Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs

OFFICE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE PROGRAMS
Home > English Language Programs > English Teaching Forum > Volume 31 > Number 1

Cohesion and the Teaching of EFL Reading

Yue Mei-yun

Reading is an interactive process of communication. The interaction between the writer and the reader is made possible via the text. It is through the text that the writer encodes his message, and it is also through the text that the reader gets the meaning of the message by decoding it.

What is a text? According to Halliday and Hasan (1976), it is “a semantic unit: a unit not of form but of meaning. . . . A text may be spoken or written, prose or verse, dialogue or monologue. It may be anything from a single proverb to a whole play, from a momentary cry for help to an all-day discussion on a committee. . . . Most texts extend well beyond the confines of a single sentence.”

A text is distinguished from a nontext by its texture. The texture is primarily provided by cohesion, which is a semantic concept, which “refers to relations of meaning that exist within the text, and that define it as a text. Cohesion occurs where the interpretation of some element in the discourse is dependent on that of another. The one presupposes the other, in the sense that it cannot be effectively decoded except by recourse to it. Since the speaker or writer uses cohesion to signal texture, the listener or reader has to react to it in order to interpret it” (Halliday and Hasan 1976).

Cohesion holds segments of a text together, making it a semantic edifice, just as mortar does bricks or stones in a building. The importance of cohesion lies in the continuity it expresses between one part of the text and another. This continuity is necessary for the interpretation of text.

1. Cohesion provides the main thread of a text by showing that some entity or circumstance, some relevant feature or argument persists from one moment to another in the semantic process as the meanings unfold. Let us consider this example:

Fred Jarvis faced two main accusations when he applied to be general secretary of the National Union of Teachers. One was that he had never been a teacher. Running the NUT is a key job in British education so you might think that this was quite a handicap. Not so. Some of the union executives were much more upset by another question. Was Fred Jarvis too right-wing? (Fowler 1976)

In this short paragraph, there are two cohesive chains: (1) Fred Jarvis . . . he . . . he . . . Fred Jarvis; (2) Two main accusations . . . One . . . this . . . a handicap . . . another question. The first chain is about the participant, Fred Jarvis, and the second chain is about the two main accusations against his application to be general secretary of the NUT. The two chains together form the main thread of the paragraph.

2. It creates the characteristic “feel” of a text. The continuity expressed by cohesion not only makes a text interpretable, it also provides it with its affective power. For example, a passage entitled “Menace of the Matterhorn” (by Barbara Lloyd) begins like this:

Towering 14,690 ft. over the village of Zermatt on the Swiss-Italian border is the most famous-or infamous-mountain in the Swiss Alps, the Matterhorn. Englishman Edward Whymper conquered it in 1865, but the climb ended in tragedy when four of the team fell 4,000 ft. to their death on the descent. Since then many have died on the mountain. The annual death toll is once again on the increase. (Fowler 1976)

The two cohesive chains Towering 14,690 ft. . . . the famous-or infamous-mountain . . . the Matterhorn . . . the climb . . . the descent . . . mountain and ended in tragedy . . . fell to their death . . . have died . . . The annual death toll . . . on the increase impress the reader that the mountain is very high and dangerous, thus making him feel the “menace” as the writer intends.

3. It enables the reader to supply all the missing items necessary for the interpretation of a text. In texts, especially in spoken texts, there are generally a lot of omissions and substitutions. This is because the interlocutors are in a direct, face-to-face interaction, and their mutual understanding is made easier by their facial expressions, gestures, and other linguistic and nonlinguistic contexts. But in reading, the reader cannot appeal to the writer for the clarification of meaning. It is therefore necessary for him to supply the missing items himself. Here is an example taken from Cheaper by the Dozen, by Frank B. Gilbreth and Ernestine Gilbreth Carey:

Dad mentioned the dozen figure for the first time on their wedding day.

“We’re going to have a wonderful life, Lillie. A wonderful life and a wonderful family. A great big family.”

“We’ll have children all over the house,” Mother smiled. “From the basement to the attic.”

“From the floorboards to the chandelier.”

“How many would you say we should have, just an estimate?” Mother asked.

“Just as an estimate, many.”

“Lots and lots.”

“We’ll settle for an even dozen,” said Dad. “What do you say to that?”

“I say,” said Mother, “a dozen would be just right. No less.” (Baudoin et al. 1977)

In interpreting this dialogue, the reader has to supply children after how many, many, lots and lots (of) and a dozen, and than a dozen after No less. He also has to know that that in What do you say to that refers to having a dozen children. Only in this way will he understand how much the husband and wife liked children and, on their wedding day, decided to have a dozen children.

