Cohesion, Texture And Coherence

The present research is an attempt to explore the nature of cohesion, texture and coherence and the ways they relate to each other in the production and comprehension of a text.Since M.A.K Halliday and Ruqaiya Hasan published their seminal book Cohesion in English in 1976, there has been increasing interest in the concept of cohesion among linguists (Hoey 1991; Martin 1992; McCarthy & Carter 1994; Widdowson 1978; Brown & Yule 1983;胡壮麟1994;孙玉1997;张德禄2000,2001;张德禄,刘汝山2003;朱永生1995,1996,1997a. 1997b;朱永生,郑立信,苗兴伟2001;徐玉臣1996;2003a,2003b,左岩1995等)。Although hailed as a milestone in the domain of discourse analysis, this theory has given rise to a lot of controversies, centring on the relation between cohesion and coherence.However, we find that texture, as a key notion in the Hallidayan model, has been largely neglected by the critics of this model. Many linguists have taken it as a notion equal to coherence, which has been the root of misunderstanding about the model that Halliday and Hasan has proposed. On the other hand, the model itself leaves much to be desired.As we see it, cohesion is only one part of the study of texture, which considers the interaction of cohesion with thematic structure and information structure. Texture, in turn, is one aspect of the study of coherence, which takes the social context of texture into consideration and which should be seen as the contribution that texture makes to our sense that a text hangs together.Halliday and Hasan (1976) define cohesion as a semantic concept referring to the relations of meaning within a text, and have focused on the linguistic means whereby the cohesive relations are expressed or realized, holding that all the cohesive relations can be realized as lexical and grammatical items. They made it explicit in Cohesion in English that they are concerned only with the linguistic factors that are characteristic of texts in English in their discussion of cohesion in that book, excluding the situational properties. This is another key point that has failed to receive its due attention from all the linguists arguing against the framework. Thesecounter arguments, although groundless, indicate that the Hallidayan model does need to be improved. We have tried to do this in two aspects. First, we have proposed that the situational factors of the text be considered in the model and therefore the scope of meaning relationship within the text be extended to include relationship of pragmatic meaning. Second, unlike Halliday, who sees cohesive devices as a set of non-structural resources hi the textual metafunction, we, drawing on Martin (1992, 2001), have attempted to reformulate the notion of cohesive ties as discourse semantic structure. Halliday's non-structural textual resources have been reworked as semantic systems concerned with discourse structure, comprising: identification, negotiation, conjunction and ideation.Apart from cohesion, we have also given due attention to the other two textual components of text: thematic and information structures.Realizing the neglect on Halliday's part of the role Rhemes can play in developing a text, I have, drawing on Danes and Thompson, proposed a modified model of thematic progression as a practical tool for textual analysis.While agreeing with Halliday that the pattern of focus contributes to the creation of a meaningful text, I have pointed out the determination of the givenness of a piece of information is more difficult than it seems to be. I argue for a cognitive perspective of context in deciding on the givenness or newness of information in the course of communication.Thematic structure, information structure, and cohesion work together to contribute to the texture of a text. However, it is my belief that the texture of a text alone does not ensure its coherence to a hearer or reader. This position of mine about the coherence needs explanation from a cognitive perspective.Although repeatedly emphasizing the meaning relationship between segments of a discourse while theo...