ASPECTS OF COHERENCE AND COHESION

Coherence and Cohesion

• To connect and develop of ideas in writing

• To establish transitions between sentences and paragraphs

Cohesion

• The connection of ideas from sentence to sentence

• How words and sentences link together

Tips for achieving cohesion

1. Start paragraphs with a topic sentence. Topic sentences sum up the main point of the
paragraph
2. Organize sentences in a logical order
a. Begin with familiar information and end with new information

Example: In 2019, astronomers made history by photographing a black hole. They discovered
the black hole at the center of a giant galaxy called Messier 87.

The sentence begins with familiar information that the reader would have from previous
sentences or general knowledge. The sentences also end with new information that the reader
would find unfamiliar or complex.

b. Use transition words. Transition words add ideas together, indicate cause and
effect, contrast ideas, emphasize ideas, and organize ideas

Additive Words: additionally, also, furthermore, in addition, moreover, not only

Example: Texting while driving is against the law. Additionally, it is very dangerous.

Cause and Effect Words: as a result, because, consequently, hence, therefore, thus, since

Example: Colin finished work early. As a result, he could join his brother for dinner.

Contrasting Word: although, but, despite, even though, however, in contrast, nevertheless, on
the contrary, unless, whereas, yet

Example: Although it was raining outside, I decided to go jogging.

Emphasizing Words: for example, for instance, in fact, in other words, specifically

Example: Elephants experience many human-like emotions. For example, they can feel
compassion and grief.

Organizing Words: afterward, finally, firstly, lastly, previously, since, subsequently, then

Example: Margot stayed up late to watch the hockey game. Afterward, she went to bed.

1
 c. Repeat key terms and phrases. Reuse terms and phrases throughout sentences
and paragraphs, especially if the reader is unfamiliar with those terms and
phrases

Example: All coffee drinkers should try cortado. A cortado is a Spanish beverage consisting of
espresso topped with steamed milk. The combination of bitter espresso with creamy milk
provides a delicious alternative to regular coffee.

3. End paragraphs with a concluding sentence. Concluding sentences restate the main
ideas of the paragraph. They can also act as a lead-in for the main idea of the next
paragraph, which creates a natural transition between paragraphs

Coherence

• The connection of ideas in a text

• Illustrates the logical development of the thesis and paragraphs

Tips for achieving coherence

1. Create an outline before writing

• The outline should include a clear thesis and paragraphs supporting the thesis

2. Organize paragraphs in a logical order

• Each paragraph should flow logically into the next

3. Keep one idea to one paragraph

• All the sentences in one paragraph should relate to the main idea of the paragraph

4. Create a reverse outline after writing the paper.

• After finishing the paper, open a blank document
• Write the thesis statement and a one-sentence summary of each paragraph in the
document
• If struggling to summarize the main idea of a paragraph, then the paragraph may contain
to many ideas; consider splitting the paragraph into two or more paragraphs
• If a topic statement differs vastly from the one-sentence summary main idea, revise the
topic sentence
• Once the reverse outline is complete, the paragraphs should support the thesis in a
logical order

2
 COHERENCE, COHESION AND BUREAUCRATIC DISCOURSE

Directions: complete the exercises on coherence and cohesion. When required, read Sarangi’s
and Slembrouck’s ‘Language, Bureaucracy and Social Control’.

1. Identifying Cohesion Strategies: Read the following paragraph and underline instances
where cohesion strategies have been applied. Label them as one of the following: topic
sentence, logical order, transition words, repetition of key terms, or concluding sentence.

In recent years, climate change has become a pressing global issue. Scientists have provided
substantial evidence that greenhouse gas emissions contribute significantly to rising
temperatures. Consequently, governments worldwide have started implementing policies to
reduce carbon footprints. For example, many countries have introduced carbon taxes and
incentives for renewable energy projects. These measures are crucial in mitigating climate
change’s effects.

2. Organizing Sentences for Cohesion: The sentences below are jumbled. Arrange them
into a coherent paragraph by applying principles of cohesion (topic sentence, logical
order, transition words, repetition of key terms, and concluding sentence).

a. Additionally, sleep deprivation can impair memory, concentration, and decision-making

skills.
b. Lack of sleep has been linked to various negative health effects.
c. In conclusion, ensuring adequate sleep is essential for both physical and mental well-
being.
d. Studies show that people who do not get enough sleep are at higher risk of heart
disease, obesity, and diabetes.

3. Revising for Coherence: The following paragraph lacks coherence. Revise it by ensuring
a logical flow of ideas and clear paragraph structure.

Technology is advancing rapidly. Many people prefer traditional books over digital reading. E-
books have become popular due to their convenience. Digital devices can store thousands of
books. However, some readers argue that printed books provide a better reading experience.

