Cohesive devices in reading texts in the book tiếng anh 12 ban cơ bản

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGE AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POSTGRADUATE STUDIES =========== BÙI THỊ NGA COHESIVE DEVICES IN READING TEXTS IN THE BOOK “TIẾNG ANH 12 – BAN CƠ BẢN” (Phương tiện liên kết đọc sách giáo khoa Tiếng Anh 12 – Ban bản) M.A MINOR THESIS Field: Linguistics Code: 60 22 15 HÀ NỘI, 2011 VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGE AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POSTGRADUATE STUDIES =========== BÙI THỊ NGA COHESIVE DEVICES IN READING TEXTS IN THE BOOK “TIẾNG ANH 12 – BAN CƠ BẢN” (Phương tiện liên kết đọc sách giáo khoa Tiếng Anh 12 – Ban bản) M.A MINOR THESIS Field: Linguistics Code: 60 22 15 Supervisor: Nguyễn Thụy Phương Lan, M.A HÀ NỘI, 2011 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Declaration page……………………………………………………………………… i Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………ii Abstract.………………………………………………………………………………iii Table of contents…………………………………………………………………… iv Abbreviation ……………………………………………………………………… vi List of tables and charts………………………………………………………………vii PART A: INTRODUCTION 1 Rationale Aims of the study Scope of the study Significance of the study Method of the study Design of the study PART B: DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW 1.1 Discourse 1.1.1 The concept of discourse 1.1.2 Discourse and text 1.1.3 Spoken and written discourse 1.1.4 Discourse analysis 1.1.5 Context in discourse analysis 1.1.5.1 Context of situation 1.1.5.2 Context of culture 1.1.6 Register and genre in discourse analysis 1.2 Cohesion 2.1 Definition of cohesion 1.2.2 Cohesion vs Coherence 1.2.3 Aspects of cohesion 10 1.2.3.1 Topical cohesion 10 1.2.3.2 Logical cohesion 10 1.2.4 Types of coheison 10 1.2.4.1 Grammatical cohesion 11 1.2.4.1.1 Reference 11 1.2.4.1.2 Substitution 12 1.2.4.1.3 Ellipsis 13 1.2.4.1.4 Conjunction 13 1.2.4.2 Lexical cohesion 14 1.2.4.2.1 Reiteration 14 1.2.4.2.2 Collocation 14 1.3 Textbook and the book for grade 12 in gerneral throughout Vietnam 15 CHAPTER 2: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 17 2.1 Grammatical cohesion 17 2.1.1 Reference 17 2.1.1.1 Anaphoric reference 17 2.1.1.2 Cataphoric reference 20 2.1.1.3 Exophoric reference 21 2.1.2 Conjunctions 22 2.1.2.1 Additive 23 2.1.2.2 Temporal conjunction 24 v 2.1.2.3 Adversative conjunction 24 2.1.2.4 Causal conjunction 24 2.1.3 Substitution 25 2.1.4 Ellipsis 26 2.2 Lexical cohesion 28 2.2.1 Reiteration 28 2.2.2 Collocation 30 2.2.2.1 Lexical collocation 31 2.2.2.2 Grammatical collocation 33 2.3 Summary of cohesive devices in the textbook 34 CHAPTER 3: IMPLICATION FOR TEACHING ENGLISH 36 3.1 Teaching cohesion through teaching reading 36 3.1.1 In terms of grammatical cohesion 36 3.1.1.1 Teaching conjunctions through teaching reading 36 3.1.1.2 Teaching reference through teaching reading 37 3.1.1.3 Teaching collocation 37 3.1.1.4 Teaching reiteration through teaching reading 38 3.1.2 Teaching cohesion through teaching writing 39 3.1.2.1 Teaching grammatical cohesion through teaching writing 39 3.1.2.2 Teaching lexical cohesion through teaching writing 39 PART C: CONCLUSION 40 Major findings 40 Suggestions for further study 41 REFERENCE 42 SOURCES OF DATA……………………………………………………………… 44 APPENDIX I:…………………………………………………… ………………… I APPENDIX II: VI APPENDIX III: VII APPENDIX IV……………………………………………………………………… X APPENDIX V: XI APPENDIX VI: XII APPENDIX VII: XIV APPENDIX VIII: XV APPENDIX IX XXI APPENDIX X: XXII APPENDIX XI XL APPENDIX XII: XLI APPENDIX XIII: .XLII APPENDIX XIV: XLIII APPENDIX XV: .XLIV APPENDIX XVI: XLV APPENDIX XVII: XLVI -1PART A: INTRODUCTION Rationale Tracing back to these two national examinations recently, the high occurrence proportion of cohesive devices can not be denied Moreover, on the process of mastering language in general, English in particular, to Vietnamese secondary students, reading is seen as the crucial tool that aids the learning of the other skills However, during my process of teaching high school students, I come to realize that one of the foremost reasons for which students often make errors at sentence and discourse levels is due to their inattention to the cohesive devices used in the context of texts Apart from a variety of mentioned things, many people have done researches on linguistics and discourse analysis; yet, no suggestions have been given to high school teachers and students so that they can tasks relating to cohesion more successfully Aims of the study The study aims to - describe and analyze lexical and grammatical cohesive devices in the new English textbook 12 - give some suggestions for teaching reading skill for 11th grade students The following research questions are raised for exploration while carrying out the study: What are the cohesive devices used in the textbook “Tiếng Anh 12 – Ban Cơ Bản” for grade - 12 students general throughout Vietnam? How can the findings help teachers and their students in the teaching and learning the textbook for grade 12 students? Scope of the study Within the limited time and knowledge, only grammatical and lexical cohesion in the textbook “Tiếng Anh 12” for grade - 12 students general throughout Vietnam edited by Hoang, V.V et al (2010), Education Publication House are observed Significance of the study  Theoretical significance: It is hoped to prove the existing ideas on cohesion to satisfy the individual’s question and, to some extent, hopefully to open a new way of revising and preparing for candidates of the GCSE examination and the entrance examination to university  Practical significance: This research gives out some practical applications, such as combining linguistic theory and practice in analyzing written English discourses in the researched textbook Method of the study -2The tackling methods are statistic and descriptive, analytical and synthetic Design of the study Part A: Introduction Part B: Development Chapter 1: Literature review Chapter 2: Findings and discussion of textbook observation Chapter 3: Pedagogical implications of the study Part C: Conclusion -3PART B: DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW 1.1 Discourse 1.1.1 The concept of discourse According to Halliday and Hasan (1989:38), discourse is seen differently in the simplest way as a text and that “it is language that is functional.” McCarthy (1991: 5), on the other hands, puts discourse in the relationship between language and the contexts in which it is used Crystal, in the book “Introduction to linguistics” (1992:25) considers discourse to be “a continuous stretch of language larger than a sentence, often constituting a coherent unit such as sermon, argument, joke, or narrative.” 1.1.2 Discourse and text In the view of Halliday and Hasan (1976: 23), “text” is employed to refer to “discourse”; they see “text” as a “semantic unit” characterized by cohesion Sharing the same ideas, Brown & Yule (1983) support that text is the representation of discourse and the verbal record of a communicative act In other words, they all view the notion of text is the representation of discourse, text is the form of discourse and they have a close relationship 1.1.3 Spoken and written discourse Brown and Yule (1983:13), moving on the same route, differentiate spoken discourses from written ones in terms of their various functions: the first is used for the establishment and maintenance of human relationships (interactional use) and the second for the working out of and transference of information (transactional use) 1.1.4 Discourse analysis Yule (1996: 139) state in his book study of language “ in the study of language, some of the most interesting questions arise in connection with the way language is used”, rather than what its components are (…) we were, in effect, asking how it is that language-users interpret what other language-users, make sense of what we read in texts, understand what speakers mean despite what they say, recognize connected as opposed to jumbled or incoherent discourse, and successfully take part in that complex activity called conversation, we are undertaking what is known as discourse analysis." 1.1.5 Context in discourse analysis Nguyen, H (2000: 39) sees context as “the most elusive and fluid concepts on modern linguistics.” Nunan (1993:7) emphasizes “Context refers to the situation giving use to the discourse, and within which the discourse is embedded.” 