English cohesive devices with reference to vietnamese equivalence based on the bilingual selected short stories “the last leaf” by o’ henry

STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP I, the undersigned, hereby certify my authority of the study project report entitled “English cohesive devices with reference to Vietnamese equivalence based on

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

HANOI OPEN UNIVERSITY

NGUYỄN THỊ DUÊ

ENGLISH COHESIVE DEVICES WITH REFERENCE TO VIETNAMESE EQUIVALENCE BASED ON THE BILINGUAL SELECTED SHORT STORIES “THE LAST LEAF: BY O’ HENRY”

(CÁC PHƯƠNG TIỆN LIÊN KẾT TRONG TIẾNG ANH LIÊN HỆ VỚI TIẾNG VIỆT DỰA TRÊN TUYỂN TẬP TRUYỆN NGẮN CHỌN LỌC SONG NGỮ “CHIẾC LÁ CUỐI CÙNG” CỦA O‟ HENRY)

M.A THESIS

Field: English Language Code: 8220201

Hanoi, 2018

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

HANOI OPEN UNIVERSITY

NGUYỄN THỊ DUÊ

ENGLISH COHESIVE DEVICES WITH REFERENCE TO VIETNAMESE EQUIVALENCE BASED ON THE BILINGUAL SELECTED SHORT STORIES “THE LAST LEAF: BY O’ HENRY”

(CÁC PHƯƠNG TIỆN LIÊN KẾT TRONG TIẾNG ANH LIÊN HỆ VỚI TIẾNG VIỆT DỰA TRÊN TUYỂN TẬP TRUYỆN NGẮN CHỌN LỌC SONG NGỮ “CHIẾC LÁ CUỐI CÙNG” CỦA O‟ HENRY)

STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP

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

cohesive devices with reference to Vietnamese equivalence based on the bilingual selected short stories “The last leaf by O’ Henry” submitted in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of Master in English Linguistics Except where the reference is indicated, no other person‟s work has been used without due acknowledgement in the text

of the thesis

Hanoi, 2018

Nguyễn Thị Duê

Approved by SUPERVISOR

Date:………

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This thesis could not have been completed without the help and support

from a number of people

First and foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Assoc

Prof Dr Nguyen Dang Suu, my supervisor, who has patiently and constantly

supported me through the stages of the study, and whose stimulating ideas,

expertise, and suggestions have inspired me greatly through my growth as an

academic researcher

My sincere acknowledgement also go to all my lecturers and officers of

Faculty of Graduate Studies, Hanoi Open University, who have facilitated me

with the best possible conditions during my whole course of studying

Last but not least, I am greatly indebted to my family, my friends for the

sacrifice they have devoted to the fulfillment of this academic work

ABSTRACT

The study deals with the types of cohesive devices used in selected short

stories by Olivier Henry The objectives of study are to identify and to derive the

types of cohesive devices dominantly used in selected short stories The data are

taken from selected short stories from online edition This research is conducted

by using descriptive method Halliday & Hasan framework of cohesion was used

to analyze the frequent use of two aspects of cohesive devices, namely

grammatical cohesion and lexical cohesion The results of the cohesive devices

show that reference and repetition are the most frequently followed by

conjunctions and substitutions The study will become a useful tool for teachers of

English to improve their teaching and will serve as a good reference for those who

love stories by Olivier Henry in particular and literary works in English in general

for a good academic writing

Ad Conj.: Additive Conjunction

Adver Conj: Adversative Conjunction

Cau Conj.: Causal Conjunction

Temp Conj.: Temporal Conjunction

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Table 2.1: Type of Cohesion 13

Table 2.2: Grammatical and Lexical Cohesion 14

Table 2.3: Demonstrative reference 18

Table 4.1: Grammatical cohesive devices in the selected short stories by

O‟ Henry 32

Table 4.2: Lexical Cohesive Devices in the selected short stories by O

Henry……… 44

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Certificate of originality i

Acknowledgements ii

Abstract iii

List of abbreviations iv

List of tables and figures v

Table of content vi

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Rationale for the research 1

1.2 Aims of research 2

1.3 Objectives of research 3

1.4 Research questions 3

1.5 Scope of research 3

1.6 Significance of research 3

1.7 Design of study……….……… 4

Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 5

2.1 Review of previous studies 5

2.1.1 Previous studies overseas 5

2.1.2 Previous studies in Vietnam 6

2.2 Review of theoretical background 7

2.2.1 The concepts of text and discourse 7

2.2.2 Concepts of Cohesion 10

2.2.3 Cohesive devices 14

2.2.3.1 Grammatical cohesive devices……….………….14

2.2.3.2 Lexical cohesive devices……….23

2.2.4 Paragraphs 26

2.3 Summary 26

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY………28

3.1 Subject……… 28

3.2 Instrumentation……… 28

3.3 Procedures……… 28

3.4 Statistical Analysis……… ……….… 29

3.5 Summary………29

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 31

4.1 Findings 31

4.1.1 Grammatical Cohesive Device in the selected short stories by O Henry’s Stories………31

4.1.1.1 Reference……… 33

4.1.1.2 Substitution……… … 36

4.1.1.3 Ellipsis……….………… 38

4.1.1.4 Conjunction……….………….39

4.1.2 Lexical Cohesive Device in the selected short stories by O’ Henry’s Stories……… 43

4.1.2.1 Reiteration……….……45

4.1.2.2 Collocation……….48

4.2 Discussion……… 49

4.3 Implications………50

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION……… 52

5.1 Recapitulation………52

5.2 Concluding remarks……… 53

5.3 Limitations of the study……….54

5.4 Suggestions for future research……… 54

REFERENCES……… 55

APPENDICES……… 57

Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Rationale

One form of written language is useful to convey knowledge to the people is discourse A discourse should have requisite as a good text Beugrande and Desseler (1981:3-10) state that a text is a communication occurrence which meets seven standards of textuality The requisites of a good text are intentionality, acceptability, informativity, situationality, intertextuality, coherence and cohesion

A good discourse has some factors Some of those factors are described in

terms cohesion or ties which exist within text Gutwinsky (1976:26) in Tarigan

states that cohesion is a syntactical organization, and is a „container‟ where the sentences are arranged in harmony intensively to produce discourse.” In other words, cohesion is the grammatical and lexical relationship within a text or sentence that holds a text together and gives its meaning

