Grammatical cohesive devices in tiếng anh 12 reading texts and their vietnamese equivalents

CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY I, the undersigned, hereby certify my authority of the study project report entitled GRAMMATICAL COHESIVE DEVICES IN TIẾNG ANH 12 READING TEXTS AND THEIR VIETN

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

HANOI OPEN UNIVERSITY

CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY

I, the undersigned, hereby certify my authority of the study project report entitled GRAMMATICAL COHESIVE DEVICES IN TIẾNG ANH 12 READING TEXTS AND THEIR 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, 2020

Le Thi Xuan

Approved by SUPERVISOR

Date:

i

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 Ho Ngoc Trung, 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

A special word of thanks goes to all the lecturers of the M.A course at Hanoi Open University and many others, without whose support and encouragement it would never have been possible for me to have this thesis accomplished 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

ii

vi vii viii

Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION

Chapter 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.2.1 The Theory of discourse and Discourse Analysis 6

iii

2.4 An introduction to the new textbook “Tiếng Anh 12” and “ Học Tốt Tiếng Anh 12 Thí Điểm”

29

Chapter 3: GRAMMATICAL COHESIVE DEVICES IN TIẾNG

ANH 12 READING TEXTS AND THEIR VIETNAMESE

EQUIVALENTS IN HỌC TỐT TIẾNG ANH 12

3.1 Grammatical cohesive devices used in English texts 31

cohesive devices in the chosen English texts 40 3.2 A comparison and contrast between the use of grammatical

cohesive devices in Tiếng Anh 12 reading texts and their Vietnamese

equivalent in Học Tốt Tiếng Anh 12

4.3 Recommendations and suggestions for further research 55 REFERENCES

APPENDICES

APPENDIX I

APPENDIX II

v

ABSTRACT

The thesis deals with the use of grammatical cohesive devices in the reading texts in the textbook “Tiếng Anh 12” and the Vietnamese equivalents in “Học tốt Tiếng Anh 12” In the thesis, the theoretical background knowledge is based

on the viewpoints of Halliday and Hasan (1976) The data was collected from the ten reading passages extracted from the new English textbook for grade 12 students, called “Tiếng Anh 12”, first published in 2015 and the Vietnamese equivalents in “Học Tốt Tiếng Anh 12” Combinations of methods such as descriptive, statistic and contrastive analysis are used with a view to: Firstly, investigating the frequency and distribution of grammatical cohesive devices used in the chosen English texts; Secondly, finding out the similarities and differences between English texts and their Vietnamese translation in terms of the cohesive devices used and their semantic relationships, as well as the possible occurrences of cohesion shifts Findings reveal that Vietnamese and English have more similarities than differences in terms of grammatical cohesive devices, but there are significant differences in the frequency of their occurrence The similarities are significantly preserved for the purpose of accurateness, transparency and formality Accordingly, not all English grammatical cohesive devices are translated into Vietnamese which causes a lot

of challenges in learning and teaching this phenomenon Related recommendations are suggested in the hope of providing English teachers and their students with some useful strategies in teaching and learning grammatical cohesive devices in general, and in teaching and learning reading and writing skills in particular more effectively

vi

CA: Contrastive analysis

CAH: Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis

E1: Nominal Ellipsis

E2: Verbal Ellipsis

E3: Clausal Ellipsis

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Table 2.1: Types of cohesion based on Halliday and Hasan 12

Table 3.1: The occurrence of reference in the English texts 33

Table 3.2: The occurrence of ellipis in the English texts 35

Table 3.3: The occurrence of conjunctions in the English texts 37

Table 3.4: density and distribution of major group of grammatical

cohesive devices in the chosen English texts

40

Table 3.5: Reference in English texts and Vietnamese equivalents 42

Table 3.6: Substitution in English texts and Vietnamese equivalents 44

Table 3.7: Ellipsis in English texts and Vietnamese equivalents 44

Table 3.8: Conjunction in English texts and Vietnamese equivalents 45

Figure 3.1: The percentage of reference in the English texts 33

Figure 3.2: The percentage of ellipis in the English texts 36

Figure 3.3: The percentage of conjunctions in the English texts 39

viii

Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Rationale

The English language, due to its hegemony throughout the world, has become an international language, a lingua franca, it is both the most common language and pivotal tool in international communication and global integration Moreover, much more demand, as a result of rapid globalization and increasing international trade, has been made for people who can communicate in English In Viet Nam, English has long been considered an important subject in schools and a major at the tertiary

level

In English as well as other languages, discourse is essential in communicating thoughts and ideas In order to understand any discourse, it must achieve cohesion Apparently, discourse unity can only be established via the use of cohesive devices that contribute to text cohesion According to Halliday and Hasan (1976), a text is

“any passage, spoken or written, of whatever length, that does form a unified whole” and “is best regarded as a semantic unit” Halliday and Hasan (1976) perceived cohesion as the only factor that distinguishes texts from nontexts Therefore, the mastery of cohesive devices is a crucial element for academic success in any language program where English is the medium of instruction

As a teacher of English who has been working for seventeen years, I have seen hand difficulties that high school students face in comprehending as well as in writing English texts, especially in utilizing cohesive devices which are fundamental

first-to create cohesively unified texts It cannot be denied that understanding thoroughly the use of cohesive devices as linguistic means in the text is very essential for students of English The demand for analyzing cohesive devices used

in the texts of the textbook becomes extremely urgent Therefore, this paper is carried out with a view to exploring and describing the grammatical cohesive devices used in the reading passages in the new textbook “Tiếng Anh 12” edited by Hoàng Văn Vân and their Vietnamese equivalents in “Học Tốt Tiếng Anh 12”, based on the work of Halliday and Hasan (1976), in order to help high school students enhance their reading comprehension and academic writing skills, in particular and to improve English teaching and learning in general

1.2 Aims and objectives of the study

Aims: To help learners of English master the use of grammatical cohesive devices

in English reading and writing

Objectives:

- To identify the density and distribution of grammatical cohesive devices used in the reading passages in the new textbook “Tiếng Anh 12” edited by Hoàng Văn Vân and their Vietnamese equivalents in “Học Tốt Tiếng Anh 12”

- To find out the similarities and differences between the use of grammatical cohesive devices in the reading passages in the textbook “Tiếng Anh 12” edited by Hoàng Văn Vân and their Vietnamese equivalents in “Học Tốt Tiếng Anh 12”

- To give some implications for teaching and learning cohesive devices to enhance students’ reading comprehension skills and writing skills

1.3 Research questions

The following research questions are raised for exploration while carrying out this study

1 How are grammatical cohesive devices used in the new textbook Tiếng Anh

12 reading passages in terms of distribution and cohesive functions?