1.1.5.1 Context of situation According to Eggins (1994:30), context of situation is usually discussed under three variables: “what is talked about, what the relationship between the communicators is; what -4role the language plays.” Halliday (2002:52) thought of context of situation as a determining environment which affects text meaning 1.1.5.2 Context of culture As stated by Malinowski (1923) “if you are not a member of the culture, you cannot understand what is meant” 1.1.6 Register and genre in discourse analysis Halliday and Hasan (1976:22) give the concept and components of the context of situation, which shows the features of register by FIELD, TENOR and MODE In terms of genre, Eggins (1994:32) believed “Genre, or context of culture, can be seen as more abstract, more general - we can recognize a particular genre if we are not sure exactly what the situational context is Genre, then, can be thought of as the general framework that gives purpose to interactions of particular types, adaptable to the many specific context of situation that they get used in.” 1.2 Cohesion 2.1 Definition of cohesion Halliday and Hasan in “Cohesion in English” (1976: 4-5) see cohesion as “part of the system of language”, more exactly as “a semantic one” which refers to “relations of meaning that exist with the text and that defined it as a text.” 1.2.2 Cohesion vs Coherence Cohesion is a formal network which connects or links many parts of a text together by grammar or words Meanwhile, coherence is the connections which bring interpretation of linguistic messages 1.2.3 Aspects of cohesion 1.2.3.1 Topical cohesion What topical cohesion concerns about is Theme and Rheme 1.2.3.2 Logical cohesion Logical cohesion, in Nguyen, H’s view (2000:28), is also powerful sentence connectors 1.2.4 Types of cohesion In his book An A-Z of ELT: a dictionary of terms and concepts used in English Language Teaching, Thornbury (2006:32) confirms Halliday and Hasan’s idea that by means of grammar and lexical, cohesion can help connect texts, either spoken or written The two types of cohesion, grammatical and lexical, can be classified as follows: Grammatical cohesion Reference Substitution Ellipsis Conjunction Lexical cohesion Reiteration Collocation -5Table 1.2: Grammatical and lexical cohesion 1.2.4.1 Grammatical cohesion 1.2.4.1.1 Reference Reference, in Halliday and Hasan’s viewpoint, can be accounted as “exophoric” or “endophoric” functions 1.2.4.1.2 Substitution Halliday and Hasan (1976:89) classify substitution into types: nominal, verbal and clausal Most of the substitutes are pro-forms within sentences, which are used across sentences In specific words, substitutes may be pro-forms for adverbials, pro-forms for predicate and predication, and also pro-forms for the direct object clause According to Halliday and Hasan (1976: 91), nominal substitution includes “one”, “ones”, “same”, verbal substitution consists of “do”, and clausal substitutes are “so”, “not” 1.2.4.1.3 Ellipsis Hasan’s viewpoint (1976:146), ellipsis is divided into three subtypes, namely, nominal ellipsis, verbal ellipsis, and clausal ellipsis 1.2.4.1.4 Conjunction There are four types of conjunction: Additive , Adversative, Causal , Temporal 1.2.4.2 Lexical cohesion 1.2.4.2.1 Reiteration Reiteration, according to Halliday and Hasan (1976: 318) is “the repetition of a lexical item, or the occurrence of a synonym of some kind, in the context of reference; that is, where the two occurrences have the same referent.” Reiteration involves repetition, synonyms and near synonyms, super-ordinates, and general words (ibid: 278) 1.2.4.2.2 Collocation In terms of structure, there are two types of collocation: grammatical collocation and lexical collocation (Halliday and Hasan, 1976:284) 1.3 Textbook and the book for grade 12 in general throughout Vietnam The syllabus for “Tiếng Anh 12” is the continuation of the textbook for grade 10 and 11 The book is designed under theme-based approach with 16 units There are parts in each unit Each part is carried out in a period of forty-five minutes They are arranged as follows: A reading -> B Speaking -> C Listening -> D Writing -> E Language Focus Reading is the beginning part of each unit Each reading passage is about 300 words in length -6CHAPTER 2: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION OF TEXTBOOK OBSERVATION 2.1 Grammatical cohesion 2.1.1 Reference 2.1.1.1 Anaphoric reference Anaphoric reference means referring to backwards In this study, reference takes up 357 items The table below summarizes different patterns of reference in reading texts in the book Anaphoric reference Number of items Percentage (%) Total number Definite article 166 46.5 357 Personal pronoun 93 26.05 Personal determiner 61 17.09 Demonstrative pronoun 22 6.16 Comparative adjective 2.24 Demonstrative adverb 1.12 Comparative adverb 0.84 Table 2.1: Different types of reference words for anaphoric ties 2.1.1.2 Cataphoric reference In spite of a small part in inferential ties, cataphoric is proved to be quite necessary to vary the direction of reference and contribute to the cohesion of the text The percentage of different types of reference words for cataphoric ties is illustrated in the table