Although Halliday and Hasan claim that cohesion is a semantic relation, this paper suggests that cohesion might be better understood as a general perceptual phenomenon. Specifically, repetitions of both structural and semantic textual elements are analogous to repetitions of visual patterns in that both provide a uniform background against which distinctions are foregrounded and therefore more easily perceived. This article supplements Halliday and Hasan's categories of cohesive devices by discussing three types of structural cohesion based on an analysis of technical texts. First, cohesion produced through thematic progression (i.e., the repetition of topics and comments) is demonstrated; second, cohesion produced through parallelism (i.e., the repetition of syntactic structure) is illustrated; and finally cohesion produced with graphic devices (i.e., the repetition of typography, enumerators, and chart elements) is discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
HallidayM. A. K. and HasanR., Cohesion in English, Longman Group, London, 1976.
2.
JohnsA. M.Cohesion in Written Business Discourse: Some Contrasts, The ESP Journal, 1:1, pp. 35–44, 1980.
3.
WitteS. P. and FaigleyL.Coherence, Cohesion, and Writing Quality, College Composition and Communication, 32:2, pp. 189–204, 1981.
4.
GoodinG. and PerkinsK.Discourse Analysis and the Art of Coherence, College Composition and Communication, 44:1, pp. 57–63, 1982.
5.
FahnestockJ.Semantic and Lexical Coherence, College Composition and Communication, 34:4, pp. 400–416, 1983.
6.
MarkelsR. B.Cohesion Paradigms in Paragraphs, College English, 45:5, pp. 450–464, 1983.
7.
StotskyS.Types of Lexical Cohesion in Expository Writing: Implications for Developing the Vocabulary of Academic Discourse, College Composition and Communication, 34:4, pp. 430–446, 1983.
8.
TierneyR. J. and MosenthalJ. H.Cohesion and Textual Coherence, Research in the Teaching of English, 17:3, pp. 215–229, 1983.
9.
FrawleyW. J. and SmithR. N., Patterns of Textual Cohesion in Genre-specific Discourse, in Humans and Machines, WilliamsS. (ed.) Delaware Symposium 4; October, 1982, Ablex Publishing, Norwood, New Jersey, pp. 145–153, 1985.
10.
McCulleyG. A.Writing Quality, Coherence, and Cohesion, Research in the Teaching of English, 19:3, pp. 269–282, 1985.
11.
HartnettC. G., Static and Dynamic Cohesion: Signals of Thinking in Writing, in Functional Approaches to Writing: Research Perspectives, CoutureB. (ed.), Frances Pinter, London, pp. 142–153, 1986.
12.
MeyerP. G., Some Observations on the Signalling of Structure in Technical Discourse, in Grammar in the Construction of Texts, MonaghanJ. (ed.), Frances Pinter, London, pp. 8–14, 1987.
13.
JournetD. and KlingJ. L., Readings for Technical Writers, Scott, Foresman & Co., Glenview, Illinois, 1984.
14.
ManningA. D.Literary vs. Technical Writing: Substitutes vs. Standards for Reality, Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 18:3, pp. 241–262, 1988.
15.
BellertI.On a Condition of the Coherence of Texts, Semiotica, 2:4, pp. 335–363, 1970.
16.
LybbertE. K. and CummingsD. W.On Repetition and Coherence, College Composition and Communication, 20:1, pp. 35–38, 1969.
17.
DanesF. (ed.), Papers on Functional Sentence Perspective, Janua Linguarum, Series Minor, No. 147, Mouton, The Hague, 1974.
18.
ClarkH. H. and HavilandS. E., Comprehension and the Given-new Contract, in Discourse Production and Comprehension, FreedleR. O. (ed.), Ablex Publishing, Norwood, New Jersey, pp. 1–40, 1977.
19.
WallerR. H., Graphic Aspects of Complex Text: Typography as Macropunctuation, in Processing of Visible Language, v. 2, KolersP. A.WrolstadM. E. and BoumaH. (eds.), Plenum Press, New York, pp. 241–253, 1980.
20.
ReichS. and CherryC., A Direct Access to Meaning: A Study of the Stroop Effect in Sentences, in Processing of Visible Language, v. 1, KolersP. A.WrolstadM. E., and BoumaH. (eds.), Plenum Press, New York, pp. 371–377, 1979.
21.
FosterJ. J., The Use of Visual Cues in Text, in Processing of Visible Language, v. 1, KolersP. A.WrolstadM. E., and BoumaH. (eds.), Plenum Press, New York, pp. 189–203, 1979.
22.
ManningA. D.The Semantics of Technical Graphics, Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 19:1, pp. 31–51, 1989.
23.
RileyK.ParkerF.ManningA. D., and CampbellK. S., Revising Technical Writing: Principles and Applications, Parlay Enterprises, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 1991.
24.
CampbellK. S.RileyK., and ParkerF.You = Perspective: Insights from Speech Act Theory, Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 20:2, pp. 189–199, 1990.
25.
RileyK.ParkerF.ManningA., and CampbellK. S., Revising Technical Writing: Principles and Applications, Parlay Enterprises, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 1991.
26.
CampbellK. S.Explanations in Negative Messages: More Insights from Speech Art Theory, Journal of Business Communication, 27:4, pp. 357–375, 1990.
