Cohesion and Coherence

Cohesion and Coherence: A Study of two texts, One with Cohesive Markers while the other lacking Cohesive Markers

Introduction

This paper seeks to analyse two texts finding out a text with cohesive markers and a text lacking cohesive markers. A text in linguistics, is any spoken or written discourse that forms a unified whole, which may be a sentence, a paragraph, or a dialogue. A text is not a grammatical unit, but rather a semantic unit of language, i.e. a unit of meaning, not of form, (Bahaziq, 2016:p112). Texture is what provides the text with unity and distinguishes it from a non-text. Therefore, it is the cohesive relation that exists between units of a text. 

This paper explores cohesion and coherence with their instances to enable readers glance on how words structurally and semantically hang together to create a coherent text. We have analysed an excerpt from the opening chapter of Horace Walpole’s The Castle of Otranto to find out the cohesive markers, and we also looked at Cha’s (1982) instance of text without cohesive markers. Our observation is that there are texts that are cohesive but not coherent. Based on this fact, we then assume cohesion as the property of coherence.

2.0 Coherence and Cohesion 

2.1 Cohesion  

For Halliday and Hasan (1976:p.4–5), cohesion is a semantic relation and is defined as the relations of meaning that exist within the text and that define it as a text. It is the grammatical or lexical relationship that binds different parts of a text together. Cohesion is expressed partly through the grammar and partly through the vocabulary. Thus, there is grammatical cohesion and lexical cohesion (Abdul-Raof, 2019:p.20). For Beaugrande and Dressler (1981:p.3), cohesion depends on grammatical dependencies. This means that the surface components (words) of the text depend upon each other according to grammatical forms and conventions, i.e., the words are mutually connected within a sequence. Although cohesion plays a pivotal role in textuality, there must be interaction between cohesion and other standards of textuality to make communication efficient (Abdul-Raof, 2019:p.20). In the view of Beaugrande and Dressler (1981:p.55–56), lexical recurrence (repetition) contributes to cohesion. As for Hatim and Munday (2004:p.336), cohesion is the requirement that a sequence of sentences display grammatical and/or lexical relationships which ensure the surface continuity of text structure. Yule (1985:p.140) defines cohesion as the ties and connections which exist within texts. It refers to the different cohesive devices that are necessary for any text units to be strongly connected together. Cohesive devices are defined by Salkie (2005:p.9) as those certain words and expressions which any cohesive text should include. They are necessary in linking the sentences together. They are like the glue which holds different parts of a text together and the only factor in making a text coherent.

Cohesion is thus referred to the various linguistic means (grammatical, lexical, phonological) by which sentences ‘stick together’ and are linked into larger units of paragraphs, or stanzas, or chapters, (Bussmann, 1996: p.199).

For example:

1. A: Is Jenny coming to the party?

B: Yes, she is.

(Richard and Schmidt, 2010,p.94).

There is a link between Jenny and she and also between is . . . coming and is.

2. In the sentence:

“If you are going to London, I can give you the address of a good hotel there”,

the link is between London and there.

Cohesion is thus concerned in the ways in which the components of the surface text, i.e. the actual words we hear or see, are mutually connected within a sequence. The surface components depend upon each other according to grammatical forms and conventions, such that cohesion rests upon grammatical dependencies, (Beaugrande and Dresser 1981).

Cohesion is correlation between clauses within a text or discourse grammatically or lexically. Cohesion is the internal aspect of a text and all the internal aspect such as grammatical aspect and lexical one that develop the unity of the text.

Halliday and Hasan, moreover, put forward that the function of cohesion is to relate one part of a text to another part of the same text. In other words, cohesion functions as a tie to link one sentence to another. The actualization of cohesion in any given instance, Halliday and Hasan examine, does not depend merely on the selection of the word apples we cannot see that it has cohesive power by itself, a cohesive relation is set up only if the same word or a word related to it such as fruit has occurred previously. Halliday and Hasan point out that the cohesion lies in the relation that is set up between the sentences.