Text cohesion in the broadest sense is a universal feature shared by all languages (Hoey 1991, Halliday&Hasan 1976, Nunan 1993) Cohesive devices play

an essential role in producing and interpreting texts Linguists agree that text belonging to different registers vary in cohesive ties as well For instance, literary texts allow a wider use of synonyms while technical texts give preference to lexical repetition in order to avoid ambiguity (Buitkiene 2005) Ellipsis and substitution are more common in more interactive types of discourse (Berzlanovich 2008) Conjunction is a favored cohesive link by academic discourse (Verikaite 2005) Moreover, even literary texts themselves present differences in the distributionofcohesive devices It is determined by the writer‟s style of writing Furthermore, a text of the source language and its translation into the target language exhibit interesting cases in the distribution of cohesive ties

Cohesion is an important factor of discourse which has attracted a lot of attention from linguists The most significant research on cohesion is “Cohesion in English” by Halliday and Hasan (1976) Cohesion is considered one of the most challenging aspects of translation, as any language has its own unique manners in which it employs cohesive devices in the creation of a cohesive text Each language has its own patterns to convey the interrelationships of persons and events; there is not any language that these patterns may be ignored, if the translation is to

beunderstood by its readers (Callow, 1974) The topic of cohesion has always appeared as the most useful constituent of discourse analysis that is applied to translation English and Vietnamese have different grammatical and lexical structures, and it is only natural that they pose great difficulties and challenges for a translator to deal with, especially in the field ofliterature

Literature, which plays a very important role in our spiritual life, has been greatly developing as a consequence of high living standards As a matter of fact, there have been more and more people choosing to work in literary field and their efforts have created so many famous works It is open to questions as to which factors have to be taken into consideration to make a successful work? How important are those factors to the completion of a coherent and cohesive text? Added to this, the knowledge of cohesion and coherence are actually regarded as the crucial aspects of the languageusage

William Sydney Porter, whose pen name was Olivier Henry or O Henry, was an American short story writer He has been recognized amongthe greatest American authors by his great devotion to American literature.With the huge and unique collection of short stories; he is deserved to becalled “one of the greatest masters of modern literature", said StephenLeacock Nearly 200 short stories published have gained the notice of thepublic as well as created the lasting

stories in making cohesive effect to the short stories So, it helps the readers to understand the unity of the text easier

Those reasons mentioned above are the most important ones that have

encouraged the author to conduct: English cohesive devices with reference to

Vietnamese equivalence based on the bilingual selected short stories “The last leaf: by O’Henry”as the topic of this study Based on the detailed classification of

cohesive devices in English by Halliday and Hasan (1976), this study provides a close analysis of particular cohesive devices in some selected short stories “The last leaf” The study is also expected to be a good reference for those who love stories

by O Henry in particular and literary works in English in general for a good academic writing

1.2 Aims of research

This research is conducted to aim at finding the grammatical and lexical cohesive devices in the bilingual selected short stories (English and Vietnamese) to give better opportunities to learners of English so that they can get good result of their studying English, mainly in using cohesive devices in writing skills

1.3 Objectives of research

To achieve the above mentioned aims, some following objectives are put forward:

Finding out the grammatical cohesive devices used in the bilingual selected short stories and the translated version

Identifying the lexical cohesive devices used in the English selected stories and the translated version

Suggesting some possible implications for teaching the cohesive devices used

in English to Vietnamese students of English as a foreign language

of Halliday and Hasan(1976)

In this case, the writer would like to scope this thesis only about the analysis

of cohesive devices: grammatical and lexical cohesion found in selected shortstories by O Henry It is hoped that the outcome of this research, to some extent, would be able to make a certain contribution to enhance the quality of English writing skills of students at the Vinh Bao High school

1.6 Significance of research

This analysis is expected to be able to give some significance both practically and theoretically It is expected that this analysis is practically very significant for

better understanding of the very basic principles of cohesive devices Analysis of these cohesive links within a text gives us some insight into how writers structure what they want to say and show how one sentence or paragraph relates with another sentence Thus, it helps us to understand the unity of the text easier

Furthermore, this analysis is theoretically expected to be useful as reference

for the readers who are interested in analyzing the same subject

1.7 Design of the study

Within the scope mentioned above, the study consists of five chapters:

Chapter1 is the INTRODUCTION that presents rationale, aims, scope,

significance, research questions, and organizational structure of the study

Chapter 2 is the LITERATURE REVIEW that discusses the theoretical

background of the study, in which the definition of text and discourse, cohesion and coherence as well as cohesive devices are presented

Chapter 3 is the METHODOLOGY that concentrates on detail of the subject, instrumentation, procedures and statistical analysisemployed for conducting the whole thesis

Chapter 4 is the FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION that describes and analysis the prevailing cohesive devices in the selected short stories by O Henry, and his style in writing the short stories

Chapter 5 is the CONCLUSION that summarizes the main points presented in the thesis, the limitations of the study as well as suggestions for further research

Chapter 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

The literature review serves two main purposes Firstly it gives a review of previous studies related to discourse analysis in general and cohesive devices in particular Secondly it presents and discusses the theoretical background which guide and inform this research

2.1 Review of previous studies

Cohesive devices which are important factors in discourse analysis by English

as well as a foreign language speaker have attracted the great attention of linguistics all over the world Hence, it is no surprise that a large number of studies on English cohesive devices in terms of various fields of language have been undertaken

2.1.1 Previous studies overseas

There are some researches analyzing cohesion using theory from Halliday and Hasan (1976) The first is a work by Morley He presents the lexical cohesion and rhetorical structure This article looks at this argument-structuring function of lexical cohesion first by considering single text using the techniques of classical discourse analysis and then by using the methodology of corpus linguistics to examine several million words of text In his research, he analyzes the lexical cohesion in several newspaper headlines and points out the register before analyzing the lexical cohesion He also uses the theory of Halliday and Hassan(1976)

Another study that relates to this research is a study done by Rosalina LBN.Tobing (2008) “The use of cohesive devices in selected short stories of Ernest Hemingway” In his research, he focuses on the types of cohesive devices occurred

in selected short stories of Ernest Hemingway and the frequency of each type of cohesive devices is used