4. It provides the basis for making predictions and building expectations. The continuity expressed by cohesion constitutes the context that provides the basis for making predictions and building expectations in reading. Here is the beginning of a passage:

If we compare the salaries of men and women engineers in the United States, we find that men earn more at the top of the profession whereas . . . (Moore et al. 1979)

In this incomplete sentence we can identify three cohesive chains: (1) compare . . . whereas . . . ; (2) salaries . . . earn . . . ; (3) men and women engineers . . . men. . . . These chains together provide the context for the reader to predict how the passage will continue. The reader can safely expect that the passage will deal with the salaries of women.

From the above discussion, we can conclude that cohesion plays an important role in the interpretation of text.

COHESIVE DEVICES AS SIGNPOSTS IN EFL READING

Different readers get different amounts of meaning from the same text. An efficient reader reads faster and gets more of the message, whereas a poor reader reads slowly and gets less information. According to Goodman (1973), the efficient reader “relies on strategies which yield the most reliable prediction with minimum use of the information available.” He perceives “only partly what he sees . . . and partly what he expects to see . . . because he has learned to organize his predictions according to what is and is not significant in the language,” and also because he knows not only “what to pay attention to” but also “what not to pay attention to.” That is, the efficient reader does not read every word in a text. He only picks up the key words in reading, which increases his speed and comprehension.

The major task of an EFL reading course is to cultivate efficient readers. One of the ways that the teacher can help her students is to teach them how to use cohesive devices as signposts, because these devices are textual markers indicating what they should pay attention to, and key words important for the minimum use of visual information. In the view of Halliday and Hasan (1976) the continuity that cohesive relations bring about is a semantic continuity. This makes it possible for cohesive patterns to play an indispensable role in the processing of text by a listener or reader. It is therefore necessary to help our students identify different kinds of cohesive chains, which form the backbones of different types of text, because those chains signal organizational patterns of different types of text.

This section demonstrates how we can help our students identify different organizational patterns by analyzing four types of cohesive chains, namely, the referential chain, the chain of ellipsis and substitution, the conjunctive chain, and the lexical chain.

1. The referential chain. According to Halliday (1985), the referential chain is produced by a combination of reference and lexical cohesion (repetition and synonymy). It can be divided into three types: the participant chain, the circumstantial chain, and the process chain. The participant chain is formed with participants-or anything, such as objects and institution, that can have a participant role in a transitivity structure. The circumstantial chain is formed with circumstantial events; and the process chain, the process itself. The referential chain provides the main thread of a text by identifying the participants, the circumstances, and the processes. It is typical of narratives. Let us consider this example:

Joseph and Hannah Brown appeared to be indestructible. For as long as I could remember they had lived together in the same house by the common. They had lived there, it was said, for fifty years, which seemed to me forever. They had raised a large family and sent them into the world, and had continued to live on alone, with nothing left of their noisy brood save some dog-eared letters and photographs. (Fowler 1976)

In this paragraph there are three referential chains. The first is a participant chain: Joseph and Hannah Brown . . . they . . . They . . . They. The second is a process chain: appeared to be . . . had lived . . . had lived . . . had raised . . . and had sent . . . had continued to live. The third chain is a circumstantial chain: For as long as . . . together . . . there . . . for fifty years . . . forever . . . on alone . . . with nothing left. The first chain is about the protagonists of the story. The second and third tell the reader what they did and under what circumstances. All three chains support the main idea of the paragraph-the old couple seemed to be indestructible-and arouse the reader’s interest in finding out why they appeared to be indestructible and what happened to them in the end.

2. The chain of ellipsis and substitution. According to Halliday (1985), this type of chain is more characteristically found in dialogues, where the typical sequence is based on pairs or triads or longer structures that are related by interpersonal meaning. The major difference between this type and the first lies in that the first type shows the persistence of identical referents, but this type shows the constant shifting in the role relationships among the interlocutors, the sort of “same but different” semantic relation. Besides, in the other types of chain all the links of the chains can be found in the text, whereas in this type they are missing, and the reader has to supply them in order to interpret the text. Let’s consider the following example (from Cheaper by the Dozen):

“Have you any children, Mrs. Gilbreth?”

“Oh, yes.”
“Any boys?”
“Yes, indeed.”
“May I ask how many?”
“Certainly. I have six boys.”
“Six boys!” gulped the woman. “Imagine a family of six!”
“Oh, there’re more in the family than that. I have six girls, too.”

(Baudoin et al. 1977)

This is a conversation between the authors’ mother and a woman who had just moved to town. To understand this conversation, the reader has to supply all the missing items:

“Oh, yes.” (I have children.)
“Any boys?” (Have you . . . )
“Yes, indeed.” (I have boys.)
“. . . how many?” (. . . boys have you?)
“Certainly . . . ” (you may ask.)
“Six boys!” (You have . . . )
“. . . a family of six!” (You have . . . boys!)
“There are more (children . . . than
. . . than that.” six.)

