úąöýąöÝŞĀñăõĀô îŖêĈė 27 ÜíĄíêĈė 2 (ÔöÔáą×ô – ëĄìúą×ô) ñ.û.

2559
CHOPHAYOM JOURNAL Vol.27 No.2 (July - December) 2016 47
A Study of the Use of Grammatical Cohesive Devices
inSawasdee Magazine Articles and Their Thai Translations

üøĉäåć ýøĊߊü÷1 ĒúąÿčÝøø÷ć üĉúćüøøè2

Warittha Srichuay1 and Sujunya Wilawan2

ïìÙĆé÷ŠĂ
ÜćîüĉÝĆ÷îĊĚöĊüĆêëčðøąÿÜÙŤđóČęĂýċÖþćðøąđõì×ĂÜúĆÖþèąüÝîąÿĆöóĆîíŤ (cohesion) ĔîøĎðĒïïÖćøđßČęĂöē÷ÜēÙøÜÿøšćÜ
ìćÜĕü÷ćÖøèŤ (grammatical cohesion) ĒúąýċÖþćđðøĊ÷ïđìĊ÷ïÙüćöđĀöČĂîĒúąÙüćöêŠćÜ×ĂÜÖćøĔßš êĆüđßČęĂöē÷ÜÙüćöĔîïìÙüćö
õćþćĂĆÜÖùþĒúąõćþćĕì÷ ÖúčŠöêĆüĂ÷ŠćÜìĊęĔßšĔîÖćøýċÖþćîĊĚ ÙČĂ ïìÙüćöõćþćĂĆÜÖùþĒúąïìĒðúõćþćĕì÷ÝćÖîĉê÷ÿćø ÿüĆÿéĊ êćö
üĉíĊÖćø×ĂÜ Halliday and Hasan (1976) ñĎšüĉÝĆ÷ĔßšēðøĒÖøö Microsoft Excel 2010 üĉđÙøćąĀŤ×šĂöĎúĂĆêøćÙüćöëĊę (øšĂ÷úą) ×ĂÜ
ðøąđõìøĎðĒïïÖćøđßČęĂöē÷ÜēÙøÜÿøšćÜìćÜĕü÷ćÖøèŤĒêŠúąðøąđõì ĒúąîĞćöćýċÖþćđðøĊ÷ïđìĊ÷ïúĆÖþèąÖćøĔßšêĆüđßČęĂöē÷ÜÙüćöìĆĚÜĔî
ïìÙüćöõćþćĂĆÜÖùþĒúąïìĒðúõćþćĕì÷đóČęĂĔĀšđĀĘîëċÜÙüćöđĀöČĂîĒúąÙüćöêŠćÜ
ñúÖćøüĉ ÝĆ ÷ óïüŠ ć ïìÙüćöõćþćĂĆ Ü ÖùþĔßš Ö ćøđßČę Ă öē÷ÜÙüćöēé÷ÖćøĂš ć Üëċ Ü (reference) öćÖìĊę ÿč é Ēúą ïì
Ēðúõćþćĕì÷öĊĂĆêøćÙüćöëĊęÖćøĔßšÖćøđßČęĂöē÷ÜÙüćöēé÷ÖćøĔßšÙĞćđßČęĂö (conjunction) ðøćÖäöćÖìĊęÿčé ×èąìĊęöĊÖćøĔßšĀîŠü÷Ēìî
(substitution) îšĂ÷ìĊęÿčéìĆĚÜĔîïìÙüćöõćþćĂĆÜÖùþĒúąïìĒðúõćþćĕì÷ đöČęĂđðøĊ÷ïđìĊ÷öÖćøđßČęĂöē÷ÜēÙøÜÿøšćÜĕü÷ćÖøèŤìĆĚÜ
ïìÙüćöõćþćĂĆÜÖùþĒúąïìĒðúõćþćĕì÷ óïüŠć öĊìĆĚÜÙüćöđĀöČĂîĒúąÙüćöêŠćÜĂĆîđðŨîñúöćÝćÖÙüćöêŠćÜìćÜéšćîĕü÷ćÖøèŤ
ÙĞćÿĞćÙĆâ : üÝîąÿĆöóĆîíŤ, ÖćøđßČęĂöē÷ÜēÙøÜÿøšćÜìćÜĕü÷ćÖøèŤ, ÖćøĒðú

ABSTRACT
The study aims to explore the types of English and Thai grammatical cohesive devices and analyze
the similarities and differences between English and Thai grammatical cohesive devices used in the articles. Ten
English articles and their Thai translations from Sawasdeein-flight magazine were analyzed by using Halliday and
Hasan’s (1976) framework of cohesion. All the identified grammatical cohesive devices in the sample texts were
categorized and the occurrence frequencies of the grammatical cohesive devices were calculated by Microsoft
Excel 2010 program. The similarities and differences between English and Thai grammatical cohesive devices
were analyzed.
The findings reveal that reference is the most common used cohesive device in English texts, and
conjunction is the most preferable grammatical cohesive device in Thai, while substitution is least frequently
used among the four types of grammatical cohesion in both languages. Both English texts and Thai texts share
both similarities and differences in some aspects due to the effect of grammatical features.
Keywords: cohesion, grammatical cohesive devices, translation

