COHESION &

COHERENCE
Fina Khiyarotun Nisa - 2302180014
M. Fikrul Janu Jatmiko - 2302180023
 Content
01 Cohesion And Coherence

02 Grammatical Cohesive:

A. Reference

B. Substitution

C. Elipsis

D. Conjunction

03 Lexical Cohesion

04 Research Article
 Cohesive & Coherence
Cohesive refers to the resources within language
that provide continuity in a text, over and above that
provided by clause structure and clause complexes.
Thus, the parts of the text hang together from the
beginning up to the end that create a unity.

Coherence builds text unity by being consistent in

the context of situation, context of culture, by
continuity of ideas/sense/concepts, and cohesion. It
means that cohesion facilitates coherence.

Storrer (2002: 1) emphasized that coherence and cohesion lead

the addressees to detect the relationships linking of the
individual text constituents. Thus, coherence and cohesion are
key concepts for text comprehension and clarity. They support
the readers/ listeners in arriving at comprehension.
Grammatical
01 Reference
Cohesive

Substitution 02

03 Elipsis

Conjunction 04
Grammatical 01 Reference
Cohesive

Reference refers to a system that introduces and tracks the identity of

Participants through text. It is related to textual meaning and thus to mode.

Systems of Reference
There are three main distinctions to make here:
Whether the
Participant is being mentioned for the first time in the text (presenting
reference) or whether it is a subsequent mention (presuming reference).
Reference is to a generic class or to a specific individual
Reference is comparative or not.
 01 Reference
Grammatical
Cohesive

Reference
Grammatical 01 Reference
Cohesive

This system is illustrated in the following short examples:

1. Most snakes move in a serpentine crawl. They throw their bodies into curves.
[Snakes: generic, presenting, -comparison]
[They: generic, presuming, -comparison]
2. We saw lots of snakes at Reptile World. Some of them came out of the logs and ate
the dead mice but the other snakes stayed under the logs.
[Lots of snakes: specific, presenting, - comparison]
[some of them: specific, presuming, - comparison]
[the other snakes: specific, presuming, +comparison]
Grammatical 01 Reference
Cohesive

Retrieval
In tracking who is who and what is what in a text we use systems of retrieval.
We can look at these by going back to the ideas of the Context of Culture and
Situation. We can retrieve the identity of a Participant in several possible ways,
either by reference to the context of culture or situation, or form within the text or
outside it. Retrieval through the context of culture is known as homophora.
 01 Reference
Grammatical
Cohesive Example of retrieval:
When I woke up this morning, the sun was shining.
In this text we retrieve the identity of ‘the sun’ through cultural knowledge;
no one would ask ‘which sun?’.
 01 Reference
Grammatical
Cohesive Example of retrieval:
When I woke up this morning, the sun was shining.
In this text we retrieve the identity of ‘the sun’ through cultural knowledge;
no one would ask ‘which sun?’.
 01 Reference
Grammatical
Cohesive System of Retrieval
(Types of referencing or pronoun usage)

a. Endophora: Reference within a text.

b. Anaphora: Within the text, we can retrieve identity from the preceding text.
c. Cataphora: Within the text we can retrieve identity from the following text (something
mention later in the discourse).

For example:
Some snakes, though not venomous, are still deadly. They squeeze their victim to
death. (anaphora).
It was a venomous one that small green snake. (cataphora)
 01 Reference
Grammatical
Cohesive
Grammatical 01 Reference
Cohesive

Bridging
There is another type of retrieval which is called bridging. This is where the
reference is indirect, where we assume the identity of the part from the whole.
Example:
“We walked towards the kiosk but the windows were bolted shut.”
Here, we retrieve the identity of ‘windows’ by virtue of them being part of the kiosk.
Grammatical 02 Substitution
Cohesive

Substitution refers to the replacement of one item by another. A substitute is a

sort of counter which is used in place of the repetition of an item. Halliday and
Hasan (1976: 88) state that the distinction between substitution and reference is
that substitution is a relation in the wording rather than in the meaning. There
are three types of substitution; nominal, verbal, and clausal.
Grammatical 02 Substitution
Cohesive

