An Analysis of Cohesive Devices on Phoenix Posts on The Death of Queen Elisabeth II
Main Article Content
Keywords
collocation, reference, repetition, Phoenix, texters
Abstract
This paper explores some cohesive devices namely reference, repetition, and collocation on Phoenix messages by internet users worldwide in reaction to the death of Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. 400 e-messages on Phoenix platform were collected from 175 informants. Each participant provided at most three e-messages. The study examines the types of cohesive devices and the extent to which they are used in the various conversations of the texters. Insights were drawn from Halliday and Hassan (1976) who laid down the foundation of cohesion theory in English. They identified two different types of cohesive devices namely grammatical and lexical cohesion. The grammatical type is made up of reference, conjunction, substitution, and ellipsis; while lexical one comprises reiteration and collocation. Facts from the analysis of the data revealed that reference was the dominant cohesive devices. More precisely, the demonstrative pronouns (28.57%) are the most used referential items. it is seconded by possessive pronouns (23.42%) and the least employed devices is personal pronouns (20.57%). The results also indicated the use of repetition and collocation in messages of the participants. The most repeated word is Queen while the least reduplicated one is slave/slavery. Items of collocation are used at varying frequencies.
Downloads
References
Alsariera, A. H., & Yunus, K. (2021). The effects of lexical cohesion in maintaining coherence in the EFL Jordanian students’ writing. International Journal of Education, Psychology and Counseling, 6(40), 113-123
Blood,T. & Blood, T. (2004). The functional analysis of English (2nd ed.). Arnold Publisher.
Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Creswell, J., W. (2014). Research design: qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (4ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage.
Emilia, E. (2014). Introducing functional grammar. Bandung: Pustaka Jaya.
Gong, S., Zhang, J., Zhao, P., & Jiang, X. (2017). Tweeting as a marketing tool: A field experiment in the TV industry. Journal of Marketing Research, 54 (6), 833-850.
Grover, P., Kar, A. K., & Dwivedi Y. (2022). The evolution of social media influence: A literature review and research agenda. International Journal of Information Management Data Insights, 2, 1-13.
Halliday, K. A. M., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Kane, G., Alavi, M., Labianca, G., & Borgatti, S. (2014). What’s different about social media networks? A framework and research agenda. MIS Quarterly, 38 (1), 275-304.
Kitsios, F., Mitsopoulou, E., Moustaka, E., & Kamariotou, M. (2022). User-generated content behavior and digital tourism services: A SEM-neural network model for information trust in social networking sites. International Journal of Information Management Data Insights, 2 (1), 1-9.
Magogwe, J. M., Mokibelo, E. B., & Karabo, L. S. (2023). These students can’t write: An examination of cohesion and coherence in essays written by the University of Botswana ESL undergraduate students. International Journal of Higher Education,12 (3), 52-59.
Muttaqien, M. Z., Ma’ruf, A., & Hardjanto T. D. (2019). Systemic cohesion in social media conversations: Cases on Facebook and Twitter. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 9(2), 413-423.
Nouhou, P. Z. (2020). Cohesion and coherence in online communication: The case of WhatsApp and Messenger messages by students and lecturers in the department of English language and literature of the University of Maroua. (Unpublished Master’s Dissertation). FALSS, University of Maroua, Cameroon.
Obembe, D., Kolade, O., Obembe, F., Owoseni, A., & Mafimisebi, O. (2021). Covid-19 and the tourism industry: An early stage sentiment analysis of the impact of social media and stakeholder communication. International Journal of Information Management Data Insights, 1 (2), Article 100040.
Ryan, S. (2023). Coherence and cohesion in an ESL academic writing environment: Rethinking the use of translation and FOMT in language teaching. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Student Success, 2, 69-79.
Siregar, J., Nurlela & Thyrhaya Zein T. (2023). An analysis of cohesive devices in EFL students’ essay writing. Indonesian Journal of EFL and Linguistics,8(1), 39-53.
Tabe, C. A., & Nouhou, P. Z. (2021). Cohesion in online communication by some Cameroonians. In E. L. Veyu and S. A. Mforteh (Eds.), Globalisation and transitional ideologies: Moving the margins through language and literature. Papers in honour of Professor Edward OBEN AKO (pp. 345-362). Dallas, Texas: USA.
Wales, K. (1989). A Dictionary of Stylistics. Longman
Zahara, R., Yusuf, Y.Q., Samad, I. A., & Singh, C. K. S (2023). Cohesive devices in EFL students’ essays and problems encountered during writing. Indonesian Research Journal in Education|IRJE|,7(1), 61-76.
Article Sidebar
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.