For example: 

International pop stars usually lead a very busy life. They need to give concerts, attend photo shootings, or have other important obligations. Very often they have to travel around the globe, jumping from one time zone to another without getting much sleep. There is no secret that many of them have a tendency to take drugs to be able to deal with the pressure. One of the most famous victims of drug abuse during recent years was Michael Jackson who died in 2009 only two months before his 51st birthday.

Example above shows such a cohesive chain in which “international pop stars” in the first sentence is connected to all the other sentences via “they” in the second and third sentence and “many of them” in the fourth sentence. One has to follow all the cohesive ties in the subsequent sentences in order to establish the relation between the elements “pop stars” in the first sentence and “Michael Jackson” in the fifth sentence, i.e. Michael Jackson is an instance of an “international pop star”.

2.2 Coherence 

Coherence is the spirit of the text, it's what makes the text semantically meaningful, and is considered the most significant element in text linguistics. Van Dijk (1977:p.93) points out that the notion of coherence can be defined as a semantic property of discourse. For Hatim and Munday (2004:p.335), coherence is a standard which all well-formed texts must meet and which stipulates that grammatical and/or lexical relationships ‘hang together’ and make overall sense as text. Cohesion may refer to the ways in which sentences are connected by cohesive devices through which readers can perceive the semantic relationship between the sentences, (Suwandi, 2016:p.255). Manser (2006:p.141) argues that coherence is a feature of good style. Tanskanen (2006:p.7) argues that coherence is the outcome of a dialogue between the text and its listener/reader. Coherence is therefore the relationships which link the meanings of utterances in a discourse or of the sentences in a text, (Richard and Schmidt, 2010,p.93). These links may be based on the speakers’ shared knowledge. For example:

Consider the following example: 

The boy came in the room. He was wearing a red coat. 

In the sentence, the italicized NP the boy is referred to by the bolded pronoun he. Technically, we say that the pronoun is an anaphoric item, i.e., a linguistic item that refers to another (part of) a text, and what it refers to is called its antecedent. So, the relationship between any anaphoric item and its antecedent is a cohesive relationship.

In general, coherence is the grammatical and semantic interconnectedness between sentences that form a text, (Bussmann, 1996:p.198).

In written texts coherence refers to the way a text makes sense to the readers through the organization of its content, and the relevance and clarity of its concepts and ideas. Coherence is not merely concerned with ‘sticking to the point’. Rather, it is concerned with the semantic relatedness and continuity of senses between the segments of the text, be it a single word, two consecutive sentences, or a larger text. In other words, coherence is concerned with:

i. the relationships among the constituent lexemes of a sentence (proposition), and

 ii the relationships among the consecutive sentences.

This means that coherence is concerned with how a text hangs well together. coherence is the unity of the text in which each sentence or each paragraph in the text hangs together to form a discourse that the readers can perceive its meaning. The unity of the text can be built through the use of cohesive devices that connect ideas from one sentence to the other or from one paragraph to the other. The cohesive devices which are often used to connect ideas in writing are among others: references, substitutions and ellipsis, conjunctions and lexical cohesion (Nunan, 1993).

3.0 Cohesive Devices

There are five principal forms of cohesive devices, such as, references, substitutions, ellipsis, conjunctions and lexical cohesion.

3.1 Reference: Through reference, we can identify interrelated items within a text. Reference includes nouns, determiners, pronouns (personal and demonstrative), and adverbs. Reference is classified into endophoric and exophoric. Endophoric reference includes: 

 3.1.1 Cataphoric reference: This is the use of a linguistic item to refer forward to subsequent elements in the text (e.g., In her speech, Theresa May reassured the Europeans that . . .). 

 3.1.2 Anaphoric reference: This takes place when a noun occurs first then is followed by its reference pronoun. For instance:

a. James came to school today. He taught biology.

