Good academic papers have coherence
and cohesion. The term coherence
refers to content aspects. A paper has coherence if it presents
its arguments in a clear, plausible and comprehensible
order. There are 
no ‘logical
gaps’ in its line of reasoning. It avoids unnecessary digressions. The term
cohesion refers to formal (stylistic) aspects of writing, specifically
on the paragraph and sentence level. In good papers there is a tight fit of meaning and form. This is achieved by a skilful
use of lexico-grammatical forms that highlight the sense
relations binding the paragraphs and sentences in a text.
The interesting question is, of course, how one can create coherence and cohesion in ones writing. The following chapters give some advice on that.
Coherence
If a paper is easy to understand, this is mostly due to a coherent presentation of its contents. It follows a clear line in presenting facts and arguments and avoids statements which are incomprehensible for the reader. Coherent pieces of writing are selective in their presentation of content. They focus on the important issues and cut out what is irrelevant or unintelligible for a reader. This requires that their authors (a) know their subject well, and (b) have an eye on their audience and tailor their writing to what their readers probably know beforehand and are able to understand. Coherent writing creates a comprehensible context for the contents presented. It, too, presents them in a comprehensible order.
There are different strategies for creating a comprehensible order, and the choice of strategy depends on the aims and purposes of a piece of writing. Most generally we can distinguish fictional from non-fictional or factual writing, and narrative from argumentative writing. Academic papers are of the factual and argumentative type. They are the ones we are interested in here.
One of the easiest strategies for creating order is a chronological presentation of events. It is similar to a narrative presentation of events in fictional stories but the facts reported in academic papers must represent a true and accurate description of reality. They should not confuse subjective views with a fair and objective presentation of their subject matter. Fictional narratives have a beginning (exposition) and an ending, possibly an ending with an explicit or implied moral; factual writing leads to a logical conclusion. (Note that an emotionally or psychologically or poetically pleasing or plausible ending is not, in a strict sense, the same as a ‘logical’ conclusion.) A descriptive chronological report of events may serve a useful function in an academic paper, but it generally can be no more than a prelude to a logical conclusion or summary or scientific evaluation of the facts described.
Similar to but not identical with a chronological presentation of events is their ordering in a sequence of cause and effect. This, too, requires a sober description of facts plus their defining circumstances. The descriptive part is complemented by an analysis and possibly explanatory comment on the forces that connect cause and effect. Physical laws of cause and effect are not the same as psychological, sociological, or other constructions of cause and effect; academic publications need to make clear, therefore, which norms or theories or models they refer to when stating or postulating certain cause and effect relations. If there are competing norms or theories, authors need to make clear which authority they rely on, and why.
Frequently academic papers take the form of a critical discussion of certain claims, theories, or models. In this case a useful strategy is to first describe and present the relevant claims, theories or models before moving on to a discussion of arguments ‘for’ and ‘against’. The competing positions must be presented in a fair and accurate form. Their presentation should lead on to a logical conclusion or other type of evaluation. In that context a useful strategy is the comparing and contrasting of competing positions. It prepares the ground for a reasoned conclusion.
Strategically similar to a critical discussion of arguments for and against certain claims or theories of other people is the development of a theory or model. This generally incorporates the need for a critical discussion of facts and/ or other people’s position. The development and presentation of ones own theory frequently follows the traditional rhetorical figure of thesis – antithesis – synthesis.
The task of producing a coherent piece of academic writing is often complicated by the fact that it requires the use and combination of more than one of the strategies and types of presentation discussed above. It is important, therefore, to first critically reflect the nature of ones task and clarify the purpose of ones paper. As we pointed out in a previous chapter, this mostly is a heuristic process in which ‘things’ become clear while trying to get cognitive control over them. It often requires a re-writing of earlier versions of a paper. The final version, however, should formally flag the aim and function of the individual parts of the paper, which may be a description, or analysis, or comparison, or explanation, or evaluation, or conclusion. And this takes us to what is called ‘cohesion’.
Cohesion
Cohesion is the formal counterpart to coherence. Cohesive elements help to make texts comprehensible. And all languages provide a certain number of lexico-grammatical elements which highlight, on the sentence and paragraph level, the sense relation of one textual unit to those preceding or following on it. Such formal or stylistic devices have a guiding function for the reader. They support and speed up the cognitive processes by which a reader constructs the overall meaning of the linearly incoming textual information. This is why an author must take care that there is a tight fit of meaning and form. The cohesive elements which languages offer for the structuring and ease of understanding of texts can best be illustrated by some examples.
