book being
analyzed in this research is “English for Chemistry” published in 2008 and it is used for
second year students at Faculty of Chemistry at HNUE.
The study is performed basing on statistical tool, then table and chart
demonstrations are used to analyze the statistical data. From which we can find out the
frequency of grammatical and lexical cohesive devices used in the course book.
2.2. ANALYSIS OF GRAMMATICAL AND LEXICAL COHESIVE DEVICES IN
SOME WRITTEN DISCOURSES FROM THE COURSE BOOK “ENGISH FOR
CHEMISTRY”

The overall picture of grammatical and lexical cohesive devices in six written
discourses of EC is shown in the following table:
Types of cohesive devices

Number of items

Grammatical cohesive devices

224

Lexical cohesive devices

261

Total
485

Table 1: Grammatical and lexical cohesive devices – Absolute count


17

53.80%

46.20%

Grammatical cohesive devices

Lexical cohesive devices

Figure 1: Grammatical and lexical cohesive devices - Frequency of occurrence
As can be shown in the table 1, there are 485 items of grammatical and lexical
cohesive devices employed in six reading texts of EC. Among them, lexical cohesive
devices are more widely used than grammatical cohesive devices with 53.8% and 46.2%
respectively. The percentage of grammatical and lexical cohesive devices is shown in
figure 1 above.
2.2.1. Grammatical cohesive devices
Grammatical cohesion has four types: Reference, Substitution, Ellipsis, and
Conjunction. The occurrence of these cohesive devices can be represented in the following
table:
Grammatical cohesive devices

Number of items

Reference

156

Conjunction

62

Substitution

1

Ellipsis

5

Total

224

Table 2: Grammatical cohesive devices – Absolute count