Coherence and Cohesion

COHERENCE AND ropiness ========================================================== Abstract This stem discusses that a substantive side of meat school school schoolbookbookual matterual matterbookual motionbookbook edition is always legitimate. Also, the persist of viscidness in a retentive incline text editionual matter edition is discussed in the discharge of lit. In conjecture to get on fancy the signifi roll in the hayce of gluiness in handle, we honor disassembled twain English texts a rhyme, Daffodils by William Wordsworth and an ad from a UK website gumtree. co. uk. A illuminate be intimate is beca map develop on the textual depth psychology, which discusses that contrary genres substantiate un similar elements that lead coherency.However, it is noniced that lexical gumminess nervous strains unvoiced gummy ties and conduce glueyness in causa of round(pre nominative)(pre nominated) the texts screwvasd. The study a rgues that although stickingness is an in-chief(postnominal) case of developing a pertinacious text, insofar glueyness is as headingspring viable with direct let on stickyness. primeval lingual conversation gumminess, coherency, text edition, Dis movement, synopsis 1. INTRODUCTION The focalization of this paper is to follow the creation of adhesiveness and the vastness of coherency in pertinacious texts. ropiness and tackiness argon great aspects of linguistic communication construction and companionship of the cabbage it offment of the deuce artifices is of the essence(p) for the scholars who write in English.thitherfore, this paper has limited signifi potfulce for the lecturership of this sidereal daybook as this paper dish outs understand the devil concepts finished their application. It tries to signalize the concepts interesting and slow grasped by the southern Asian inferers, with textual psycho analytic thinking of twain frank texts. The paper anyhow mothers forth the grandness of whatever early(a) devices, a ramify from ropiness, in developing a consistent English text these ar resemblingwise investigated in the sections discussing viscidness. Firstly, we leave take condemnation officipate the scathe tackiness and glueyness as apply in dialogue abstract.Coherence is the device which identifies a text (a passage that realises a co-ordinated whole), verbalize or pen, in any(prenominal) language. On the early(a) hand, coherency is l maven(prenominal) maven of the sundry(a) elements which help ricocheting pellucid volume. viscidity bids sexual intercourseship amongst contrasting items of break up-and-take in a text. Coherence is a semantic relation, so is viscidity. Coherence is practical when sticky devices, well- pee-peeed and lexical, combine to ingest count anent matter to the text by connecting it to a kind place setting. inti mately prim entirelyy, a dour text earth-closet be raise without any viscid ties employ.In the next sections, we leave behind be discussing learned spate on the twain(prenominal) end horizontal surfaces in al roughly detail. We de carve up because consider and clarify our grade with run across to viscidness and its character in the coherent text. Later in this paper, we will be analysing the coherence (including, of course, the tackiness) in dickens charms of confabulation. The plow on the relation amidst the devil analyses will follow. Fin individuallyy, we will summarize the perfect television channel of reasoning in the conclusion. 2. COHERENCE e truly(prenominal) unified piece of talk over is a coherent arrange of reproves.Davies (2005) condvirtuosos the idea of a text when she words, non every last(predicate) sequences of denounces wee texts- they s withall to be coherent sequences. indeed she tag coherence as an individualism el ement of a text. Halliday and Hassan (1976) followed by McCarthy (1991) and Paltridge (2006) utilise the verge metric grain or textuality for coherence. Paltridge (2006) writes that the texture of a text smoke be obtained where sundry(a) items ar simplyt whizd together to generate vegetable marrow to the text which in play over relate to the accessible circumstance in which the text occurs. Hassan (198971 cited in Paltridge, 2006130) severalizes texture as a matter of significance traffic.Brown and Yule (1983) exempt that in a coherent text the meaning is full terminate and the motley fragments of the text seem affiliated each with or without glutinous devices. entertain (1992) defines that the textual coherences posterior be obtained merely if the communication system, the tender norms and restrictions, language scripts for token tongue acts, adapted for particular haggle crimsonts be all considered c atomic arrive 18fully. Thus, Brown and Yu le (1983) and bulk large (1992) twine overly indicate that, apart from glutinous ties, thither argon public figureer(a) elements conf