1
Graduate student in English for Specific Purpose Program, Graduate School, Kasetsart University
2
Asst. Prof. Ph.D. Lecturer, Department of Foreign Languages, Faculty of Humanities, Kasetsart University
 úąöýąöÝŞĀñăõĀô îŖêĈė 27 ÜíĄíêĈė 2 (ÔöÔáą×ô – ëĄìúą×ô) ñ.û. 2559
48 CHOPHAYOM JOURNAL Vol.27 No.2 (July - December) 2016
Introduction substitution, ellipsis and conjunction. Grammatical
Humans have communicated their cohesion is a surface relation connecting two
expression, information, and news and conveyed adjacent text units together. It presupposes that all
their ideas and feelings to other people through the individual parts of a sentence are linked
their languages. In general, this basic together and thus, they contribute to the
communication is not based on words or isolated construction of a text. Grammatical cohesive
sentences, but we normally communicate in a relations established by various ties across
discourse. sentences help the readers to perceive the meaning
The term discourse is the sequence of of individual sentences presented as a single entity
sentences or utterances which seems to hang – textual meaning. What makes it possible for
together (Crystal, 1992; Nunan, 1993, cited in readers to understand textual meaning is the
Kohkeaw, 1998). As Crystal claims, a text must be continuity of semantic relationships that is
organized in order to create a coherent discourse. described as a necessary element in the
This organization can be achieved through what we interpretation of text (Halliday and Hasan, 1976
called Discourse Forming Devices or Cohesion. cited in Tsareva, 2010). With reference to this, it is
Every language has its own particular interesting to study the types of grammatical
cohesive devices for creating links between textual cohesive relations that are displayed in English and
elements. As James (1980: 190) states, “while every Thai texts.
language has at its disposal a set of devices for Based on cohesion theory proposed by
maintaining textual cohesion, different languages Halliday and Hasan (1976), this present study was
have preferences for certain of these devices and designed to explore the types of English and Thai
neglect certain others.” In a descriptive approach to grammatical cohesive devices and to analyze the
translation, one major concern is to identify these similarities and differences between English and
kinds of linguistic knowledge that are used by the Thai grammatical cohesive devices used in English
translator in both the Source Languages (SL) and articles and their Thai translations from Sawasdeein-
Target Languages (TL) (Bell, 1991, cited in Silveira, flight magazine.
2007). Translators should be aware of the
differences of cohesion devices between two Theoretical Description
different languages and they should look for Text, Texture, Ties, and Cohesion.
cohesive items which are appropriate for TL. If the Halliday (1978) cited in Akindele (2011)
translators used the functions of the cohesive notes that we cannot discuss cohesion without
devices appropriately, the readers will understand mentioning text, texture, and tie. According to
what the translators need to convey (Callow, 1974 Halliday and Hasan (1976), the word text is used in
cited in Baker, 1992). “Without cohesion, the linguistics to refer to any passage, spoken or written,
semantic system cannot be effectively activated at of whatever length, that forms a unified whole.
all” (Halliday and Hasan, 1976: 27). For this reason, They further claim that a text is a unit of language
the topic of cohesion has always appeared to be in use. It is not a grammatical unit, like a clause or a
the most useful constituent of discourse analysis or sentence; and it is not defined by its size. To
text linguistics applicable to translation (Newmark, achieve this, it is necessary to know what makes
1987, cited in Rahimi, 2012). text coherent in order to create a text as a unified
Halliday and Hasan (1976) have divided whole.
cohesion into grammatical and lexical cohesive A text has texture, and this is what
devices. This study however, focuses on distinguishes it from something that is not a text. It
grammatical cohesion. It includes reference, derives this texture from the fact that it functions as
 úąöýąöÝŞĀñăõĀô îŖêĈė 27 ÜíĄíêĈė 2 (ÔöÔáą×ô – ëĄìúą×ô) ñ.û. 2559
CHOPHAYOM JOURNAL Vol.27 No.2 (July - December) 2016 49
a unity with respect to its environment. A text There are many definitions of cohesion
without texture would be a group of unrelated given by different linguists. Cohesion is a visible
sentences. connector which is used to link and relate between
Besides, the most important feature of two clauses or sentences in a text. However, the
texture is the cohesive relation called a tie. The most extensive and comprehensive description of
concept of tie makes it possible to analyze a text cohesion is from the publication of Cohesion in
interim of its cohesive properties and gives a English in 1976 presented by Halliday and Hasan
systematic account of its patterns of texture. which marked the establishment of the cohesion
Akindele (2011: 101) further stated that tie can theory, to the present day.
future show the relationship between cohesion and According to Halliday and Hasan (1976: 4),
organization of written text into sentences and the concept of cohesion is a semantic one; it refers
paragraphs. However, cohesion occurs in texts to relations of meaning that exist within the text,
where the interpretation of some elements in the and that defines it as a text.
discourse is dependent on that of another. “Cohesion occurs where the interpretation
of some element in the discourse is dependent on
Cohesion in English that of another. The one presupposes the other, in
Cohesion was widely introduced to the sense that it cannot be effectively decoded
linguists, many researchers have different except by recourse to it. When this happens a
understandings of cohesion; for example, Baker relation of cohesion is set up, and two elements,
(1992: 190) regards cohesion as a surface relation. the presupposing and presupposed, are thereby at
“It connects together the actual words and least potentially integrated into a text.”
expressions that we can see or hear”. Likewise, There are two different types of cohesive relations:
Carter (1987:72) cited in Silveira (2007) defines grammatical and lexical cohesion. Reference,
cohesion as "the term that embraces the means by substitution, ellipsis and conjunction are the various
which texts are linguistically connected." Bell (1991: types of grammatical cohesion. Lexical cohesion is
155) places cohesion within the seven standards of realized through repetition of lexical items,
textual function making use of formal surface synonyms, superordinates and general words. Table 1
feature (syntax and lexis) to interact with underlying presents the division of the types of cohesion (based
semantic relations or underlying functional on Halliday and Hasan, 1976).
coherence to create textual unity.

