Contextual meaning, at the paragraph level is referred to as “coherence” while the

internal properties of meaning is referred to as “cohesion”. Coherence has both “situational”

coherence when field, tenor, and mode can be identifi ed for a certain group of clauses and

“generic” coherence when the text can be recognized as belonging to a certain genre.

Cohesion relates to the “semantic ties” within text whereby a tie is made when there is some

dependent link between items that combine to create meaning. Therefore, texture is created

within text when there are properties of coherence and cohesion, outside of the apparent

grammatical structure of the text.

The principles of referencing, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction, and lexical cohesion

will be applied to the article and analyzed to demonstrate the relevance of the cohesive

elements that are present in texts which contribute to the overall meaning of the text.

Understanding how cohesion functions within text to create semantic links could be beneficial

to readers and users of the language.

Conjunction

Conjunction, acts as a “cohesive tie between clauses or sections of text in such a way

as to demonstrate a meaningful pattern between them”, Amongst the cohesion forming

devices within text, conjunction is the least directly identifi able relation. Conjunction acts as

a semantic cohesive tie within text in four categories: additive, adversative, causal and

temporal. Additive conjunction acts to structurally coordinate or link by adding to the

presupposed item and are signaled through “and, also, too, furthermore, additionally”, etc.

Additive conjunction may also act to negate the presupposed item and is signalled by “nor,

and...not, either, neither”, etc. Adversative conjunctions this reason, as a result, in this respect,

etc.”. The last conjunctive category is temporal and links by signaling sequence or time. Some

sample temporal conjunctive signals are “then, next, after that, next day, until then, at the

same time, at this point”, etc. act to indicate “contrary to expectation” and are signaled by

Page | 1
“yet, though, only, but, in fact, rather”, etc. Causal conjunction expresses“result, reason and

purpose” and is signaled by “so, then, for, because, for.

Lexical Cohesion

Lexical cohesion differs from the other cohesive elements in text in that it is non-

grammatical. Lexical cohesion refers to the “cohesive effect achieved by the selection of

vocabulary”.The two basic categories of lexical cohesion are reiteration and collocation.

Reiteration pertains to the repetition of a lexical item, either directly or through the use of a

synonym, a superordinate or a generally related word. Collocation pertains to lexical items

that are likely to be found together within the same text. Collocation occurs when a pair of

words are not necessarily dependent upon the same semantic relationship but rather they tend

to occur within the same lexical environment. The closer lexical items are to each other

between sentences, the stronger the cohesive effect.

Substitution and Ellipsis

Whereas referencing functions to link semantic meanings within text, substitution and

ellipsis differs in that it operates as a linguistic link at the lexicogrammatical level.

substitution and ellipsis is used when “a speaker or writer wishes to avoid the repetition of a

lexical item and is able to draw on one of the grammatical resources of the language to

replace the item”. The three types of classifi cation for substitution and ellipsis: nominal,

verbal and clausal, reflect its grammatical function. When something in text is being

substituted, it follows that the substituted item maintains the same structural function as the

presupposed item. In nominal substitution, the most typical substitution words are “one and

ones” and they substitute nouns. In verbal substitution, the most common.

substitute is the verb “do” and is sometimes used in conjunction with “so” as in “do so” and

substitute verbs. “Do” often operates with the reference items “it” and “that” but still have the

main function as a verbal substitute because of its grammatical role. In clausal substitution, an

Page | 2
entire clause is substituted and though it may seem to be similar to either nominal or verbal

substitution, the difference is the presupposed anaphoric reference. Though substitution and

ellipsis are similar in their function as the linguistic link for cohesion, ellipsis differs in that it

is “substitution by zero”. Ellipsis refers to a presupposed anaphoric item although the

reference is not through a “place-marker” like in substitution. The presupposed item is

understood through its structural link. As it is a structural link, ellipsis operates through

nominal, verbal and clausal levels.

Referencing

Referencing functions to retrieve presupposed information in text and must be identifi

able for it to be considered as cohesive. In written text, referencing indicates how the writer

introduces participants and keeps track of them throughout the text. (Eggins 1994: 95) There

are three general types of referencing: homophoric referencing, which refers to shared

information through the context of culture, exophoric referencing, which refers to information

from the immediate context of situation, and endophoric referencing, which refers to

information that can be “retrieved” from within the text. It is this endophoric referencing

which is the focus of cohesion theory. Endophoric referencing can be divided into three areas:

anaphoric, cataphoric, and esphoric.

Anaphoric refers to any reference that “points backwards” to previously mentioned

information in text. Cataphoric refers to any reference that “points forward” to information

that will be presented later in the text. Esphoric refers to any reference within the same

nominal group or phrase which follows the presupposed item. For cohesion purposes,

anaphoric referencing is the most relevant as it “provides a link with a preceding portion of

the text” (Halliday and Hasan 1976: 51). Functionally speaking, there are three main types of

cohesive references: personal, demonstrative, and comparative.