2 What are the similarities and differences in using cohesive devices in reading passages in the textbook “Tiếng Anh 12” edited by Hoàng Văn Vân and their Vietnamese equivalents in “ Học Tốt Tiếng Anh 12”?

3 What implication is drawn for teaching and learning cohesive devices?

1.4 Methodology of the study

1.4.1 Research orientations

The study cannot reach its final page without a logical system of approaches and methods Descriptive approach was applied to identify the types of grammatical cohesive devices used in the chosen texts The quantitative and qualitative approaches were adopted to investigate the density of cohesive devices And then, contrastive analysis was carried out to find out the similarities and differences

between grammatical cohesive devices in English texts and their Vietnamese equivalents

1.4.2 Research Methods

Firstly, a number of materials on discourse analysis and contrastive analysis are discovered to give the research a theoretical base Then, it is ensured that none of the most noticeable grammatical cohesive devices in reading passages in the textbook

“Tiếng Anh 12” edited by Hoàng Văn Vân and their Vietnamese equivalents in “Học Tốt Tiếng Anh 12” is missed in the analysis and synthesis A contrastive analysis is applied to identify the similarities and differences in using grammatical cohesive devices in the reading passages in the chosen textbook “Tiếng Anh 12” and their Vietnamese equivalents in “Học Tốt Tiếng Anh 12” Finally, the results are drawn out

so that the author can suggest some teaching implications

1.5 Scope of the Study

Within the limitation of the study, only grammatical cohesive devices in the reading texts in the textbook “Tiếng Anh 12” are observed in terms of their distribution and cohesive funtions A contrastive analysis is also applied to identify the similarities and differences in using grammatical cohesive devices in the English reading passages and their Vietnamese equivalents Only two skills, reading and writing are chosen to present

1.6 Significance of the study

1.6.1.Theoretical significance

The study brings with it the task to verify the correctness and significance of linguistic theory by working on the discourses of different issues in social life mentioned in the researched textbook The study was also hoped to become a valuable writing paper for those who are interested in giving further studies on grammatical cohesive devices in academic texts From what have been found in the study, it is desired to be applied to draw out other researches on other kinds of texts

or documents

1.6.2 Practical significance

Thanks to some recommendations in the study, it was hoped to bring great benefits

for learners of English who want to use grammatical cohesive devices to express any ideas effectively Moreover, hopefully, the researcher hopes to help Vietnamese teachers and learners overcome difficulties in teaching and learning this phenomenon

1.7 Structure of the study

This graduation thesis is designed with 4 chapters:

- Chapter 1 (Introduction) introduces Rationale, Aims and objectives of the study, Research questions, Methods of the study, Scope of the study, Significance of the study, and Structure of the study

- Chapter 2 (Literature review) deals with the theory related to Discourse and Discourse Analysis, cohesion, and cohesive devices, as well as the theory of contrastive analysis

- Chapter 3 (Data analysis) analyses grammatical cohesive devices used in the reading texts in the new textbook edited by Hoàng Văn Vân for grade 12 students and their Vietnamese equivalents in Học Tốt Tiếng Anh 12, basing on the view of Holliday and Has an (1976); Compares and contrasts to find out some differences and similarities in using cohesive devices in English and Vietnamese; gives some implications for teaching and learning cohesion basing on reading and writing skills

- Chapter 4 (Conclusion) aims at summarizing the thesis by showing the study results and giving some concluding remarks Some suggestions for further studies are also included to promise the continuance of the author’s future work

Chapter 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter is devoted to a study of cohesive devices in English, presenting a detailed overview of the different categories of cohesion in English as suggested

by Halliday and Hasan (1976) as well as some other researchers The main objective is to set a theoretical foundation for a linguistic analysis of grammatical cohesive devices used in some English texts in the course book

“Tiếng Anh 12”

2.1 Review of the previous studies

Cohesion has been studied thoroughly in various aspects Most scholars including Halliday and Hasan (1976), Beaugrande and Dressler (1981), Lyons (1995) define cohesion as the network of lexical, grammatical, and other relations These relations link various parts of a text, organize it and require the reader to interpret words and expressions by reference to other words and expressions

in the surrounding sentences In other words, cohesion is a surface relation and

it connects together the actual words and expressions that we can see or hear

There are two main divisions of cohesion namely: grammatical and lexical This paper focuses on grammatical cohesion It is a relation between two adjacent text units Grammatical cohesion connects together the actual words and expressions; because of that it is a surface relation It is divided into reference, substitution, ellipsis and conjunction

The theory and practice of grammatical cohesion have been widely analyzed by many foreign linguists such as Halliday and Hasan (1976), Beaugrande and Dressler (1981), Lyons (1995), Baker (1992), Yule (1996) as well as the Lithuanian scholars Valeika (2001) Abundant works about grammatical cohesion have been written, but it would seem that further investigation is needed in the usage of grammatical cohesion appearing in the academic texts as well as in a textbook for high school students

In Vietnam, discourse analysis has also drawn much attention of many linguists, namely Trần Ngọc Thêm (1999), Diệp Quang Ban (2008), Nguyễn Hòa (2008) Cohesion and cohesive devices have been addressed widely in literature as a

part of either discourse analysis or text analysis Abundance of books and articles have been published with the aim of discussing the distribution and the importance

of these devices in various types of texts But most of these studies were directed towards the study of written texts such as novels, essays, articles, children stories, students’ writings, etc

