iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Declaration page……………………………………………………………………… i
Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………ii
Abstract.………………………………………………………………………………iii
Table of contents…………………………………………………………………… iv
Abbreviation ……………………………………………………………………… vi
List of tables and charts………………………………………………………………vii
PART A: INTRODUCTION 1
1. Rationale 1
2. Aims of the study 2
3. Scope of the study 2
4. Significance of the study 2
5. Method of the study 3
6. Design of the study 3
PART B: DEVELOPMENT 5
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW 5
1.1. Discourse 5
1.1.1. The concept of discourse 5
1.1.2. Discourse and text 5
1.1.3. Spoken and written discourse 6
1.1.4. Discourse analysis 7
1.1.5. Context in discourse analysis 8
1.1.5.1. Context of situation 8
1.1.5.2. Context of culture 8
1.1.6. Register and genre in discourse analysis 8
1.2. Cohesion 9
1. 2.1. Definition of cohesion 9
1.2.2. Cohesion vs. Coherence 9
1.2.3. Aspects of cohesion 10

2.2.2.1. Lexical collocation 31
2.2.2.2. Grammatical collocation 33
2.3. Summary of cohesive devices in the textbook 34
CHAPTER 3: IMPLICATION FOR TEACHING ENGLISH 36
3.1. Teaching cohesion through teaching reading 36
3.1.1. In terms of grammatical cohesion 36
3.1.1.1. Teaching conjunctions through teaching reading 36
3.1.1.2. Teaching reference through teaching reading 37
3.1.1.3. Teaching collocation 37
3.1.1.4. Teaching reiteration through teaching reading 38
3.1.2. Teaching cohesion through teaching writing 39
3.1.2.1. Teaching grammatical cohesion through teaching writing 39
3.1.2.2. Teaching lexical cohesion through teaching writing 39
PART C: CONCLUSION 40
1. Major findings 40
2. Suggestions for further study 41
REFERENCE 42
SOURCES OF DATA……………………………………………………………… 44
APPENDIX I:…………………………………………………… ………………… I
APPENDIX II: VI
APPENDIX III: VII
APPENDIX IV……………………………………………………………………… X
APPENDIX V: XI
APPENDIX VI: XII
APPENDIX VII: XIV
APPENDIX VIII: XV
APPENDIX IX XXI
APPENDIX X: XXII
APPENDIX XI XL
APPENDIX XII: XLI
vii
LIST OF TABLES AND CHARTS

Table 1.1: Types of cohesion……………………………………………………….10
Table 1.2: Grammatical and lexical cohesion…………………………………… 11
Table 2.1: Different types of reference words for anaphoric ties……………… 17
Table 2.2: Different types of reference words for cataphoric ties……………….20
Table 2.3: Different types of reference words for exophoric ties……………… 21
Chart 2.1: The percentage of conjunctions in the textbook………………………23
Chart 2.2: The percentage of substitutions in the textbook…………………… 25

the GCSE examination, and the entrance examination to university.
Tracing back to these two national examinations recently, the high occurrence proportion of
cohesive devices can not be denied. In my observation, except for phonetic parts, cohesive
devices, along with their usage and meaning, are useful tools in both reading texts, and
many sentences in such parts as writing, mistake correction, and multiple choice questions.
That is to say, the teaching of cohesive devices is essential to grade 12 students.
Moreover, on the process of mastering language in general, English in particular, to
Vietnamese secondary students, reading is seen as the crucial tool that aids the learning of
the other skills. However, it is a fact that, these days, many high school students do not have
adequate linguistic knowledge to read and understand a whole written text in English.
During my process of teaching high school students, I come to realize that one of the
foremost reasons for which students often make errors at sentence and discourse levels is
due to their inattention to the cohesive devices used in the context of texts. What they do is
to try to look up new words, and then translate the texts into Vietnamese. As a result,
students find it hard to understand the text or express their answers in the comprehension
check questions even though they know most of the words. Those who are given in advance
unfamiliar words still show their inability in recognizing sentences, and word relations,
which leads to the misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the meaning of the texts.
In addition, according to my past experience of being a final-year student at high school, as
well as during my observation at my working place, most of the teachers, both my former
ones and my present colleagues, do not teach students how to realize word relations through
the cohesive devices.
Apart from a variety of mentioned things, many people have done researches on linguistics
and discourse analysis; yet, no suggestions have been given to high school teachers and
students so that they can do tasks relating to cohesion more successfully. Consequently, the
decisive motivation in doing this research derives from the extremely important role of
cohesion in the text and also the difficulties of my students who lack the ability to make

