AND BUT OR AS COHESIVE DEVICES IN ENGLISH WRITTEN DISCOURSE a CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS WITH VIETNAMESE EQUIVALENTS

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING AND/BUT/OR AS COHESIVE DEVICES IN ENGLISH WRITTEN DISCOURSE - A CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS WITH VIETNAMESE EQUIVALENTS And/But/Or như – Phân tích đối chi NG

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

AND/BUT/OR AS COHESIVE DEVICES IN ENGLISH WRITTEN DISCOURSE

- A CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS WITH VIETNAMESE EQUIVALENTS

(And/But/Or như

– Phân tích đối chi

NGUY

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

HANOI OPEN UNIVERSITY

M.A THESIS

AND/BUT/OR AS COHESIVE DEVICES IN ENGLISH WRITTEN DISCOURSE

A CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS WITH VIETNAMESE EQUIVALENTS

(And/But/Or như các phương tiện liên kết trong văn bản tiế

ối chiếu với các yếu tố tương đương trong tiế

NGUYỄN THỊ THU HƯƠNG Field: English Linguistics Code: 60220201

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

AND/BUT/OR AS COHESIVE DEVICES IN ENGLISH WRITTEN DISCOURSE

A CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS WITH VIETNAMESE EQUIVALENTS

ản tiếng Anh ếng Việt )

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

HANOI OPEN UNIVERSITY

o0o

M.A THESIS

AND/BUT/OR AS COHESIVE DEVICES IN ENGLISH WRITTEN DISCOURSE

- A CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS WITH VIETNAMESE EQUIVALENTS

(And/But/Or như các phương tiện liên kết trong văn bản tiếng Anh

– Phân tích đối chiếu với các yếu tố tương đương trong tiếng Việt)

NGUYỄN THỊ THU HƯƠNG Field: English Linguistics Code: 60220201

Supervisor: Assoc Prof Dr PHAN VAN QUE

Hanoi, 2017

CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY

I, the undersigned, hereby certify my authority of the study project report

entitled(AND/BUT/OR AS COHESIVE DEVICES IN ENGLISH WRITTEN DISCOURSE- A CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS WITH VIETNAMESE EQUIVALENTS) submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

degree of Master in English Language Except where the reference is indicated, no other person’s work has been used without due acknowledgement in the text of the thesis

Hanoi, 2017

Nguyen Thi Thu Huong

Approved by

Supervisor: Assoc Prof Dr PHAN VAN QUE

(Signature and full name)

Date:………

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my thanks to those who have assisted my study

First and foremost, I would like to register my deep gratitude to Dr Phan

Văn Quế As a supervisor, he has always been willing to give not only invaluable instructions and suggestions but also support and encouragement, without which this study would not be completed

In carrying out this study, I am also indebted to many teachers of Postgraduate Studies Department who have enthusiastically given lectures in my M.A Course

My thanks also go to my colleagues at Lai Chau Boarding high school for their invaluable comments and assistance during the time I was completing my study

The support extended to me by my family and friends has been immeasurable I wish to express my deep gratitude to my parents for their love and encouragement while I was doing this study

In my study, it is inevitable that the ideas of many writers in the field are reflected and developed To all the authors of the publications in the list of references, I offer my sincere thanks

The methods of this study is that descriptive and comparative analysis are used to understand the sematic and syntactic of AND/BUT/OR in English and the equivalents of Vietnamese

The thesis gives a systematic presentation of the performance of these coordinators as cohesive devices Different semantic implications of each coordinator are given in the study to prove that the coordinators examined appear to

be more flexible than their logical meanings Other implications that have not been mentioned before are also searched for

The thesis also makes a contrastive analysis of AND/BUT/OR in English and their equivalents VÀ/NHƯNG/HAY-HOẶC in Vietnamese in order to find out whether they are the only equivalents of AND/BUT/OR in all contexts

Last but not least, the thesis also mentions some suggestions for teaching writing skill at Lai Chau Boarding high school

The thesis is open to all potential criticism and comments

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Table 1:The reference, conjunction and Reiteration 22

Table 2:The frequency of the implications of AND 31

Table 3: The frequencty of The implication of BUT 33

Table 4: The frequency of the implications of OR 36

Table 5: The frequency of The Implications of AND/BUT/OR 37

Diagram 1: The frame work of contrastive analysis and/but/or as cohesive devices in English written discourse- A contrastive analysis with Vietnamese equivalents 42

Table6: Vietnamese equivalents to AND denoting the examined implication “And” “Và” 52

Table 7: Vietnamese equivalents to BUT denoting the examined implications 54

Table 8: Vietnamese equivalents to OR denoting the examined implications 56

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv

ABSTRACT v

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS vi

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES vii

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Rationale for the study 1

1.2 Aims and objectives of the study 3

1.3 Research questions 4

1.4 Methods of the study 4

1.6 Significance of the study 5

1.7 Design of the study 5

Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 7

2.1 Previous studies 7

2.2 Theoretical background 8

2.2.1 Discourse 8

2.2.2 Cohesion 12

2.2.3 Conjunctions as Cohesive Devices 27

2.3 Theoretical framework 29

2.3.1 Features of And/ But/ Or 29

2.3.2 AND/OR/BUT 31

2.4 Summary 39

Chapter 3: AND/BUT/OR AS COHESIVE DEVICES IN ENGLISH WRITTEN DISCOURSE - A CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS WITH VIETNAMESE EQUIVALENTS 40

3.1 Implication of Vietnamese equivalents of AND/BUT/OR in English 40

3.1.1 Vietnamese equivalents of AND/BUT/OR in English 40

3.1.2 A contrastive analysis of AND/BUT/OR as cohesive devices in English with Vietnamese equivalents and implications 44

3.2 CONSTRASTIVE ANALYSIS BETWEEN AND vs VÀ, BUT vs NHUNG, OR vs HAY/HOẶC 48

3.2.2.BUT vs NHƯNG 52

3.2.3 OR vs HAY/HOẶC 54

3.3 Summary 55

Chapter 4: APPLICATION OF AND/OR/BUT IN WRITING 57

4.1 The actual status of teaching the subject of writing in Lai Chau Board School 57

4.2 Suggestions for teaching and materials 59

4.3 Some types of exercises for improving the writing skill of students in Lai Chau Board School 60

4.4 Summary 63

Chapter 5: CONCLUSION 65

5.1 Concluding remarks 65

5.2 Limitation of the study 67

5.3 Recommendations/Suggestions for further study 67

REFERENCES 69

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Rationale for the study

No one denies the importance of the English language in the present time as

a global language because it has become more dominant around the world than any other languages It is used as an official language in more than 44 countries and has played an important role in dealing with international relations especially in such fields as science and technology, business, commerce and diplomacy These reasons motivate people all over the world to learn English as a foreign language