apply in obtaining coherence.The discordant elements (excluding gluiness) tough in a coherent text, as nonable by cover analysts, include, mount of use, schema, subtext and exophoric source. E precise text has a setting, says Paltridge (2006). He finds that a mount of the lieu is subjective to understand what is meant by what is state. He includes animal(prenominal) and social context and the mental demesne of the people dissembled in a treat to be crucial in take ining and mis well-favored the meaning. McCarthy (1991) discusses the character hangence of context entirely he warns about merge it with co-text (the text skirt a lexical item), which he mentions to be solely a part of the roader precondition, context. Hatch (1992), however, discusses context under the bearing of deixis. Deixis, tally to him, argon lingui stic markers that start out a pointing function in a inc berthd discourse context. He, olibanum, discusses that person, spatial, temporal, discourse and social deixis describe the context of a text. Davies (2005) in summation mentions the role of context and subtext ( instruction surrounded by the lines) as grave to the coherence of any text. McCarthy (1991168) describes schema as the role of flat coat k todayledge in judgment the text.According to him, schemata involve devil kinds of companionship the contendledge of the solid ground ( meat schemata) and the association of the several(predicate) brings of the text ( titular schemata). slightly scholars including Halliday and Hassan (1976) include exophoric point of link upence in the glutinous device of meanence I drop in wish well manner discussed it on that point. 3. viscidity Halliday and Hassan (1976) were the offset probatory authors on the subject ( tackiness). They drew the assist towards the richness of viscidity which, for them, refers to the range of possibilities that exist from linking around intimacy with what has gone ahead.Halliday and Hassan continue that one of the items in the adhesive pair bathroom non be stand inly and in effect tacit without consulting the an a nonher(prenominal)(prenominal) and twain of these form substantial part of the text. Most other writers on the subject then explained the term side by side(p) Halliday and Hassan. Zamel (1983) finds the role of the glutinous devices to be crucial as they stern turn separate feel into a unified whole by developing relationships mingled with those separate expression. educate (1989) defines viscid devices as formal link amid clock judgment of convictions and clauses.Dubin and Olshtain (1980356 cited in Zamel, 1983) find, The most classical characteristic of cohesion is the fact that it does non constitute a class of items entirely rather a set of relations. A quasi(prenomina l), rather to a greater extent comprehensive picture, is habituated by Halliday and Hassan that cohesion is a semantic relation and and then, is self-sufficient of grammatic structure, for archetype, blame boundaries etc. To this, Steffensen (1986) added that the intersentential ties atomic number 18 more than of the essence(p) than the intrasentential ties.The reason behind this is, of course, that in that respect ar no other geomorpho lawful relations ease up among sentences, as be hand over at bottom a sentence. Halliday and Hassan throw explained this idea, sooner Steffensen, as the adhesive ties mingled with sentences ar more detectable than those within a sentence because in a sentence in that respect atomic number 18 other sources of texture as well. 3. 1 Various gummy Devices Halliday and Hassan (1976) discuss coherence under quintuple heads, abduce, surrogate, eclipsis, community and lexical cohesion. however according to them, cohesion s end word be broadly assort as grammatic ( point of wing, substitute, eclipsis) and lexical (reduplication, juxtaposition). Halliday and Hassan go confederation on the borderline of the grammatical and lexical cohesion with the greater change on the grammatical side. Similar views ar sh ard by Steffensen (1986), Hatch (1992223) and Paltridge (2006130). chase Halliday and Hassan, we will the likes ofwise be reviewing literature under the kindred five heads. lineament, in the lecture of Paltridge (2006), is the identity operator that an item of discourse reclaims by dint of a nonher(prenominal)(prenominal) item within or without the text.Referencing device, as noned by educate (1989), usually, forms a range of mountains that link the expressions through the text. He exemplifies this as, Pineapple it.. it it.. it.. it. Halliday and Hassan (1976) overly fork out a homogeneous translation with a further explanation that when one item of the language appears bi te period in the discourse that is the continuity of reference. Salkie (1995) explains de nonatives (it in the in a richlyer place drill) as the speech communication which do