VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
POST-GRADUATE STUDIES DEPARTMENT ĐOÀN THỊ HỒNG THANH AN ANALYSIS OF LEXICAL COHESIVE DEVICES
IN AESOP’S FABLES

(PHÂN TÍCH PHƯƠNG TIỆN LIÊN KẾT TỪ VỰNG
TRONG TRUYỆN NGỤ NGÔN CỦA ÊZỐP)
M.A THESIS
Field: English Linguistics
Course: K17 (2008- 2010)
Code: 602215

Supervisor: NGUYỄN THÚY HƯƠNG, M.A
7
1.1.4.1 Context
7
1.1.4.2 Register
8
1.1.4.3 Genre
9
1.2 Cohesion
10
1.2.1 The concept of cohesion
10
1.2.2 Cohesion versus Coherence
11
1.2.3 Cohesion and discourse structure
12
1.2.4 Types of cohesion
12
1.2.4.1 Grammatical cohesion
13
1.2.4.2 Lexical cohesion
14
1.3 The narrative structure
15
1.4 Fables and its properties
16
1.4.1 Definition of fables
16
1.4.2 General characteristics of a fable
17
1.4.3 Generic structure of a fable

37
4. Suggestions for further studies
38
REFERENCES
39
APPENDIXES

Appendix 1: 25 chosen Aesop‟s fables for analysis of lexical cohesive devices

Appendix 2: Number of occurrence of lexical cohesive devices in 25 chosen
Aesop‟s fables for analysis PART 1: INTRODUCTION

1. Rationale
The concept of discourse analysis was first studied in the late 1970s and 1980s from
different aspects and views of linguists. It has been paid much attention to by linguists since
its appearance. Halliday and Hasan (1976) put the emphasis on the social functions of
language. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson (1974), whose exemplary study of turn-taking in
ordinary conversation made a first seminal contribution to the understanding of the sequential

The research is intended to explore lexical cohesive devices as one discourse feature in
Aesop‟s fables. To be more specific, it aims at:
 Identifying lexical cohesive devices used in Aesop‟s fables.
 Realizing the role and contribution of lexical cohesive devices in constructing a
fable.

3. Scope of the study
The concept of cohesion is large. This study only focuses on the lexical cohesive
devices and explores the process in which coherence is achieved in the formal written genre of
fables. Short and simple fables of Aesop are studied to work out typical lexical cohesive
devices used in such genre of discourse. Data analyzed in the study is taken from 25 of
Aesop‟s fables chosen at random that were translated into English by Laura Gibbs for World‟s
Classics in 2002.

4. Methods of the study
To attain the aim of the study, the research is conducted in the following steps:
First, data necessary for the study are collected. Relevant theories are read and
extracted from books of great linguists such as Halliday and Hasan (1976), Cook (1989),
Brown and Yule ( 1983), Hatim and Mason ( 1990), Swales (1990). Aesop‟s fables are also
collected to serve the purpose of analyzing lexical cohesive devices used.
Second, a framework of lexical cohesive devices is set up in order to find out the
defining characteristics of fables as a genre of discourse. This is done on the ground of several
linguists‟ relevant theories and their viewpoints.
Third, three previous studies on lexical cohesive devices used in other genres of
discourse are reviewed for comparison with the use of lexical cohesive devices in fables.
Then, 25 selected fables are analyzed in terms of lexical cohesive devices: reiteration
and collocations. All the 25 fables are comprehensively analyzed to identify the lexical
cohesive devices used; their frequencies of occurrence are counted to make out the
significance level of each device to fables.
Last, some conclusions are drawn based on the data analysis and some implications for

