That has given the author of this study the idea to examine the uses of conjunctions as cohesive devices in English written discourse.. Objectives of the study With the above mentioned
Objectives of the study
With the above mentioned background, this study is targeted at
- Giving a systematic presentation of the uses of the three central coordinators AND/BUT/OR as cohesive devices and their frequency of occurrence in English written discourse
- Making contrastive analysis of AND/BUT/OR as cohesive devices and their equivalent realizations in Vietnamese
- Putting forward some suggestions as effort to help English-major students at HYUTE to overcome the consequences of interference when learning writing skill
In order to achieve the objectives stated, the study is meant to find out the answer to the following research questions:
1 How are the three coordinators AND/BUT/OR used as cohesive devices in English written discourse?
2 Are VÀ/NHƢNG/HAY-HOẶC in Vietnamese the only equivalents of AND/BUT/OR in English as cohesive devices?
Methods of the study
This study of AND/BUT/OR as cohesive devices in English written discourse is based on the communicative view-point of language teaching and learning Therefore, the methods of descriptive and comparative analysis are used The study is presented in order from general theories to detailed descriptions, with theories presented first, then examples given to clarify the theories
For the data, I have chosen at random the samples from several written discourse types such as novels, short stories, magazines and newspapers The data are also selected from many different grammar books Firstly, the data are analyzed to identify discourse devices, their frequency of occurrence in English Then the contrastive analysis between AND/BUT/OR in English and their realizations in Vietnamese are made All of this will lead to the point of finding effective solutions to improve writing skill of students at Hung Yen University of Technology and Education (UTEHY).
Scope of the study
The scope of this study, however, allows a very limited choice of one aspect of discourse analysis, that is, cohesion in English Within a limited time and knowledge as well as shortage of reference materials, it is not the author‟s ambition to investigate various types of cohesive devices but discuss only the three conjunctions AND/BUT/OR – their performance as means of cohesion and their frequency of concurrence in English and in Vietnamese AND/BUT/OR will be discussed as cohesive devices within the sentence, in other words, between clauses in a sentence
In the last part, implications, this study is limited to the first-year English-major students at Department of English, UTEHY and writing skill only
Theoretical significance : This study contributes to verifying significance related to linguistic theories in discourse analysis by providing learners of English with some theoretical base and fundamental background for clarifying the relationships that are linguistically encoded by virtue of conjunctions in general and AND/BUT/OR in particular
Practical significance : This study helps learners of English be more aware of the role of AND/BUT/OR as cohesive devices in creating discourse Thus, the study may help learners to avoid errors easily made by the negative interference of most non-native speakers Furthermore, this study can make a certain contribution to teaching and learning English as a foreign language owing to some suggested exercises in the last part
The study is divided into three parts
The first part is the introduction, including rationale, objectives, methods, scope, significances and organization of the study
The second part is the development, including four chapters
Chapter 1: A presentation of some theoretical preliminaries needed for the study of coordinators AND/BUT/OR as cohesive devices in English written discourse Within the chapter, discourse will be studied to highlight the function of conjunctions in creating discourse There is a better focus on conjunctions and cohesive devices
Chapter 2: A detailed description of the three coordinators AND/BUT/OR as cohesive devices
Chapter 3: A comparative analysis between the coordinators AND/BUT/OR and
Vietnamese equivalents in which Vietnamese is regarded as the compared language with English – the target one The purpose of the comparison is to identify the Vietnamese linking system equivalent to the implications by AND/BUT/OR
Chapter 4: Some implications for teaching writing skill at UTEHY
The final part is the conclusion This is to summarize the thesis by showing the achievement of the objectives of the study and the effectiveness of the methods used Then the limitations of the study are given Some suggestions for further study are also included at the end to promise the continuance of the author‟s future work
In the history of linguistics, many different definitions of discourse and text are given by different linguists Let us, first of all, look at the following definitions of discourse which take our greatest attention
Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics (1989) defines: “Discourse is a general term for examples of language use; i.e language has been produced as the result of an act of communication.”
Widdowson (1979) states: “Discourse is a use of sentences to perform acts of communication which cohere into larger communication units, ultimately establishing a rhetorical pattern which characterizes the pieces of language as a whole as a kind of communication.”
Crystal (1992) says: “Discourse is a continuous stretch of language larger than a sentence, often constituting a coherent unit such as sermon, argument, joke or a narrative.”
Guy Cook (1989) classifies language into two different types as potential objects of study: one abstracted in order to teach a language or literacy or to study how the rules of language work; and another which has been used to communicate something and is felt to be coherent This latter kind of language – language in use for communication is called discourse It is defined as “a stretch of language perceived to be meaningful, unified and purposive.”
Nunan (1993) defines: “Discourse can be defined as a stretch of language consisting of several sentences which are perceived as being related in some way And the sentences are related not only in terms of the ideas they share but also in terms of the jobs they perform within the discourse, that is, in terms of their functions.”
From these extracts it can be seen that the term discourse is understood and defined differently Each definition has its own values in the field of linguistics However, for the purpose of this study, I would like to pay more attention to the following definition given by Halliday and Hasan (1989) They give a simple definition: “We can define text (discourse) in the simplest way perhaps by saying that it is language that is functional.”