This study has been designed to discuss the use of grammatical cohesive devices

in the reading texts in the textbook “Tiếng Anh 12” edited by Hoàng Văn Vân and their Vietnamese equivalents in “Học Tốt Tiếng Anh 12” Then a comparison will

be drawn between them aiming to find the similarities and differences between the two documents regarding the use of grammatical cohesive devices

2.2 Review of theoretical background

2.2.1 The Theory of Discourse and Discourse Analysis

2.2.1.1 The concept of discourse

There are some definitions of discourse according to many theories According to Crystal, discourse is continuous stretch of (especially spoken) language larger than a sentence, often constitutes a coherent unit, such as a sermon, argument, joke, or narrative In this case, discourse is seen as a communication language, an exchange between speaker and listener, and a personal activity which typically determined by social objectives

Discourse can also be defined as an instance of language use whose type can be classified on the basis of grammatical and lexical choices and their distribution in main versus supportive materials, theme, style, and the framework of knowledge and expectations within which the addressee interprets the discourse The analysis of language in use is called discourse analysis According to Paltridge

2006, it focuses on knowledge about language beyond the word, clause, phrase and sentence that is needed for successful communication This branch of linguistics got its name in 1952 It was suggested by Z S Harris who put the idea forward of analyzing the certain elements in texts according to their same environments

Usually, the object of the discourse analysis is a text As Virtanen (2008, 1044) claims, studying entire texts in context is one of the main tasks of discourse

analysis Context can be understood as either understanding of factors outside the analyzed text, or as knowledge of other parts of the analyzed text referred to

as co-text According to Cook 1994, Discourse analysis must be both a study

of the formal linguistic qualities of stretches of language (texts), and a study of the variable perception of these stretches of language by individuals and groups” Paltridge (2011, 9) terms the discourse analysis “<…> a view of language at the level of text”

One of the ways to look at discourse is to think about it as the social construction of reality According to this view, texts are seen as communicative units which are embedded in social and cultural practices Besides this, discourses include different social languages which are used to perform and recognize socially situated identities (Paltridge 2011: 9-12) Discourse is closely related

to culture, and this makes it the object of investigation which causes the interest

of sociologists as well as linguists

In brief, discourse is a unit of spoken and written language that has relevance among sections (cohesion), integration (coherent), and meaningful Based on the explanation, discourse uses the language that can be a series of sentences or sequences of speech (although discourse may be one sentence or utterance) Discourse is formed by a series of sentence or utterances that have certain principles, the principle of integrity (unity) and cohesion (coherent) Moreover, the complete discourse is the discourse which has supporting topics Whereas, the coherent discourse is the discourse which has sentence regularly and systematically, and shows the idea Based on the theories above, the discourse is like a “puzzle” that has some small pieces The small pieces are called sentence, that containing the idea Therefore, structure, coherence, and continuity among sentence to another sentences should be appropriate, in order to become a meaningful discourse

Although discourse is understood and defined differently, the definition by Halliday and Hasan, in which the discourse means language in use, seems to be the clearest to follow That is also the concept adapted in this research Besides, as far as the scope

of discourse is concerned, discourse refers not only to spoken interactions and interviews, but also to written and printed words, such as newspapers, articles, and

letters The discourses in the research are written texts in textbook

2.2.1.2 Discourse and text

The distinction between discourse and text has been paid much attention to for ages Although it is common knowledge that this distinction is not always visible, confusion of these two terms may result in the failures of discourse analysis There exist two opposite points of view to the problem

On the one hand, text and discourse are seen inconsistently Widowson (1979:98) makes a very clear and explicit distinction between text and discourse According to him, a text is the combination of sentences with the relation of their grammatical cohesion, whereas discourse is the use of such sentences for communicative

purposes and discourse has coherence Cook (1989:168) considered text as “a

stretch of language” doing nothing with context, while discourse is also “a stretch

of language”, but in context Crystal (1992: 72), sharing the same ideas with

Widdowson, says that text should be used only for writing and discourse for speech

On the other hand, the two terms are said to be interchangeable In their book

“Cohesion in English”, Halliday and Hasan define text as follows:

A text is a unit of language in use It is not a grammatical unit, like a clause or a sentence; and it is not defined by its size A text is sometimes envisaged to be some kind of super sentence, a grammatical unit that is larger than a sentence but is related to a sentence in the same way that a sentence is related to a clause, a clause to a group and so on: by constituency, the composition of larger units out of smaller ones But this is misleading A text is not something that is like a sentence, only bigger; it is something that differs from a sentence in kind A text

does not consist of sentences, it is realized by, or encoded in, sentences (Halliday

and Hasan 1976:1-2)

In their sense, “text” refers to “discourse”, and is “a passage of discourse.”

Schiffrin (1994: 363-364) supports this by stating that text is a linguistic product of discourse that can be studied without reference to its contextual elements as an evidence of linguistic rules Salkie, (1995: IX) views text and discourse analysis as just one area of linguistics - “the systematic study of language”; therefore, according

to him “a text, or a discourse, is a stretch of language that may be longer than one

sentence Thus, text and discourse analysis is about how sentences combine to form texts.” Cohesion, then, is a principle factor in determining texture since it is a means

through which we can relate our utterances or sentences

Taking everything into account, text and discourse are closely related One offers the data for the analysis of the other Text being a stretch of language becomes discourse in a certain situation where it gains meaning for its users In this work, only the written texts will be investigated, and one of the types of analysis used will be discourse analysis One of my purposes in this work is to analyze the use of grammatical cohesive devices in English Cohesive devices assist in creating cohesive ties that help to create texture For this reason, the term “text” in this work will be used to refer to the unit from which the data for the analysis was collected

2.2.1.3 Spoken and written discourse

Spoken and written discourses are different modes of discourse Cook, (1989:50) distinguishes them as follows:

“Spoken discourse is often considered to be less planned, more open to intervention

by the receiver There are some kinds of spoken discourse, however -like lesson, lectures, interview, and trials- which have significant features in common with typical written discourse Conversely, there are at times when readers do have rights

to affect written discourse Written responds to the market.”