3
 4. Analyzing Bureaucratic Language: Read the excerpt below and answer the following
questions:

"All applicants must complete Form 12B before the deadline. Failure to do so may result in the
application being denied. Additionally, supporting documents such as proof of income and
residency must be submitted. If any required document is missing, the application will be
considered incomplete."

1. Identify three features of bureaucratic discourse present in the excerpt.

2. How does the structure of the excerpt constrain the client’s ability to provide additional
context or explanation?

3. What strategies could a client use to navigate the constraints imposed by this
bureaucratic language?

5. Case Study on Bureaucratic Discourse: Read the case study about ND’s experience in the
university library and answer the following questions:

1. Identify three ways in which bureaucratic discourse influenced the interaction between
ND and the library staff.

2. How did the use of forms contribute to ND’s classification as an ‘offender’?

3. Reflect on how power dynamics are established in this interaction and how ND's
responses were interpreted by the institution.

6. Writing a Bureaucratic Leaflet: Write a short bureaucratic leaflet informing students

about library borrowing policies. Ensure that the language used reflects bureaucratic
discourse, including clear procedural instructions, conditional statements, and references
to institutional regulations.

7. Critical Analysis of Institutional Perceptions: In a short essay (200–250 words), discuss

how institutional assumptions about clients affect the way bureaucracies operate. Use
examples from the reading on application forms and bureaucratic classifications.

4
 THE DISCOURSE OF INSTITUTIONS AND ORGANIZATIONS

Srikant Sarangi and Stefaan Slembrouck (reprinted from Chapter 6 of Language, Bureaucracy
and Social Control, by Srikant Sarangi and Stefaan Slembrouck, London and New York:
Routledge, 2013)

[…] The bureaucratic process can be looked at as a process in which ‘all’ citizens can potentially
become clients – a taxpayer, a registered patient, a licensed driver, an unemployed citizen. Within
each category one can find clients with various kinds of experience and various kinds of literacy.
What is more, someone who is a ‘professional’ client in one area may be quite ‘naive’ when it
comes to another client category. In dealing with the public, bureaucracies conduct their routine
work with certain client types in mind, which may vary according to the nature of the contact
situation. For instance, there is the erring client who is a potential threat to the institutional
norms, the foreign client who comes within the remit of the institution, the prospective applicant
addressed in a leaflet. In this chapter we shall look at how these client types are constructed in
‘bureaucratic’ situations. […]

What sort of perceptions do institutional representatives bring to a situation where the client
appears to be in the wrong?

The case we are discussing happened in a university library. ND, a visiting scholar, walks past the
alarm point and the alarm goes. Knowing what the alarm means, ND returns to the counter and,
unasked, she opens her bag to check its contents. She knew she had no borrowing rights, but
only a card entitling her to use the on-site library facilities. An attendant arrives. By that time ND
has already found out that she had a book in the bag which she should have left in the library.
She says: ‘oh I’m so sorry it’s just like the size of my diary sorry extremely sorry’. Another library
employee arrives and asks: ‘How is this book with you?’, a question which ND interprets as ‘How
did this come about?’ She replies: ‘along with these diaries this small book by mistake I have put
it sorry for this’.

The second library employee asks for ND’s library card, takes it and goes away to consult with a
senior colleague. Meanwhile, ND asks the attendant: ‘Shall I go and put the book on the shelf?’
She shows the photocopies she has made of the book, which the attendant inspects.

The second employee comes back with the ‘offender’s form’ and asks ND to fill it in. She says:
‘generally we call the police in such cases you better fill it in’. ND is worried and says ‘you see I’m
a government servant in [country] I teach there it’s not expected of me it’s just a mistake will
there be any problem in my service then’. ND was a visitor to the university but as she is
employed by the government of her country she cannot afford to have a record. The offender’s
form was more alarming than the library alarm itself.

ND dutifully fills in the form (part 1). A third (senior) employee arrives and asks: ‘Have you got
any other identification where is your passport?’ ND replies, ‘I haven’t got the passport here I’ve
given it to the immigration for extending my visa and I’m supposed to get it back tomorrow but
my brother is working in the university’. ‘What is his name?’ ‘DR.’ The senior employee picks up
the phone to contact DR but he was out. The second employee then turns to ND and asks: ‘what
you have explained to me now how this book came with you you just write here’ (part 2 on the
back of the form).

5
By then, the senior employee comes back and says: ‘I’ve left a message [for your brother] he’s
not there generally we call police in such matters but we will keep this pass and you may not use
the library further.’ The next morning, DR, having received the message from his answerphone,
calls the senior employee to clarify the situation. The message on the answerphone included
that ‘she was trying to remove a book without issuing it’. DR stresses that it was a mistake and
asks whether ND could retrieve her library card as she wanted to continue using the library
resources during her stay. The card was returned to her the same day.