Above are some definitions of discourse What about text? Is text the same or different from discourse? This has become a big question for many linguists since confusion of these two terms may result in the failures of discourse analysis In fact, there is disagreement about the meaning of these two terms
For some linguists, discourse is considered to differ from text and should be kept separate Crystal (1992) stated that text should be used for writing and discourse for speech Cook (1989) considered text is a stretch of language interpreted formally, without context whereas discourse is a stretch of language in use, perceived to be meaningful, unified and purposive
For other linguists, text and discourse refer to one and the same subject and may be used interchangeably According to the above mentioned definition of discourse by Halliday & Hasan, text is used to refer to discourse; they see text as a “semantic unit” characterized by cohesion Halliday & Hasan (1976) stated: “A text is a passage of discourse which coherent in these two regards: it is coherent with respect to the context of situation and therefore consistent in register; and it is coherent with respect to itself and therefore cohesive” Brown & Yule (1983) argue that “text is the representative of discourse and the verbal record of a communicative act” Nunan (1976) used the term text to refer to any written record of communicative event The event itself may involve oral language or written language He reserved the term discourse to refer to the interpretation of the communicative event in context
Organization of the study
The study is divided into three parts
The first part is the introduction, including rationale, objectives, methods, scope, significances and organization of the study
The second part is the development, including four chapters
Chapter 1: A presentation of some theoretical preliminaries needed for the study of coordinators AND/BUT/OR as cohesive devices in English written discourse Within the chapter, discourse will be studied to highlight the function of conjunctions in creating discourse There is a better focus on conjunctions and cohesive devices
Chapter 2: A detailed description of the three coordinators AND/BUT/OR as cohesive devices
Chapter 3: A comparative analysis between the coordinators AND/BUT/OR and
Vietnamese equivalents in which Vietnamese is regarded as the compared language with English – the target one The purpose of the comparison is to identify the Vietnamese linking system equivalent to the implications by AND/BUT/OR
Chapter 4: Some implications for teaching writing skill at UTEHY
The final part is the conclusion This is to summarize the thesis by showing the achievement of the objectives of the study and the effectiveness of the methods used Then the limitations of the study are given Some suggestions for further study are also included at the end to promise the continuance of the author‟s future work
Literature Review
Discourse
In the history of linguistics, many different definitions of discourse and text are given by different linguists Let us, first of all, look at the following definitions of discourse which take our greatest attention
Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics (1989) defines: “Discourse is a general term for examples of language use; i.e language has been produced as the result of an act of communication.”
Widdowson (1979) states: “Discourse is a use of sentences to perform acts of communication which cohere into larger communication units, ultimately establishing a rhetorical pattern which characterizes the pieces of language as a whole as a kind of communication.”
Crystal (1992) says: “Discourse is a continuous stretch of language larger than a sentence, often constituting a coherent unit such as sermon, argument, joke or a narrative.”
Guy Cook (1989) classifies language into two different types as potential objects of study: one abstracted in order to teach a language or literacy or to study how the rules of language work; and another which has been used to communicate something and is felt to be coherent This latter kind of language – language in use for communication is called discourse It is defined as “a stretch of language perceived to be meaningful, unified and purposive.”
Nunan (1993) defines: “Discourse can be defined as a stretch of language consisting of several sentences which are perceived as being related in some way And the sentences are related not only in terms of the ideas they share but also in terms of the jobs they perform within the discourse, that is, in terms of their functions.”
From these extracts it can be seen that the term discourse is understood and defined differently Each definition has its own values in the field of linguistics However, for the purpose of this study, I would like to pay more attention to the following definition given by Halliday and Hasan (1989) They give a simple definition: “We can define text (discourse) in the simplest way perhaps by saying that it is language that is functional.”
Above are some definitions of discourse What about text? Is text the same or different from discourse? This has become a big question for many linguists since confusion of these two terms may result in the failures of discourse analysis In fact, there is disagreement about the meaning of these two terms
For some linguists, discourse is considered to differ from text and should be kept separate Crystal (1992) stated that text should be used for writing and discourse for speech Cook (1989) considered text is a stretch of language interpreted formally, without context whereas discourse is a stretch of language in use, perceived to be meaningful, unified and purposive
For other linguists, text and discourse refer to one and the same subject and may be used interchangeably According to the above mentioned definition of discourse by Halliday & Hasan, text is used to refer to discourse; they see text as a “semantic unit” characterized by cohesion Halliday & Hasan (1976) stated: “A text is a passage of discourse which coherent in these two regards: it is coherent with respect to the context of situation and therefore consistent in register; and it is coherent with respect to itself and therefore cohesive” Brown & Yule (1983) argue that “text is the representative of discourse and the verbal record of a communicative act” Nunan (1976) used the term text to refer to any written record of communicative event The event itself may involve oral language or written language He reserved the term discourse to refer to the interpretation of the communicative event in context
To sum up, it seems to be difficult to make a clear distinction between these two terms Whether discourse and text refer to the same thing or not is still a controversial issue And, of course, it is not our intention to do this in this study In other words, in this study, the term discourse will be used with the same meaning as text, and the data are collected in such a way as to contain only the language in communication
As far as the scope of discourse is concerned, discourse refers not only to spoken interactions but also to written words And the study of discourse, either spoken or written is known as discourse analysis In other words, the term Discourse Analysis is used to cover the study of spoken and written interaction Discourse analysts study language in use: written text of all kinds, and spoken data from conversation to highly institutionalized forms of talk Thus, for the purpose of this study, it is necessary to point out the differences between spoken and written discourse in the following part
Spoken and written discourses represent different modes for expressing linguistic meanings Examples of spoken discourse are conversations, interviews, lectures…whereas letters, stories, novels…are written discourse Despite some similarities, these two forms of discourse are basically different from each other The major difference between them is rooted from the difference between spoken and written language
Apart from obvious differences between speaking and writing like the fact that writing includes some medium which keeps record of the conveyed message while speaking involves only air, there are certain dissimilarities that are less apparent
The first is lexical density – the density with which the information is presented Written language has more lexical or content words per clause, thus it is dense whereas spoken language is sparse In other words, written language is more densely packed with information than spoken language
The second feature is complexity of grammar which is typical of spoken language
In spoken language we can not see clearly sentence or paragraph boundaries and the sentences are less structured There are many incomplete sentences with little subordination Meanwhile written language complies of complete sentences with subordination, rich lexis and frequent modifications via adjectives and adverbs They tend to be extremely simple in their grammatical structure)
Cohesion
When speaking or writing we often want to make some links with other things that we are saying or writing There are several ways of doing this and they provide cohesion in the use of language So what is cohesion?
