Coherence and Cohesion in English Discourse

particular way in which a coherent reading is generated for a text depends upon 
the nature of the interpretative principles that the reader draws upon. These are 
associated with particular discourse types in certain naturalized ways.
Dealing specifically with literary discourse, we first need to identify coherence 
in a variety of conceptions and applications.
2 Approaches to coherence
A complex interdisciplinary view par excellence of the notion of coherence 
has been provided by Toolan in his chapter on coherence in 
The Living Handbook 

---

81
of Narratology
(2012: 1-47). Pointing out some defining criteria of coherence 
as a technical term, namely the generally accepted assumption that coherence 
denotes those qualities in the structure of literary text that prompt the reader to 
perceive the text as ‘making sense’ with all parts ‘fitting together well’, he reveals 
an understanding of coherence as a textlinguistic notion. However, as many text 
linguists have shown, there is a tension in linguistic analysis of coherence rooted 
in the high level of generalization of the rules for coherence in text linguistics. 
More specifically, these rules are too general to reflect unique interfaces and 
interplays between a particular text and its contexts. Also readers will assess 
differently what is relevant information in the unique discoursal circumstances. 
As Toolan (2012: 2) further points out this tension is often summarized as a 
distinction between (purely linguistic) cohesion and (contextualized) coherence.
Specifically for methodological reasons, we may wish to distinguish clearly 
between the two – the linguistic rules of text building (in linguistic analysis 
of text) and contextualized messages (unfolding coherence in text). For the 
reader, it is crucial to identify what to depict as a situation and what to create 
as a mental context for meaningful interpretation of a text (cf. Komlósi 2012: 
22). The strained relation between the formal characteristics and elements of 
texts on the one hand and their unique aesthetic qualities and implicit messages 
on the other, have been discussed many times within the history of linguistic 
studies and literary criticism. The immense effort of the representatives of the 
Prague Linguistic Circle to avoid mechanical analyses of texts can serve as one 
of many examples. Adding further dimensions to their text analyses, namely the 
functionalist perspective, helped to defend their working methods (cf. Jakobson 
1960, Douthwaite 2000).
The importance of both cohesion and coherence has been recognized in text 
linguistic studies. In their list of major text criteria de Beaugrande and Dressler 
(1981) place cohesion and coherence on the top of their scale; both are described 
as most contributory features and text creating properties. For instance, in 
a framework of narrative text structures, coherence plays an important role. 
Similarly to any text analysis, in the analysis of narrative it is common to include 
linguistic description of language means used at any language level in the form 
of preliminary judgment of text qualities leading to more specifically focused 
multi-layered analysis of expressive means and stylistic devices (Miššíková 
2007: 51). Text-internal cohesive links are usually discussed within the syntactic 
level of text, taking us further to larger syntactic units where text messages are 
considered in broader contexts. Coherence, commonly defined as text-external 
quality of text, thus becomes an important feature of narrative. In text linguistics 
several subtypes of coherence are identified, such as 
temporal, causal, and 
thematic coherence as topic-maintenance and -furtherance (Toolan 2012: 4).

---

82
Following the discussion on typical features of narrative, such as repetition 
and near repetition, the tension between the concept of cohesion and coherence 
is palpable. In classical works on language in literature and stylistics cohesion 
“refers to all the linguistic ways in which the words of a passage, across 
sentences, cross-refer or link up” (Toolan 1998: 23); it is viewed as text-internal 
quality. More recently repetitions and cross-referencing have been recognised 
as features providing for coherence of text. Coherence is defined as text-
external quality aimed at the reader’s perception and making sense of a text. 
Thus coherence is regarded as “the psychological interpretation of a text to 
create a consistent schema, mental picture of world” (Goatly 2012: 318), while 
cohesion is classified as a subtype of coherence based on particular types of 
sense relations: “Coherence which depends upon features of the text such as co-
referring expressions or sense relations (synonymy, hyponymy, etc.) is cohesion” 
(ibid.: 318). The quoted statements are just seemingly controversial and should be 
perceived as corresponding and complementary: coherent narratives commonly 
involve a certain amount of repetition and cross-referencing, serving better unity 
and (logical, chronological, psychological, etc.) continuity. In addition, making 
sense of text in context involves a certain amount of intellectual work on saying 
and implicating, i.e. deciphering implicit messages, working out implicatures 
based on conventional framework, background knowledge, familiar schemata, 
etc. In this respect, coherence is now recognized as a concept with multiple 
pragmatically-determined dimensions.