Page | 3
 Personal reference keeps track of function through the speech situation using noun

pronouns like “he, him, she, her”, etc. and possessive determiners like “mine, yours, his,

hers”, etc. Demonstrative reference keeps track of information through location using

proximity references like “this, these, that, those, here, there, then, and the”. Comparative

reference keeps track of identity and similarity through indirect references using adjectives

like “same, equal, similar, different, else, better, more”, etc. and adverbs like “so, such,

similarly, otherwise, so, more”, etc. (ibid: 37–39).

Text Analysis of An Article

A reprint of the article is provided in appendix with the line numbers, which is the

basis for this analysis. The article in two paragraphs focuses on the people identities and the

way they speak and write. The style of writing is informative and present facts as well as the

pro and contra of language and culture. It is written to be read. Therefore much of the relevant

information’s is contextual. The text is very cohesive mainly due to the lexical cohesion and

referencing.

Test Analysis Paragraph 1

In the first paragraph conjunction is used in fifteen places. Identified conjunctions

which is used in this paragraph are “and” and “or”. Both of the conjunctions played their role

as connectors between two sentences and maintain the cohesion of the text. It is can be seen in

“how far people’s identities are bound up with how they speak and write, and all the

contextual factors that go together with how they speak and write” (line 1 &2) and “when we

speak or write we always take a particular perspective”(line 4).

Other than conjunctions referring strategy also been used in this paragraph. It is

proved in “In his book An Introduction of discourse analysis”(line 3). The strategy is used by

author to refer Gee and his written. Other than above stated reference word more reference

Page | 4
words like they, his, we, this, us, them, people’s are also used. This style had helped

strengthen and maintain the cohesion in the paragraph by relating the meaning of a word and

its environment can be the text the real world.

On another view of this paragraph we get to know that word repetition strategy is

used. The word “what” is repeated for eight time in different situation and different context.

Although the usage of word “what” looks same but deeper view reveals that stand of this

word is different according to the meaning and situation does it carry.

Test Analysis Paragraph 2

Meanwhile at paragraph two, more strategies are used compared with previous

paragraph. Collation describes association vocabulary items vocabulary items which have a

tendency to co-occur such as combination of adjectives and nouns as in “world view” in the

paragraph. This collocation includes noun and verb together and creates a new mean word.

Synonymy also played well its role in this written work. Mirror and Reflect stands on

the same path in meaning wise. It can be seen in “particular language communities mirror

their views” and “language reflects the world view”. When we go deeply on this matter

writer used this strategy as he knows that it is not a good style to continuously repeats the

same word again and again for many time on the same work. Sure it will damage reader’s

attraction on the written work.

Meronymy is where lexical items are in a “whole part” relationship with each other

such as “anthropologists” in the paragraph. Actually the mentioned word is refers to men

named Edward Sapir and Benjamin Whorf. Usage of this kind of method helps both writer

and reader to read and understand the contents quickly. These relationship could be

represented diagrammatically as follows :

Anthropologists

Edward Sapir Benjamin Whorf Page | 5

the words are repeated but it stands independently on its meaning according to its context.

“Many quarter continue to wield” and in Particular views of reality have wielded and in

many quarters. Usage of same word in different situation helps readers to distinguish

between present and past tenses as in above stated sentences. This strategy will help to

maintain the coherence in the paragraph and will hold the reader’s attention.

Conclusion

Cohesion analysis has shown what principles exist that create semantic links within

text between sentence and paragraph boundaries. Cohesion in texts creates one kind of texture

through the ties that coordinate ideas and experiences and texture is one of the three meta-

functions for creating meaning within language. With systemic linguistics as a basis and a

focus on lexicogrammar, readers might become more proficient in the identification and

application for meaning in English through cohesion principles to find such semantic patterns.

Page | 6
References

Bloor, T. and Bloor, M. 1995. The Functional Analysis of English London, New York,
etc: Arnold Butt, D., Fahey, R., Spinks, S., Yallop, C. 1995. Using Functional
Grammar: An Explorer’s Guide Sydney: National Centre for English
Language Teaching and Research, Macquarie University

Eggins, S. 1994. An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics London: Pinter

Halliday, M.A.K. and Hasan, R. 1976. Cohesion in English London: Longman

Halliday, M.A.K. 1994. Introduction to Functional Grammar London, New York,

Martin, J.R. 1992. English Text: system and structure Amsterdam: Benjamins

Schegloff, E.A. and Sacks, H. 1973/74. ‘Opening up Closings’ Semiotica 7(4): 289327
(reprinted in Turner, R 1974 Ethnomethodology: selected readings,
Harmondsworth: Penguin)

Page | 7