This cohesive chain brings out the contrast between the woman and the mother. The former was greatly surprised by a family with so many children, whereas the latter was proud of it.

3. The conjunctive chain. According to Halliday (1985), conjunctive relations are essentially relations between messages or between larger complexes constructed out of messages. This type of chain generally expresses a range of meanings in three domains: elaboration, extension, and enhancement. It is typical of description, exposition, and argumentation. Different conjunctive chains, together with other cohesive chains, form different organizational patterns of different types of text. We will analyze four types of conjunctive chain here.

a. The Spatial Chain: A spatial chain is generally composed of words of location and direction. It is typical of description of the location of places, objects, and people in space. It is also used to describe movement through space. Let’s consider the following example:

The cathedral in Chartres is representative of the French cathedrals. The main entrance to the Chartres cathedral faces west. This western side is not quite symmetrical. There is a square tower on both sides, yet the tower on the south corner is shorter and has less decoration than the tower on the north corner. The cone-shaped steeple of the south tower rests on an octagonal section, which, in turn, rests on the square tower below. There are three front doors with semicircular sections above each one. In these sections there are elaborate sculptures which tell about the life of Christ. Above the entrance, three arches surround stained-glass windows. In the center of the western side is a large, round stained-glass window. It is one of the most ancient windows of this type. (Sonka 1981)

The different cohesive markers in the spatial chain (faces west, not quite symmetrical, on both sides, on the south corner, on the north corner, on an octagonal section, on the square tower, below, above each one, In these sections, Above the entrance, and In the center) describe the location of different parts of the cathedral. The whole chain helps the reader to form a mental picture of the cathedral.

b. The Temporal Chain: A temporal chain may express chronological order or sequence of events, steps, etc. It is generally composed of words indicating time or sequence. It is typical of description of the history of a person or an event, or the development of a machine or an idea. Here is an example:

The invention of the transistor completely changed the electronics industry. In January 1946 Bell Telephone Laboratories formed a special group of scientists to invent a new use for semiconductors. There were three important scientists in the group: William Shockley and John Bardeen, both theoretical physicists, and Walter H. Brattain, a laboratory experimenter. By mid-December 1947 they had a transistor, a solid-state amplifier, that worked. On June 30, 1948, they presented their new invention, the transistor. They showed one use of the transistor, a working radio that did not have any tubes. This was the first transistor radio. (Sonka 1981)

The three cohesive markers (In January 1946, By mid-December 1947, and On June 30, 1948) in the temporal chain indicate three stages in the development of the transistor, and the whole chain forms the complete process.

c. The Cause-Effect Chain: This type of chain generally consists of words indicating causes, effects, and reasons. It is typical of exposition and argumentation. It is most often used in the sciences and the social sciences. Let us consider the following example:

In reality, the demand for a product is not always the same. It changes under different conditions. For example, taste may change. You may decide that you prefer cassettes because records are inconvenient. Consequently, you will buy fewer records at both high and low prices. Demand may also change as a result of changes in the prices of other products. For instance, the price of records stays the same, but the price of cassettes falls. Therefore, you buy more cassettes and fewer records. Or, income may change. Due to an increase in income, you can afford more records whether the price is high or low. (Sonka 1981)

The whole chain because . . . Consequently . . . as a result of . . . Therefore . . . Due to shows how the different conditions affect the demand for a product, and the cause-effect relationship between taste, the prices of other products, and income and the demand for a product.

d. The Chain of Analysis: This type of chain is also composed of words indicating order or sequence, but it expresses the pattern of thesis-example in making an analysis. It is typical of exposition and argumentation. Let’s consider the example below:

Three significant pieces of English legislation led to the American Revolution. First, in 1764 England passed the Sugar Act, which placed heavy taxes on the colonies’ imports of raw materials from the West Indies. Then, in 1765 the English Parliament passed the Stamp Act, which taxed legal documents, newspapers, and other publications. The Stamp Act enraged many American colonists. Finally, the Townshend Acts of 1767 taxed several imports-paper, lead, glass, and tea. With each succeeding act, the colonists became more alienated from England. (Sotiriou 1984)

The thesis in the paragraph is how English legislation led to the American Revolution. Each link in the chain (First, Then, Finally) gives one example to support the thesis.