However, learning any foreign languages in general and English in particular is not easy It is a lengthy and effortful process to master English as a native speaker because of a variety of factors Linguistic knowledge of English accounts for learners’ ability to combine phonemes into morphemes, morphemes into words, and words into sentences That means, when people speak or write they have to convey a certain message by organizing their thoughts and ideas into strings

of words to produce sentences, and then combine sentences together to create higher units of discourse But how to combine sentences to each other and to the rest of the context has been a big question for linguists Communication is possible only when sentences which create discourse hang together so that discourse has its unity and the product of our creation would make sense In other words, knowledge of cohesion and coherence is essential in discourse construction and necessary for successful communication In discourse, cohesion has an interrelation with coherence; the former is a guide to and part of the latter in both spoken and written language Awareness of coherence as a quality that makes a text conform to a consistent world picture, to experiences, culture, and convention and cohesive devices as the linguistic means by which elements of a text are arranged and connected is vital for learners of English

Up to now, there have been many studies by various linguists on this aspect Each discusses the issue from different angles Thus, they give out different ways of classifying and naming cohesion In English, Quirk (1972) primarily covers three main factors of sentence connection The first is the implication in the semantic

content A reader normally assumes that there is a relationship between sentences The second is lexical equivalence which means successive sentences are connected

to some extent through their vocabulary or the equivalence in the lexical items or repetition of phrase The third is syntactic devices which are grouped under following entries: time and place relaters, logical relaters, substitution, discourse reference, comparison, ellipsis and structural parallelism

In 1976, with the book Cohesion in English, Halliday and Hasan say that

the concept of cohesion accounts for the essential semantic relations whereby any passage of speech or writing is enabled to function as text They discuss the cohesive relationships under five main headings: reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction and lexical cohesion And the most apparent type of explicitly marked cohesive relationships existing between one sentence or clause and another in discourse is indicated by conjunctions Unlike Quirk (1972), they treat time and place relaters, logical connectors, discourse reference, comparison as reference items

Guy Cook (1989) on the other hand, includes also verb forms, parallelism, repetition and lexical chain as cohesive devices – formal links within the sentence

or across the sentence boundaries What is more, Brown and Yule (1983) go into the study of how to interpret a text basing on cohesive devices especially reference

in text They emphasize on types of reference They include endophora (anaphora and cataphora) and exphora The former means reference which can be interpreted depending on the context of the text itself The latter means reference which can be interpreted relying on textual context but on situation (the factor lies outside language elements) Winifred Crombie’s investigation (1985), however, is fully concentrated on semantic relations in discourse and the study of which, for Crombie, involves the study of discourse values

In Vietnamese, Tran Ngoc Them (1985) has written an insightful book about cohesion He discusses ten cohesive devices namely repetition, antithesis, synonymic substitution, association, linearity, pronoun substitution, weak ellipsis, loose conjunction, strong ellipsis and tight conjunction Diep Quang Ban (2004),

however, states that reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction and lexical cohesion are five major cohesive devices

Based on the knowledge, many MA theses about cohesive devices were also conducted Most of them made an analysis of cohesive devices in certain types of discourse such as information and communication technology advertisements, letters of enquiry, job application letters and business contract discourse

Although a number of theses on cohesive devices in different types of discourse were conducted, they didn’t focus on any single word as a cohesive device in order to have a deeper analysis That has given the author of this study the idea to examine the uses of conjunctions as cohesive devices in English written discourse And the three conjunctions AND/BUT/OR are chosen as they are the most central coordinators

1.2 Aims and objectives of the study

Aim:

With the above mentioned background, this study is targeted at:

- Giving a systematic presentation of the uses of the three central coordinators AND/BUT/OR as cohesive devices and their frequency of occurrence

in English written discourse

- Making contrastive analysis of AND/BUT/OR as cohesive devices and their equivalent realizations in Vietnamese

- Putting forward some suggestions as effort to help English-major students

at Lai Chau Boarding high school to overcome the consequences of interference when learning writing skill

What are the equivalents of AND/BUT/OR in Vietnamese?

What are the similarities and differences of AND/ BUT/ OR in English from VÀ/NHƯNG/HAY-HOẶC in Vietnamese?

1.4 Methods of the study

This study of AND/BUT/OR as cohesive devices in English written discourse is based on the communicative view-point of language teaching and learning Therefore, the methods of descriptive and comparative analysis are used to understand the sematic and syntactic of AND/BUT/OR in English and the equivalents of Vietnamese The study is presented in order from general theories to detailed descriptions, with theories presented first, then examples given to clarify the theories

For the data, The author has chosen at random the samples from several written discourse types such as novels, short stories, magazines and newspapers The data are also selected from many different grammar books Firstly, the data are analyzed to identify discourse devices, their frequency of occurrence in English Then the contrastive analysis between AND/BUT/OR in English and their realizations in Vietnamese are made All of this will lead to the point of finding effective solutions to improve writing skill of students at Lai Chau Boarding high school

1.5.Scope of the study

The scope of this study, however, allows a very limited choice of one aspect

of discourse analysis, that is, cohesion in English Within a limited time and knowledge as well as shortage of reference materials, it is not the author’s ambition

to investigate various types of cohesive devices but discuss only the three conjunctions AND/BUT/OR – their performance as means of cohesion and their

frequency of concurrence in English and in Vietnamese AND/BUT/OR will be discussed as cohesive devices within the sentence, in other words, between clauses

in a sentence

In the last part, implications, this study is limited to grade 12 students at Lai Chau Boarding high school and writing skill only

1.6.Significance of the study

Theoretically: This study contributes to verifying significance related to

linguistic theories in discourse analysis by providing learners of English with some theoretical base and fundamental background for clarifying the relationships that are linguistically encoded by virtue of conjunctions in general and AND/BUT/OR in particular

Practically: This study helps learners of English be more aware of the role of

AND/BUT/OR as cohesive devices in creating discourse Thus, the study may help learners to avoid errors easily made by the negative interference of most non-native speakers Furthermore, this study can make a certain contribution to teaching and learning English as a foreign language owing to some suggested exercises in the last part

1.7.Design of the study

The study is divided into three parts as below

The first part is the introduction, including rationale, objectives, methods, scope, significances and organization of the study

The second part is the development, including five chapters

Chapter 1:IntroductionA presentation of some theoretical preliminaries

needed for the study of coordinators AND/BUT/OR as cohesive devices in English written discourse Within the chapter, discourse will be studied to highlight the function of conjunctions in creating discourse There is a better focus on conjunctions and cohesive devices