Cohesion
Grammatical Cohesion Lexical Cohesion
Exophoric [situational] Repetition
Endophoric [textual] Reiteration Synonyms
Reference Anaphoric Cataphoric Superodinate
[to preceding [to following
text] Text]
Substitution General word
Ellipsis
Collocation
Conjunction
Table 1Types of Cohesion
Source: Adapted from Tsareva (2010: 10)
 úąöýąöÝŞĀñăõĀô îŖêĈė 27 ÜíĄíêĈė 2 (ÔöÔáą×ô – ëĄìúą×ô) ñ.û. 2559
50 CHOPHAYOM JOURNAL Vol.27 No.2 (July - December) 2016
Principles of Grammatical Cohesion
Reference (3) It isthe same cat as the one we saw
Reference is traditionally used in semantics yesterday.
for relationship between a word and what it points (Halliday and Hasan, 1976: 78)
to in the real world: the identity of the particular
thing or class of things that is being referred to. In Substitution
general, there are three types of reference: Substitution is the replacement of one item
personal, demonstrative, and comparative.(1) by another (or item). It is grammatical relation rather
Personal reference is reference by means of than semantic relation. There are three types of
function in the speech situation, through the substitution: nominal, verbal, and clausal. (4)
category of person (Halliday and Hasan, 1976). The Nominal ellipsis is the substitution of a noun or
category of reference includes the three classes of noun group. The substitutes one/ones and the
personal pronouns like “he, him,she, her”, etc. , same always functions as head of a nominal group
possessive determiners (usually called possessive (Halliday and Hasan, 1976: 91).
adjectives) and possessive pronouns like “mine, yours,
his, hers”, etc. (Ahmed, 2008). (4) My axe is too blunt. I must get a shaper
one. (One replaces axe)
(1) John's house is beautiful. His wife must (Baker, 1992: 187)
be delighted with it
(Baker, 1992: 181) One and ones presuppose nouns which
function as head in the nominal group; while the
Demonstrative reference is reference by same can substitute the whole nominal group
means of location, on a scale of proximity (Halliday including modifying elements. In(5) verbal
and Hasan, 1976). Chalker (1987) mentions that substitution, the most commonsubstitute is the
demonstrative reference is essentially a form of verb do and is sometimes used in conjunctionwith
verbal pointing like “this, these, that, those, here, soas in do so and substitute verbs.
there, then, and the” as exemplified in (2) (Baker,
1992: 182). (5) You think Joan already knows? – I think
everybody does.
(2) Mrs. Thatcher visited Tokyo last week. (Baker, 1992: 187)
This city impressed her.
In English, The termsdo/does, did, doing and
And (3) Comparative reference is an indirect doneoperate as head of a verbal group in the place
reference by means of identity or similarity (Halliday that is occupied by lexical verbs(Halliday and Hasan,
and Hasan, 1976).The system of comparative 1976: 112).
reference differs from the first two types of Clausal substitution is the replacement of a
reference as it is not based on identity of reference. noun by another clausal item in a sentence.The
The interpretation of this type of reference depends words used as clausal substitutes are so and notas
on the comparison of two items which usually exemplified in (6) (Halliday and Hasan, 1976: 130).
involves identity, similarity and difference as well as
numerical and qualitative comparisons (Puprasert, (6)Is there going to be an earthquake? – It
2007)like “same, equal, similar, different, else, says so.
better, more”, etc. and adverbs like “so, such,
similarly, otherwise, so, more”, etc. Ellipsis
 úąöýąöÝŞĀñăõĀô îŖêĈė 27 ÜíĄíêĈė 2 (ÔöÔáą×ô – ëĄìúą×ô) ñ.û. 2559
CHOPHAYOM JOURNAL Vol.27 No.2 (July - December) 2016 51
According to Bloor and Bloor (1995: 96), of specific meanings; they are not primarily devices
substitution and ellipsis is used when “a speaker or for reaching out into preceding (following) text, but
writer wishes to avoid the repetition of a lexical they express certain meaning which presuppose the
item and is able to draw on one of the grammatical presence of other components in the
resources of the language to replace the discourse.”Therefore, among four types
item”.Though substitution and ellipsis are similar in ofgrammatical cohesive devices within text,
their functions as the linguisticlink for cohesion, conjunction is the least directly identifiable relation
ellipsis differs in that it is “substitution by zero”. (p. (Crane, 2010: 135). Conjunction acts as a semantic
142).Ellipsis involves the omission of an item. In cohesive tie within text in five categories: additive,
other words, in ellipsis, an item is replaced by adversative, causal, temporal and
nothing. Baker (1992) states that ellipsis does not continuative.Additive conjunction(9) acts to
include every instance, in which the hearer or structurally coordinate or link by adding to the
reader has to supply missing information, but only presupposed item and is signaled through and,
those cases where the grammatical structure itself also, too, furthermore, additionally, etc.Additive
points to an item or items that can fill the slot in conjunction may also act to negate the
question. As it is a structural link, ellipsis operates presupposed item and is signaled by nor, and...not,
through nominal, verbal and clausal levels. For either, neither, etc.
nominal ellipsis, Halliday and Hasan (1976) further
classify ellipsis in systemic linguistic terminology as (9) For the whole day he climbed up the
deictic, numerative, epithet, classifier, and qualifier. steep mountainside, almost without stopping. And
Some examples are shown in (7) and (8). in all this time he met no one.
(Ketabi, 2012: 364)
(7)Three members of staff went there and
yet another three. Adversative conjunctions(10) act to indicate
(Akindele, 2011: 102) “contrary to expectation” (Halliday and Hasan,
1976: 250) and are signaled byyet, though, only,
(8) These apples are delicious. Let’s buy but, in fact, rather, etc.
some.
(Halliday and Hasan, 1976: 159) (10) All the figures were correct; they had
been checked. Yet the total came out wrong.
According to example (7), anotherthree (Halliday and Hasan, 1976: 250)
presupposes the noun members (another is a post-
deictic). By the way, somein Example Causal conjunction (11) expresses“result,
(8)presupposes the noun apples(some is a reason and purpose” and is signaled by so, then,
numerative). for, consequently, because, forthis reason, as a
result, in this respect, etc.
Conjunction
Conjunction is the last type of grammatical (11) He was insensitive to the group’s
cohesive relation which Halliday and Hasan (1976: needs. Consequently there was a lot of bad
238) describe. They claim that conjunction leads feeling.
cohesive effect only between sentences. (McCarthy, 1991: 47)
Conjunction is rather different in nature from the
other cohesive relations. “Conjunctive elements are Temporal conjunction (12) gives a
cohesive not in themselves but indirectly, by virtue sequence in time: one is subsequent to the other.
 úąöýąöÝŞĀñăõĀô îŖêĈė 27 ÜíĄíêĈė 2 (ÔöÔáą×ô – ëĄìúą×ô) ñ.û. 2559
52 CHOPHAYOM JOURNAL Vol.27 No.2 (July - December) 2016
Some sample temporalconjunctive signals are then, in only some aspects. In contrast to Theppreeda
next, after that, next day, until then, at thesame (1998)’s study, she selected three English and Thai
time, at this point, etc. short stories by following the practical method of
cohesion proposed by Halliday and Hasan’s (1976)
(12) “It is always happens” said the Gnat. model. The result of this comparative study
After this, Alice was silent for a minute or two, revealed that reference was the most preferable
pondering. cohesive device used by both English and Thai
(Halliday and Hasan, 1976: 261) writers.According to the result, the researcher
explained that its own natural characteristics of
The last conjunctive category is each language could make a difference in the use
continuative conjunction(13) which expresses of cohesion.
continuity from one sentence to another sentence In addition to the fact that every language
in a context. Continuative conjunction includes has its own devices for establishing cohesive links
now, of course, well, surely and after all. (Baker, 1992).There are also specific preferences for
certain cohesive devices that are sensitive to text
(13)They will think you are serious. Nobody types.Different genresand registers are characterized
could be so stupid as to think that, surely. by particular kinds of cohesive devices and may
(Halliday and Hasan, 1976: 270) make different usesof those cohesive devices. For
example,it is much less likely for reference,
Due to previous researches investigating substitution and ellipsis tooccur in texts such as
how cohesion was used in Thai texts; between legal texts, while lexical cohesionis generally
English and other languages or between English and considered for scientific and technical texts.
its translation into another languages,every language Halliday and Hasan(1976) and other
has its own battery of certain cohesive devices for scholars mainly use literary texts in their study. For
creating links between textual elements and there the specific preferences for certain cohesive devices
are different devices in different languages for in literary textshave also attracted attention of
achieving cohesive effects. For example, some of anothergroup of researchers(Chanawangsa, 1986;
those studies were from Puprasert (2007)’s work, A Kohkeaw, 2003; Vyšniauskiene, 2010;Zhao et al.,
Comparative Study of English and Thai Cohesion in 2009). Chanawangsa (1986) focused on cohesive
News Articles, examined how English and Thai devices in different literary texts. Similarly,
cohesive devices have been used in news articles, Vyšniauskiene(2010) mainly studied cohesive
and Noonkhan (2003)’s work, Cohesion Shifts in devices in the opening paragraphs from short
Translation: A Comparative StudyBetween Thai and stories. Zhao et al. (2009) examined cohesive
English, compared the frequency of cohesion used devices in English medical texts and their Chinese
in five Thai written texts and their five English translations in textbooks. Nevertheless, the study
translated texts from Kinaree magazines, and gave ofcohesive devices in literary texts still needs
explanations of the cohesion shift. Both Puprasert further investigation.
(2007) and Noonkhan (2003) revealed the same Another influential kind of literary works is
results that lexical cohesion was the most in-flight magazine which are typically magazines
prominent type of cohesion applied, while designed for the entertainment of airline
substitution was the least frequently used type passengers. According to Small et al. (2008), cited in
among five types of cohesion in both languages; Pathumratanathan (2012), the common roles of in-
however, in each category, the use of cohesion flight magazines are to cement the airline in the
between English and Thai was similar and different eyes of travelers as a national carrier, a vital public
 úąöýąöÝŞĀñăõĀô îŖêĈė 27 ÜíĄíêĈė 2 (ÔöÔáą×ô – ëĄìúą×ô) ñ.û. 2559
CHOPHAYOM JOURNAL Vol.27 No.2 (July - December) 2016 53
service, critical to national infrastructure and even a analyzing English and Thai grammatical cohesive
national treasure. Sawasdee is a Thai monthly in- devices. All articles were purposively selected by
flight travelled magazine published in Bangkok. It is considering to the consistency between English
a very well-known magazine because the magazine articles and their Thai translations.
represents Thailand’s high standard airline namely Method
Thai Airways International Public Company Limited; Halliday and Hasan define four types of
hence, both Thais and foreigners are familiar with grammatical cohesive devices in their book
Sawasdee magazine. Cohesion in English (1976), which are reference,
Tourism text is another type which has not substitution, ellipsis, and conjunction. In this present
been much investigated. Although this research may study, all grammatical cohesive devices in English
reveal some similar results compared to the related articles and their Thai translation from
studies, the present study is expected to reveal Sawasdeemagazine were identified based on their
some additional findings of grammatical cohesive classifications.
devices employed in English and Thai texts. As mentioned, there were four types of grammatical
cohesive devices: reference, substitution, ellipsis,
Methodology and conjunction. Halliday and Hasan propose a
Sample coding scheme (1976: 333-339) which the researcher
Twenty articles; ten English articles and ten adapted to categorize the grammatical elements
Thai translated articles, were collected and used for and coded them as shown in Table 2.