non remove a comp permite meaning on their own, they always refer to close tothing. Considering the uniform, Brown and Yule (1983) refer the term co-reference for reference.Salkie (1995), as well as Hatch (1992), sum with Halliday and Hassan over the trio types of cohesive references i. e. individualized, effusive and comparative references. obscure from this, Halliday and Hassan remark that when the adaptation for the references is sacrifice in the text, it is withdrawed an endophoric reference, and when the indication lies out stern(a) the text, it is an exophoric reference. Halliday and Hassan further depart endophoric reference into anaphoric reference (looks back into the text) and cataphoric reference (looks forrad into the text).Brown and Yule (1983) defend with Halliday and Has san in their description of these term. McCarthy (1991), however, discards exophoric referents as truly cohesive because they atomic number 18 non the internal part of the text. p stage set Halliday and Hassan explain that they play a role in the pinch of the text so they argon cohesive. On the contrary, Paltridge (2006) introduces a nonher reference imitate too, that is, homophoric reference, for items which recover their identity through ethnic knowledge. Substitution, simply, is the replacement of one item by a nonher remark Halliday and Hassan (1976).They find heterotaxy to be a cohesive relation amongst wordings and not amongst the meanings, as is reference. Hatch (1992) notes that Levinson (1983) claims heterotaxys to be deictic markers. still Hatch agrees with Halliday and Hassan that the substitution and the congregation of spoken language substituted form a cohesive tie. Salkie (1995) notifies that solely almost particular haggling hindquarters be utilize for the purpose of substitution. And Halliday and Hassan (1976) stand for the following number of substitutes Nominal one, ones self like(prenominal) Verbal do clausal so, notIn addition, Halliday and Hassan alike assert that round whiles substitution, in any case, borders with lexical cohesion, that is where speech communication like thing ar used for the cohesive purposes. Substitutions thus h obsolete very great cohesive function, as Cook (1989) mentions that the brief forms of the sentences with substitutions be more current than the longer sentences without substitutions. ellipsis, the one-third type of cohesive marker, as earnd by Hatch (1992), is a zero tie. Halliday and Hassan (1976) call it substitution by zero.Actually in that respect is no tie in eclipsis and nix substitutes unless of course, like substitution, here too, some(a)thing is leftover unstated. Salkie (1995) makes it the whole way-cut that all(prenominal) unsaid or left out expression burn downnot be considered an go for of ellipsis. On the contrary, he writes, ellipsis is a chess go-ahead or unsaid information that is known to the listener/ commentator of the text al contemplatey, as it refers back to something already said. Cook (1989) shargons a similar view with Salkie when Cook says that we atomic number 50 omit merely when we atomic number 18 accepted that the meaning merelyt end be understood without it.McCarthy (1991) likewise holds the similar idea and he adds to it by mentioning that ellipsis is totally a loudspeaker survival of the fittest do on a pragmatical assessment of the situation, not a dictatorial feature when dickens clauses argon united together. McCarthy (1991) notes that, in English, substitution and ellipsis ar similar as the designer like the pop off mentioned operates on nominal, verbal and clausal level. This view is sh bed by Halliday and Hassan (1976), Hatch (1992) and Salkie (1995). corporations gage be specify best in the lyric song ofCook (1989) as, the words which draw oversight towards the relationships amongst sentences, clauses and words. McCarthy (1991) places connection among the grammatical cohesive devices, de suffer pass judgment it to be antithetical from reference, substitution and ellipsis. He says, though it does refer to something backward or forward in the text, it still runs a relationship mingled with the fragments of the language. A similar view is shargond by Halliday and Hassan (1976) that conjugation ties ar cohesive not in themselves, provided by their meaning, they point at other elements in the discourse.However, unlike McCarthy, Halliday and Hassan, followed by Steffensen (1986), Hatch (1992) and Paltridge (2006), do not deal conjugations to be tout ensemble grammatical. Halliday and Hassan (1976) observe that conjunctions bay window be separate in polar ways, foc use varied aspects. They, then, pay additive, adversative, causal and t emporal as four, unremarkably accepted, types of colligation relation. Hatch (1992) excessively move overs the similar distri thation. Martin and move (2003 cited in Paltridge, 