Chapter 2: Literature ReviewA detailed description of the three

coordinators AND/BUT/OR as cohesive devices

Chapter 3: Findings and DiscussionA comparative analysis between the

coordinators AND/BUT/OR and Vietnamese equivalents in which Vietnamese is regarded as the compared language with English – the target one The purpose of the comparison is to identify the Vietnamese linking system equivalent to the implications by AND/BUT/OR

Chapter 4: Application of The Research FindingsSome implications for

teaching writing skill at Lai Chau Boarding high school

The third part is the conclusion

Chapter 5: ConclusionThis is to summarize the thesis by showing the

achievement of the objectives of the study and the effectiveness of the methods used Then the limitations of the study are given Some suggestions for further study are also included at the end to promise the continuance of the author’s future work

Reference

Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Previous studies

Josephine B.Alarcon and Katrina Ninfa S Morales (2011) with the title of

“Grammatical cohesion in students’ argumentative essay” This study analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively the cohesive devices including and/or/but used by undergraduate students in their argumentative essay

Besma Azzouz (2009) with the title “A Discourse analysis of Grammaticalcohesion in Student’s writing” about some inappropriate uses of grammatical cohesive devices are easily noticed concerning the total use of those devices In addition, some grammatical cohesive devices are widely used but inappropriately; and some of them are less used but appropriately Students’ use of grammatical cohesive devices mainly appears with the use of conjunctions because they are most probably known by learners; however, most of the conjunction devices are used inappropriately Also, it is remarked that in each type of grammatical cohesive devices used there is always a predominant device

According to Seungbok Lee (1996) with the title “Different Cohesive Devices in English Prose by Korean and American College students” about the difficulties and weakness in using proper cohesive devices in conjunctions, pronouns, prepositions

Afnan Bahaziq (2016) about “ Cohesive Devices in Written Discourse: A Discourse Analysis of a Student’s Essay Writing” about the most grammatical devices used are reference and conjunction On the contrary, there is little evidence

of using lexical devices Although the essay is somewhat cohesive, some areas still need improvement

According to Hoang Trung Thong (1998), conjunctions are words expressing the grammatical relations used to join the components in sentences or in phrases Conjunction do not make sense in terms of vocabulary and grammar, especially

they never keep functions as subject or predicate in a sentence

From the view Diep Quang Ban (1993), Vietnamese conjunctions are arranged into

two principal groups: subordinating and coordinating conjunctions

According to Le Thi Bich (2000) about the paper of “ A contrastive analysis

of English coordinators and/or/but and Vietnamese equivalents” merely contrasted the typical coordinating the conjunctions and/or/but in English and Vietnamese equivalents

According to the research of Nguyễn Quốc Minh in University of Pedagogy, Class 4B06 with the title “Contrastive Analysis of English and Vietnamese Conjunctions , “and”-“và” and “but”-“nhưng” Grammatically and Pragmatically” This research could show that conclude about their similarities and differences in usage and discuss only the similarities and differences in grammatical and pragmatic meanings between the two pairs of conjunctions “and – và” and “but – nhưng” at sentence level

The above research has found out the theory and symmetric of the literature review about And/But/ Or in writing discourse with the meaning and function, but there is

no previous before finding out and/or/but in English and the equivalents of And/or/but in Vietnamese in semantic and syntactic features This research will show the new ideas on it

2.2 Theoretical background

2.2.1 Discourse

2.2.1.2 Discourse and Text

In the history of linguistics, many different definitions of discourseand text are

given by different linguists Let us, first of all, look at the following definitions of discourse which take our greatest attention

Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics (1989) defines:

“Discourse is a general term for examples of language use; i.e language has been produced as the result of an act of communication.”

Widdowson (1979) states: “Discourse is a use of sentences to perform acts of communication which cohere into larger communication units, ultimately establishing a rhetorical pattern which characterizes the pieces of language as a whole as a kind of communication.”

Crystal (1992) says: “Discourse is a continuous stretch of language larger than a sentence, often constituting a coherent unit such as sermon, argument, joke or a narrative.”

Guy Cook (1989) classifies language into two different types as potential objects of study: one abstracted in order to teach a language or literacy or to study how the rules of language work; and another which has been used to communicate something and is felt to be coherent This latter kind of language – language in use for communication is called discourse It is defined as “a stretch of language perceived to be meaningful, unified and purposive.”

Nunan (1993) defines: “Discourse can be defined as a stretch of language consisting of several sentences which are perceived as being related in some way And the sentences are related not only in terms of the ideas they share but also in terms of the jobs they perform within the discourse, that is, in terms of their functions.”

From these extracts it can be seen that the term discourse is understood and

defined differently Each definition has its own values in the field of linguistics However, for the purpose of this study, I would like to pay more attention to the following definition given by Halliday and Hasan (1989) They give a simple definition: “We can define text (discourse) in the simplest way perhaps by saying that it is language that is functional.”

Above are some definitions of discourse What about text? Is text the same or different from discourse? This has become a big question for many linguists since

confusion of these two terms may result in the failures of discourse analysis In fact, there is disagreement about the meaning of these two terms

For some linguists, discourse is considered to differ from text and should be

kept separate Crystal (1992) stated that text should be used for writing and

discourse for speech Cook (1989) considered text is a stretch of language interpreted formally, without context whereas discourse is a stretch of language in

use, perceived to be meaningful, unified and purposive

For other linguists, text and discourse refer to one and the same subject and

may be used interchangeably According to the above mentioned definition of

discourse by Halliday & Hasan, text is used to refer to discourse; they see text as a

“semantic unit” characterized by cohesion Halliday & Hasan (1976) stated: “A text

is a passage of discourse which coherent in these two regards: it is coherent withrespect to the context of situation and therefore consistent in register; and it is coherent with respect to itself and therefore cohesive” Brown & Yule (1983) argue that “text is the representative of discourse and the verbal record of a

communicative act” Nunan (1976) used the term text to refer to any written record

of communicative event The event itself may involve oral language or written

language He reserved the term discourse to refer to the interpretation of the

communicative event in context

To sum up, it seems to be difficult to make a clear distinction between these

two terms Whether discourse and text refer to the same thing or not is still a

controversial issue And, of course, it is not our intention to do this in this study In

other words, in this study, the term discourse will be used with the same meaning as

text, and the data are collected in such a way as to contain only the language in communication

As far as the scope of discourse is concerned, discourse refers not only to spoken interactions but also to written words And the study of discourse, either spoken or written is known as discourse analysis In other words, the term

