Topic 29 – Discourse analysis. Cohesion and coherence. anaphora and cataphora. connectors. Deixis - Oposinet

22/5/2021
Cohesion and coherence.
anaphora and cataphora.
connectors. Deixis
Topic 29 – Discourse analysis. Cohesion and coherence. anaphora and cataphora. connectors. Deixis - Oposinet
UNIT 29
DISCOURSE ANALYSIS AND ARTICULATION. COHESION AND COHERENCE.
ANAPHORA AND CATAPHORA. CONNECTORS. DEIXIS.
OUTLINE
1. INTRODUCTION.
1.1. Aims of the unit.
1.2. Notes on bibliography.
2. A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE ANALYSIS AND ARTICULATION OF
DISCOURSE.
2.1. On defining the term discourse.
2.2. Related notions.
2.2.1. The notion of text linguistics.
2.2.2. Sentence vs. Utterance.
2.2.3. Speech acts.
2.2.4. Communicative context.
2.3. On defining discourse analysis.

2.3.1. The seven standards of textuality.
2 3 2 The role of syntax semantics and pragmatics
https://www.oposinet.com/temario-de-ingles-secundaria/temario-2-ingles-secundaria/topic-29-discourse-analysis-cohesion-and-coherence-anaphora-and-cataphora-c…
1/37
22/5/2021
Topic 29 – Discourse analysis. Cohesion and coherence. anaphora and cataphora. connectors. Deixis - Oposinet
2.3.2. The role of syntax, semantics and pragmatics.
2.3.3. Oral vs. written discourse.
2.3.4. The analysis and articulation of discourse.
3. COHESION.
3.1. Definition.
3.2. Types of cohesive devices.
3.2.1. Grammatical devices.
3.2.1.1. Substitution.
3.2.1.2. Ellipsis.
3.2.1.3. Reference: anaphora, cataphora and deixis.
3.2.1.4. Conjunctions.
3.2.2. Lexical devices.
3.2.3. Graphological devices.
4. COHERENCE.
4.1. Definition.
4.2. Main features.
5. EDUCATIONAL IMPLICATIONS IN LANGUAGE TEACHING.
5.1. The Communicative Approach: a basis for discourse analysis.
5.2. New directions in discourse analysis.

6. CONCLUSION.
https://www.oposinet.com/temario-de-ingles-secundaria/temario-2-ingles-secundaria/topic-29-discourse-analysis-cohesion-and-coherence-anaphora-and-cataphora-c…
2/37
22/5/2021
Topic 29 – Discourse analysis. Cohesion and coherence. anaphora and cataphora. connectors. Deixis - Oposinet
7. BIBLIOGRAPHY.
1. INTRODUCTION.
1.1. Aims of the unit.
The main aim of Unit 29 is to examine discourse analysis and its articulation by
means of sucñh devices as anaphora and cataphora, connectors and deixis.
Our aim is to offer a broad account in descriptive terms of the notion of
discourse and discourse analys is and its importance in society, and especially,
in the language teaching community, from its origins to present -day studies.
This presentation will start by offering the most relevant bibliography in this
field as a reference for the reader, and by presenting our study in six chapters.
Chapter 2 will offer an account of the analysis and articulation of oral and
written discourse, it is relevant to introduce first a theoretical framework which
shall develop our understanding of central concepts related to their linguistic
nature. So we shall review (1) the definition of the term ‘discourse’, (2) related
notions such as (a) the notion of text linguistics, (b) sentence vs. utterance, (c)
a definition of speech act and (d) the notion of communicative context in
order to frame (3) the definition of ‘discourse analysis’ and its main features,
such as (a) the seven standards of textuality, (b) the role of syntax, semantics
and pragmatics, (c) general considerations in oral and written discourse and
finally, (d) the main elements in the analysis and articulation of discourse.
Chapters 3 and 4 will offer then an insightful analysis and description of the
elements in the analysis and articulation of discourse, that is, cohesion and
coherence respectively. Chapter 5 will be devoted to present the main
educational implications in language teaching regarding discourse analysis.
So, we shall examine the model for a Communicative Approach which is
considered to be a basis for discourse analysis and new directions in this
respect. Chapter 6 will offer a conclusion to broadly overview our present
study, and Chapter 7 will include all the bibliographical references used to

develop this account of discourse analysis.
1.2. Notes on bibliography.
https://www.oposinet.com/temario-de-ingles-secundaria/temario-2-ingles-secundaria/topic-29-discourse-analysis-cohesion-and-coherence-anaphora-and-cataphora-c…
3/37
22/5/2021
Topic 29 – Discourse analysis. Cohesion and coherence. anaphora and cataphora. connectors. Deixis - Oposinet
An influential introduction to the analysis of discourse is based on relevant
works of Cook, Discourse (1989); van Dijk, Text and Context (1984); Brown and
Yule, Discourse Analysis (1983) and notes on the articulation of discourse
regarding cohesion and coherence are namely taken from Beaugrande and
Dressler, Introduction to Text Linguistics (1988) and, still indispensable, Halliday
and Hasan, Cohesion in English (1976). Classic works on the influence of
semantics, pragmatics and sociolinguistic on discourse analysis, include van
Dijk, Studies in the Pragmatics of Discourse (1981); Hymes, Communicative
Competence (1972) and Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic
Approach (1974); Halliday, Explorations in the Functions of Language (1975)and
Spoken andWritten Language (1985); and Searle, Speech Act (1969).
The background for educational implications is based on the theory of
communicative competence and communicative approaches to language
teaching are provided by Canale, From Communicative Competence to
Communicative Language Pedagogy (1983); Canale and Swain, Theoretical
bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and
testing (1980); Hymes, On communicative competence (1972). In addition, the
most complete record of current publications within the educational
framework is provided by the guidelines in B.O.E. (2002); the Council of Europe,
Modern Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. A Common European
Framework of reference (1998); Hedge Tricia, Teaching and Learning in the
Language Classroom (2000); and Celce-Murcia & Olshtain, Discourse and
context in language teaching (2000). New directions on language teaching is
provided by the annual supplement of AESLA 2001 (Asociación Española de
Lingüística Aplicada).
2. A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE ANALYSIS AND ARTICULATION OF
DISCOURSE.
In order to offer an account of the analysis and articulation of oral and written
discourse, it is relevant to introduce first a theoretical framework which shall
develop our understanding of central concepts related to their linguistic

nature. So we shall review (1) the definition of the term
‘di
’ (2) l t d
ti
h
( ) th
ti
f t t li
i ti
(b)
https://www.oposinet.com/temario-de-ingles-secundaria/temario-2-ingles-secundaria/topic-29-discourse-analysis-cohesion-and-coherence-anaphora-and-cataphora-c…
4/37
22/5/2021
Topic 29 – Discourse analysis. Cohesion and coherence. anaphora and cataphora. connectors. Deixis - Oposinet
‘discourse’, (2) related notions such as (a) the notion of text linguistics, (b)
sentence vs. utterance, (c) a definition of speech act and (d) the notion of
communicative context in order to frame (3) the definition of ‘discourse
analysis’ and its main features, such as (a) the seven standards of textuality,
(b) the role of syntax, semantics and pragmatics, (c) general considerations in
oral and written discourse and finally, (d) the main elements in the analysis
and articulation of discourse.
2.1. On defining the term discourse.
The term ‘discourse’ comes into force when we deal with the highest
grammatical level of analysis in the rank scale, that is, paragraphs and texts,
which are consid ered to be ‘larger stretches of language higher than the
sentence’ (Aarts, 1988). At this level, language does not occur in solitary words
or sentences (simple, complex and compound) in grammatical terms, but in
sequences of sentences, that is, utterances in terms of meaning and use in
connected discourse. Then we shall deal with sequences of utterances which
interchange in order to establish relations of social interaction either in spoken
or written language in communicative events (utterance pairs and responses
in letters, greetings and telephone conversations).
‘Discourse’ then represents ‘the complex picture of the relations between
language and action in communicative contexts’ which account for the
functions of utterances with underlying textual structures’ (van Dijk, 1981). The
origins of the term are to be found within the fields of sociolinguistics and
pragmatics, which had a rapid growth in the 1970s: the former confronting with
data and problems of actual language use, the latter introducing the notions
of speech acts, felicity conditions and context. This means that semantic
coherence of sentence sequences should be complemented with coherence
at the pragmatic level of speech act sequences.
Hence it must be borne in mind that a pragmatic theory cannot be limited to
an account of single speech acts, expressed by single sentences, but also
must explain the structure of speech act sequences and general speech acts,

