英语论文网

trong>
The definition of cohesion provided by Halliday and Hasan is by far the mostcomprehensive treatment of the subject and has become the standard text in thisarea. Halliday and Hasan describe cohesion as following: the concept of cohesion isa semantic one; it refers to relations of meaning that exist within the text, and thatdefine it as a text (Halliday & Hasan, 1976:4). They think that cohesion occurswhere the interpretation of some element in the discourse is dependent on that ofanother. The one presupposes the other, in the sense that it can not be effectivelydecoded except by recourse to it. When this happens, a relation of cohesion is set up,and the two elements, the presupposing and the presupposed, are thereby at leastpotentially integrated into a text (Halliday & Hasan, 1976:4).The following exampleis given to explain such a cohesive relationship by them:Wash and core six cooking apples. Put them into a fireproof dish.They point out that the word them presuppose for its interpretation somethingother than itself. This requirement is met by the six cooking apples in the precedingsentence. The presupposition and the fact that it is resolved, provide cohesionbetween the two sentences, and in so doing create text (Halliday & Hasan, 1976:4).
……………

2.2 Theoretical foundation of the study
Cohesion is a property of the text and displayed in terms of cohesive markers.It is simply the lexical and grammatical device for a text, for making conceptualrelations explicit; whereas coherence is the effect of the use of this device. In orderto make a text coherent, cohesive devices will be employed into use. What kinds ofcohesive devices exist in English? That is one of the major concerns of CohesionTheory. Many linguists have thus far made considerable investigations into this area of study. In Cohesion in English, Halliday and Hasan outline taxonomy of types ofcohesive relationships-Reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction, lexical cohesion-which can be formally established within a text providing cohesive “ties” whichbind a text together. Hu Zhuanglin (1994) divides cohesive devices into four groups:reference cohesion, structural cohesion, logical cohesion and lexical cohesion. Hu’sfirst group is equivalent to Halliday and Hasan’s reference; Hu’s structural cohesionincludes substitution, ellipsis and collocation; Hu’s logical cohesion is equal toHalliday and Hasan’s conjunction; Hu’s lexical cohesion is the equivalent ofHalliday and Hasan’s lexical cohesion. Huang Guowen (1988) divides cohesion intotwo categories: grammatical cohesion and lexical cohesion. The category ofgrammatical cohesion is the equivalent of Halliday and Hasan’s first three types:reference, substitution and ellipsis. The category of lexical cohesion is equivalent toHalliday and Ham’s lexical cohesion.
………….

Chapter 3 Research Methodology.....35
3.1 Research questions ......35
3.2 Research subjects ........35
3.3 Instruments ......36
3.4 Research procedures....37
3.5 Data collection.......40
Chapter 4 Results and Discussion.....41
4.1 Analysis of the questionnaire ........41
4.2 Analysis of the interview.........43
4.3 The effectiveness of training students to use cohesive devices......46
4.4 Features of the use of cohesive devices ....47
4.5 Main problems of the use of cohesive devices a......本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。