The sequence of events was clearly determined by asymmetrical perceptions of the situation ND
is perhaps a ‘naive’ client. She tries very hard to cooperate and admits her mistake. The book
indeed resembled the diary and she had taken photocopies of relevant sections. Her passport
was indeed at the embassy. However, the fact that she was ready to expand and explain was
treated with suspicion. Moreover her offer of remedial action was interpreted as coming from
someone who had been caught and was trying to buy her way out. […]

Let us analyse the library incident further from the bureaucratic perspective. The basic policy
here is that the institutional representative has the benefit of the doubt. All library users are
potential booklifters. From the library staff’s point of view it is not possible to go on record as
stating that ND had made a genuine mistake.

It is important to bear in mind that bureaucrats, in their day-to-day activities, can be held
accountable by the institution which they are serving and where absolute power lies. Going
through the procedure is their safety net. So the card was immediately withdrawn to see
whether the client’s statements were correct but also to allow the library staff to back up their
actions. It is just possible that the staff actually believed the user from the start.

Likewise, the use of the ‘offender’s form’ reveals the institution’s premium on the meaning of
actions (rather than a concern with the client’s intentions). In the section marked ‘for official
use’, the library staff is required to tick one of the two following boxes:

ii. Item(s) was/were:

[ ] intentionally removed [ ] unintentionally removed.

What matters is the library staff’s assessment of the client’s intentions. Even if the staff intended
to return the card as soon as the user’s explanation was confirmed, the offender’s form had to
be filled in, in order to be filed. This is also evident from the specification of the offence as
communicated over the telephone: ‘she was trying to remove a book without issuing it’. Let us
look more closely at the part of the form under the heading of ‘Details of offence’: Thus, filling
in a form means that the client goes on record about an offence, an application, and so on. In
the form above, ND becomes an offender by signature, irrespective of whether library staff later
tick the box ‘unintentionally removed’. As soon as a form enters a situation, the client is labelled
(even before evidential information is processed). Forms are a major anchorage point for
institutional classifications. Whether it is in the context of eligibility, or the context of disciplining,
it is through forms that citizens are turned into ‘clients’ and their stories into ‘cases’. […]

6
The information-seeking role of institutions through application forms and their information-
providing role (through leaflets) is multi-functionally targeted at certain client types (e.g. to make
sure that the ‘old age pensioner’ knows what the benefit is about, to make sure that the more
streetwise client does reveal the information requested in [say] box 4a). Both these dimensions
can be analysed in terms of client needs and bureaucratic perceptions of these needs – it is the
latter which informs institutional provisions.

Application forms and leaflets are both text types which emanate from the institution but which
have clients as principal addressees. […] one can examine what type of client is implied in
leaflets, application forms, and so on. How does this relate to forms of social control? The fact
that client needs differ from institutional provisions produces an asymmetry which makes the
use of application forms inherently problematic. Thus, leaflets can be seen as moving
ambivalently between, on the one hand, intended attempts at reducing this asymmetry and, on
the other hand, having the normalising bureaucratic notions of clienthood.

[…] bureaucracy is all about processing people. Most of this processing takes place by examining
information collected from clients through application forms, and turning this information into
files on the basis of pre-existing categories which follow set institutional criteria. These
categories inform institutional decisions. Let us first discuss a few general properties of
application forms.

(1) Forms typically have names which reflect the subroutines, the labour division and the
departmentalisation in an organisation in a way which is not transparent to clients (form names
are there for the sake of bureaucrats).

(2) The layout of forms heavily constrains the client’s activity in that it does not allow clients to
tell a whole story. Boxes, dotted lines, multiple choice questions, pre-formulated answers,
limited space (e.g. six letter spaces to fill in date of birth) all contribute to the packaging of the
client’s case. From a bureaucrat’s point of view, this is tied up with the efficiency of processing
information. There is, however, a recent trend to provide a space where the client can state
things not accommodated by the form. This may appear as a move to minimise clients’

7
constraints, but it is a double-edged sword, because it increases the possibilities that clients may
give away information which could jeopardise their case.

(3) Forms have also temporal dimensions (deadlines and eligibility periods), which equally
constrain the client’s activities. Clients may be required to declare something ahead of a
situation, whether or not it reflects the client’s actual needs at that point in time.

(4) Forms are also used to provide information to clients; they have a ‘leaflet function’ through
the occurrence of explicit information about the procedure, entitlements, and so forth, and there
is also the implicit ‘leaking’ of information when clients work out aspects of the procedure and
the decision making from the nature of the form.