realized by sequences of sentences of discourse and conversation. Yet,
following van Dijk (1981), ‘a speech act is accomplished by an utterance in
https://www.oposinet.com/temario-de-ingles-secundaria/temario-2-ingles-secundaria/topic-29-discourse-analysis-cohesion-and-coherence-anaphora-and-cataphora-c…
5/37
22/5/2021
Topic 29 – Discourse analysis. Cohesion and coherence. anaphora and cataphora. connectors. Deixis - Oposinet
some context, and such an utterance does not necessarily consist of one
single sentence. In other words, a pragmatically text grammar should specify
the conditions under which whole discourses, when uttered in some context,
could be said to be appropriate with respect to that context’.
2.2. Related notions.
Up to here, we have encountered some notions which need to be examined in
order to fully understand our current analysis on the pragmatics of discourse,
thus (1) ‘text linguistics’, (2) ‘sentence vs. utterance’, (3) ‘speech acts’ and (4)
‘communicative context’.
2.2.1. The notion of text linguistics.
The notion of text linguistics designates ‘any work in language science devoted
to the text as the primary object of inquiry’ (Beaugrande & Dressler, 1988). In
fact, many fields have approached the study of texts: linguistics (from
grammar, morphology and phonology), anthropology (different speech acts in
different cultures), psychology (speaker and hearer behaviour), stylistics
(correctness, clarity, elegance, appropriateness, style), literary studies (text
types) and so on, but the most important fields are sociology (which explores
conversational studies and gives way to discourse analysis), semantics
(coherence, cohesion, connectors) and pragmatics (speech acts, contexts)
which shape the text into a pragmatic coherent structure (van Dijk, 1984).
Yet, the oldest form of preoccupation with texts and the first foundation for the
analysis of texts and its articulation is drawn from the notion of text linguistics
which has its historical roots in rethoric , dating from Ancient Greece and Rome
through the Middle Ages up to the present under the name of text linguistics or
discourse. Traditional rethoricians were influenced by their major task of
training public orators on the discovery of ideas (invention), the arrangement
of ideas (disposition), the discovery of appropriate expressions for ideas
(elocution), and memorization prior to delivery on the actual occasion of
speaking.

In the Middle Ages, rethoric was based on grammar (on the study of formal
language patterns in Greek and Latin) and logic (on the construction of
https://www.oposinet.com/temario-de-ingles-secundaria/temario-2-ingles-secundaria/topic-29-discourse-analysis-cohesion-and-coherence-anaphora-and-cataphora-c…
6/37
22/5/2021
Topic 29 – Discourse analysis. Cohesion and coherence. anaphora and cataphora. connectors. Deixis - Oposinet
language patterns in Greek and Latin) and logic (on the construction of
arguments and proofs). Rethoric still shares several concerns with the kind of
text linguistics we know today, for instance, the use of texts as vehicles of
purposeful interaction (oral and written), the variety of texts which express a
given configuration of ideas, the arranging of ideas and its disposition within
the discourse and the judgement of texts which still depends on the effects
upon the audience.
2.2.2. Sentence vs. utterance.
As stated above, language does not occur in solitary words or sentences but
builds texts in sequences of sentences. This means that a sentence is defined
in grammatical terms, that is, it is considered to be the highest unit in the rank
scale (either simple, complex or compound), and also to be indeterminate
since it is often difficult to decide where one sentence begins and another start
(partic ularly in spoken language). Yet, an utterance is defined in terms of
meaning and use in connected discourse, that is, in terms of its
communicative function. We can say an utterance is a stretch of language
(oral or written) which may vary in extension fro m a single word to a whole
book.
2.2.3. Speech acts.
The speech act theory holds that the investigation of structure always
presupposes something about meanings, language use and extralinguistic
functions. One of the speech acts basic characteristics is undoubtely the
establishment of a special kind of social interaction between ‘speaker’ and
‘hearer’ where the former tries to change the mind of the actions of the hearer
by producing an utterance, oral or written. We may classify the intention of the
speaker (statements, questions, commands and exclamations) according to
the kind of sentences he states (declarative, interrogative, imperative or
exclamative respectively).
Similarly, we can relate the type of intention to the utterance type, that is, the

speech act used depending on its purpose and language function. According
to Searle (1969) speech acts (and therefore purposes) are divided into
assertives (to tell people how things are by stating); directives (to try to get
https://www.oposinet.com/temario-de-ingles-secundaria/temario-2-ingles-secundaria/topic-29-discourse-analysis-cohesion-and-coherence-anaphora-and-cataphora-c…
7/37
22/5/2021
Topic 29 – Discourse analysis. Cohesion and coherence. anaphora and cataphora. connectors. Deixis - Oposinet
assertives (to tell people how things are by stating); directives (to try to get
people to do things by means of commanding and requesting); expressives
(to express our feelings and attitudes by thinking, forgiving, or blaming);
declaratives (to bring about changes through our utterances by means of
bringing about correspondence between the propositional content and reality,
through baptizing, naming, appointing or sacking); and finally, commissives
(to commit ourselves to some future actions by promising and offering).
2.2.4. Communicative context.
This sequence of utterances usually takes place in a communicative context.
The term context is defined as ‘the state of affairs of a communicative
situation in which communicative events take place’ (van Dijk, 1981). A context
must have a linguistically relevant set of characteristics for the formulation,
conditions and rules for the adequate use of utterances, for instance, it must
be ‘appropriate’ and‘satisfactory’ for the given utterance.
The notion of context is rather static when it is merely used to refer to a state of
affairs. Hence we may introduce the term ‘communicative’ so that an event
may be successful if a given context changes into a specific new context (i.e.
speaking face to face vs. speaking on the phone). Generally speaking, we may
say that conditions for morphonological, syntactic and sematic well-formed
utterances may change from oral contexts to written ones. Thus utterances
which are formally appropriate with respect to their contexts, may not be
actually ‘acceptable’ in concrete communicative situations, and conversely.
2.3. On defining discourse analysis.
The term ‘discourse analysis’ is also called ‘the study of conversation’. As
stated above, the integration of sociology is of vital importance to a science of
texts since it ‘has developed an interest in the analysis of conversation as a
mode of social organization and interaction’ (Beaugrande & Dressler, 1988).
Many studies have been conducted on how people take turns in speaking and
on the mechanisms which combine texts as single contributions into

discourses as ‘sets of mutually relevant texts directed to each other’.
In the present section we shall review the main features in the analysis of
https://www.oposinet.com/temario-de-ingles-secundaria/temario-2-ingles-secundaria/topic-29-discourse-analysis-cohesion-and-coherence-anaphora-and-cataphora-c…
8/37
22/5/2021
Topic 29 – Discourse analysis. Cohesion and coherence. anaphora and cataphora. connectors. Deixis - Oposinet
discourse analysis: (1) the seven standards of textuality, (2) the role of syntax,
semantics and pragmatics, (3) general considerations in oral and written
discourse and finally, (4) the main elements in the analysis and articulation of
discourse.
2.3.1. The seven standards of textuality.
Discourse analysis reveals then major factors about the standards of textuality
(either oral or written) by exploring first, two semantic standards: ‘cohesion’
(how the components of a surface text are mutually connected within a
sequence) and ‘coherence’ (how the concepts and relations which underlie
the surface text are mutually accessible and relevant); second ly, pragmatic
standards such as the attitudes of producers by means of such devices as
‘intentionality’ (the goal-directed use of conversation) and receivers by means
of ‘acceptability’ (inmmediate feedback), and also ‘informativity’ (the selection
of contributions to conversation).
The communicative setting is described in terms of ‘situationality’ (particularly
direct communicative context; intonation contours) and ‘intertextuality’ (text
types in operation, that is, how to frame your text in regard to other people’s
texts in the same discourse). Moreover, the regulative principles of efficiency,
effectiveness and appropriateness can immediately regulated any disregard
for the demands in the text.
2.3.2. The role of syntax, semantics and pragmatics.
For many years, syntax and semantics were studied with little regard for the
ways people used grammar and meaning in communication and the use of
language was relegated to the field of pragmatics. Nowadays, the questions of
use (pragmatics) are freely treated in syntax and semantics and the notions of
‘cohesion’ and ‘coherence’, usually related to semantics, can be also helpful
when studying a text only if they deal with how connections and relations are
actually set up among communicative contexts.

