VIETNAM NATIONAL -HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES & INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
DEPARTMENT OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

BY: V HNG QUANG A Study of Correlative Conjunctions as Cohesive Devices
(with reference to the Upper-secondary English textbooks)
Nghiên cứu các liên từ t-ơng liên nh- các
ph-ơng tiện liên kết văn bản
(liên hệ với sách giáo khoa Tiếng Anh Trung học phổ thông). MA MINOR THESIS FIELD: ENGLISH LINGUISTICS
CODE: 60 22 15
MA MINOR THESIS

FIELD: ENGLISH LINGUISTICS
CODE: 60 22 15 SUPERVISOR: Assoc. Prof. TRN HU MNH HANOI-2009 iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
Declaration
Acknowledgements
Abstract

1
1
1
1
2
3
3
9
9
10
10
11
12
13
14
16
16
17
18
18
20
24

24
25

v
3. 2.1. Correlatives and their conjunctions
3.2.2. Correlative with phrasal coordination
3.2.3. Correlative with sentential coordination


1
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Rationale
‖In the world of human beings, you won't find a language by itself - the Dutch language
strolling the canals, or the English language having a nice cup of tea, or the German
language racing madly along the autobahn. You only find discourse.‖ Robert de
Beaugrande (1997: 36)
It is unimaginable of a world without language. We get through our days exchanging
various oral and written language (or, talk and text). We live by language or discourse, not
in discrete audio or visual units but in connected sound waves and orthographic forms to
which we assign meaning on the basis of our past experience with them and on the basis of
the situations in which these waves and forms are used.
Discourse analysis is concerned with the contexts in and the processes through which we
use oral and written language to specific audiences, for specific purposes, in specific
settings. We might one cannot understand language fully without looking at language use.
My research focuses on correlative conjunctions in English. I attempt to make my
description both semantic and syntactic.
There are at least three reasons why I believe it is important to focus on correlative
conjunctions. Firstly, the correlative conjunctions will enrich our potential for interpreting
the linguistic phenomena in English. Secondly, although there has been some research in
exploring conjunctions in general, little attention has been given to the study of correlative
conjunctions. Thirdly, our students have some difficulties in understanding and using
correlative conjunctions.
1.2. Aims:
The study is descriptive in nature and aims at finding correlative conjunction use is to
connect discourse segmental units with reference to the Upper-secondary English textbook
1.3. Scope of the study:
The study concerns the contrastive analysis of correlative conjunctions which are taught in
the Upper-secondary English textbook such as both … and, either … or, neither… nor, not

Halliday & Hasan (1976), whereas the term ―discourse‖ only is preferred by Longacre
(1983), Brown and Yule (1983). At times they may have mentioned the other terms but
leaving it undefined. Some other linguists have used both terms in either of the following
three ways:
(1) interchangeably;
(2) by considering discourse as a type of text;
(3) or in opposition
In the later case, the discourse/ text dichotomy has mostly been identified with a
spoken/ written, process/ product and/ or language use/ abstraction of such use
opposition. As consequence, firstly, discourse has been identified with spoken
language and text with written language. Secondly, text has been considered the
product of the process of writing, whereas the more dynamic notion of discourse has
been identified with the process of text production and comprehension. And thirdly,
text has been viewed as the theoretical nation underlying the structure of the verbal
communication.
The notions of text and discourse do not have stable, uniform identity, their nature
varying not only according to the scholar but especially according to the theoretical
framework from within which the scholar approaches the definition of the terms. Thus,

4
it is possible to systematise the definitions of text according to four frameworks:
linguistic, communicative-pragmatic, cognitive and semiotic and the notion of
discourse has been mostly defined from a communicative-pragmatic, tagmemic,
cognitive and generative framework.
* Starting with the notion of text, there are four major frameworks within which the
definition of the notion has been attempted.
1- Within a linguistic framework text has been viewed as a mere succession of
sentences, i.e, of signs between certain punctuation markers. Still within the same
framework, text has also been defined as a semantic composition. For this definition
the sentence continues to be the key component to such an extent that many linguists

