Cohesion is, such as coherence, a text-internal standard of textuality . Therefore, it is not a user-centred but a text-centred notion. According to de Beaugrande/Dressler, cohesion “concerns the ways in which the components of the SURFACE TEXT, i.e. the actual words we hear or see, are mutually connected within a sequence” (1981, 3). Halliday/Hasan in turn underline that cohesion is based on semantic relations within a text (1976, 4). From these explanations we learn that cohesion is about how spoken or written words are linked to each other, and that cohesive ties are the devices that hold a text together. These cohesive ties can be distinguished on a grammatical as well as on a lexical level.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Cohesion
2.1. Lexical cohesion vs. grammatical cohesion
3. Types of lexical cohesion
3.1. Repetition
3.2. Sense relations
3.3. Paraphrase
3.4. Collocation
4. Conclusion
Research Objectives and Topics
This paper aims to provide a comprehensive overview of lexical cohesion in the English language, exploring how lexical choices contribute to text unity. It examines how specific words and phrases are interconnected through semantic relations, distinguishing these from purely grammatical cohesive devices.
- Theoretical definitions of cohesion and its role in textuality
- Differentiation between grammatical and lexical cohesion
- Detailed classification of lexical cohesion types (repetition, sense relations, paraphrase, collocation)
- Practical examples of cohesive ties in language usage
- Examination of Schubert's classification framework
Excerpt from the Book
3.2. Sense relations
In opposition to referential relations between lexical items, sense relations are concerned with their meaning. According to the Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics, a sense relation refers to “any relation between lexical units within the semantic system of a language […]”. Therefore, the meaning on a semantic level is concerned when it comes to sense relations. There are several types to look at (Schubert 2008, 48ff).
a) Synonymy
According to the Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics (1997, 367) Synonymy is “the relation between two lexical units with a shared meaning”. Synonymy therefore is the use of words with a similar meaning in the same text, which leads to a cohesive relation between them. Especially the English language is quite rich in synonyms. However, usually such synonyms are not interchangeable because mostly they differ stylistically: one might have a stronger meaning than the other and it would also depend on the used register, which synonym is chosen (Finch 2000, 184). E.g.: close and shut, obstinate and stubborn.
For example: There is a child climbing that tree. The little one is going to fall if it doesn’t take care. Here, little one is a synonym for child, since it has a similar meaning and it builds a cohesive tie referring back to child.3
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: This chapter outlines the scope of the paper, defining lexical cohesion as a key standard of textuality and introducing the classification framework used throughout the study.
2. Cohesion: This section defines cohesion as a text-centred notion and explains how spoken or written components are linked to create a unified whole.
2.1. Lexical cohesion vs. grammatical cohesion: This chapter clarifies the distinction between structure-based grammatical cohesion and meaning-based lexical cohesion.
3. Types of lexical cohesion: This chapter provides an overview of the four main categories of lexical cohesion according to Schubert's classification.
3.1. Repetition: This section examines how the recurrence of lexical items, including partial repetition and different morphological forms, contributes to textual continuity.
3.2. Sense relations: This chapter details semantic connections such as synonymy, antonymy, hyponymy, and meronymy that create cohesive ties.
3.3. Paraphrase: This section analyzes how the expansion or condensation of meaning through restatement helps achieve clarity in text.
3.4. Collocation: This chapter explores how regularly co-occurring words and expectancy relations between lexical items create cohesive chains.
4. Conclusion: This chapter summarizes the main findings and suggests that further study of lexical and grammatical cohesion in tandem would provide a more profound understanding of textuality.
Keywords
Lexical cohesion, grammatical cohesion, textuality, repetition, synonymy, antonymy, hyponymy, meronymy, paraphrase, collocation, semantic relations, referential relations, text linguistics, Schubert, cohesive ties.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this academic paper?
The paper provides a general overview of the various types of lexical cohesion in the English language and explores how they function within a text.
What are the central themes discussed in the work?
The central themes include the standards of textuality, the distinction between grammatical and lexical levels of cohesion, and the specific classification of cohesive devices.
What is the main objective of the research?
The objective is to explain how lexical choices, such as repetition and sense relations, help establish text unity and clarity.
Which scientific methodology is utilized?
The author primarily utilizes a theoretical, descriptive approach based on the classification framework provided by linguist Christoph Schubert, supported by literature from scholars like Halliday and Hasan.
What topics are covered in the main body of the work?
The main body covers the theoretical definition of cohesion, the differentiation from grammatical structures, and a deep dive into four types of lexical cohesion: repetition, sense relations, paraphrase, and collocation.
Which keywords characterize this work?
The work is characterized by terms such as lexical cohesion, textuality, synonymy, hyponymy, collocation, and referential relations.
How does partial repetition differ from simple repetition?
Simple repetition involves using the exact same morphological form, while partial repetition includes words altered by inflection, derivation, or compounding.
What distinguishes a lexical field from a lexical set?
A lexical field groups words of the same class with shared semantic features, whereas a lexical set is based on associations and intuition, often across different word classes.
How is the term "meronymy" defined in the context of this paper?
Meronymy describes a part-whole relationship where one lexical item refers to a part of something and another refers to the whole, such as "faces" and "people".
Why does the author argue that frequent repetition can be negative?
The author notes that while repetition aids clarity, excessive use can lead to redundancy, which reduces the overall informativity of the text.
- Quote paper
- Elisabeth Lyons (Author), 2015, Lexical Cohesion. Text-internal standard of textuality, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/496702