 3.1.3 Personal reference: This refers to personal pronouns (he, she, it, they, you).

A. Where’s Simon? - He is in the kitchen. (Puprasert 2007, p. 53) 

B. He relaxes and acts in his normal manner. (Petchprasert, 2019:p.20).

3.1.4 Demonstrative reference: This refers to demonstrative pronouns (this, that, these, those). 

A. Pun bought a new car. That car is very expensive. (Chanawangsa 1986 as cited in Noonkhan 2002, p 16) 

3.1.5 Comparative reference: This refers to items like (more/most, fewer/less, better/worse).

3.2  Ellipsis: This refers to anything that is left unsaid in the second sentence. For Beaugrande and Dressler (1981:p.66), ellipsis is a cohesive device that contributes to the text’s compactness and efficiency. Ellipsis involves “a deletion of a word, phrase, or clause” (Witte & Faigley, 1981, p.190). The omission of the word books in sentences (i); the word do in sentence ii (B); and the omission of the cause killed Cock Robin in sentence iii (A) illustrate cohesion based on ellipsis. Examples of the three types of ellipsis are given below:

3.2.1 Nominal

Those books are interesting. I will buy two [books]. (Noonkhan 2002, p. 8)

3.2. 2 Verbal

A: Do you want to go with me to the store?

B: Yes, I do. (Witte & Faigley 1981, p. 191)

3.2.3 Causal 

A. Who killed Cock Robin? – The sparrow  [killed Cock Robin]. (Halliday and Hasan 1976, p. 210) 

 3.3 Substitution: This is the replacement of a word or phrase to avoid the repetition of the same word or phrase. There are three types of substitution: 

 3.3.1 Nominal substitution: This is represented by (one) or (ones), as in (I gave you red, green, and yellow colouring pencils. Give back the green ones only) where substitution is represented by the word (ones) that stands for the noun (colouring pencils). The word (same) also functions as a nominal substitute, as in: 

 (A): I will buy a new red car. 

 (B): I will buy the same. 

(C): This car is old. I will buy a new one. (Bahaziq, 2016).

 3.3.2 Verbal substitution: This is realized by (do), as in: 

 (A): I hope you understood my point. 

 (B): I did. 

 where (did), which is used by the second speaker (B), substitutes the verb (understood). 

 3.3.3 Causal substitution: This refers to the substitution of an entire clause through the word (so), as in: 

 (A): Did John pass his driving test? 

 (B): I was told so. 

 3.3.4 Conjunction: This is realized through different types of conjunctive elements, such as additive conjunction (and), adversative conjunction (although), causal conjunction (so), and temporal conjunction (then). Beaugrande and Dressler (1981 :71) refer to conjunctions as junctive expressions. Conjunction intended to explicitly conjoin ideas and sentences. Halliday and Hasan distinguish five types of conjunctive cohesion—additive (such as and, or) adversative (such as but, however, yet), casual (such as because, so), temporal (such as after, before, then), and continuative (such as after, all, of course). These conjunctions intend to enhance connectivity of ideas in texts (Hinkel 2001) as well as to supply cohesive ties across sentence boundaries (Witte & Faigley 1981). Examples of these subclasses are illustrated below.

3.3.4.I. Additive

A.  This is the first time I have tried Japanese food, and I like it very much.  (Tangkiengsirisin 2010, p. 6)

3.3.4.2 Adversative

A. Carol, however, changed her behaviour because she wanted to become part of a new group. (Witte & Faigley 1981, p. 192)

3.3.4.3 Causal

A. She is an efficient secretary, so her boss always admires her. (Tangkiengsirisin 2010, p. 6)

3.3.4.4. Temporal

(27) Tom had a shower. Then he had breakfast. (Tangkiengsirisin 2010, p. 6)

3.3.4.5. Continuative

A. This is something we all learn as children and we, of course, also learn which behaviours are right for which situations. (Witte & Faigley 1981, p. 192)

 3.3.5 Lexical cohesion: 

Lexical cohesion involves the choice of vocabulary. It is concerned with the relationship that exists between lexical items in a text such as words ( man, woman, boy, girl, person, people) and phrases. Lexical cohesion includes two types, reiteration and collocation. 