below Cataphoric reference Number of items Percentage (%) Total number Definite article 82 59.85 137 Comparative adjective 43 31.39 Comparative adverb 2.92 Demonstrative adverb 2.1 Demonstrative pronoun 2.1 Personal pronoun 0.73 Personal determiner 0.73 Table 2.2: Different types of reference words for cataphoric ties 2.1.1.3 Exophoric reference Exophoric reference Number of items Percentage (%) Total number Personal pronoun 75 45.72 164 Definite article 59 35.98 Personal determiner 22 13.42 Comparative adjective 4.27 Demonstrative adverb 0.61 Demonstrative pronoun 0 Comparative adverb 0 Table 2.3: Different types of reference words for exophoric ties 2.1.2 Conjunctions There are 315 items of conjunctions in total throughout the observed book The following chart presents the occurrence frequency of these four types -7- 100 80 60 Additive 40 Temporal 20 Adversative Causal Additive Temporal Adversative Causal Chart 2.1: The percentage of conjunctions in the textbook As can be seen from the chart, the highest frequency, which is up to 75, 24%, among the four types of conjunctions belongs to additive items The second next top is temporal conjunctive devices with 12.06 % Adversative, with 8.89%, is a low-encounter conjunction type compared to additive and temporal However, it is not adversative, but causal, that stands at the lowest position Causal items account for only 3.81 % The details of each type are discussed in the following texts 2.1.2.1 Additive The high percentage of additive items means that the reading texts in “Tiếng Anh 12” mostly provide students with knowledge by adding information, rather than stating causes and effects, or contrasts 2.1.2.2 Temporal conjunction Temporal conjunction totals 38 items in all texts The most common temporal words belong to the simple temporal relations, such as “before” (6 times), “after” (6 times), “since” (2 times), “then” (1 time), specific complex temporal relations like “three years later,”, “at the same time,” etc Sequence words such as “first,” “second” are not widely used This may be because the texts in the textbook mostly narrate the events to give students information rather than describe them in order 2.1.2.3 Adversative conjunction Adversative conjunction is often used to contrast ideas, illustrate and prove the facts Yet, the main purpose of the reading texts in the textbook is to provide information Consequently, the expression of contrast is reduced maximum There are only 27 cases of adversative conjunction 2.1.2.4 Causal conjunction Causal conjunction stands at the end of the scale with only 12 times of occurrence The reading texts in the textbook not focus on any phenomenon; hence, the fact that they contain few signals of cause and effect is understandable 2.1.3 Substitution In the textbook for final year students at upper secondary school, there are only 11 cases of substitution in total Their frequency occurrence is expressed in the following chart: -8- 100 80 60 Nominal 40 Verbal Clausal 20 Nominal Verbal Clausal Chart 2.2: The percentage of substitutions in the textbook Among these 11 items, the frequency percentage of nominal substitutions is up to 90.9% with 10 items Three nominal substitution words are all exploited Clausal substitutions account for no percentage in the statistic data The low frequency rate of substitutions in the reading texts in the observed book suggests that these texts are, in the authors’ attempt, made unambiguous This can help students avoid unnecessary misunderstanding about texts’ contents 2.1.4 Ellipsis Similarly to substitution, it is also analyzed under three subclasses: nominal, verbal and clausal The occurrence rate of each type is represented in the following chart: Clausal, 26.47 Nominal, 29.41 Nominal Verbal Clausal Verbal, 44.12 Chart 2.3: The percentage of ellipis in the textbook As being stated in the chart, the most prominent type of ellipsis is verbal ellipsis, with 44.12 % The other type is operator ellipsis, which is ellipsis from the left In operator ellipsis, the subject is also omitted from the clause, and it must, therefore, be presupposed According to the result of the textbook observation, there is more operator ellipsis than lexical one 2.2 Lexical cohesion 2.2.1 Reiteration The chart below shows the percentage of each type -9Superordinate, 8.9 General words, 8.9 Synonyms, 12.13 General words Synonyms Repetition Superordinate Repetition, 70.07 Chart 2.4: The percentage of reiteration in the textbook From this pie chart, we can see that there is a big hole between repetition