Then in a text pragmatics explores the attitudes of producers by means of
such devices as ‘intentionality’ (the goal-directed use of conversation) and
i
b
f
bili (i
di
f db k)
d
https://www.oposinet.com/temario-de-ingles-secundaria/temario-2-ingles-secundaria/topic-29-discourse-analysis-cohesion-and-coherence-anaphora-and-cataphora-c…
9/37
22/5/2021
Topic 29 – Discourse analysis. Cohesion and coherence. anaphora and cataphora. connectors. Deixis - Oposinet
receivers by means of ‘acceptability’ (inmmediate feedback), and
‘informativity’ (the selection of contributions to conversation). In addition, the
communicative setting is described in terms of ‘situationality’ (particularly
direct communicative context; intonation contours) and ‘intertextuality’ (text
types in operation, that is, how to frame your text in regard to other people’s
texts in the same discourse).
On the other hand, semantics explores the relationship between syntactic
structures (and therefore grammatical categories building phrases, sentences
and clauses) and the logical relationship between them in a text by means of
coherence and cohesion, having as a result the whole text under the shape of
a pragmatic coherent discourse.
2.3.3. Oral vs. written discourse.
According to Rivers (1981), writing a language comprehensibly is much more
difficult tha n speaking it. When we write, she says, we are like communicating
into space if we do not know the recipient of our piece of writing, whereas
when we communicate a message orally, we know who is receiving the
message. We are dealing here once again with a traditional division of
language into the two major categories of speech and writing.
We observe that both categories, speaking and writing, share similar features
as well as differ in others regarding the nature of each category. Following
Byrne (1979), we can establish similar resources for both speaking and writing
at a linguistic level, thus on its grammar and lexis, but not to the extent to
which some resources apply directly to the nature of the two channels. Thus,
as speech is the language of immediate communication, most linking devices
will also occur in the spoken language although less frequently than in writing
where they are essential for the construction of a coherent text.
Therefore, we shall namely focus on the construction of longer texts and their
coherence , cohesion and effectiveness. When examining writing (as the way
of making contact at a distance), we cannot forget graphological devices

which compensate for the absence of oral feedback and paralinguistic
devices that exist in oral communication. Then, we shall concentrate on
cohesion and coherence as they establish intrasentential and intersentential
https://www.oposinet.com/temario-de-ingles-secundaria/temario-2-ingles-secundaria/topic-29-discourse-analysis-cohesion-and-coherence-anaphora-and-cataphora-…
10/37
22/5/2021
Topic 29 – Discourse analysis. Cohesion and coherence. anaphora and cataphora. connectors. Deixis - Oposinet
cohesion and coherence as they establish intrasentential and intersentential
links in written and oral discourse.
There are also at least three more regulative principles that control textual
communication: the efficiency of a text is contingent upon its being useful to
the participants with a minimum of effort; its effectiveness depends upon
whether it makes a strong impression and has a good potential for fulfilling an
aim; and its appropriateness depends upon whether its own setting is in
agreement with the seven standards of textuality (Beaugrande & Dressler,
1988).
2.3.4. The analysis and articulation of discourse.
The analysis and articulation of discourse was virtually limited to relations
within the sentence up to the third quarter of this century. It was thought that
relations beyond the sentence involved a complex interplay of linguistics with
other concerns such as rhethoric, aesthetics, and pragmatics. However, literary
critics and social anthropologists began to shed light on this issue from the
constructs evolved by de Saussure, the Prague School, and other linguists
whose work extended and embraced stylistics and other aspects of textual
studies .
In the following sections then we shall approach the analysis and articulation
of discourse from the disciplines of syntax, pragmatics and namely semantics,
together with a grammatical approach when necessary on morphonological
and phonological features. Hence in this chapter we shall only analyse two of
the seven standards of textuality: cohesion and coherence. We shall start by
offering (1) an analysis of cohesion where we shall include the concepts of
anaphora, cataphora, connectors and deixis (following Halliday & Hassan,
1976) and then (2) a brief analysis of coherence.
3. COHESION.
3.1. Definition.

The term ‘cohesion’ concerns the ways in which the components of the surface
text (the actual words we hear or see) are mutually connected within a
https://www.oposinet.com/temario-de-ingles-secundaria/temario-2-ingles-secundaria/topic-29-discourse-analysis-cohesion-and-coherence-anaphora-and-cataphora-…
11/37
22/5/2021
Topic 29 – Discourse analysis. Cohesion and coherence. anaphora and cataphora. connectors. Deixis - Oposinet
sequence of utterances (Beaugrande & Dressler, 1988), that is, intra-text linking
devices are connected to extra -textual reference. The notion of ‘cohesion’ is
expressed through the stratal organization of language which can be
explained as a multiple coding system comprising three levels of coding: the
semantic one (meanings), the lexicogrammatical (forms: grammar and
vocabulary) and the phonological and orthographic one (expressions:
sounding and writing).
Moreover, Halliday and Hasan, in their ground- breaking work Cohesion in
English (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’. Both of them may be structurally related
to each other or may be not. The first elements may be found in the text but its
location in the text is in no way determined by the second element.
It must be borne in mind that in spoken English certain types of grammatical
cohesion are in their turn expressed through the intonation system (i.e. Did she
hurt your feelings? She didn’t mean to). In this example, the second sentence
not only shows the cohesive device of ellipsis with ‘She didn’t mean to’ but also
with by the ellipsis of conjunction since the adversative meaning of ‘but’ is
expressed by the rising-falling tone.
3.2. Types of cohesive devices.
Cohesion has been a most popular target for research, and it is well known its
relation to the second of the textuality standards, 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 (e.g. saving time and alleviating
conceptual work load by using anaphoric devices like generalisations and proforms).

Since cohesion is expressed partly through the grammar and partly through
the vocabulary, we find two main types of cohesive devices considered as
https://www.oposinet.com/temario-de-ingles-secundaria/temario-2-ingles-secundaria/topic-29-discourse-analysis-cohesion-and-coherence-anaphora-and-cataphora-…
12/37
22/5/2021
Topic 29 – Discourse analysis. Cohesion and coherence. anaphora and cataphora. connectors. Deixis - Oposinet
general categories of cohesion: grammatical cohesion (substitution, ellipsis,
conjunction, reference) and lexical cohesion (reiteration, collocation). Yet, we
shall include in our study a third type that, although last is not the least. We
refer to graphological devices (orthography, punctuation, headings, foot notes,
tables of contents and indexes) since most of them deal with form and
structure of different types of texts, and are part of the semantic relations
established in a text.
3.2.1. Grammatical cohesion.
Thus the concept of cohesion accounts for the essential semantic relations
whereby any passage of speech or writing is enabled to function as text. It is
within grammatical cohesion that we find different types of relations:
substitution, ellipsis, conjunction and reference. Note that the first two items are
not included in the title of this study, but the rest makes reference to the terms
‘anaphora and cataphora, connectors and deixis’. It is relevant to mention first
that anaphora and cataphora will be examined under the heading of
reference , connectors under the heading of conjunction and finally, deixis as a
subtype of reference and ellipsis.
3.2.1.1. Substitution.
The cohesive device of ‘substitution’ is very similar to that of ‘ellipsis’. These two
cohesive relations are thought of as processes within the text: substitution as
‘the replacement of one item by another’, and ellipsis as the omission of an
item. Essentially the two are the same process since ellipsis can be interpreted
as ‘that form of substitution in which the item is replaced by nothing’, that is,
simply ‘substitution by zero’ (Halliday & Hasan, 1976). However, the
mechanisms involved in the two are rather different, and also, at least in the
case of ellipsis, fairly complex, so we shall devote a section to each. Similarly,
‘substitution’ is different from ‘reference’ in that the former is a grammatical
relation whereas the latter is a semantic one.
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.
https://www.oposinet.com/temario-de-ingles-secundaria/temario-2-ingles-secundaria/topic-29-discourse-analysis-cohesion-and-coherence-anaphora-and-cataphora-…
13/37
22/5/2021
Topic 29 – Discourse analysis. Cohesion and coherence. anaphora and cataphora. connectors. Deixis - Oposinet
To these, according to Halliday & Hasan (1976), correspond the three types of
substitution: nominal (one, ones, same), verbal (do), and clausal (so, not):
First, within nominal substitution, the substitute ‘one/ones’always functions as
Head of a nominal group, and can substitute only for an item which is itself
Head of a nominal group (i.e. I like those white boots-Which ones?). Note that
the substitute may differ from the presupposed item in number (i.e. (At the
library) I will take this book, and… this one, too). In addition, it is relevant to ment
ion that the word ‘one’ may also function as personal pronoun (i.e. One never
knows what may happen), cardinal number (i.e. He made one very good
point), indefinite article (i.e. Are there any biscuits in the box? -Yes, I can see
some at the bottom), as a pro-noun (i.e. The ones she really loves are her
cousins).
Other related items are the word ‘the same’ (i.e. John sounded really sorry-Yes,
Mary sounded the same) and general nouns such as ‘thing, person, creature’
(i.e. This thing never works-Don’t worry, my old one is also hopeless).
Secondly, verbal substitution . The verbal substitute in English is the verb ‘do’,
which operates ‘as head of a verbal group, in the place that is occupied by the
lexical verb’ and is always placed at the end of the sentence (i.e. The words
didn’t come easily as they used to do). Here the verb ‘do’ is the substitute for
the verb ‘come’. Yet, verbal substitution regularly extends across sentence
boundaries.
In addition to functioning as the verbal substitute, the verb ‘do’ may occur in
other contexts. For instance, in Modern English it appears as lexical verb (i.e. I
have work to do, let’s do the accounts), general verb (i.e. It does no harm), as a
pro-verb (i.e. What was she doing?She wasn’t doing anything) and verbal operator (i.e. Does she sing?-No, she
doesn’t).
Finally, we have clausal substitution and in this type, what is presupposed is

