Coherence and Cohesion

Coherence & Cohesion

A. Coherence

1. Definition of Coherence

Coherence refers to the logical and semantic connectedness that makes a text or spoken discourse meaningful and unified. It is not merely about the grammar or sentence correctness (cohesion), but rather about how ideas relate to one another and to the context, forming a consistent message.

·       Brown & Yule (1983) define coherence as “everything fitting together well.”

·       Halliday & Hasan (1976) distinguish coherence (meaning) from cohesion (surface features).

While cohesion is visible through linguistic markers, coherence is more abstract and depends on the interpretation of ideas.

2. Types of Coherence

1.     Personal Pronouns

Used to replace nouns and avoid repetition.

Person	Singular	Plural
1st person	I, me	we, us
2nd person	you	you
3rd person	he, him, she, her, it	they, them

 Relative Pronouns

Used to connect clauses to nouns and provide additional information.

Function	Relative Pronoun
Subject	who, which, that
Object	whom, which, that
Possessive	whose
Place	where
Time	when

  Demonstrative Pronouns

Used to point out specific things.

·       This

·       That

·       These

·       Those

·     Comparative Forms / Expressions

Used to express comparison between two or more things or ideas.

Type	Examples
Comparative Degree	more, better, worse, fewer
Equivalence	as…as, just as, equally
Contrastive	than, unlike, whereas

 Definite Article

The → refers to specific or known nouns

3. Coherence in Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL)

In the SFL framework (from Halliday), coherence is tied to metafunctions of language, especially the ideational metafunction, which represents how language expresses experience and logical relations.

Coherence is implicitly realized through:

A. Transitivity System

Under the ideational metafunction, transitivity is how experiences are structured in clauses:

·       Processes (actions, perceptions, states): e.g., run, believe, is

·       Participants (who is involved): e.g., the boy, the ball

·       Circumstances (how, when, where): e.g., in the park, at night

Coherent discourse uses this system consistently to build mental and physical worlds that make

sense to the reader or listener.

 

B. Consistent Process Types

Using process types (material, mental, relational, behavioral, verbal, existential) in a way that matches the topic/theme improves coherence:

·       E.g., In a narrative: mostly material and mental processes.

·       In explanation texts: relational and existential processes dominate.

4. Elements That Contribute to Coherence

A. Logical Relation of Ideas

Ideas must connect via logical links like:

·       Cause–Effect: "She studied hard. As a result, she passed."

·       Temporal Sequence: "First, they met. Then, they had coffee."

 

This is often achieved through circumstantial elements as shown:

·       Cause: Reason, Purpose, Behalf → He died of starvation.

·       Extent/Location: Time/place → He walked two miles.

B. Consistency in Participant Roles

Texts maintain coherence by keeping participants (e.g., John, the teacher) consistent and clear across sentences.

Example:

·       John bought a car. He drove it to work.
→ Maintains coherence by keeping John as a participant.

 

C. Thematic Progression

Using a consistent Theme-Rheme structure helps coherence. In English, Theme is what the clause is about, and Rheme is new information.

Example:

·       The school was closed. (Theme)

·       The students stayed home. → continues the topic.

This supports global coherence across paragraphs.

 

D. Reference and Substitution

While technically a cohesive device, proper use of pronouns and synonyms (e.g., it, they, the former) supports understanding and mental continuity of ideas.

5. Coherence vs Cohesion (Comparison Table)

Feature	Coherence	Cohesion
Focus	Meaning, logic	Surface grammar/lexis
Realization	Semantic/pragmatic level	Lexical/grammatical links
Indicators	Thematic flow, logical relations	Conjunctions, pronouns, ellipsis
Evaluated by	Interpretation	Linguistic analysis
Example	Cause-effect sequence of ideas	Use of “and,” “but,” “this,” “those”

6. How Ideational Function Helps Build Coherence

 “The ideational function is to express our experiences of both the physical world and mental world. The basic semantic framework includes Process, Participants, and Circumstances.”

