An analysis of lexical cohesive devices in english letters of enquiry

Introduction 1. Rationale In the late 1970s and 1980s, Discourse Analysis was greatly influenced by a number of studies. Halliday emphasized the social functions of language. In Britain, Sinclair and Coulhard developed a model for the description of Teacher-Pupil talk; other similar works have dealt with Doctor-Patient interaction, interviews, debates and so on. Meanwhile, in America, the work of Goffman, Sack and Jefferson is important in the study of conversation, turn-taking, and other aspects of spoken interactions. Thus, Discourse Analysis is a rapidly expanding field, providing insights into various aspects of language in use and therefore of great importance to language teaching. Traditionally, language teaching has dealt with pronunciation, grammar and vocabulary; but now it is Discourse Analysis that raises our awareness of how to put this knowledge into action to gain successful communication. Business letters in general and letters of enquiry in particular have long been considered as key documents in the business context due to the fact that Vietnam nowadays is step by step adhering to the development in the world. Consequently, we have joined a lot of international organizations and corporations; we also have signed international documents particularly in the business transactions with other countries. Among those documents and texts, business correspondence plays a key role. In fact, writing business correspondence is becoming a more and more important task in many corporations and companies. The letter of enquiry is indeed significant among various kinds of business letters thanks to its frequency in use. So many factors have to be taken into consideration in the process of writing a letter of enquiry; namely the format, the style, the language, so on and so forth. Additionally, the knowledge of cohesion and coherence is greatly essential in discourse construction and comprehension for communication. Cohesion and coherence are actually regarded as the important aspects of language usage. With all the reasons above, the author would like to choose “An Analysis of Lexical Cohesive Devices in English Letters of Enquiry” as the topic of this study 2. Aims of the study The main aims of the thesis are as follows: To identify lexical cohesive devices used in English Letters of Enquiry. To realize the role and contribution of lexical cohesive devices to successful letters of enquiry. 3. The research questions of the study In order to achieve the aims stated, the study is meant to find out the answer to 2 following research questions: 1. What are the lexical cohesive devices used in English Letters of Enquiry? 2. How do lexical cohesive devices contribute to the success of a letter of enquiry? 4. Assumptions of the study In conducting the research, I have assumed that there are some differences in the use of lexical cohesive devices in English enquiry letters and in other kinds of text and each lexical cohesive device plays a different role in terms of importance level in the success of a letter of enquiry. I drew heavily, among many publications, on Brown and Yule’s (1983) Discourse Analysis and on the classic study of Cohesion in English by Halliday and Hasan (1976). 5. Significance of the study Theoretical significance: This study contributes to verifying the correctness and significance related to linguistic theories in discourse analysis by working on a certain kind of discourse (Letters of Enquiry). Practical significance: This thesis helps gaining an insight into the use of lexical cohesive devices in the Letters of Enquiry. 6. Scope of the study This study focuses on the lexical cohesive devices in only one kind of business correspondence, namely the Letter of Enquiry in English. The paper explores the process in which coherence is achieved in the formal written genre of letters of enquiry. As explicitness, conciseness and unambiguity are fundamental qualities in such a discourse, the main emphasis is put on lexical cohesive devices, such as repetition or careful use of synonymy. Data analyzed is taken from 15 English letters of enquiry chosen randomly. 7. Methodology 7.1. The data of the study The data is taken from 15 English Letters of Enquiry chosen randomly from some foreign corporations and organizations. 7.2. Methods of the study To attain the aims of the study, the research shall conduct the following activities: Firstly, set up a framework of lexical cohesive devices in order to find out the defining characteristics of Letters of Enquiry as a genre. Secondly, three previous studies on lexical cohesive devices used in other types of genre are reviewed to latter compare with the use of lexical cohesive devices in letters of enquiry. Thirdly, various letters of enquiry are collected and analyzed in terms of lexical cohesive devices: reiteration and collocations. All the 15 letters are analyzed to identify the lexical cohesive devices used, their frequencies of occurrence are counted, and it is through this process that the significance level of each device to the letters is made clear. Finally, necessary comments and conclusions are made according to the data analyzed. The approach to the study is both inductive and deductive, based on a collection of sample letters of enquiry. 8. Design of the study Within the scope mentioned above, the study consists of three main parts: introduction, development, and conclusion Part B (Development) is divided into four chapters. In the first chapter, Literature Review, theoretical knowledge of cohesive devices and Letters of Enquiry is presented. The second chapter deals with the literature review of some previous studies on the similar issue. The third chapter, also the main one of the study, focuses on the analysis of the lexical cohesive devices employed in the English letters of enquiry. In the last chapter, we attempt to present some findings and implications. Chapter I. Theoretical Background 1.1. Discourse and Discourse Analysis 1.1.1. Discourse Analysis Discourse analysis is concerned with the study of the relationship between language and the context in which it is used. This has been developed from the works of different disciplines in the 1960s and early 1970s, including linguistics, semiotics, psychology, anthropology, and sociology. Discourse analysts study language in use: written texts and spoken data of all kinds under the approach different from those old grammarians. There have been