not an element within the clause but an entire clause. Usually the words used
as substitutes are ‘so’ and ‘not’ (i.e. Is there going to be an earthquake?-It says
so/Have they failed?-I hope not)
https://www.oposinet.com/temario-de-ingles-secundaria/temario-2-ingles-secundaria/topic-29-discourse-analysis-cohesion-and-coherence-anaphora-and-cataphora-…
14/37
22/5/2021
Topic 29 – Discourse analysis. Cohesion and coherence. anaphora and cataphora. connectors. Deixis - Oposinet
so/Have they failed?-I hope not).
There are three environments in which clausal substitution may take place:
report. (in reported clauses), condition (conditional clauses) and modality
(modalized clauses).
First, in reported clauses, the presupposed element may be in the quoted form,
that is, direct speech (i.e. ‘The trial cannot proceed’, said he). Then the reported
clause that is substituted by ‘so’ or ‘not’ is always declarative, whatever the
mood of the presupposed clause (i.e. He said the trial could not proceed-Yes, I
believe so/I hope not). There is no substitution for interrogative or imperative,
that is, indirect questions and commands.
Secondly, we find conditional structures which are frequently substituted by
‘so’ and ‘not’ again, especially following ‘if’ but also in other forms such as
‘assuming so, suppose not’ (i.e. Everyone seems to be innocent. If so, no doubt
he’ll be condemned); and finally, ‘so’ and ‘not’ may occur as substitutes for
clauses expressing modality (i.e. ‘May I give you a call?’-‘Well, perhaps not’,
said Anita).
3.2.1.2. Ellipsis.
As stated above, the cohesive device of ‘ellipsis’ is very similar to that of
‘substitution’ and, therefore, is considered as a process. It is defined as ‘the
omission of an item’ or ‘that form of substitution in which the item is replaced
by nothing’, that is, simply ‘substitution by zero’ (Halliday & Hasan, 1976). The
structural mechanisms involved in ellipsis are fairly complex and hence, it
shows different patterns from those of substitution. The discussion of ellipsis is
related to the notion that it is ‘something left unsaid’ where there is no
implication that what is unsaid is not understood; on the contrary, ‘unsaid’
implies ‘but understood nevertheless’, and another way of referring to ellipsis is
in fact as ‘something understood’ meaning ‘going without saying’ (i.e. She
brought some biscuits, and Cristine 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
https://www.oposinet.com/temario-de-ingles-secundaria/temario-2-ingles-secundaria/topic-29-discourse-analysis-cohesion-and-coherence-anaphora-and-cataphora-…
15/37
22/5/2021
p
Topic 29 – Discourse analysis.
Cohesion
y
g and coherence. anaphora and cataphora. connectors.
p Deixis - Oposinet
which ellipsis is a form of relation between sentences by means of
First, nominal ellipsis, that is, ellipsis within the nominal group (i.e. He ate four
oysters and yet another four) where the modifying elements include some
which precede the head and some which follow it, as premodifier and
postmodifier respectively (i.e. How did you enjoy the show?-A lot (of the show).
We may omit specific deictics, usually determiners (demonstrative, possessive
and definite article –the) as in ‘The men got back at midnight. Both were tired’;
non-specific deictics (each, every, all, both, any, ether, no, neither, some, a) as
in ‘Have some wine-Where?I can’t see any’; post-deictics, usually adjectives
(other, same, different, identical, usual, regular, and so on) as in ‘I’ve used up
your knife. Can I have another?’; numeratives, usually numerals or other
quantifiying words (ordinals, cardinals and indefinite quantifiers) as in ‘Have
another chocolate.-No, thanks; that was my fourth’; and finally, epithets, which
are typically fulfilled by adjectives (comparatives and superlatives) as in
‘Apples are the cheapest in autumn).
Secondly, verbal ellipsis , that is ellipsis within the verbal group (i.e. Have you
been running? -Yes, I have). An elliptical verbal group presupposes one or
more words from a previous verbal group. In technical terms, it is defined as ‘a
verbal group whose structure does not fully express its systemic features
(finiteness: finite vs. non-finite, polarity: positive vs. negative, voice: active vs.
passive, tense: present vs. past vs. future).
3.2.1.3. Reference: anaphora, cataphora and deixis.
The third t ype of grammatical cohesion is reference, which is another well
researched area within linguistics. It is defined by Halliday & 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; and
the cohesion lies in the continuity of reference, whereby the same thing enters
into the discourse a second time’ (i.e. See how they eat! =where ‘they’ may be
three children, four horses, etc).

As stated before, by contrast to substitution and ellipsis, reference is a
semantic relation as well as directional. This means that first, alike substitution
https://www.oposinet.com/temario-de-ingles-secundaria/temario-2-ingles-secundaria/topic-29-discourse-analysis-cohesion-and-coherence-anaphora-and-cataphora-…
16/37
22/5/2021
Topic 29 – Discourse analysis. Cohesion and coherence. anaphora and cataphora. connectors. Deixis - Oposinet
and ellipsis (which were subjected to very strong grammatical conditions, that
is, for the substitute to be of the same grammatical class as the item for which
it substitutes), 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). The typical direction as we shall see later is the anaphoric
one. It is natural after all, to presuppose what has already gone rather than
what is to follow. Hence, in this case, situational reference would be the prior
form.
Thus, it is relevant to have a special term for situational reference, in other
words, exophora or 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). Then, if endophoric, we may
distinguish between anaphoric reference (referring to the preceding text) or
cataphoric reference (referring to the text that follows). Here we find the two
items to be developed in the title: anaphora and cataphora. Let us consider
these in turn.
Anaphora.
First, anaphora is the cohesive device that uses a pro-form after the coreferring expression (i.e. We asked Bob to sing a Christmas carol and so he
sang). ‘Anaphora is the most common directionality for co-reference, since the
identity of the conceptual content being kept current is made plain in advance.
Yet, anaphora may be troublesome if there is a lengthy stretch of text before
the pro-form appears. By then, the original elements could have been

displaced from active storage and other candidates may be mistakenly called’
(Beaugrande & Dressler, 1988).
https://www.oposinet.com/temario-de-ingles-secundaria/temario-2-ingles-secundaria/topic-29-discourse-analysis-cohesion-and-coherence-anaphora-and-cataphora-…
17/37
22/5/2021
Topic 29 – Discourse analysis. Cohesion and coherence. anaphora and cataphora. connectors. Deixis - Oposinet
Cohesion as we have said is not a structural relation, hence it is unrestricted by
sentence boundaries, and in its most normal form it 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.
So far we have considered cohesion purely as ‘an anaphoric relation, with a
presupposing item presupposing something that has gone before it’
(Beaugrande & Dressler, 1988). But this presupposition may go in the opposite
direction, with the presupposing element following and then we shall refer to
as cataphora. In other words, it is the cohesive device which has forward
reference instead of back-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 Charlie soon became well-known at that place).
In this case, ‘the presupposed element may, and often does, consist of more
than one sentence. Where it does not, the cataphoric reference is often
signalled in writing with a colon: but although this has the effect of uniting the
two parts into a single orthographic sentence, it does not imply any kind of
structural relation between them. The colon is used solely to signal the
cataphora, this being one of its principal functions’ (Beaugrande & Dressler,
1988). Types of reference: deixis.
As stated before, reference is the relation between an element of the text and
something else by reference to which it is interpreted in the given instance. The

interpretation may take two forms: either the reference item is interpreted
through being identified with the referent in question; or it is interpreted
through being compared with the referent. In the former case, where the
https://www.oposinet.com/temario-de-ingles-secundaria/temario-2-ingles-secundaria/topic-29-discourse-analysis-cohesion-and-coherence-anaphora-and-cataphora-…
18/37
22/5/2021
Topic 29 – Discourse analysis. Cohesion and coherence. anaphora and cataphora. connectors. Deixis - Oposinet
interpretation involves identifying, the reference item functions as a deictic
item which is always specific. 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.
So far we have considered cohesion purely as ‘an anaphoric relation, with a
presupposing item presupposing something that has gone before it’
(Beaugrande & Dressler, 1988). But this presupposition may go in the opposite
direction, with the presupposing element following and then we shall refer to
as cataphora. In other words, it is the cohesive device which has forward
reference instead of back-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. Where it does not, the cataphoric reference is often
signalled in writing with a colon: but although this has the effect of uniting the
two parts into a single orthographic sentence, it does not imply any kind of
structural relation between them. The colon is used solely to signal the
cataphora, this being one of its principal functions’ (Beaugrande & Dressler,
1988).
Types of reference: deixis.
As stated before, reference is the relation between an element of the text and

