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

15 Chapter 2: A contrastive analysis of Obama and Nguyen Minh Triet’s inaugural speeches in terms of grammatical cohesive devices ..... 25 Chapter 3: A contrastive analysis of Obama and

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Candidate’s statement i

Acknowledgements ii

Abstract iii

Table of contents iv

PART A: INTRODUCTION 1

1 Rationale 1

2 Aims of the study 2

3 Research question 2

4 Scope of the study 2

5 Methodology 3

6 Organization of the study 3

PART B: DEVELOPMENT 4

Chapter 1: Theoretical Background 4

1.1 Discourse 4

1.1.1 Define “discourse” and “text” 4

1.1.2 Spoken and written discourse 5

1.2 Discourse context 6

1.2.1 Context of situation 6

1.2.2 Context of culture 6

1.3 Contrastive analysis 7

1.4 Cohesion 7

1.4.1 Definition 7

1.4.2 Cohesion & coherence 8

1.4.3 Grammatical cohesion and lexical cohesion 8

1.4.3.1 Grammatical cohesion 8

1.4.3.2 Lexical cohesion 15

Chapter 2: A contrastive analysis of Obama and Nguyen Minh Triet’s inaugural speeches in terms of grammatical cohesive devices 20

2.1 Reference 20

2.1.1 Anaphoric reference 20

2.1.2 Cataphoric reference 21

2.2 Substitution 22

2.3 Ellipsis 23

2.4 Conjunctions 23

2.5 Frequency of occurrences of grammatical cohesive devices 25

Chapter 3: A contrastive analysis of Obama and Nguyen Minh Triet’s inaugural speeches in terms of lexical cohesive devices 27

3.1 Reiteration 27

3.1.1 Repetition 27

3.1.2 Synonym 29

3.1.3 Antonym 30

3.1.4 Hyponym 31

3.2 Collocation 32

3.3 Frequency of occurrences of lexical cohesive devices 34

PART C: Conclusion 37

1 Conclusion 37

2 Implications on teaching and learning writing 38

3 Limitations of the research 39

4 Suggestions for further studies 39

References 40 Appendices

Appendix 1: Nguyen Minh Triet’s inaugural speech .I Appendix 2: Barrack Obama’s inaugural speech IV

PART A: INTRODUCTION

1 Rationale

English is one of the most important languages in communication Nowadays, people all over the world learn English to communicate with each other, therefore, the language has become an international language Vietnam is not an exception English is more and more popular in Vietnam, where it becomes

a subject in Vietnamese education system No one can deny the role of English in connecting people all over the world together and bringing many chances for people to integrate into the global economy

Because of the significance of English, Vietnamese learners try to find many ways to master the second language, such as through movies, stories, music and even pictures Another good way that many learners choose is learning English through speeches made by famous people For example, in Japan, there used to be a tendency of studying English through the USA‟s president Obama‟s speeches and in Vietnam, not few learners try this way

However, there is a truth that Vietnamese learners of English often make a variety of mistakes and errors when using the target language Many of learners have difficulty in using English fluently and smoothly They often use the second language by putting words together to produce a sentence As a result, the language is incoherent It is necessary to use cohesive devices, especially in terms

of vocabulary and grammar, which can cohere ideas in a context together to avoid the incoherence of texts Thanks to these devices, which can help to make the language items connected, learners can use the second language as native speakers

In reality, many researchers have spent a lot of time on studying cohesive devices in general and in specific context Nevertheless, no one has studied about cohesive devices in president Obama‟s speech Barrack Obama, who is the first color-skinned president of America, has a big influence on Americans‟ mind His words are admired by people all over the world His words cause much curiosity

and urge the author to conduct this thesis on his inaugural speech The reason to choose the inaugural speech is that everyone knows each presidential speech has

to go through a long process of editing and revising before it is given to public All

of its words, sentences are written and polished carefully because it is not only the product of an individual, but it is also the face of a nation