and the other types Its percentage of frequency is up to 70.07 % Synonym, which includes 35 pairs of synonym words, is the second most fluent reiteration item Superordiate and general words, as being counted, are used equally in 16 texts with 25 items for each type 2.2.2 Collocation Collocation totals 605 items in all 16 reading texts In term of structure, collocation can be divided into grammatical collocation and lexical collocation Study the following chart to have a general picture for these two: 100 80 60 40 20 58.35 Lexical collocation 41.65 Grammatical collocation Grammatical collocation Lexical collocation Chart 2.5: The percentage of collocation types From the chart, it is clear that lexical collocation outnumbers grammatical collocation 2.2.2.1 Lexical collocation The contribution of each pattern in the reading texts in the researched book is illustrated in the following table: Types of lexical collocation Adj + N N+N V+N Quant + N V + Adv V + Adj V+V Adv + V Adv +Adj N+V Number of items 114 82 79 35 10 6 3 Percentage 32.39 23.30 22.44 9.94 2.84 2.27 1.70 1.70 0.09 0.09 - 10 Table 4: Different patterns of lexical collocation It can be seen the table that collocations with noun is more preferred than ones with verbs Adj + N and N + N are the two highest frequency items with the percentage of 32.39 % and 23.30 % respectively While V + N pattern comes at the third position with 22.44 %, N + V one accounts for only items, equally to 0.09 % The other patterns, Quant + N, V + Adv, V + Adj, V+ V, Adv + V, Adv + Adj, Adj + V, make up of small parts in the reading texts However, they are not unimportant in helping students grasp the texts 2.2.2.2 Grammatical collocation There are 252 items of grammatical collocation, which accounts for 41.65 % of all collocations in the 16 units under study The specific patterns of grammatical collocation are presented in the table below Types of grammatical collocation Number of items Percentage Prep + N V + Prep N + Prep Adj + Prep Prep + Adj Quant + Prep 131 84 23 12 1 51.98 33.33 9.13 4.76 0.4 0.4 Prep + N pattern is the highest frequency with 51.98 % Next comes V + Prep pattern with 33.33 % N + Prep pattern is also used in the textbook However, with only 23 items, the percentage of frequency of this type is nearly times less than that of the highest pattern, Prep + N The left three types of grammatical collocation are Adj + Prep, Prep + Adj and Quant + Prep There are 12 items of Adj + Prep pattern, while the number of item of Prep + Adj and Quant + Adj is equally 2.3 Summary of cohesive devices in the textbook Basing on this result, major features are picked out to analyze in detail Grammatical cohesion Lexical cohesion Lexical cohesion, 45.85 Grammatical cohesion, 54.15 Chart 2.6: A comparison of grammatical and lexical cohesion in the textbook It can be seen from the chart that grammatical cohesion and lexical cohesion almost have the equal number of items in the textbook This means that they stand at the same position of importance A closer view at types of grammatical and lexical cohesion can be expressed in the following tables: - 11 Types Reference Conjunction Ellipsis Substitution Number of items Percentage 658 62.67 315 30 66 6.28 11 1.05 Table 2.6: Different types of grammatical cohesion Types Collocation Reiteration Number of items Percentage 605 68.05 284 31.95 Table 2.7: Different types of lexical cohesion In terms of grammatical cohesion, reference composes of the majority with 62.67 %, among which endophoric is a dominant part Conjunction makes up of 30 %, while the occurrence percentages of ellipsis and substitution are only 6.29 % and 1.05 % respectively Although the last three types are not used as widely as the first one, they are worth being taken notice of, since they contribute a valuable part in giving students thorough understanding of the passages For lexical cohesion, the number of items of collocation, 68.05 %, doubles that of reiteration, 31.95 % This shows the important role of collocation in English learning in secondary school - 12 CHAPTER 3: IMPLICATION FOR TEACHING ENGLISH IN PREPARATION FOR EXAMINATIONS 3.1 Teaching cohesion through teaching reading 3.1.1 In terms of grammatical cohesion 3.1.1.1 Teaching conjunctions through teaching reading The first kind of exercise is that teacher can supply a text with discourse markers omitted and replaced by gaps Similarly, teachers can also give a text as above but not list the omitted markers and ask students to find ones themselves to fill in the gaps Another exercise which