Transitions and link words:
One of the ways of comprehensibly presenting and structuring information is the chronological presentation of facts or events in a story or report. There are quite a few options for making clear the order in which ‘things’ happened. A straightforward way of making clear their sequence is the use of lexical items like first … second … third ….finally. In certain types of stories or reports a similar effect is achieved by the use of lexical items like in the beginning/ at the start/ to start with/ after that/ and then/ in between/ before that/ following on that/ in the end …..
In other texts the sense relations among the individual parts of a text may be that they compare, contrast, or evaluate facts or events or ideas. This is formally underlined by using words like similarly/ in the same way/ in a different way/ but/ on the one hand … on the other hand/ in contrast/ though/ however/ moreover/ in addition/ on top of that/ whereas…. This mostly goes together with the use of comparatives like more/ most/ better/ best/ worse/ worst/ better than/ worse than/ even worse….
When authors present arguments or cause and effect relations they typically use words and phrases like because/ .consequently/ therefore/ as a result/ … Conditional truths may be announced by words like depending on/ given that/ assuming that/
Performative verbs and commenting adverbs
Transition or link words formally flag and help to understand the sense relations among the different content parts of a text. But a writer can also guide or influence the reading process by using so called performative verbs or by using commenting adverbs, or by modal verbs.
Examples of performative verbs are: X claims, X states, X argues, X insists, X mentions, X believes, X postulates …or (the author) postulates, suggests, describes, illustrates, criticizes, demonstrates, believes, assumes, concludes…
Examples of commenting adverbs are: obviously, essentially, crucially, certainly, secretively, tacitly, boldly, clearly, allegedly, surreptitiously …
Examples of modal verbs, which indicate the degree of strength of claims and ‘hedge bets’, are: may/ might/ can be/ could be/ is/ has/ is not/ cannot be/ must be….
Anaphora, synonyms, and hyponyms
In addition and parallel to the above quoted formal links that highlight the type of sense relations among the sentences and paragraphs of a text, authors use other text-forming devices which contribute to the ease or speed of understanding in another way. They avoid the cumbersome repetition of long lexical expressions or phrases by their substitution through pronouns like this/ that/ he/ she/ / it/ they/ who/ which/ ….In text-linguistics they are called anaphoric elements.
The ease of understanding may be supported, too, by the explicit repetition of a key lexical term or phrase, in particular if we have to do with lexical relationships that transcend the paragraph boundaries. In place of verbatim repetitions we also find the use of synonyms and hyponyms.
Here are some examples:
Repetition of a key lexical term
The invention of automobiles greatly contributed to the development of industry and commerce in the 20th century. They made possible a fast exchange of goods and wares across long distances, and they contributed to radical changes in society and communication.
In industrialized countries automobiles cause traffic congestions, fatal accidents, and collapse of family budgets. But they also help save lives if people need fast transport to a hospital. They also play an important role in the economy of countries with a strong car manufacturing industry.
Finally, automobiles …..
We need a new car. A car that seats at least four people.
Hyponyms and super- and sub-ordinate semantic relations, and cover terms
Look at all those flowers. They are really beautiful. I like the roses best.
They cleaned the roof. The tiles were all dirty.
They painted the walls. The house looked bright after.
“Did you buy sweets?” “No, I don’t like such things.”
"The book was sent by post. The cover was missing, and many pages torn.
(cf. Halliday, M.A.K. & Hasan, R. 1976, Halliday, M.A.K. 1985).
Texts which lack cohesion make it difficult for the reader to re-construct the meaning which their authors may have intended to get across. Writers increase the comprehensibility of their texts if they make a skilful use of cohesive elements.
Proofreading
and text layout
The final steps in the composition of an essay are proofreading and giving the paper an attractive appearance.
In the age of computers one of the effective ways of checking a paper for typing errors and similar mistakes is to use the spelling checker of a text processor. Modern spelling checkers are quite sophisticated devices but they do not single out all errors. Authors must read through their paper, therefore, carefully after they have finished writing.
A paper that is full of formal errors arouses the suspicion that its contents are as carelessly conceived as its outward appearance suggests. If there are many formal errors they undermine a reader's trust in the quality of a paper.
Text comprehension is aided not only by a coherent and cohesive presentation of their content, it is also aided by a clear and formally attractive layout of the text. Good papers clearly set off the title of the whole paper and subtitles of chapters from the running text. In addition they may decide, where appropriate, to set titles off by setting them in bold print. Putting at the front of a text a table of contents also adds to its comprehensibility.
Well organized papers subdivide chapters into well-considered paragraphs. As a rule of thumb one might say that the principle "one main idea per paragraph" is a sensible principle for text construction. And within paragraphs keywords may be distinguished from the rest of the text by giving them a special form, setting them in italics, for example.
The use of colours and illustrations may also improve the comprehensibility of a paper. Authors should be careful, though, not to overload their paper with too many technical gimmicks. They tend to detract attention from the main issues rather than focussing it on them.