Discourse Analysis is used to cover the study of spoken and written interaction Discourse analysts study language in use: written text of all kinds, and spoken data from conversation to highly institutionalized forms of talk Thus, for the purpose of this study, it is necessary to point out the differences between spoken and written discourse in the following part

According to McCarthy (1991), Discourse analysis deals with the study of the relationship between the language and the context in which it is used Moreover, The analysis of discourse is concerned with the analysis of language in use

According to Brown and Yule (1983), there are three views of discourse analysis, namely sentence as text, object as product and discourse as process Since this research concerns with article as printed text, the researcher uses the second view, text as product Moreover, Brown and Yule (1983:196) state that there are producers and receivers of sentences or extended texts, but the analysis concentrates solely on the product, that is words on the page The analysis of the printed text itself does not involve any consideration on how the product is produced or how it

is received The approach used in text as product view is the cohesion view of the relationship between sentences in a printed text

Austin(1962), Hymes(1964), Halliday and Hassan(1976), Grice(1975), M.A.K Halliday (1973), Sinclair and Coulthard (1977), Van Dijk (1972) and many others McCarthy (1991) state that: Discourse Analysis has grown into a wide ranging and heterogeneous disciplinewhich finds its unity in the description of language above the sentence and an interest in the contexts and cultural influences which effect language in use (1991)

2.2.1.2 Spoken and Written Discourse

Spoken and written discourses represent different modes for expressing linguistic meanings Examples of spoken discourse are conversations, interviews, lectures…whereas letters, stories, novels…are written discourse Despite some similarities, these two forms of discourse are basically different from each other The major difference between them is rooted from the difference between spoken and written language

Apart from obvious differences between speaking and writing like the fact that writing includes some medium which keeps record of the conveyed message while speaking involves only air, there are certain dissimilarities that are less apparent

The first is lexical density – the density with which the information is presented Written language has more lexical or content words per clause, thus it is dense whereas spoken language is sparse In other words, written language is more densely packed with information than spoken language

The second feature is complexity of grammar which is typical of spoken language In spoken language we could not see clearly sentence or paragraph boundaries and the sentences are less structured There are many incomplete sentences with little subordination Meanwhile written language complies of complete sentences with subordination, rich lexis and frequent modifications via adjectives and adverbs They tend to be extremely simple in their grammatical structure)

The last feature is situation With written language the situation has to be inferred from the text as there is no common situation, as there is in face-to-face interaction In addition, the words themselves must carry all of the shades of meaning which in face-to-face interaction can be conveyed by non-verbal behavior Then again, there is no opportunity for the readers to signal that they do not understand The writer must make assumptions about the readers’ state of knowledge

Naturally, this division into two ways of producing discourse is quite straightforward but we could not say that this language is better than the other However, it is a fact that written language gives us a more understanding of the systematic feature of language Therefore, written discourse often has a neat message organization, division of paragraphs, good layout and the writer is frequently able to consider the content of his work for almost unlimited period of time which makes it more coherent, having complex syntax Written discourse is more specific, more exact and more coherent than spoken discourse These are the reasons why this study focuses on written discourse only

When talking about discourse we can not leave behind one of its very key technical terms, that is cohesion which will be discussed in the next part

2.2.2 Cohesion

2.2.2.1 The Concept of Cohesion

Cohesion occurs where the interpretation of some element in the discourse is dependent on that of another 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 According

Halliday and Hasan (1956), The one presupposes the other, in the sense that it cannot be effectively decoded except by resource to it Moreover, Cohesion is a semantic relation between an element in the text and some other element that is crucial to the interpretation of it

When reading any text it is obvious that it is not merely made up of a set of unrelated sentences, but that these sentences are in fact connected to each other through the use of two linguistic phenomenon, namely cohesion and coherence As Morris and Hirst (1991) point out, cohesion relates to the fact that the elements of a text (e.g clauses) ‘tend to hang together’; while coherence refers to the fact that

‘there is sense (or intelligibility) in a text

Observing the interaction between textual units in terms of these properties is one way of analysing the discourse structure of a text Most theories of discourse result in a hierarchical tree-like structure that reflects the relationships between sentences or clauses in a text These relationships may, for example, highlight sentences in a text that elaborate, reiterate or contradict a certain theme Meaningful discourse analysis like this requires a true understanding of textual coherence which

in turn often involves looking beyond the context of the text, and drawing from world knowledge of events and the relationships between them

real-Hasan, in her paper on ‘Coherence and Cohesive Harmony’ (1984), hypothesises that the coherence of a text can be indirectly measured by analysing the degree of interaction between cohesive chains in a text Analysing cohesive relationships in this manner is a more manageable and less computationally expensive solution to discourse analysis than coherence analysis For example, Morris and Hirst (1991) note that, unlike research into cohesion, there has been no widespread agreement on the classification of different types of coherence relationships Furthermore, they note that even humans find it more difficult to identify and agree on textual coherence because, although identifying cohesion and coherence are subjective tasks, coherence requires a definite ‘interpretation of meaning’, while cohesion requires only an understanding that terms are about ‘the

same thing’ To get a better idea of the difference between the two, consider the following example:

After a night of heavy drinking the party fizzled out at around 6am. They then ate breakfast while watching the sunrise These sentences are only weakly cohesive Consequently, a deeper understanding of the concept ‘morning’ makes the existence of a coherence relationship between the two sentences highly plausible However, in the more usual case where an area of text shares a set of cohesively related terms, Morris and Hirst hypothesise that cohesion is a useful indicator of coherence in text especially since the identification of coherence itself is not computationally feasible at present Stairmand (1996) further justifies this hypothesis by emphasising that although cohesion fails to account for grammatical structure (i.e readability) in the way that coherence does, cohesion can still account for the organisation of meaning in a text, and so, by implication, its presence corresponds to some form of structure in that text

When speaking or writing we often want to make some links with other things that we are saying or writing There are several ways of doing this and they

provide cohesion in the use of language So what is cohesion?

Actually, the term text in Indo-European languages derived from the Latin word exium meaning cohesion, so the concept of cohesion is closely connected with

text According to Halliday and Hasan (1979), “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.” They also point out that cohesion often occurs where the interpretation of some element in the discourse is dependent on that of another

From the above definitions, it can be concluded that cohesion is a term used

to mention the formal link that glues a chain of sentences to create what is called discourse or text It refers to the connection of all parts or elements of a text Without it, a text would be just a chaotic and even meaningless collection of sentences In other words, cohesion refers to the linguistic elements that make a discourse semantically coherent; or as Nguyen Hoa (2000) indicated “cohesion refers to the formal relationship that causes texts to cohere and stick together”

Therefore, it is necessary to examine how ideas cohere together so that the content cohesion may be obtained and all can create a coherent and cohesive discourse So

in the next part the question “What is meant by cohesion and coherence?” will be discussed

As stated in the previous section, cohesion refers to the way in which textual units interact in a discourse Halliday and Hasan (1976) classify cohesion into five (not always distinct) classes: Conjunction is the only class which explicitly shows the relationship between two sentences,

‘I have a cat and his name is Felix’

Reference and lexical cohesion, on the other hand, indicate sentence relationships in terms of two semantically equivalent or related words In the case of reference, pronouns are the most likely means of conveying referential meaning For example, consider the following sentences: ‘“Get inside now!” shouted the teacher When nobody moved, he was furious’ In order for the reader to understand that ‘the teacher’ is being referred to by the pronoun ‘he’ in the second sentence, they must refer back to the first sentence

Lexical cohesion arises from the selection of vocabulary items and the semantic relationships between them For example, ‘I parked outside the library, and then went inside the building to return my books’, where cohesion is represented by the semantic relationships between the lexical items ‘library’,

‘building’ and ‘books’

Substitution and Ellipsis are grammatical relationships, as opposed to relationships based on word meaning or semantic connection In the case of nominal substitution, a noun phrase such as ‘a vanilla icecream cone’ can be replace by the indefinite article ‘one’ as shown in the following example, ‘As soon as John was given a vanilla ice-cream cone, Mary wanted one too’

Ellipsis is closely related to substitution as it is often described as the special case of ‘zero substitution’, where a phrase such as ‘in my exams’ is left out as it is implied by the preceding sentence which contains the phrase ‘in your exams’ For example,

‘Did you get a first in your exams? No, I only got a third’

For automatic identification of these relationships, lexical cohesion is the easiest to resolve since less implicit information is needed to discover these types of relationship between words in a text In the sample sentence used to define lexical cohesion we identified a generalization relationship between ‘library’ and ‘building’ and a has-part relationship between ‘library’ and ‘books’ However, there are five further lexical cohesive relationships that are explored in the following section Lexical Cohesion is the cohesion that arises from semantic relationships between words’ (Morris, Hirst, 1991) Halliday and Hasan (1976) define five types

of lexical cohesive ties that commonly occur in text Here are a number of examples taken from a collection of CNN news story transcripts, since the news story domain

is the focus of our analysis in this thesis: Repetition (or Reiteration) – Occurs when

a word form is repeated again in a later section of the text ‘In Gaza, though, whether the Middle East's old violent cycles continue or not, nothing will ever look quite the same once Yasir Arafat come to town We expect him here in the Gaza Strip in about an hour and a half, crossing over from Egypt’

Repetition through synonymy – Occurs when words share the same meaning, but have two unique syntactical forms ‘Four years ago, it passed a domestic violence act allowing police, not just the victims, to press charges if they believe a domestic beating took place In the past, officers were frustrated, because they'd arrive on the scene of a domestic fight, there'd be a clearly battered victim and yet, frequently, there'd be no one to file charges.’

Word association through specialisation/generalisation – Occurs when a specialised/generalised form of an earlier word is used ‘They've put a possible murder weapon in O.J Simpson's hands; that's something that no one knew before And it shows that he bought that knife more than a month or two ahead of time and you might, therefore, start the theory of premeditation and deliberation.’

Word association through part-whole/whole-part relationships – Occurs when a part-whole/whole-part relationship exists between two words, e.g

‘committee’ is made up of smaller parts called ‘members’ ‘The Senate Finance

Committee has just convened Members had been meeting behind closed doors throughout the morning and early afternoon.’

Word association through collocation - These types of relationships occur when the nature of the association between two words cannot be defined in terms of the above relationship types These relationships are most commonly found by analysing word co-occurrence statistics, e.g ‘Osama bin Laden’ and ‘the World Trade Centre’ Halliday and Hasan also classify antonymy in this category of word relationship Antonyms are words that are exact semantic opposites or complementaries, e.g male-female, boy-girl, adult-child

All of these relationships, except statistical word co-occurrences, are types

of lexicographical relationships that can be extracted from a domain-independent thesaurus Statistical associations between words, on the other hand, are generated from domain-specific corpora that reflect the most commonly used senses of wordsin domains such as American Broadcast News or Inorganic Chemistry The role of the thesaurus in identifying lexical cohesive structure is discussed in the following section, while a description of how to generate these co-occurrences

We stressed in the previous section that one of the advantages of analysing cohesion is that it is a surface relationship and thus, unlike coherence, it is relatively easier to model discourse structure by observing cohesive ties With regard to lexical cohesion (one of the five identified categories of cohesion), Hasan explains that it is the most prolific form of cohesion in text, and as already stated it is the least computational expensive means of identifying cohesive ties

As Hasan and many other researchers have observed, nouns usually convey most of the information in a written text, and so identifying lexicosemantic connections between nouns is an adequate means of determining cohesive ties between textual units Although verbs also make an undeniable contribution to the grammatical and semantic content of a text (Klavans, Min-Yen, 1998), they are more difficult to deal with than nouns for the following reasons:

1 Verbs are more polysemous than nouns Fellbaum (1998) states that nouns in the Collins English Dictionary have an average of 1.71 senses whereas

verbs have an average of 2.11 senses For example WordNet defines 3 sense for the noun form of the word ‘close’ and 14 senses for its verb form Fellbaum suggests the reason for this is that there are fewer verbs than nouns in the English lexicon (in spite of the fact that all sentences need a verb), and so to compensate for this, verb meanings tend to be more flexible More specifically, the meaning of a verb (especially ambiguous verbs) tends to be dictated by the noun accompanying it in a clause For example, consider the meaning of the verb ‘have’ in the following contexts:

She had a baby => She gave birth

He had an egg for breakfast => He ate an egg for breakfast

2 Fewer verbs are truly synonymous This depends on how rigid a definition

of synonymy is used, but, in general, this means the presence of lexical cohesion in text through synonymous verbs is limited

3 Not all verb categories suit being cast into a taxonomic framework Fellbaum states that in the design of WordNet it was possible to associate a large majority of verb categories using an entailment relationship between verb-pairs which is not one of the cohesive relationships described by Hasan Also, unlike the noun hierarchy, a verb sense may belong to one type (or baseconcept), but have as its superordinate another verb sense of a different type (Kilgarriff, Yallop, 2000)

As we will see in the next section, taxonomic frameworks are an essential resource in the identification of lexical cohesive ties From this point on in our discussion all lexical cohesive relationships will refer to relationships between nouns