For above reasons, the author of this paper aims to focus on lexical and grammatical cohesive devices used in Obama‟s speech in comparison with ex-president Nguyen Minh Triet‟s speech By contrastively analyzing of the two speeches, the paper is expected to aid learners of the second language to avoid making errors and use the language as natively as their mother tongue

2 Aims of the study

This thesis aims at:

- giving a general theoretical background of lexical and grammatical cohesive devices

- describing and analyzing lexical and grammatical cohesive devices used

in two speeches made by two representatives in similar situational context but different cultural context to reveal similarities and differences

4 Scope of the study

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

5 Methodology

Firstly, a variety of materials related to cohesive devices, notably, lexical and grammatical cohesive devices, is read through and selected to build up a theoretical background for the research Then, cohesive devices used in two speeches are collected and classified for description, analysis and statistics Contrastive method is used to find out the similarities and differences of lexical and grammatical cohesive devices used in two speeches

6 Organization of the study

This organization of the study is composed of three parts as follows

Part A is the introduction, which includes rationale, aims of the study, research question, scope of the study, methodology and organization of the study

Part B starts with chapter 1 – the theoretical background that includes with discourse, discourse context and then contrastive analysis The rest of the chapter

1 deals with cohesion, which consists of definition, cohesion and coherence, grammatical and lexical cohesion

Chapter 2 discusses the contrastive analysis of Obama and Nguyen Minh Triet‟s inaugural speeches in terms of grammatical cohesive devices, which are composed of reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunctions and the frequency of occurrence of grammatical cohesive devices in both speeches

Chapter 3 is the contrastive analysis of Obama and Nguyen Minh Triet‟s inaugural speeches in terms of lexical cohesive devices, which emphasizes on reiteration, collocation and frequency of occurrences of lexical cohesive devices

The last part concludes the main points of the thesis and gives some implications on teaching and learning writing and suggestions for further studies

as well

The rest of the paper is some references for further reading and study

PART B: DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER 1: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 1.1 Discourse

1.1.1 Define “discourse” and “text”

The term “discourse” and “text” has been remaining confusion among analysts Some of them believe that these two concepts are interchangeable and some others see these in contrary view Whatever it is, “discourse” and “text” are two most notable linguistic phenomenon Therefore, the clarification of them is necessary for learners and teachers of linguistics

There are several definitions for discourse Nunan, D (1993:5) defines discourse as a unit of language, which is formed by some related sentences Similarly, “Discourse is a continuous stretch of (especially spoken) language larger than a sentence, often constituting a coherent unit, such as a sermon, argument, joke or narrative.” (Crystal 1992: 25 cited in Nunan 1993:5) Furthermore, “discourse is stretches of language perceived to be meaningful, unified and purposive” (Cook 1989: 156 cited in Nunan 1993: 6) In conclusion, discourse is a linguistic unit that is coherent with some specific purposes

Whereas, “Text is a piece of naturally occurring spoken, written, or signed discourse identified for purposes of analysis It is often a language unit with a definable communicative function, such as a conversation or a poster” (Crystal 1992:72 cited in Nunan 1993:6) Halliday & Hasan in Cohesion in English (1976) consider text as “a unit of language in use It is not a grammatical unit, like a clause or a sentence; and it is not defined by its size” and it may be spoken or written

Nunan (1993) refers text as “any written record of a communicative event” and discourse as “the interpretation of the communicative event in the context” In addition, Widdowson (1984:100) pointed out that “discourse is a communicative process by means of interaction Its situational outcome is a change in a state of

affairs: information is conveyed, intentions made clear, its linguistic product is text”

Although some linguists try to put “discourse” and “text” apart, it cannot be denied that they can be used interchangeably Discourse is a “process” and text is

a “product” For this idea, in this study, I will use the term “text” to refer to any written discourse and the two inaugural speeches made by two presidents – Barrack Obama and Nguyen Minh Triet – are analyzed as “products”