Table 2 Coding scheme of grammatical cohesive devices

Reference Personals Demonstratives Comparatives

R R1 R2 R3
Substitution Nominal Verbal Clausal
S S1 S2 S3
Ellipsis Nominal Verbal Clausal
E E1 E2 E3
Conjunction Additive Adversative Causal Temporal Continuative
C C1 C2 C3 C4 C5
Source: Adapted from Ketabi (2012: 367)

After the screened samples from both cohesive devices found in the articles, contrastive
English and Thai texts were categorized and coded linguistics was applied to investigate the differences
for every single use of grammatical cohesive in the use of cohesive devices between English and
devices. Each type of grammatical element found Thai in the selected Sawasdee articles. In this
was counted, and the percentage of each type of process, the researcher compared and contrasted
grammatical cohesive device was calculated by cohesive items used between the two languages in
applying the Microsoft Excel 2010 program for this order to see their f and how they have been used
study because this program is systematic (Linoff, in the context. By doing this, the researcher
2008). compared the pairs of English and Thai grammatical
In order to examine the differences and cohesion by analyzing the translation of those
similarities between English and Thai grammatical cohesive devices which appeared in the texts in order
 úąöýąöÝŞĀñăõĀô îŖêĈė 27 ÜíĄíêĈė 2 (ÔöÔáą×ô – ëĄìúą×ô) ñ.û. 2559
54 CHOPHAYOM JOURNAL Vol.27 No.2 (July - December) 2016
to explore the similarities and differences between analysis which was performed in March, 2015, the
English and Thai. researcher randomly selected 30% of the data from
In order to ensure the reliability of the both English and Thai articles and coded them once
results, in this study, intra-rater reliability was used again. Gwet (2014) contends that the intra-rater
to ensure the reliability of the result. It is used to reliability can be calculated using the formula for
assess the consistency of a measure from one time estimating the inter-rater reliability.
to another. In other words, a coder categorizes the In the process of calculation, the number
same content on a later occasion and the coding of agreements was divided by the total number of
outcomes are similar to how he or she coded it on agreements and disagreements, then multiplied by
an earlier occasion. According to Krippendolf (2004: 100. 30% of the data from both English and Thai
406 cited in Whitley & Kite, 2012), it is also articles was calculated for intra-coder reliability on
important that a coder or rater has the ability to both occasions. The total number of agreements
understand the concept of content coding and the and disagreements was 816. And the number of
coding system itself. In this regard, the researcher, agreements of both occasions was 788. The intra-
as a graduate student majoring in English for Specific rater reliability of this study was 96.5 %, which
Purposes (ESP) at Kasetsart University, is considered could be interpreted as almost perfect agreement
as having appropriate qualifications for the position (Miles and Huberman, 1994).
of coder.
In order to improve the intra-rater Findingsand Discussion
reliability, the researcher conducted data analyses Comparison of overall grammatical
on two different occasions. The first analysis was cohesive devices in English and Thai from
done in December, 2014; the researcher coded a Sawasdee magazine
set of content into categories. In the second