2.2.2.2 Cohesion and Coherence in Discourse

The distinction between cohesion and coherence has not always been clarified partly because both terms come from the same verb cohere which means

sticking together Cohesion involves the form of language rather than the content or context, and is expressed partly through the grammar and partly through the vocabulary Coherence, on the other hand, is understood as the quality of being meaningful and unified As for Nunan (1993), coherence is “the feeling that

sequences of sentences or utterances seem to hang together.” Coherence refers to the type of semantic and rhetorical relationship that underlines texts Cohesion, therefore, is understood as a guide to coherence

In short, cohesion and coherence are two facets of discourse closely related

to each other, making each depend on the existence of the other Coherence is embodied by a system of cohesive devices and cohesion is mainly used to ensure coherence According to Nunan, “Coherent texts – that is, sequences of sentences or utterances which seem to ‘hang over’ – contain what are called text-forming devices”

Thus, with cohesive devices, a writer is able to show how parts of a text, sentences or paragraphs, relate to one another In an academic writing, a writer cannot avoid using cohesive devices since text is built up around sentences and paragraphs and ideally they must be well connected so that it is logical and make sense Thornbury (2005) supports the idea that a text needs to do more than simply hang together but making it make sense will make the text communicative and coherent

According to Halliday & Hasan (1976) Cohesion is the semantic relation between one element and another in a text A text is cohesive when the elements are tied together and considered meaningful to the reader Moreover, Halliday & Hasan (1976) defined that Cohesion occurs when the interpretation of one item depends on the other, i.e one item presupposes the other

For example: “Amy went to the party She sat with Sara.”

The interpretation of the item she depends on the lexical item Amy Therefore, the text is considered cohesive because we cannot understand the meaning of she unless Amy exists in the text Cohesion is not only concerned with grammar, but also with vocabulary Hence, it is divided into grammatical and lexical cohesion as named cohesive devices

2.2.2.3 Cohesion and Discourse Structure

According to Halliday and Hasan (1979) “Discourse structure is, as the name implies, a type of structure; the term is used to refer to the structure of some

postulated unit higher than the sentence, for example the paragraph, or some larger entity such as episode or topic units.”

Within the sentence, we can specify a limited number of possible structures, such as types of modification, transitivity or model structures However, we can not

in the same way list a set of possible structures for a text, with sentence classes to fill the structural roles Instead, the two authors assure: “We have to show how sentences, which are structurally independent of one another, may be linked together through particular features of their interpretations; and it is for this that the concept of cohesion is required.”

2.2.2.4 Cohesive Devices

It is viewed by Halliday and Hasan (1979) that “A text has textual and this is what distinguishes it from something that is not a text.” And the primary determinant that create textual is cohesive relations within and between sentences They attracts less notice within a sentence, because of the cohesive strength of grammatical structure; since the sentence hangs together already, the cohesion is not needed in order to make it hang together However, there is a sense in which the sentence is a significant unit for cohesion precisely because it is the highest unit of grammatical structure: it tends to determine the way in which cohesion is expressed And the cohesive relations are there all the same

English learners consciously acquire the structure of the English sentence either byrepetition or drills or by mere grammatical analysis Thus; discourse analysts are interested in the implication of these different structural options for the creation of text It seems well know that English has a quite fixed word order, normally summarized as “SVOA”, that is, Subject +Verb + Object + Adverbial

“SVOA” means that a declarative statement must carry a subject at the front of the sentence, a verb after it and an object and/or an adverbial at the end of the sentence However Mc Carthy (1991) states that there are a variety of ways in English in which we can reorder the basic elements of the sentence by altering different elements to the front of the sentence This movement is called fronting devices as illustrated in

For example: Sometimes Joyce reads the Guardian

S V O It’s the Guardian Joyce reads

O S V

Cohesive relations can be established within a text provide cohesive ties to

bind a text together In their book Halliday and Hasan (1979) give a very comprehensive description and analysis of these devices According to them, cohesion is partly expressed by grammar and partly by vocabulary They also identify five different types of cohesion: reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction and lexical cohesion Therefore, we can refer them to grammatical cohesion and lexical cohesion as follows:

Firstly, Reference refers to system which introduces and track the identity of participants through text The commonest presuming reference items, There are three types of reference: personal, demonstrative, and comparative

Personal Reference Personal Reference is reference by means of function in the speech situation, through the category of person (1976) The category of personal includes the three clauses of personal pronoun, possessive determiners (usually called possessive adjectives) and possessive pronouns These items are all reference items; they refer to something by specifying its function 8 or role in the speech situation This system of reference is known as person, where person is used

in the special sense of role; the traditionally recognized categories are first person, second person and third person, intersecting with the number categories of singular and plural It includes: a Personal pronoun: I, you, he, she, it, we, they

Possessive adjective: my, your, his, her, its, our, their c Possessive pronoun: mine, your, his, her, its, ours, theirs For example: Mikhael Gorbachev didn‟t have

to change the world He could have chosen to rule much as his predecessor did

“He” as personal pronoun that refers back to “Mikhael Gorbachev” In the case of reference, the information to be retrieved is the referential meanings, the identity of the particular thing or class of things that is being referred to and the cohesion lies

in the continuity of reference (Halliday and Hasan, 1976)

Demonstrative Reference Demonstrative reference is used to refer to a form

of verbal pointing (this, these, here, there, that, those, then).For example: Mary bought a new Porsche That is what I want to buy “That” is a demonstrative reference and used to refer to “a new Porsche”

- Comparative Reference Comparative reference is a reference indirect by means of certain comparative form

+To compare two things: Adjective + -er (happier, smaller, etc)

+ To compare more than one things: Adjective + -est (happiest, smallest,etc)

+ More, fewer, less, another, same, likewise, etc (1976:80)

For example:Phill went out with Mia yesterday Today he goes with Kate Halliday and Hasan (1976)

Both girls do not realize that they dated the same guy “same” is comparative reference of “Phill” Reference refers to something what we want to say a thing Reference items may be exophoric (situational) or endophoric (textual) Reference can be identified as the situation in which one element cannot be semantically interpreted unless it is referred to another element in the text Pronouns, articles, demonstratives, and comparatives are used as referring devices

to refer to items in linguistic or situational texts Reference may either be exophoric

or endophoric (M Bloor & T Bloor, 2004)

+ Exophoric reference is not simply a synonym for referential meaning (1976:33) The item referred is not in the text or referred to another item in the text but it is referred to other item outside the text Exophoric reference requires the reader to infer the interpreted referent by looking beyond the text in the immediate environment shared by the reader and writer For example in the sentence: “That is

a wonderful idea!” To retrieve the meaning of “that”, the reader must look outside the situation 10