1.1.2 Spoken and written discourse

There should be a distinction between spoken and written discourse – two modes expressing linguistic meaning Apart from some of their similarities, they represent different features, in which the biggest one is spoken discourse is changeable while written discourse is permanent or unchangeable

It cannot be denied that spoken language is a kind of verbal communication Speakers can use gestures or body language to state what he/she wants to receivers This is impossible for written language, which is non-verbal Its only means of manifestation is texts According to Nunan (1993:8), although spoken language existed before written language, “written texts are much more than merely talk written down” And because of the existence of the agricultural culture rather than hunting and gathering, people needed „permanent records‟ He pointed out that both written and spoken discourse is used to “get things done, to provide information and to entertain” A speaker does not have to take much notice of grammatical rules and spend much time on planning what he/she intend

to deliver to his/her receiver as a writer On the other hand, with face-to-face interactions, the receiver can see the speaker‟s attitude and behavior rather than that of the writer, whose expressions are transferred into texts According to Brown and Yule (1983:13), both spoken and written discourse serves the interactional and transactional purpose The former is used for human relationship and the later is for transferring information

Speech may be considered as both written and spoken discourse In this study, the researcher analyzes transcriptions of the two inaugural speeches made

by President Obama and Ex-President Nguyen Minh Triet as two written discourses with the formal use of lexical and grammatical rules

1.2 Discourse context

1.2.1 Context of situation

It is significant to recognize the context of situation of a discourse Readers and hearers can easily get what speakers and writers mean when they know the context of situation Nunan (1993:7) states that “context refers to the situation giving rise to the discourse, and within which the discourse is embedded” Therefore, so as to understand and analyze a discourse, it is essential to focus on the context in which it is embedded

In this study, the context of the two discourses is speeches delivered in public after the two presidents were inaugurated

1.2.2 Context of culture

In order to understand a discourse, aside from the language used in the discourse and many other features, it is necessary to know the context of culture Only when you are a part of the culture, can you capture what is said and expressed in the discourse

In this thesis, two inaugural speeches of two leaders from two different cultures – Vietnam and America are mentioned and analyzed It is indispensable to comprehend some significant features of these two nations or two literary styles in specific beforehand Obviously, two inaugural speeches are aimed at two different receivers/hearers Nguyen Minh Triet‟s speech was delivered to Vietnamese people, who are citizens of a socialist country while Barrack Obama‟s speech is for citizens of a federal constitutional republic It is also necessary to revise some

of main features of two cultures in this paper For a long time, the democracy exists in America but it is manifested through the appearance of many parties in a nation and these also create some of prominent characteristics that are truly

America: individualism, high competition and privacy In Vietnam, there is also democracy; however, this feature is much different from that of America The democracy is expressed in the unity and solidarity of citizens In addition, Vietnamese people do and think basing on the collective spirit These different features between two nations may lead to the differences in writing two inaugural speeches because these two are made for political purposes and delivered to different audiences In addition, the political institutions and ideologies of authors are reflected in inaugural texts

In conclusion, both context of situation and culture are integral in analyzing the discourses since they have a big influence on the literary style, especially, inaugural speeches written by Presidents

1.3 Contrastive analysis

Before finding any similarities and differences between two discourses, it is necessary to understand contrastive analysis According to James (1980), the history of contrastive analysis (CA) starts with Lado‟s Linguistics across cultures (1957) In his book, Lado stated that “those elements which are similar to the learner‟s native language will be simple for him, and those elements that are different will be difficult” (Lado, 1957) James also believed that two earlier books

on the linguistic integration of immigrants to the USA – Weinreich (1953) and Haugen (1956) gave Lado his impetus James (1980: 3) gave a provisional definition of CA as “CA is a linguistic enterprise aimed at producing inverted (i.e., contrastive, not comparative) two-valued typologies (a CA is always concerned with a pair of languages), and founded on the assumption that languages can be compared” He considered CA as inter-language study and applied linguistics

In short, contrastive analysis is the systematic study of a pair of languages

to identify their similarities and differences In this study, the similarities and differences between two inaugural speeches in terms of grammatical and lexical cohesive devices will be figured out

