Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Different texts or discourses are classified into different genres. According to Swales (as cited in
Berzlnovich, 2008), the theory of genre concerns the pragmatic knowledge shared between the
communicative events with common communicative aims. This shared knowledge involves
established default items in texts of a particular genre and also assumptions about subject matter
and stylistic choices. In Halliday and Hassan (1976), it has been stressed that cohesion is
sensitive to the diversities of discourse. Though lexical cohesion is present in the cohesive
systems of all forms of discourses, the collocation of cohesive types strongly varies for genres.
Studies have demonstrated that discourse and text tend to be cohesive to a greater or lesser
degree, depending on genre (Bublitz, 2011). Dividing cohesive devices into two main categories
of grammatical and lexical cohesion, Halliday and Hassan (1976) mention that however
luxuriant the grammatical cohesion displayed by any piece of discourse, it will not form a text
unless this is matched by cohesive patterning of a lexical kind (p. 292). They suggest that
lexical cohesion, though on the surface of text, is nevertheless related to conceptual structures,
and that cohesion is able to signal the relations between these structures. Halliday and Hasans
(1976) model of lexical cohesion is based on a division of the various lexical cohesive devices
For over three decades now, matters of cohesion and coherence have intrigued researchers of text
and discourse. According to Halliday and Hasan (1976), Halliday (1985) and Hasan (1984), the
type, number, and degree of utilization of cohesive devices used in the text contribute to the
cohesiveness of a text. In spoken and written English discourses, accordingly, individual clauses
and utterances are linked semantically by grammatical connections (McCarthy, 1991), which
cohesion can be divided into grammatical and lexical cohesion. Grammatical cohesion includes
devices such as reference, substitution, ellipsis and conjunction, while lexical cohesion is divided
into reiteration (repetition, synonymy etc.) and collocation (co-occurrence of lexical items).
Synonymy Synonymy refers to [] the fact of two or more words or expressions having the
same meaning. In this case, [] lexical cohesion results from the choice of a lexical item that
is in some sense synonymous with a preceding one [] (Halliday and Hasan, 1976: 331). For
example sound and noise in the following example illustrate synonymous cohesion, with noise
manifesting the repetition type of lexical cohesion too: He was just wondering which road to
take when he was startled by a noise from behind him. It was the noise of trotting horses. He
dismounted and led his horse as quickly as he could along the right-hand road. The sound of the
Collocation Halliday and Hasan (1976) say that collocation is achieved through the association
created by habitually co-occurring lexical items. The items occur in similar environments
because they describe things or happenings that occur in similar situations. For example, when
one sees the noun pipe in a sentence, it is more probable that the verb to smoke will also appear
in the sentence
According to Bublitz (2011), connectedness is present in every part of language such as word,
phrase, clause, and sentence. But they are different in kind since they are intra-sentential
connections which are ruled by phonological and grammatical procedures. The inter-sentential
semantic connections which connect current items with preceding or following ones by
grammatical and lexical items are the evidence for cohesion. Hoey (1991) argues that lexical
cohesion is the single most important form of cohesion, accounting for something like forty
percent of cohesive ties in texts. He continues that various lexical relationships between the
different sentences making up a text provide a measure of the cohesiveness of the text. The
centrality and importance to the text of any particular sentence within the text will be determined
by the number of lexical connections that sentence has to other sentences in the text. Halliday
and Hasan use cohesion to refer to relations of meaning that exist within a text and that define it
as a text (Halliday & Hasan 1976:4). The definition is thus a semantic one, and like all the
components of the semantic system, cohesion is realized through grammar and vocabulary.