Table 3 Frequency and percentage of four types of grammatical cohesive devices

Corpus English Thai

Cohesive Frequency (%) Frequency (%)
devices
Reference 391 (57%) 325 (30%)
Substitution 15 (2.18%) 13 (1.2%)
Ellipsis 66 (9.6%) 64 (5.9%)
Conjunction 216 (31.4%) 683 (63%)
Total 688 1,085

As shown in Table 3, the results revealed frequencies of different types of Thai grammatical
that the total count of English grammatical cohesive cohesive devices are as follows; conjunctions, 683
devices was 688. The frequencies of different types (63%), references, 325 (30%), ellipses, 64 (5.9%), and
of grammatical cohesive devices are as follows; substitutions, 13 (1.2%) respectively. According to
reference, 391 (57%), conjunction, 216 (31.4%), the data, it can be said that the reference type was
ellipsis, 66 (9.6%) and substitution, 15 (2.18%). The the most frequently used in English articles and
total frequency of Thai cohesive devices found in conjunction was the most preferred cohesive type in
the ten Thai translated texts was 1,085. The Thai articles.
 úąöýąöÝŞĀñăõĀô îŖêĈė 27 ÜíĄíêĈė 2 (ÔöÔáą×ô – ëĄìúą×ô) ñ.û. 2559
CHOPHAYOM JOURNAL Vol.27 No.2 (July - December) 2016 55
As mentioned, reference and conjunction are substitution as a kind of ellipsis whereas Halliday
consistently the two frequently used devices in the (1994/2004) treats ellipsis as a special type of
parallel corpus. Thedistribution of grammatical substitution.
cohesive devices manifested some similaritiesin the
preference of grammatical cohesive types.By the way, Comparison of reference devices in English and
among four kinds of grammatical cohesion, Thai
substitution and ellipsis were used least in both As a prominent cohesive device, reference
English and Thai articles. The reason is that only can be divided into three subcategories; personals,
written material has been analyzed in this study. As demonstratives, and comparatives. Table 4
Thompson notes (2004: 184) cited in Tsareva (2010: illustrated the occurrence frequencies
99), “ellipsis is typically more fully exploited in speech andpercentages of the three referential
than in writing”. Moreover, the number of articles has subcategories in English and Thai texts.
been restricted. Thompson (1996) also regards

Table 4Frequency and percentage of subcategories of references

Corpus English Thai

Cohesive Frequency (%) Frequency (%)
devices
Personals 204 (52.2%) 70 (21.5%)
Demonstratives 181 (46.3%) 237 (73%)
Comparatives 6 (1%) 18 (5.5%)
Total 391 325

According to Table 4, three types of and Higbie and Thinsan (2002) who mention the
reference (personals, demonstratives and difference of English and Thai possession. When Thai
comparatives) were used in both English and Thai writers want to show that someone possesses
articles. The most frequently used type in English something, the thing’s owner will be put after the
articles was personal reference(52.2%). The most object, and ×ĂÜ (of) is located between two words
frequently used type in Thai articles was (the object and the owner)as demonstrated in
demonstrative reference(73%). Example (14).
In the types of reference, it is important to
discuss personal and demonstrative references (14) Its origins are explained at the
because there are some features causing English and Museum of Africa, while the period of the gold
Thai to be different in some aspects. Both English and discoveries is the subject of the themed Golden
Thai writers use some types of references in different Reef City.
ways.First,in term of showing possessiveness, Translation:Ýč é ÖĞ ć đîĉ é ×ĂÜđöČ Ă ÜîĊĚ ï øø÷ć÷ĕüš ìĊę
possessiveness in English is expressed through his, her, óĉóĉíõĆèæŤĒĀŠÜĒĂôøĉÖćĔî×èąìĊę÷čÙÖćøÙšîóïìĂÜÝąÝĆéĒÿéÜìĊę
its, and their (possessive adjectives), his, hers, its, and Golden Reef City
theirs (possessive pronouns). However, Thai does
nothave any possessive elements to show their They further state that Thai possession is normally
possessiveness as English does. According to the created through the word of ×ĂÜ (of). With reference
results, the researcher agrees with Puprasert (2007) to these studies, ×ĂÜ (of) plays an important role in
 úąöýąöÝŞĀñăõĀô îŖêĈė 27 ÜíĄíêĈė 2 (ÔöÔáą×ô – ëĄìúą×ô) ñ.û. 2559
56 CHOPHAYOM JOURNAL Vol.27 No.2 (July - December) 2016
order to show the possessiveness in Thai. In and Thai possessive structures to be:
conclusion, the researcher found the use of English

English: Noun’s thing/object or thing/object + of + pronoun/noun

OR
The Possessive adjective + Thing/object

Thai: Thing/object + ×ĂÜ (of) (optional) + pronoun/noun or thing/object + pronoun/noun

