Proposing a comprehensive model of cohesive devices to investigate the quality of students’ academic writing

The majority of the studies that analysed the use of cohesive devices relied on Halliday and Hasan’s (1976) model, which was acknowledged to be the most comprehensive model of cohesion. Reviewing the previous studies has revealed that research has fallen short of analysing the links between the text and the contextual world, including culture, for example. This paper introduces the concepts of the cohesive devices based on the 1976 model with reference to examples from English and Arabic. Then, the paper builds on the 1976 model and expands it based on suggestions proposed by different authors, and introduces the new tool: construction-based cohesion.

Keywords:

cohesive devices, text cohesion, text analysis, discourse analysis a comprehensive model of cohesion,

PDF

___

Abu-Ayyash, E.A.S. & McKenny, J. (2017). The flesh and the bones of cohesive de-vices: Towards a comprehensive model. Journal of World Languages, 4(2), 94-117. Doi: 10.1080/21698252.2017.1417687
Alfadly, H.O. & Aldeibani, A. A. (2013). An analysis of some linguistic problems in translation between Arabic and English faced by Yemeni English majors at Ha-dramout university. Journal of Islamic and Human Advanced Research, 3(1), 15-26.
Aziz, R.N. (2012). Parallelism as a cohesive device in English and Arabic prayers: Contrastive analysis. الأستاذ, 201(1), 353-371.
Baker, M. (2011). In other words (2nd ed). London: Routledge.
Crystal, D. (2006). How language works. London: Penguin Books.
Cutting, J. (2008). Pragmatics and discourse. New York: Routledge.
de Beaugrande, R. and Dressler, W.U. (1981). Introduction to text linguistics. London: Longman. Dikkins, J., S. Hervey & Higgins, I. (2002). Thinking Arabic translation. London: Routledge. Goldberg, A.E. (2003). Constructions: a new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(5), 219-224. Guna, S. & Ngadiman, A. (2015). The cohesive devices used in the cause effect essay written by the English department students of STKIP St. Paulus Ryreng. Magister Scientiae, 38, 93-10.
Halliday, M.A.K. & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Halliday, M.A.K. & Matthiessen, M.I.M. (2014). An introduction to functional gram-mar (4th ed). London: Edward Arnold.
Hoey, M. (2001). Textual interaction: An introduction to written discourse analysis. London: Routledge.
Karadeniz, A. (2017). Cohesion and coherence in written texts in students of faculty of education. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 5(2), 93-99.
Lahlali, E. (2009). How to write in Arabic. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Locke, T. (2004). Critical discourse analysis. London: Continuum International Pub-lishing Group.
McCarthy, M. (1991). Discourse analysis for language teachers. Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press.
Moreno, A. (2003). The role of cohesive devices as textual constraints on relevance: A discourse-as-process view. International Journal of English Studies, 3(1), 111-165.
Neumann, S. (2014). Contrastive register variation. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Paltridge, B. (2012). Discourse analysis. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Rostami, G., Gholami H. & Piri, S. (2016). A contrastive study of cohesive devices used in pre-university and Headway textbooks. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 3(2), 136-147. Sullivan, K. (2013). Frames and constructions in metaphoric language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Thomas, A. (1987). The use and interpretation of verbally determinate verb group el-lipsis in English. IRAL, 25(1), 1-14.
Wightwick, J. & Gaafar, M. (2005). Easy Arabic grammar. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Xi, Y. (2010). Cohesion studies in the past 30 years: Development, application and chaos. Language, Society and Culture, 31, 139-147.