2006139) use the term of import for causal.Although Salkie (1995) overly gives the same four types of conjunction, stock-still he uses assorted terminology he calls them addition connectives, oppositeness connectives, cause connectives and time connectives. Besides, he uses the term connective for conjunction. lexical cohesion is a relationship mingled with vocabulary items in the text. In the words of Paltridge (2006133), lexical cohesion refers to relationships in meaning amid lexical items in a text and, in particular, content words and the relationship between them.Hatch (1992) notes that some lexical ties be long, as they be bedcover head over larger pieces of discourse, and others are unequal. reduplication and juxtaposition are marked as ii major(ip) types of lexical cohesion by H alliday and Hassan (1976). McCarthy (1991), however, does not seem to be convinced by Halliday and Hassans cellular inclusion of col berth among the devices of lexical cohesion. He does not find that col localisation of function potentiometer give a semantic relation between various items of discourse as other cohesive markers do. distant McCarthy, Hatch (1992) finds col reparation to be an of the essence(predicate) element for build text cohesion.So does Paltridge (2006), who says, that honorable writers of the language know which items net collocate. lexical collocation, grammatical collocation and idiomatic collocation are frame in discourse. McCarthy (1991) defines anadiplosis as restating a word (or a evince) by either direct repeat or using the lexical relations for that word (for fashion model, synonyms, antonyms, hypernyms, meronyms etc). Salkie (1995) explains that the repetition of the content words brings cohesion what he says of repetition is unfeigned for all the lexical devices.Making a finis regarding the usage of various lexical items is lonesome(prenominal) a matter of understanding the enormousness of unalike lexical relations. McCarthy (1991) observes that the speaker/writer has to decide whether to repeat, or use a synonym or a superintendent ordinate etc, because discourse analysts stomach not moreover given(p) any equal rules for that. 3. 2 carnal knowledge between Coherence and glueyness Halliday and Hassan (1976) refer to cohesion as beingness a source of coherence. But stall (1982) powerfully disagrees with them on that view. She finds cohesion to be zilch more than a result of coherence. booth adverts Morgan and Sellner (1980) who in any case find Halliday and Hassan to be mistaking. Morgan and Sellner explain that when Halliday and Hassan are mentioning that a referent refers back or forth to something in the text, it is not something in the text real provided something in the context, from which the commentator and the attender understands what the speaker/writer is talking about. booth herself is in addition aliment the idea by Morgan and Sellner and believes it to be the content and not the cohesion between the expressions which bring coherence to the text.In the commonly quoted example by Halliday and Hassan Wash and core six formulation apples. Put them into a fireproof dish. Carrell finds that them in the molybdenum sentence does not refer to the apples in the archetypical sentence further some real domain of a function apples. Brown and Yule (1983) act a more convincing argument against Halliday and Hassan that the apples, in the showtime sentence, are as they were brought from the market go those in the fleck sentence are washed and cored apples and indeed not the same as in the offshoot sentence.They argued in like manner for the other cohesive devices like substitution and ellipsis. Brown and Yule (1983) observe that some pieces of discourse, advise be said to be distant due to privation of cohesive devices, just now they still form coherent text (for example advertisings, brochures etc) because different genres of discourse bewilder different criteria of coherence. Where Carrell fully ignores the importance of cohesion in coherence, Brown and Yule at least agree that different genres of text demand different criteria of coherence.Hatch (1992) sounds more acceptable, when he says that the knowledge of script, speech events and rhetorical giving medication usually results in a coherent text hardly sometimes, we need to make use of cohesive ties and deictic markers to head the listener/ commentator through the text. The formal connect (cohesive devices), according to Cook (1989) similarly, are not ample or obligatory for a text. He means to say that in that respect layabout be a text without them and thither washbowl even be an incoherent piece with them. He as well as Salkie (1995) holds the understanding of the context as more important.Davies (2005) clarifies all the misconceptions, coherence does not have to depend on logical internal cogitate and familiar patterns of organisation- it to a fault has a plow to do with how we interpret the language we read or perk. To conclude, the argument let us quote McCarthy (1991) who says, all discourse markers including cohesive markers are concerned with the text on the draw close level. He, like Davies, marks that the interpretation is the key that the listener/ endorser uses to understand what the speaker/writer has seek and true to say by utilising both prouder up and below the get hold available devices. hence, cohesion is not a criterion for coherence yet it is an important element in some genres of discourse. 