- 2 -
proper recognition of cohesive devices in written texts in their textbooks. This research

examination to university.
 Practical significance: This research gives out some practical applications, such as
combining linguistic theory and practice in analyzing written English discourses in the

- 3 -
researched textbook. In addition, the researcher hopes to give teachers and students a hand
with teaching and learning cohesion through reading and writing skills.
5. Method of the study
 Approaches and methods
The study can not reach its final page without a logical system of approaches and methods.
Both qualitative and quantitative approaches are applied. However, the latter is exploited
most of the time. The tackling methods are statistic and descriptive (getting the statistics
from the texts in the chosen textbook), analytical and synthetic (drawing striking features
from the book observation). Firstly, a number of materials on discourse analysis are
discovered to give the research a theoretical base. Then, it is ensured that none of the most
noticeable cohesive devices in the reading texts in the textbook for intermediate students at
grade 12 is missed their analysis and induction. Finally, the results are drawn out so that the
author can suggest some implications.
 Data collection and analysis
The grammatical and lexical cohesive devices to be studied will be taken from the textbook
“Tiếng Anh 12” for grade 12 students at intermediate level edited by Hoang,V.V et al
(2010), Education Publication House.
6. Design of the study
The thesis capacity is within 40 pages, structured as follows:
Part A: Introduction introduces the rationale, objectives, scope, significance, methodology
and the design of the study.
Part B: Development
Chapter 1: Literature review deals with the theories related to Discourse and Discourse
Analysis, cohesion, and the textbook.
Chapter 2: Findings and discussion of textbook observation analyses cohesive devices

PART B: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW
1.1. Discourse
1.1.1. The concept of discourse
The term “discourse” has been given a numerous definitions to throughout the history of
linguistics. Widdowson (1979:98) defines discourse as follows:
“Discourse is a use of sentences to perform acts of communication which cohere into larger
communicative units, ultimately establishing rhetorical pattern which characterizes the
pieces of language as a whole as a kind of communication.”

- 5 -
According to Halliday and Hasan (1989:38), discourse is seen differently in the simplest
way as a text and that “it is language that is functional.” McCarthy (1991: 5), on the other
hands, puts discourse in the relationship between language and the contexts in which it is
used. One year later, Crystal, in the book “Introduction to linguistics” (1992:25) considers
discourse to be “a continuous stretch of language larger than a sentence, often constituting
a coherent unit such as sermon, argument, joke, or narrative.”
Although discourse is understood and defined differently, the definition by Halliday and
Hasan, in which the discourse means language in use, seems to be the clearest to follow.
That is also the concept adapted in this research. Besides, as far as the scope of discourse is
concerned, discourse refers not only to spoken interactions and interviews, but also to
written and printed words, such as newspapers, articles, and letters. The discourses in the
research are written texts in textbook.
1.1.2. Discourse and text

