Definition:

Cohesion refers to the formal, surface-level linguistic mechanisms that connect sentences, clauses, and phrases within a text, creating textual continuity. Cohesive devices signal relationships between propositions — signaling that “this sentence continues from the previous one” or “this pronoun refers back to that noun.” Cohesion is a property of the text itself (its linguistic structure), as distinguished from coherence, which is a property of the reader’s interpretation (the mental text model constructed from the text). The foundational analysis of cohesion is Halliday and Hasan’s Cohesion in English (1976), which identified five major cohesive mechanisms: reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction, and lexical cohesion.

In-Depth Explanation

Cohesion is the visible, formal side of textual connectivity: the pronouns, conjunctions, ellipses, and lexical repetitions that signal how sentences relate to each other. Coherence is the invisible, interpretive side: the semantic and pragmatic unity that a reader constructs. A text can have abundant cohesive ties and still be incoherent if its propositions do not form a consistent situation model. For L2 writers — including Japanese learners writing English — cohesion instruction must go beyond teaching transition words to developing the full range of referential, substitutive, and lexical cohesion strategies.

Halliday and Hasan’s Five Cohesive Devices

1. Reference:

Using pronouns, demonstratives, or articles to point back (anaphora) or forward (cataphora) to referents established in the text.

> “John arrived late. He had missed the bus.”

(He refers back to John — anaphoric reference)

Types: personal (he, she, it, they), demonstrative (this, that, these, those), comparative (the same, similar, other)

2. Substitution:

Replacing an element with a pro-form (rather than a pronoun).

> “Would you like a biscuit? — Yes, I’d like one.”

(one substitutes for a biscuit)

3. Ellipsis:

Omitting an element that is recoverable from the discourse context.

> “Will you come? — I might [come].”

(The VP come is elided but understood from context)

4. Conjunction:

Using connective words to signal logical or temporal relationships between clauses/sentences.

> “However / Therefore / Although / Then / For example…”

Types: additive (and, also), adversative (but, however, nevertheless), causal (so, therefore, because), temporal (then, after that, meanwhile)

5. Lexical Cohesion:

Semantic relatedness across sentences through vocabulary choices.

• Reiteration: same word, synonym, superordinate, or general word

> “She picked up a flower. The rose was bright red.” (flower → rose: hyponym)

• Collocation: co-occurrence of words that naturally cluster together

> “The hospital was crowded with patients, nurses, and doctors.”

Cohesion vs. Coherence

A text can be cohesive but incoherent if the cohesive devices connect sentences that don’t make logical sense together. Conversely, a short informal text can be coherent even with minimal cohesive devices.

Cohesion and L2 Writing

In L2 writing research and pedagogy:

• Learners at lower proficiency often produce texts with insufficient cohesion — abrupt topic shifts, unclear pronoun reference, missing conjunctions
• Over-reliance on conjunctions (and, but, so) is also a learner feature — marking a limited conjunction repertoire
• Writing instruction explicitly teaches use of discourse connectors, reference chains, and lexical cohesion to support text-level meaning

Cohesion in Japanese

Japanese cohesion has distinctive features:

• Topic-prominent structure: は (wa) marks topic continuity — it is a cohesive device linking sentences through topic chain maintenance
• Zero-anaphora: Japanese frequently omits subjects and objects that are recoverable from context — cohesion is maintained by ellipsis rather than overt pronoun (more so than English)
• Conjunctive particles: て-form, から (kara), けど (kedo), and sentence-final conjunctions create cohesive sequences

History

• 1976 — Halliday & Hasan. Cohesion in English establishes the systematic taxonomy of five cohesive ties (reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction, lexical cohesion) — the foundational framework for all subsequent text linguistics and L2 writing research.
• 1980s–1990s — L2 writing applications. Cohesion analysis becomes a standard method for comparing native and non-native text production and diagnosing specific writing difficulties.
• 1990s–present — Cross-linguistic extension. Researchers extend cohesion analysis to other languages and spoken discourse, revealing significant cross-linguistic variation in typical cohesive patterns.

Common Misconceptions

“More cohesive devices means better writing.” Overusing explicit cohesive devices (especially conjunctions like “furthermore,” “however,” “in addition”) can reduce writing quality, making it seem mechanical rather than smoothly connected. Native-like writing varies cohesive strategies, relying on implicit pragmatic connections and lexical patterns as well as explicit markers. L2 learners who over-rely on conjunction for cohesion often produce lower-rated writing than peers who use lexical cohesion and ellipsis more naturally.

“Cohesion is only about using transition words.” The conjunction category of cohesive devices is the most pedagogically salient, but cohesion extends to pronominal reference (using “it,” “they,” “this” to link back to prior mentions), substitution (replacing a word with “one,” “so,” “do so”), ellipsis (omitting understood elements), and a full range of lexical patterning including synonymy, antonymy, collocation, and repetition.

Criticisms

• English-specific taxonomy: The Halliday & Hasan framework has been criticized for describing English-specific patterns rather than universal text-building mechanisms; cross-linguistic research has challenged which categories apply across languages.
• Cohesion/coherence inseparability: Many researchers argue the two are theoretically inseparable — formal ties only create textual coherence in combination with inferential processes.
• Assessment conflation: In L2 writing assessment, over-reliance on cohesion scores as proxies for quality conflates textual marking with communicative effectiveness.

Social Media Sentiment

Cohesion appears in language teaching communities primarily as a writing instruction concept. EFL writing teachers discuss how to teach cohesive devices without producing formulaic transition-word overuse. Academic writing coaches address cohesion in workshops and YouTube content on “how to write a cohesive paragraph.” Among learners, the concept usually appears as part of IELTS or TOEFL writing preparation, where cohesion and coherence are explicitly scored in band descriptors. Awareness of cohesion as a distinct linguistic concept outside of formal writing courses is limited.

Last updated: 2026-04

Practical Application

For L2 writers, developing cohesion means moving beyond transition words to varying cohesive strategies by level: beginners can focus on consistent pronominal reference and basic conjunctions; intermediate learners should develop lexical cohesion (synonymy, lexical chains); advanced learners can use ellipsis and substitution for more native-like sentence rhythm.

Related Terms

• Coherence
• Discourse Analysis
• Metadiscourse
• Pragmatic Competence
• Writing in SLA

See Also

• Sakubo – Study Japanese

Research

• Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. Longman.
  Summary: The foundational text establishing the systematic taxonomy of cohesive ties in English; distinguishes five types and provides the analytical framework that has driven text linguistics and L2 writing research for five decades.
• Witte, S. P., & Faigley, L. (1981). Coherence, cohesion, and writing quality. College Composition and Communication, 32(2), 189–204.
  Summary: Influential empirical study finding that higher-rated essays do not necessarily use more cohesive ties — challenging naive pedagogical assumptions about adding transition words to improve writing.
• Hinkel, E. (2001). Matters of cohesion in L2 academic texts. Applied Language Learning, 12(2), 111–132.
  Summary: Comparative analysis of cohesive patterns in L1 and L2 English academic texts; documents characteristic cohesion difficulties of L2 writers from multiple L1 backgrounds.