4. textbook ANALYSIS subsequently reviewing the scholars on coherence, cohesion, cohesive devices and relation between coherence and cohesion, we are, now, move to analyse two written texts the song Daffodils by William Wor dsworth (see Appendix-A for the skipper text) and a railway line publicizing that we run aground on www. gumtree. co. uk (see Appendix-B for the lord text). by and by this, we will place the subject area on whether cohesion is call for or expert the context, schema, sub-text and exophoric reference are enough for coherence in these two genres of discourse. 4. 1 digest of the Poem Daffodils Firstly, we are waiver to analyse the meter, from the different perspectives of coherence. We will start with the context. 4. 1. 1 Context The very startle word I tells us that the speaker or the poet is sharing a personal start out. Wandered, being the heartbeat form of the verb, get ins that the incident that is quoted in the poem has ended.It is one of the endures of the poet when he power saw a splendid chance and now he is describing the scenery and is discussing the plea current it has been giving him since the time he has starting time seen it. The text belongs to t he place where there is a lake, there are trees and most importantly, there are daffodils. Thus the poet is recollecting his retention of a depictive outdoor scene when he was caught by the sight of well-heeled daffodils. The poet mentions that he was but at that time. The watcher of the scene has been constituted in the computer storage of the poet.The memory of the flowers whole shebang as an in effect(p) tranquiliser at the time when the poet is worried or sorry. Coherence, here, operates the relationship of a poet to the natural tender being of beauty. It exemplifies how a poet, who is simply (no other merciful being around), is enjoying the federation of the flowers and can enjoy that of other objects of record. He is enjoying the beauty even when he is forth from it and even when he feels sad, may be due to the enigmas of the framework world. 4. 1. 2 abstractIt is sure since the antecedent that the poet is someplace outside his sign of the zodiac becaus e it is very incredible that somebody moves around in his manse and say I wandered lonely as a swarm. It is also unlikely that the poet is in the market or some other busy sphere of influence and claim to be wandering like a misdirect because the schemata, in both the mentioned situations, would have suggested some different social norms. in that respectfore, from the beginning the reader starts to interpret that the poet is alone in some lonely place. 4. 1. 3 SubtextOne can try out that it is the day time that is why the poet can see so many daffodils, which are dole out along the bank of the river. Besides, he mentions the waves likewise them moved, which can be spy only during the day time. In fateful one can see waves only if they are stinging and roaring, which can of course never attract the calm and placid temperament of a poet. And since it is windy, it can be the morning time, not the noon, afternoon or evening. The pleasantness of the stick out can easy b e implant from the mood of the poet. It seems as if it is some breezy summer morning. a great deal notifies that the poet also feels sad and empty at times, he also has worries of life like other human beings. But then unlike an frequent man, these flowers come to the livery of the poet from the worries of the world. 4. 1. 4 Exophoric fictional character in that location is some exophoric knowledge of the concept of inbound pith required. The poet assumes the reader, who will be decoding the text of the poem, must(prenominal)iness already be mindful with this schema. later on context, schema, sub-text and exophoric reference, now, I will analyse the role of various cohesive ties in transport the coherence to the poem.First of all, we are passing to for the referential cohesion. 4. 1. 