constitutes the bridge between a linguistic and a communicative conception of the
term. As far as the notion of discourse is concerned, it appears to be an instance of
language use in a particular situation, of which the text is its structural unit.
Within the systemic-functional model it is not until Hasan (1977) that the notion of
text becomes a communicative unit defined as ―a verbal social event‖ (Hasan,
1977:233) and characterised, firstly, by its property of texture (i.e., ―linguistics
cohesion within the passage‖ (Hasan, 1977:228)), which constitutes a means of
differentiating it from a random chain of sentences; secondly, by its structure, which
serves to ―distinguish between complete and incomplete texts on the one hand, and
between different generic form on the other‖ (id.:229); and last but not least, by its
contextual relation. Following Halliday‘s social perspective on language analysis,
Hasan emphasises the role that context plays in the structure organisation (structure
formula) of each ―genre of text- i.e. type of discourse‖ (ibid.).(Note: Hasan (1977) uses
―text‖ and ―discourse‖ interchangeably)
The notion of context of situation in Hasan (1977) is explained through that of text
genre or register. Register is related to systematic variation in language, this variation
depending on the selection of different linguistic as well as contextual varianles. Field,
tenor and mode of discourse are the variables that constitute the contextual construct
(CC). The definition of text as a verbal social event is directly related to the three types
of roles which the interactants adopt in a communicative situation and which are
integrated in the variable tenor. These roles are:
(1) textual, which classifies the interactants into speaker and hearer.
(2) Social, which establishes a hierarchical or non-hierarchical relationship
between the interactants according to their social status; and
(3) Participatory, which identifies the initiator and the respondent of the
communication.

6
Hasan‘s (1977) conception of text as a social event would undergo an evolution from a
primarily linguistic-centred approach which defined text as a semantic unit occurring in a


7
language which consists of a string of successive sentences- or utterances in spoken form-
with topical or logical structure. In other words, text or discourse is conceived as a
semantic unit forming a coherent and cohesive structural whole independent of the context
in which it is produced, assuming that the semantic structure, that is, ―the formal
reconstruction of what is non-technically called the “information” or “content” of a
discourse‖ (Van Dijk & Kintsch, 1979: 67), is the basis for all particular meanings. This
conception is similar to the one maintained by scholars within the linguist framework
explained earlier. What differentiates then the notion of text or discourse as used by one
and the other framework is that for linguistic models text is a final product, where as for
cognitive model text or discourse is conceived as a process of production, understanding,
organising and retrieval.
- The fourth and last framework within which text is studied is the semiotic one as
represented by Petofi (1977, 1980). Within this framework, text is a broad notion referring
to the unit of analysis of any sign system. Text as a semiotic object comprises both the
natural language text (vid. Petofi, 1977), also called discourse, and texts of another
semiotic character (e.g. animal communication, theology, film analysis, advertisements,
etc.).
2. From the perspective of the theoretical framework, it is possible to organise a
classification of the concept of discourse into four mains groups: communicative-
pragmatic, tagmemic, cognitive and generative. As far as cognitive framework is
concerned, suffice it to say that the discussion on the notion of text provided above is
equally applicable to that of discourse since the terms text and discourse are used
interchangeably within this framework.
- Scholars working within a communicative-pragmatic framework all agree that discourse
is language in use, that is, a unit of communication located within the wider context of
purposeful speech behaviour where the pragmatic component plays a central role ( Van
Dijk 1977, 1979; Edmondson, 1981; Brown &Yule, 1983; Leech, 1983; Levinson, 1983).
The text/ discourse opposition within this approach seems to correspond to the

those aspects of linguistic research which generative grammarians have considered to be
outside the domain of generative syntactic theory, that is, the study of pragmatics and the
correlation between syntactic and semantic phenomena.

9
2.2. Textuality, cohesion and coherence
2.2.1. Textuality
In the approach to text linguistics by de Beaugrande & Dressler (1981), text is established
as a communicative occurrence, which has to meet seven standards of textuality. If any of
these standards are not satisfied, the text is considered not to have fulfilled its function and
not to be communicative.
Cohesion and coherence are text-centred notions, designating operations directed at the
text materials. Cohesion ―concerns the ways in which the components of the surface text
i.e. the actual words we hear or see are mutually connected within a sequence‖ (de
Beaugrande & Dressler 1981:3). Coherence on the other hand ―concerns the ways in which
the components of the textual world, i.e. the concepts and relations which underlie the
surface text are mutually accessible and relevant‖ (1981:3-7).
The remaining standards of textuality are user-centred, concerning the activity of textual
communication by the producers and receivers of texts:
Intentionality concerns the text producer‘s attitude that the set of occurrences should
constitute a cohesive and coherent text instrumental in fulfilling the producer‘s intentions.
Acceptability concerns the receiver‘s attitude that the set of occurrences should constitute a
cohesive and coherent text having some use or relevance for the receiver.
Informativity concerns the extent to which the occurrences of the text are expected vs.
unexpected or known vs. unknown/uncertain.
Situationality concerns the factors which make a text relevant to a situation of occurrence.
Intertextuality concerns the factors which make the utilisation of one text dependent upon
knowledge of one or more previously encountered texts.
The above seven standards of textuality are called constitutive principles.They define and
create textual communication as well as set the rules for communicating. There are also at

item is replaced by nothing" (Halliday and Hasan 1976:88). There are three types of
substitution: nominal, verbal and clausal.
(a) substitution per se, (b) ellipsis (zero-replacement)
Substitution of noun:
a) These biscuits are stale. Get some fresh ones.
b) These biscuits are stale. Those are fresh.
Substitution of verb
In English, this is done by replacing a verbal expression with the lexical item "do":
a) A: Have you called the doctor?

11
B: I haven‘t done it yet, but I will do it.
A: Though actually, I think you should do it.
b) He participated in the debate, but you didn‘t.
Substitution of clause is accomplished by using the lexical items "so" and "not":
a) A: Are they still arguing in there?
B: No, it just seems so.
b) Who wants to go shopping? You?
(Examples are from Renkema 1993:37-38).
2.2.2.2 Conjunction
Conjunction is a relationship indicating how the subsequent sentence or clause should be
linked to the preceding or the following sentence or parts of sentence. This is usually
achieved by the use of conjunctions. Frequently occurring relationships are addition,
causality and temporality.
The relationship can be hypotactic, combining a main clause with a subordinate clause or
phrase, or paratactic, combining two main clauses.
*Junction
De Beaugrande & Dressler (1981) prefer to call the type of cohesion in question
"junction", and discuss four major types of junctive expressions:
Conjunction links things which have the same status, e.g. both true in the textual world.

2.2.2.3 Reference
Reference is another well researched area within linguistics. It is defined by Halliday &
Hasan (1976:31) as a case where the information to be retrieved is the referential meaning,
the identity of the particular thing or class of things that is being referred to. The cohesion
lies "in the continuity of reference, whereby the same thing enters into the discourse a
second time."
In other words, reference deals with semantic relationship. Reference can be accomplished
by
 exophoric reference, which signals that reference must be made to the context of the
situation;
 endophoric reference: reference must be made to the text of the discourse itself; it is
either anaphoric, referring to preceding text; or cataphoric, referring to text that follows.
Halliday & Hasan (1976) describe the following types of reference:
 personal reference: nouns, pronouns, determiners that refer to the speaker, the addressee,
other persons or objects, or an object or unit of text;

13
 demonstrative reference: determiners or adverbs that refer to locative or temporal
proximity or distance, or that are neutral;
 comparative reference: adjectives or verbs expressing a general comparison based on
identity, or difference, or express a particular comparison.
2.2.2.4 Lexical cohesion
Lexical cohesion does not deal with grammatical or semantic connections but with
connections based on the words used. It is achieved by selection of vocabulary, using
semantically close items. Because lexical cohesion in itself carries no indication whether it
is functioning cohesively or not, it always requires reference to the text, to some other
lexical item to be interpreted correctly. There are two types of lexical cohesion: reiteration
and collocation.
Reiteration includes (examples below are from Renkema 1993)
repetition (often involving reference)

The term "cohesion" is often confused or conflated with "coherence". But it is necessary,
both from a theoretical and a practical point of view to retain this distinction between
connectivity on the surface and connectivity of underlying content.
The term coherence, apart from being polysemic, is also controversial. While de
Beaugrande & Dressler (1981) treat coherence as number two of the two text-centred
standards, Carstens (1997), in his thorough work on Afrikaans text-linguistics, takes up
coherence as the last standard of textuality, as coherence in his opinion entails all of the
other six standards. According to Lundquist (1989:123; cited in Carstens 1997) coherence
is not a typical linguistic problem, but a general principle for the interpretation of all
human activity, verbal or non-verbal. Neither is coherence a property which is inherent in
texts, but rather a property which is assigned to a text by its reader. To put it differently:
texts are not automatically coherent, but become coherent when the recipients of the texts
find them coherent (Carstens 1997:481-482).
Lahdenmäki (1989) underlines, that coherence is a purely semantic property of discourse,
while cohesion is mainly concerned with morpho-syntactic devices in discourse. A
coherent text is a semantically connected, integrated whole, expressing relations of
closeness, e.g., causality, time, or location between its concepts and sentences. A condition
on this continuity of sense is that the connected concepts are also related in the real world,
and that the reader identifies the relations. Each sentence must also "satisfy" the text topic
(van Dijk 1977:138) which "controls" or places limits upon things a concept can be related
to (de Beaugrande 1987). Therefore, if two concepts are logically and associatively too

15
distant in semantic space, they cannot function coherently, even if they were connected in
the surface text by overt cohesion markers, e.g. connectives. Instead, in a coherent text,
there are direct and indirect semantic referential links between lexical items in and between
sentences, which the reader must interpret (Lahdenmäki 1989:27).
In the present study we are not primarily interested in whether or not coherence is a purely
text-centred standard of textuality. But from a communicative point of view - because
interpreters are paid to communicate! - a text must be coherent enough for the interlocutor

 a grammatical/ semantic unit (F-unit)
as the basic unit of segmentation. In the following section, each of these method wull be
introduced and evaluated, so as to find the method used in the present study.
2.3.1. Using the sentence as the unit of segmentation.
The sentence might appear to be an appropriate segmentation unit because it is easily
identified as a syntactic structure. Halliday and Hasan (1976) claim that the orthography
sentence, that is, whatever occurs between full stops, provides a good basis for defining
cohesion. For them, ―cohesive ties between sentences stand out more clearly because they
are the ONLY source of texture, whereas within the sentence there are the structural
relations as well‖ (Halliday and Hasan, 1976:9)
However, this definition of cohesion in terms of the orthographic sentence is not
satisfactory. For example, it is tended to reject the conjunction but in (a) and yet accept it
in (b) as cohesion, although the word certainly has the same function.
(21)The child liked the banana, but he disliked the apple.
(22)The child liked the banana. But he disliked the apple.
(23) The child liked the banana though he disliked the apple.
McCarthy (1991:153) points out:
―In all our discussions on speaking, the sentence was dismissed as being of dubious value
as a unit of discourse (especially in Chapter 4). The sentence is more obvious as a
grammatical unit in writing, although certainly not in all kinds of writing: signs and
notices, small ads, notes, forms, tickets, cheques, all contain frequent examples of 'non-
sentences' (lists of single words, verbless clauses, etc.). The internal construction of the
sentence has always been the province of grammar, but in Chapter 2, we argued that a

17
number of things in clause and sentence grammar have implications for the discourse as
a whole, in particular, word order, cohesion, and tense and aspect. For the purposes of our
discussion of these discoursal features, the sentence will have no special status other
than as a grammatical and orthographic unit which can be exploited where desired for
pedagogical illustration, just as the clause can.‖

and one dependent clause. Besides, it is a large unit, it is not useful in analysing significant
rhetorical relations in the text, such as contrast, if these relations are attained by means of a
subordinator. For the reasons, the T-unit was not chosen as our segmentation unit.
2.3.3. Using the proposition as the unit of segmentation
A proposition is a statement expressing a judgement or opinion. Crombie (1985:13)
explains that the semantic relation involved in text analysis are, minimally, two
propositions. Each member of a semantic relation is often encoded as a separate clause,
since this is frequently the linguistic unit used to encode a single proposition. However, a
semantic relation may also be encoded as a group of clauses. For example:
John‘ playing squash and Mary‘s weeding the garden while Tim‘s chopping wood and
Sam‘s preparing the dinner but Jane isn‘t doing anything.
Alternatively, a semantic relational member may be encoded as a proposition embedded in
a single clause, for example:
Her exaggerations make him furious.
i.e. she exaggerates (reason)
He becomes furious (result)
→ Reason- Result
2.3.4. Using the F- unit as the unit of segmentation
For Lindeberg (1988), the most appropriate unit of segmentation is the functional unit
discourse, or F-unit. The F-unit involves using both grammatical and semantic notions in
text segmentation. It is defined as (the set of clause or clause equivalent serving an
identifiable rhetorical function in written discourse‖ (Lieber 1979: Abstract :i). Lieber‘s
segmentation principles (1979:93-95) are presented below:
1. Coordinate structures
Full clauses joined by coordinating conjunctions or marks of punctuation constitute
separate F-units.
e.g. a. John broiled the steak,
b. and Bob made the salad.

19

grammar alone, but by rhetorical function as well.

20
Therefore, the F-unit is used in this study since it is an essential measure for the
analysis of cohesion and relation coherence.
2.4. Semantic relations
Crombie‘s set inter-propositional general semantic relations- her set of binary textual
relations- has been applied in this study. The framework of these relations was applied in
this study as shown below. The first unit is called X, and the second unit to which it relates
is called Y. A full explanation of these relations and their applicable variation now follows.
2.4.1. Temporal relation
These deal with temporal links between F-units.
(a) Chronological sequence
The event specified in Y follows the event specified in X without necessarily being
causally related to it.
I went to the child/ and knelt down before her.
(b) Reverse chronological sequence
In this case the event in Y precedes the event specified in X without necessarily being
causally related to it.
Before the bus could stop,/ everyone was running after it.
(c) Temporal overlap
The event specified in Y overlaps, either wholly or partly, in time with the event
specified in X.
While we were still waiting for the bus, / the sound started again.
2.4.2. Matching relation
These refer to some kind of similarity or contrast between F-unit segments.
(a) Comparison
Involves the comparison of two things, events or abstractions in terms of some particular in
respect of which they are similar.
At that time my friend stood, / just like a prisoner given a life sentence.

(a) Statement- Affirmation
Y affirms the truth of X.
She might have forgotten her passport. / Really she had forgotten it.
(b) Statement- Denial
Y denies the truth of X.
He says that money is better than honour, / but I don‘t agree.