numerous interpretations to what is meant by Discourse Analysis. British discourse analysis was mainly influenced by M.A.K. Halliday’s functional approach to language. Halliday’s framework emphasized the social function of language and the thematic and informational structure of speech and writing. De Beaugrande (1980), Halliday and Hasan (1976) as well as Prague School of linguists have made their significant contribution to this branch of linguistics in pointing out the link between grammar and discourse. Yule (1996: 139) states: “In the study of language, some of the most interesting questions arise in connection with the way language is ‘used’, rather than what its components are. (…) We were, in effect, asking how it is that language-users interpret what other language-users intend to convey. When we carry this investigation further and ask how it is that we, as language-users, make sense of what we read in texts, understand what speakers mean despite what they say, recognize connected as opposed to jumbled or incoherent discourse, and successfully take part in that complex activity called conversation, we are undertaking what is known as discourse analysis.” As can be noticed clearly, the term “discourse analysis” is very ambiguous. For the sake of research, we would like to take the definition from Hoa’s (2000) An Introducition to Discourse Analysis as the base of our study: Discourse analysis is considered “as a study of how and for what purposes language is used in a certain context of situation and the linguistic means to carry out these purposes” 1.1.2. Discourse and Text The Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics (1998) defines discourse as follows: “Discourse is a general term for example of language use, i.e. language has been produced as the result of an act of communication.” Sharing the same concern, many other linguists have so far given definitions of discourse. Widdowson (1979) states: “Discourse is a use of sentences to perform acts of communication which cohere into larger communicative units, ultimately establishing a rhetorical pattern which characterizes the pieces of language as a whole as a kind of communication.” Whereas Crystal (1992: 25) says: “Discourse is a continuous stretch of language larger than a sentence, often constituting a coherent unit such as a sermon, argument, joke or a narrative.” Quite differently from the others, Halliday and Hasan (1976) give a simple definition: “We can define text (discourse) in the simplest way perhaps by saying that it is language that is functional.” Linguists have paid much attention to the distinction between a discourse and a text since confusion of these two terms may result in the failures of discourse analysis. Even though that the distinction is not always clear and the two terms are used interchangeably by some linguists. As in the above-mentioned definition of discourse by Halliday and Hasan, “text” is employed to refer to “discourse”; they see “text” as a “semantic unit” characterized by cohesion. The two authors state: “A text is a passage of discourse which coherent in these two regards: it is coherent with respect to the context of situation, and therefore consistent in register; and it is coherent with respect to itself, and therefore cohesive” (1976: 23). For some other linguists, “text” is used for writing and “discourse” for speech. The third group of linguists like Brown & Yule, Nunan, Widdowson, and Cook see discourse as a process and text as a product. Brown & Yule argue that text is the representation of discourse and the verbal record of a communicative act. In this study, we would like to take Widdowson’s viewpoint of the difference and the interrelationship between the two as the base: “Discourse is a communicative process by means of interaction. Its situational outcome is a change in state of affairs: information is conveyed, intentions made clear, its linguistic product is Text.” (1984: 100) 1.1.3. Discourse Context 1.1.3.1. Context David Nunan (1993: 7) defines: “Context refers to the situation giving use to the discourse, and within which the discourse is embedded.” According to him, context consists of two types: linguistic and non-linguistic. Linguistic context is in fact referred to as co-text. It surrounds or accompanies the piece of discourse under analysis. Non-linguistic context was first noticed by the anthropologist Malinowski who created the terms “context of situation” and “context of culture”. His idea was later taken up by Firth (1957) who placed great emphasis on the “social context”. Firth saw the context of situation as crucial determinants of utterance meaning. However, like Malinowski, Firth did not provide a theoretical account of the effect of context on utterance meaning. Lately, Halliday and Hasan (1976) focus on context of situation when they report the study of Malinowski (1923). The three headings field, mode, and tenor which had been proposed for these are considered highly general concepts for describing how the context of situation determines the kinds of meaning that are expressed. Yet, according to Halliday and Hasan, the linguistic features, which are typically associated with a configuration of situational features – with particular values of the field, mode, and tenor - constitute a register. 1.1.3.2. Register Generally speaking, there are different ways to define register. Halliday and Hasan (1976: 23) defines: “The register is the set of meanings, the configuration of semantic patterns, that are typically drawn upon under the specified conditions, along with the words and structures that are used in the realization of these meanings.” They acknowledge that the concept of cohesion needs to be supplemented by that of register since the two together effectively define a text. Register is the linguistic feature of the text that reflects the social context in which it is produced. It reflects the degree of formality of the particular text by using a characteristic set of lexical and grammatical features that are compatible with the particular register. A lower register is represented by the use of more colloquial and everyday-type vocabulary and fewer complex grammatical forms while a higher register requires the use of lexical items that are professional or academic in nature along with denser grammatical structure, resulting in a more literate spoken or written text. Register is theorized by Halliday and Hasan (1985) in terms of the contextual variables of field, mode, and tenor. Field: In the view of Halliday and Hasan (1976: 22), the field of discourse is “the total event, in which the text is functioning, together with the purposive activity of speaker or writer.” Therefore, they argue that field includes the subject-matter as one element in it. Field is also considered to refer to what is happening, to the nature of the social action that is taking place. Hatim and Mason share the same idea in that field is different from subject matter because one field maybe characterized by a variety of subject matters. Mode: The mode of discourse refers to the medium of the language activity including channel. Channel is an important aspect of mode. Hatim and Mason (1990) show their view of mode as follows: “The mode of discourse refers to what part the language is playing, what is that the participants are expecting the language to do for them in that situation, the symbolic organization of the text, the status that it has, and its function in the context, including the channel (is it spoken or written or some combination of the two?) and also rhetorical mode, what is being achieved by the text in terms of such categories as persuasive, expository, didactic, and the like.” Tenor: As for Halliday and Hasan, “the tenor refers to the type of role interaction, the set of relevant social relations, permanent and temporary, among the participants involved.” It is the tenor that relays the relationship between the addresser and the addressee. In more detailed, the tenor of discourse is considered to refer to who is taking part, their statuses and roles. This also points out what kinds of role relationship got among the participants. In summary, field, mode, and tenor of discourse are in a dialectical relationship. Hatim and Mason (1990: 51) affirm this: “These three variables are independent: a given level of formality (tenor) influences and is influenced by a particular level of technicality (field) in an appropriate channel of communication (mode).” 1.1.3.3. Genre Discourse is frequently studied from the perspective of register (level of formality) or genre (communicative purpose, audience, and conventionalized style and format). A genre is a culturally and linguistically distinct form of discourse such as narrative, exposition, procedural discourse, etc. In recent years, genre has been a controversial topic for a large number of linguists who form the two main trends. For the systematic linguists, texts have their specific linguistic form to correspond to their social purposes. Text is the realization of social practices and this relationship is mutually predictive. This group of scholars put social context into two communication planes, one of which is genre or context of culture, the other is register of context of situation. The other linguists see the relationship between context and language in quite opposite direction. They classify genre as smaller parts of registers. For instance, Couture (1986, quoted in Swales, 1990:41) states: “Unlike register, genre can only be realized in completed texts or texts that can be projected as complete, for a genre does more than specify kinds of code extant in a group of related texts; it specifies conditions for beginning, continuing, and ending a text.” According to Swales (1990) and Bhatia (1993:13), “a genre is a recognizable communicative event characterized by a set of communicative purpose(s) identified and mutually understood by the members of the professional and academic community in which it regularly occurs.” In short, the study follows the latter point of view in which genre is understood as a sub-type of register as one register may include different genres. For example, a story can be a myth, a legend, or a tale. The relationship among these elements is that language is realized through registers, and registers are in turn realized through genres and texts. 1.1.4. Spoken and Written Discourse Spoken and written discourses represent different modes for expressing linguistic meaning. Despite some similarities, these two forms of discourse are basically different from each other. The major difference between them is taken from the fact that spoken discourse is changeable and written is permanent. Spoken discourse is often less planned and orderly, more open to intervention by the receiver while the written one is well structured and the possibilities for subordinate participants are very limited. Brown and Yule (1983) suggest that spoken and written discourse serve various functions: the first is used for the establishment and maintenance of human relationship (interactional use); and the second for the working out of and transference of information (transactional use). This study focuses on cohesion in written discourse of letters of enquiries, regarded as the product of a communicative process. Therefore, disciplines of discourse analysis must be followed carefully. 1.2. Cohesion 1.2.1. The Concept of Cohesion The concept of cohesion is closely connected with text. It is defined as the grammatical and lexical relationship between different elements of a text. According to Yule (1996), a text is usually considered to have a certain structure which depends on factors quite different from those required in the structure of a single sentence. Some among those factors are described in terms of cohesion, or the ties and connections which exist within a text. Halliday and Hasan (1976:4) also define cohesion in a similar way: “The concept of cohesion is a semantic one; it refers to relations of meaning that exist within the text, and that define it as a text.” They also point out that cohesion often occurs where the interpretation of some elements in the discourse is dependent on that of another. To summarize, cohesion refers to the linguistic elements that make a discourse semantically coherent; or as Hoa (2000: 23) indicated “cohesion refers to the formal relationship that causes texts to cohere or stick together”. 1.2.2. Cohesion vs. 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 fact, cohesion is the network of different kinds of formal relations that provide links 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 feeling that sequences of sentences or utterances seem to hang together”. Coherence refers to the type of semantic and rhetorical relationship that underlines texts. If cohesion refers to the linguistic elements that make a discourse semantically coherent, then coherence involves with what makes a text semantically meaningful. Cohesion is the realizatio