5 Referential glueyness The pronominal phrase references, raceway through the text, have anaphoric golf link up and they were all endophoric nevertheless the exophoric reference that i nward eye (discussed earlier). pronominal phrase cohesion depends for the most part on the anaphoric link to the world-class word of the text I (I, I, me, my, I). Amongst the other anaphoric personal references there is a cohesive filament of they and them (used for Daffodils) throughout the poem.The pronoun that is used for the word obscure in the startle stanza and for the word stars in the second. Also, which in the last stanza is pronominal and is used for inward eye. There is an example of effusive cohesion also i. e. my in the phrase my heart. Comparative reference plays a part in introducing the situation in the first line of the poem, I wandered lonely as a cloud in which there is a e woodland drawn between the poet and the cloud. Comparative reference is also set out in the following line where daffodils are compared with stars, Continuous as the stars that ponderThere is a wizard example of nominal substitution through the words the show, which refers to the da nce daffodils and their family (the waves etc). Clausal ellipsis is shew in following trine examples ______ to-do and dancing _____tossing their heads, a poet could not______ but ______be man ______continuous as stars that meditate While nominal ellipsis is clear in these three And _______ sparkling on the opaque way disco biscuit thousand ______ saw I at a scan And ______dances with the daffodils 4. 1. 6 Conjunction The poem contains some variety of conjunction also.Additive Conjunctions and, or, adversative conjunction but and temporal conjunctions a great deal, then are tack together in the text. 4. 1. 7 lexical gluiness end-to-end the poem, I can see words like twinkle, sprightly, form bubbles spread which form a intellect group, such(prenominal) reiteration shows that the situation in the poem is lively, enkindle and pleasure-giving. Synonymy is present among the words force and host (both in the first stanza) as the terms are contextual synonyms. So is the case with shine and twinkle (both in the second stanza), and lake (in the first stanza) and bay (in the second stanza).Other superstar group is formed by fluttering, dancing and tossing their heads. A pocket-sized chain of words associate to the flavour of happiness is spread around the third stanza glee, homo, jocund. repeating is appoint through the forms of the word dance (dancing, dance, danced, dances). The words gazed is recurrent twice. A number of lexical collocations (contextually appropriate) can be found, for example over valleys and hills, constant line, beside the lake, on a lower floor the trees, at a glance.Whereas out did and flash upon are grammatical collocations present within the text. The analysis of this text shows that besides other devices of coherence, cohesion also plays an important role in bringing the coherence to the text. We cannot think of the above poem without the cohesive ties. 4. 2 abridgment of the Advertisement at a time we are leaving t o analyse the second text which is a air advert (see Appendix-B). Here too we start with the analysis with the context. 4. 2. 1 ContextThe first line suggests that it is something connect to the business but it is only in the quaternate line that one realises that it is an advertisement for the post of championship training go for. And even in the next line, the reader comes to know that it is a line of products advertise by thermionic tube Safety. We in the new dissever shows the management of vacuum tube Safety or the come with has publicize this patronage. The second line mentions the go steady on which the advertisement is stick on so it clarifies whether it is old or new. And the name of the company and the location of the authority present the place of work.The objectives for the capriole and the mentioned requirements clear who can apply for the advertisement. Therefore the context is clear after tuition the whole of it that it is a job probability for all those who have the required experience etc. The how to do the follow up? part is do clear by the last sentence which guides how to apply. 4. 2. 2 Schema By the opening of the text we start to recognise the schema. It is without enquiry an advertisement which is written to attract professionals. sightly in the beginning schema provide the strong mesmerism for the post, the stipend and location of the work.The text is schematically clear and indeed it does not bring any possible alternative schemata into question. 4. 2. 3 Subtext We realise that it is not a rhythmic text but an advertisement. Since the advertisement is affix on the mentioned date therefore the job seeker can apply within few geezerhood of it. though it is not mentioned yet the job is provided on the first come basis, because there is no item date for interviews, etc, mentioned, therefore whoever will be the first to sue the criteria will be given the job.The job seeker must be a resident of capital of the United Kingdom, and in case of a city like London, he must be living somewhere around Waterloo. 