which denotes 'conversation, speech'. The concept of discourse has been discussed for a long
time and linguists have different ways of understanding and defining it. To begin with,
Widdowson (1979:98) defines “discourse is a use of sentences to perform acts of
communication which cohere in large communicative unit, ultimately establishing a rhetorical
patterns which characterizes the piece of language as a whole as a kind of communication”.
Meanwhile, according to Cook (1989) “discourse is stretches of language perceived to be
meaningful, unified and purposeful”. His viewpoint was later shared with by Crystal (1992:25)
who states that “discourse is a continuous stretch of (especially spoken) language larger than a
sentence, often constituting a cohesive unit such as a sermon, an argument, a joke or a
narrative”. In Cook‟s view, such stretches of language can only be obtained if they are
considered “in their full textual, social, psychological context”. In basic sense, it may be
defined as “the language in use for communication” hence, discourse is supposed to be
meaningful (Cook, 1989).
There also exist a number of other linguists‟ viewpoints on discourse. In 1990, Hatim
and Mason contributed another definition that implied discourse is “a matter of expression of
attitude”; “a mode of speaking and writing which involves the participants in adopting a
particular on certain area of socio-cultural activity: racial discourse, scientific discourse,
domestic discourse. Then, seven years later, in 1997, in the book called “Language through
literature”, Simpson claimed discourse is “the term reserved for the highest level of linguistic
organization in language study”. It is also stated to refer to the “structure and function of
language beyond the level of sentence” by him.
To summarize, the concept of discourse is still under discussion, but basically, the
majority of linguists share a common view when defining it. It can be noted that their
definitions are expressed in different ways but all emphasize the two most important aspects of
discourse regarding its structure and function. In terms of structure, a discourse is a well-
formed organization above the level of a sentence; in terms of function, a discourse serves as a
means of communication.

1.1.2 Discourse versus Text
The distinction between the word “discourse” and “text” is still in controversy. As

coined the name 'discourse analysis', which afterwards denoted a branch of applied linguistics,
was Zellig Harris , an American linguist (Cook 1989:13). The emergence of this study is a
result of not only linguistic research, but also of researchers engaged in other fields of inquiry,
particularly sociology, psychology, anthropology and psychotherapy. Hence, it is seen as “a
new branch of linguistics which grew out of the work in different disciplines in the 1960s and
early 1970s, including linguistics, philosophy, logic, semiotics, psychology, anthropology”
(Van, 2000).
A significant contribution to the evolution of discourse analysis has been made by
British and American scholars. In Britain the examination of discourse turned towards the study
of the social functions of language. A thorough account of communication in various situations
such as debates, interviews, doctor-patient relations, paying close attention to the intonation of
people participating in talks as well as manners particular to circumstances was the first
concern of British scholars. Americans, on the other hand, focused on examining small
communities of people and their discourse in genuine circumstances and on conversation
analysis inspecting narratives in addition to talks and the behavior of speakers as well as
patterns repeating in given situations.
Being identified and studied properly in a large scale and continuously, discourse
analysis is understood as a primarily linguistic study examining the use of language by its
native population whose major concern is investigating language functions along with its
forms, produced both orally and in writing. Moreover, identification of linguistic qualities of
various genres, vital for their recognition and interpretation, together with cultural and social
aspects which support its comprehension, is the domain of discourse analysis. To put it in
another way, the branch of applied linguistics dealing with the examination of discourse
attempts to find patterns in communicative products as well as their correlation with the
circumstances in which they occur, which are not explainable at the grammatical level (Carter,
1993:23)
It was in 1973 that Discourse analysis was dealt perfectly and correctly in M.A.K
Halliday‟s functional approach to language. His approach is completely influential in British
discourse analysis with the emphasis on the social function and the thematic and informational
structure of speech and writing.