Actually, the term text in Indo-European languages derived from the Latin word exium meaning cohesion, so the concept of cohesion is closely connected with text
According to Halliday and Hasan (1979), “The concept of cohesion is a semantic one; it refers to relations of meaning that exist within the text, and that define it as a text.” They also point out that cohesion often occurs where the interpretation of some element in the discourse is dependent on that of another
From the above definitions, it can be concluded that cohesion is a term used to mention the formal link that glues a chain of sentences to create what is called discourse or text It refers to the connection of all parts or elements of a text Without it, a text would be just a chaotic and even meaningless collection of sentences In other words, cohesion refers to the linguistic elements that make a discourse semantically coherent; or as Nguyen Hoa
(2000) indicated “cohesion refers to the formal relationship that causes texts to cohere and stick together” Therefore, it is necessary to examine how ideas cohere together so that the content cohesion may be obtained and all can create a coherent and cohesive discourse So in the next part the question “What is meant by cohesion and coherence?” will be discussed
1.2.2 Cohesion and Coherence in Discourse
The distinction between cohesion and coherence has not always been clarified partly because both terms come from the same verb cohere which means sticking together Cohesion involves the form of language rather than the content or context, and is expressed partly through the grammar and partly through the vocabulary Coherence, on the other hand, is understood as the quality of being meaningful and unified As for Nunan (1993), coherence is “the feeling that sequences of sentences or utterances seem to hang together.” Coherence refers to the type of semantic and rhetorical relationship that underlines texts Cohesion, therefore, is understood as a guide to coherence
In short, cohesion and coherence are two facets of discourse closely related to each other, making each depend on the existence of the other Coherence is embodied by a system of cohesive devices and cohesion is mainly used to ensure coherence According to Nunan, “Coherent texts – that is, sequences of sentences or utterances which seem to „hang over‟ – contain what are called text-forming devices”
According to Halliday and Hasan (1979) “Discourse structure is, as the name implies, a type of structure; the term is used to refer to the structure of some postulated unit higher than the sentence, for example the paragraph, or some larger entity such as episode or topic units.”
Within the sentence, we can specify a limited number of possible structures, such as types of modification, transitivity or model structures However, we can not in the same way list a set of possible structures for a text, with sentence classes to fill the structural roles Instead, the two authors assure: “We have to show how sentences, which are structurally independent of one another, may be linked together through particular features of their interpretations; and it is for this that the concept of cohesion is required.”
It is viewed by Halliday and Hasan (1979) that “A text has textual and this is what distinguishes it from something that is not a text.” And the primary determinant that create textual is cohesive relations within and between sentences They attracts less notice within a sentence, because of the cohesive strength of grammatical structure; since the sentence hangs together already, the cohesion is not needed in order to make it hang together However, there is a sense in which the sentence is a significant unit for cohesion precisely because it is the highest unit of grammatical structure: it tends to determine the way in which cohesion is expressed And the cohesive relations are there all the same
Cohesive relations can be established within a text provide cohesive ties to bind a text together In their book Halliday and Hasan (1979) give a very comprehensive description and analysis of these devices According to them, cohesion is partly expressed by grammar and partly by vocabulary They also identify five different types of cohesion: reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction and lexical cohesion Therefore, we can refer them to grammatical cohesion and lexical cohesion as follows:
Cohesive devices not only function as formal links but also indicate different sorts of relationships existing in any segment of discourse Within the scope of this study, the next part will give a close look into the matter of conjunction as a cohesive device in discourse.
Conjunctions as Cohesive Devices
As a matter of fact, English conjunctions play a dominant role in creating a system of grammatical sentences of English Thus, it is doubtless that a large number of celebrated grammarians in the world pay much attention to English conjunctions Given such that considerable importance, I have endeavored to get informed by as many valuable documents as possible
Cook (1989) defines conjunctions as grammatical items: “Conjunctions are words and phrases which explicitly draw attention to the type of the relationship which exists between one sentence or clause and another” Those words may simply add more information to what has already been said (and, further more, 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) They may relate new information to what has already been given in terms of causes (so, because, consequently, for this reason) or in time (formally, then, in the end, next) or they may indicate a new departure or a summary (by the way, well, to sump up, anyway)
Halliday and Hasan (1979) as well as Nunan (1993) view conjunction as a cohesive relation They agree that conjunction is rather different in nature from the other cohesive relations such as reference, substitution and ellipsis… It is not a device for reminding the reader of previously mentioned entities, actions and states of affairs In other words, it is not simply an anaphoric relation However, it is a cohesive device because it signals the relationships that can be fully understood through reference to other parts of the text
According to them, there are four different types of conjunction: temporality, causality, addition and adversity:
Temporality: then, after that, finally, at last…
Causality: so, consequently, for this reason…
Addition: and, or, furthermore, similarly, in addition, moreover…
Adversity: but, however, on the other hand…
According to Quirk and Greenbaun (1973), sorts of English conjunctions include: coordinating conjunctions (or more simply coordinators) and subordinating conjunctions (subordinators) and correlatives
Michael Swan (1995), however, denotes the English conjunction in brief He only deals with coordinating conjunctions and / but / or and subordinating conjunctions because / when / that / which
Although these linguists have different definitions and classifications of conjunctions, they share the same idea that conjunctions are words that join different words, phrases and clauses together These cohesive ties are really important as they turn separate clauses, sentences and paragraphs into units of connected discourse which refers back and forth to each other Language learners need to know both how and when to use them Their presence or absence in discourse often contributes to style, and some conjunctions can sound very pompous when used inappropriately
This chapter has been concerned with some of the most important issues of discourse and cohesion As you can see, the term discourse is understood differently by different linguists Some identify discourse with text, while others consider discourse and text as two different entities Having adopted the definition of discourse by Halliday and Hasan, this study treats discourse and text as being two notions referring to one and the same thing; that means they can be used interchangeably And written discourse – the focus of this study, is more specific, more exact and more coherent than spoken discourse
In addition, it can be denied that cohesion and coherence have a close relationship with each other Cohesion is mainly used to create coherence by a set of cohesive devices
This chapter concludes by presenting the use of conjunctions as cohesive devices
At this point we finish Chapter 1 and turn to Chapter 2, where we will look at the use of AND/BUT/OR as cohesive devices in English written discourse and the cohesive relations they make within a sentence.