4. The lexical chain. According to Halliday (1985), lexical cohesion has three major forms: repetition, synonymy, and collocation. A lexical chain can therefore be formed with these cohesive devices. Lexical chains may be used to indicate different organizational patterns. We will analyze three patterns here.

a. Comparison-Contrast: This kind of pattern generally consists of words indicating similarity or difference. It is typical of exposition that compares and contrasts people, places, objects, or events. In another article (Yue 1991) I analyzed an example of comparison, which indicates similarity. Here we will consider an example of contrast indicating differences:

Many people believe that all languages distinguish singular (one) and plural (more than one). On the contrary, linguists have found that all languages do not distinguish one and more than one. Singular/plural is not a universal distinction. While English has two grammatical numbers, singular and plural, some languages have three grammatical numbers-one, two, and more than two. Other languages do not have singular and plural in their grammar. In English, a speaker feels that “We will walk a kilometer” is quite different from “We will walk kilometers.” Chinese differs from English with respect to singular and plural. A Chinese speaker does not have to indicate if a noun is singular or plural. In Chinese, a speaker may say “We will walk kilometer.” The speaker does not have to say if it is one kilometer or many kilometers. (Sonka 1981)

There are two lexical chains in this paragraph: (a) distinguish . . . On the contrary . . . do not distinguish . . . distinction . . . while . . . has . . . have . . . do not have . . . is quite different . . . differs . . . does not have to . . . does not have to . . . ; (b) singular (one) and plural (more than one) . . . one and more than one . . . Singular/plural . . . two grammatical numbers . . . singular and plural . . . three grammatical numbers . . . one, two, and more than two . . . singular and plural . . . singular and plural . . . singular or plural . . . one . . . many.  These two intertwining chains show three different ways in which different languages indicate grammatical number, with the focus on the contrast between English and Chinese.

b. Definition: This kind of pattern is typical of exposition, most often used in the sciences and the social sciences. Here is an example:

Parasitology may be defined as the branch of biology which deals with the nature of parasitism and its effects on both the parasite and the host. Broadly defined, a parasite is an organism which lives for all or part of its life on or in another organism from which it derives some benefit, such as food, shelter or protection. Organisms living on the host are known as ectoparasites; those living within the host organism are called endoparasites.

(Moore et al. 1979)

The lexical chain may be defined as . . . Broadly defined . . . are known as . . . are called runs through the paragraph stringing together four definitions.

c. Generalization: This type of pattern is composed of words indicating frequency, probability, and quantity (see Yue 1989). It is typical of exposition in which different levels of generality are used. Following are three examples:

(1) Most airline pilots require a knowledge of English. Although few need English to deal with emergencies, a knowledge of English for these situations is a wise safety measure. Some have to deal with English-speaking colleagues.

(2) Firms always need statistics. They usually need to calculate the average wage of their employees. In addition, companies sometimes need to determine statistically whether consumers like a new product.

(3) It is unlikely that a personal assistant will be successful in her career without a knowledge of English. She may need it for translating business letters. She will probably need it as well for arranging appointments with English-speaking clients. (Moore et al. 1979)

In the first example, the chain is formed with words of quantity: Most . . . few . . . some. In the second, it is composed of words of frequency: always . . . usually . . . sometimes. In the third, it consists of words of probability: unlikely . . . may . . . probably. From these examples we can see that different levels of generality can be expressed in three different ways.

Conclusion

In this paper we have discussed the importance of cohesion in the interpretation of text and demonstrated how we can help our students improve their EFL reading by analyzing cohesive chains and using cohesive devices as signposts. From our discussion and analysis we can conclude that cohesion has an important role to play in EFL reading. However, for more systematic application of the theory to the teaching of EFL reading, more research is needed in order to identify the overall relationship between different cohesive chains and different organizational patterns.

REFERENCES

Baudoin, E. Margaret et al. 1977. Reader’s choice. Ann Arbor, Mich.: The University of Michigan Press.

Fowler, W. S. 1976. Proficiency English II: Reading comprehension. Edinburgh: Thomas Nelson and Sons.

Goodman, Kenneth S. 1973. Psycholinguistic universals in the reading process. In Psycholinguistics and reading, ed. Frank Smith. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Halliday, M. A. K. 1985. An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.

Halliday, M. A. K. and R. Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.

Moore, John et al. 1979. Reading and thinking in English: Discovering discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Smith, Frank. 1973. Psycholinguistics and reading. In Psycholinguistics and reading, ed. Frank Smith. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Sonka, Amy L. 1981. Skillful reading: A text and workbook for students of English as a second language. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Sotiriou, Peter E. 1984. Integrating college study skills: Reasoning in reading, listening, and writing. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Publishing Co.

Yue, Mei-yun. 1989. Teaching efficient EFL reading. English Teaching Forum, 27, 2, pp. 13-16.

---. 1991. Systemic-functional grammar and the teaching of advanced EFL reading. English Teaching Forum, 29, 1, pp. 6-9.

Back to the top