1.4 Cohesion

1.4.1 Definition

Cohesion is understood as the grammatical and lexical relationship within a text or sentence It can be also defined as the links that hold a text together and give it meaning Nguyen Hoa (2000:23) defines cohesion as the formal relationship that makes texts cohere or stick together According to Halliday & Hasan (1976:4), “the concept of cohesion is a semantic one; it refers to relations of meaning that exist within the text, and that define it as a text” Cohesion happens where the interpretation of some elements in the discourse is dependent on that of another Also according to them, cohesion is part of the system of a language and

is expressed through the strata organization of language It is manifested partly through the grammar and partly through the vocabulary Therefore, it can be

referred that cohesion includes grammatical and lexical cohesion

1.4.2 Cohesion & coherence

Taking the viewpoint of Hoang Van Van (2006), cohesion is concerned with formal surface structures to interact with underlying semantic relations or underlying functional coherence to create textual unity Contrary, coherence is concerned with the sequencing of the configuration of the concepts and relation of the textual world which underlies and is realized by the surface text

1.4.3 Grammatical cohesion and lexical cohesion

1.4.3.1 Grammatical cohesion

Grammatical cohesion may be understood as the surface marking of semantic links between clauses and sentences in written discourse, and between utterances and tunes in speech It can be classified into four groups: reference substitution, ellipsis and conjunction

 Reference

Halliday and Hasan (1976) stated that “reference is a semantic relation” Reference is used in discourse to avoid repetition Also, according to them,

“instead of being interpreted semantically in their own right, they make reference

to something else for their interpretation”

For example:

Three blind mice, three blind mice

See how they run! See how they run!

(Halliday & Hasan 1976: 31)

In the above example, they refers to three blind mice and link two clauses

together

In case of reference, the information to be recalled is the referential meaning, the “identify of the particular thing or class of things that is being referred to; and the cohesion lies in the continuity of reference, whereby the same thing enters into the discourse a second time” (Halliday & Hasan 1976:31) From their point of view, reference is divided into two main types: exophoric and endophoric reference, and if endophoric, they may be anaphoric and cataphoric

Each of them is shown by either pronouns (he, she, it, they…) or the article the

Exophoric reference is considered as situational reference, which refers to a thing

as identified in the context of situation, whilst, endophora is recognized as textual reference, which refers to a thing as identified in the surrounding text Endophora

is composed of two kinds: anaphora and cataphora By anaphoric reference, we mean someone or something that has been identified previously is referred back Cataphoric reference is the opposite of anaphora It is the use of a word or a phrase

to refer forward to another word or phrase which will be used later in the discourse

The following example will illustrate types of reference:

It was the night before the day fixed for his coronation, and the young

King was sitting alone in his beautiful chamber His courtiers had all taken their leave of him, bowing their heads to the ground, according to the

ceremonious usage of the day, and had retired to the Great Hall of the

Palace, to receive a few last lessons from the Professor of Etiquette; there

being some of them who had still quite natural manners, which in a

courtier is, I need hardly say, a very grave offence

(Oscar Wilde, 1988) All the reference items are bold and underlined We can see from the

example above, “his”, “him” refers back to “the young King” in the first sentence; “their”, “them” refers back to “courtiers” This is known as

anaphoric reference The article “the” in “the night”, “the day”, “the young King”, “the ground”, “the Great Hall, “the Palace”, “the professor of Etiquette” refers to the night, the day, the young King, the ground, the Great Hall,

the Palace and the professor of Etiquette that the author knows and wants to share with his audiences This phenomenon is called exophoric reference

By cataphoric reference, let‟s consider this example cited in Nguyen Hoa (1998):

This should interest you, if you are keen on boxing The world heavyweight

championship is going to be held in Chicago next June (Quirk, 1973 cited

in Nguyen Hoa 1998:35)

“This” in the first sentence refers to what the speaker/writer is going to say

– “the world heavy weight championship”