AND/BUT/OR as cohesive devices in English written discourse
AND
Basing on Quirk‟s view point, AND denotes the relationship between the contents of the clauses, and the relationship between two clauses is explicated by adding an adverbial, which is inserted in parenthesis (wherever possible) Within the scope of the study, the type of implication with sentences consisting just two clauses is illustrated
Here, eight separate cases of semantic implication of AND are shown as follows: Firstly, AND is used to denote that the event in the second clause is a consequence or result of the event in the first
He heard an explosion and he (therefore) phoned the police
The consequent clause “he phone the police” is resulted from the causal clause “he heard an explosion” Therefore, it is impossible to transfer the order of the clause without changing the meaning of the sentence:
He phoned the police and he heard an explosion
There is no existence of a cause-effect relationship in the renewed sentence
Let‟s look at another example:
Willie heard the weather report and promptly board up this house
In this sentence, it is also impossible to transfer the order of the clause without interfering its meaning With this implication, AND is either “and as a result” or “and therefore”
Secondly, AND is used to suggest that one event is chronologically sequential to another, but it is not the implication of cause-effect relationship
She washed the dishes and (then) she dried them
In the sentence above, there is no implication of cause-effect relationship The writer only wants to emphasize the order of the action or the process of the action (“drying the dishes” comes after “washing them”)
It should be noted that there is no implication of chronological sequence if the clause is given in a contrast sequence to that of chronological sequence
Tashonda sent in her applications and waited by the phone for a response
I was led up to Mrs Strickland, and for ten minutes we talked together (Maugham,
The implication is perceived mainly depending on the order in which the two clauses are taken to be conjoined This order cannot be reversed in any case In this case AND can be understood as “and then”
Thirdly, AND suggests that one idea is in contrast to another AND could be replaced by BUT when this implication is presented
Robert is secretive and (in contrast) David is candid
This sentence can be paraphrased by using BUT instead of AND
Robert is secretive but David is candid
Thus, we can say “contrast” is one implication which can be denoted by AND Besides, AND is used when the second clause is a comment on the first
They disliked John – and this is not surprising
Charlie became addicted to gambling – and that surprise no one who knew him
In addition, AND is often used before the second clause to introduces an element of surprise in view of the content of the first
He tried hard and (yet) he failed
His failure gives surprising to listeners because nobody thinks that his great effort made him failed Here too, AND could be replaced by BUT, sometimes by YET
Hartford is a rich city and suffers from many symptoms of urban blight
What‟s more? AND is used when the first clause is dependent upon the second, conditionally (usually the first clause is an imperative)
Give me some money and I’ll help you escape
Use your credit cards frequently and you’ll soon find yourself deep in debt
It should be noted that, for the conditional implication to apply, it is unusual that:
- The second clause has a modality auxiliary
- The verb of the first clause is an imperative or contains a modal auxiliary
Besides, the second clause can have the simple present with future reference
Give me the bride and you get the job
In other cases, AND is used before the second clause when it makes a point similar to the first
A trade agreement should be no problem, and (similarly) a cultural exchange could be arranged
Finally, AND is used when he second clause is a “pure” addition to the first
He has long hair and (also) he wears jeans
Two clauses in the sentence must have something in common to justify the relation
„addition” In the above sentence, both clauses are about “appearance” and they are treated equally For this reason they can change the order without change in meaning
However, during the time doing this study, we wonder whether those eight implications are enough to explain AND when functioning as a cohesive device In order to find out the answer to this question, let‟s have a look at the following samples:
I’ll find her and (I’ll) tell her that I love her
Why not write and warn him? And that will be all right
The semantic implication of AND in these sentences is not one of the eight implications mentioned above Obviously, AND in these sentences can be replaced by “to” or “in order to” So we think we can introduce another implication, that is “purpose” However, it is very important to state that this implication is from our subjective thinking
Finally, in order to find out the frequency of occurrence of each implication, it is necessary to note that through 100 pieces of written discourse taken at random from different sources, the implications are sorted out and tested The frequency of occurrence of each implication is counted and shown in the table below:
Table 1: The Frequency of The Implications of AND
From the above statistic it can be said that AND is used very often to denote “pure addition”, quite often to imply “chronological sequence” and “similarity” However, it is rarely used to suggest “purpose” and “element of surprise”.