something else by reference to which it is interpreted in the given instance. The
interpretation may take two forms: either the reference item is interpreted
through being identified with the referent in question; or it is interpreted
https://www.oposinet.com/temario-de-ingles-secundaria/temario-2-ingles-secundaria/topic-29-discourse-analysis-cohesion-and-coherence-anaphora-and-cataphora-…
19/37
22/5/2021
Topic 29 – Discourse analysis. Cohesion and coherence. anaphora and cataphora. connectors. Deixis - Oposinet
through being compared with the referent. In the former case, where the
interpretation involves identifying, the reference item functions as a deictic
item which is always specific.
However, they become anaphoric in quoted speech (specially in written la
lenguage and narrative fiction). Personals referring to other roles (persons or
objects other than the speaker or addressee) are typically anaphoric, that is,
deictic. This includes ‘he, she, it and they’ and also the third person component
of ‘we’ when present. So far personal reference can be also achieved by
cataphoric reference by means of personal pronouns, which refer forward to
succeeding elements to which they are in no way structurally related (i.e. I
would never have believed it. They’ve accepted the whole scheme).
o Demonstrative reference .
Demonstrative reference is essentially a primary form of verbal pointing which
may be accompanied by demonstrative action, in the form of a gesture
indicating the object referred to (i.e. Pick this up!). So, the speaker identifies the
reference by locating it on a scale of proximity regarding place (here/there) or
time (now/then) as in ‘Come here!/Come now!’ or ‘This vs. That is a big
garden=near vs. far’. Thus we find two subtypes: neutral (the) and selective
(near, far, this, that, these, those, here, there, now, then).
In the case of the demonstratives, there are certain differences in meaning
between the functions of modifier and head since a demonstrative functioning
as head is more like a personal pronoun (i.e. That’s my brother). Also, there are
many expressions containing a demonstrative that occur as adjuncts, usually
at the beginning of a clause (i.e. in that case, that being so, after that, at this
moment, etc).
o Comparative reference.
Comparative reference may be described in terms of ‘general’ and ‘particular’
comparison. When we refer to ‘general comparison’, we deal with comparison

in terms of likeness and unlikeness without respect to any particular property
by means of a certain class of adjectives and adverbs (i.e. identical, fast,
d) Th
dj ti
f
ti
i th
i l
ith
d i ti (i
https://www.oposinet.com/temario-de-ingles-secundaria/temario-2-ingles-secundaria/topic-29-discourse-analysis-cohesion-and-coherence-anaphora-and-cataphora-…
20/37
22/5/2021
Topic 29 – Discourse analysis. Cohesion and coherence. anaphora and cataphora. connectors. Deixis - Oposinet
good). The adjectives function in the nominal group either as deictic (i.e.
identity, similarity, difference) or as epithet (comparatives). These items are
called ‘adjectives of comparison’ and ‘adverbs of comparison’.
On the other hand, if we refer to ‘particular comparison’ we compare in terms
of quantity and quality by means of adjectives and adverbs, too. The
adjectives function, as always, within the nominal group, but not as deictic.
They function either as numerative (more, so many, one, first) or as epithet
(comparatives). The same principles operate with comparison as with other
forms of reference: it may be anaphoric, and therefore cohesive, or it may be
cataphoric or even exophoric.
3.2.1.4. Conjunctions.
Conjunction is a relationship which indicates how the subsequent sentence or
clause should be linked to the preceding or the following sentence or parts of
sentence. This is usually achieved by the use of conjunctions (included in the
title of the unit). Frequently occurring relationships are addition, causality and
temporality. Subordination links works when the status of one depends on that
of the other, by means of a large number of conjunctive expressions: because,
since, as, thus, while , or therefore.
‘Conjunctive elements are cohesive not in themselves but indirectly, by virtue
of their specific meanings. They are not primarily devices for reaching out into
the preceding (or following) text, but they express certain meanings which
presuppose the presence of other components in the discourse as well as the
text structure. With conjunction, then, we move into a different type of semantic
relation which is a specification of the way in which what is to follow is
systematically connected to what has gone before’ (Beaugrande & Dressler,
1988).
We may distinguish three varieties of presenting conjunctions in a text. First,
conjunctive expressions, second conjunctive relations and finally, other
conjunctive items called continuatives.

First of all, conjunctive expressions involve the presence of a preposition which
governs the reference item (i.e. instead of, as a result of, in consequence). The
https://www.oposinet.com/temario-de-ingles-secundaria/temario-2-ingles-secundaria/topic-29-discourse-analysis-cohesion-and-coherence-anaphora-and-cataphora-…
21/37
22/5/2021
Topic 29 – Discourse analysis. Cohesion and coherence. anaphora and cataphora. connectors. Deixis - Oposinet
governs the reference item (i.e. instead of, as a result of, in consequence). The
resulting prepositional group will then function as a cohesive adjunct and
hence we distinguish three types of conjunctive adjuncts:
o
first, adverbs: simple adverbs (but, so, then, next), compound adverbs (ending
in – ly: accordingly, actually) and compound adverbs (there/where-: therefore,
whereat).
o Secondly, other compound adverbs (furthermore, anyway, besides, instead)
and prepositional phrases (on the contrary, as a result, in addition to).
o Finally, prepositional expressions with ‘that’ or other reference item (as a
result of that, instead of that, in addition to that).
Secondly, conjunctive relations involve the phenomena we group under the
heading of conjunctions. There is no uniquely correct inventory of the different
types of conjunctive relations; on the contrary, different classifications are
possible, each of which would highlight different aspects of the facts grouped
in four categories: additive (i.e. And in all this time he said nothing), adversative
(i.e. Yet he was aware of his own mistake), causal (i.e. So he tried to apologize)
and temporal (i.e. Then, as he thought, she didn’t forgive him) (Beaugrande &
Dressler, 1988).
o First, additive conjunctions are embodied in the form of coordination. When
are considering cohesive relations, we can group them in the form of
coordination, the ‘and’ type and the ‘or’ type which can be in turn, positive or
negative:
(1) Simple additive relations which are classified as (a) additive (and; and also,
and … too), (b) negative (nor; and … not, not … either, neither) and (c)
alternative (or; or else).
(2) Complex additive relations, also called emphatic, can be classif ied into (a)
additive (furthermore, moreover, additionally, besides that, add to this, in
addition, and another thing) and (b) alternative (alternatively).

(3) Complex additive relations, or also called ‘afterthought’ which are deh i b
h
d
h
i h
d d
h
i
https://www.oposinet.com/temario-de-ingles-secundaria/temario-2-ingles-secundaria/topic-29-discourse-analysis-cohesion-and-coherence-anaphora-and-cataphora-…
22/37
22/5/2021
Topic 29 – Discourse analysis. Cohesion and coherence. anaphora and cataphora. connectors. Deixis - Oposinet
emphatic because they reduce the weight acorded to the presupposing
sentence and to its connection with what went before (incidentally, by the
way).
(4) Comparative relations which can be (a) similar (likewise, similarly, in the
same way, in just this way) and (b) dissimilar (on the other hand, by contrast,
conversely).
(5) Finally, appositive relations which can be (a) expository (that is, I mean, in
other words, to put it another way) and (b) exemplificatory (for instance, for
example, thus).
o
Secondly, adversative conjunctions refer to a relation that is ‘contrary to
expectation’, which may be derived from the content of what is being said, or
from the communication process, the speaker-hearer situation, so , as in the
additive, we find cohesion in the following cases:
(1) Proper adversative relations (meaning ‘in spite of’) are classified into (a)
simple (yet, though, only), (b) containing ‘and’ (but) and (c) emphatic
(however, nevertheless, despite this, all the same).
(2) Contrastive relations (meaning ‘as against’) are expressed by means of
avowal (in fact, as a matter of fact, to tell the truth, actually, in point of fact).
(3) Corrective relations (meaning ‘not…but’) are classified into (a) correction of
meaning (instead, rather, on the contrary), (b) correction of wording (at least,
rather, I mean).
(4) Dismmissive adversative relations are those which are generalized
adversative relations (meaning ‘no matter…, still’) and are classified into (a)
dismissal or closed relations (in any/either case, any/either way, whichever)
and (b) dismissal or open-ended relations (anyhow, at any rate, in any case,
however that may be).