Exophoric reference contributes to the creation of text, in that it links the language with the context of situation; but it does not contribute to the integration

of one passage with another so that the two together form part of the same text Hence it does not contribute directly to cohesion as we have defined it For this reason, in this thesis, we only take endophoric reference for analyzing in the two speeches

 Substitution

Substitution is the replacement of one item for one another As Halliday & Hasan (1976:89) pointed out “substitution is a relation between linguistic items, such as words or phrases…In terms of the linguistic system, substitution is a relation on the lexicogrammatical level, the level of grammar and vocabulary, or linguistic form” The substitute item must have the same structural function as

what it substitutes Substitution is classified into three types: nominal, verbal and clausal substitution

- Nominal substitution: functions as Head of a nominal group and can

substitute only for an item which is itself Head of a nominal group

For example:

Mum: Do you like that pink skirt?

Daughter: No, I like the purple one

It is clear that “one” is used to substitute for “skirt”

- Verbal substitution: is the use of the verb “do” as head of a verbal group,

in the place that is occupied by the lexical verb and it always stands final in the group

For example:

Mum: I like that Christmas carol

Daughter: I do too

“Do” substitutes for the verbal group “like that Christmas carol”

- Clausal substitution: is a substitution in which what is presupposed is not

an element within the clause but an entire clause In English, the words used for

substitution is “so” and “not”

For example:

The Johns may come this afternoon If not, they’ll come tomorrow

“If not” means “If the Johns may not come this afternoon”

 Ellipsis

Ellipsis can be understood as that form of substitution in which the item is replaced by nothing In other words, it is the omission of an item or a relation within the text, and in the great majority of instances the presupposed item is present in the preceding text Where there is ellipsis, there is a presupposition, in the structure that something is to be supplied, or understood In cohesion, ellipsis always appears anaphoric relation As same as substitution, ellipsis figures nominal, verbal and clausal

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

formed by Deictic + Numerative + Epithet or Classifier + the Thing, which is

exemplified in These (deictic) three (Numerative) blue (Epithet) jackets (the

Thing) The Deictic is usually a Determiner; the Numerative is numeral or

quantifier; the Epithet an adjective The function of Head is normally served by the common noun, proper noun or pronoun expressing the Thing When the Thing

is omitted, one element in the Modifier must take the role of the Head, however, the reader can understand the omitted thing from the presupposition

For example:

Mum: Which jacket do you like best?

Daughter: I like the blue (jacket)

It can be seen from the above example is that, I like the blue is omitted jacket and the blue is functioned as the Head

- Verbal ellipsis: is the omission of a verbal group in sentences An

elliptical verbal group presupposes one or more words from a previous verbal group Verbal ellipsis is composed of two types: lexical ellipsis and operator ellipsis The former one is the type of ellipsis in which the lexical verb is missing from the verbal group while the later is ellipsis „from the left‟, in other words, the omission of operators and the lexical verb always remains intact These two types

of ellipsis can be seen in two following instances:

E.g.1

Mum: Have you called your father yet?

Daughter: Yes, I have (0)

E.g.2

Mum: Has your sister been reading comic books?

Daughter: No, learning

In lexical ellipsis, the operator is kept and any verbal group which ends the sentence is elliptical as the example 1, in contrary, in operator ellipsis, all words except the last are omitted as seen in example 2

- Clausal ellipsis: is the omission of the Subject, Complement, Predicator

and Adjunct In short, the whole clause can be omitted

For example:

I think that he is the best employee in his company His boss should know

(that he is the best employee in his company)

 Conjunction

Taking the viewpoint of Nunan, D (1993:26), conjunction is different from reference, substitution and ellipsis in that it is not a device for reminding the reader of previously mentioned entities, actions and states of affairs It is a cohesive device because it marks the connections that can only be known through reference to other parts of the text It links words, phrases and sentences to form a logical semantic relationship There are four big types of conjunction: additive, adversative, causal and temporal