BUT
It denotes the contrast of one statement with another The contrast may be in the unexpectedness in light of the first clause
John is rich, but he is happy
The second clause shows a contrast to the first clause, in other words, his happiness is unexpected because some people believe that the property never goes with the happiness The sentence would be accepted when only wealth was regarded as a source of unhappiness The same thing happens in the following sentence:
Joey lost a fortune in the stock market, but he still seems able to live quite comfortably
She was not pretty, but her face was pleasing (Maugham, 1919)
I watched his face for some change of expression, but it remained impassive
In other cases, the contrast may be restatement in an affirmative sense of what the first part of the sentence implied in a negative way (sometimes replaced by on the contrary):
He will never break her heart, but he will love her with all his heart
The club never invested foolishly, but used the services of a sage investment counselor
John did not waste his time in the week before the exam, but he studied hard every evening
However, there are cases in which the explanation as “contrast” is not appropriate to clarify the relationship between the coordinated clauses Let‟s consider the samples below:
You are allowed to stay at home, but (with condition that) you are always in bed
It seems that in this sentence the contrastive relation between “You are always in bed” and “You are allowed to stay at home” is not clear enough to satisfy the readers or hearers In stead, we can view it as the relationship of “condition” “You are always in bed” can be understood as the condition for “You are allowed to stay at home” to happen
(if you are always in bed, you can stay at home) Consequently, we believe that the implication “condition” should be thought of as an implication of coordinator BUT
Like in the case of coordinator AND, the implications examined are found and tested through another set of 100 pieces of written discourse taken at random from various sources The result is shown in table 2 below But, once again, it is important to note that subjectiveness is inevitable in this analysis
Table 2: The Frequency of The Implications of BUT
The results show that although “condition” can be thought of as an implication of BUT, it is limitedly used.
OR
The coordinator OR offers a choice between one statement and another Four semantic implications by OR are characterized by the following features
Firstly, OR usually expresses the idea that only one of the possibilities can be realized, excluding one or the other Yet, the preferred alternative tends to be put first
You can study hard for this exam or you can fail
You will do it today or tomorrow
This sentence implies that there are two possibilities for you to do: if you decide to do it today, you will not have to do it tomorrow The content of some conjoining excludes the possibility of both alternatives like in the example above But even when both alternatives are possible as in:
OR is normally interpreted of both alternatives that be reinforced by preceding the first unit by either (either…or)
You can either boil some eggs or you can make some cakes (Quirk; 1972; P258)
There is an exception in which a third clause can be added with the aim of explicitly allowing alternative even if either remains to be used
You can either boil some eggs or you can make some cakes or you can do both
But, actually, this way of speaking is avoided by a few people who follow prescriptive method of teaching Since, according to prescriptive teaching, either should company only two choices
She will go either England or France
Secondly, when the content of the clause allows it, OR sometimes is interpreted as inclusive, allowing realization of a combination of the alternatives:
You can boil yourself an egg or make you some cheese sandwiches
It is possible to clearly include the third possibility by a third clause
You can boil yourself an egg or make you some cheese sandwiches or you can do both
Nevertheless, in special varieties of the language requiring accuracy, especially in the formal written form, the third possibility can be explicitly included by a combination of coordinators, AND / OR
If the appliance is defective, write directly to the manufacturer and/or complain to your consumer protection service
Besides, the alternative expressed by OR may be a restatement, a correction of what is said in the first conjoin
They are enjoying themselves, or at least they appear to be enjoying themselves
Lastly, OR also implies a negative condition and its meaning is equivalent to if….not
Give me some money or I’ll shoot
The implication of this sentence can be completely interpreted as:
Give him all money If you don’t give him all money he’ll shoot
Yet, OR generally seldom requires an imperative verb or modal auxiliary in the first clause while that seems compulsory for AND:
Besides the implications by OR mentioned above, we think another implication should be introduced through the sample below:
They like the apartment or they wouldn’t have stayed so long
In the situation, everyone can easily recognize that no alternative is expressed A subjective makes an inference from what he or she personally thinks and puts the question as same deduction In other words, OR, in this case, partly expresses “deduction”
Like the other two cases of AND and BUT, 100 samples from many sources are also examined to find out the frequency of occurrence of the implications of OR The result is expressed in the following table:
Table 3: The Frequency of The Implications of OR
From the above analysis of the three coordinators AND/BUT/OR, it can be concluded that they appear to be more flexible than their logical meanings The three coordinators AND/BUT/OR are not restricted to denote addition, contrast and alternative respectively In other words, when used in discourse these coordinators can create possible implications for the effect of communication
In short, we have examined 9 implications of AND, 2 implications of BUT and 5 implications of OR However, these three coordinators have some implications in common Therefore, we would like to introduce the following table which shows the implications of all the three coordinators and which implications among them is shared by the examined coordinators
Table 4: The Frequency of The Implications of AND/BUT/OR
CHAPTER 3 AND/BUT/OR IN ENGLISH WRITTEN DISCOURSE
IN A CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS WITH VIETNAMESE EQUIVALENTS
In order to answer the research question stated in the introduction of the study, in this chapter, let us deal with some comparison between coordinators AND/BUT/OR in English and their frequent equivalents in Vietnamese as VÀ/NHƢNG/HAY-HOẶC AND/BUT/OR are likely to be understood and transferred into Vietnamese in pairs as AND – VÀ, BUT – NHƢNG, OR – HAY/HOẶC in which AND – VÀ is commonly used to denote ADDITION, BUT – NHƢNG shows CONTRAST and OR – HAY/HOẶC implies ALTERNATIVE For the objectives of the study, in this section we have tried to find out the answer to the two following questions:
- Can VÀ/NHƢNG/HAY-HOẶC transfer the meanings of AND/BUT/OR sufficiently in all relation?
- If not, which words or phrases can be the equivalents of each coordinator?
It is also necessary to emphasis in this chapter that within the scope of this study, we only study AND/BUT/OR‟s Vietnamese equivalents VÀ/NHƢNG/HAY-HOẶC as clausal coordinators.