Register, or context of situation as it is formally termed, is “ the set of meanings, the
configuration of semantic patterns, that are typically drawn upon under the specific conditions,
along with the words and structures that are used in the realization of these meanings"
(Halliday, 1978:23). It is concerned with the variables of field, tenor, and mode, and is a
useful abstraction which relates variations of language use to variations of social context.
Therefore, register analysis of linguistic texts, which enables us to uncover how language is
maneuvered to make meaning, has received popular application in (critical) discourse analysis
and (foreign) language teaching pedagogy.
Register is considered to supplement usefully for the concept of cohesion since “the
two together effectively define a text”, Halliday and Hasan (1976:22). This traces back to their
belief that “the register is the set of meanings, the configuration of semantic patterns that are
typically drawn upon under the specified conditions, along with the words and structures that
are used in the realization of these meanings”. In their viewpoint , register are discussed in
terms of the three features of context known as field, mode and tenor that are claimed to be “
highly general concept for describing how the context of situation determines the kinds of
meaning that are expressed”.
Field known as reference to “what is going on” ( i.e the field of activity) is “ the total
event, in which the text is functioning together with the purposive activity of speaker or writer;
it thus includes the subject matter as one element in it” (Halliday and Hasan , 1976:22). In
other words, field is the kind of language use which reflects the “purposive role” or the “social
function of the text” as Gregory and Carroll (1978) called, or it equals the setting and purpose
of the interaction.
Mode refers to the medium of the language activity including channel. Halliday and
Hasan (1976:22) defines mode as “the function of the text in the event, including therefore
both the channel taken by the language- spoken or written, extempore or prepared - and its
genre or rhetorical mode as narrative, didactive, persuasive, „phatic communion‟ and so on”.
Hatim (1990:50) later refers channel to “the vehicle through which communication takes
place, is an important aspect of mode. It transcends speech and writing to include other
communicative occurrence such as the telephone conversation, the essay, the business letter,
etc”.

from literary forms: poems, narratives, expositions, lectures, seminars, recipes, manuals,
appointment making, service encounters, and news, broadcast and so on. The term genre is
used here to embrace each of the linguistically realized activity types which comprise so much
of our culture” (Martin 1985, cited in Swales 1990). Nonetheless, Martin‟s definition is
thought not to reveal much clearly the nature of genre, and how each genre differs from one
another. At the same time, Kress also contributed an idea that genres are “conventionalized
forms of text which reflects the functions and goals involved in particular social occasions as
well as the purposes of the participants in them” (Kress 1985:19, cited in Hatim and Mason,
1990:69). Genre, afterwards, was also studied further by Hatim and Mason themselves. Under
their look, “genres are viewed in terms of a set of features which we perceive as being
appropriate to a given social occasion”. This, to a great extent, means the conventions of the
social occasion are the key factor in determining genres; and there is a relationship between
elements of lexis, grammar, etc. and the social occasion associated with particular genres.
In a nutshell, whatever meaning genre is associated; it is still seen as one of the two
perspectives from which discourse is frequently studied beside register. It is a culturally and
linguistically distinct form of discourse.

1.2 Cohesion
1.2.1 The concept of cohesion
Halliday and Hasan were the two linguists who published good studies of cohesion
within English discourse. In the book called Cohesion in English (1976) they define cohesion
“is a semantic one; it refers to relation of meaning that exist within text, and that define as a
text”. It is understood, as contrasted with register, is not concerned with what a text means.
Rather, it refers to a set of meaning relations that exist within the text. According to them, the
function of cohesion is to relate one part of a text to another part of the same text. Cohesion is
the quality of well-formed discourses (texts) that gives them an internal unity, making them
“hang together”. Sentences flow smoothly from one to another within that discourse. This idea
is later taken up by Quirk (1985:1423) and restated by Cook (1994:29) who maintain cohesion
is “the network of lexical, grammatical and other relations which link various parts of a text”.
These relations or ties organize and, to some extent, create a text, for instance, by requiring

coherence is fundamentally an interpretation by a reader. It is part of a transaction between
text and reader, between reader‟s world and the writer‟s language”; “coherence is both text-
related and a reader-related phenomenon”.
To conclude, cohesion and coherence are similar in that both concern the way stretches
of language are connected to each other, yet these two aspects of discourse are interrelated,
which make a text or discourse coherent and different from random ones. Coherence is
believed to be embodied by a system of cohesive devices and cohesion is mainly used to
ensure coherence.

1.2.3 Cohesion and discourse structure
Halliday and Hasan (1976:10) define discourse structure is a type of structure - the
structure of some postulated unit higher than a sentence such as a paragraph, or some larger
entity such as episode or topic unit. In their viewpoint, the concept of cohesion is to set up to
account for relations in discourse, but in rather a different way, without the implication there is
some structural unit that is above the sentences. Cohesion, in this view, refers to the range of
possibilities that exist for linking something with what has been previously mentioned. As a
matter of fact, it is the sentence that is the pivotal entity here- whatever is put together within
one sentence is part of a text- we can interpret cohesion, in practice, as the set of semantic
resources for linking a sentence with what have been mentioned before. From the standpoints
of Halliday and Hasan: “the determinant of whether a set of sentences do or do not constitute a
text depends on cohesive relationship within and between the sentences”. The relation
between them creates cohesion. Added to this, they assure: “We have to show how sentences,
which are structurally independent of one another, may be linked together through particular
features of their interpretation; and it is for this that the concept of cohesion is required”.