3.3.5.1  Reiteration: 

Halliday and Hasan (1976) define reiteration as two items that share the same referent and could either be repeated or have similar meanings in a text. For example: 

Peter bought a BMW. It is the most expensive car in the street. 

Beaugrande and Dressler (1981 :54) refer to reiteration as lexical recurrence. The forms of reiteration are repetition, synonymy, antonymy, etc.

3.3.5.1.1 Repetition is the restatement of the same lexical item. This is illustrated by the following: 

              a.  Anna ate the apple. The apple was fresh. 

3.3.5.1.2 Synonymy is used to refer to items of similar meaning just as, attractive and beautiful. For example:

a. That beautiful girl is very attractive.

3.3.5.1.3 Antonymy is the relation between items of opposite meanings such as, hot and cold. For example:

b. Everywhere was very hot when I came in, but later, it became cold.

3.3.5.2. Collocation is a combination of vocabulary items that co-occur together. It includes combinations of adjectives and nouns such as, ‘fast food’, verbs and nouns such as, ‘run out of money’, and other items such as, ‘men’ and ‘women’ (Platridge, 2012, as cited by Bahaziq, 2016:p.114).

Note: Coherence and cohesion 

A cohesive text is not necessarily coherent, but a coherent text is necessarily cohesive. This entails that cohesion is a prerequisite of coherence.  Consider the following example from Kaur Harshdeep's (2018) blog:

“I bought some hummus to eat with celery. Green vegetables can boost your metabolism. The Australian Greens is a political party. I couldn’t decide what to wear to the new year’s party.”

In the example above, there are lexical links called cohesive ties used to join the sentences. There is evidence of lexical repetition, ‘green’ ‘party’ and collocations, ‘new year's. However, this string of sentences does not make any sense; the ideas in such a text are not coherent. This is an example of cohesion without coherence.

4.0 A text with cohesive markers

Here, an excerpt from the first opening chapter of Horace Wapole's novel, The Castle of Otranto (2009) is used for the analysis. Our aim is to find out if the text coheres with some cohesive markers.

“Manfred, Prince of Otranto, had one son and one daughter: the latter, a most beautiful virgin, aged eighteen, was called Matilda. Conrad, the son, was three years younger, a homely youth, sickly, and of no promising disposition; yet he was the darling of his father, who never showed any symptoms of affection to Matilda. Manfred had contracted a marriage for his son with the Marquis of Vicenza's daughter, Isabella; and she had already been delivered by her guardians into the hands of Manfred, that he might celebrate the wedding as soon as Conrad's infirm state of health would permit.”

(An excerpt from chapter one of The Castle of Otranto by Horace Walpole, 2009:p.10).

This opening chapter of Walpole's novel is very rich with cohesive markers that connect the surface structures and meanings together to make the text a cohesive and coherent one.

From the text, we observe cohesive markers such as:

First, the use of anaphoric reference

... “the Prince of Otranto” is an anaphoric reference to its antecedent, “Manfred”. In the second sentence, he is an anaphoric reference to Conrad, the antecedent which has already been linked in the first sentence with a lexical item, “son.” And this has apparently made the use of possessive pronoun his in the second sentence cohesive. In sentence three of the text, another anaphoric reference is also identified. “She” is an anaphoric reference to “Isabella,” the antecedent. What characterizes this referential cohesion is the specific nature of the information that is signalled for retrieval. Cohesion lies in the continuity of reference (Halliday and Hasan, 1976:p.31).

Second, the use of conjunction:

Conjunctions are employed to connect ideas in the text. In the text, three additive conjunctions “and” have been identified, one in each of the sentences.