Nominal (Using a different noun or noun phrase to replace the original noun).
Example: “I can’t find my phone” ---> “I can’t find it”
Verbal (Using of a verb or verbal phrase to replace another word in
discourse. it can involve using synonyms, antonyms. that convey the same
ideas).
Example: “I’m very tired” ---> “I’m exhausted”
Clausal (using a whole clause or sentence to replace a noun or noun phrase)
Example: “She said that she would be late” ---> “What she said was that she
would be late”
Grammatical 03 Elipsis
Cohesive
Ellipsis refers to the omission of an item. Halliday and Hasan (1976: 142)
point out that substitution and ellipsis are very similar to each other. Ellipsis
is simply ’substitution by zero’. The underlying point of view in discussing
ellipsis is that it is ‘something left unsaid’ but it can be understood. Like the
types of substitution, ellipsis is also classified into three types, i.e. nominal
ellipsis, verbal ellipsis, and clausal ellipsis.
Example:
Andrew: “I have two apples. How many do you have?”
Safla: “I have three” (Omitted: apples)
Grammatical 04 Conjunction
Cohesive
Halliday and Hasan (1976, p.80) maintain that conjunctive elements are
cohesive in themselves, but indirectly by their specific meaning, they express
certain meanings that presuppose the presence of other components in a
discourse.
The cohesive pattern of conjunction refers to how the writer or speaker
creates and expresses logical relationships between the parts of a text. Gerot
and Wignel (1995: 180) suggest that conjunction is the semantic system
whereby speakers relate clauses in terms of temporal sequence, consequence,
comparison and addition. Eggins (1994: 105), following Halliday’s statement
(1985), states that there are three main types of conjunctive relations, namely:
elaboration, extension and enhancement.
Grammatical 04 Conjunction
Cohesive

a. Elaboration ---> a relationship of restatement or clarification, whereby

one sentence is (presented as) a re-saying or representation of a
previous sentence.
b. Extension ---> a relationship of either addition or variation.
c. Enhancement ---> refers to ways by which one sentence can extend on
the meanings of another, in terms of dimensions such as time,
comparison, cause, condition, or concession. Besides being divided
into the above types of relation, conjunctions are also divided into
additive, adversative, causal, temporal conjunctions.
Grammatical 04 Conjunction

Cohesive
Grammatical 04 Conjunction

Cohesive
Grammatical 04 Conjunction

Cohesive
Example
Cohesive conjunction: (temporal;external)
“We walk the ring with our dogs. Afterwards we just wait”

Paratactic conjunction: (temporal;external)

We walk the ring with our dogs and then we just wait.

Hypotactic conjunction: (temporal;external)

(finite) After we walk the ring with our dogs, we just wait.
(non-finite) Subsequent to walking the ring with our dogs, we just wait.
Lexical Conjunction
Cohesion
Lexical cohesion refers to the relationships between and among words
and in the relationships among them; these can be either more or less
permanent, i.e. coming from institutions within the culture, or they can
be established only for that text.
In text types in which writer opinion or jugdment is offered, lexical
cohesion is also revealing for interpersonal meanings, through use of
attitudinal lexis and qualitative attributes
Lexical cohesion occurs when nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs in a
text relate to each other in some way.
Lexical Reiteration
Cohesion

Repetition (including inflection and derivation) e.g. leave, leave, leaving,

left.
Synonymy (similarity of meaning) e.g. leave, depart
Antonymy (opposite or contrastive meaning) e.g. leave, arrive
Hyponymy (classes/superordination and subclasses/is a type of) e.g.
flower, rose rose – daffodil = co-hyponyms
Meronymy (whole-part relations) e.g. flower, petal
petal – stem = co-meronyms
Lexical Collocation
Cohesion
Cohesion that is achieved through the association of lexical items that
regularly co-occur (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

Was smoking one very hot day.

But a bird called a snipe
Flew away with his pipe,
Which vexed the fat man of Bombay.

collocational tie between smoking and pipe contributes to the cohesion of the
text
 Introduction

The mastery of cohesive devices is a necessary element for effective academic

writing and also essential for academic success in any course where English is the
medium of instruction

It is necessary to investigate the cohesive devices in student’s writing to determine

the lack and what needs to be evaluated and improved regarding students’ writing
 Research Questions

What cohesive devices are used by college students of

1 Darussunnah in their argumentative writing?

2
How is the correctness of cohesive devices performed by college
students of Darussunnah through their argumentative writing?
 Literature review
Suningsih (2016) conducted a study on the use of cohesive devices in students' writing
in Lampung. The study analyzed three groups of students' writing: Pre-Intermediate,
Advanced, and Academic Writing Course. The findings of the study showed that the
use of substitution was balanced across all three groups of students. However, the
higher the proficiency of the students, the less ellipsis, conjunction, and lexical
cohesion emerged in their writing.

Bahaziq (2016) through his research of cohesive devices in written discourse of a

student’s essay writing revealed that the student’s writing shows explicit evidence of
cohesion and indicates the use of grammatical and lexical devices. This research was
conducted only on single writing produced by a college student in Saudi Arabia setting.
 Research gap

Due to the results from previous studies above, it seems that students faced
difficulties in appropriately presenting the cohesive devices.

However, it is reasonable considering that the students are foreign language learners.
In this case, studying and investigating the cohesive devices in college students’
writing will lead to the result which will determine the capacity of student’s ability in
presenting the cohesive devices.
 Methodology
Research method

Qualitative analysis: describing the cohesive devices used by the student.

Quantitative analysis: calculating the emergence of cohesive devices in the form of

numbers and numerical tables
 Methodology
Research participants

These are college students from the fifth semester of Darussunnah University who
participated in an English course aimed at building their writing skills during the
academic year 2019/2020.

Their major of study is Hadith sciences.

 Methodology
Data collection

A single data-collecting technique was employed in this research

In collecting the data, a single student’s writing was analyzed.

Students were demanded at the beginning of the course that the final product of the
course was to produce an argumentative writing
 Methodology
Data analysis

Cohesive devices analysis

The descriptive analysis was conducted through several steps; collecting student’s
writing, counting the cohesive devices, categorizing the cohesive devices, and
discussing the finding
Findings
Reference
Findings
Conjuction
 Findings
Substitution and ellipsis

The last grammatical cohesive device is ellipsis and substitution. The data
revealed that only ellipsis was used by students four times. Compared to the
grammatical cohesion in general, it resulted in 3.6%. However, substitution
did not appear in the writing
Findings
Lexical cohesion
 Discussion
Based on the analysis, it was found that 69.36% of the grammatical cohesion in the text
was achieved through the use of references. The most common reference used was
the article, which suggests that the writer may not have a strong understanding of the
appropriate use of definite articles.

According to the analysis of the text, it was found that the students used lexical
cohesion 189 times. This type of cohesion was mostly dominated by repetition, which
accounted for 89.4% of the instances. This finding suggests that the students were
trying to emphasize the main topic of their discussion. This is supported by the fact that
the most commonly repeated words were "legal" and "law", each repeated 21 times.
The other types of cohesive devices, such as synonyms, antonyms, superordinates,
and collocations, were used less frequently, with no more than ten instances of each.
 Conclusion

The proper use of cohesive devices facilitates the creation of well-connected texts. A
text that makes sense to the reader indicates the proper use of cohesive devices by
the writer.

The result of this research shows that students have performed the cohesive devices.
However, students need to improve the use of the cohesive device, especially in
grammatical cohesion to reach higher level of cohesion
 References

Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. Longman.

Gerot, L. & Pete, W. (1994). Making Sense of Functional Grammar. Gerd Stabler

Albana, H. H., Marzuki, A. G., & Hidayat, D. N. (2020). Cohesive Devices in Student’s Writing
(A Discourse Analysis on Argumentative Text). Jurnal Pendidikan Humaniora, 8(1), 6–11.
http://journal.um.ac.id/index.php/jphISSN:2338-8110
THANK
YOU