Another study that relates to this research is a study done by Teich and Frankhouse (2005) They present a system for linguistic exploration and analysis of lexical cohesion in English text They use semantic concordance version of the Brown Corpus which comprises 352 texts Each text was divided into paragraphs, sentences and words Their work is based on Halliday and Hasan theory (1976:2),

“cohesion is defined as the set of linguistic means we have available for creating texture”

The last research is conducted by Stokes (2004) This analysis investigates the

appropriateness of using lexical cohesion analysis to improve the performance of Information Retrieval (IR) and Nature Language Processing (NLP) application that deals with documents in the news domain Stokes explores the effect of lexical cohesion analysis on New Story Gisting (ex: a type of summarization that generates

a news story title or headline) In his analyzing, he used the theory proposed by Halliday and Hasan (1976) He found that lexical is property text that is responsible for the present of semantically related vocabulary in written and spoken discourse The types of lexical cohesion which are found such as repetition, synonym, and collocation

2.1.2 Previous studies inVietnam

In Vietnam, a number of linguists and researchers have made great contributions to the study of discourse analysis Nguyen ThienGiap (2000) mentions

a set of different aspects as context and semantics, information structures, especially discourse and discourse analysis He particularly emphasizes the necessity of coherence and cohesion in creating a clear and comprehensible discourse/text Do HuuChau (2001) point out some of the communicative factors deciding the successful communication; they are situational context, language and its varieties, and discourse He also defines discourse as a continuous stretch of talk, normally larger than an utterance to make the conversation a coherent unit

Together with these theoretical studies relating to discourse and discourse analysis, some practical ones on this topic have been conducted so far, such as the

master thesis “An Analysis of Coherence and Cohesion and a Contrastive Analysis

of Lexical Cohesive Devices in English and Vietnamese” by Phuong To Tam

(2003) The data for this thesis is from a chapter (chapter 5) on International Trade

in the textbook “International Business – An integrated Approach” (1998) The attention of the study is paid to considering contrastive analysis of lexical cohesive devices (including reiteration and collocation) in English (source language) in the original textbook and their equivalents in Vietnamese (target language) in the translation version The author then attempts to collect data in both English and Vietnamese to see the frequencies, similarities and differences of each device and sub-device of lexical cohesive devices in the discourse of bothlanguages

The next research in another M.A thesis by Le Thi Mai Hien (2004) entitled

“An Analysis of Cohesive Devices in English Application Letter” The process of

researching on twenty English application letters has enables her to reach the results

of the frequency of occurrence of lexical cohesive device The data present repetition in English application letter also occupies the first position among the four kinds of reiteration with up to 53.4% Different from English sales letters, super ordinates rank the second with a considerably higher percentage, 24.9% compared with 11% Synonyms and Near-synonyms account for nearly the same portion, which is respectively 10.4% and11.3%

The next research conducted by Nguyen ThiHoa (2011) “A contrastive study

of grammatical cohesive devices in English and Vietnamese” has pointed out the

similarities and differences in grammatical cohesive devices in English and Vietnamese The results of this research help teachers of English and students avoid making mistakes in using grammatical cohesive devices and translating between these twolanguages

The last research is Cao Thi Huyen Nga (2012) entitled “An analysis of

cohesive devices in the ESP textbook on accounting at the University of Labor and Social Affairs” This study is mainly aimed at analyzing cohesive devices in the

reading texts on Accounting at ULSA, finding out teachers‟ attitudes towards cohesion teaching” The analysis reveals that lexical cohesive devices are used more often in the textbooks than grammatical cohesive devices The data from interview indicates that the teachers often teach cohesion in class but they cannotcover all types of cohesion

Although several studies which analyze cohesion and coherence have been carried out, there is no evidence that any researchers have conducted a study relating to cohesive devices in the opening paragraphs of short stories in general, and those by O Henry in particular as this study aims to explore Therefore, in this study, the matter of cohesive in the opening paragraphs of short stories by O Henry

is taken into consideration with the aim at helping learners of English create their own writing products coherently; as a result, improve their academic essay writing

2.2 Review of theoretical background

2.2.1 The concepts of text and discourse

The concepts of text and discourse have always presented a degree of

confusion Different linguists treat the two terms differently The concepts were sometimes regarded as identical, sometimes opposed, or evenunconnected Due to

conventional linguistics, both of them were developed in different scientific

contexts The necessity for research program on both text and discourse occurred

when a significant amount of independent analysis appeared

Linguists refer to a text as “any passage, spoken or written, of whatever length thatformsaunified whole” (Halliday and Hasan, 1976:1) In order to create a text as

a unifiedwhole, itis necessary to know what makes text coherent Firstly, it can be said that text is not defined by its size, it is not a grammatical unit and it differs from a sentence As observed earlier a collection of random sentences cannot be regarded as the text, it can be said that “in its deep structure, the text is a sequence

of mutually related clauses, which after the application of appropriate textualizing operations, are turned into text sentences” (ValeikaandBuitkienė, 2006:168) Furthermore in order to create mutually connected sentences the meaning that is semantic relation of the words is important, because words and context are in separable If we take any word for example, we can make predictions about the textual environment it can occur, and if we know something about the environment, then we can make predictions about the words which are likely to occur there (Stubbs, 2002:100) The main conclusion, however, is that the meaning and logical relation of words and sentences are important when creating a coherent text That is why the text is not composed of sentences it is realized by sentences (Halliday and Hasan, 1976:1-2)

The word “text” refers to any instance of language, in any medium, that makes sense tosomeone who knows the language We can produce text, when we speak or write Halliday and Hasan (1976:1) purpose that text can be in the form of spoken

or written A spoken language is in the forms of conversation, speech, storytelling, while written language is reflected in the forms of newspaper, magazine, and book

Fadjrin (2011:3) states that cohesion is the most important thing needed in cohesiveness of a text or discourse, including in the journalistic text It shows that cohesion helps the process of understanding a text by using its connective so that the information will be easy to understand Within a text, if an item previously mentioned isreferred to again and dependent with another element, it is considered a tie or cohesive device The cohesive devices are tools that when used appropriately enable the writer tohang sentences and text segments together (Fakeuade and Sharndama, 2012:300-318) Cohesive device or types of cohesion consist of five

such as reference, conjunction, substitution, ellipsis, and lexical cohesion Cohesive device will help the participants in interpreting a text