stretch of language that may be longer than one sentence. Thus, text and discourse analysis
is about how sentences combine to form texts.” Cohesion, then, is a principle factor in
determining texture since it is a means through which we can relate our utterances or
sentences.
In the present research, the second viewpoint is adapted. The term “discourse” is used with
no different meaning from “text.” In this sense, to analyze a text means to a discourse.
Therefore, in this study, text analysis of reading text also means discourse analysis.
1.1.3. Spoken and written discourse
Spoken and written discourses are different modes of discourse. Cook, (1989:50)
distinguishes them as follows:
“Spoken discourse is often considered to be less planned, more open to intervention by the
receiver. There are some kinds of spoken discourse, however -like lesson, lectures, interview, and
trials- which have significant features in common with typical written discourse…Conversely,
there are at times when readers do have rights to affect written discourse. Written responds to the
market.”
Brown and Yule (1983:13), moving on the same route, differentiate spoken discourses from
written ones in terms of their various functions: the first is used for the establishment and
maintenance of human relationships (interactional use) and the second for the working out
of and transference of information (transactional use). In “Discourse analysis: an
introduction”, Paltridge (2006: 25) concludes that “speaking and writing draw on the same
underlying grammatical system but in general they encode meanings in different ways
depending on what they wish to present.”
In Cook’s opinion (1989: 128), whether the discourse is spoken or written profoundly
influences the choices of the appropriate cohesive ties. This present study focuses on
product of communicative process. Thus, though both spoken and written texts are made to
be persuasive and attractive, we just look into cohesion in written discourses
, not in the spoken ones. The question is how we can analyze a discourse. There is nothing
better than basing ourselves on disciplines of discourse analysis.
1.1.4. Discourse analysis


1.1.5.1. Context of situation
Context of situation is an integral concept of discourse analysis. According to Eggins
(1994:30), context of situation is usually discussed under three variables: “what is talked
about, what the relationship between the communicators is; what role the language plays.”
Halliday (2002:52) thought of context of situation as a determining environment which
affects text meaning.

- 8 -
1.1.5.2. Context of culture
Besides the language and context of situation we need to pay attention to the context of
culture. As stated by Malinowski (1923) “if you are not a member of the culture, you cannot
understand what is meant”. To recognize the text as meaningful, the readers or hearers need
to refer the text to a cultural context. It is important to know the culture of the given
language in interpreting and understanding the given messages.
1.1.6. Register and genre in discourse analysis
Register is an important factor that can not be ignored because this study focuses on
cohesion, which is supplemented by the concept of register. Halliday and Hasan (1976:22)
give the concept and components of the context of situation, which shows the features of
register by FIELD, TENOR and MODE. Field of discourse shows what is happening with
the nature of the social action that is taking place. Whereas, Tenor of discourse refers to
who is taking part, to the nature of the participants, their statuses and roles. Mode of
discourse regards to what part the language is playing, what it is that the participants are
expecting the language to do for them in that situation.
In terms of genre, Eggins (1994:32) believed
“Genre, or context of culture, can be seen as more abstract, more general - we can recognize a
particular genre if we are not sure exactly what the situational context is. Genre, then, can be
thought of as the general framework that gives purpose to interactions of particular types,
adaptable to the many specific context of situation that they get used in.”
1.2. Cohesion
1. 2.1. Definition of cohesion

coherence is “the relationships which link the meanings of utterances in a discourse or of
the sentences in a text.” In other words, cohesion is a guide to coherence.
However, coherence and cohesion are interrelated, as Widdowson (1984) concludes “the
procedures of cohesion and coherence are not entirely distinct….” Coherence can be shown
out by cohesion, but the identification between coherence and cohesion sometimes can not
be made. Thus, coherence and cohesion are connected to each other in making ties within a
text. As what noticed by Tran, N.T. (1981:3), coherence is “content cohesion”, including
topical and logical cohesion.
1.2.3. Aspects of cohesion
To make a discourse coherent, the two vital factors which can not be omitted are topical and
logical cohesion. However, because the present study does not focus on these two, they will
not be discussed in details.
1.2.3.1. Topical cohesion
What topical cohesion concerns about is Theme and Rheme. Theme is usually expressed by
the least- most constituent of the sentence. It refers to what speaker nominates as the subject
of what he will think about in the Rheme. The function of theme is to connect back or link
to previous discourse and to serve as a starting of departure for further development of
discourse.
1.2.3.2. Logical cohesion

