VIEENAM NÀTIONAL UNIVERSLTY, HANOL UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES & INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POST - GRADUATE STUDIES feat ofa aff ee ede eae ae eae eae CAO THI HUYEN NGA AN ANALYSIS OF COHESIVE DEVICES LN THE ESP TEXTBOOK ON ACCOUNTING AT UNIVERSITY OF LABOR AND SOCIAL AFFAIRS PHIÂX TÍCH CÁC PHƯƠNG TIỆN LIÊN KET TRONG GIAO TRINII TIẾNG ANH CHUYÊN NGÀNH KẾ TOÁN TẠI TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC LAO DONG XA HOT MLA. Minor Thesis Field: English Linguistics Code: 6022 15 MA course: 18 Hanoi — 2012 VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOL UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES & INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POST - GRADUATE STUDLES ARERERSM AEA RH ERE CAO TITTITUYEN NGA AN ANALYSIS OF COHESIVE DEVICES IN THE ESP TEXTBOOK ON ACCOUNTING AT UNIVERSITY OF LABOR AND SOCIAL AFFAIRS PIIAN TICII CAC PITUONG TIEN LIEN KET TRONG GIAO TRÌNH TIENG ANH CHUYEN NGANH KE TOAN TAI TRUONG ĐẠI HỌC LAO DONG XA HOI M. Minor Thesis Field: English Linguistics Code: 60 22 15 MA course: 18 Supervisor: M.A Nguyen Quynh Trang Hanoi — 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS CANTICAD! STATEMEN ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ABSTRACT ABBREVIATIONS. we LIST OF TABLE SAND CHARTS.
Aims of the study. Scope of the sfudy. Significance of the study 5. Methods of the stuily wow 6.
Design of the study. Chapter 1: Theorctical background. Discourse and LexL 1. Spoken and written discourse, 1.
Contextin discourse analysis,. Context of enltre 1. Context of situation, 1. Register and genre in discourse analysis.
The concept of cohesion. Cohesion and coherence xà 1. Main types of cohesion 1. Accounting students at ULSA in which texts fiom unit 17 to unit 25 are taken and used as written diseotrse 4.
Methods of the study Firstly, the methods of description, analysis and statistics in linguistics are used in this study, The study will base on reviewing materials used in the ESP course for Accounting al LSA in order lo collect and classify cohesive devices so as to point oul the frequency of occwrence of cohesive devices used in the reading texts. Secondly, both qualitative and quantitative approaches are used to find out leachors” altitude tawerds teaching cohosion and stndow’s perception of understanding cohesive devices to do reading exercises. Data from the interview and questionnaire will be analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively to achieve the objectives of the study. Thirdly, the findings from data analysis arc inductively proseniad, thal is, la move from less general lo mors general stalernents.
Design of the study ‘The thesis consists of three parts Part A: Introduction “This part introduces the rationale, aims, scope, significance and methods of the study Part B: Development Chapter 1 deals wath theoretical background of the research with three main section: discourse with spoken and written discourse, cohesion with coherence. cohesive devic $ in terms of grammar and loxis. Chapter 2 gives out the methodology used in the study. Chapter 3 supplies the findings and discussion of analyzing cohesive devices used in writlen discourse af lextbook on Accounling: grarmmar cohesion and lexical cohesion ta find each subtype of cohesion’s frequency of use; investigating teacher’s attitudes towards teaching cohesion and student's perception of understanding cohesive devices to do reading exercises Part C: Conclusions This part consists of a summary of the findings, conclusion remarks, implications and suggostions for further study ABSTRACT This suidy is mainly aimed at analysing cohesive devices in the reading texts on Accounting at ULSA, finding out teachers’ attitudes towards cohesion teaching.
Four reading texts were chosen as core materials for the analysis of the cohesive devices. Hive teachers from English Department were asked ta take part itt the interview in order ta give ideas about thew aititudes towards teaching cohesion. The analysis reveals that lexical cohesive devices are used mare often in the textbooks than grammatical cohesive devices. The data from interview indicates that the teachers often teach cohesion in class but they can not cover all types of cohesion.
Based on the findings, significant suggestions were provided for future applications in learning and teaching cohesion. It is hoped that the results of this research would be of some use for farther stay in the field. PART 2: DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW Cohesion and coherence ‘The distinction between cohesion and coherence has not always been. clarified partly because both terms come from the same verb cohere which means sticking together.
In fael, echesion is the network of different kinds of formut relations thal provide tinks between or among various parts of a text, and is expressed partly through the grammar and partly through the vocabulary. Coherence, on the other hand, is understood as the quality of being meaningful and unified, As for Nunan (1993), coherence is “the fecling that sequences of sentences or utterances seem to hang together”. Coherence refers to the type of semantic and rhelorical relationship that underlines texts, Coherance refers to the type of semantic of rhetorical relationships that under texts. Richards, Plall, Webslor (1985) stated that: “Cohercrice refers to the rhetorical devices, to ways of writing and speaking that bring about order and unity and emphasis.
Coherence can obtain on the basis of relevance, the co-operative principle, the common shared background knowledge betwecn participants in a spccch event, and how discourse is structured, as well”, Moreover, they also add that coherance is the relationships which link the meanings of utterances in discourse or of the sentences in a text. In addition, Nguyen Toa (2000) stales that coherence is built upon semantic ties in discourse. Therefore, if cohesion refers to the linguistic elements that make a discourse semantically echerent, then coherence involves with what makes a text semantically meaningful. In short, coherence is ainbodicd by a sysiom of cohesive devices and cohesion is mainly uscd to cnsurc coherence.
Main types of cohesion Halliday and Hasan recognize five types of cohesive devices in English and in the Íexicogrammalical system of the Janguage. They are referers, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction, and lexical cohesion, Reference, substitution, and ellipsis are grammatical, lexical cohesion is lexical; conjunction stands on the border line between the two categories. In other words, it is mainly grammatical but sometimes involves lexical selection. “ Grammatical cohcsion: Gramunatical cohesion may be defined as The surtace marking the semantics links between clauses and sentences in written discourse, and between.
ullcran s and tunes in specch. These links can be grouped in four types: reference, ellipsis, substitution and conjunction, - Reference: In Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics “ (1998) vefersnce invits wider sense would be the Telalionship belween a word or phrase and an entity in the extemal world” and “reference in its narrower sense is the relationship between a word or phrase and a specific object - Substitution: According lo Haltiday and Hasan (1976), substilution is “a relation on the fexico-grammatical level, the level of grammar and vocabulary, ar linguistic form” - Ellipsis: Ellipsis, as for Halliday and Hasan (1976) és an omission of certain elements from a senlenve or a clause and ean orily be recovered by toferring io an clsrent in the proceeding tex! - Conjunction: ‘As grammatical items, Cook (1989) defined: “Conjunctions are words or phrases which explicitly draw attention to the type of relationship between one sentence and clause and another” Lexical cohesion: Lexical cohesion occurs when two words in a discourse are semantically relaled in same way. Tlalliday and Masan (1976) classify lexical cohesion inta two main categories: reiteration and collocation - Reiteration: According to Halliday and Hasan (1976) is “the repetition of a lexical item, or the occurrence of a synonym of some kind, in the context of reference; that is, where the Iwo occurrences have the same referent.” - Collocation: Halliday and Hasan (1976) stated that collocation as an important part of creating cohesion in connected text CIIAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY This chapter presents the definition as well as the conducting steps of lextbook analysis and the interview. Fustly, description, analysis and statistics are methods used in the textbook analysis to teach its main aims.
‘The textbook analysis is based on statistical tool, then tablo and charl damonsizations ara used lo analyze the statistical data, in this way, the author can describe grammatical and lexical cohesion trom the text corpora. Secondly, a persona, semi-structured interview which consisted of six specific questions was used. CHAPTER 3: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION Accounting students at ULSA in which texts fiom unit 17 to unit 25 are taken and used as written diseotrse 4. Methods of the study Firstly, the methods of description, analysis and statistics in linguistics are used in this study, The study will base on reviewing materials used in the ESP course for Accounting al LSA in order lo collect and classify cohesive devices so as to point oul the frequency of occwrence of cohesive devices used in the reading texts.
Secondly, both qualitative and quantitative approaches are used to find out leachors” altitude tawerds teaching cohosion and stndow’s perception of understanding cohesive devices to do reading exercises. Data from the interview and questionnaire will be analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively to achieve the objectives of the study. Thirdly, the findings from data analysis arc inductively proseniad, thal is, la move from less general lo mors general stalernents. Design of the study ‘The thesis consists of three parts Part A: Introduction “This part introduces the rationale, aims, scope, significance and methods of the study Part B: Development Chapter 1 deals wath theoretical background of the research with three main section: discourse with spoken and written discourse, cohesion with coherence.
cohesive devic $ in terms of grammar and loxis. Chapter 2 gives out the methodology used in the study. Chapter 3 supplies the findings and discussion of analyzing cohesive devices used in writlen discourse af lextbook on Accounling: grarmmar cohesion and lexical cohesion ta find each subtype of cohesion’s frequency of use; investigating teacher’s attitudes towards teaching cohesion and student's perception of understanding cohesive devices to do reading exercises Part C: Conclusions This part consists of a summary of the findings, conclusion remarks, implications and suggostions for further study PART 2: DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW Cohesion and coherence ‘The distinction between cohesion and coherence has not always been. clarified partly because both terms come from the same verb cohere which means sticking together.
In fael, echesion is the network of different kinds of formut relations thal provide tinks between or among various parts of a text, and is expressed partly through the grammar and partly through the vocabulary. Coherence, on the other hand, is understood as the quality of being meaningful and unified, As for Nunan (1993), coherence is “the fecling that sequences of sentences or utterances seem to hang together”. Coherence refers to the type of semantic and rhelorical relationship that underlines texts, Coherance refers to the type of semantic of rhetorical relationships that under texts. Richards, Plall, Webslor (1985) stated that: “Cohercrice refers to the rhetorical devices, to ways of writing and speaking that bring about order and unity and emphasis.
Coherence can obtain on the basis of relevance, the co-operative principle, the common shared background knowledge betwecn participants in a spccch event, and how discourse is structured, as well”, Moreover, they also add that coherance is the relationships which link the meanings of utterances in discourse or of the sentences in a text. In addition, Nguyen Toa (2000) stales that coherence is built upon semantic ties in discourse. Therefore, if cohesion refers to the linguistic elements that make a discourse semantically echerent, then coherence involves with what makes a text semantically meaningful. In short, coherence is ainbodicd by a sysiom of cohesive devices and cohesion is mainly uscd to cnsurc coherence.
Main types of cohesion Halliday and Hasan recognize five types of cohesive devices in English and in the Íexicogrammalical system of the Janguage. They are referers, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction, and lexical cohesion, Reference, substitution, and ellipsis are grammatical, lexical cohesion is lexical; conjunction stands on the border line between the two categories. In other words, it is mainly grammatical but sometimes involves lexical selection. ào Hàn heo man 1.