+Endophoric reference is the relationship where their interpretation lies within the text It occurs when an item in the text refers to another item in the text Endophoric reference lies within the text itself It is classified into two classes: anaphoric and cataphoric

+Anaphoric And anaphoric signals that an item refers back to the preceding item in text Brown and Yule stated that, it means the reader looks back in the text for their interpretation (1983)

For example: Look at the sun It’s going down quickly

“It” refers back to “the sun”, thus this sentence has anaphoric relation Brown and Yule (1983)

According to Paltridge (2012), “Anaphoric reference is where a word or phrase refers back to another word or phrase used earlier in the text”

For example:“Amy went to the party She sat with Sara “She refers back to Amy; therefore, she is an anaphoric reference Paltridge (2012),

+Cataphoric reference looks forward to another word or phrase mentioned later in the text For instance in the following sentence, he is a cataphoric reference that looks forward to Mike As soon as he arrived, Mike visited his parents

- Substitution is a process within a text as the replacement of one item by another According to Halliday and Hasan (1976), since substitution is a grammatical 11 relation, a relation in the wording rather than in the meaning, the different types of substitution is defined grammatically rather than semantically

-Substitution occurs when an item is replaced by another item in the text to avoid repetition The difference between substitution and reference is that substitution lies

in the relation between words, whereas reference between meanings There are three types of substitution: nominal, verbal, and causal

+Nominal Substitution Nominal substitution is substituting a noun or a nominal group with another noun Elements of this type are one, ones, and same In the following example, one substitutes car

For example: This car is old I will buy a new oneHalliday and Hasan (1976) +Verbal Substitution Verbal substitution involves substituting a verb or a verbal group with another verb The verb element used to replace items in this type is “do”

For Example: I challenge you to win the game before I do! Here, do is the substitution for win the game.Halliday and Hasan (1976),

+Clausal Substitution Clausal substitution is substituting clauses by so or not

For example: Everyone seems to think he is a smart student If so, he will pass the exam In this example, so substitutes the clause he is a smart student.Halliday and Hasan (1976)

- Ellipsis is a process within a text in which an item is omitted where the omitted item do not change the 12 meaning The omitted item leaves specific structural slots

to be filled from elsewhere (1976) Ellipsis is the process of omitting an unnecessary item, which has been mentioned earlier in a text, and replacing it with nothing It is similar to substitution because “Ellipsis is simply substitution by zero” (Halliday & Hasan, 1976) Normally, it is considered as an anaphoric relation because the omission takes place within a text When ellipsis occurs, the item that is omitted from the structure of the text, can still be understood Alike substitution, ellipsis has three types: nominal, verbal, and clausal

+Nominal Ellipsis In nominal ellipsis, the noun is omitted

For example:This is exemplified by: Andi and Ali like sports In fact, both love football.In the second sentence, the nominal “Andi and Ali” is omitted The word “Andi and Ali” that is supposed to be placed after the word “both” There is nominal ellipsis relation since the eliminated word is noun (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

+ Verbal Ellipsis Verbal ellipsis involves the omission of the verb

For example: The verb been studying is left out They haven’t finished the pictures If it had been, I would have brought it In second sentence, the verbal

“finished” is omitted The word “finished” is supposed to be placed after “it had been” There is verbal ellipsis relation since the eliminated word is verb (Halliday

& Hasan, 1976)

+ Clausal Ellipsis Clausal ellipsis occurs when the clause is omitted

For example: Do you come back today?the clause “I come back” is omitted

In this sentence, the clause “I come back” has been eliminated There is clausal ellipsis relation since the eliminated item is clausal group.(Halliday & Hasan, 1976) + Conjunction words are linking devices between sentences or clauses in a text According to Halliday and Hasan (1976), conjunction is based on the assumption

that there are in the linguistics system form of systematic relationship between sentences They are a number of possible connected to one another in meaning Unlike the other grammatical devices, conjunctions express the, logical-semantic relation between sentences rather than between words and structures (Halliday

&Hasan, 1976) In other words, they structure the text in a certain logical order that

is meaningful to the reader or listener Conjunctions are divided into four types, namely additive, adversative, causal, and temporal

+ Additive Conjunction Additive conjunctions connect units that share semantic similarity Additive conjunction expresses a continuous explanation of the statements or preceding sentence It is signaled by and, or, likewise, further, in addition, furthermore, additionally, alternatively, for insurance, or else, etc

For example: From a marketing view point, the popular tabloid encourages the reader to read the whole page instead of choosing stories And isn’t that way any publisher wants? In this sentence, “and” expresses additive conjunction since it gives addition information from the second sentence to the first sentence.(Halliday

& Hasan, 1976)

+ Adversative Conjunction Adversative conjunctions are used to express contrasting results or opinions Adversative conjunction expresses a contrary meaning between preceding sentences and following sentences It is signaled by as, but, only, instead, yet, in fact, though, anyhow, nevertheless, in contrast, whereas,

on the contrary, however, in any either case, etc

For example: I’m afraid I’ll be home late tonight However, I won’t have to

go until late tomorrow In this sentence, “however” in the second sentence expresses adversative conjunction since it shows contradictive meaning with the first sentence.(Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

+ Causal Conjunction Causal conjunctions introduce results, reasons, or purposes Causal conjunction reflects cause relation between preceding and following sentences They are characterized by the use of items such as so, therefore, because, hence, thus, consequently, for this reason, so from this it appears, etc

For example: Chinese tea is becoming popular in restaurant and coffee shop This is because of the growing belief that it has several health – giving properties

In this sentence, “because” expresses causal conjunction since it shows caused effect relation between first sentence and second sentence.(Halliday & Hasan, 1976) +Temporal Conjunction Temporal conjunctions express the time order of events Temporal conjunction reflects to the relation between two sentences There is one sequence in time, the one is subsequent to the other It is signaled by then, finally, soon, afterward, at last, at the same time, at once, since, after that, an hour later, etc

For example: Brick tea is a blend that has been compressed into a cake It is taken mainly by the minority groups in China First, it is ground to a dust Then it usually cooked in milk.(Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

To show more about the Reference, conjunction and Reiteration, it could be shown

• Synonym/near synonyms

Table 1: The reference, conjunction and Reiteration

Source: Halliday & Hasan, 1976

Cohesive devices not only function as formal links but also indicate different sorts of relationships existing in any segment of discourse Within the scope of this study, the next part will give a close look into the matter of conjunction as a cohesive device in discourse

