Coherence and Cohesion

Weaving meanings together in

Discourse:
1. lexical cohesion
 What makes a text hang together?
• Coherence and cohesion
• Basically, any text becomes an effective text when it meets the criteria below :
• meanings in a text make sense in relation to the context of the text as well as
the listener’s or reader’s prior experience and cultural knowledge: this is what
is known as coherence
• meanings are related or tied together by linguistic devices such as repetition
or text connectors: this is what is known as cohesion, and the devices that
create these links are referred to in general terms as cohesive devices.
• It is important to realise that, even where there are no recognisable cohesive
signals in a text, a listener or reader may use their cultural knowledge together
with their experience of language use to construct coherence. Look at the
dialogue below, for example, and see if you can make sense of the interaction:
• Luanne [shouting] Phone!
• Anton I’m in the bath
• Luanne OK
(Adapted from Widdowson, 1978, p. 29)
Luanne calls Anton to answer the phone (a message communicated in a single word –
Phone!), and Anton’s response functions to inform Luanne that he is unable to come.
To make sense of the interchange you will have (unconsciously) drawn on your prior
knowledge of similar social situations, as well as your experience of how spoken texts
typically ‘hang together’.
Coherence, therefore, should be understood as primarily a mental phenomenon, one
that is generated by the experience of a reader or listener rather than by the text
itself. However, not all texts rely solely on the reader/listener to create coherence.
Often a coherent text is the result of effective use of cohesive devices. Such devices
serve to 'glue‘ together the different meanings that make up a text and help a
reader/listener make sense of a situation. For example, they may express logical
relationships connecting different parts of a message. Consider the text below:
I once acquired a set of recordings of a Bach piano concerto. I was very fond of
it, but my mother was forever criticizing my poor taste […] Consequently, I now
hardly listen to Bach. (Biber et al., 2002, p. 390)
Linking adverbials such as consequently in the text above create and mark the
semantic relationship which writers or speakers perceive as holding between
the utterances they produce. Other cohesive devices such as reference signal
that the identity of what is being talked or written about can be recovered from
the surrounding text by means of pronouns.
• For example, the meaning of it in the second sentence below can be
recovered by tracking back in the text to the noun group it references
(underlined) in the first sentence:
• The company is set to announce a new contract to supply equipment to
hospitals across the region. Hopefully it will safeguard jobs into the next
decade.
• In sum, although the absence of cohesive devices does not automatically
make a text incoherent, such devices play an important role in contributing to
the coherence of a text. One of the main reasons for incoherence in a text is
the lack of cohesive relations, or cohesive ties between items in the sense
that each sentence is largely self-contained and does not contribute to the
interpretation of any other. Thus the text does not hang together as an
internally cohesive piece of language. As a result, it is unlikely that any reader
could make such a random collection of disconnected topics coherent by
supplying an overall meaning or communicative purpose.
• By coherence we mean binding the meanings in a text together so as to
create a unified text . In other words, coherence is sometimes referred to as
giving texture (consistency) to a text. Lexical cohesion, which refers to the
lexical features that link one part of a text with another , such as repetition ,
synonymy and hyponymy, is crucial in creating a coherent text. In fact, lexis,
as Halliday (1975, p. 281) has stated 'is simply the open-ended and most
'delicate" aspect of the grammar of a language'. Therefore, as the figure
below outlines, cohesion includes both lexical and grammatical components.
Types of cohesion
Using lexis to make a text hang together
• Lexical chains
• Strings of connected words within a text are referred to as lexical chains. When
several of these chains come together in a text to create an overall impact and
meaning, the text is said to be lexically cohesive. As Firth stated , we know a word
by the company it keeps (1957, p.11). Accordingly, the lexical chains provide
evidence of the unity of meaning, consistency and tight focus of the text. Not all
texts will show the same degree of consistency and focus.
• In the following text, which is concerned with explaining volcanic activity, all the
words which are connected to each other and which form threads of related
meaning are underlined. (Note: for ease of reference, each sentence or clause
complex has been numbered.)

• [1] A volcano begins when magma inside the earth forces its way up into the crust.
[2] When pressure in the magma builds up, the magma forces its way up, and exits
as lava. [3] A volcano also throws up steam and other gases, ashes and dust. [4] It
does not throw up fire. [5] Sometimes material from inside the volcano is thrown
50 or 60 kilometres into the air. [6] In fact the dust and ashes from a volcano may
blow around the world for years.