Brown and Yule (1983:13), moving on the same route, differentiate spoken discourses from written ones in terms of their various functions: the first is used for the establishment and maintenance of human relationships (interactional use) and the second for the working out of and transference of information (transactional

use) In “Discourse analysis: an introduction”, Paltridge (2006: 25) concludes that

“speaking and writing draw on the same underlying grammatical system but in general they encode meanings in different ways depending on what they wish to present.”

In Cook’s opinion (1989: 128), whether the discourse is spoken or written profoundly influences the choices of the appropriate cohesive ties This present study focuses on product of communicative process Thus, though both spoken and

written texts are made to be persuasive and attractive, we just look into cohesion in written discourses, not in the spoken ones The question is how we can analyze a discourse There is nothing better than basing ourselves on disciplines of discourse analysis

2.2.1.4 Discourse analysis

Discourse Analysis (DA) has been developed from the work of different disciplines

in the 1960s and early 1970s, including linguistics, semiotics, psychology, anthropology and sociology Discourse analysts study language in use, written texts and spoken data of all kinds under the approach different from that of old grammarians

British DA was mainly influenced by M.A.K Halliday’s functional approach of language His framework emphasizes the social function of language and the thematic and informational structure of speech and writing De Beaugrande (1980), Halliday and Hasan (1976) as well as Prague School of linguists have made their significant contribution to this branch of linguistics in pointing out the links between grammar and discourse

Yule (1996: 139) state in his book, study of language “in the study of language, some of the most interesting questions arise in connection with the way language is used”, rather than what its components are (…) we were, in fact, asking how it is that language-users interpret what other language-users, make sense of what we read

in texts, understand what speakers mean despite what they say, recognize connected

as opposed to jumbled or incoherent discourse, and successfully take part in that complex activity called conversation, we are undertaking what is known as discourse analysis."

Discourse analysis, therefore, is very important to understand or interpret a text One

of the very key technical terms in DA is cohesion A brief introduction about cohesion as a core studying matter of this thesis will be discussed later on

2.2.2 Cohesion and Coherence in Discourse

The term ‘cohesion’ was used by Halliday (1976) and later employed by other linguists such as Hasan (1976), Cook (1994), Lyons (1995) and Yule (1996) Halliday and Hassan (1976:11) analyzed relations between adjacent sentences and

clauses, they named these relations cohesive relations They claimed that cohesion

is a semantic relation and that cohesion exists “where the interpretation of some elements in the discourse is dependent on that of another”

Baker (1992:180) claims that cohesion is: “The network of lexical, grammatical,

and other relations which provide links between various parts of a text These relations or ties organize and, to some extent create text, for instance by requiring the reader to interpret words and expressions by reference to other words and expressions in the surrounding sentences and paragraphs Cohesion is a surface relation; it connects together the actual words and expressions that we can see or hear.”

Cohesion and coherence closely interrelate in the way that cohesion is regarded as one of the ways of making the text coherent While coherence is regarded as the

implicit links of utterances in a discourse or of sentences in a text, cohesion is

defined as "the use of explicit linguistic devices to signal relations between

sentences and parts of texts" [8, p.83] Halliday and Hasan [23] and Cook [9] give out cohesive devices used as formal links that causes texts to cohere or stick together However, through the analysis of the collected data, it can be said that the

three most suitable cohesive devices used in this thesis are: reference, parallelism and repetition

In conclusion, cohesion is the semantic relation between one element and another in

a text (Halliday & Hasan, 1976) A text is cohesive when the elements are tied together and considered meaningful to the reader Cohesion occurs when the interpretation of one item depends on the other, i.e one item presupposes the other (Halliday & Hasan, 1976) Let’s have a look at the following 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

2.2.3 Types of Cohesion

Halliday and Hasan state that “cohesion is expressed partly through grammar and

partly through the vocabulary.” In his book An A-Z of ELT: a dictionary of terms and concepts used in English Language Teaching, Thornbury (2006:32) confirms

Halliday and Hasan’s idea that by means of grammar and lexical, cohesion can help connect texts, either spoken or written According to them, there are no clear rules

to define the relationship between grammar and lexicon; the basic idea is that the more general meanings are expressed through the grammar, the more specific ones are expressed through vocabulary Cohesion follows the same pattern; some meanings are expressed through grammar and some through vocabulary Cohesion

expressed through grammar is known as grammatical cohesion; it is divided into

four types: reference, substitution, ellipsis and conjunction Cohesion expressed

through vocabulary, lexical cohesion, is divided into relations of reiteration

(repetition, synonymy, etc.) and collocation (co-occurrence of lexical items) The two types of cohesion, grammatical and lexical, can be classified as follows:

Table 2 1: Types of cohesion based on Halliday and Hasan

COHESION

Reference Exophoric (situational) Reiteration Repetition

Anaphoric

[to preceding text]

Cataphoric [to following text]

Antonymy Superordinate

and Meronymy General word Substitution Nominal substitution Collocation

Verbal substitution Clausal substitution Ellipsis Nominal ellipsis

Verbal ellipsis Clausal ellipsis

Conjunction Adversative

Additive Temporal Causal

In brief, according to Halliday and Hasan (1976), the concept of cohesion is a semantic one; it refers to relations of meaning that exist within the text, and that define it as the text Cohesion occurs where the interpretation of some elements in the discourse is dependent on that of another Furthermore, Halliday and Hasan said cohesion is classified into 2 broad types: grammatical and lexical While the grammatical type is realized by various grammatical devices used to make relations among sentences more explicit, the lexical one is established through structure of vocabulary; by relating words in terms of their meaning Both types of cohesion and their divisions are presented in Table 2.1 based on Halliday and Hasan (1976) However, because of time limitedness, only grammatical devices are analyzed in this research

2.2.4 Grammatical Cohesion

2.2.4.1 Reference

In Halliday and Hasan’s (1976) taxonomy, the first source of cohesion in English is reference According to them, reference is a term used to refer to certain items, which cannot be interpreted semantically in their own right but rather need to make reference to somewhere else in the text for their interpretation Reference occurs when participants retrieve and identify presupposed information in the immediate context, and in this manner building a cohesive relation