In Bell‟s opinion (1991) a text must possess:

A Generic structure (it must belong to cognizable genre or register);

B Textual structure (it must reflect the selection of options from the same systems, theme and information);

C Internal cohesion

His definitions are as follows:

“Text: the formal product of selections of options from the theme systems of the grammar; a unit which carries the semantic sense of the proposition (the prepositional content and locutionary force of the speech acts) through sentences which are linked by means of cohesion”

Discourse: a communicative event which draws on the meaning potential of the language (and other systems of communication) to carry communicative value (the illocutionary force) of speech acts through utterances which are linked by means of coherence”

The Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics (1998) defines discourse as follows: “Discourse is a general term for example of language use, i.e language has been produced as the result of an act of communication.” Sharing the same concern, many other linguists have so far given definitions of discourse Widdowson (1979) states: “Discourse is a use of sentences

to perform acts of communication which cohere into larger communicative units, ultimately establishing a rhetorical pattern which characterizes the pieces of language as a whole as a kind of communication.” Whereas Crystal (1992: 25) says:

“Discourse is a continuous stretch of language larger than a sentence, often constituting a coherent unit such as a sermon, argument, joke or a narrative.” Quite differently from the others, Halliday and Hasan (1976) give a simple definition:

“We can define text (discourse) in the simplest way perhaps by saying that it is language that is functional.”

Linguists have paid much attention to the distinction between a discourse and

a text since confusion of these two terms may result in the failures of discourse analysis Even though that the distinction is not always clear and the two terms are

used interchangeably by some linguists As in the above-mentioned definition of discourse by Halliday and Hasan, “text” is employed to refer to “discourse”; they see “text” as a “semantic unit” characterized by cohesion The two authors state: “A text is a passage of discourse which coherent in these two regards: it is coherent with respect to the context of situation, and therefore consistent in register; and it is coherent with respect to itself, and therefore cohesive” (1976: 23) For some other linguists, “text” is used for writing and “discourse” for speech The third group of linguists like Brown & Yule, Nunan, Widdowson, and Cook see discourse as a process and text as a product Brown & Yule argue that text is the representation of discourse and the verbal record of a communicative act.

In this study, we would like to take Widdowson‟s viewpoint of the difference and the interrelationship between the two as the base: “Discourse is a communicative process by means of interaction Its situational outcome is a change

in state of affairs: information is conveyed, intentions made clear, its linguistic product is Text.” (1984: 100)

2.2.2 Concepts of Cohesion

Cohesion based on Halliday and Hasan (1976) “cohesion theory as the major characteristic of coherence considering linguistic properties of the language, gives a sequence of sentences a coherent texture Cohesion occurs where the interpretation

of some elements in the discourse is dependent on that of another” Halliday and Hasan (1976, p vii) pointed out that cohesion is one of the linguistic system's major resources for text construction In fact, cohesion represents the presence of explicit cues in the text that allow readers/listeners to find semantic relations within it as part of linguistic system enhancing the semantic potentials of text A text is meaningful only when elements referring to each other in the text set up a relation The relation can be set up through reference, substitution, ellipsis, and conjunction

as grammatical and lexical cohesion So, the grammar and lexicon are two forms of cohesion These cohesive devices used by speakers and writers in order to express meaning based on the interpretations of the listeners and readers provide semantic relations for the semantic units whose interpretations they facilitate Cohesion depicts how meaning-based relationship is set up by lexical and syntactic features These explicit lexical and syntactic features are known as cohesive devices, signaling the relationship in sentences and paragraphs Halliday and Hasan (1976) introduced five different types of cohesive devices in order to provide a guidelinefor

studying and judging the cohesion and coherence of writing: (a)reference (i.e., the indication of information from elsewhere such as personals, demonstratives, and comparatives), (b) substitution (i.e., thereplacement of one component by another), (c) ellipsis (i.e., the omission of a component), (d) conjunction (i.e., the indication

of specific meaning which presupposes present items in the discourse, such as additive, adversative, casual, and temporal), and finally (e) lexical cohesion (i.e., the repetition of the same orrelative lexical items) They contended that through analyzing the use of cohesive devices, one could evaluate or assess writing quality from the perspective ofcoherence

Cohesion is the term used to describe the structural, grammatical and lexical means by which sentences and paragraphs in the texts are linked and relationships between them established The basic concept that is employed in analyzing the cohesion of a text on the basis of the presented framework of cohesion by

Halliday&Hasan is that of the tie It is a complex notion which comprises not only

the cohesive element by itself but also that which is presupposed by it The notion is interpreted as a relation between these two elements The relation may be anaphoric, with the presupposed element preceding, or cataphoric, with the presupposed element following

According to Halliday&Hasan (1976), other cohesive relations are:

1.Exophoric relation is found outside the text, i.e in thesituation

2.Paraphoric relation points to the information that is in the other text

3.Homophonicrelation is a self- interpreting relation Entities are unique under

certain circumstances

While analyzing cohesion,two facts about ties have to be taken into

consideration In the first place, any sentence may have more than one tie in it In the second place, the distance between cohesive items may be immediate, i.e the presupposed item may be in the immediate preceding sentence; or remote, i.e the presupposed item may be not in the immediately preceding sentence Also, the presupposed item may include a mediated tie Distance between ties is relevant in terms of analysis of cohesion (Halliday&Hasan1976)

In English, the basic means of establishing cohesion are through the use of pronouns, determiners, conjunctions, and adverbials to substitute, repeat, refer or omit items across a text and others, and lexical cohesive devices Cohesion occurs where the interpretation of some element in the text is dependent on that of another The one presupposes the other, in the sense that it cannot be effectively decoded except by shift to it When this happens, a relation of cohesion is set up, and the two elements, the presupposing and the presupposed, are thereby at least potentially integrated into a text (Halliday&Hasan 1976: 4)

According to Halliday&Hasan in their book Cohesion in English, language

can be expressed through the concept of cohesion 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 is a semantic relation between an element in the text and some other element that is crucial to the interpretation ofit

A text should be a unified whole; it is not just a collection of unrelated sentences Therefore, to make a text as a unified whole, there should be a device to tie it together The device is cohesive devices

Connor (1984) defines cohesion as the use of explicit cohesive devices that signal relations among sentences and part of a text (Rahman, 2013: 2) This means that the use of cohesive devices enables readers and listeners to capture the connectedness orthe meaning between what precedes and what follows It also shows that cohesive device isimportant

2.2.3 Cohesive devices

Cohesive devices are the ones used to stick one clause to another in a sentence and one sentence to another in a paragraph and make the text communicative According to M.A.K Halliday and RuqaiyaHasan, there are two main types of cohesion: grammatical, referring to the structural content, and lexical, referring to the language content of the piece Five general categories of cohesive devices that create coherence in texts can be identified are: reference, ellipsis, substitution, lexical cohesion and conjunction

Logical cohesion is on the border-line of the grammatical and lexical, the set

of conjunctive elements can probably be interpreted grammatically in terms of systems

According to Halliday and Hasan (1976), the classification of cohesion is based on the linguistic form The types of cohesion depend either on semantic relation in the linguistic system or on lexico-grammatical relations In other words, the cohesive relation can be interpreted as being either lexico-grammatical in nature

or semantic It can be made clearer in the followingdescription:

Table 2.1: Type of Cohesion

Relatedness of form

Relatedness of reference

Semantic connection

Substitution and ellipsis; lexical collocation

Reference; lexical reiteration

Conjunction

(Source: Halliday and Hasan, 1976:304)

Reference, substitution and ellipsis are clearly grammatical; lexical cohesion,

as the name implies, lexical Conjunction is on the borderline of the grammatical and the lexical; the set of conjunctive element can probably be interpreted grammatically in terms of systems, and some conjunctive expressions involve lexical selection However, it is better to put it in the group of grammatical cohesion

as it is mainly grammatical with a lexical component inside Consequently, we can refer to grammatical cohesion and lexical cohesion as follows:

Table 2.2: Grammatical and Lexical Cohesion

(Adapted from Haliday and Hasan, 1976)

2.2.3.1 Grammatical cohesive devices

Grammatical cohesion is constructed by the grammatical structures, each component tie each other Halliday and Hasan (1976) classify grammatical cohesion into 4 major classes: Reference, Substitution, Ellipsis and Conjunction

a Reference

Reference is one of the most extensively used cohesive devices in texts Therefore, we will have a closer look at the definition of reference and what characterizes this particular type of cohesion

Reference is a well-researched area within linguistics According to Lyons

(1969: 424), “this term was introduced into linguistics to name the relationship which holds between words and things, events, actions, and the qualities they stand for” (cited in Verikaite 1999: 47) The development of linguistics has broadened the meaning of reference Salkie (1995: 5) claimed that it includes “a relation between the meaning of a word and its environment, which can be either a real world or the text”

Every language has particular items which have the feature of reference They make reference to something else for their interpretation In English it is personals, demonstratives and comparatives These items show that information indicates something else It shows the relationship between a word and what it points to in the real world (Baker, 1992:181) The main feature that characterizes reference is that the information signals for retrieval The identity of particular thing that is being referred to has a referential meaning and cohesion is found then the same thing occurs a second time Reference has the semantic feature of definiteness or specificity Because of that there has to be reference to the context of situation Referencing items do not have to match the grammatical class they must have semantic properties (Halliday and Hasan, 1976:31)

There is referential cohesion in every language, they are in their own right, they make reference to something else for their interpretations” (Haliday and Hasan, 1976) There are three types of reference in English They are personal, demonstrative and comparative items which have the property of reference (…), instead of being interpreted semantically

Haliday and Hasan (1976) make a clear distinction between situational and textual reference by contrasting Exophora, or Exophoric reference with Endophora

or Endophoric reference as a general name for reference within thetext

Exophoric reference looks outside the text to the situation in which the text

occurs for the item which is being refer to (Paltridgeand Burton, 2000)

E.g.We are at the supermarket and we’ll be here for about another hour

In this example, “The” and “here” are only instances of exophoric reference if the name of the restaurant has not already been referred to earlier in the text (Paltridge and Burton,2000)

Endophoric reference is textual reference referring to an item which is

identified in the text

E.g:"If a man has talent and can't use it, he's failed." "If a man has talent and can't use it, he's failed." In this example, “he”is a man; “it”: talent

A reference item may be either exospheric or endophoric If it is endophoric, it may be anaphoric or cataphoric

Anaphoric reference signifies a word or phrase that refers to another or

phrase used earlier in a text (Paltridge and Burton, 2000)

E.g."No woman can call herself free until she can choose consciously whether

she will or will not be a mother."

In this example, “herself” &“she”: woman

Cataphoric reference describes the use of a word or phrase that refers to

another word or phrase which is used later in a text (Paltridge and Burton,2000)

E.g.When I told them I got the first prize, my parents smiled happily

In this example, “them” refers to my parents

Halliday and Hasan (1976) divide referential cohesion into three sub- types: personal, demonstrative and comparative

When characterizing reference, “It is often considered important in formal semantics that the expression used to refer to an entity must, in its description, be true of the entity That is, if an individual is referred to by the expression must be true of the individual in order for correct reference to take place” (Brown & Yule 1996: 205) However, when we analyse discourse, we are interested not in the correct reference but in the success of reference Successful reference can only be achieved if three conditions are met In the first place, the speaker must have linguistic competence, i.e the speaker and the addressee must know the language in which they communicate In the second place, the speaker must have the cognitive ability That is she/ he must have enough factual knowledge about the reference Thirdly, the speaker must have pragmatic willingness to communicate the total knowledge he has about the referent But this of course may not always be the case; the speaker may wish to keep some information from us (Yule 1996:17)

Nevertheless, Halliday & Hasan (1976) define reference as a case where the information to be retrieved is the referential meaning, the identity of the particular

thing or class of things that is being referred to The cohesion lies in the continuity

of reference, whereby the same thing enters into the discourse a second time Reference is a semantic relation It includes language elements that refer to something else for interpretation They are different from lexical ties by their directionality Lexical cohesive patterns do not depend on each other for their interpretation They belong to open systems while reference and, at the same time, substitution items entirely depend on their items for their interpretation and have no definitional meaning in themselves They are members of closedsystem