• [7] There are three types of volcanoes: an active volcano is one which is
erupting; [8] a dormant volcano is one which is ‘sleeping’ – it may not have
erupted for many years but could erupt at any time; [9] and an extinct
volcano is one which is dead and will not erupt again. (Shubert, 1998, p. 35)

• We can see from the identification of the lexical chains that two major
aspects of volcanoes are developed as the text unfolds: (a) the composition
of volcanoes (sentences 1–6) and the different types of volcano (sentences
7–9) and (b) the material processes involved in volcanic eruption. We can
see that, together, the two chains build a set of related words concerning
volcanic activity. The lexical chains, in other words, help create the unity of
meaning, consistency and tight focus of the text. For this reason, analysis of
lexical chains can provide evidence of how cohesive a text is.
• Cohesion through taxonomic relations
• In addition to creating texture through repeating the similar or opposite meanings in
a text, lexical reiteration can be used to indicate class-subclass and part-whole
relations. In the case of class-subclass relations, the superordinate or the item
referring to a more general class links to items referring to members of its class.
Taxonomies (or classification systems) are frequently drawn on in the academic
prose register. The more specialized the field, the more specialized the taxonomy.
• We have kinds of taxonomies: part-whole taxonomies (e.g. bus, car, train are all
types of transport), whole- part taxonomies (e.g. plant and its’ parts such as seed
and shoot). In part–whole taxonomic relationships, the relation between a part (e.g.
seed or shoot) and the whole (e.g. plant) is referred to as meronymy. Co-meronymy
is the relation between two parts of the same whole (e.g. plumule and radicle). As in
the case of relations of member to class, relationships of part to whole are also given
various names in English depending on the field. For example, mushrooms (part) are
an ingredient of beef stroganoff (whole). Terms for ‘part’ include part, content,
ingredient, constituent, element, component, piece, segment and portion.
2. Grammatical Cohesion
Weaving an argument together
• As you may remember, there is a number of lexical resources
which are commonly used to ‘glue’ together the meanings in a
text. These resources for lexical cohesion can be divided into sense
relations (synonymy, antonymy, meronymy and hyponymy) and
lexical repetition. Yet, there is a second group of linguistic
resources which help to make a text hang together. These are the
resources for grammatical cohesion, they include grammatical
devices such as the text connectors like “but, for example, and
then again” to link different (and often contrasting) views and
ideas. These connecting words and phrases are referred to as ‘text
connectors’.
• Grammatical cohesion is the use of various grammatical devices to ‘glue’
together the meanings in a text and help to create its ‘texture’. In the
following sections you will see how grammatical analysis can be used to
diagnose and make explicit areas for development in a writer’s textual
meaning-making.
• Analysing text connectors
• Text connectors are words or phrases that connect ideas across (but not
within) clause complexes and stretches of text, and make explicit the
relationship between them. We can identify four main types of relationship:
• additive: adding points (using and for example)
• contrastive: contrasting, comparing, and conceding points, e.g. yet
• causal: signalling reasons or consequences , e.g. Then, so
• temporal: signalling time, sequence or transition, e.g. Now.
Linking meaning logically: the role of text connectors
• Text connectors play a similar role to conjunctions in that they connect
different parts of a text by explicitly signalling the semantic link (such as
comparison or result). However, whereas conjunctions are restricted to
joining together words, groups or clauses within a clause complex, text
connectors bind together meanings across longer stretches of text beyond the
clause complex:
• Wars are costly exercises because they cause death and destruction.
(structural – conjunction)
• Wars cause death and destruction. They can also cause rifts in political
alliances. As a result they are costly exercises. (cohesive – text connector)
• Often, as in the second example, text connectors come at the beginning of
sentences.
• So, we can say that, text connectors serve to weave
together ideas and arguments. That is, they create bridges
to previous sections of, and meanings in a text and act as
signposts in the development of a discussion. It is also
clear that these connectors are to some extent sensitive to
context, particularly mode. In the next section we will
explore another grammatical device for creating texture –
a cohesive device referred to as ‘reference’.
Reference: is the use of words such as pronouns and articles, which do not
have meanings of their own if the sentence they are in, is taken out of context
and presented in isolation. To infer their meaning the reader has to refer them
to something else that appears in the text (Tom: "How do you like my new
Mercedes Vito?" - Marry: "It is a nice van, which I'm also thinking of buying".).
- Sentences connect by means of two types of references:
Anaphoric references– those that refer a reader/listener ‘backwards’ to a
previously mentioned point in the text. e.g. it, this.
Cataphoric references– those that point the reader/listener forward. E.g the
man we’ve all been waiting for, the one and only– Mr Sanders.
• Pronouns are an example of a reference item, which is a grammatical
resource that serves to keep track of the participants (i.e. the people and
things) in a text as it develops. Reference items can be used to signal that
what they are referring to can be retrieved or recovered in a previous or
subsequent section of the text. For example, she in the sentence below refers
back to my sister Laura:
• Ten days after the war ended, my sister Laura drove a car off a bridge. The
bridge was being repaired: she went right through the Danger sign.