In the example, in (Halliday and Hasan’s, 1976: 31), “three blind mice, three

blind mice, see how they run! See how they run”, the pronoun, they, refers to three

blind mice within the textual world itself They stated: ……reference is the specific nature of information that is signalled for retrieval In the case of reference the

information to be retrieved is the referential meaning, the identity of the particular

thing or class of things that is being referred to; and the cohesion lies in the

continuity of reference, whereby the same thing centres into a discourse a second time, (Halliday and Hasan’s, 1976: 31)

Although reference is expressed by grammatical means, it is a semantic relation

“since the relationship is on the semantic level, the reference item is in no way constrained to match the grammatical class of the item it refers to What must match are the semantic properties” (Halliday & Hasan, 1976: 32)

Depending on whether the presupposed element occurs within the text or outside it, reference can be exophoric or endophoric Exophoric reference refers to items outside the text, i.e the source of information is retrieved from the immediate context of situation, and Endophoric reference or endophora refers to items in the text, i.e information retrieved from the text itself

Reference concern on the relations between a discourse (text) and preceding or following (element) In addition, Reference is related by semantic relationship According to Halliday and Hasan reference is the relation between an element of the text which is interpreted by the participants Reference is potentially cohesive because the thing that serves as the source of the interpretation may itself be an element of text Halliday and Hasan have special term for situational reference Halliday and Hasan refer to the EXOPHORA or EXOPHORIC reference Then, they distinguish with ENDOPHORIC as general name for reference within the text Consider the following examples:

a: For he is a jolly good fellow And so say all of us

(Halliday & Hasan, 1976: 17-32)

b: Wash and core six cooking apples Put them into a fireproof dish

(Halliday & Hasan, 1976:2-18)

c: This is how to get the best results You let the berries dry in the sun till all the moisture has gone out of them Then you gather them up and chop them very fine

(Halliday & Hasan, 1976: 17)

Exophoric reference is represented in example (a) The pronoun he does not refer to

any element in the text, but rather to an element that occurs in the context of the

situation Though the text does not make it clear who he is, participants are able

to identify the referent by the context in which the situation occurs Example (b)

is an instance of endophoric reference; the personal pronoun them in the second sentence refers back to six cooking apples in the first sentence

Endophoric reference is further sub-divided into two types: anaphoric reference (reference to the preceding text) and cataphoric reference (reference to the following text) In example (b) above, them refers anaphorically to six cooking

apples, whereas, in example (c) the demonstrative pronoun this refers forward

to the whole sentence Koch (2001:4) observed that in written discourse,

“anaphoric reference is more often used than cataphoric reference.”

Nevertheless, Halliday and Hasan (1976) asserted that because cataphoric reference does not always function across sentence boundaries, it does not always play a role in texts’ unity Therefore, it can be said that anaphoric reference is the only type that is applicable to cohesion, as it “provides a link with a preceding portion of the text” (Halliday & Hasan, 1976: 51) They (ibid: 329) said “The typical direction is the anaphoric; it is natural, after all, to presuppose what has already gone rather than what it is to follow” Therefore, reference is a device which allows the reader/hearer to trace participants, entities, events, etc in a text

In English three types of reference are distinguished: personal, demonstrative, and comparative reference The table below is a summary of Halliday and Hasan

(ibid: 33) types of reference:

ANAPHORA

[ to following text]

CATAPHORA

According to Halliday and Hasan, there are three types of reference:

personal, demonstrative, and comparative

Personal Reference

According to Halliday and Hasan (1976:37), personal reference is “reference by

means of function in the speech situation, through the category of PERSON.” The

category of personals includes personal pronouns (I, me, you, he, him, she, her,

they, them, etc.), possessive determiners (my, your, his, her, etc.) and possessive

pronouns (mine, yours, his, hers, etc.) They are considered to be cohesive

devices only when they link to some other elements in the text In what follows, table 2.3 demonstrates three classes of personal reference in English (Halliday and Hasan’s, 1976: 38):

Table 2.3 Personal Reference

without other person (s)

Halliday and Hasan (1976: 38) differentiated between the dimension of near and the dimension of not near According to them (Halliday and Hasan’s,1976: 57- 58), “The adverbial demonstratives here, there, now, and then refer to the location

of a process in space or time and they normally do so directly, not via the location

of person or object that is participating in the process.” Thus, adverbials

typically function as adjuncts in the clause They do not function as elements within the nominal group, and they have a secondary function as qualifier (e.g

that man there) However, “the remaining (nominal) demonstratives this, these, that, those and the, refer to the location of something … -a person or an object-

that is participating in the process; they therefore occur as elements within the nominal group” (Halliday and Hasan’s,1976: 57-58)

Demonstrative reference is a reference by means of location, on scale of proximity Demonstrative reference expresses through determiners and adverbs

Demonstrative determiner includes this, these, that, those, and the They refer to

location, or thing, typically some entity, person or objects that participating in the process; they occur as elements within a text

Comparative Reference

Comparative reference establishes relations of identity and similarity or

difference through the use of adjectives like “same, identical, different, else, better,

more, etc and adverbs like equally, similarly, so, such, more, etc.” (Halliday &

Hasan, 1976: 39) This means that comparison includes two things that are being compared; and any comparative attached to one entity or concept thus implies the existence of the other entity or concept

In brief, comparative reference is expressed through adjectives and adverbs and serves to compare items within a text in terms of identity or similarity Comparative reference divided into two; “general comparative” and

“particular comparative” Table 2.4 demonstrates Halliday and Hasan’s system

of comparative reference in English

Table 2.4: Comparative Reference

Comparison

Identity

Same, equal,

identical,

identically

Similarity

Such similar, so similarly, likewise

Difference

Other different else, differently, otherwise, fewer, less, further,

additional, so, - as

Numerative

Equally-, quantifier, e.g;

so many, as

any comparative adjectives and

adverbs,

Epithet

Comparative adjectives and adverbs, e.g;

equally good

2.2.4.2 Substitution

Unlike reference, which is a relation between meanings within text, substitution

is a relation between linguistic items, such as words or phrases, i.e it functions as

a linguistic link on the lexico-grammatical level While reference is a semantic phenomenon, substitution, including ellipsis, is a grammatical phenomenon Substitution is defined as the replacement of one item by another and not to its referent The substitute item maintains the same grammatical function as that for which it substitutes It is used in order to avoid the repetition of a particular item; instead, one of the grammatical resources of the language is used to replace the item (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

