Look at the pronoun it in sentence (4) and this in sentence (7). Figure out what their respective antecendents are. Make sure that you could explain to someone why they need such antecendents and why this fact tells us that these sentences are part of a larger text.
Section 10.3 Textual cohesion
Cohesion is sometimes defined as those aspects of linguistic structure that reflect coherence. In this sense, the information-structural principle “known information in subject position, new information in post-verbal positions” could be seen as a cohesive device. We will come back to the relationship between coherence and cohesion below, but for now, we will use the narrower characterization of cohesion introduced above, and restrict the term to linguistic structures that either explicitly signal a particular relationship between clauses (such as the word also in the second clause), or that result from the fact that two clauses are related (such as the pronoun it in the second clause. Let us look at these separately.
Subsection Devices that signal links between clauses
There are two groups of linguistic devices signaling that two clauses are related in a particular way: those linking a main clause and a subordinate clause of some sort, and those linking main clauses.
A main clause and a subordinate clause are typically linked by subordinating conjunctions (sometimes also referred to as “complementizers”), such as if, when, before, although, etc., or, in the special case of relative clauses, by a relativizer such as that, who or which.
Subordinating conjunctions link two clauses syntactically, and they encode a specific type of relationship semantically — e.g. conditionality (if), simultaneity (when), precedence (before), contradiction (although), etc. For example, in Text 1, the main clause an apple corer is often used is modified by the subordinate clause when the apple needs to be kept whole — as signaled by the subordinating conjunction when, >which indicates that the subordinate clause describes the type of event or situation in which the event described in the main clause occurs.
In English, subordinate clauses are mostly indistinguishable from main clauses in terms of their syntactic structure, except for the subordinating conjunction at the beginning. They are referred to as subordinate clauses because they cannot stand alone — they depend on the main clause. For example, it would be possible to say An apple corer is often used (leaving out the subordinate clause), but it is not possible to just say When the apple needs to be kept whole (leaving out the main clause).
Subordinating conjunctions can also introduce subjectless non-finite clauses. For example, in Text 1, the main clause it [the apple corer] removes the core to the diameter of the circular cutting device is modified by the non-finite participle clause when pushed through the apple, which, just like the full subordinate clause discussed above, is introduced by the subordinating conjunction when and describes the event or situation in which the event described by the main clause occurs.
Finally, relative clauses provide additional information about the referent of a noun phrase or about the event described by an entire clause. For example, the relative clause which both cores and slices the apple in Text 1 provides information about what happens if you perform the action described in the main clause. Relative clauses can also modify noun phrases — for example, we could say I am looking for an apple corer which both cores and slices the apple.
Two main clauses can be linked by a coordinating conjunction (like and, or, but) or by a linking adverb. Coordinating conjunctions typically encode specific relationships between the two clauses they link, but these may be more general than in the case of subordinating conjunctions. For example, the coordinating conjunction and simply signals that both main clauses are true (as in Text 3), while but signals that the second main clause stands in some kind of contrast to the first (as in Text 4).
Text 3Apples were introduced to North America by colonists in the 17th century, and the first apple orchard on the North American continent was planted in Boston by Reverend William Blaxton in 1625.―Wikipedia, s.v. apple (2020-10-27)
Text 4Cider apples are typically too tart and astringent to eat fresh, but they give the beverage a rich flavor that dessert apples cannot.―Wikipedia, s.v. apple (2020-10-27)
Linking adverbs encode relationships that are very similar to those encoded by conjunctions. We already saw the adverb also means “in addition to”, i.e., it is quite similar to and. Another example is the adverb then in The core can then be removed from the apple corer (Text 1), which signals that the event described by this clause must occur after that described in the preceding clause. We could paraphrase the preceding clause as a subordinate clause using the conjunction after, as in After we have removed the core from the apple, it can be removed from the apple corer.
It should be clear how conjunctions, relativizers and adverbs contribute to the cohesion of a stretch of language — they link two (or more) clauses explicitly and add information about the way these clauses are related. In doing so, they also contribute to coherence, a point we will return to below.
Subsection Properties of linked clauses
In addition to the expressions discussed in the preceding section, there are a range of phenomena that do not explicitly signal relationships between clauses but that occur only in clauses that are part of a text. The most important ones are: third-person pronouns, definiteness (e.g. the distinction between definite and indefinite articles), and ellipsis (i.e., the omission of constituents that can be guessed from the preceding context).