AND vs VÀ
In order to find out the answer to the above question, that is whether VÀ can transfer the meanings of AND sufficiently in all relation, AND will be examined in a contrastive analysis with their Vietnamese equivalent First of all, the most frequent implication of AND named “pure addition” will be discussed Let us consider the following pair of sentences
(1a) He sings beautifully and plays the guitar well = He plays the guitar well and (he) sings beautifully
(1b) Anh ấy hát hay và chơi đàn ghita giỏi = Anh ấy chơi đàn ghita giỏi và hát hay
(1c) Anh ấy hát hay và còn chơi đàn ghita giỏi = Anh ấy chơi đàn ghita giỏi và còn hát hay
(1d) Anh ấy hát hay hơn nữa còn chơi đàn ghita giỏi = Anh ấy chơi đàn ghita giỏi hơn nữa còn hát hay
The coordinated clauses both in (1a) and (1b) can be changed in order without changing the meaning of the sentence Therefore, it can be concluded that VÀ is completely equivalent to AND in this case, and we can also use VÀ CÒN / HƠN NỮA CÒN instead of VÀ However, there are cases in which only VÀ cannot be able to transfer the meaning of AND sufficiently Let us have a look at the following sentences:
(2a) She washed the dishes and (then) she dried them
(2b) Cô ấy rửa bát đĩa và lau khô chúng
(2c) Cô ấy rửa bát đĩa rồi / và sau đó lau khô chúng
The coordinator AND in (2a) suggests the implication of “chronological sequence” However, it can be seen that only VÀ in (2b) cannot show this relation between two coordinated clauses as clearly as RỒI, VÀ SAU ĐÓ in (2c) Therefore, RỒI / VÀ SAU ĐÓ / RỒI SAU ĐÓ / TIẾP THEO can be used as the equivalents of AND denoting
Similarly, when AND functions in combining clauses to create other relations, VÀ alone is unable to express them clearly Examine the following examples:
(3a) I think Mrs Strickland was glad to show me her children, and she accepted my invitation with alacrity (Maugham, 1919)
(3b) Tôi nghĩ bà Strickland muốn giới thiệu các con với tôi và bà ấy vui vẻ nhận ngay lời mời của tôi
(3c) Tôi nghĩ bà Strickland muốn giới thiệu các con với tôi nên (do đó / vì thế) bà ấy vui vẻ nhận ngay lời mời của tôi
Compare (3b) and (3c), VÀ (without “do đó”, “vì thế”) is obviously unable to transfer exactly the implication of “consequence” of (3a) Thus, in this case NÊN / DO ĐÓ / VÌ THẾ / VÌ VẬY strongly decide the meaning
(4a) My engagements were few, and I was glad to accept (Maugham, 1919)
(4b) Ít có hẹn hò nên tôi vui vẻ nhận lời
(5a) The subject was exhausted, and we began to talk of other things (Maugham, 1919)
(5b) Không còn gì để nói nữa, vì thế chúng tôi chuyển sang đề tài khác
In these two samples, AND denotes “consequence” VÀ cannot be the completely equivalent of AND so it does not necessarily appear, but NÊN / DO ĐÓ / VÌ THẾ / VÌ VẬY can be used instead
For the implication of “condition”, consider the following:
(6a) Give me some money and I’ll help you escape
(6b) Đưa tôi tiền và tôi sẽ giúp anh chạy trốn
(6c) Nếu anh đưa tôi tiền thì tôi sẽ giúp anh chạy trốn
(6d) Anh đưa tôi tiền thì tôi sẽ giúp anh chạy trốn
AND in these sentences joins one condition to a consequence However, VÀ in Vietnamese cannot denote this relation clearly enough Thus, we can say that NẾU…THÌ… / …THÌ… / VỚI ĐIỀU KIỆN…THÌ… are Vietnamese equivalents of AND denoting “condition”
Let us consider the following samples with the implication of “contrast”:
(7a) Robert is secretive and David is candid
(7b) Robert thì hay giữ kẽ và David thì bộc trực
(7c) Robert thì hay giữ kẽ nhưng David thì bộc trực
(7d) Robert thì hay giữ kẽ còn David thì bộc trực
The “contrast‟ of the two clauses is implied by AND in the way of using two antonyms „secretive” and “candid” In Vietnamese, NHƢNG appears to be the most frequent factor of “contrast” Thus, NHƢNG can be used as the Vietnamese equivalent of AND denoting “contrast”
Finally, the implication of “purpose” can be transferred into Vietnamese as follows: (8a) Why not write and warn him? And that will be all right
(8b) Tại sao không viết thư và cảnh báo anh ta?
(8c) Tại sao không viết thư để (mà) cảnh báo anh ta?