In short, substitution is the replacement of one item by another Halliday and Hasan expound that substitution holds a text together through preventing repetition and creating cohesive grammatical cohesion, not in the meaning, but in the wording, between words, clauses, and phrases In addition, substitution is a relation on the lexico grammatical level, the level of grammar and vocabulary or linguistics form A substitute is a sort of counter which is used in the place of

repetition of particular item In the following example, the words one and does are both substitutes for axe and knows respectively It shows that the substitute

item is replaced without any effect on the meaning

a; My axe is too blunt I must get the sharper one

b; You think Joan already knows? – I think everybody does

In this example, The words ‘one’ and ‘does’ are substitute items; ‘one’ substitutes for ‘axe’ and ‘does’ substitutes for ‘knows’, and it would be entirely possible to

‘replace’ ‘one’ by ‘axe’ and ‘does’ by ‘knows’ Since substitution is a

grammatical relation, a relation in the wording rather than in the meaning, the different types of substitution are defined grammatically rather than semantically

In English, substitute has function as a noun, as a verb, as a clause There are three types of substitution; Nominal, Verbal, and Clausal

Nominal Substitution

Nominal substitution is the substitution with an item that is appropriate with the

nominal genus It is commonly expressed with the substitute one/ones singular and plural) and same The substitute one/ones always function as Head of

nominal group and only for substitute an item which is Head of nominal

group One is not only as substitution, but also as the personal person and cardinal number The item same occurs as cohesive element of the comparative types In such instance, same is reference, not substitute However, there is another use of same Unlike one, which is presupposed only the noun Head, the

same presuppose an entire nominal group including any modifying elements, such

as explicitly repudiated For example;

a; I’ll have two poached eggs on toast, please

b; I’ll have the same

Here, the word the same is reference, not substitution, modifying element may

occur with the same; but possible to add reservation, and this takes the form of

Qualifier, which is normally introduced by ‘but’ or ‘with’

Verbal Substitution

In English, the verbal substitute item is do Do operates as a Head of a verbal

group That is occupied by lexical verb; and its position is always final in the group For example;

a; … the words did not come the same as they used to do

b; I don’t know the meaning of half those long words, and, what’s more, I don’t

believe you do either!

In the example above, the first do substitutes for come (a), and the second do

substitutes for know the meaning of half those long words (b)

Clausal Substitution

There is one further type of substitution which is not presupposed by an element

within the clauses but an entire clause The word used as the substitutes are so and

not For example;

a; Is there going to be an earthquake?

b; It says so

In this example, ‘so’ is presupposed by the whole of the clause ‘ there going to be

an earthquake’ and the contrastive environment is the provided by the word ‘says’

which is outside it Let’s consider the following example

a; We should recognize the place when we come to it

b; Yes, supposing not; then what do we do

In this example, ‘not’ substitutes for we do not recognize the place when we come

to it There are three environments in which clausal substitution takes place

including: report, condition, and modality In each of these environments, it may take either of two form, positive or negative, the positive is expressed by so, the negative is expressed by not

2.2.4.3 Ellipsis

Ellipsis is the omission of word or a part of the sentence According to Halliday and Hasan, concern on ellipsis and substitution are very close because ellipsis is the replacement of elements within a text by nothing On the other hand, ellipsis presented by Evelyn Hatch is that ellipsis can be thought of as a ‘zero’ tie, because the tie is not actually said For example;

Joan brought some carnations and Catherine some sweet peas

The structure of the second clause is only subject and complement The second

clause can be interpreted only as Catherine brought some sweet peas The

predicator ‘brought’ is presupposed to be supplied of the preceding clause Actually, the normal clause is should be;

Joan brought some carnations and Catherine brought some sweet peas

There are three types of ellipsis; Nominal ellipsis, Verbal ellipsis, and Clausal

ellipsis

Nominal Ellipsis

Nominal ellipsis means the omission of the nominal group or ellipsis within the nominal group For example;

These students are clever Those are stupid

If the elliptical group is filling out, the sentence is should be;

These students are clever Those students are stupid

Verbal Ellipsis

Verbal ellipsis means verbal ellipsis within the verbal group For example;

a; Have you been swimming?

b; Yes, I have

The verbal group in the answer have (yes I heave) instances of verbal ellipsis

It can be said that Yes I have been swimming And there is no possibility of feeling

out with any others items

Clausal Ellipsis

Clausal ellipsis means ellipsis within the clause Clause in English is expressed by various speech functions, such as statement, question, response, which has two parts of structure, consisting of Modal Element and Proportional Element For example;

The Duke was going to plant a row of poplars in the park

(modal element) (proportional element)

a; What was the Duke going to do?

b; Plant a row of poplars in the park

In the answer, the modal element is omitted; the subject and verbal group, the finite operator was Therefore, there is operator ellipsis in the verbal group If the clause is not omitted, it should be;

a; What was the Duke going to do?

b; The Duke was going to plant a row of poplars in the park

2.2.4.4 Conjunction

The last instance of grammatical cohesion is conjunction It entails the use of

conjuncts, or conjunctives, such as and, yet, so, then, etc to link parts of the

text to each other As a grammatical device, it connects what is to follow to what has gone before According to Halliday and Hasan (1976), these expressions indicate a cohesive effect but it is different from other devices; conjunctions are not simply an anaphoric relation, they are rather different in nature from the other cohesive relations: reference, substitution, and ellipsis They stated: Conjunctive elements are cohesive not in themselves but indirectly, by virtue of their specific meanings; they are not primary devices for reaching out into the preceding (or following) text, but they express certain meanings which presuppose the presence of other components in the discourse