Let us begin with pronouns. Look at Text 1 again, repeated here so that you do not have to leaf back and forth:
Text 1Apple corer(1) An apple corer is a device for removing the core and pips from an apple. (2) It may also be used for similar fruits, such as pears or quince.(3) Some apple corers consist of a handle with a circular cutting device at the end. (4) When pushed through the apple, it removes the core to the diameter of the circular cutting device. (5) The core can then be removed from the apple corer.(6) Another type of apple corer can be placed on top of the apple and pushed through, which both cores and slices the apple. (7) This is also often called apple cutter or apple slicer.(8) An apple corer is often used when the apple needs to be kept whole, for example, when making baked apples. (9) Apple slicers are used when a large number of apples need to be cored and sliced, for example, when making an apple pie or other desserts.―Source: Wikipedia, s.v. apple corer (2020-10-28)
Third-person pronouns are perhaps the most obvious property of a clause that is related to another clause. Take sentence (2) of Text 1: we could not use it in isolation, because the Hearer would have no way of knowing what we mean by it. Third-person personal pronouns (he, she, it) and demonstrative pronouns (this, these, that, those) need an antecedent — a noun phrase that has already been mentioned — to refer back to. In Text 1, several potential antecedents are introduced in sentence (1) — it could theoretically refer to an apple corer, a device for removing the core and pips from an apple or an apple. In order to figure out which of these possibilities the Speaker has in mind, the Hearer has to do some inferencing based on semantic plausibility and syntactic position. Figuring out the intended antecedent of a pronoun is a very complex process, but for our current purpose, what is important is that pronouns need an antecedent. Because of this, the occurrence of a pronoun in a sentence tells us that it is part of a text and connected to at least one of the precding sentences in that text. Pronouns do not signal a relationship directly, in the way that conjunctions do (they do not symbolize such a relationship); however, they do signal a relationship indirecty, because their occurrence depends on such a relationship (they are a symptom of this relationship).
Pronouns are not the only type of referring expression that depends on such relationships. The same is true of expressions like similar fruit in sentence (2) or another type in sentence (6) — they are not pronouns, but they need an expression in a preceding clause that they can refer back to.
Question 10.3.1.
Let us look at definiteness next. The definite article the (and other definite expressions) can occur only in noun phrases whose referent is identifiable by the Hearer — otherwise, an indefinite article like a(n) must be used. This is why, for example, the phrase a circular cutting device in sentence 3 has an indefinite article, while the phrase the circular cutting device in sentence 4 has a definite article: the first time it is mentioned, it is not identifiable by the Hearer — circular cutting devices (or any other cutting devices) have not been mentioned at this point, and someone looking up the headword apple corer in an encyclopedia cannot be expected to know enough about apple corers to infer that they must include a cutting device of some sort. In contrast, when the cutting device is mentioned again in the next sentence (4), it is identifiable to the Hearer based on the fact that it has just been introduced.
Question 10.3.2.
Look at the phrases an apple corer in sentence (1) and the apple corer in sentence (5) and make sure you understand why an indefinite article is used in the first case and a definite article is used in the second case.
While definite noun phrases often depend on a previous clause in which their referent was introduced into the text, this is not always the case: referent can sometimes be identifiable even though they have not been mentioned explicitly. For example, the NP the core and pips in sentence (1) has a definite article even though cores and pips have not been mentioned. This is possible because anyone interested in apple corers can be expected to know a bit about apples, including the fact that they have cores and pips. Therefore, it is enough to mention the word apple to allow the Hearer to make apple cores and apple pips identifiable for the Hearer.
Question 10.3.3.
Look at the phrase an apple pie in sentence (9). Given the point just made with respect to apple cores and pips, one might argue that Hearers can be expected to know about the existence of apple pies and that the apple pie mentioned in (9) should be identifiable and thus be introduced in a definite noun phrase. Why is this argument wrong?
Ellipsis, finally, works a bit like pronouns: sometimes, a phrase can be left out completely if it has already been mentioned. For example, in the clauses Another type of apple corer can be placed on top of the apple and pushed through, the noun phrase the apple would be expected to occur after through: If the clause containing push stood by itself, it would have to be present: The apple corer can be pushed through the apple, not *The apple corer can be pushed through. In sentence (6) it can be left out because it is mentioned in the directly preceding VP placed on top of the apple. Again, ellipsis does not signal a relationship between two sentence but it is possible only in a sentence that is part of a text.
Subsection
CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0. Written by Anatol Stefanowitsch