(8b) is sometimes acceptable, but it does not denote the implication of “purpose”
On the other hand, ĐỂ / ĐỂ MÀ are used more often and are certainly equivalent to AND denoting “purpose”
From the above comparison it can be concluded that both AND in English and VÀ in Vietnamese have some similar syntactic features which mainly affect the mechanism of the logical relation of „addition” Also, the comparison helps to prove that VÀ is not the only equivalent to AND in all relation In fact, for different meanings implied by AND, many other linkers besides VÀ are put into use, as shown in the following table:
Table 5: Vietnamese equivalents to AND denoting the examined implications
BUT vs NHƢNG
First of all, for the implication of “contrast” introduced by Quirk (1973), let‟s consider the following samples:
(9a) She was not pretty, but her face was pleasing (Maugham, 1919)
(9b) Chị không đẹp nhưng (mà) có bộ mặt ưa nhìn
(10a) I watched his face for some change of expression, but it remained impassive
(10b) Tôi ngắm nhìn mặt anh ta để xem có gì thay đổi không nhưng (mà) nó vẫn bình thản
In these above sentences, NHƢNG helps readers understand exactly the meaning of BUT Once again, it is proved that NHƢNG is the most frequently used equivalent of BUT denoting “contrast”
For the implication of “condition”, examined the following sample:
(11a) You are allowed to stay at home, but you are always in bed
(11b) Con được phép ở nhà nếu con luôn luôn ở trên giường
(11b) Con được phép ở nhà với điều kiện con luôn luôn ở trên giường
With this implication, NHƢNG cannot transfer the meaning of BUT correctly Thus, we have to use other Vietnamese expressions denoting “condition” so that we can understand sufficiently the relation BUT makes between clauses Those expressions are NẾU / VỚI ĐIỀU KIỆN
It can be concluded from the above analysis that the pair BUT – NHƢNG are most frequently and equivalently used implying “contrast” Nonetheless, as analyzed above, BUT can denote another implication rather than “contrast”, that is “condition” which is likely to express in Vietnamese by some link word as NẾU / VỚI ĐIỀU KIỆN
In short, Vietnamese equivalents of BUT to denote different implications can be seen in the following table
Table 6: Vietnamese equivalents to BUT denoting the examined implications
Implications for teaching writing skill at UTEHY
Suggestions for teaching and materials
It is the fact that cohesive devices play a very important role in writing a paragraph or an essay because they produce cohesion, which is of vital importance in writing Therefore, it is the job of the teacher to raise students‟ awareness of cohesive devices in general and coordinators in particular
AND/BUT/OR are the most central coordinators, thus, they should be taught thoroughly The degree of student‟s acquisition of these three English coordinators depends, to a large extent, on the teacher‟s presentation The teacher should know how to present them and their usage in a comprehensible way to students A good presentation is supposed to provide all necessary information Therefore, it is advisable for the teacher to follow the following steps
The teacher should, first of all, provide students with some general ideas about the meanings of the three coordinators AND/BUT/OR Then, the variety of semantic implications by each coordinator is introduced However, it is not a good idea to teach all of them mechanically at one time as students may get confused In addition, the teacher should familiarize the students with various possible semantic relations in specific contexts or situations, which can help students avoid ambiguity and uncertainty when facing these cases Next, it is suggested that a brief explanation of the cross-cultural differences in the usage of AND/BUT/OR and their equivalents in Vietnamese be mentioned Finally, the teacher should design many types of exercises for the learners to do until they are proficient enough in using these coordinators
The teaching materials are also as important as the teaching method The materials chosen should ensure the clear explanation and the description of the coordinators in consideration For illustration, pairs of discourse should be given to contrast the good ones with those considered to be a failure due to the inappropriate use of coordinators Furthermore, the teaching materials should be aimed at communicative purpose of language teaching, so situations set should be familiar and understandable to the learners Sample discourses with detailed knowledge about science, technology or a certain technical process should be avoided Last but not less, bilingual materials should be encouraged to ensure the exact use by the learners and to avoid pitiful interference
In conclusion, the teaching of reading has often focused on the sentence level Vocabulary and grammar have received a great deal of attention However, we also need to help students look at relations which exist between sentences and between paragraphs Teaching cohesion in general and coordinators in particular is a key way of increasing students‟ awareness of how texts function Therefore, some types of exercises are suggested in the hope of helping students avoid making mistakes in using these three English coordinators.
Suggested types of exercises
Type 1: Combine the following pairs of sentences using the coordinators AND/BUT/OR:
1 My family has gone to the movies I was at home alone
2 I bought a bottle of wine We drank it together
3 You can do it right now You can leave it until tomorrow
Type 2: Match a sentence in column A with another in column B using appropriate coordinators AND/BUT/OR
My family has gone to the movies
You can do it right now
We drank it together You can leave it until tomorrow
Type 3: Fill in the gaps with appropriate coordinators AND/BUT/OR:
1 Maria tried to read a novel in French, ……….it was too difficult
2 The waiter was very nice, ……… the food was delicious
3 You can stay here, ……… you can go home
These three types of exercise is rather simple but it helps to establish the logical thinking of students by organizing ideas with the use of AND to denote addition, BUT to express contrast and OR to show alternative
Type 4: Complete the sentences using the suggested coordinator
3 You have to go tight now (or)
This type of exercise may be helpful in arousing the students‟ interest in using these coordinators to signal logical relations between ideas It also helps improve the students‟ reproductive skill
Type 5: Identify the semantic implications between the coordinated clauses of the following sentences:
1 Maria tried to read a novel in French, but it was too difficult
2 I bought a bottle of wine, and we drank it together
3 You can do it right now, or you can leave it until tomorrow
4 They disliked John – and this is not surprising
5 Give me some money, or I‟ll shoot you
The purpose of this exercise is to help students recognize that these three coordinators AND/BUT/OR can denote several other implications besides the logical relationships commonly used and understood Therefore, it is important for teachers to make the situations clear when designing this type of exercise so that the students cannot get confused when identifying the semantic relationships between the coordinated clauses
Type 6: a Translate the following sentences into Vietnamese Pay much attention to Vietnamese equivalent linkers to the coordinators given
1 Maria tried to read a novel in French, but it was too difficult
2 I bought a bottle of wine, and we drank it together
3 You can do it right now, or you can leave it until tomorrow
4 He tried hard and he failed
5 There‟s nothing attractive at all, but I have to accept it b Translate into English the following sentences Use only AND/BUT/OR as linking devices equivalent to the underlined words
1 Tôi yêu cô ấy nhƣng cô ấy lại yêu anh ta
2 Anh ấy đã không đến, và vì thế cô ấy quyết định hủy cuộc hôn nhân
3 Tôi sẽ giúp anh với điều kiện anh phải cố gắng
The aim of these exercises is to remind the students of the flexibility in meaning of the coordinators AND/BUT/OR And it also aims to make the students be aware of the different Vietnamese equivalent linkers of these coordinators
Hopefully, these types of exercises would be appreciated and exploited by teachers and students in order to help students become better writers
1 The achievement of the objectives of the study
In general, the results gained from the research give the researcher enough confidence to say that the thesis has finally succeeded in completing the objectives which had been mentioned in the introduction The author has been able to give a systematic presentation of the ways the three coordinators AND/BUT/OR work in context A contrastive analysis of these coordinators as cohesive devices and their equivalent realizations in Vietnamese has already been done and some suggested exercises to help students at UTEHY have also been given
Within the scope of this study, the research questions at the very beginning of the thesis have finally been answered through the different methods used Some major findings can be found out as follows:
Firstly, as cohesive devices in English written discourse, the three coordinators AND/BUT/OR appear to be more flexible than their semantic syntactic and logical meanings because these coordinators can function in discourse to create possible implications for the effect of communication We have 9 implications by AND, 2 by BUT and 5 by OR, and the frequency of occurrence of these implications is different from each others However, AND/BUT/OR have some implications in common In general, AND is commonly used to denote ADDITION, BUT shows CONTRAST and OR implies ALTERNATIVE
Secondly, AND/BUT/OR in English and VÀ/NHƢNG/HAY-HOẶC in Vietnamese have some similar syntactic features which mainly affect the mechanism of their logical relation However, VÀ/NHƢNG/HAY-HOẶC are not the only equivalents to AND/BUT/OR in all relation respectively In fact, for different meanings implied by AND/BUT/OR many other linkers or expressions are found as Vietnamese equivalents of these three coordinators.