(Atwood, 2001, p. 8)
Aside from pronouns, other common reference items are determiners (used as
specific reference items). In the extract above, for example, The in The bridge
signals that a bridge in the previous sentence is being referred to. Notice that
in this case, grammatical cohesion (The) works together with lexical cohesion
(repetition of bridge).
• The following extract from news reports provides an illustration of reference-
retrieval problems:
• Ampofo was being outboxed, but then amazingly put his opponent down in
the third and fifth rounds. The new champion, who lost the title to Regan a
year ago, said …
• In the case above we have an example of what is termed indirect reference,
where the connection has to be inferred. Thus the reader must do a certain
amount of work in order to infer that Ampofo is The new champion.
• Notice, though, that your interpretation is affected by your background
knowledge; for example, someone familiar with the world of boxing would
probably have little difficulty interpreting this example.
• Third person pronouns (he/she/it/they) may also require a good deal of work
on the part of the addressee, particularly in spontaneous interaction. The
following conversational extract illustrates this point. See if you find any of
the underlined items difficult to retrieve.
• Nobody really likes, you know, snow snowmen and things like that. Okay? So
we built this snowman round this rock and this car came back cos he came
he just came in to hit it and he burst into and broke his bumper, this massive
dent in his bumper and he drove round. Cos they did it to me before. I made
another one in the park earlier. And they just drove in, knocked it over and
ran out. So I put in a rock this time and it was so funny though. (Biber et al.,
1999, p. 331)
• The listener/reader has to do a fair amount of work to interpret several of these
references. For example, it is necessary to infer that he is the driver of the car and
they are the people in the car. In two of the cases, it seems to refer to the
snowman but in the other cases, the pronoun it refers more generally to what
happened.
• Another potential source of confusion when using or interpreting third person
pronouns concerns gender and the issue of gender bias. For example, if the
gender of a referent is unknown or irrelevant, which pronoun form do English
speakers use? For example, how would you respond to the following comment?
• I went to see the new Romeo and Juliet last night with a friend. I thought it was a
great production but my friend didn’t like it at all.
• Which of the following responses would you make?
• Why didn’t he?
• Why didn’t she?
• Why didn’t he or she?
• Why didn’t they?
Substitution and ellipsis as Grammatical Cohesive Devices:
• Substitution and ellipsis are both devices used by English speakers to avoid
having to repeat redundant or retrievable information. They are in many
ways similar to reference, and there is often considerable overlap between
reference, substitution and ellipsis.
• There are three types of substitution:
• Noun substitution
• Verb substitution
• Clause substitution
• Examples:
• In noun group substitution, the words used for substitution are one/ones, the
same:
• Which windows do you want me to clean first?
The ones at the front.
• Could I have the scallops for a starter?
I’ll have the same please.
• In verb group substitution, the verb do is used to substitute for another verb
group:
• Did anyone lock the door?
Someone must have done.
• In clause substitution, so substitutes for a positive clause and not for a negative
clause:
• Is it going to rain?
The forecast says so.
• Is the party over yet?
I hope not.
• Josh said he’ll finish the report before he goes.
Well if not, the boss’ll be furious.
• Ellipsis is the omission of part of a clause or clause complex when that part
can be understood by the listener or reader. It functioned to achieve
grammatical reduction, particularly in situations where speakers are rapidly
processing their own speech and responding to the speech of others. Like
reference items, ellipsis may be either textual or situational. Textual ellipsis
(also called ‘endophoric ellipsis’) refers specifically to elements which can be
recovered from the text rather than the situation; it is therefore cohesive.
• Situational ellipsis (also called ‘exophoric ellipsis’), on the other hand, is non-
cohesive. Compare the following, where < > indicates the ellipsed
word/phrase:
• < > Want a lift to the station?
• I’m sure they told me he was from Japan. That’s why I was so surprised when I
realised he wasn’t < >.
• In the first example, the subject and finite (Do you) is omitted, but it can be
supplied from the situation and is thus an example of situational ellipsis, and
not cohesive. In the second example, however, the prepositional group from
Japan can be retrieved from the previous clause; the ellipsis establishes a
cohesive link between the two clauses and is therefore an example of textual
ellipsis.
• Both textual and situational ellipsis may take place at different points in the
clause, initial, medial or final. Here are some examples of textual ellipsis
where different grammatical elements have been omitted:
• Ellipsis of subject: <many of these genes>
• Many of these genes have been identified and < > are known to encode
normal constituents of cells and endocrine systems.
• Ellipsis of subject and finite: <the patient will>
• in fact the patient will very often tell you what is wrong with them […] I don’t
mean < > give you a diagnosis but they will tell you what the matter is if you
give them time.
• Ellipsis of everything after the finite:
• <got two plants in it>.
• This got two plants in it! It has < >.
• Ellipsis of whole clause: <he’s had something to eat>
• he’s had something to eat then oh yes < > definitely < >