- Additive conjunction: The words and, or and nor are considered as additive conjunctions, in which and and or are positive form and nor is negative form of additive Other conjunctions including in addition, furthermore, besides…

are also classified into this type

For example:

… our schools fail too many and each day brings further evidence that the

ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries…

And signals the additional information

- Adversative conjunction: The adversative relation is the opposing to the content of what is being said Adversative conjunction can be featured in yet, but, however and though, nevertheless, … For instance:

All this time, Tweedledee was trying his best to fold up the umbrella, with

himself in it….But he couldn’t quite succeed, and it ended in his rolling

over, bundled up in the umbrella, with only his head out

(Halliday & Hasan 1976: 250)

But is the connection between two sentences and the information in two

sentences represents a contrastive relation

- Causal conjunction: Conjunctions such as so, thus, therefore, accordingly, because of… are ranked into causal conjunction

As we consider the road that unfolds before us, we remember with humble

gratitude those brave Americans who, at this very hour, patrol far-off deserts and distant mountains

The two clauses are linked with the causal conjunction as

- Temporal conjunction: Clauses in a discourse are tied together by their

temporal relation, because a discourse is not a collection of unrelated processes,

such as a dictionary of quotations Temporal conjunction is expressed in first, then, after that, next, when, before, after…

There are three main types of temporal relation: simple temporal relation, complex temporal relation and conclusive temporal relation The first type is the relation between two events, which occur in sequence The two events may happen simultaneously or previously In the sense of simple temporal relation, we

have then, next, afterwards, after that, subsequently, just then, at the same time, simultaneously, earlier, before, then/that, previously For example:

The bartender promptly taught me how to make this refreshing cocktail You will need some wine, lemonade, orange juice, midori, strawberry juice

and sugar Then, you stir and shake the mixture After that, add some ice

and serve yourself

Then and after that express sequential relation

The second type of temporal relation, complex temporal relation, can be

manifested by at once, (just) before, presently, later, next day, all this time, five minutes later, until then… The following instance can exemplify this type:

He will come tomorrow morning, until then, you should not get out of this

room

Until then connects two clauses together

The last type of temporal relation is conclusive one It is different from the

other two types in the sense that it is one-directional It concerns with finally, at last, in the end, eventually, to conclude with, to sum up, in short, at length, briefly,

to resume, to get back to the point… It can be seen in the illustration:

With a swipe of my magnetic key, I enter a beautiful room with a furnished

bathroom and view overlooking the city Eventually, I have the opportunity to

contemplate the opulent Presidential suite…

(Travellive Magazine – Published in May)

Eventually links the two sentences and also conclude the author‟s point

1.4.3.2 Lexical cohesion

Not only grammatical cohesion but lexical cohesion plays a significant role

in creating a discourse It cannot be denied that vocabulary can express the soul of

a discourse and make the discourse more beautiful It also realizes the author‟s master of using the language A discourse can be understood when vocabulary items are related semantically Halliday & Hasan (1976) clarified lexical cohesion into two categories: Reiteration and Collocation

 Reiteration

According to Halliday & Hasan (1976:278), “reiteration is a form of lexical cohesion which involves the repetition of a lexical item, at one end of the scale; the use of a general word to refer back to a lexical item, at the other end of the scale; and a number of things in between the use of a synonym, near-synonym or super-ordinate” Notably, a reiterated lexical item is usually accompanied by a

reference, normally, the or a demonstrative Reiteration not only concerns the

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

- Repetition

Repetition happens when the same lexical item with the same meaning is repeated in the same discourse For example:

Last night, he saw a ghost The ghost wore white clothes

The word ghost is repeated in the second sentence to link these two ones

together

- Synonym

Synonym means that two or more words have the same meaning and they are interchangeable without loss of meaning In other words, it refers to the relation between different words expressing the same meaning or nearly the same meaning for a particular person, object, process or quality In English, we can see

many pair of synonymous words such as gastronome and gourmet or taste and enjoy in the following example:

Visiting the restaurant, gastronomes will be surprised by the refined décor,

which features the blend of Oriental and Occidental style In addition,

gourmets will have the opportunity not only to taste an array of fresh

seafood but also enjoy special Thai cuisine

- Antonym

Contrary to synonym, antonym means that a word, which has the same part

of speech and opposite meaning to another word Let‟s have an example:

That ugly man is a very excellent boss and his beautiful wife is his

employee

Ugly is opposite with beautiful; boss with employee

Antonym is divided into four subtypes: contrary, complementary, relational opposite and ordered series

+ Contrary antonym refers to those pairs of opposites that are gradable

He is tall although both of his parents are short

+ Complementary relation consists of a set of only two opposites

The Tiger won in the quarterfinal but they lost in the final round

+ Relational opposite refers to two opposite words which are mutually dependent and co-existent

He is a teacher and she is a student

+ Ordered series: each item in the series is against the others, but there are more than two opposites and each item is arranged in rank or in order

There are seven days in a week: Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday,

Friday, Saturday and Sunday

- Super-ordinate

Super-ordinate means that the later noun is synonymous with the previous one in the sense of higher level of generality There are two kinds of super-ordinate: immediate super-ordinate or hyponymy and general super-ordinate or general word (Mc Carthy 25; 66 cited in Tam, P.T 2003)

+ Immediate super-ordinate or hyponymy:

In the rush hour, streets are crowded with cars and motorbikes Other

vehicles also contribute to the traffic jam of this city

Vehicle in the example is the super-ordinate of car and motorbike

+ General super-ordinate or general word:

General super-ordinate is very common in English The class of general noun is a small set of nouns having generalized reference within the major noun

classes We can use people for person, man and woman… or things for inanimate

concrete count and so on Examples are:

People, person, man, woman, child, boy, girl [human]

Business, affair, matter [inanimate abstract]

According to Halliday & Hasan (1976), a general noun in cohesive function

is almost always accompanied by the reference item the

 Collocation

A collocation is two or more words that often go together Oxford Dictionary Online defines collocation as a pair or group of words that are

habitually juxtaposed For example: we often say fast food instead of quick food

“Collocation refers to the restrictions on how words can be used together; for example, which prepositions are used with particular verbs, or which verbs and nouns are used together” (Richards et al 1985:46 cited in Tam, P T 2003) Hoang Van Van (2006:84) wrote that collocation refers to lexical cohesion that is achieved through the association of lexical items that regularly co-occur Under collocation, there are three subtypes: resultative, modificational and contextual

- Resultative: refers to the relation of one item leading to the outcome of another item such as kill – die, rain- wet, dark – night, praise – please…

- Modificational: refers to the relation holding between an item and one of its inherent qualities such as run – fast, bright – sun, dark – light…

- Contextual: Contextual collocation is different from the other two is that

the word items do not represent a cause-effect relation, but expectation can be

made between the process and the participant For example: house – built, doctor – examine, teacher – teaching…

Up to now, the theoretical background of lexical and grammatical cohesive devices in language has been investigated Obviously, these devices help to link, stick and cohere language items together and make them more natural Under grammatical cohesion, four devices – reference, substitution, ellipsis and conjunction – are taken into account while two big sub-types of lexical cohesion – reiteration and collocation – are analyzed It cannot be denied that the use of cohesive devices in texts is indispensable and every writer must be aware of the importance of these devices to make their writings precise and unambiguous In

different texts, their appearance is more or less to ensure the coherence of the texts; as a result, the texts will be understandable by audiences

An investigation into how grammatical and lexical cohesive devices are used

in US president Barrack Obama‟s and Vietnamese former president Nguyen Minh Triet‟s inaugural speeches was conducted and the result of which will be presented

in the next chapters Firstly, grammatical and lexical cohesive devices are sorted out in two speeches and calculated for percentages of frequency in two inaugural texts Then, these data will be compared and given conclusions about similarities and differences in using the devices Criteria for analyzing two inaugural speeches are shown in the following table:

Table 1: Criteria for analyzing two inaugural speeches