There are certain items in every language which have the property of reference Reference is realized by personal pronouns, demonstratives, and the definite article (Ellis 1992; Toolan 2002; Halliday&Hasan 1976; Nunan 1993) In order to get a better view of reference, different types of reference will be definedbelow:

Personal references are reference by means of function in the speech

situation, through category of person in form of personal pronouns and determiners Here is the table showing the system of personal reference

Speaking of morphological features of the personal and possessive pronouns,

it is important to notice that “such forms as I, you, we have no noun antecedents at all; only he – him, she – her, it –it, they – them have The same holds for my, your,

our; only his, her, its, theirhave noun antecedents” (Valeika&Buikiene 2003; 127)

As a result, the personal pronouns I, you and we are exophoric and fulfill deictic function They make reference to the roles of listener and speaker which are outside the text References made outside the text are exospheric while reference made within the text areendophoric (Halliday&Hasan 1976:48)

In many languages, pronoun usage encodes deities Traditionally, pronouns are thought of being as noun substitutes But most subclasses of pronouns perform quite a different function, i.e deictic function From an etymological point of view, the term „deixis‟ originates in the notion of gestural reference (Lyons 1996: 303)

Demonstrative references are references by means of location, on a scale of

proximity, through determiners and adverbs The following table shows the system

of demonstrative reference:

Table 2.3: Demonstrative reference

this these

that those

Here [now]

There then The

(Source: Halliday and Hasan, 1976: 38)

According to Halliday&Hasan (1976: 57), demonstrative reference is defined

as a form of verbal pointing It is made on the basis of proximity The referent is identified by locating it on the scale of proximity.Nunan (1993: 23) states that

“various referential devices enable thewriter or speaker to make multi preferencesto people and things within a text”

Consequently, demonstrative reference is reference by means of location, on the scale of proximity Here belong determiners or adverbs that refer to locative or temporal proximity (here, now, this, these) or distance (there, then, that, those) For example:

The clerks in the office jumped about like sailors during a storm [ ]

There was a self-possessed young lady connected with these access

The demonstrative there refers back to in the office and indicates the location

of an object that is participating in the process

The demonstrative here, there, now, and then point directly to the location of a process or time As regards the remaining demonstratives (this, that, these, those),

they refer to the location of person or object that is participating in the process

An interesting point about the demonstratives this and that have to be mentioned “These items can represent a single word or phrase, much longer chunks

of text- ranging across several paragraphs or even several pages” (Nunan 1993: 23; Toolan 1998; Halliday&Hasan 1976)

Patterns of demonstrative reference as well as other cohesive devices constitute part of the research of the present paper Similarities and differences of the usage of demonstrative reference are presented in the following parts of the research

Comparative references are indirect references by means of identity or

similarity They are expressed through adjectives and adverbs and serve to compare items within atext

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 relation, a relation in the wording rather than in the meaning, the different types of substitution is defined grammatically rather than semantically (1976: 88) There are three types of substitution:

Nominal Substitution

In English the most typical cases of nominal substitutes are: one,ones and the

same The nominal substitutes one/ ones always function as Headofa nominal group

and can substitute only for an item which is in itself Head of a nominal group Moreover, they presuppose a particular noun, usually the one that is found in the

precedingtext

The same can also function as a nominal substitute The main difference

between the substitute‟s one/ ones and the same is that the latter presupposes an entire nominal group including any modifying elements For example:

If only I could remember where it was that I saw someone putting away the box with those candles in I could finish the decorations now – You mean the little coloured ones? (Halliday&Hasan 1976: 91)

Verbal Substitution

The verbal substitute in English is dowhich operates as Head of a verbal group

in the place that is occupied by the lexical verb The latter always takes the final position in the group For example:

He never really succeeded in his ambitions He might done, one felt, had it not been for the restlessness of his nature (Halliday&Hasan 1976: 113)

Clausal Substitution

In clausal substitution the entire clause is presupposed, and the contrasting element is outside the clause The clausal substitutes may take positive form so or negative no For example:

Is there going to be an earthquake? – It sayso

(Halliday&Hasan 1976: 130)

One more way of establishing cohesion is through the use of ellipsis

According to Nunan (1993; 25); ellipsis is when some essential structural element is omitted from a sentence or clause and can be recovered by referring to an element in the preceding text

Ellipsis occurs when an element which can be recovered by referring a preceding element in the text is omitted (Paltridge and Burton,2000)

Haliday and Hasan (1976) claim that “Ellipsis can be interpreted asthat form

of substitution in which the item is replaced by nothing”

The scholars claim that an elliptical item is one which, as it was, leaves specific structural slots to be filled from elsewhere This is very similar to presupposition by substitution The only difference is that in substitution the slot is occupied by some substitutes whereas in the ellipsis the slot is empty This is the reason why we often say that ellipsis is substitution by zero

Like in substitution, the presupposed item is present in the preceding text in ellipsis, i.e ellipsis is an anaphoric relation

Likewise substitution, ellipsis is of three types (Halliday&Hasan)

Nominal ellipsis is ellipsis within the nominal group The structure, as

Halliday&Hasan (1976) claim is that of Head with optical modification; the modifying elements include some which precede the head and some which follow

it, referred to as Premodifier and Post modifier Head is usually a common noun, proper noun or pronoun expressing thething

For example: The flat has a sitting room, a dining room and a bed room Each

has a window overlooking the park

In the sentence, the word „room‟ that is supposed to be placed after the word

„each‟ has been eliminated There is nominal ellipsis relation since the eliminated word isnoun

Verbal Ellipsis is ellipsis within the verbal group An elliptical verbal group

presupposes one or more words from a previous verbal group In the verbal group, there is only one lexical element, and that is the verb itself

For example: They haven’t finished the pictures If it had been, I would have

bought it

In this sentence, the word „finished‟ that is supposed to be placed after „it had been‟ has been eliminated There is verbal ellipsis relation since the eliminated word isverb

Clausal Ellipsis is the omission of the whole clause This type of ellipsis

prevails in dialogues or in other rejoinder sequences, i.e where more than one speaker is involved The attention is paid to the response According to Quirk et al (1982: 266), ellipsis in dialogue occurs in various combinations

For example: Do you come back today? This evening

Additive Conjunction expresses a continuous explanation of the statements

or preceding sentence It is signaled by and, or, 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? (Halliday&Hasan 1976: 294)

