Cohesion in English Essay

The study of cohesion in English is concerned with a relatively neglected part of the linguistic system, which is the formal understanding of text construction and the ways in which parts of the text are interrelated so that meaning can be understood as one in relation to another. It is an interesting way to see the ways in which the sentences are constructed in order to avoid ambiguity and turbidity of the conveyance of meaning (Halliday and Hasan 1976; Taboada 2004). A principal component of the study of ‘cohesion’ is that which arise from semantic relations between sentences. Reference from one to the other, repetition of word meanings, the conjunctive force of ‘but’, ‘so’, ‘then’ and the like are considered. The work describes a method for analysing and coding sentences, which is applied to specimen texts (Halliday and Hasan 1976; Taboada 2004). According to the work of Hasan and Halliday (1976) about the heuristic and semantic study of language, in terms of how the texts cohere, there are five devices of cohesion that govern the unity of a passage, sentence or an idea. The five categories of the devices of cohesion in English are namely: reference, which can be anaphoric, cataphoric and exophoric; substitution, ellipses, conjunction and lexical cohesion. These types or rules are inherent in most of the ways compositions are constructed in order that they will achieve a certain degree of unity and fluidity. In many ways, the models of cohesion, the devices and rules, allow for a mathematically tautological description of text with regards to its natural relation to some of its other parts contained within the same (Halliday and Hasan 1976). In the text provided below for analysis, the five types of cohesion occur several times if not in a lot of occasions. However, prior to dissecting the passage into any of these tools of cohesion, it is important to understand what the text is entirely about in order that the main idea is revealed to serve as guide to the discovery of the aforementioned categories of cohesion. It would appear that the passage is an autobiographical account of someone’s experiences and observations of previous visits and stay in Birmingham. On this particular occasion the author confides his own impression of the kind of hustle and bustle the city is known for and how he relates it to the image of teenager’s bedroom. Along with descriptions of disarray yet harmonic organization of the city, he recalls one of the times he has been in the city. At that point, he starts to talk about the meeting with a friend. He moves then from a general view of Birmingham into a more specific locale of the city: the neighborhood of his friend Mike Walter. Through this, the author was able to explain more of what Birmingham is like by going in-depth. Furthermore, the author tells us about the kind of culture they have in Birmingham, for instance, how the locals are ‘affectionately’ called—the ‘Brummies’, and likewise, their love for autos and highways. It is obvious the author tries to keep within his central idea or thesis in the entire narrative. He did not stray far afield his main topic, albeit some of his digressions were a bit lengthy and varied. Instead, each side-note and anecdotes only improves and completes the image of what we have about Birmingham city thus far. To go into technicalities, we now look at the model of cohesion in English. There are five devices in the model. The first device of cohesion is called reference, which has three subcategories, namely the 1) anaphoric, 2) cataphoric, 3) exophoric references. The first can be characterized as the device of reference which occurs when the writer points back to an already named or identified object with another word to avoid repetition. Instead of saying the particular term over and over, another word is used in the next phrases to mean the very same thing or object. For example, the author’s view of Birmingham is referenced by the word ‘that’ – ramshackle of factories, warehouses, container yards, transport depots, workshops, chunneys, tower blocks, offices – which are ‘all’ thrown together as if by accident. The word ‘that’ referred to the view of Birmingham, likewise, the word ‘all’ referred to the images concomitant to such a view. The second is quite like the reverse of the first where the object that is being referred to comes after the use of the word that refers it. The use of cataphoric reference is seldom used. It is usually employed to achieve a dramatic effect as if the purposeful delay in disclosing the information would heighten the feeling of suspense and intrigue (Hoey 1991). The object is introduced by a word that is general and later is clarified by naming the object itself. At the first paragraph, the sentence employs the same cataphoric effect in withholding whatever that ‘it’ means. Later on, its reference is revealed at the end of the paragraph whereby the ‘it’ becomes the â€Å"train† (the turn of phrase is therefore imbued with an enhanced degree of dramatic delay). The third type of reference cohesion is the exophoric—literally meaning ‘coming from the outside’. In other words, the reference is neither contained in the passage nor will the reader ever find out for certain what, who, when and where the reference word is referring to. Although the third bears some similarities with the cataphoric reference cohesion, it is largely set apart and differentiated to such by the very fact that in this device of cohesion, the reference is usually general and broad in character. Unlike cataphoric reference, exophoric takes the intrigue, so to speak, to another level by using abstract and vague terms that practically would mean anything or everyone, as the case may be. The reader will never be able to identify the object being referred to in so far as an exact name or category is not given (Hoey 1991). The phrase â€Å"there were very few of us there† in the subsequent paragraphs is a good example of exophoric reference. While the reader may infer that the word ‘us’ refers to the people whom the author met in