Figure 1English and Thai possessive structures

Second, pronominally used nouns are There will be 350 special buses in
found, including personal name, nickname, kinship operation, and it is also planned to create a
term, occupational term and social status citywide broadband network.
(Chanawangsa, 1986; Burusphat, 1994). This is Translation: ēÝăĆ î đîÿđïĉ øŤÖ öĊ đÿš î ìćÜđßČę Ă öÖĆ ï
another special feature in the Thai language which ÿîćöïĉîîćîćßćêĉ Tambo OR Ēúšü ĒúąÝą×÷ć÷đÿšîìćÜ
does not exist in English causing difference between đßČęĂöĕð÷ĆÜ Pretoria, Durban Ēúą Cape Town êŠĂĕð
English and Thai personal pronouns. This feature ēé÷ÝąöĊ ø ëðøąÝĞ ć ìćÜóĉ đ ýþ 350 ÙĆ î ĔĀš ï øĉ Ö ćø
forms a cohesive link by referring to the same îĂÖÝćÖîĊĚ (…)÷ĆÜöĊÖćøüćÜĒñîÿøšćÜđÙøČĂ׊ć÷ïĂøŤéĒïîìĆęü
person mentioned in theforegoing sentence or in the ìĆĚÜđöČĂÜ
following sentence. Cooke (1965: 13) state that
pronominally used form and meaning or Example (15) illustrates that after the first
pronominal forms include personal pronouns (I love subject ēÝăĆ î đîÿđïĉ øŤ Ö (Johannesburg) identified in
you: ñöøĆÖÙčè – man speaking to woman), kintype Thai, it has been omitted while the subject ---
nouns (mother loves child: ĒöŠøĆÖúĎÖ – mother Johannesburg --- in the English version can be
speaking to child) and name nouns (Jane loves Dan: found in the form of the pronoun reference it.
đÝîøĆÖĒéî – older girl named Jane speaking to little Example (15) reveals cohesion shifts from nominal
boy named Dan), while English personal pronouns ellipses to pronoun references. In Thai, the
include only three classes of personal pronouns, subsequent subject of Johannesburg is deleted; it
possessive determiners (possessive adjectives), and can be said that pronouns areomitted while in the
possessive pronouns. English version the pronoun it is used to refer to
Another special referential type which Johannesburg. In short, there is a discrepancy of
causes English and Thai structures to be different is using ellipses between the two languages. In the
the zero pronoun. The zero pronoun is a type of Thai text, the first subject is identified. After that,
personal reference in which the subject in Thai texts the subject pronouns are omitted. Although the
is frequently omitted; by the way, ellipses were pronoun is usually omitted, the readers still
used instead as shown in Example (15). understand the context by retrieving information
from the previous sentence. These major
(15) Johannesburg is already connected in differences are confirmed by many Thai researchers’
this way with Tambo OR International Airports, and findings (Chanawangsa, 1986; Kohkaew, 2003;
the link will later be extended to Pretoria, Durban Theppreeda, 1998; Noonkhan 2003, Puprasert, 2007)
and Cape Town. which reveal that zero pronouns establish a
cohesive effect when references have been
 úąöýąöÝŞĀñăõĀô îŖêĈė 27 ÜíĄíêĈė 2 (ÔöÔáą×ô – ëĄìúą×ô) ñ.û. 2559
CHOPHAYOM JOURNAL Vol.27 No.2 (July - December) 2016 57
previously mentioned or can be inferred from the The reason is that the can never refer forward
text. cohesively and it can only refer to a modifying
Finally, English predominantly uses theas element within the same nominal group as itself. It
demonstrative reference in order to specify could be a challenge for the translator to translate this
definiteness when the same noun is mentioned type of cohesive device while maintaining the same
again. The is used to identify a particular individual meaning of the original text.
or subclass within the class designated by the noun. A connection of the use of personal and
For Halliday and Hasan (1976:71), the merely demonstrative references can be obtained by
indicates that the item in question is specific and Larson (1998). He points out that “it is quite
identifiable that somewhere the information common in English to introduce a new participant
necessary for identifying it is recoverable. In the with a noun phrase and then refer to this
present study, the researcher found that the participant by a pronoun throughout the rest of the
increases the number of referential ties in English paragraph”. However, this is not the case in Chinese
articles. and Thai where personal or demonstrative
However, the does not exist in Thai. When pronouns are often omitted or substituted by a
Thai writers want to show the definiteness of nouns, it noun phrase that the pronoun presupposes.
can be done by combining a lexical item with
selective demonstratives îĊĚ (this),îĆĚî (that), đĀúŠćîĊĚ Comparison of conjunction devices in English and
(these), đĀúŠćîĆĚî (those) and ìĊęîĊę (here) or éĆÜÖúŠćü (as Thai
mentioned); for example, ñĎšĀâĉÜÙîîĊĚ (this woman), ïšćî As seen in Table 5, the total number of Thai
ĀúĆÜîĆĚî (That house), ÿčîĆ×đĀúŠćîĊĚ (these dogs), ēêŢą conjunctions is dramatically higher than those in
đĀúŠćîĆĚî (those tables) etc. This combination becomes English articles in all categories. As for the type of
a noun phrase. The use of the in different languages conjunction used in the articles collected, the
causes the different occurrence of demonstrative researcher found five types of conjunctions applied in
reference as supported by Ahmed (2008) and Zhao, both English and Thai articles; additive, adversative,
Yan, and Zhou’s (2009) studies. The absence of the causal, temporal and continuative conjunctions.
definite article the also contributes to the difference of However, continuative conjunctions were rarely found
demonstrative references between English and in English, but this type of conjunction seems to be
Chinese. The is limited to the structure type, unlike utilized in Thai.
the selective demonstratives (this, these and here).

