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.
Cohesion is an aspect of a text, which entails that the latter forms a unified whole, rather than unrelated sentences.
The concept of cohesionis a semantic one; itrefers to relations of meaningthatexistwithin the text, and thatdefineit as a text.
Cohesionoccurswhere the interpretation of someelements in the discourseisdependent on that of another.</li></ul>E.g: « Yes, wecan » ismeaninglesswithout «Can webring about the change wedesire? »<br />4<br />Mamas 2009<br />
Lexical Cohesion<br />It is the cohesive effect achieved by the selection of vocabulary.<br />Lexical cohesion is basically created by the general nouns (super-ordinates, for example - public transport), or repetition (reiteration) of the same lexeme, or the use of other lexical relations as cohesive patterns.<br />5<br />Mamas 2009<br />
Lexical cohesionthroughtgeneralnouns<br />The class of general noun is a small set of nouns having generalized reference within the major noun classes such as ‘human noun’, ‘place noun’, ‘fact noun’ … etc.<br />6<br />Mamas 2009<br />
<ul><li>« Didn’teveryonemakeitcleartheyexpectedthe ministerto resign?- Theydid. But itseems to have made no impression on the man. »
« Can you tell me where to stay in Geneva? I’venever been to the place.</li></ul>Anaphoric<br /><ul><li> A general noun in cohesive function is almost always accompanied by the reference item ‘the’.
From a grammatical point of view, the anaphoric ‘the’+ general noun functions like an anaphoric reference item. (the man= him/ the place= it).
However, the interpretations the two words bear are not the same. E.g: ‘the man’ bears other interpersonal interpretations such as familiarity, as opposed to distance.</li></ul>7<br />Mamas 2009<br />
Some general nouns have this intepersonal element as an inherent part of their meaning such as idiot, poor, fool, devil, dear …etc.<br /> A general noun in cohesive function can always be accompanied by an attitudinal modifier, such as the dears, the poor dears.<br /> E.g: « I’ve been to see my great-aunt. The poor old girl’s getting very forgetful these days. »<br />8<br />Mamas 2009<br />
Reiteration is a form of lexical cohesion which involves the repetition of a lexical item, at one end of the scale; the use of a general word to refer back to a lexical item, at the other end of the scale; and a number of things in between-the use of a synonym or superordinate.<br />Lexical CohesionthroughReiteration<br />9<br />Mamas 2009<br />
<ul><li>There was a large mushroom growing near her, about the same height as herself; and, when she had looked under it, it occured to her that she might as well look and see what was on the top of it. She stretched herself up on tiptoe, and peeped over the edge of the mushroom.
Accordingly… I took leave, and turned to the ascent of the peak. The climb is perfectly easy…
Henry’s bought himself a new Jaguar. He practically lives in the car.</li></ul>Repetition<br />Synonyms<br />Superordinate and subordinate<br />In these instances one lexical item refers back to another, to which it is related by having acommon referent. This is called ‘reiteration’.<br />A reiterated item may be a repetition, a synonym or near-synonym, a superordinate, or a general word. In most cases it is accompanied by a reference item, typically ‘the’.<br />10<br />Mamas 2009<br />
Lexical Relations as Cohesive Patterns.<br /><ul><li>Lexical cohesionisnot necessarilyacheived by twolexemes’ havinghaving the samereferent.
Whydoesthislittleboy have to wriggle all the time?
The lexemes ‘boy’ and ‘boys’ are not coreferential. However, lexical cohesionhereisachievedthroughcomparative reference.
A lexical item cohereswith a preceding occurrence of the same item whether or not the two have the samereferent.</li></ul>11<br />Mamas 2009<br />
<ul><li>Lexical cohesionisachievedwhen the second occurrence of a lexemebears an identical (a), an iclusive (b), an exclusive (c) or an unrelated(d) referencialrelationshipwith the first occurrence.
There’s a boy climbingthattree.</li></ul>The boy’sgoing to fall if hedoesn’ttake care.<br />Those boys are alwaysgettingintomischief.<br />And there’sanother boy standing underneath.<br />Most boys love climbingtrees.<br />12<br />Mamas 2009<br />
Lexical Cohesionthrough Collocation<br /><ul><li>The semanticrelationships of the lexical items used in a text are very important to the achievement of lexical cohesion. These are examples of semanticrelationships:</li></ul>Sameorderedseries: Monday, Wednesday…<br />Unordered lexical sets: roof/basement, road/ rail….<br />Part to whole: brake/car, lid/box …<br />Part to part: mouth/ chin, brake/ wheel … etc.<br /><ul><li>‘Brake’ and ‘wheel’ are hyponyms, and ‘car’ istheirhypernym.</li></ul>13<br />Mamas 2009<br />
<ul><li>Lexical cohesioncanalsobeachieved by using sets of lexical items whichbelong to the samesemanticfield but whosesemanticrelationshipsis not clearenough to beidentified:</li></ul>laugh/ joke, blade/ sharp, garden/ dig, ill/ doctor, try/ succeed, bee/ honey, door/ window, king/ crown, boat/ row, sunshine/ cloud …etc.<br /><ul><li>The cohesiveeffect of such pairs isachievedthroughtheirtendency to share the same lexical environment, to occur in collocation witheachother.
Thesewordsdon’toccurnecessarily in pairs, but sometimes in ranges:</li></ul>Candle/flame/flicker.hair/comb/curl/wave … etc.<br />14<br />Mamas 2009<br />
There are a number of reasons why Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, decided not to attend the nuclear summit hosted by Barack Obama, the US president.<br /> They include deteriorating relations with the US over expanding illegal Jewish settlements on occupied lands, a frozen 'peace process', and just bad chemistry between the rightist Israeli leader and the liberal US president.<br /> But more importantly there is no good reason for the Israeli leader to attend. As one of the few countries that developed nuclear weapons and refuse to sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Israel has nothing to gain and much to lose.<br /> Considering its serious breaches, Israel has little to contribute to US efforts on the nuclear front, except to make the concessions it is least willing to.<br />Netanyahu's indifference towards the summit and Obama personally, concealsdeeperdifferences between Israel and the US. While both would like to see Iran's nuclear programme scrapped, and all nuclear materials kept away from their enemies, they differ on how best to accomplish nuclear security.<br /> Unlike his predecessor, Obama does not see eye to eye with Israel on the primacy of force in international relations.<br /> Since his election, Obama has been consistent in his attempts to build international consensus or at least wide coalitions instead of resorting to unilateral military threats and force.<br /> He relies mostly, but not exclusively, on negotiations and dialogue - bilateral and multilateral - to advance US global security and its geopolitical agenda.<br /> Israel, however, has been consistent in resorting to the use of force to deal with security challenges, especially what it perceives to be nuclear threats.<br /><ul><li>Excerpt from: “Obama and Israel: The nuclear (in)difference” By MarwanBishara in Imperium</li></ul>15<br />Mamas 2009<br />
consistent in his attempts to build international consensus or at least wide coalitions.
negotiations and dialogue</li></ul>16<br />Mamas 2009<br />
Lexical Cohesion of the title of the article: «Obama and Israel: the Nuclear (in)difference»<br />17<br />Mamas 2009<br />
Conclusion<br />Every lexical item may enter into a cohesive relation, but by itself it carries no indication whether it is functioning cohesively or not; it is cohesive only when it is a part of whole (text), not as it is standing alone.<br />In assessing lexical cohesion, lexical items of high frequency (such as ‘do’, ‘take’, ‘good’ …etc) are to be disregarded.<br />18<br />Mamas 2009<br />