(5) Forms also have sections for ‘office use only’ – boxes and diagrams which run parallel to the
spaces used for clients’ responses. This is where the decision making will leave its traces on the
form and the categorisation of an applicant as ‘a particular case’ will become definite. This is
usually done in a non-transparent way (with abundant use of abbreviations and non-transparent
codes). This may explain why forms, once filled in and processed, remain the property of the
institution and are seldom returned to clients.

The processing of information provided by clients by bureaucratic channels can be captured

through the concept of ‘(re)formulation’ (cf. Fairclough 1992). To (re)formulate a state of affairs
is an act of classification but it also amounts to the imposition of a particular interpretation which
informs subsequent action. (Re)formulation thus links up with situational power. It also
successfully captures the asymmetry and the ‘translation’ element involved. Bureaucrats’
(re)formulations take priority over clients’ characterisations. Although forms reduce clients to
category-types, this also entails a form of protection in the sense that a legitimate claim does
not require more than what the form caters for.

Forms have an information-seeking function. They are often after the same information (e.g.
personal particulars, education) but they vary when it comes to the amount of detail needed.
For instance, one embassy may require certain personal details not required by another embassy,
or embassies may require certain details not required by banks. The wide difference in what
information is sought suggests that differen institutions regard different types of information as
essential and thus assign values to their ‘preferred’ types of information. Clients are very familiar
with such differential treatment, but they rarely make this an issue and deny information that
they deem ‘irrelevant’ on the basis of their prior experience with similar institutional processing.
In fact, this reconciliation points to the fact that clients occupy a compliant cooperative role and
turn their lives in to ‘open books’ for bureaucratic ‘gaze’.

From the bureaucrat’s perspective, it is easy to rationalise why certain bits of information are
asked for. This may depend on the following factors:

immediate processing: ‘more information is always better’, so that the bureaucrat can act on it
without having to send reminders or having to seek further information from other sources. A
form may also have a number of sections to be filled in by other institutions before it can be
submitted. This reveals the hierarchies between and within institutions;

traditions in record keeping, background statistical research;

8
forms of legitimation (e.g. a client may be entitled to something following a verbal promise, but
a form needs to be filled in for the record);

records of information exchange with an implicit claim of ‘objective’ treatment (it carries the
assumption that clients will be treated in the same way);

devices to apply for and/or deny entitlement;

face-redressive functions: apparent distancing from the institution when bureaucrats claim they
do what forms require

One of the questions arising here is whether forms can be offensive in the way they probe and
in the way they address a particular type of client. Or do they require of a client some
understanding about their immediate functioning? The latter would mean clients must learn to
‘distance’ themselves from the information asked/provided in the form and not consider the
forms as a ‘moral grid’. But this also highlights the one-sidedness of information exchange and
leaves clients with little power to ‘challenge’ bureaucratic practices. Forms can be described as
a defence which bureaucrats use to protect themselves from accusations of partiality, bias and
so on. An unsuccessful outcome is often blamed on the client, because the bureaucratic decision
is taken in accordance with the information provided in the form. […]

Institutions operate with certain assumptions about the clients they address and process.
Institutional assumptions about client categories have implications for the kinds of application
forms which are used and for the questions which are put to applicants in a particular form. Let
us take the situation of claiming ‘incapacity benefit’ in Britain. An ‘incapacity for work
questionnaire’ has to be filled in in order to claim this benefit. This questionnaire has various
categories related to muscular activity, but there may not be room for people suffering from, say,
a skin condition to be able to declare their situation. While client constructs have been built into
application forms, the real clients may remain absent from the form.

The questionnaire elicits detailed information about everyday activities, such as ‘getting up from
a chair’, ‘walking’, ‘lifting and carrying’ etc. Under ‘walking’ for instance, the form asks:

You cannot walk, without having to stop or feeling severe discomfort, for more than

* Just a few steps

* 50 metres, this is about 55 yards

* 200 metres, this is about 220 yards

* 400 metres, this is about 440 yards

* 800 metres, this is about half a mile

Questions such as the above objectify (in)abilities and require clients to measure and express
abilities in numerical terms. Additionally, there is a tension between ‘an activity one ideally
should avoid doing because of medical conditions’ and ‘what one manages to do, even against
the medical odds, simply because daily living becomes impossible without it’. The applicant here
has to grasp that the objectified measurement is the bit which is going to count – rather than a
statement of the difficulties one experiences in coping with these things in daily life. […]

9
Clearly, self-assessment constitutes an important dimension of the filling in of application forms
and clients may not only be inclined to under-estimate their needs, they will also be held
responsible for the subsequent outcome of the decision-making. […]

10