1.2.4 Types of cohesion
The seminal work on cohesion done by Halliday and Hasan (1976) has been found to
be a starting point for any research dealing with cohesion. In their viewpoint, the classification
of cohesion is based on the linguistic form. Some forms of cohesion are realized through
grammar and others through the vocabulary. Cohesion is a semantic relation, but it is realized

relations of sentences are: addition (and, moreover e.g.), temporality (afterwards, next…) and
causality (because, since…).

1.2.4.2 Lexical cohesion
Lexical cohesion is “phoric” cohesion that is established through the structure of the
lexis or vocabulary and hence (like substitution) at the lexicogrammatical level.
Lexical cohesion involves either the reiteration of an item –repetition of an item, or the
use of a synonym, near synonym, or superordinate term. Lexical cohesion could also be used
in reference to lexical collocation. In other words, lexical cohesion embraces two distinct
though related aspects which we referred to as Reiteration and Collocation.
Reiteration: Halliday and Hasan, (1976: 278) point out reiteration is “a form of lexical
cohesion which involves the repetition of a lexical item, at one end of the scale; the use of a
general word to refer back to a lexical item, at the other end of the scale, and a number of
things in between – the use of a synonym, near synonym, or superordinate”. They also explain
again in the next page (279): “when we talk about reiteration , we are including not only the
repetition of the same lexical item but also the occurrence of a related item, which may be
anything from a synonym or near synonym of the original to a general word dominating the
entire class”. Then, they categorize any instance of reiteration may be (a) the same word(
repetition) (b) a synonym or near- synonym, (c) a superordinate or (d) a general word.
Collocation: J.R. Firth (1890-1960), a British linguist, is usually considered to be the
"father" of collocation. It was also he that first used the term "collocation" in its linguistic
sense. In the words of Halliday and Hasan (1976) collocation represents “the most
problematical part of lexical cohesion”. Collocation is the type of cohesion that is achieved
through the association of lexical items that regularly co-occur. Mc Carthy (1991:65), in the
meanwhile, argues: “It‟s debatable whether collocation properly belongs to the notion of
lexical cohesion, since collocation only refers to the probability that lexical items will co-
occur, and is not a semantic relation between words.
The understanding of reiteration and collocation will be discussed deeper in the section
3.3 of the study with illustration from Aesop‟s fables in the English version.


speaking (Labov, 1972: 366). Codas are structural in function and serve to signal the end of a
narrative.
In summary it is suggested that a complete narrative begin with an abstract, followed by
an orientation, it then proceeds to the complicating action, evaluation and resolution. It then
returns the listener to the present time with the coda.

1.4 Fables and its properties
1.4.1 Definition of fables
The word "fable" comes from the Latin "fabula" (a "story"), itself derived from "fari"
("to speak") with the -ula suffix that signifies "little": hence, a "little story". In its original
sense "fable" denotes a brief, succinct story that is meant to impart a moral lesson, but, in a
pejorative sense, a "fable" may be a deliberately invented or falsified account of an event or
circumstance. An author of fables is termed a "fabulist," and the word "fabulous," strictly
speaking, "pertains to a fable or fables." In recent decades, however, "fabulous" has come
frequently to be used in the quite different meaning of "excellent" or "outstanding"
A fable is shortly defined, in Oxford Advanced Learner‟s Dictionary (2000), as “a
traditional short story that teaches a moral lesson, especially one with animals as characters”.
The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia (6
th
edition) also gives another definition of a fable : “
a brief allegorical narrative, in verse or prose, which illustrates a moral thesis or satirizing
human beings; the characters of a fable are usually animals who talk and act like people while
retaining their animals traits”. Also, from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, a fable is “a
succinct story, in prose or verse, that features animals, plants, inanimate objects, or forces of
nature which are anthropomorphized (given human qualities), and that illustrates a moral
lesson (a "moral"), which may at the end be expressed explicitly in a pithy maxim”. Expressed
in different ways as it is, a fable can be easily memorized as very short tales containing some
moral teaching with animals as characters.