Table 5Frequency and percentage of subcategories of conjunctions

Corpus English Thai

Cohesive Frequency (%) Frequency (%)
devices
Additive 94 (43.5%) 214 (31.3%)
Adversative 43 (19.9%) 83 (12.2%)
Causal 18 (8.3%) 93 (13.6%)
Temporal 59 (27.3%) 84 (12.3%)
Continuative 2 (0.9%) 209 (30.6%)
Total 216 683
 úąöýąöÝŞĀñăõĀô îŖêĈė 27 ÜíĄíêĈė 2 (ÔöÔáą×ô – ëĄìúą×ô) ñ.û. 2559
58 CHOPHAYOM JOURNAL Vol.27 No.2 (July - December) 2016
According to the results, Thai language the data, there were some differences in the use of
tends to use conjunctions more often than English continuative conjunction in English and Thai. The
language does, especially the additive (Ēúą or and). researcher found that many Thai continuative
However, this occurrence of the use of conjunctions conjunctions were used in the articles. The items àċęÜ
was not only found in the researcher’s data, but (which, that), ēé÷ (by) and ÖĘ (signal link between
this result was also consistent with the other two elements in a discourse) were found to be
studies (Theppreeda, 1998; Noonkhan, 2003; used in order to link two parts of a discourse
Kohkeaw, 2003; Puprasert, 2007 and Petchprasert, without showing any specific relation. To put it
2011). According to the number of conjunctions simply, one part of the text connects to another in
used by both English and Thai writers, these studies meaning rather than creating a link to the given
revealed that Thai uses a greater number of information, especially the use of àċęÜ (which, that).
conjunctions compared to English. As can be seen, The researcher noticed that àċęÜ (which, that) is
the redundancy of conjunctions was found, but this mostly used to connect the main clause with the
does not occur in English.The data of the present adjective clause as shown in Example (16).
study showed that the connection of Thai
conjunctions is not limited only between sentences (16) A more affordable option, also ideally
and between paragraphs, but they also occur situated in the trendy Shibuya area, is the Granbell
between clauses and within the same sentence, Hotel.The rooms, modest in size by Western
especially continuative conjunctions in order to standards have been designed in a pop-art fashion.
make the article discourse related.However, Translation: ĂĊÖìćÜđúČĂÖĀîċęÜàċęÜ (1) ĕöŠđÖĉîÖĞćúĆÜ
Halliday and Hasan (1976: 238) state that ÖøąđðŞć Ēëö÷ĆÜêĆĚÜĂ÷ĎŠĔî÷ŠćîßĉïĎ÷ŠćàċęÜ (2) đðŨîĒĀúŠÜßĘĂððŗŪÜ
conjunctions produce a cohesive effect only ÷Ăéîĉ÷öÖĘÙČĂēøÜĒøöĒÖøîđïúàċęÜ (3)öĊĀšĂÜóĆÖ×îćéðćîÖúćÜ
between sentences. êćööćêøåćî×îćé×ĂÜðøąđìýêąüĆîêÖ ĕéšøĆïÖćøĂĂÖĒïï
Furthermore, there were many Thai words éšü÷ýĉúðąÿöĆ÷îĉ÷ö
conveying the same meaning when compared to
only one English conjunction; for example, the According to the Example (16), it can be
contrastive sense of then which has been classified noticed that àċęÜ (1) ĕöŠđÖĉî ÖĞćúĆÜÖøąđðŞć is an adjective
as both causal and temporal conjunction. Then in clause for ìćÜđúČĂÖĀîċęÜ, àċęÜ (2) đðŨîĒĀúŠÜßĘĂððŗŪÜ÷Ăéîĉ÷ö
causal conjunctions introduces the next item in a is an adjective clause for ßĉ ïĎ ÷Š ć , and àċę Ü (3) öĊ Āš Ă ÜóĆ Ö
series of actions, while then in temporal ×îćéðćîÖúćÜêćööćêøåćî×îćé×ĂÜðøąđìýêąüĆîêÖ is
conjunctions expresses sequence of time. There an adjective clause for ēøÜĒøöĒÖøîđïú.
were many Thai words which are equivalent of the
English causal element then; for example, Ýċ Ü , ÖĘ Ýċ Ü , Conclusion
đú ÷ , ÖĘ đú ÷ , éĆ Ü îĆĚ î which caused the researcher On the basis of qualitative content
difficulty in classifying them into the proper analysis,we can draw the following conclusions:
categories of conjunction proposed by Halliday and The purpose of this study was to find the
Hasan (1976)’s framework. similarities and differences of the grammatical
In terms of using continuative conjunction cohesive devices used in the English texts and their
as a cohesive device between English and Thai, Thai translations and how they were used. The data
English continuative conjunction was normally used used in the analysis were taken from Sawasdee, an
in a spoken discourse (Halliday and Hasan, 1976: in-flight magazine which has both English and Thai
267). texts. Twenty written texts (ten English and ten Thai
Thai continuative conjunction, however, counterparts) were selected. Halliday and Hasan’s
often appeared in written discourse. According to (1976) theoretical framework was adopted.
 úąöýąöÝŞĀñăõĀô îŖêĈė 27 ÜíĄíêĈė 2 (ÔöÔáą×ô – ëĄìúą×ô) ñ.û. 2559
CHOPHAYOM JOURNAL Vol.27 No.2 (July - December) 2016 59
The results of this study reveal similarities than creating a link to the given information,
and differences in the useof grammatical cohesive especially the use of continuative conjunction àċęÜ
devices in English articles and their Thai (which, that).Such discrepancy is mainly due to the
translations.First,the similarities between four types specificfeatures and language nature of the two
of grammatical cohesive devicesarecomparative languages.
reference, verbal substitution, clausal substitution, The findings of this present studyreveal
clausal ellipsis, and adversative conjunction.These many interesting points which can possibly be
devices were used in a similar way by both English directly applied in teaching areas.First, the present
and Thai writers.Besides, in the types of study presents the findings of how English and Thai
conjunctions, both internal and external grammatical cohesive devices are used in written
conjunctions were found in English and Thai text (i.e., magazine articles) and also provides
Sawasdee articles. As categorized by Halliday and information on their similarities and differences. EFL
Hasan (1976), internal conjunctions are those used teachers should emphasize the cohesive
to organize discourse itself, while external discrepancies between both languages. For
conjunctions are those used to organize events in example, a teachermay assign students to find
an activity sequence (Martin and Rose, 2007: 117). cohesion shifts from many types of texts such as
The researcher also noticed that the magazines, newspapers, textbooks, or novels from
functions of English and Thai nominal ellipses are both English and Thai languages, and show how the
similar. To be more specific, they are the omission linkage in those writings are different. This activity
within a nominal group in which the modifying can help create linguistic awareness of cohesion in
elements are upgraded to be the head noun different languages to see how English and Thai
(Halliday and Hasan, 1976: 148; Chanawangsa, 1986: cohesive devices are used.
88-94; McCarthy, 1991: 43).In English articles, the Second, the awareness of cohesive
researcher found the modifying elements used as characteristics of each language can help a teacher
head were specific deictic, non-specific deictic, post- in improving a student’s writing ability. A teacher
deicticand numerative, while two types of may provide alternatives in the use of cohesive
modifying elements used as head in Thai were devices for learners. For example, a teacher teaches
found: non-specific deictic and numerative.These a student how the article the can also function as a
similarities can beattributed to the informative demonstrative reference in English instead of just
function and stylistic features of magazine articles. using demonstrative adjectives (this, that these,
Second,there are some differences those) when translating Thai texts to English texts.
between English and Thai texts in the use of specific Third, the results of this study can be a
devices of reference and conjunction devices, in useful source of information for learners. Hence,
terms of their occurrence frequencies, reference they can use the information clarified in this study
type was the most frequently used in English when they have to deal with passage/story writing,