Halliday and Hasan (1976) explained that conjunction is a different type of semantic relation Unlike the types mentioned above, the semantic relation is

represented in a number of conjunctive elements that are not cohesive in themselves; instead, it is the meanings of these conjunctive elements that create ties between parts of the text They asserted that conjunction is not a “kind of search instruction” as in reference, or the replacement of some elements by some others as

in substitution, or the substitution by zero elements as in ellipsis With

conjunctions, however, the semantic relations are a specification of the way in which what is to follow is systematically connected to what has gone before In other words, conjunctive relations are not related to any specific sequence If two sentences are joined together as a result of conjunctions, they are not necessarily limited to that specific order In this view, the same relations are sometimes mutually dependent through the meaning of two continuous parts They stated: The conjunctive relations themselves are not tied to any particular sequence in the expression; if two sentences cohere into a text by virtue of some form of conjunction, this does not mean that the relation between them could exist only if they occur in that particular order Two sentences may be linked by a time relation, but the sentence referring to the event that is earlier in time may itself come later, following the other sentence (Halliday & Hasan, 1976:227)

In describing conjunction as a cohesive device, we are focusing attention not on the semantic relation, as realized through the grammar of the language, but on one particular aspect of them, namely the function they have of relating to each other linguistic elements that occur in succession but are not related by other structural means (Halliday & Hasan,1976:227)

Therefore, conjunctions join the textual elements together in order to a guarantee a coherent semantic unit Conjunctions are not bound to a particular text element to form a structural semantic relation; the semantic relation is established through their function Halliday and Hasan (1976) suggested that the semantic relations which apply to un-structurally related sentences are called conjunctions, and the elements which make these relations explicit are called conjunctives, adjuncts or discourse adjuncts Consider Halliday & Hasan’s examples of adversative relations :

a; Although he was very uncomfortable, he fell asleep

b; He was very uncomfortable Nevertheless he fell asleep

(Halliday & Hasan, 1976:229)

In the second example, the adverb nevertheless links two sentences and the

link between them is not structural but cohesive However, the first example illustrates the structural relation within the sentence

In brief, conjunction is the relationship which indicates how the subsequent sentence

or clause should be linked to the preceding or the following (part of the) sentence

In addition, the relationship in conjunction can be hypotactic (combine a main clause with subordinate clause or phrase) or paratactic (have two main clauses) Conjunction is rather different in nature from the other cohesive relation It is not simply anaphoric relation Halliday and Hasan divided conjunction into four types; Additive, Adversative, Causal, and Temporal

Additive Conjunction

Additive conjunction contributes to giving additional information without

changing information in the previous phrase or clause This is the kind of the

conjunction relation including: and, further (more), moreover, besides that, by the

way, or, nor, either

Adversative Conjunction

The basic meaning of adversative conjunction is “contrary to expectation” The expectation may be derived from the content of what is being said, or from

communication process This is kind of the adversative conjunction; However,

but, nevertheless, in fact, instead

Causal Conjunction

Causal conjunction emphasized on “result, reason, and purpose” and the simple

form of causal relation is expressed by so, thus, hence, therefore,

consequently, accordingly, and number of expression such as a result (of that), in consequence (of that), because of that All these regularly take place in initial

clause or sentence, and express causality

Temporal Conjunction

Temporal conjunction is the relationship of time sequence within the sentences

The simplest of temporal conjunction type is then Besides then, there are many kinds of sequential senses including: next, afterwards, after that, soon, subsequently,

and others

2.2.5 A brief overview of Contrastive analysis

A systematic comparative study analyzing component of the differences and similarities among languages was clearly recognized toward the end of 19th century and the beginning of 20th century The term ‘Contrastive linguistics’ was suggested and was defined as “ a sub-discipline of linguistics concerned with the comparison of two or more languages or subsystems of languages in order to determine both the differences and similarities between them”, (Fisiak, 1981) Contrastive Analysis is the method of analysing the structure of any two languages with a view to estimating the differential aspects of their systems, irrespective or their generic affinity or level

of development Contrastive analysis of two languages becomes useful when it is adequately describing the sound structure and grammatical structure of two languages, with comparative statements, giving due emphasis to the compatible items

in the two systems

Contrastive analysis (CA) is the systematic study of a pair or more of languages with

a view to identifying their structural differences and similarities From 1940s to 1960s before the Second Language Acquisition (SLA) field as we know it was established According to some linuistics of this time, the most efficient materials are those that are based upon a scientific description of the language to be learned, carefully compared with a parallel description of the native language of the learner Robert Lado, in 1957 wrote: “Individuals tend to transfer the forms and meanings and the distribution of forms and meanings of their native language and culture to the foreign language and culture- both productively and when attempting to speak the language and to act in the culture and receptively when attempting to grasp and understand the language and culture as practiced by natives.” In the 1960s and early 1970s, Contrastive Analysis was used extensively in the field of Second Language Acquisition Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH) – this extension of the notion of

CA attributed the ability to predict errors to a CA of two languages, a predictability that practitioners associated with the degree of similarity between the two systems

Robert Lado wrote: “… those elements that are similar to this native language will

be simple for him, and those elements that are different will be difficult.”

The Contrastive Analysis emphasizes on the influence of the mother tongue in learning a second language in phonological, morphological and syntactic levels Contrastive Analysis is not merely relevant for second language teaching and learning but it can also make useful contributions to machine translating and linguistics typology It is relevant to the designing of teaching materials for use in all age groups The following guiding principles for contrastive study is suggested: (1)

To analyze the mother tongue and the target language independently and completely.(2) To compare the two languages item-wise-item at all levels of their structure (3) To arrive at the categories of a/ similar features b/ partially similar features c/ dissimilar features – for the target language (4) To arrive at principles of text preparation, test framing and target language teaching in general

2.3 Framework of the Study

As mentioned previously, the framework used for the analysis of grammatical cohesive devices in this thesis is based on the taxonomy of Halliday and Hasan (1976) Based on this framework, the sources of cohesion that are examined in the

selected texts are reference, substitution, ellipsis, and conjunction, each with its

subcategories A summary of Halliday and Hasan’s cohesion and coding scheme (1976) is presented as follows:

I Reference: R.1/R.2/R.3

1 Pronominals: R.1

a Sing masculine: he- him- his

b Sing Feminine: she –her- hers

c Sing Neuter: it- its

d Plural: they- them- their- theirs

2 Demonstratives and Definite Article: R.2

a Demonstratives near: this- these- here

b Demonstratives far: that- those- there- then

c Definite article: the

3 Comparatives ( not complete lists): R.3

a Identity: same–identical

b Similarity: similar(ly)- such

c Difference: different/other, else

d Comparison- quantity: more/less; as many, ordinals

e Comparison- quality: as+ adj/comparatives and superlatives

II Substitution: S.1/S.2/S.3

1 Nominal Substitution: S.1

a for noun head: one/ones

b for nominal complement: the same

c for attribute: so

2 Verbal Substitution: S.2

a For verb: do- be- have

b For process: do the same- likewise

c For preposition: do so, be so

d Verbal reference: do it/that -be it/that

3 Clausal Substitution: S.3

a Positive: so

b Negative: not

III Ellipsis: E.1/E.2/E.3

1 Nominal Ellipsis: E.1

a Deictic as head : specific, nonspecific, post ( deictic)

b Numerative as head: ordinal, cardinal, indefinite

c Epithet as head: superlative, comparative, others

2 Verbal Ellipsis: E.2

a Lexical ellipsis

b Operator ellipsis

3 Clausal Ellipsis E.3

a And, and also, nor, and not, or else

b Furthermore, add to that, alternatively

c By the way, incidentally

d That is, in other words, e.g., thus

e Likewise, in the same way, on the other hand, by contrast

2 Adversative : C.2

a Yet, though, only, but, however, even so, all the same

b In point of , in fact, actually

c But, and, conversely, on the other hand

d Instead, on the contrary, rather

e At least, I mean, or rather

f In any case, either case, in any case, any how

3 Causal: C.3

a So, then, therefore, consequently

b On account of this, in consequence, with this in mind

c For, because

d It follows, arising out of this, to this end

e Then, in that case, in such event, under the circumstances, otherwise

f In this respect, here, otherwise, apart from this, in other respects

d At once, soon, next time, next day, meanwhile, until then, at this moment

e Then, next, finally, in conclusion

f First-next, in the first place, to conclude with

g Up to now, at this point, for now on

h To sum up, to resume

2.4 An introduction to the new textbook “Tiếng Anh 12” and “Học Tốt Tiếng Anh 12 thí điểm”

A textbook is a guide map for both teachers and students to know exactly what are

supposed to be covered To grade 12 students, who are working hard for their exams, the use of their textbook is even more essential in order to be sure that they have already gone through all they need

The new English textbook for grade 12, called “Tiếng Anh 12”, was composed by a group of lecturers including: Hoàng Văn Vân, Hoàng Thị Xuân Hoa, Phan Hà and some others It was first published in 2015 The syllabus for “Tiếng Anh 12” is the continuation of the textbook for grade 10 and 11 The book is designed under theme-based approach with 10 units These 10 units are set up in the following order:

Unit 1 Life Stories

Unit 2 Urbanization

Unit 3 The green movement

Unit 4 The mass media

Unit 5 Cultural identity

Unit 6 Endangered species

Unit 7 Artificial Intelligence

Unit 8 The world of work

Unit 9 Choosing a career

Unit 10 Lifelong learning

There are 8 parts in each unit Each part is carried out in a period of forty-five minutes They are arranged as follows:

Getting started -> Language -> Reading-> Speaking -> Listening -> Writing -> Communication and culture -> looking back

Reading is the third part of each unit Each reading passage is more or less of 300 words in length These passages closely relate to the themes of the units

“Học Tốt Tiếng Anh 12” is a reference book, based on the new textbook “Tiếng

Anh 12” It serves as a guide for grade 12 students to deal with the tasks given in each part of the textbook It also provides the translations of the reading texts which are chosen as the Vietnamese equivalents of the focus in this thesis

2.5 Summary of the chapter

To sum up, in this part, some terms in discourse analysis are defined Among which,

grammatical cohesive devices – the subject of the thesis – are discussed in details Accordingly, there are four subcategories of grammatical cohesive devices, namely reference, substitution, ellipsis, and conjunction Besides, features of the chosen reading texts in the research textbook are also described

Chapter 3: GRAMMATICAL COHESIVE DEVICES USED IN TIẾNG

ANH 12 READING TEXTS AND THEIR VIETNAMESE

EQUIVALENTS IN HỌC TỐT TIẾNG ANH 12

This chapter aims at exploring the frequency of cohesive devices through textbook observation It deals with both descriptive statistics for cohesive devices and significance testing for differences between these devices across the two parallel chosen data (the English texts and their Vietnamese translation) The chapter is divided into three main sections The first section deals with the results of the semantic analysis of cohesion, in which the frequency of occurrence and percentages of these devices in the English texts, as well as the total number of occurrences and the average percentage of the statistics are recorded and presented in details The second section presents the comparision and contrast between the use of grammatical cohesive devices in English texts and their Vietnamese equivalent It should be repeated that the analyzed book is named

“Tiếng Anh 12,” by Hoàng Văn Vân (2015) for grade 12 students at intermediate levels throughout Vietnam The book is divided into 10 units, all of the texts in the book are put into the observation The main methods used are descriptive, statistics and comparison and contrast Table and chart demonstrations are used to analyze the statistical data The third section provides some implication for teaching and learning grammatical cohesive devices

3.1 Grammatical cohesive devices used in English texts

As being stated earlier, grammatical cohesion in Halliday and Hasan’s viewpoint includes four subcategories, namely, reference, substitution, ellipsis and conjunction The following is the details of each type used in the chosen reading texts

3.1.1 Reference

According to the theoretical background mentioned above, there are certain items in every language which have the property of reference Instead of being interpreted semantically in their own right, they make reference to something else for their interpretation In other words, referential items indicate that information has to be retrieved from elsewhere When an item in one sentence refers to an item