o Thirdly, causal relations are expressed by simple forms (so, thus, hence,
therefore, consequently, accordingly) and a number of expressions (as a result
of that, in consequence of that, because of that) which are regularly combined
https://www.oposinet.com/temario-de-ingles-secundaria/temario-2-ingles-secundaria/topic-29-discourse-analysis-cohesion-and-coherence-anaphora-and-cataphora-…
23/37
22/5/2021
Topic 29 – Discourse analysis. Cohesion and coherence. anaphora and cataphora. connectors. Deixis - Oposinet
with initial
‘and’ (…and the consequence of his behaviour was terrible). They occur under
different positions, for instance, ‘so’ occurs only initially unless following ‘and’
(i.e. They argued so he felt really bad); ‘thus’, like ‘yet’, occurs initially or in the
first part (i.e. Yet he didn’t say anything); ‘therefore’ has the same potentialities
as ‘however’, that is, initial position and between commas (i.e. They left early in
the morning. However, she didn’t want to leave her city).
Under the heading of causal relations are included the specific ones of result
(i.e. He was fired from work. As a result, he got depressed), reason (i.e. On
account of this, he started to find another job) and purpose (i.e. With this
intention, he joined a charity organization). Then we find the following relations
of the causal type:
(1) General causal relations (meaning ‘because…, so’) are classified into (a)
simple (so, thus, hence, therefore) and (b) emphatic (consequently,
accordingly, because of this).
(2) Specific causal relations such as (a) reason (for this reason, on account of
this, it follows from this, on this basis), (b) result (as a result of this, in
consequence of this, arising out of this) and (c) purpose (for this purpose, with
this in mind/view, with this intention, to this end).
(3) Reversed causal relations are simple items (for, because).
(4) Conditional relations (meaning ‘if…, then’) may be (a) simple (then), (b)
emphatic (in that case, that being the case, in such an event, under those
circumstances), (c) generalized (under the circumstances) and (d) reversed
polarity (otherwise, under the circumstances).
(5) Respective relations (meaning ‘with respect to’) may be (a) direct (in this
respect/connection, with regard to this, here) and (b) reversed polarity
(otherwise, in other respects, aside/apart from this).

o Finally, temporal conjunctions refer to the relation between the theses of two
successive sentences, which may be simply one of sequence in time (then):
https://www.oposinet.com/temario-de-ingles-secundaria/temario-2-ingles-secundaria/topic-29-discourse-analysis-cohesion-and-coherence-anaphora-and-cataphora-…
24/37
22/5/2021
Topic 29 – Discourse analysis. Cohesion and coherence. anaphora and cataphora. connectors. Deixis - Oposinet
successive sentences, which may be simply one of sequence in time (then):
the one is subsequent to the other (and then, next, afterwards, after that). We
may establish the following classification:
(1) Simple temporal relations are classified into (a) sequential (and then, next,
afterwards, after that, subsequently), (b) simultaneous (just then, at the same
time, simultaneously) and (c) preceding (earlier, before then/that, previously).
(2) Complex temporal relations can be (a) immediate (at once, thereupon, on
which, just before), (b) interrupted (soon, presently, later, after a time, some
time earlier, formerly), (c) repetitive (next time, on another occasion, this time,
on this occasion, the last time, on a previous occasion), (d) specific (next day,
five minutes later, five minutes earlier), (e) durative (meanwhile, all this time),
(f) terminal (by this time, up till that time, until then) and (g) punctiliar (next
moment, at this point/moment, the previous moment).
(3) Conclusive relations may be (a) simple (finally, at last, in the end,
eventually). (4) Sequential and conclusive relations are (a) sequential (first…
then, first….next, first…second…) and (b) conclusive (at first…finally, at first…in the
end).
(5) Temporal relations can be (a) sequential (then, next, secondly) and (b)
conclusive (finally, as a final point, in conclusion).
(6) Temporal relations which involve correlative forms are (a) sequential (first…
next, first…then, first…secondly, in the first place…in the second place, to begin
with…finally, to conclude with) and (b) conclusive (finally, to conclude with).
(7) ‘Here and now’ relations (mainly used in reported speech) may refer to the
(a) past (up to now, up to this point, hitherto, heretofore), (b) present (at this
point, here) and (c) future (from now on, henceforward).
(8) Finally, summary relations may be (a) culminative (to sum up, in short,
briefly) and (b) resumptive (to resume, to get back to the point, anyway).

Finally, there are other ways of expressing conjunctive relations called
continuatives. Although these items do not express any particular conjunctive
relation are nevertheless used with a cohesive force in the text They are
https://www.oposinet.com/temario-de-ingles-secundaria/temario-2-ingles-secundaria/topic-29-discourse-analysis-cohesion-and-coherence-anaphora-and-cataphora-…
25/37
22/5/2021
Topic 29 – Discourse analysis. Cohesion and coherence. anaphora and cataphora. connectors. Deixis - Oposinet
relation are nevertheless used with a cohesive force in the text. They are
grouped according to their particular external relation (adversative, temporal
and so on) or their internal relation (closely linked to the external one). We refer
to items such as
(1) ‘now’. If it is tonic, it is deictic and not cohesive (i.e. What are we doing
now?). However, if it is reduced, it means the opening of a new stage in
communication, that is, a new incident in the story, a new point in the
argument, a new role or attitude being taken on by the speaker and so on (i.e.
Are you ready?-Now when I tell you, open your eyes!).
(2) ‘of course’. If tonic, it means ‘you should have known that already’ (i.e. Did
you sign your contract?-Of course). If not, it means ‘I accept the fact’ (i.e.
Everything is just as it was!-Of course, it is). It is typically used to disarm
someone into accepting something the speaker knows he is likely to reject.
(3) ‘well’. This item usually occurs at the beginning of a response in a dialogue
(i.e. Did you enjoy the trip?- Well, I might say yes). In this case, it serves to
indicate that what follows is in fact a response to what has preceded and
hence is purely cohesive in function.
(4) ‘anyway’. Its use derives from its meaning under an adversative relation
(i.e. No matter if you don’t want to visit her. I am going to see her anyway). In its
tonic form, it has a dismissive meaning (no matter under which
circumstances), but if not, the meaning is resumptive, that is, ‘to come back to
the point’ (i.e. She couldn’t remember anything. Anyway, it was not important).
(5) ‘surely’. When tonic, it invites the hearer to assent the proposition being
enunciated by demanding an answer (i.e. I won’t go with you. – Surely?). If not,
it has what is basically the cohesive equivalent of the same mea ning, that is,
‘am I right in my understanding of what’s just been said?’ (i.e. They’ll think you
are mean. – Nobody will think that, surely).
(6) ‘after all’. In its tonic form, it means ‘after everything relevant has been

considered, what remains is…’ (i.e. This car is not so bad after all). If not, the
usual meaning is ‘in addition to’ and ‘in spite of’ (i.e. You needn’t apologize.
After all nobody could have known what would happen).
https://www.oposinet.com/temario-de-ingles-secundaria/temario-2-ingles-secundaria/topic-29-discourse-analysis-cohesion-and-coherence-anaphora-and-cataphora-…
26/37
22/5/2021
y
pp
)
Topic 29 – Discourse analysis. Cohesion and coherence. anaphora and cataphora. connectors. Deixis - Oposinet
(7) The final cohesive device is that of intonation. Cohesive elements relate the
sentence to something that has gone before it. Often, they are anaphoric and
there no new content to them. Now, anaphoric items in English are
phonologically non-prominent but if the cohesive relation is to be brought into
focus of attention, this is marked by tonic prominence. Thus the falling and the
falling-rising intonation pattern are considered as expressing forms of
conjunctive relations.
3.2.2. Lexical cohesion.
Lexical cohesion does not deal with grammatical or semantic connections but
with connections based on the words used. It is achieved by selection of
vocabulary, using semantically close items. Because lexical cohesion in itself
carries no indication whether it is functioning cohesively or not, it always
requires reference to the text, to some other lexical item to be interpreted
correctly. There are two types of lexical cohesion: reiteration and collocation.
First of all, reiteration includes repetition, synonymy, hyponymy, metonymy
(part vs. whole), antonymy whereas collocation is any pair of lexical items that
stand to each other in some recognisable lexico-semantic relation, e.g.
“sheep” and “wool”, “congress” and “politician”, and “college” and “study”.
Like in the case of synonymous reference, collocational relation exists without
any explicit reference to another item, but now the nature of relation is
different: it is indirect, more difficult to define and based on associations in the
reader mind. The interpreter sometimes adds coherence to the text by adding
cohesion markers.
3.2.3. Graphological devices
With respect to graphological resources, we are mainly dealing with visual
devices as we make reference to orthography, punctuation, headings, foot
notes, tables of contents and indexes. As most of them deal with form and

structure of different types of texts, and will be further developed as part of a
subsequent section, we shall primarily deal with orthography and punctuation
i hi
i
https://www.oposinet.com/temario-de-ingles-secundaria/temario-2-ingles-secundaria/topic-29-discourse-analysis-cohesion-and-coherence-anaphora-and-cataphora-…
27/37
22/5/2021
Topic 29 – Discourse analysis. Cohesion and coherence. anaphora and cataphora. connectors. Deixis - Oposinet
in this section.
Firstly, orthography is related to a correct spelling, and in relation to t his term,
Byrne (1979) states that the mastery of the writing system includes the ability
to spell. This device covers different word categories, but mainly, rules of
suffixation, prefixation, and addition of verbal markers as gerunds, past tenses
or third person singular in present tenses. Moreover, Byrne claims for the use of
the dictionary as the relationship between sound and symbol in English is a
complex one, and spelling becomes a problem for many users of the
language, native and non-native speakers alike. The importance of correct
spelling is highlighted when Byrne says that most of us are obliged to consult
a dictionary from time to time so as not to be indifferent to misspelling.
Therefore, students are encouraged to acquire the habit of consulting a
dictionary in order to ensure an adequate mastery of spelling.
Secondly, according to Quirk et al (1972) punctuation serves two main
functions. Firstly, the separation of successive units (such as sentences by
periods, or items in a list by commas), and secondly, the specification of
language function (as when an apostrophe indicates that an inflection is
genitive). Moreover, punctuation is concerned with purely visual devices , such
as capital letters, full stops, commas, inverted commas, semicolons, hyphens,
brackets and the use of interrogative and exclamative marks. It is worth noting
that punctuation has never been standardised to the same extent as spelling,
and as a result, learners tend to overlook the relevance of punctuation when
producing a text. Learners must be encouraged to pay attention to the few
areas where conventions governing the use of the visual devices as fairly well
established, among which we may mention letters and filling in forms as part
of a sociocultural educational aim. Thus, students must try to understand the
relevance of the use of capital letters as a mark of sentence boundary, the use
of commas to enumerate a sequence of items, the use of question and
exclamation marks to express requests or attitudes, and the use of inverted
commas to highlight a word or sentence.