By organizing these elements:

·       Using appropriate process types

·       Assigning consistent participant roles

·       Modifying with circumstances (time, place, reason)

 

B. Cohesion

1. Definition of Cohesion

Cohesion refers to the linguistic and structural features that bind sentences and parts of a text together. It’s the system of explicit surface-level connections that helps a reader or listener understand how clauses relate.

·       Halliday & Hasan (1976): Cohesion is “the set of possibilities that exist in the language for making text hang together.”

Cohesion operates at the grammar and lexis level, distinguishing a text from a random string of sentences.

 

2. Types of Cohesive

 

1. Additive

Used to add more information.

·       And, also, in addition, moreover, furthermore,

·       Not only … but also, besides, what is more

2. Adversative

Used to show contrast or disagreement.

·       But, however, nevertheless, although, though,

·       Yet, even so, in contrast, on the other hand

3. Causal

Used to express cause and effect.

·       Because, so, thus, therefore, hence,

·       As a result, consequently, for this reason

4. Temporal

Used to show time sequence or order.

·       Then, next, after that, finally, eventually,

·       Meanwhile, at the same time, subsequently, in the end

5. Continuative

Used to manage flow, attention, or transitions lightly.

·       Well, now, anyway, of course,

·       Incidentally, by the way, after all, to begin with

 

3. Role of Cohesion in Text Construction

Cohesion plays a critical role in forming a unified, connected text. Without cohesive ties, a series of clauses might feel disjointed even if logically ordered (coherent).

Example (non-cohesive vs. cohesive):

·       ❌ Tom went to the market. Bought vegetables. Weather was nice.

·       ✅ Tom went to the market. He bought vegetables. The weather was nice.

Cohesion allows readers to track participants, relate events, and follow ideas smoothly.

4. Difference Between Cohesion and Coherence

Feature	Cohesion	Coherence
Focus	Grammar and lexis	Meaning and logic
Level	Surface/textual	Semantic/pragmatic
Observability	Explicit (can be marked and taught)	Implicit (inferred)
Example Device	Pronouns, repetition, conjunctions	Theme flow, logical sequence, argumentation
Main Theorist	Halliday & Hasan	Brown & Yule; Halliday (ideational metafunction)

5. Examples of Cohesive Devices in Use

Maria loves music. She listens to it every day. This habit helps her relax. Therefore, she feels happy and calm.

Cohesive tools used:

• Reference: she, this habit
• Lexical repetition: music → it
• Conjunction: therefore

7. Pedagogical Implications: Teaching Cohesion

Cohesion is an essential part of language teaching:

• Helps students improve writing fluency
• Aids reading comprehension
• Encourages awareness of sentence relationships

✅ Teachers can:

• Highlight cohesive devices in model texts
• Provide cloze tasks removing cohesive markers
• Ask students to write using specified devices (e.g., 3 conjunctions, 2 pronouns)

McCarthy (1991) and Nunan (1993) support the importance of cohesive instruction for ESL/EFL learners.

References of Coherence and Cohesion

Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2014). Halliday's Introduction to Functional Grammar (4th ed.). Routledge.
→ Core reference for the three metafunctions in Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL), including how coherence is realized through the ideational metafunction.

Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. Longman.
→ Groundbreaking work that distinguishes cohesion from coherence and outlines the five types of cohesive ties in English.

Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse Analysis. Cambridge University Press.
→ Introduced the concept of coherence as the interpretability and meaningfulness of discourse beyond the sentence level.

Tanskanen, S.-K. (2006). Collaborative Discourse and Coherence. John Benjamins.
→ Focused on how coherence functions in both spoken and written interaction, especially in collaborative contexts.

McCarthy, M. (1991). Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers. Cambridge University Press.
→ Offers practical implications for both coherence and cohesion in the language classroom and provides tools for discourse analysis.

Bloor, T., & Bloor, M. (2013). The Functional Analysis of English: A Hallidayan Approach. Routledge.
→ A practical guide for applying SFL principles to real texts, including the analysis of cohesion and textual structure.

Nunan, D. (1993). Introducing Discourse Analysis. Penguin.
→ Explains cohesion within the context of discourse analysis and emphasizes its relevance to language learning and teaching.