1.4.2 General characteristics of a fable

language. In these short texts, use of vocabulary is often pared down and concise.

1.4.3 Generic structure of a fable
As it is noticed, the structure of a fable is typically the simplest kind of narrative with a
beginning, a complication and a resolution. Two characters (often animals) meet, an event
occurs and they go on their way with one of them having learned an important lesson about
life. For such simplicity, the generic structure of a fable seem to lack some components in
comparison with the structure of a natural narrative suggested by Labov(1972) as mentioned
in 1.3.
To be more specific, there, in a fable, generally, exists a component that provides a
brief introduction of the main characters that are about to appear constantly during the
narrative and that sets the scene for the story to happen. This opening section is differently
labeled “orientation” (Labov, 1972), “stage” (Longarce 1976),” setting” (Rumehart, 1975) or
“placement” (Hasan, 1984). This study would follow the suggestion of Labov (1972) and refer
to it as Orientation. The orientation is then followed by the so called Event Chain- series of
specific events that develop the content of the fable. The event chain itself is composed of
three subcomponents namely Initiating event, Sequent event and Final event. These events are
normally arranged in chronological order; one event is strictly followed by another in terms of
chronological order, even when there are no explicit indicators of adverbials of time. In the
long run, a fable may end with a component that is referred to as Coda. Coda provides a
concrete verbal moral lesson withdrawn or inferred from the story. A fable, however, is not
always supposed to include all the three components and isolate them clearly. It can begin
with either orientation or initiating event, and end without a coda sometimes. By and large, the
generic structure of a fable can be viewed through the following illustration:
[Orientation]

Event chain (Initiating event-> Sequent event-> Final event)

[Coda]
Note: The square brackets in the figure indicate optional elements in a fable.


Chapter 2: Previous studies on lexical cohesive devices

The theoretical knowledge of the study is based on the viewpoints from different
prospects of great linguists as well as the ideas extracted from the researches done beforehand.
In this chapter, the author would like to review some researches related to the study of
previous authors as reference for carrying out the study/ later comparing and analyzing the
data of lexical cohesion in English version of Aesop‟s fables. In reality, researches done on
cohesion, particularly lexical cohesive devices of a certain genre of discourse are numerous;
therefore, it is hard to cover all. For this reason, only some researches implemented in
Vietnam within restricted area of the Vietnam National University are reviewed in a very
small scale.
The first research is an M.A thesis by Phuong To Tam (2003) entitled “An analysis of
coherence and cohesion and a contrastive analysis of lexical cohesive devices in English and
Vietnamese”. The data for this thesis is from a chapter (chapter 5) on International Trade in
the textbook “International Business- An integrated Approach” by John J.Wild, Kenneth
L.Wild and Jerry C.Y.Han (1998). The attention of the study is paid to considering contrastive
analysis of lexical cohesive devices (including reiteration and collocation) in English (source
language) in the original textbook and their equivalents in Vietnamese (target language) in the
translation version. The author then attempts to collect data in both English and Vietnamese to
see the frequencies, similarities and differences of each device and sub-device of lexical
cohesive devices in the discourse of both languages. In the research, reiteration is viewed
noticeably in terms of repetition, synonyms and antonyms .In the first place, the repetition is
categorized into noun+ noun phrases, proper names, other content words and titles, and the
analysis shows repetition is most often seen with nouns and nouns phrases, other types of
repetition account for a rather small portion in total ranging from 9.6% to 15%; synonyms and
antonyms are analyzed with their types of nouns, verb and adjectives. Collocation is also a
focus for analysis; the author primarily classifies collocation (in terms of structure) into two
main types: Noun-collocation with noun as element and others without the presence of a noun,
and come to conclusion that noun-collocation dominates all other types of collocations with up