4. COHERENCE.
4.1. Definition.
https://www.oposinet.com/temario-de-ingles-secundaria/temario-2-ingles-secundaria/topic-29-discourse-analysis-cohesion-and-coherence-anaphora-and-cataphora-…
28/37
22/5/2021
Topic 29 – Discourse analysis. Cohesion and coherence. anaphora and cataphora. connectors. Deixis - Oposinet
The term cohesion is often confused or conflated with coherence. But it is
necessary, both from a theoretical and a practical point of view to retain this
distinction between surface and content. The term coherence concerns ‘the
ways in which the components of the textual world, thus the concepts and
relations which underlie the surface text, are mutually accessible and relevant’
(Beaugrande & Dressler, 1988).
4.2. Main features.
Coherence is a purely semantic property of discourse, while cohesion is mainly
concerned with morpho-syntactic devices in discourse. A coherent text is a
semantically connected, integrated whole, expressing relations of closeness,
thus, causality, time, or location between its concepts and sentences. A
condition on this continuity of sense is that the connected concepts are also
related in the real world, and that the reader identifies the relations.
In a coherent text, there are direct and indirect semantic referential links
between lexical items in and between sentences, which the reader must
interpret. A text must be coherent enough for the interlocutor to be able to
interpret. It seems probable that this coherence can be achieved either
through cohesion, for instance, markers and clues in the speakers’ text, or
through the employment of the user-centred textuality standards of
intentionality, acceptability, informativity, situationality and intertextuality.
These markers are defined as all the devices which are needed in writing in
order to produce a text in which the sentences are coherently organised so as
to fulfil the writer’s communicative purpose. Byrne (1979) claims that they refer
to words or phrases which indicate meaning relationships between or within
sentences, such as those of addition, contrast (antithesis), comparison
(similes), consequence, result, and condition expressed by the use of short
utterances, and exemplification (imagery and symbolism).
Within the context of textual analysis, we may mention from a wide range of

rethorical devices the use of imagery and symbolism; hyperbole, antithesis,
similes and metaphors; onomatopoeias, alliteration and the use of short
utterances for rhythm and effect; repetition and allusion to drawn the reade r’s
https://www.oposinet.com/temario-de-ingles-secundaria/temario-2-ingles-secundaria/topic-29-discourse-analysis-cohesion-and-coherence-anaphora-and-cataphora-…
29/37
22/5/2021
Topic 29 – Discourse analysis. Cohesion and coherence. anaphora and cataphora. connectors. Deixis - Oposinet
utterances for rhythm and effect; repetition and allusion to drawn the reade r s
attention; and cacophony and slang to make the piece of writing lively and
dynamic.
5. EDUCATIONAL IMPLICATIONS IN LANGUAGE TEACHING.
5.1. The Communicative Approach: a basis for discourse analysis.
Regarding the educational implications of discourse analysis in language
teaching, we must trace back to the origins of the assessment model of
communicative competence as a basis for the analysis and articulation of
discourse. This communicative approach emerged in the 1970s and 1980s as
the work of anthropologists, sociologists, and sociolinguists on foreign and
second language teaching. In the 1980s, prominence was given to more
interactive views of language teaching, which became to be known as the
Communicative Approach or simply Communicative Language Teaching. The
key was to considere language as social behaviour, seeing the primary goal of
language teaching as the development of the learner’s communicative
competence.
Hence learners were considered to need both rules of use to produce
language appropriate to particular situations, and strategies for effective
communication. Scholars such as Hymes (1972), Halliday (1970), Canale and
Swain (1980) or Chomsky (1957) levelled their contributions and criticisms at
structural linguistic theories claiming for more communicative approaches on
language teaching, where interactive processes of communication received
priority. Upon this basis, the introduction of cultural studies is an important
aspect of communicative competence as communicating with people from
other cultures involves not only linguistic appropriateness but also pragmatic
appropriateness in the use of verbal and non-verbal behavior. This issue is the
aim of an ethnography of communication theory in order to approach a
foreign language from a pragmatic and linguistic point of view and the key
theory for the development of our present study, the analysis of discourse.

The verbal part of communicative competence, and therefore, the analysis of
discourse, comprises all the so-called four skills: listening, reading, speaking
and writing It is important to highlight that language is both productive and
https://www.oposinet.com/temario-de-ingles-secundaria/temario-2-ingles-secundaria/topic-29-discourse-analysis-cohesion-and-coherence-anaphora-and-cataphora-…
30/37
22/5/2021
Topic 29 – Discourse analysis. Cohesion and coherence. anaphora and cataphora. connectors. Deixis - Oposinet
and writing. It is important to highlight that language is both productive and
receptive. Hymes stated the four competences at work regarding the elements
and rules of oral and written discourse are as follows: linguistic competence,
pragmatic competence, discourse competence, strategic competence, and
fluency (Hedge 2000).
First, the linguistic competence, as it deals with linguistic and non- linguistic
devices in the oral and written interaction involving all knowledge of lexical
tiems and of rules of morphology, syntax, sentence-grammar semantics and
phonology (Canale and Swain, 1980).
Secondly, the pragmatic competence as it also deals with the knowledge the
learner has to acquire the sociocultural rules of language. Regarding the rules
of discourse, it is defined in terms of the mastery of how to combine
grammatical forms and meanings (Canale and Swain 1980). When we deal
with appropriateness of form, we refer to the extent to which a given meaning
is represented in both verbal and non-verbal form that is proper in a given
sociolinguistic context. This competence enables a speaker to be contextually
appropriate or in Hymes’s words (1972), to know when to speak, when not, what
to talk about with whom, when, where and in what manner.
Thirdly, the rules of use and usage , proposed by Widdowson (1978) have to do
with the discourse competence . Here, usage refers to the manifestation of the
knowledge of a language system and use means the realization of the
language system as meaningful communicative behavior. Discourse analysis
is primarily concerned with the ways in which individual sentences connect
together to form a communicative message. This competence addresses
directly to the mastery of how to combine grammatical forms and meanings
to achieve a unified spoken or written text in different genres (Canale and
Swain 1980) by means of cohesion in form and coherence in meaning.
Cohesion deals with how utterances are linked structurally and facilitates
interpretation of a text by means of cohesion devices, such as pronouns,
synonyms, ellipsis, conjunctions and parallel structures to relate individual
utterances and to indicate how a group of utterances is to be understood as a

text. Yet, coherence refers to the relatioships among the different meanings in
a text, where these meanings may be literal meanings, communicative
f
i
d
i d
https://www.oposinet.com/temario-de-ingles-secundaria/temario-2-ingles-secundaria/topic-29-discourse-analysis-cohesion-and-coherence-anaphora-and-cataphora-…
31/37
22/5/2021
Topic 29 – Discourse analysis. Cohesion and coherence. anaphora and cataphora. connectors. Deixis - Oposinet
functions, and attitudes.
Finally, we come to the fourth competence at work, the strategic competence.
(Canale 1983) where verbal and nonverbal communication strategies may be
called into action to compensate for breakdowns in communication due to
performance variables or due to insufficient competence. This may be
achieved by paraphrase, circumlocution, repetition, hesistation, avoidance,
guessing as well as shifts in register and style. Hedge (2000) points out that
strategic competence consists of using communication strategies which are
used by learners to compensate for their limited linguistic competence in
expressing what they want to say.
5.2. New directions in discourse analysis.
From a practical perspective in education, providing experiences for contact
with language in context proved difficult for foreign language teachers as they
were forced to rely on textbooks and classroom materials in teaching
language. However, nowadays new techonologies may provide a new
direction to language teaching as they set more appropriate context for
students to experience the target culture. Present-day approaches deal with a
communicative competence model in which first, there is an emphasis on
significance over form regarding how to deal with discourse types, and
secondly, motivation and involvement are enhanced by means of new
technologies.
Regarding writing skills, there is a need to create classrooms conditions which
match those in real life and foster acquisition, encouring reading and writing
(letters, advertisements, filling forms, official papers). The success partly lies in
the way the language becomes real to the users, feeling themselves really in
the language. Some of this motivational force is brought about by intervening
in authentic communicative events. Otherwise, we have to recreate as much
as possible the whole cultural environment in the classroom for us to make the
articulation of discourse fluent and effective.

