A study of correlative conjunctions as cohesive devices (with reference to the upper-secondary english textbooks) Vũ Hồng Quang Trường Đại học Ngoại Ngữ Luận văn ThS. Chuyên ngành: English linguistics; Mã số: 60 22 15 Người hướng dẫn: Assoc. Prof. Trần Hữu Mạnh Năm bảo vệ: 2009 Abstract: Correlative conjunctions are taught in Upper Secondary School. However, there is little attention is paid on this area of grammar. This study conducted a research of correlative conjunctions as cohesive devices with reference to the Upper Secondary English textbooks. The correlative conjunctions in this study are “both … and”, “either …or”, “neither … nor”, and “not only… but also”. They are correlative conjunctions which are taught in the Upper Secondary English textbooks. Sentences that contains correlative conjunctions are collected and analysed both syntactically and semantically to prove that correlative conjunctions can be used as cohesive devices. This study also suggested tips for teaching and learning these conjunctions. Keywords: Tiếng Anh; Văn bản; Liên từ; Phương tiện liên kết văn bản Content: iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Declaration Acknowledgements Abstract Table of content CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. Rationale 1.2. Aims and objectives 1.3. Scopes of the study 1.4. Methodology CHAPTER 2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 2.1. Discourse and Text 2.2. Textuality, cohesion and coherence 2.2.1. Textuality 2.2.2. Cohesion 2.2.2.1. Substitution and ellipsis 2.2.2.2. Conjunction 2.2.2.3. Reference 2.2.2.4. Lexical cohesion 2.2.3. Cohesion and Coherence 2.3. Segmenting Texts into Units 2.3.1. Using the sentence as the unit of segmentation 2.3.2. Using the T-unit as the unit of segmentation 2.3.3. Using the proposition as the unit of segmentation 2.3.4. Using the F-unit as the unit of segmentation 2.4. Semantic relations CHAPTER 3. SYNTACTIC AND SEMANTIC RELATIONS OF CORRELATIVE CONJUNCTIONS 3.1. Introduction 3.2. The syntax of correlative conjunctions i ii iii iv 1 1 1 1 2 3 3 9 9 10 10 11 12 13 14 16 16 17 18 18 20 24 24 25 v 3. 2.1. Correlatives and their conjunctions 3.2.2. Correlative with phrasal coordination 3.2.3. Correlative with sentential coordination 3.2.4. Correlative with conjunction phrases of different syntax. 3. 2.5. Correlatives are focus particles 3.2.5. Correlative conjunctions of “not only … (but)” are used to link two sentences. 3.3. Semantic relations of Correlative conjunctions CHAPTER 4. CONCLUSION 4.1. Summary 4.2. Some implications for teaching and learning correlative conjunctions 4.3. Some implications for materials 4.4. Some Implications for Translation 4.5. Conclusion REFERENCE 25 25 27 28 29 31 32 37 37 37 38 41 42 43 1 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. Rationale ”In the world of human beings, you won't find a language by itself - the Dutch language strolling the canals, or the English language having a nice cup of tea, or the German language racing madly along the autobahn. You only find discourse.” Robert de Beaugrande (1997: 36) It is unimaginable of a world without language. We get through our days exchanging various oral and written language (or, talk and text). We live by language or discourse, not in discrete audio or visual units but in connected sound waves and orthographic forms to which we assign meaning on the basis of our past experience with them and on the basis of the situations in which these waves and forms are used. Discourse analysis is concerned with the contexts in and the processes through which we use oral and written language to specific audiences, for specific purposes, in specific settings. We might one cannot understand language fully without looking at language use. My research focuses on correlative conjunctions in English. I attempt to make my description both semantic and syntactic. There are at least three reasons why I believe it is important to focus on correlative conjunctions. Firstly, the correlative conjunctions will enrich our potential for interpreting the linguistic phenomena in English. Secondly, although there has been some research in exploring conjunctions in general, little attention has been given to the study of correlative conjunctions. Thirdly, our students have some difficulties in understanding and using correlative conjunctions. 1.2. Aims: The study is descriptive in nature and aims at finding correlative conjunction use is to connect discourse segmental units with reference to the Upper-secondary English textbook 1.3. Scope of the study: The study concerns the contrastive analysis of correlative conjunctions which are taught in the Upper-secondary English textbook such as both … and, either … or, neither… nor, not only … but also in English. The data for the study are from novels in English, textbooks, and other sources. 