The effectiveness of the methods used
The methods of descriptive and comparative analysis used in this thesis have been proved to be effective The study is presented conductively from general theories to detailed descriptions, with theories presented first, then examples given to clarify the theories The methods used have help the author to give a systematic presentation of the uses of the three central coordinators AND/BUT/OR as cohesive devices and their frequency of occurrence in English written discourse as well as made a contrastive analysis of AND/BUT/OR as cohesive devices and their equivalent realizations in Vietnamese.
Limitations of the study
Due to the limited time and unsustainable knowledge of the author, some limitations are unavoidable
Firstly, the number of samples is not large enough In other words, with only 100 samples for each coordinator the samples for the research were not really large to allow many generalizations about the performance of coordinators examined Hopefully, in the future research, more samples will be analyzed to have a more satisfactory result
Secondly, the data collection method of the author should be improved The samples of this study have been chosen at random from several written discourse types such as novels, short stories, magazines and newspapers However, most of the samples come from some novels where the performance of coordinators AND/BUT/OR in context may be affected by the writer‟s writing style Therefore, it is likely to cause some effects when putting the semantic implications of each coordinator in the order of their frequency of occurrence
In spite of these limitations, the study has generally been successful in providing Vietnamese learners of English in general and the students at UTEHY in particular with something useful for better understanding of cohesion in written discourse and thus, improve their writing skill.
Suggestions for further study
Honesty speaking, this study is a very small aspect of English coordinators as a whole because of the limited time and scope of the thesis as well as the unsustainable knowledge of the author This study only deals with coordinators as cohesive devices in English written discourse within the sentence level only But discourses are not always long stretches of sentences There are public notices, proverbs, advertising slogans, etc, where one sentence by itself comprises a complete text And discourses are not always limited within written form For the varieties of discourse form and length, it is suggested further research about coordinators AND/OR/BUT should be in:
- Coordinators AND/BUT/OR as cohesive devices in English spoken discourse
- Coordinators AND/BUT/OR above the sentence level
- Coordinators AND/BUT/OR as cohesive devices in a certain type of discourse (application letters, business contracts, etc)
A full research on different sides of coordinator AND/BUT/OR will gives us an all- sided insight into the field and we will find that the work deserves our investigation
Due to the constraint in time, the framework of a minor M.A thesis as well as the limited knowledge of the author, mistakes are inevitable Any further comments and criticism that can go toward improving this study are, therefore, would be highly appreciated
1 Diệp Quang Ban (1998) Văn bản và liên kết trong tiếng Việt Hà Nội: NXB Giáo Dục
2 Diệp Quang Ban (2004) Ngữ pháp tiếng Việt Hanoi: Education Publishing House
3 Nguyễn Chí Hòa (2005) Các phương tiện liên kết và tổ chức văn bản Hà Nội: NXB Đại học Quốc Gia Hà Nội
4 Nguyễn Hòa (2003) Phân tích diễn ngôn: Một số vấn đề lý luận và phương pháp Hà Nội: NXB Đại học Quốc Gia Hà Nội
5 Trần Ngọc Thêm (1985) Hệ thống liên kết văn bản tiếng Việt Hà Nội: NXB Khoa học Xã hội Hà Nội
6 Ball, W.J (1989) Dictionary of Link Words in English Discourse London: Macmillan Publishers Ltd
7 Brown, G & Yule, G (1983) Discourse Analysis Cambridge: Cambridge University
8 Crystal, D (1992) Introducing Linguistics London: Penguin
9 Crombie, Winifred (1985) Process and Relation in Discourse and Language Learning London: Oxford University Press
10 Carthy, Michael Mc (1993) Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers Cambridge:
11 Cook, Guy (1989) Discourse London: Oxford University Press
12 Halliday, M.A.K & Hasan, Ruguaiya (1976) Cohesion in English London: Longman
13 Hoa, Nguyen (2000) An Introduction to Discourse Analysis Hanoi: National
14 Halliday, M.A.K (1985a) Spoken and Written Language Oxford: Oxford University
15 Halliday, M.A.K (1985b) An Introduction to Functional Grammar London: Arnold.