an assembly called the Birmingham Rep—where ‘they’ exchanged casual chit-chat and intellectual ruminations to pass the time, it is never sure what sort of bunch the word ‘us’ is actually composed of. With only the exception of author himself and his friend Mike Walters, ‘us’ could virtually mean any group of two or more persons with varying and distinct personalities and localities, and perhaps hailing from across different parts of the country. All of which the author fails to mention in exact details. Another device of cohesion is called an ellipsis. It is a device that could either enhance the reader’s understanding of the text or it could perhaps confuse it. Ellipsis occurs when after a more specific mention some words are stricken off when the phrase needs to be repeated. Accordingly, long lists of the same class to describe an object may be stopped short or left to hang in the middle of the sentence thereby suspending the train of the thought of the reader and allowing him to imagine for himself the next logical addition (Hoey 1991). Following the ellipsis is the device cohesion that is a bit similar to the ellipsis but instead of leaving out the word completely, a substitute word is used. Take for instance the phrase â€Å"cities are cities, and in this one there is a lot to see†. The word ‘one’ effectively substitutes the word city and that city would refer to Birmingham. Notice that ‘one’ is general yet it still is able to represent Birmingham by means of the preceding information about cities being cities. Substitute cohesion is a double reflection of a general reference of a specific object. Put differently, substitution is two degrees away from the original object as it only substitutes, perhaps, the anaphoric reference cohesion, for example, in a text. The fourth device of cohesion is conjunction, or words that connect or divide phrase by relating them to one another through a temporal, causal, coordinating, adversative, additive or discourse markers. These are the points of the texts which prompts the reader that the following passages are merely continuation of or branches to the previous statements (Hoey 1991). Even with the usage of punctuation marks and sentence gaps, the reader is guided through the next sentences or paragraphs because of the conjunction markers. Furthermore, conjunctions are used to make sure that the sentences cohere and are not left a stranger of sorts to the other. Conjunctions connect them all in one unified piece (Hoey 1991). Conjunction occurs often times in any text. In the particular text that is to be analyzed here, the words ‘before’, ‘always’, ‘and’, ‘also’, ‘first’, ‘just as’ and so on are used generously in the entire narrative. This is so because the entire text does not disassemble itself with loosely or unconnected thoughts and ideas. Otherwise, some of the digressions would be seen as impertinent and meaningless. And lastly is the lexical device of cohesion. This is the repetition of words throughout a text, or even in a single sentence, that are ejusdem generis or under the same class or category. It can form relational patterns through the entire passage which would help the reader clearly perceive a singular theme that the author wishes to present. In most cases, this construction of the text is akin to the ideas of rhetorical parallelism, wherein repeated or similar words are said in a way that will sound naturally cohesive and unified (Hoey 1991). This device is used well in the assigned text wherein the ‘view of Birmingham city’ is referred to repeatedly as an image, example and representation. It becomes clear that the whole passage revolves around Birmingham city, and it does not lack in describing in full detail how it looks and what it is like to the author. Lexemes, in the manner it was used, made the passage appear as a solid and complete whole without insufficiencies or other facts that beg further clarification. All in all, the five devices of cohesion in the English language are excellent tools for both the writer and the reader to come up with a crystal clear understanding and appreciation of any composition with the proper use of logical connectives and semantic devices as those discussed. These rules of cohesions also help in correcting certain logical errors and clarifying ambiguities, on top of making sure that the text is readable and understandable. What is to be avoided are entire sentences and paragraphs that do not appear to belong together simply because they do not cohere. In other words, cohesion in English will prevent nonsensical and shoddy writing above and beyond anything else. However, there is the question of whether or not these devices of cohesion may be able to account for the different idioms and the modern slang of English. While it is true that the puritans have a point in preserving the formal qualities of the language, it is inevitable that certain phrases and sentence construction will evolve into strange forms of communication, conveyance and presentation which could well probably be just as comprehensible and clear as its regular counterpart in formal composition. The slang and idiom are major limitations to the model of cohesion in English precisely because they do not follow a strict logical pattern. Moreover, their usages vary from across different subcultures and multi-contexts. It would be interesting indeed to find out how these devices and categories will still be able to keep up with the ever-changing rules on grammar and semantics. Perhaps other additions to the categories would be necessary in the future to make for a better way to read and write in English. Just as other languages like Russian, German, French, Spanish (Taboada 2004) or even Chinese do not possess all of the inherent idiosyncrasies of the five categories of cohesion and may even employ other styles not mentioned by the work of Halliday and Hasan (1976), English slang may have its own nuances and jargon that must also be respected and welcomed in formal, modern rhetoric. It now remains a novel and intriguing question how this is to be achieved.