articles and conjunction was the most preferable reading and/or translation tasks; for example, when
cohesive type in Thai articles. Personaland the writers need to translate some tasks and they
demonstrative references are more frequently have no idea what type of grammatical cohesive
usedin English articles, whileThai prefers the devices should be added. They can apply the
omission of personal reference. Besides, the knowledge gained from the present study to
redundancy of conjunctions was found in Thai in employ the appropriate grammatical cohesive
order to make the article discourse related, but this devices.
does not occur in English.To put it simply, one part Forth, this study provides knowledge about
of the text connects to another in meaning rather the types of grammatical cohesive devices and
 úąöýąöÝŞĀñăõĀô îŖêĈė 27 ÜíĄíêĈė 2 (ÔöÔáą×ô – ëĄìúą×ô) ñ.û. 2559
60 CHOPHAYOM JOURNAL Vol.27 No.2 (July - December) 2016
presents some major differences in the use of can be used as a connector joining words, phrases
grammatical cohesion between English and Thai. or clauses together (Sanford, 1979: 59 and Richards
The differences gained from the present study raise and Schmidt 2002: 107, cited in Puprasert: 159).
awareness of using the grammatical cohesive Therefore, these could raise another issue for
devices appropriately for their own languages. For further study; whether coordinating (join linguistic
example, there may be problems of repetition if the units which are in the same rank) and subordinating
Thai translator transfers every occurrence of (join linguistic units which are not equal in value)
personal reference from the original English text to conjunctions can act as cohesive elements.
the Thai translation. When Thai translators have an
awareness of natural characteristics in the use of References
grammatical cohesion of English and Thai, they Ahmed, A. R. (2008). Reference as a Cohesive
should be able to avoid making cohesive mistakes Device. Department of Translation 52, 43-
in translation. 68.
Akindele, J. (2011). Cohesive Devices in Selected
Suggestions for future studies ESL Academic Papers. African Nebula 3,
This study is about grammatical cohesion in 99-112.
magazine articles from Sawasdee magazine, Baker, M. (1992). In Other Words: A Course Book
employing Halliday and Hasan’s (1976) work as the on Translation. London: Routledge.
framework. The researcher believes that their Bell, R. T. (1991). Translation and Translating:
framework can be applied to the study of cohesion theory and practice. London and New
in English and Thai to more extensive topics and York: Longman.
areas, such as: Bloor, T.and Bloor, M. (1995). The Functional
First,the study of cohesion in other types of Analysis of English. London: Arnold.
discourse is recommended, such as procedurals Burusphat, S. (1994). Discourse Analysis (In Thai).
(how-to books, cooking books, etc.), hortatory Bangkok: Sahathammik.
(sermons, addressees of important people), law Chalker, S. (1988). Current English Grammar.
documents, interviews of famous people on London: Macmillan.
television or radio, etc. The researcher believes that Chanawangsa, W. (1986). Cohesion in Thai.Doctor
the outcomes may yield different results concerning of Philosophy Thesis in Linguistics,
various modes of writing between English and Thai. Georgetown University.
Second, in this research, grammatical Cooke, J. (1975). Personal Reference in Thai,
cohesive devices were analyzed in general, so Burmese, and Vietnamese. Doctor of
specific types of grammatical cohesive devices such Philosophy Thesis in Linguistics in the
as ellipses, conjunctions, or references should be Graduate Division, University of California,
studied further individually. Halliday and Hasan Berkeley.
(1976: 238) state that conjunctions produce a Crane, Paul A. (1994). Texture in Text: A Discourse
cohesive effect only between sentences, as can be Analysis of a News Article Using Halliday
shown in Example (17). and Hasan’s Model of Cohesion.
Retrieved November 9, 2009 from
(17) She failed, however she has tried her http://library.nakanishi.ac.ip/kiyou/gaidai%2
best. 830%29/08.pdf.
Gwet, K. (2014). Handbook of Inter – Rater
However, as mentioned, there are other Reliability (4thed.). Advanced Analytics: the
studies contradicting the findings that conjunctions United States of America.
 úąöýąöÝŞĀñăõĀô îŖêĈė 27 ÜíĄíêĈė 2 (ÔöÔáą×ô – ëĄìúą×ô) ñ.û. 2559
CHOPHAYOM JOURNAL Vol.27 No.2 (July - December) 2016 61
Halliday, M.A.K. (1994). An Introduction to Magazine.Master of Arts Thesis in English
Functional Grammar. New York: for Specific Purposes, Kasetsart University.
Routledge. Petchprasert, A. (2001). A Study of Cohesive
Halliday, M.A.K. and Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in Markers Used in L1 and L2 Essay Writing:
English. London: Longman. Translation versus Direct Composition.
Higbie, J. and Thinsan, S. (2002). Thai Reference 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English
Grammar. Bangkok: Orchid Press. Language Studies 19 (1), 19-33
James, C. (1980). Contrastive Analysis. Essex: Puprasert, N. (2007). A Comparative Study of
Longman. English and Thai Cohesion in News
Ketabi, S. (2012). A Corpus-based Study of Article.Master of Arts Thesis in English for
Conjunction Devices in English Specific Purposes, Kasetsart University.
International Law Texts and its Farsi Silveira, R. (2007). Translation and Cohesion.
Translation. International Journal of Retrieved March 13, 2014 from
Linguistics4(4), 362-371. www.periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/traducao/ar
Kohkeaw, S. (2003). Cohesion in Economic Articles ticle/download/.../4628, March 13, 2014.
from the ThaiNewspaper Rahimi, A. (2012). Lexical Cohesion in English and
‘Phujatkan’.Master of Arts Thesis in Persian Texts of Novel.Mediterranean
Linguistics, Mahidol University. Journal of Social Sciences3(11), 569-577.
Larson, M. L. (1998). Meaning-based Translation: A Theppreeda, J. (1998). An Analysis of Cohesion in
Guide to Cross-language Equivalence. English and Thai Short Stories:
New York: University Press in America. Comparative Study.Master of Arts Thesis in
Linoff, G. (2008). Data Analysis Using SQL and Applied Linguistics, Mahidol University.
Excel.Retrieved May 4, 2013 from Thompson, G. (1996). Introducing Functional
http://www.temida.si/~bojan/MPS/materials Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
/Data%20Analysis%20Using%20SQL%20and Tsareva, A. (2010). Grammatical cohesion in
%20Excel.pdf. argumentative essays by Norwegian and
Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2007). Working with Russian learners. Master of Arts Thesis in
Discourse (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Literature, Area studies and European
Continuum. Languages, the University of Oslo.
McCarthy, M. (1991). Discourse Analysis for Vyšniauskiene, R. (2010). Cohesive Devices in the
Language Teachers. Cambridge: Opening Paragraph of Short Stories in
Cambridge University Press. English and Lithuanian.Master of
Miles, B. M. and Huberman, M. A. (1994). An Philosophy Thesis in English Philosophy,
expanded sourcebook: qualitative data Vilnius Pedagogical University.
analysis. (2nded.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Whitley, B. and Kite, M. (2012). Principles of
SAGE Publication. Research in Behavioral Science. New York:
Noonkhan, K. (2002). Cohesion Shifts in Routledge.
Translation: A Comparative Study Zhao, J., Yan, W., and Zhou, Y. (2009). A Corpus-
between Thai and English. Master of Arts Based Study of Cohesion in English
Thesis in English, Srinakharinwirot University. Medical Texts and its Chinese
Pathumratanathan, P. (2012). An Investigation on Translation. International Journal of
Figurative Language Employed in English Biomedical Science 5(3), 313-320.
Advertisements in In-flight