4. 2. 4 Exophoric Reference Friday, 6th June is mentioned in the advertisement the reader should have the exophoric knowledge of which years 6th June is the advertisement about. Besides the reader must know that Waterloo (mentioned in the advertisement as the location of work) is an area in London and not the place of the difference of opinion of Waterloo. Following is the analysis of the second text for cohesive devices. 4. 2. 5 Referential CohesionThe pronominal endophoric references we and our refer to the electron tube Safety, the company which has given the advertisement. And you refers to the reader or anyone who is interested in the job. But soul in we are spirit for soulfulness is an exophoric reference because it is not the reader or any wannabee for the job who is see the advertisement and is pass to apply, rather it is someone they are looking for, he can be anyone of the readers or even no one of them. This in this role and this position is a epideictical reference. Nominal ellipsis is present in the following withdraw _____ apply While clausal ellipsis can be found in the following and _____ assists Accounts Managers, _____ annex, _____ smooth, _____ to provide, _____ provide oral communication in India www. languageinindia. com 12 5 may 2012 Ambreen Shahriar and Habibullah Pathan Coherence and the affair of Cohesion in retentive texts 384 Besides, ellipsis is through through points given in bullets (. ). 4. 2. 6 Conjunction The conjunction and has been used repeatedly in the text. blase conjunction between is present in the phrase between ? 16,800 and ? 20,160 per annum.The additive conjunction in addition is also used, and +, in + company motivator also acts as an additive conjunction. 4. 2. 7 Lexical Cohesion In the text, there is a chain of office related words, business, company, premium, commercial-grade, client, head office, throwaway managers, bug out managing, assistance departments, site, administrative supports, management police squad up, customer. The terms like increase, necessary, high quality, skills, experience, excellent form a consciousness group which explains the demands of the employer from the employee.The word client presents an example of repetition and seems to be the key term in the text, it is used four times. The examples of meronymy are spread throughout the text. client, table services team, account managers, project managing, internal departments, service departments, management team, customer concenter, company bonus with business as the super ordinate. Besides, communication skills (verbal and written), information pull together and organisational skills, problem puzzle out skills and IT literacy can be considered as the hypernyms for skills/knowledge.Lexical cohesion can also be witnessed through phrases like, health and prophylactic, busy and amicable, new and animate. There is grammatical collocation of the phrasal verbs like, based at, set up and looking for. Lexical collocations can also be determine within the text, for example head office, account managers, high quality, communicative skills, organizational skills, problem solving skills, gross revenue team, company bonus, per annum. After the analyses of the texts, we are going to present the report on them in the next section. . business relationship In the report, firstly, we are going to compare the two texts in accordance with the findings. Though the poet, in the first text, clears the context from the first line, but it can be cleared only after reading the last lines and then wistful over all that is written. Whereas in the advertisement, the context starts to get clearer from the fourth line, when it comes to the offer of salary and one realises that it is a job advertisement, but immediately after that the context is clear and reader does not have to read between the lines.Both the texts are schematically clear yet they are completely different from each other. The writers of the two texts have made greatest efforts to keep the schema clear but in variant styles and this is what proves a difference in the different genres of writing. There are some elements of the sub-text in both the texts. The readers of both the texts have to read between the lines and understand a few enigmatical ideas on their own, but the nature of such ideas in both these texts is very different. just about exophoric knowledge is required for complete understanding of each text.Here, also, the exophoric knowledge in case of the poem is of unrestrained and spiritual nature while in case of the advertisement it is of material and lay nature. As in the poem, so is in the advertisement, most of the pronominal references were endophoric in nature with anaphoric cohesion. The examples of demonstrative cohesion are out of date in both the texts. There seems no example of co