2.2.3 Conjunctions as Cohesive Devices

As a matter of fact, English conjunctions play a dominant role in creating a system of grammatical sentences of English Thus, it is doubtless that a large number of celebrated grammarians in the world pay much attention to English conjunctions Given such that considerable importance, I have endeavored to get informed by as many valuable documents as possible

Moreover, According to Berk (1999) defines English conjunctions are defined as words which “typically conjoin sentences and elements within sentence”

In other words of conjunction that is “we can always add one structure to another by conjoining two or more elements with a conjunction”

Cook (1989) defines conjunctions as grammatical items: “Conjunctions are words and phrases which explicitly draw attention to the type of the relationship which exists between one sentence or clause and another” Those words may simply add more information to what has already been said (and, furthermore, add to that)

or elaborate or exemplify it (for instance, thus, in other words) They may contrast new information with old information, or put another side to the argument (or, on the other hand, however) They may relate new information to what has already been given in terms of causes (so, because, consequently, for this reason) or in time (formally, then, in the end, next) or they may indicate a new departure or a summary (by the way, well, to sum up, anyway)

Halliday and Hasan (1979) as well as Nunan (1993) view conjunction as a cohesive relation They agree that conjunction is rather different in nature from the other cohesive relations such as reference, substitution and ellipsis… It is not a device for reminding the reader of previously mentioned entities, actions and states

of affairs In other words, it is not simply an anaphoric relation However, it is a cohesive device because it signals the relationships that can be fully understood through reference to other parts of the text

According to Berk’s (1999) found that the differences between conjuncts and conjunctions because conjuncts are the adverbs to organize discourse and joint the elements of an utterance together, and conjunctions conjoin sentences and elements within sentences Moreover, Downing and Locke (1992) found that conjuncts show

to understand the semantic connection between two utterances, or parts of utterances

According to them, there are four different types of conjunction: temporality, causality, addition and adversity:

• Temporality: then, after that, finally, at last…

• Causality: so, consequently, for this reason…

• Addition: and, or, furthermore, similarly, in addition, moreover…

• Adversity: but, however, on the other hand…

According to Quirk and Greenbaun(1973), sorts of English conjunctions include: coordinating conjunctions (or more simply coordinators) and subordinating conjunctions (subordinators) and correlatives

Michael Swan (1995), however, denotes the English conjunction in brief He only deals with coordinating conjunctions and / but / or and subordinating conjunctions because / when / that / which

Although these linguists have different definitions and classifications of conjunctions, they share the same idea that conjunctions are words that join different words, phrases and clauses together These cohesive ties are really important as they turn separate clauses, sentences and paragraphs into units of connected discourse which refers back and forth to each other Language learners need to know both how and when to use them Their presence or absence in discourse often contributes to style, and some conjunctions can sound very pompous when used inappropriately It is useful for learning language and especially for writing of English

2.3 Theoretical framework

2.3.1 Features of And/ But/ Or

For the And/But/ Or as cohesive devices in English written discourse, there have some According to Quirk’s point of view (1972) explicit indicators of coordination are termed as coordinating conjunctions And a coordinator is organized at the process of conjoining units which are equal status In other words, coordination involves the linking of units which are constituents of the same levels These units can be single words, phrases or clauses

For example: The example of Quirk (1972)

My husband and I are going to travel around the world

The box was long but narrow

(Single words coordinated)

He had breakfast and got out of the house quickly

You can sleep in the sofa or in my room

(Phrases coordinated)

She was very tired, but she stayed the whole evening

He has long hair, and he wears jeans

(Clauses coordinated)

In this study, the three coordinators AND/BUT/OR are observed in the way they join two clauses to form a compound sentence In other words, only clausal coordinators are examined

As mentioned above, AND/BUT/OR are the most central coordinators which can join two equal clauses In addition, according to Quirk and Greenbaun (1973), they are restricted to initial position in the clause as in:

For example: Mary plays table tennis, and her sister plays badminton Quirk

and Greenbaun (1973)

Thus, clauses beginning with a coordinator cannot be moved in front of the preceding clause without producing unacceptable sentences or at least changing the relationship of clauses It is impossible to say:

For example: And her sister plays badminton, Mary plays table tennis Quirk

and Greenbaun (1973)

AND/BUT/OR also do not allow another conjunction to precede them but they can precede other conjunctions and subordinators as illustrated in the following examples:

For example: He was unhappy about it, andyet he did what he was told

He asked to be transferred because he was unhappy andbecause he saw no

prospect of promotion Quirk and Greenbaun (1973)

What’s more, when joining two clauses AND/BUT/OR allow ellipsis of the subject if the subject is co-referential with that of the preceding linked clause:

For example: I may see you tomorrow, or (I) may phone later in the

day Quirk and Greenbaun (1973)

Another feature is that AND and OR can link subordinate clause:

I wonder whether you should speak to him personally about the matter or whether it

is better to him Quirk and Greenbaun (1973),

BUT, however, is restricted to linking a maximum of two clauses, and can link only certain types of subordinate clause

He said that John would take them by car but that might be late Quirk and

Greenbaun (1973)

Last but not least, unlike BUT, coordinators AND and OR can link more than two clauses, and the final instance of these two conjunctions can be omitted:

John might take them by car, or Mary might go with them by bus, or I might order a

taxi for them Quirk and Greenbaun (1973)

Above are some syntactic features of coordinators AND/BUT/OR introduced

by Quirk and Greenbaun (1973) This gives us the background knowledge to examine their semantic implications which will be discusses in the next part The semantic implication of these three coordinators will be presented based on the

viewpoint of Quirk and Greenbaums in their book A University Grammar of

English However, to avoid repetition, in this section, we:

- Firstly, try to analyze the semantic implications of each coordinator to work out the cohesive effects it makes between clauses in a sentence

- Secondly, seek whether there will be other implications that have not been mentioned

- Finally, analyze 100 samples of each coordinator taken at random from some written discourse to put the semantic implications in the order of their frequency of occurrence

According the previous research, it could be learnt and built up the theorical framework as below diagram with some main point to constractive analysis

Here, eight separate cases of semantic implication of AND are shown as follows:

Firstly, AND is used to denote that the event in the second clause is a consequence or result of the event in the first

For example: He heard an explosion and he (therefore) phoned the police

The consequent clause “he phone the police” is resulted from the causal clause “he

heard an explosion” Therefore, it is impossible to transfer the order of the clause without changing the meaning of the sentence:

He phoned the police and he heard an explosion

There is no existence of a cause-effect relationship in the renewed sentence

Let’s look at another example:

Willie heard the weather report and promptly board up this house

In this sentence, it is also impossible to transfer the order of the clause without

interfering its meaning With this implication, AND is either “and as a result” or

“and therefore”