- 10 -
Logical cohesion, in Nguyen, H’s view (2000:28), is also powerful sentence connectors.
They demonstrate the logical relationship holding between sentences, thus creating or
expressing cohesion. There exist the following types of logical cohesive devices: and,
enumeration, addition, transition, concession, and comparison.
1.2.4. Types of cohesion
Types of cohesion and linguistic level are distinguished clearly in Halliday and Hasan's
book (1976).
Linguistic level at which “phoric” relation is established
Type of cohesion

 Additive
 Adversative
 Causal
 Temporal
 Others

Reiteration
 Same word / repetition
 Synonym / near-synonym
 Superordinate
 General words

Collocation
Table 1.2: Grammatical and lexical cohesion
Halliday and Hasan add that conjunction, particularly, is “on the borderline of the two.”
However, it can be better to put it in the group of grammatical cohesion as it is “mainly

- 11 -
grammatical with a lexical component in it” (Halliday and Hasan, 1976: 6). The detail of
each type is briefly explained as follows.
1.2.4.1. Grammatical cohesion
1.2.4.1.1. Reference
According to Halliday and Hasan (1976: 31) the interpretation of a word is not necessarily
based only on its own right, but it can make reference to something else provided that the
reference is either to some other parts of the text or to the world experienced by the sender
and the receiver of the text. That is, the information to be retrieved is the referential
meaning, and the cohesion lies in the continuity of reference.
Reference, in Halliday and Hasan’s viewpoint, can be accounted as “exophoric” or
“endophoric” functions.
Reference

the text. Halliday and Hasan (1976:89) distinguish substitution from reference in terms of
linguistic system, in which “reference is a relation on the semantic level, whereas
substitution is a relation on the lexicogrammatical level, the level of grammar and
vocabulary, or linguistic form.” They classify substitution into 3 types: nominal, verbal and
clausal. Most of the substitutes are pro-forms within sentences, which are used across
sentences. In specific words, substitutes may be pro-forms for adverbials, pro-forms for
predicate and predication, and also pro-forms for the direct object clause. According to
Halliday and Hasan (1976: 91), nominal substitution includes “one”, “ones”, “same”,
verbal substitution consists of “do”, and clausal substitutes are “so”, “not”.
1.2.4.1.3. Ellipsis
Similarly to substitution, ellipsis is used to avoid repetition, as Salkie (1995:56) said that the
aim of ellipsis is to “leave out a word or phrase rather than repeat it.” It is often regarded
as “substitution by zero.” Nevertheless, Halliday and Hasan (1976:142) argue that although
substitution and ellipsis embody the same fundamental relation between parts of a text (a
relation between words or groups or clauses), they are two different kinds of mechanism,
and hence show rather different patterns. They also add that ellipsis is an omission of certain
elements from a sentence or clause and can only be recovered by referring to an element in
the preceding text. Therefore, ellipsis is normally an anaphoric relation. In Halliday and
Hasan’s viewpoint (1976:146), ellipsis is divided into three subtypes, namely, nominal
ellipsis, verbal ellipsis, and clausal ellipsis.
1.2.4.1.4. Conjunction
According to Halliday and Hasan (1976: 226), conjunctive elements are cohesive not in
themselves but indirectly by virtue of their specific meaning. It means that they are not
primarily devices for reaching out into the preceding text but they express certain meaning
which presupposes the presence of other components in discourse. In other word,
conjunction does not depend either on referential meaning or identity or
association of wording. There are four types of conjunction:
 Additive: According to Halliday and Hasan (1976: 244) additive relation
consists of additional information to the text. The conjunctive relation, are: and,
or, furthermore, beside, likewise, similarly, that is, in other word, for instance, etc.

