English 5508 - Teaching Composition
Adherence to Coherence
Jason Hudson
Dr. T--
English 5505
28 October 2002
"Cohesion and Coherence", by Martha Kolln, is an essay about a pair of terms that are too often overlooked by instructors in the field of teaching composition. These terms, sometimes considered synonymous, are distinct and necessary tools for competent writers. Interestingly, these tools are vaguely covered in today's leading textbooks on writing. Hopefully, essays like this one will be read by a new generation of writing teachers, and that the information within (i.e. techniques to help ensure fluidity and connectedness in writing) will help these teachers to be more effective.
Coherence, as the essay suggests, indeed seems to deal with the overall aspects of the text in question. By contrast, cohesion is the successful fusion between sentences. The distinction between the two seems to be key in understanding two important objectives in writing. First, successful cohesion, which takes place multiple times within a paragraph, helps to keep the reader both engaged in the subject and cognate of the material read. There should be a logical flow between one sentence and the next. And because there has to be a logical flow for the sake of understanding, cohesion is a non-negotiable element in writing.
Coherence, on the other hand, seems to be less mechanical and more subjective. Coherence, as defined by Kolln, is "cohesion on a global scale" (94). It is interesting to note that coherence, unlike cohesion, depends on certain expectations from the reader. For me, coherence is more difficult to define clearly, because every reader has a different perspective. A question comes to me, thus, "If an essay is cohesive throughout its paragraphs, is it therefore also coherent in its totality?" It seems that cohesion either takes place in a passage of writing, or it doesn't. On the other hand, the phenomenon of coherence may happen according to a particular reader.
Kolln contends that cohesion and coherence are not covered sufficiently in today's leading writing textbooks. Perhaps the apparent lack of coverage has to do with the obviousness of cohesion (that is, an essay is cohesive and succeeds or it's not and it doesn't) and the subjective nature of coherence (that is, it may be coherent or it may not be). Or, the lack of attention may reflect the reality that coherence and cohesion are both natural courses of human thought. Minds follow a logical pattern of thought. Therefore, it seems any writing should reflect this natural course. But this doesn't seem to be a valid reason since much student writing fails to follow logical progression.
The textbooks do, however, deal with transition devices, and the strategies of parallelism, and repetition. These aspects blatantly deal with the idea of cohesion. The only thing that it missing is perhaps the word "cohesion." Does this mean, then, that our texts are not teaching the need for cohesion sufficiently? I think not. And isnt the Quintilian structure a lesson in coherence? Aren't Aristotle's principles and strategies an attempt to ensure cohesion?
I thoroughly enjoyed the portion of Kolln's essay about the known-new contract. This sentence structure makes perfect sense, but I don't recall ever learning the method before. In a subject-predicate situation, any new information should not be contained in the subject. Further, by considering the failure to adhere to this "law" a breach of contract puts pressure on the writer to carefully construct his sentences in a cohesive manner.
After I read that section, I found myself asking the same question that a student once did when introduced to the same idea. "Why wasn't I ever told about this before?"
The successful role of passive voice also seems to fly in the face of so many previous instructors who were adamant against my using it. The example taken from Time magazine shows how the passive voice works marvelously, in certain situations. Also, utilizing the infamous "to be" made an otherwise awkward sentence much more clear and cohesive in its context. Another sentence structure often criticized is the use of words with the existential "there." But when it is utilized in the proper context, an otherwise awkward sentence becomes successful.
Unfortunately, beginning writers overuse these methods, causing their writing to become to fatty. If these methods can be taught with a sharp warning that they must be used sparingly and in the right place, then we should do so. In my opinion, teaching them is better than cursing them altogether.
I think overall, students who are serious about writing wish to contribute something readable and interesting. For that reason, I believe that cohesion comes more naturally as one becomes more practiced in writing. Kolln suggests that "given a topic and a purpose and an audience[writers] will demonstrate cohesion in their prose" (111).