enforces students to study at home is through replacing Students are provided with the list of conjunctions At home, they have to find some sentences containing some of these conjunctions in the reading texts Students, then, are required to replace these conjunctions by all acceptable other conjunctions as long as the sentences are meaningful Games can be also applied as warm-up activities 3.1.1.2 Teaching reference through teaching reading The most common question to find out the referents is “what does….refer to?” or “what can be used to replace for {pronouns}?” Teachers can design multiple choice items to the mentioned questions, in order that students are made acquainted with the examinations Another activity is mostly for making students become aware of reference pronouns Teachers can put students in small groups Teachers choose a reading text, maybe among 16 reading texts from the textbook or another book for secondary students, as long as this text contains various references Teachers, then, ask students to read the text and circle all reference pronouns in it 3.1.1.3 Teaching collocation Teaching vocabulary is an indispensable part Teachers can take advantage of this part to teach collocations Therefore, rather than wait for students to meet common collocations themselves during reading process, teachers should present these collocations in context in advance Besides, mind map can be used to teach reading and collocation as well Teachers may also prepare a list of grammatical collocation in the text book, and then ask students to learn by heart this list 3.1.1.4 Teaching reiteration through teaching reading 3.1.2 Teaching cohesion through teaching writing 3.1.2.1 Teaching grammatical cohesion through teaching writing The first activity teachers may is to take a text in the textbook and analyze carefully grammatical cohesive devices in it Then, teachers may ask students to give other contexts that these devices are used before students write a whole paragraph or an essay Besides, - 13 teachers can have students peer-check on their writings in writing lesson at class, focusing on the mistakes about conjunctions, reference, etc and mistake correction Sentence paraphrasing is also an effective activity to train students with grammatical cohesion, especially for conjunctions For pre-intermediate and intermediate students, teachers can design multiple choice questions, while rewriting sentences without distracters are used for advanced students 3.1.2.2 Teaching lexical cohesion through teaching writing In the researcher’s experience, students’ writings are often dull due to the monotonous characteristics of the writings For example, students seem to use repeated words rather than synonyms and antonyms to describe the main points of their topics Compound words and phrases are not used frequently as well Therefore, to raise students’ awareness about lexical cohesion, teachers could help them enlarge their choice of vocabulary by some vocabulary activities such as word association games in pre-writing activities to elicit and build students’ vocabulary PART C: CONCLUSION Major findings Of all six subtypes of two categories grammatical and lexical cohesion, reference and collocation are the most outstanding ones They are, respectively, followed by conjunction, reiteration, ellipsis and substitution In preparing for the examinations, teachers should equip students with knowledge about these devices, and provide students with practice relating to these cohesive items, especially reference, collocation, conjunctions and reiteration Suggestions for further study It is, firstly, suggested that more exercises on cohesive devices are designed Then, to develop further with the topic of cohesion in the reading texts in “Tiếng Anh 12,” the following aspects are suggested: Discourse features of the reading texts in the textbook “Tiếng Anh 12” Logical cohesive devices in the textbook “Tiếng Anh 12” ... on cohesive devices are designed Then, to develop further with the topic of cohesion in the reading texts in ? ?Tiếng Anh 12, ” the following aspects are suggested: Discourse features of the reading. .. students The following research questions are raised for exploration while carrying out the study: What are the cohesive devices used in the textbook ? ?Tiếng Anh 12 – Ban Cơ Bản? ?? for grade - 12 students... 1.3 Textbook and the book for grade 12 in general throughout Vietnam The syllabus for ? ?Tiếng Anh 12? ?? is the continuation of the textbook for grade 10 and 11 The book is designed under theme-based