1.2.4.2.2. Collocation
Collocation is an important tool to make parts of a text bind together. Richard et al
(1992:62) explains “collocation refers to the restrictions on how much words can be used
together, for example, which prepositions are used with particular verbs, or which verbs
and nouns are used together.” Collocation refers to the semantic and structural relation

- 14 -
among words, which native speakers can use subconsciously for comprehension or
production of a text. Halliday and Hasan argue the case of collocation as follows:
The cohesive effect … depends not so much on any systematic relation-ship as on their
tendency to share the same lexical environment, to occur in COLLOCATION with one
another. In general, any two lexical items having similar patterns of collocation – that is,
tending to appear in similar context – will generate a cohesive force if they occur in adjacent
sentences.
(Halliday & Hasan, 1976: 286)
In short, collocation refers to words that keep company with each other. In terms of
structure, there are two types of collocation: grammatical collocation and lexical
collocation (Halliday and Hasan, 1976:284).
 Grammatical collocation often contains a lexical content word and grammar
function words, i.e. a noun, an adjective, a verb plus a reposition. Some main kinds of
grammatical collocation include V+ prep, Adj + Prep, N + Prep, Prep + N.
 Lexical collocation is lexically restricted word pairs where only a subset of the
synonyms of the collocators can be used in the same lexical content. Lexical collocation
does not contain prepositions but consist of various combinations of nouns, adjectives,
verbs, and adverbs. The following common patterns are involved: Adj + N, Quant + N, V +
N, N + V, V + Adv, V + V, Adv + Adj, N + N.
1.3. Textbook and the book for grade 12 in general throughout Vietnam
Textbook is probably among the most quintessential equipments of teaching in general and
language teaching and learning in particular. Hutchison and Torres (1994: 315) once
confirm that teaching and learning can not happen without textbook. Cunning Worth (1995)

kĩ năng môn Tiếng Anh trung học phổ thông” (Vu, T.L. & Nguyen, H.C., 2010: 36-40).
Theme 1: You and me - unit 1, unit 2, unit 3
Theme 2: Education - unit 4, unit 5, unit 6
Theme 3: Community - unit 7, unit 8
Theme 4: Nature - unit 9, unit 10
Theme 5: Recreation - unit 11, unit 12, unit 13
Theme 6: People and places: unit 14, unit 15, unit 16
There are 5 parts in each unit. Each part is carried out in a period of forty-five minutes.
They are arranged as follows:
A. reading -> B. Speaking -> C. Listening -> D. Writing -> E. Language Focus
Reading is the beginning part of each unit. Each reading passage is about 300 words in
length. These passages closely relate to the themes of the units. According to “tài liệu bồi
dưỡng giáo viên” (MOET, 2006:60), the passages at secondary levels are written with
simple and easy style. Nevertheless, some passages in “Tiếng Anh 12”, such as in unit 7, are
long and rather difficult for students to understand as there are a lot of difficult new words.
It takes time to elicit. That is the reason why, in order to help students to know the passage
well, teachers sometimes need to show students how to guess the answers basing on the
cues and cohesive signals instead of looking up for all new words and structures.
SUMMARY: To sum up, in this part, some terms in discourse analysis are defined.
Among which, cohesive devices – the subject of the thesis – are discussed in details.
Accordingly, there are four subcategories of grammatical cohesive devices, namely
references, substitutions, ellipsis, and conjunctions. The two types of lexical cohesive
devices include reiteration and collocation. Besides, features of the chosen reading texts in
the research textbook are also described. - 16 -

Personal pronoun
93
26.05
Personal determiner
61
17.09
Demonstrative pronoun
22
6.16
Comparative adjective
8
2.24
Demonstrative adverb
4
1.12
Comparative adverb
3
0.84
Table 2.1: Different types of reference words for anaphoric ties

As can be seen from the table, definite article, “the,” accounts for the largest part with 46.5
%. This figure is nearly twice as much as that of personal pronoun with 26.05 %. This result

- 17 -
does not bring about any surprise, because “no other item in English behaves exactly like
the” (Halliday and Hasan, 1976: 70). Moreover, in terms of meaning, according to Halliday
and Hasan (ibid: 70-71), “the” is “a specifying agent” through which a single individual or
subtype within the class assigned by the noun is recognized. Furthermore, “the” is believed
to use to refer to mentioned things in the text. For secondary students, whose language
competence is still at intermediate level, this anaphoric feature is very important. It makes