linguistic features, highlighting the relation of theme and figuration in the works. However, such
studies have not paid attention to the discourse and pragmatic aspects of the texts, which are
crucial for a thorough description and interpretation of the writers idiolect. This study, therefore,
will examines aspects of textual cohesion in the poems, using the methods and insights of
discourse analysis. With Halliday and Hasans (1976)cohesive devices viz: ellipsis, references,
and conjunction, as the analytical platform, the study will shows some linguistic strategies used
by the poet to achieve inter-sentence connection in the poetry. It also shows the
network of interdependencies among linguistic and non-linguistic features, which give the poetry
a thoroughly cohesive structure. The aim is to demonstrate that cohesive ties have the potentials
The purpose of this study is to explore and explain the occurrence of two types of lexical
cohesive devices, i.e. collocation and synonymy evident generally in poems. The corpus for the
analysis comprises all words for each poem and the model for analysis will be taken from
Halliday and Hasan (1976). The manner and frequency of occurrence of both collocation and
synonymy in each poem will be investigated and calculated. Synonymy is the prominent
cohesive device which manifests itself within a large number of cohesive chains. Another
significant finding is the salient presence of chain leaps across unrelated synonymous and
collocational words. The analysis of the poems will demonstrates that collocational bonds are
the salient cohesive devices occurring in this genre. The striking presence of chain leaps across
unrelated collocational words is another important finding. The study will makes some suggested
comments on how the discourse of each genre and the discursive forces there in could render the
textual realization of cohesion what it is. The findings of this study carry implications for writing
1: What are the patterns of lexical cohesion in the discussion sections of applied linguistic
academic articles?
2: What are the patterns of lexical cohesion in the language of well-established political
newspapers?
3: What are the differences in the use of lexical cohesion between the two genres?
4: What are the implications of these differences for coherence in the two genres?
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
According to Schiffrin (1994), discourse is often discussed along formalist and functionalist
particular unit of language above the sentence. In functionalist, also known as emergent or
interactive paradigm (May et al, 1992), it is described as a discipline which focuses on language
use. These definitions essentially underpin the difference between formalist and functionalist
phenomenon.
The structuralist approach is particularly favoured by Harris (1952), the first scholar to refer to
discourse analysis who, among other things, was of the opinion that discourse analysis should
take into account other data e.g. the morpheme, clause, sentence, the proposition, turns, speech
actions and speech events, etc, believing that the sentence is the level (unit) of which discourse is
composed. One strong criticism against this reliance on definitions and analysis of the smaller
unit of sentence is that the units in which people speak do not always seem like sentences. This
implies that, the structuralist or formalist approach to discourse analysis might not be sufficient
for the analysis of spoken discourse which, in the words of Chafe (1980, 1987, 1992), is often
produced in units with intonational and semantic closure not necessarily syntactic closure, and
other words, formalist discourse analysts work with what Lyons (1977) describes as system
sentences those that satisfy the requirement of well-formedness (p. 385, 387). But since texts
(i.e. literary) are not always composed of system sentences but also text sentences whose
significance in literary studies. This means that the approach has limited application to literary
texts since it applies more to the analysis of dramatic discourse, which is closer to the spoken
text than other genres of literature. This is because texts of all kinds have internal dependencies
such that they dont need to be well formed to be acceptable. Halliday argues that language is a
social semiotic and as such, needs to be studied in terms of the lived experience of its users
The concept or notion of cohesion simply refers to the relations or interdependence among
linguistic elements in a text, for the ultimate realization of textual meaning. Osisanwo (2003)
sees it as the linguistic means by which a text functions as a single unit (p.31). According to
Alo (1995), It is essential for showing relationships among different parts of an essay
(p.99). The aspect of meaning is very crucial in any organic relations of linguistic items for, the
underlying function of such relations is to enhance the encoding and decoding process of
Halliday and Hasan (1976) corroborate this viewpoint inter alia: 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 occurs where the interpretation of some element in the discourse is dependent on
another.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
In this research study I will take the qualitative analysis of the text. Poetical analysis will be
explained in this research. Through cohesive devices I will analyse the poetry.
Poem My Last Ride Together. In this data collectin tools, we will also see the types of
cohesive devices.
This research study will be delimited only Robert Frost Poem My Last Ride Togather
3.4 Instrumentation
Bublitz, W. (2011). Cohesion and Coherence. In J, Zienkowski., J-O stman., & J,Verschueren
Company.
Continuum.
Reading Comprehension: Cognition, Language, and the Structure of Prose (pp. 181219).
Hyland K. (2006). English for Academic Purposes. London and New York: Routledge Janjua, F.
155.doi:10.3968/j.css.1923669720120802.2060
University Press.
Mirzapour, F., & Ahmadi, M. (2011). Study on Lexical Cohesion in English and Persian
doi:10.5539/elt.v4n4p245
Stubbs, M. (2001). Words and Phrases: Corpus Studies of Lexical Semantics. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Press. Wu, Sh. (2010). Lexical Cohesion in Oral English. Journal of Language Teaching and