2 1.4. Methods of data collection and analysis. This study will be text-based. It will focus on the data of written English. A large archive of texts of different types, including written speech, news reports, literature, legal texts, academic texts, will be collected. Then correlative conjunctions will be extracted from these texts and a corpus will be established. The data were collected by choosing from novels by famous English writers in the 20 th centuries, mostly won the Nobel Prize, from textbooks, and other sources. The data collected will be analysed to find the bounding of correlative conjunctions in terms of syntax and semantics. 44 REFERENCE 1. Bach, E. and Harms, R. (eds). 1968. Universals in linguistic theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 2. Baker, M. (1992) In Other Words: A Course Book on Translation. London: Routledge. 3. Beaugrande, R. A. de. 1980. Text, discourse and process. Toward a multidisciplinary science of texts. Norwood NJ: Ablex. 4. Beaugrande, R. de and Dressler, W. (1981) Introduction to Text Linguistics. London: Longman. 5. Blommaert, J. (2005). Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 6. Brown, G. & G. Yule. 1983. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 7. Carrell, P.L. 1982. Cohesion is not coherence. TESOL Quarterly. 16(4): 479-488. 8. Carter, R. (1997). Investigating English Discourse. London: Routledge. 9. Connor, U. 1984. A study of cohesion and coherence in English as a second language students’ writing. Paper in Linguistics: International Journal of Human Communication, 17 (3), 301-16. 10. Crombie, W. 1985. Process and relation in discourse and language learning. Oxford: Oxford Unitversity press. 11. Crystal, D. 1992. An Encyclopedic Dictionary of Language and Languages. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. 12. Donnelly, C. 1994. Linguistics for writers. Buffalo: SUNY Press. 13. Gee, J. P. (2005). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method. London: Routledge. 14. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J., editors, Syntax and Semantics: Vol.3. Speech acts. Academic Press, New York NY. 15. Halliday, M.A.K. & R. Hasan 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman. 16. Harris, Zellig S. (1981.) Papers on Syntax. Ed. by Henry Hiż. (=Synthese Language Library, 14.) Dordrecht/Holland: D. Reidel, vii, 479 pp.] 17. Harris, Zellig S. (1982.) "Discourse and Sublanguage". Sublanguage: Studies of language in restricted semantic domains ed. by Richard Kittredge & John Lehrberger, 231-236. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 45 18. Hatch, E. (1992). Discourse and Language Education. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. 19. Hendriks, P., (2001). ‘Either’ as a focus particle. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory (submitted for publication). 20. Hoey, M. (1983). On the surface of discourse. London: Allen & Unwin. 21. Hoey, M. (1991). Pattern of lexis in text. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 22. Hubbard, E. H. (1989). Reference cohesion, conjunctive cohesion and relational coherence in student academic writing. Unpublished D Lit et Phil. Thesis: Unisa, Pretoria. 23. Huddlestone, R. (1971). The sentence in written English. Cambridge: University Press. 24. Jackson, H. (1990). Grammar and Meaning. A Semantic Approach to English Grammar. London/New York: Longman. 25. Jaworski, A. and Coupland, N. (eds). (1999). The Discourse Reader. London: Routledge. 26. Johnstone, B. (2002). Discourse analysis. Oxford: Blackwell. 27. Kintsch, W and Van Dijk, T. 1978. Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review 85 (5): 363-394. 28. Lieber, P.E. 1979. Cohesion in ESL students’ expository writing: A descriptive study. PhD, New York University. 29. Longacre, R.E. (1996). The grammar of discourse. New York: Plenum Press. 30. McCarthy, M. (1991). Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 31. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, S., Svartvik, J., (2000). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. Longman, London. 32. Renkema, J. (2004). Introduction to discourse studies. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 33. Schiffrin, D. 1994. Approaches to Discourse. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. 34. Schiffrin, D., Deborah Tannen, & Hamilton, H. E. (eds.). (2001). Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell. 35. Schwarz, B., (1999). On the syntax of either or. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17, 339–370. . Sentences that contains correlative conjunctions are collected and analysed both syntactically and semantically to prove that correlative conjunctions can be used as cohesive devices. This study also. little attention is paid on this area of grammar. This study conducted a research of correlative conjunctions as cohesive devices with reference to the Upper Secondary English textbooks. The correlative. forms to which we assign meaning on the basis of our past experience with them and on the basis of the situations in which these waves and forms are used. Discourse analysis is concerned with the