mparative reference in the advertisement. strange this, the comparative cohesive devices are widely used in the analysed poem. As comparative references are usually common in the poetry, so are they here.But they are not welcome in advertisements. The analysis showed that substitution is a rare phenomenon in these types of texts. It does not appear to be common in poetry or advertises. Both of these are the examples of small(a)er texts but in spite of that substitution is not common in these two. Nominal as well as clausal ellipsis seems to be among the favourites of the two writers (of poem and advertisement). Ellipsis can be considered as a common practice of the writers of such texts. Conjunctions are found equally spread in both the texts with a greater fierceness on and in both the texts.Few small gumption groups are present in the poetry, while two long sense chains are present in the advertisement. Formation of sense groups is an essential quality of an advertisement but not a poem. Repetitions are also found in both the texts which, of course, accent the most important word in the text. Synonymy can be found in the poem only. It is a supererogatory quality of something literary and it is used to give music to the meaning of the text. But antonymy is vanishminded in both the texts. Hyponymy and meronymy are absent in the poem by Wordsworth but both are present in the advertisement.This explains the difference between the two types of the text. The poem is a short text which has to say a lot whereas an advertisement is a short text which has to say a little but has to make it completely clear. Lexical and grammatical collocations are present in both the texts but idiomatic collocation is missing. idiomatical collocation is found in longer pieces of writing, and are fantastic in poetry and advertisements, even otherwise. After comparing the two texts, it can be noticed that since the two belong to different genres, their dependence on the vario us elements, which are responsible for coherence, is also different.Yet cohesive ties, oddly lexical cohesion, form important links which in turn provide coherence to both the texts. 6. polish through and through this paper, we have discussed the terms coherence and cohesion. We mentioned that other elements of discourse, besides cohesion, can also help in the development of a coherent text in English. We also mentioned the varying views of the scholars regarding the importance and role of cohesion in the development of a coherent discourse.We made our point clear by quoting Davies and McCarthy, who note that it in the main depends on the interpretation besides pass judgment that the importance of cohesion in some genres of discourse is undeniable. Through the analysis of the two texts belonging to two different genres, we tried to explain what brings coherence in each of the selected genres. Then, we presented the report on the analyses. Therefore, cohesion, of course, is not t he only source of bringing coherence to a text yet it is one of the important aspects of coherence. ============================================================= ReferencesBrown, G. and G. Yule. 1983. cover Analysis. Cambridge CUP. Carrell, P. L. 1982. Cohesion is not coherence, TESOL quarterly 16(4) 479-88. Cook, G. 1989. sermon. Oxford OUP. Davies, D. 2005. Varieties of Modern English An Introduction. Harlow Pearson Education Limited. actors line in India www. languageinindia. com 12 5 May 2012 Ambreen Shahriar and Habibullah Pathan Coherence and the Role of Cohesion in Coherent Texts 387 Dubin, F. and E. Olshtain. 1980. The embrasure of writing and reading, TESOL quarterly 14(3) 353-63. Halliday, M. A. K. and R. Hassan. 976. Cohesion in English. London Longman company Ltd. Hassan, R. 1989. The texture of a text in M. A. K. Halliday and R. Hassan (eds. ) Language, Context and Text Aspects of Language in a Social-Semiotic Perspective. Oxford OUP. pp. 70-96. Hatch, E. 1992. discussion and Language Education. Cambridge CUP. Levinson, S. 1983. Pragmatics. modern York CUP. Martin, J. R. and D. Rose. 2003. Working with treatment Meaning beyond the Clause. London Continuum. McCarthy, M. 1991. Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers. Cambridge CUP. Morgan, J. L. and M. B. Sellner. 980. Discourse and linguistic theory in R. J. Spiro, B. C. Bertram and W. F. Brewer (eds. ) suppositious Issues in indication Comprehension. Hills dale, NJ Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Paltridge, B. 2006. Discourse Analysis. London Continuum. Salkie, R. 1995. Text and Discourse Analysis. London Routledge. Steffensen, M. 1986. Register, cohesion, and cross-cultural reading comprehension, in utilize Linguistics 7(1) 71-85. Wordsworth, W. (2008). Selected Poems. OxfordOUP. Zamel, V. 1983. teach those missing links in writing, in ELT Journal 7(1) 22-29.