- 18 -
“them” with 4 items. Among these instances, anaphoric personal pronouns involve 34 cases
of “it”, 18 “I”, 13 “they”, 8 “we”, 4 “them”, 2 “us.”
According to Halliday and Hasan (1976:54), “all that has been said about personal pronouns
applies equally to the categories of personal, namely the possessive determiners and
possessive pronouns.” In here, possessive determiners and possessive pronouns are subtypes
of personal determiners. They, similarly to the definite article and personal pronouns, refer
anaphorically to the said-before objects. In the case of the reading texts in the book “Tiếng
Anh 12”, personal determiners are also used at high rate of frequency. They stand at the
third position with 17.09 %. Among 61 cases of personal determiners in the observed books,
“My” appears 21 times, their 12, mine 1, her 11, his 16, our 6, its 8. Let’s see some
examples of anaphoric personal determiners:
I come from a family of five people: my parents, my two younger brothers and I. My
mother works as a nurse in a big hospital. She has to work long hours and once a week she
has to work on a night shift. My father is a biologist. He works from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. in a lab,
but sometimes when there is a project, he doesn’t come home until very late at night.
(Unit 1, page 13, “Tiếng Anh 12” )
Significantly, more Asian students than American students agree that a husband is obliged
to tell his wife where he has been if he comes home late. The Asian wife can demand a
record of her husband’s activities. The American wife, however, trusts her husband to do the
right thing because he loves her not because he has to.
(Unit 2, page 21, “Tiếng Anh 12” )
It is surprising demonstrative pronouns account for only over 6 %, nearly 8 times less than
definite article although both of them refer to the location of something, typically some
entity - person or object - that is participating in the process. As being observed,
demonstrative pronouns often occur as elements within nominal groups or elliptical
elements. It is also analyzed from the course book that “this” and “these” are employed
more frequently than “that” and “those.” For example:
We do not whistle or clap our hands to get the person’s attention. That is considered impolite and

137
Comparative adjective
43
31.39
Comparative adverb
4
2.92
Demonstrative adverb
3
2.1
Demonstrative pronoun
3
2.1
Personal pronoun
1
0.73
Personal determiner
1
0.73
Table 2.2: Different types of reference words for cataphoric ties
As it is shown from the table, like that in anaphora, definite article still owns the highest rate
of occurrence, with 59.85 %. It sounds a little bit strange because the definite article is often
used to refer back to the mentioned things. However, within texts for secondary students,
the clarity and simplicity are of great importance. Therefore, all concepts mentioned should
be made identifiable. Definite article here can only refer to a modifying element within the
same nominal group as itself. The following are some examples:
Robots will do most of the work in factories, so they will be cleaner places for fewer people to
work in them. Offices, too, will go electronic with the result that paper will almost completely
disappear.
(Unit 8, page 85, “Tiếng Anh 12” )

Number of items
Percentage (%)
Total number
Personal pronoun
75
45.72
164
Definite article
59
35.98
Personal determiner
22
13.42
Comparative adjective
7
4.27
Demonstrative adverb
1
0.61
Demonstrative pronoun
0
0
Comparative adverb
0
0
Table 2.3: Different types of reference words for exophoric ties

Of all 16 texts covered, exophoric reference accounts for a relatively large rate. It shares
words outside of the text. Nevertheless, it is not difficult for students to grasp the reading
texts because students all have certain knowledge of the referent items. The most common

have deeper understanding about how to use conjunctions through the sentences in the
reading texts.
Along with reference, conjunction plays an important role in making a text cohesive. There
are 315 items of conjunctions in total throughout the observed book. As being mentioned
previously, Halliday and Hasan classify conjunction into 4 subcategories, namely additive,
adversative, causal and temporal. The following chart presents the occurrence frequency of
these four types in reading texts in the book “Tiếng Anh 12” The details of each type are
shown in Appendix table 2: