“A text is best thought of not as a grammatical unit at all, but as a unit of a different kind: a semantic unit.

” Michael
Halliday

The topic under scrutiny is number 29 in the set, whose name is “Analysis and Articulation of Discourse. Cohesion
and Coherence. Anaphora and Cataphora. Connectives. Deixis.”

The dissertation will be divided in 5 main sections: in section 1, we will start off by briefly introducing the
importance of this topic. Then, in section 2, we will examine the concept of discourse analysis according to some
remarkable authors of the field. Afterwards, within section 3, we will comment on the main types of cohesive
devices: grammatical cohesion (substitution, ellipsis and conjunction), lexical cohesion (reiteration and collocation)
and semantic cohesion (reference). It is also relevant to mention that anaphora, cataphora and deixis will be
examined under the heading of reference. Moving on, in section 4, we will deal with coherence. Next, in section 5,
we will bring this topic to an end with a proper conclusion and an insightful teaching approach of its content in the
ESL Classroom.

All of this will be done under the perspective of a number of relevant and influential figures in the field of the
Discourse Analysis, namely Halliday and Hasan, Cohesion in English (1976), van Dijk, Text and Context: Explorations
in the Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse (1984), Cook, Discourse (1989), Brown and Yule, Discourse Analysis
(1983) and Beaugrande and Dressler, Introduction to Text Linguistics (1988).

1. INTRODUCTION

The importance of this topic lies in the shift experienced in the field of Linguistics in the last decades for the
sentence was traditionally regarded as the biggest unit of analysis, whereas nowadays, discourse has become the
focus of study. Discourse Analysis, a field which can be traced back to ancient Greece and Rome, divided grammar
from rhetoric, the former being concerned with the rules of language as an isolated object, the latter with how to do
things with words, to achieve effects, and communicate successfully with people in particular contexts. Ironically, it
was a sentence linguist who both coined the term ‘discourse analysis’ and initiated a search for language rules which
would explain how sentences were connected within a text by a kind of extended grammar. This was Zellig Harris.
He claimed that we must look beyond the formal rules operating within sentences, and consider the people who use
language, and the world in which it happens as well.

2. ANALYSIS AND ARTICULATION OF DISCOURSE

To begin with, since the term discourse covers all forms of communication, many discourse theorists have been
arguing that communication shapes the world we live in. One starting point is the following quotation from M.
Stubbs' textbook (Stubbs, 1983) in which discourse analysis is defined as (a) concerned with language use beyond
the boundaries of a sentence/utterance, (b) concerned with the interrelationships between language and society
and (c) as concerned with the interactive or dialogic properties of everyday communication. Although the term has
been described in a plethora of ways depending on the author, there is certain agreement in relation to it: discourse
is a domain of language use, structured as a unity by common assumptions as we shall examine later on.

At this level, according to Van Dijk (1981), language does not occur in solitary words or sentences in grammatical
terms, but in sequences of sentences, that is, utterances in terms of meaning and use in connected discourse. This
means that a sentence is defined in grammatical terms; it is considered to be the highest unit in the rank scale. Yet,
an utterance is defined of meaning and use in connected discourse, that is, in terms of its communicative function.
We can also say that an utterance is a stretch of language which may vary in extension from a single word to a whole
extension. Discourse then represents ‘the complex picture of the relations between language and action in
communicative contexts’.

Much language study has been devoted to sentences. Oppositely, Discourse Analysis examines stretches of
language in their full textual, social and psychological context. What is more, people do not often speak or write in
complete sentences, yet they still succeed in communicating. All in all, Discourse Analysis is interested in both
discourse forms (grammatical, lexical, phonological) as well as discourse functions. We have then two different kinds
of language as potential objects for study: (1) one abstracted in order to teach a language, or to study how the rules
of a language work, and (2) another which is felt to be coherent. This latter kind is what we call discourse, language
in use. Therefore, the search for what gives discourse coherence is discourse analysis.

Thus, Discourse Analysis is an expanding field which provides insights into the processes of language use and
language learning. The previous two approaches are not mutually exclusive. Discourse may be composed of one or
more well-formed grammatical sentences –and indeed it often is- but it does not have to be. It can have grammatical
‘mistakes’ in it, and often does. What matters is not its conformity to rules, but the fact that it communicates and is
recognized by its receivers as coherent. This leads us to the disturbing conclusion that there is a degree of
subjectivity in identifying a stretch of language as discourse –it may be meaningful and thus communicate to one
person in a way which another person does not have the necessary knowledge to make sense of.

Thus, how do we recognize a stretch of language as unified and meaningful, or in other words, how is discourse
articulated? We employ language rules studied by grammarians and taught in most language textbooks. Also, we
employ knowledge –of the world, of the speaker, of social convention, of what is going on around us as we read or
listen- in order to make sense of the language we are encountering. We are also influenced by the situation in which
we receive messages, by our cultural and social relationship with the participants, by what we know and what we
assume the sender knows. These factors take us beyond the study of language and force us to look at other areas of
inquiry –the mind, the body, society, the physical world- in fact, at everything. What gives discourse its unity may be
impossible to give without considering the world at large: the context.

All in all, discourse analysis studies the organization of language above the sentence or clause, therefore, focuses
on larger linguistic units, such as communicative exchanges or written texts. Being a communicator, having what
Hymes called communicative competence, involves much more than knowing how to make or recognize correct
sentences. Beaugrande and Dressler (1988) suggested that Seven Standards of Textuality should meet in order to
make a text communicative. Namely, cohesion, coherence, intentionality, acceptability, informativity, situationality
and intertextuality are those devices which facilitate the communicative function of a text. In this topic, we will
deeply delve into two of these: cohesion and coherence.

3. COHESION

In this section we shall be mainly concerned with questions such as how are the different parts of discourse linked
together within discourse? or how are sentences related to other sentences? Cohesion is the grammatical and lexical
relationship within a text or sentence; the links that hold a text together and give it meaning. Cohesion concerns the
ways in which the components of the surface text (the actual words we hear or see) are mutually connected within a
sequence of utterances (Beaugrande & Dressler, 1988), that is, intra-text linking devices are connected to extra-
textual reference. Moreover, Halliday and Hasan (1976) described ‘cohesion’ as a semantic concept that refers to
relations of meaning that exist within a text. In other words, it is ‘a semantic relation between an element in the text
and some other element that is crucial to the interpretation of it.’ These two elements are defined as the
‘presupposing’ and the ‘presupposed’.

Halliday and Hasan considered three main kinds of cohesion: lexical, grammatical and semantic. Added to this, they
identified several devices in each kind which facilitate cohesion in a text. Namely, reiteration, collocation, conjuction
in lexical cohesion; ellipsis and susbtitution in grammatical cohesion; and reference in semantic cohesion. These
methods involve individual word classes acting as substitutes for another word/group of words or as referents
backwards or forwards in the text. Also, when there are cohesive relationships within and between the sentences is
what Halliday and Hasan named as texture: “’a text has texture and this is what distinguishes it from something that
is not a text (…) The texture is provided by the cohesive relation.” Cohesion has been a most popular target for
research, and it is well known its relation to coherence. Since cohesive markers are important for the understanding
of oral and written texts, all speakers make extensive use of them, for example, in order to enhance coherence, but
also for reasons of economy.

SEMANTIC COHESION: REFERENCE

3.1. REFERENCE: Endophoric Reference (Anaphora and Cataphora) and Exophoric Reference (Deixis)

Reference is defined by Halliday and Hasan (1976) as ‘the 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’. There are certain
items in every language which have the property of reference, in the specific sense in which we are using the term
here; that is to say, instead of being interpreted semantically in their own right, they make reference to something
else for their interpretation. In English these items are personal pronouns, demonstratives and comparatives.

− Personal pronouns: Three blind mice, three blind mice. See how they run! See how they run!

− Demonstratives: Doctor Foster went to Gloucester in a shower of rain. He stepped in a puddle right up to his
middle and never went there again.

− Comparatives: There were two wrens upon a tree. Another came, and there were three.

These items are directives indicating that information is to be retrieved from elsewhere. What characterises this
particular type of cohesion (reference) is the specific nature of the information that is signalled for retrieval.
Reference is a semantic relation as well as directional. This means that, firstly, reference is not constrained to match
the grammatical class of the item it refers to. Secondly, there is a logical continuity from naming through situational
reference (referring to a thing as identified in the context of situation) to textual reference (referring to a thing as
identified in the surrounding text) and hence a significant opposition in the system between pointing back
(anaphora) and pointing forwards (cataphora). Thus, the direction may be anaphoric (with the presupposed element
preceding) or cataphoric (with the presupposed element following). Hence, for situational reference we find
exophoric reference (reference that must be made to the context of the situation) in contrast with endophoric
reference (reference that must be made to the text of the discourse itself).

A) Endophoric Reference: Anaphora and Cataphora

Anaphora is the cohesive device that uses a pro-form, a type of function word or expression -expresses the same
content as another word- after the co-referring expression (i.e. We asked Bob to sing a Christmas carol and so he
sang). Anaphora is simply the presupposition of something that has gone before, whether in the preceding sentence
or not. This form of presupposition, pointing back to some previous items is known as anaphora. This cohesive
device places the identity of someone or something at the beginning of the text (oral or written) and through the
discourse it is referred to by means of other grammatical categories such as pronouns (i.e. personal, possessive,
interrogative), adjectives (i.e. possessive, demonstrative) or other categories such as determiners (the).

Cataphora arises when a reference is made to an entity mentioned subsequently in the text. As a general rule,
cataphora is much less frequent than anaphora. Cataphora is simply when this presupposition goes in the opposite
direction, with the presupposing element following. In other words, it is the cohesive device which has forward
reference instead of bacj-reference by means of possessive, demonstrative, definite and personal pronouns and
adjectives which are mentioned first and the identity of the person, thing or place is revealed later through the
discourse (i.e. Nobody knew them but Rose and Charlie soon became well-known at that place). In this case, ‘the
presupposed element may, and often does, consist of more than one sentence.

B) Exophoric Reference: Deixis

Exophoric reference is connected to pointing to someone or something in the immediate context of

communication; something outside the text. While endophoric reference is an element of textual cohesion as it
connects semantic and syntactic units within the text, exophoric reference is an element that relates the text with
the outer world using mechanisms such as deixis. Examples are words such as there, that or here, when these are
not further elucidated in the text. Taking the case of ‘You should have been here last week’ where the text does not
make it explicit where you should have been, although the location is not in doubt to those who are present. As
readers outside this environment, we are unfamiliar with the location he/she is refering to. All in all, when the
meaning is not explicit from the text itself, but is obvious to those in a particular situation we speak about exophoric
reference, which links the language with the context of situation.

The term ‘deixis’, from the Greek word for pointing, refers to a particular way in which the interpretation of certain
linguistic expressions (deictics or indexicals) is dependent on the context in which they are produced or interpreted.
Therefore, where the interpretation involves identifying, the reference item functions as a deictic item. Moreover,
deixis contributes to cohesive purposes by means of deictics such as pronouns and determiners. The most frequently
used deitics refer to person (personal deixis: personal and possessive pronouns), time (temporal deixis: time
adverbs) and space (spatial deixis: demonstratives and place adverbs).

Person deixis: the traditional grammatical category of person involves the most basic deictic notions. First person,
for example, encodes the participation of the speaker, and temporal and spatial deixis are organized primarily
around the location of the speaker at the time of speaking.

Time deixis: the deictic centre is normally taken to be the speaker’s location at the time of the utterance. Therefore,
now means some span of time including the moment of utterance, and one reckons ten years ago by counting
backwards from the year including the speaking time. Tense is another aspect of temporal deixis, an obligatory
deictic category for nearly all sentences in English.

Space deixis: deictic adverbs like here and there are perhaps the most direct examples of spatial deixis. As a first
approximation, here refers to a more remote region from the speaker.

Discourse deixis: in a spoken or written discourse, there is frequently occasion to refer to earlier or forthcoming
segments of the discourse (as in the previous / next paragraph, or Have you heard this joke?).

GRAMMATICAL COHESION: SUBSTITUTION, ELLIPSIS AND CONJUNCTIONS

3.2. SUBSTITUTION, ELLIPSIS AND CONJUNCTIONS

A) Substitution

The cohesive device of substitution is very similar to that of ellipsis. These two cohesive relations are thought as
processes within the text: substitution as ‘the replacement of one item by another’, and ellipsis as ‘the omission of
an item’. We may find different types of substitution which are defined in grammatical terms rather than
semantically. The criterion is the grammatical function of the substitute item so the substitute may function as a
noun, a verb, or as a clause. To these, according to Halliday & Hasan (1976), correspond the three types of
substitution: nominal (one, ones, same), verbal (do), and clausal (so, not):

Nominal: I like those white boots. // Which ones? Verbal: Do you work hard? // Yes, I do.

Verbal: Do you work hard? // Yes, I do

Clausal: Is there going to be an earthquake? // I think so – I hope not.

B) Ellipsis

Ellipsis is the process of omitting an unnecessary item, which has been mentioned earlier in a text, and replacing it
with nothing. It is similar to substitution because “Ellipsis is simply substitution by zero” (Halliday & Hasan, 1976). It
can be stated that we can omit the item/s and know that the missing part can be reconstructed successfully: i.e. She
brought some biscuits, and Christine some fruit. Like substitution, ellipsis is a relation within the text, and in the
great majority of instances the presupposed item is present in the preceding text, that is, in anaphoric relation. We
may distinguish two different structural possibilities in which ellipsis is a form of relation between sentences by
means of nominal, verbal and clausal ellipsis:

Nominal: i.e. Can I borrow your pen? Yes, but what happened to yours?
Verbal: i.e. Have you been running? -Yes, I have. An elliptical verbal group presupposes one or more words from a
previous verbal group.

Clausal: i.e. Who wants to go shopping? You? A whole sentence has been omitted.

C) Conjunctions (Connectives and Conjunctions)

Following Guy Cook, another type of formal relation between sentences –and perhaps the most apparent- is
provided by those words and phrases which explicitly draw attention to the type of relationship which exists
between one sentence or clause and another. These are conjunctions. These words may simply add more
information to what has already been said (and, furthermore, add to that) or elaborate or exemplify it (for instance,
thus, in other words). They may contrast new information with old information, or put another side to the argument
(or, on the other hand, however, conversely). They may relate new information to what has already been given in
terms of causes (so, consequently, because, for this reason) or in time (formerly, then, in the end, next) or they may
indicate a new departure or a summary (by the way, well, to sum up, anyway). There are many words and phrases
which can be put into this category in English, and many different ways in which they can be classified. In fact, Hasan
and Halliday (1976), for example, call them additive, adversative, causal, or temporal ties among others:

Additive: and, or, furthermore, similarly, in addition...

Adversative: but, however, on the other hand, nevertheless...

Causal: so, consequently, for this reason, it follows from this …

Temporal: then, after that, an hour later, finally, at last ...

The primary consideration in choosing a connective is obviously meaning - what is the logical relation that needs to
be made explicit? For example, because, so and therefore express different logical relations from although, but and
nevertheless. However, as these examples also show, we also have to pay attention to syntax - what is the
grammatical relation between the ideas that have this logical relation? The connectives because, so and therefore
express the same logic, but they are very different grammatically. E.g. “Because” is a subordinating conjunction, “so”
is a co-ordinating conjunction and “therefore” is an adverb which refers back to an idea expressed earlier.

LEXICAL COHESION: Reiteration and Collocation

3.3. REITERATION AND COLLOCATION

There are two types of lexical cohesion: reiteration and collocation. First of all, reiteration includes repetition,
synonymy, hyponymy, metonymy (part vs. Whole), antonymy, whereas collocation is any par of lexical items that
stand each other in some recognisable lexico-semantic relation, eg. “sheep” and “wool”, “congress” and “politician”,
and “college” and “study”.

A) Reiteration

Halliday and Hasan (1976) explained that reiteration occurs when two items share the same referent and could
either be repeated or have analogous meanings in a text. The main types of reiteration are repetition, synonymy,
antonymy, and hyponymy and meronymy. Repetition is the restatement of the same lexical item. This is exemplified
by the following: Mary went to Scotland. Scotland was full of tourists. Synonymy refers to items of similar meaning
just as, neat and tidy. Antonymy is the relation between words of opposite meanings such as, shy and extrovert.
Hyponymy refers to a class and its subclass. For example, vehicle is the hyponym of car. Meronymy is a ‘whole-part’
relationship between items. For instance, cover and page for the item book.

B) Collocation

A collocation is a series of words or terms that co-occur more often than would be expected by chance. An
example of a phraseological collocation, as propounded by Michael Halliday, is the expression strong tea. Collocation
generally refers to the expression of words which are often used together such as bitterly cold, rich imagination or
close friends. If you hear the first word, the second can be expected, or at least you can have an idea what it could
be. In context with verbs and nouns collocation means the syntactic relationship between the verb and the noun
phrase such as to make a decision or to take a photo. The words make and decision belong together in some way.
They are collocates.

4. COHERENCE

Coherence is a semantic property of discourse formed through the interpretation of each individual sentence
relative to the interpretation of other sentences, with “interpretation” implying interaction between the text and the
reader. Texts, therefore, can seem incoherent to people who have very different backgrounds from the person
writing or speaking. In other words, a text is coherent if it makes sense and fits the receiver’s expectations, previous
knowledge and cultural knowledge. Thus, as will analyse later on, it is the interaction between the reader and the
text what builds up the coherence in a text.

When we can talk of having certain expectations, we talk about schemata, frames, scenarios to refer to these
expectations. They often help us to predict the content, finish a text which is unfinished or complete an illegible text.
Background knowledge plays an important part in understanding texts as coherence can be thought of as how
meanings and sequences of ideas relate to each other. Coherence is concerned with logical links which mean that
the text makes sense as a whole. It is concerned to a great extent with our knowledge of the world which comes
from our previous experience and learning; we use this to process texts. Language follows a linear sequence where
one line of text follows another with each line being linked or related to the previous line.

Halliday & Hasan paid special attention to context of situation and its three headings: field, mode and tenor.
These are highly general concepts for describing how context of situation determines the kind of meaning that is
expressed. The field is the total event together with the purposive activity of the speaker or writer. The mode is the
function of the text in the event. It includes both the channel taken by the language and its genre. The tenor refers
to the type of role interaction, the set of relevant social relations among the participants involved. The linguistic
features which are typically associated with a configuration of situational features (with particular values of the field,
mode and tenor) constitute a register, another relevant factor to achieve coherence.

Coherence contrasts with cohesion, both being necessary components of an organised and meaningful discourse.
Coherence, as mentioned above, is the term used to describe the way a text establishes links in meaning within and
between sentences. When texts are not coherent, they do not make sense or they make it difficult for the reader to
follow and understand. For this reason, coherence often relies on reader knowledge and sometimes the coherence is
weak because too much knowledge is assumed. For example, someone receives a conference about astro-physics
but she does not know anything about physics. This “text” could not be felt as coherent for him. In this sense,
coherence is a semantic property of discourse, while cohesion is concerned with cohesive devices in discourse.

Coherence is also established at different levels: the first one being at a global level; it has to do with the overall
meaning inferred from the text from which the reader gets the thematic unity, the topic. Secondly, coherence is set
up among the different parts or ideas of the text. The topic is articulated by means of different ideas (paragraphs,
chapters…), each of which has a particular significance in relation to the overall meaning. The notion of thematic
progression is closely related to the thematic unity and structure of the content. All in all, a text can be coherent
without cohesion. A text that is cohesive without coherence, however, is hardly a text. Coherence itself is the
product of two factors: paragraph unity and sentence cohesion.

5. CONCLUSION AND TEACHING APPROACH:

This topic contributes to the understanding of the mechanisms that make a stretch of language be perceived as
meaningful, unified and purposive. Similarly, it proves its practical relevance to language learning and teaching for
effective communication to take place, this is, the teaching of grammar and vocabulary is not enough. On the
contrary, discourse competence, sociolinguistic competence, strategic competence and interactional competence
are essential to overcome difficulties and misunderstandings in the L2. In short, discourse analysis, a rapidly
expanding field, provides insights into the problems and processes of language use and language learning and is
therefore of great importance to language teachers.

At classroom level, the content of this topic connects with the fact that as teachers we have to go beyond units
larger than words and sentences so as to set as a teaching objective that our students achieve coherent and cohesive
texts. By reading these authors and with the content of this topic we can also teach useful devices and techniques
which facilitate our students’ production of texts. All this goes in accordance with the legislation in force LOMCE
8/2013, Royal Decree 220 and 221/2015 (Murcia) or 110 and 111/2016 (Andalucía) because as it is stated that
students have to be able to understand and produce texts, the content of this unit, dealing mainly with textual
aspects, would be of great help in order to provide students with the processes of reading and writing. In that sense,
this topic would also be connected to the four content blocks. At the same time, the content of this unit promotes
the communicative competence in our students as it is established in Order ECD/65/2015, by which the relationships
amongst competences, contents and assessment criteria of Compulsory Secondary Education and Bachillerato are
described.

The bibliography that I have consulted for the elaboration of this topic has been: Scientific bibliography and
Educational Bibl.
- Halliday and Hasan, Cohesion in English (1976)
- Van Dijk, Text and Context: Explorations in the Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse (1984)
- Cook, Discourse (1989);
- Brown and Yule, Discourse Analysis (1983)
- Beaugrande and Dressler, Introduction to Text Linguistics (1988)