In this sentence, „and‟ expresses additive conjunction since it gives addition

information from the second sentence to the first sentence

Adversative Conjunction expresses a contrary meaning between preceding

sentences and following sentences It is signaled by but, only, instead, yet, in fact, though, anyhow, nevertheless, 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

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 once, since, after that, an hour later, etc

According to Halliday and Hasan, the relation between the theses of two successive sentences may be simply one of sequence in time: the one issubsequent

to the other This temporal relation is expressed by words such as„then‟, „and then‟,

„next‟, „afterwards‟, „after that‟, „sequentially‟ and a number of other expressions Halliday and Hasan believe that the temporal relation may be mademore specific by the presence of an additional component in the meaning, as well as that of succession in time

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 inmilk

Causal Conjunction

Causal conjunctions are used to express a cause or a reason It is signal by as a result, consequently, so, for this purpose, on account of this, otherwise, under circumstance

According to Halliday and Hasan, the simple form of causal relation is expressed by the words „so‟, „thus‟, „hence‟, „therefore‟, „consequently‟, and a number of expressions like „as a result (of that)‟,„because of that‟, „inconsequence (of that)‟ All these words and expressions regularly combine with initial „and‟ Under the heading of causal relations, Halliday and Hasan include the specific ones

of result, reason and purpose These are not distinguished in the simplest form of expression; „so‟, for example, means „as a result of this‟, „for this reason‟, and „for

this purpose‟ When expressed a sprepositional phrases, on the other hand, they tend

to be distinct

Halliday and Hasan believe that the distinction between the external and internal types of cohesion tends to be a little less clear-cut in the context of causal relations than it is in the other contexts, because the notion of cause already involves some degree of interpretation by the speaker The simple forms „thus‟,

„hence‟, and „therefore‟ all occur regularly in an internal sense, implying some kind

of reasoning orargument from a premise; in the same meaning we find expressions like „arising out of this‟, following from this‟, „it follows that‟, „from this it appears that‟

2.2.3.2 Lexical cohesive devices

Lexical cohesion determines the instantly meaning or text meaning of the item, a meaning that is unique to each specific instance It provides great deal of hidden information that is relevant to the interpretation of the item concerned (Halliday&Hasan, 1976: 289) Lexical cohesion occurs when two words in a text are semantically related in some way They are related in terms of theirmeaning

"In order to complete picture of cohesive relations it is necessary to take into account also lexical cohesion This is the cohesive effect achieved by the selection

of vocabulary", (Halliday and Hasan, 1976:274) It means that cohesion in a text composed by selection vocabulary and lexical cohesion is part of cohesion that concerns with connection word used Based on Halliday and Hasan explanation, they divide the lexical cohesion into two categories, reiteration andcollocation

a Reiteration

Reiteration is a form of lexical cohesion which involves the repetition of lexical item, at one end of 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 use of a synonym, near synonym, or superordinate (Halliday and Hasan,1976:278)

Repetition

Repetition is to refer back to preceding word Repetition is a part of lexical cohesion that involves that repetition of lexical item

For example: A conference will be held on national environment policy At this

conference the issue of salivation will pay an important role (Renkema, 1993:39)

The word „conference‟ is repeated in next sentence It is categorized as repetition because the meaning of „this conference‟ is still related with „a conference‟ at first sentence

Synonyms and near synonyms

Synonymy is the experiential meaning of the two lexical items which is identical; this does not mean that there is total overlap of meanings simply that so far as one kind of meaning goes, they „mean thesame‟

For example: You could try reversing the car up the slope The incline is not

all that steep, (Nunan,1993:29)

Synonym is a broad category According to Cruse (2000: 156), words whose semantic similarities are more salient than their differences are synonyms For Saeed (1997) synonyms are different phonological words which have the same or very similar meanings For examples, couch/ sofa, toilet/ lavatory, large/ big, etc

According to Lyon, synonym means two or more form are be associate with the same meaning In above sentences,the word „slope‟ and „incline‟ has the some meaning The author used different words but has some meaning in order to makes the variation in the text

Super ordinate

According to Halliday and Hasan (1976: 278) super ordinate is a name for more general class It is used to refer to a word which has general properties, not the specific one

For example: I said there's someone I'm waiting for if it's a day, a month, a

year The relation between the words “aday”, “a month”, “a year” in this sentence

can be classified as superordinate In this case, “a year” is the superordinate of “a

day” and “a month” Because “a day” and “a month” are parts of “a year”

b Collocation

Collocation is the second type of lexical cohesion and deals with the relationships between words on the basis of the fact that these often occur in the same surroundings By this type of cohesion the reader‟s background knowledge about the subject in hand plays an important role in the perception of lexical-collocational relationships These canbe text as well as context-bound, which means

that words and phrases related in the text do not necessarily relate in any other texts aswell

Halliday and Hasan (1976) recognize collocation as an important part of creating cohesion in connected text They argue the case of collocation as follows: The cohesive effect depends not so much on any systematic relationship as on their tendency to share the same lexical environment, to occur in collocation with one another In general, any two lexical items having similar patterns of collocation – that is, tending to appear in similar context - will generate a cohesive force if they occur in adjacent sentences (Halliday&Hasan 1976: 286)

According to Renkema (1993:39-40), "Collocation deals with the relationship between words on the basis of the fact that these often occur inthe same surroundings." Furthermore added by Halliday and Hassan (1976: 319), “A word that is in some way associated with another word in the preceding text, because it is

a direct repetition of it, or is in some sense synonymous with it, or tends to occur in the some lexical environment, coherence with that word and so contributes to the texture.” Example: “sheep and wool”, “collage and study”, or “congress andpolitician”

For Nunan (1993: 29), collocation includes all those items in a text that are semantically related

As it can be seen, lexical items are analyzed with the meaning relation between them, which “tend to occur in similar lexical environments because they describe things that tend to occur in similar situations or contexts in the world” (Morris &Hirst 1991: 22)

Most linguists who have written about cohesion agree that lexical collocation

is a problematic category because in some cases it is difficult to decide for certain whether a cohesive relationship exists or not

Patterns of lexical association play an important role for cohesion and coherence In the first place, they help us to interpret a text rapidly In the second place, they contribute to our sense of the text as coherent