This is to be achieved within the framework of the European Union educational
guidelines through the European Council (1998) and, in particular, the Spanish
Educational System which establish a common reference framework for the
https://www.oposinet.com/temario-de-ingles-secundaria/temario-2-ingles-secundaria/topic-29-discourse-analysis-cohesion-and-coherence-anaphora-and-cataphora-…
32/37
22/5/2021
Topic 29 – Discourse analysis. Cohesion and coherence. anaphora and cataphora. connectors. Deixis - Oposinet
Educational System which establish a common reference framework for the
teaching of foreign languages where students are intended to carry out
several communication tasks with specific communicative goals within
specific contexts. Thus, foreign language activities are provided within the
framework of social interaction, personal, professional or educational fields.
Writing and oral skills in discourse articulation are mentioned as one of the
aims of our current educational system (B.O.E. 2002). It is stated that students
will make use of this competence in a natural and systematic way in order to
achieve the effectiveness of communication through the different
communication skills, thus, productive (oral and written communication ),
receptive (oral and written comprehension within verbal and non- verbal
codes), and interactional role of a foreign language as a multilingual and
multicultural identity.
This effectiveness of communication is to be achieved thanks to recent
developments in foreign language education which have indicated a trend
towards the field of intercultural communication. The Ministry of Education
proposed several projects within the framework of the European Community,
such as Comenius projects and Plumier projects. The first project is envisaged
as a way for learners to experience sociocultural patterns of the target
language in the target country, and establish personal relationships which
may lead to keep in contact through writing skills. Besides, the Plumier project
uses multimedia resources in a classroom setting where learners are expected
to learn to interpret and produce meaning with members of the target culture.
Both projects are interrelated as students put in practice their writing and
reading skills by means of keeping in touch through e-mails with their friends
and read their messages, apart from fostering the oral skills.
Current research on Applied Linguistics shows an interest on writing skills, such
as on the pragmatics of writing, narrative fiction and frequency on cohesion
devices in English texts, among others. We may also find research on
intercultural communication where routines and formulaic speech are under
revision of contrastive analysis between English and Spanish. However, the

emphasis is nowadays on the use of multimedia and computers as an
important means to promote a foreign language in context.
https://www.oposinet.com/temario-de-ingles-secundaria/temario-2-ingles-secundaria/topic-29-discourse-analysis-cohesion-and-coherence-anaphora-and-cataphora-…
33/37
22/5/2021
Topic 29 – Discourse analysis. Cohesion and coherence. anaphora and cataphora. connectors. Deixis - Oposinet
6. CONCLUSION.
The role of writing and oral skills in our present society is emphasized by the
increasing necessity of learning a foreign language as we are now members of
the European Union, and as such, we need to communicate with other
countries at oral and written levels. Written patterns are given an important
role when language learners face the monumental task of acquiring not only
new vocabulary, syntactic patterns, and phonology, but also discourse
competence, sociolinguistic competence, strategic competence, and
interactional competence.
Students need opportunities to investigate the systematicity of language at all
linguistic levels, especially at the highest level of written discourse. Without
knowledge and experience within the discourse and sociocultural patterns of
the target language, second language learners are likely to rely on the
strategies and expectations acquired as part of their first language
development, which may be inappropriate for the second language setting
and may lead to communication difficulties and misunderstandings.
One problem for second language learners is not to acquire a sociocultural
knowledge on the foreign language they are learning, and therefore, have a
limited experience with a variety of interactive practices in the target
language, such as reading a complaint sheet, writing a letter to a department
store, or writing a letter to an English person with the appropriate written
patterns. Therefore, one of the goals of second language teaching is to expose
learners to different discourse patterns in different texts and interactions. One
way that teachers can include the study of discourse in the second language
classroom is to allow the students themselves to study language, that is, to
make them discourse analysts (see Celce-Murcia & Olshtain, 2000), by
learning in context.
By exploring natural language use in authentic environments, learners gain a
greater appreciation and understanding of the discourse patterns associated

with a given genre or speech event as well as the sociolinguistic factors that
contribute to linguistic variation across settings and contexts. For example,
https://www.oposinet.com/temario-de-ingles-secundaria/temario-2-ingles-secundaria/topic-29-discourse-analysis-cohesion-and-coherence-anaphora-and-cataphora-…
34/37
22/5/2021
Topic 29 – Discourse analysis. Cohesion and coherence. anaphora and cataphora. connectors. Deixis - Oposinet
students can study speech acts by searching information on Internet about a
job application, address patterns, opening and closings of museums, or other
aspects of speech events.
To sum up, we may say that language is where culture impinges on form and
where second language speakers find their confidence threatened through the
diversity of registers, genres and styles that make up the first language
speaker’s day to day interaction. Language represents the deepest
manifestation of a culture, and people’s values systems, including those taken
over from the group of which they are part, play a substantial role in the way
they use not only their first language but also subsequently acquired ones.
The assumptions of discourse analysis we have reviewed in this study are then
important not only for understanding written and oral discourse patterns and
the conditions of their production, but also for a critical assessment of our own
cultural situation.
7. BIBLIOGRAPHY.
Beaugrande, R. & Dressler, W. 1988. Introduction to Text Linguistics. London:
Longman.
B.O.E. 2002. Consejería de Educación y Cultura. Decreto N.º 112/2002, de 13 de
septiembre. Currículo de la Educación Secundaria Obligatoria en la
Comunidad Autónoma de la Región de Murcia.
B.O.E. 2002. Consejería de Educación y Cultura. Decreto N.º 113/2002, de 13 de
septiembre. Currículo de Bachillerato en la Comunidad Autónoma de la Región
de Murcia.
Brown, G. and G. Yule. 1983. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge University Press.
Canale, M., and M. Swain, 1980. Theoretical bases of communicative
approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics 1 (1).

Canale, M. 1983. From Communicative Competence to Communicative
Language Pedagogy, in J. Richards and R. Schmidt (eds.). Language and
https://www.oposinet.com/temario-de-ingles-secundaria/temario-2-ingles-secundaria/topic-29-discourse-analysis-cohesion-and-coherence-anaphora-and-cataphora-…
35/37
22/5/2021
Topic 29 – Discourse analysis. Cohesion and coherence. anaphora and cataphora. connectors. Deixis - Oposinet
Communication. London, Longman.Hymes, D.
1972. On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride and J. Holmes (eds.),
Sociolinguistics, pp.
269-93. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Celce-Murcia, M,. & Olshtain, E. (2000). Discourse and context in language
teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Council of Europe (1998) Modern Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment.
A Common
European Framework of reference.
Cook, Guy. 1989. Discourse. Oxford University Press.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1975. Explorations in the Functions of Language. London: Edward
Arnold. Halliday, M.A. K. and R. Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English . Longman.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1985. Spoken and Written Language. Victoria: Deakin University.
Hedge Tricia (2000) Teaching and Learning in the Language Classroom (OUP).
Hymes, D. 1972. On communicative competence. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Hymes, D. 1974. Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts: An essay in the philosophy of language.
Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
van Dijk, T. 1984. Text and Context: Explorations in the Semantics and
Pragmatics of Discourse.

London: Longman.
https://www.oposinet.com/temario-de-ingles-secundaria/temario-2-ingles-secundaria/topic-29-discourse-analysis-cohesion-and-coherence-anaphora-and-cataphora-…
36/37
22/5/2021
Topic 29 – Discourse analysis. Cohesion and coherence. anaphora and cataphora. connectors. Deixis - Oposinet
van Dijk, T. 1981. Studies in the Pragmatics of Discourse. Mouton publishers.
Revistas de la Asociación Española de Lingüística Aplicada (AESLA):
De la Cruz, Isabel; Santamaría, Carmen; Tejedor, Cristina y Valero, Carmen.
2001. La Lingüística
Aplicada a finales del Siglo XX. Ensayos y propuestas. Universidad de Alcalá.
Celaya, Mª Luz; Fernández-Villanueva, Marta; Naves, Teresa; Strunk, Oliver y
Tragant, Elsa. 2001.
Trabajos en Lingüística Aplicada . Universidad de Barcelona.
Tags:
tema 29 inglés secundaria

https://www.oposinet.com/temario-de-ingles-secundaria/temario-2-ingles-secundaria/topic-29-discourse-analysis-cohesion-and-coherence-anaphora-and-cataphora-…
37/37