Third, the use of reiterations, which are seen in the first sentence, “Manfred, the Prince of Otranto”, “Conrad, the son”, in the second sentence, and “the Marquis of Vicenza's daughter, Isabella”, in the third sentence of the text. The significance of these reiterations is to make the coreferential items to be more understanding by the readers, as those linguistic items share the same reference.

5.0 A text lacking cohesive markers

Cohesion is a necessary condition for the creation of a coherent text. It is not possible to create a coherent text without cohesion.  For example, the following text is created by Cha (1982) as a non-coherent. 

a. John bought a camera at Simpsons. 

b. She gave it to her sister. 

This is not a coherent text because there is no cohesive relationship between the two sentences - technically,  there is no proper referential relationship between sentence (A) and sentence (B) (John, .... she... and her). 

Conclusion

Both Cohesion and coherence are linguistic concepts which enable readers and listeners of a spoken text to make sense out of what is being said. A text can be cohesive, but lacks semantic signals and so it becomes incoherent. Thus, for a writer to achieve his communicative goal, he ought to cohesively  align his text in a coherent form because coherence bears the meaning of the text.

References

Abdul-Raof H. (2019) Text linguistics of Qur’anic discourse: An analysis, London and New York, Roultledge. 

Bahaziq A. (2016) Cohesive Devices in Written Discourse: A Discourse Analysis of a Student’s Essay Writing. English Language Teaching; Vol. 9, No. 7; 2016. Canadian Centre of Science and Education.

Beaugrande R.D. and Dresser (1981) Text linguistics,http://www.beaugrande.com/introduction_to_text_linguistics.htm (8 of 21) [29-07-2008 15:12:04]

Brown and Attardo (2005) Understanding language structure, interactions and variations (2nd,ed) USA, University of Michigan Press.

Bussmann H. (1996) Dictionary of language and linguistics, London and New York, Routledge.

Cha J.S. (1982) Linguistic coherence in texts: Theory and description, a Ph.D. dissertation, McGill University.

Chanawongsa, W. (1986). Cohesion in Thai. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Georgetown University, the United States of America.

Halliday and Hasan (1976) Cohesion in English, London, Longman Group Limited.

Hatim, B. and Munday, J. (2004). Translation: An advanced resource book . London and New York: Routledge. 

Kaur H. (2018) Coherence and cohesion, https://www.vcestudyguides.com/blog/coherence-and-cohesion

Manser, M. H. (2006). The facts on file guide to style . New York: Facts On File, Inc.

Noonkhan, K. (2002). Cohesion shifts in translation: a comparative study between Thai and English. Unpublished master’s thesis. Srinakharinwirot University, Bangkok, Thailand.

Petchprasert  A. (2019) A study of cohesive markers used in l1 and l2 essay writing: Translation versus direct composition. 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies – Vol 19 (1): 19 – 33.

Richard and Schmidt (2010) Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics (4th ed.), Great Britain, Pearson Education Limited. 

Salkie, R. (2005). Text and discourse analysis. London: Routledge.

Suwandi S. (2016) COHERENCE AND COHESION: AN ANALYSIS OF THE FINAL PROJECT ABSTRACTS OF THE UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS OF PGRI SEMARANG, Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, Vol. 5 No. 2, January 2016, pp. 253-261. 

Tangkiengsirisins (2010). Promoting cohesion in EFL expository writing: a study of graduate students in Thailand. International Journal of Arts and Sciences, 3(16). 1-34.

Tanskanen, S. (2006). Collaborating towards coherence: Lexical cohesion in english discourse. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Van Dijk, T. A. (1977). Text and context: explorations in the semantics and pragmatics of discourse . London and New York: Longman.

Walpole H. (2009) The castle of otranto: A gothic novel, UK, The Floating Press.

From a 1901 edition. 

Witte, S. and Faigley, L. (1981). Analyzing revision: College Composition and Communication. 32 (4), 400-414.

Yule, G. (1985). The Study of Language. Cambridge, USA: Cambridge University Press.