Due to the low frequency of collocations in the opening paragraphs of selected short stories, this type of cohesive device is not taken into account in the study

2.3 Summary

The first section of this chapter has given a brief description of previous studies related to the research area, which have been done overseas and in Vietnam These are considered as a valuable source of reference In the second section, the review of the theoretical background concerning text, discourse, cohesion and other issues related to the matter of this thesis has been presented Basing on such a foundation, all the features of cohesive devices in the four paragraphs of selected short stories by O Henry will be described and analyzed in the chapter

Chapter 3 METHODOLOGY

This chapter is carried out with a view to mapping out the methods that are utilized in the whole study It comprises of two parts: (1) research- governing orientations and (2) research methods

Suggesting some possible implications for teaching the cohesive devices used

in English to Vietnamese students of English as a foreign language

3.1.2 Research setting

The data of the study is cohesive devices which are collected from four selected short stories by O Henry The study is carried out in the educational environment with the purpose of helping learners at Vinh Bao High School to understand and use cohesive devices effectively

3.1.3 Research approach

The thesis is conducted by using descriptive method that studied about cohesive devices used in short stories by O Henry which is carried out with following orientations

Firstly, the thesis is started with data collection by using a various sources of printed publications as books and from internet After finishing the collection of data, they are analyzed based on the theory of cohesion by Halliday and Hasan (1976) The steps for analyzing the data are started from classifying the data into each type

of cohesive devices, counting the percentage, and describing the findings of cohesive devices used and its function And finally certain conclusions and implications for using cohesive devices in an effective way are withdrawn

3.1.4 Criteria for intended data collection and data analysis

The cohesive devices for the study have been collected from the most trusted stories by O Henry In collecting the cohesive devices a large number of cohesive devices in the short stories by O Henry in general have been found This easily makes the learners of English confused when acquiring them It is due to the framework of the thesis, only grammatical and lexical cohesion found in the four selected short stories by O Henry have been selected for investigation These cohesive devices are categorized into groups according to their linguistic form which also are the essential criteria for their classification The types of cohesion depend either on semantic relation in the linguistic system or on lexicon-grammaticalrelations

3.2 Research methods

3.2.1 Major methods and supporting methods

This study is designed to investigate the use of cohesive devices in the opening paragraphs of selected short stories by O Henry, so the descriptive method has been chosen as major one.This method is utilizedin order to give a full account of semantic relation between an element in the text and some other element that is crucial to the interpretation ofit

Some others as analytical, synthetic have also been used as supporting methods As a matter of fact, to investigate in details the use of cohesive devices with their different components and semantic relations in the linguistics system with various nuances of meanings, analytical method is also employed, and then the synthetic method is used for grouping them on the basis of certain criteria according

to semantic features Moreover, quite a few of research techniques have been combined, such as statistics and componentialanalysis

In conducting the investigation, last but not least, setting up a regular consultancy with supervisor for a guidance and academic exchange is a critical technique to find out a right direction for doing the research successfully

3.2.2 Data collection techniques

The selective material related to cohesive devices plays a crucial rolein terms of supplement data for the study The majority of cohesive devices used in the study are collected from four selected short stories byO Henry

In brief, four selected short stories are useful instruments to collect data Google search should be accounted because a large number of relevant journals, newspapers,

reference materials have been taken thanks to this tool Tables are also helpful for stating the results of analysis and the percentage as well Moreover, frequent talks with the supervisor, lecturers and experts on the field have proved to be a very useful way for the completion of the study Also,the study is carried out on the basis of the author's personal experience

3.2.3 Data analys is techniques

In this study, the data is investigated on the basis of discourse analysis The collected data will be processed to investigate some linguistic features of cohesive devices Therefore, after being collected, the selective material is sorted out to serve

as illustration examples for the analysis of cohesive deviceused and its function Basing on this, the author has tried to find out the prevailing cohesive devices in the four of selected short stories by O Henry so as to apply in teaching and learning English

The data collected from the reliable resources is put under a process of statistical analysis using descriptive method They are first computed and analyzed by statistical procedures to find the answers to the question of the research questions

The data are collected by conducting documentary technique The sources for the analysis are from materials and references written by linguists in English The steps for analyzing the data are started from classifying the data into each type of cohesive devices (Grammatical and Lexical cohesive devices), counting the percentage, and describing the findings of cohesive device used and its functions

In order to achieve the aims and objectives of the study as stated in chapter 1, the process of doing this research has come through three major stages Writing the thesis proposal was the first stage in the process which lasted nearly two months from February to April 2016 After the proposal with draft outline having been approved, a material selection from different sources related to main topic of the study was implemented In order to gather useful materials, this second stage was a long process

to collect, sort out all the needed data and took more than four months The last stage began from July to October for analyzing and discussed the results from data collection This was also the time that the thesis was completed both inform and content

3.3 Summary

To sum up, this chapter gives an overview of how to carry out the research In research design, the approach namely the descriptive method is dealt During the process of researching, major methods such as descriptivemethod and analysis method are mainly used for the findings of the study Stories, books, the internet tools, tables and so on are useful instruments for data collection and analysis Also, it mentioned how the data for this studyare collected and analyzed Cohesive devices for the study are selected carefully from reliable sources to make the study reliable and valid The data is analyzed based on the theoretical background presented in thischapter

Chapter 4 FINDING AND DISCUSSION

This chapter will present the analysis of the usage of cohesive devices which are identified in the selected short stories by O Henry Based on the results of the analysis, two aspects of cohesive devices, namely grammatical cohesive devices and lexical cohesive devices are both identified through the words, phrases and clauses in the short stories by O Henry

From grammatical cohesive devices, there is the usage of reference, substitution, ellipsis and conjunction Meanwhile, from lexical cohesive devices there is the usage of reiteration and collocation The following analysis will be shown in more detail the usage of cohesive devices that have been identified in the selected stories by O Henry, the analysis is shown in the two sub-chapters in accordance with the aspects of cohesive devices, namely findings on grammatical cohesive devices and findings on lexical cohesive devices

4.1 Finding

4.1.1 Grammatical Cohesive Device in the O Henry’s stories

Grammatical cohesion is a grammatical relation within elements in the discourse There are four kinds of grammatical cohesive devices, namely reference, ellipsis, substitution and conjunction The grammatical cohesive devices are shown

in Table 4.1