Notes on Halliday & Hasan: Texture, Cohesion, and Texture (Pages 1–16)
Page 1
The chapter introduces texture as the second source of textual unity, following the prior focus on structure. Texture, like structure, is ultimately related to the context of situation; the contextual configuration (values of field, tenor, and mode) helps predict and are predicted by the unfolding texture of the text. There is a two-way relationship: the ongoing structure of the text defines/confirms the contextual configuration, and the contextual configuration guides what elements can appear, where, and how often.
Texture is explored as a unity source tied to meaning relations within a text, not just formal continuities.
Two quick examples illustrate texture vs. generic structure:
Example 5.1: "Once upon a time there was a little girl… washed it." This is a recognizable genre (an unfinished story) and exhibits strong semantic continuities related to referential relationships.
Example 5.2: A sequence from a foreign-language teaching exercise: "He got up on the buffalo / I have booked a seat / I have put it away in the cupboard / I have not eaten it." This lacks the same natural, everyday-life continuities as 5.1 and tends to be meta-textual rather than language-in-use.
Halliday claims that the first passage (5.1) has texture (semantic relations tying its parts together) while the second (5.2) lacks such texture, despite potential grammatical cohesion.
Texture is thus about the existence and quality of semantic relations among the parts of a text, not merely about coherence or a uniform structure.
He introduces the notion of a cohesive tie as the semantic link that binds parts of the text. The nature of these ties (how they are realized lexically and grammatically) will be discussed in the following sections.
Key definitions to remember:
Texture: semantic relations between parts of a text that contribute to its unity, related to the context of situation.
Cohesive tie: a semantic relation between two items (A and B) across messages that binds them together in texture. The relation is mediated by an implicit or explicit encoding device.
Co-reference, co-classification, co-extension: three primary semantic relations that underpin cohesive ties (see details in later sections).
Preview of the sections to come:
The linguistic patterns that realize texture (cohesive devices).
Endophoric vs exophoric interpretation of implicit devices and how interpretation sources affect texture.
How lexical cohesion supports, and is supported by, grammatical cohesion (the interdependence of the two kinds of cohesion).
Important takeaway: texture is not a simple on/off feature; there are degrees of coherence linked to how semantic relations are distributed across the text and how chains of relations interact.
Notation to keep in mind (for upcoming pages):
Endophoric ties: interpretation drawn from the co-text itself.
Exophoric ties: interpretation requires context outside the text.
Anaphoric ties: implicit element follows its referent.
Cataphoric ties: implicit element precedes its referent.
Cohesion and texture are supported by both grammatical and lexical devices; neither alone suffices for a fully textured text.
The upcoming pages will detail cohesive ties (co-reference, co-classification, co-extension), their lexico-grammatical realizations, and the concept of endophoric, exophoric, anaphoric, and cataphoric interpretation, with texts 5.1 and 5.2 as primary illustrations.
Page 2
Central claim: Texture is manifested by semantic relations between individual messages; the nature of these relations and the lexico-grammatical patterns that realize them are the focus of texture.
Three key points:
1) Texture is manifested by semantic relations between individual messages. The nature of these relations and their realizations are discussed in the following sections.
2) Texture and text structure are initially separate phenomena: a text (e.g., 5.1) may be structurally incomplete yet possess texture; texture does not depend on complete structural status.
3) Texture relates to the listener’s/co-reader’s perception of coherence: 5.1 would be described as coherent, while 5.2 as lacking coherence, due to texture differences.The core concept introduced: cohesive ties, the semantic links binding parts of a text, are essential to texture. Three primary tie types are introduced:
Co-reference: identity of referents across items (A and B refer to the same thing).
Co-classification: A and B refer to members of the same closed class, but not the same item (e.g., twice-referring to different members of the class).
Co-extension: A and B belong to the same general field of meaning; they are not identical in referent or class, but share a broader semantic domain (e.g., silver and gold both refer to metal).
The argument is that longer texts permit more and richer cohesive ties, enhancing texture.
Note on terms:
Endophoric ties: interpretation of an implicit term is anchored within the text's co-text.
Exophoric ties: interpretation relies on context beyond the text.
The three tie types are tied to specific lexico-grammatical patterns:
Co-reference: typically realized by reference devices (pronouns like he, she, it; definite articles; demonstratives like this/that).
Co-classification: typically realized by substitution or ellipsis.
Co-extension: realized via lexical items belonging to a shared semantic field (e.g., metals like silver and gold).
Foundational example summary:
Example 5.3 (little nut tree vs. silver/golden): shows how co-reference, co-classification, and co-extension operate as tie types.
Example 5.4 and 5.5 illustrate how two forms (implicit encoding devices like it, this, yours vs explicit items) function as cohesive devices through their dependency on other explicit encoding devices.
Important concept: implicit encoding devices are relational and rely on either co-text or the broader context for interpretation (endophoric vs exophoric). They function as cohesive devices when their interpretation hinges on a reference to another item within the same text.
Endophoric interpretation is essential for cohesion; if endophoric interpretation cannot be sustained, cohesion is compromised.
The interpretation of a given implicit device can follow (anaphoric) or precede (cataphoric) its linguistic referent, depending on text order. If the source for interpretation lies outside the co-text, the device is exophoric.
Page 3
Endophoric interpretation continued:
Anaphoric ties: the implicit term follows its linguistic referent (the referent appears earlier in the text). Example 5.6 (From Frost's The Road Not Taken) demonstrates how a demonstrative (this) refers forward to lines 3–5.
Cataphoric ties: the implicit term precedes its linguistic referent (e.g., this refers forward to something that appears later).
Exophoric interpretation: the source for interpretation lies outside the co-text (e.g., the child-experiment example 5.7 Stop doing that here. I'm trying to work.). It creates an opaque link to the context for outsiders.
A crucial point: exophoric interpretation can still support texture if other cohesive relations (co-reference, co-classification) function; texture is not eliminated by exophora alone.
The discussion also notes minimal texts (e.g., a single message) typically lack generic structure, but non-minimal texts exist and must be considered to understand texture in full generality.
Poetic examples show how exophoric devices can still produce texture when the text relies on overarching lexical patterns (e.g., Tomlinson’s lyric and Wordsworth’s poem 5.13).
The third type of tie—co-extension—becomes particularly important in texts with limited explicit referents where lexical fields provide the texture, such as in poetry where reference to a tree may be implicit but recoverable through semantic cues (hollowed core, woodflesh, etc.).
Page 4
Cohesive devices continued: co-extension relies on sense relations. The major sense relations are:
SYNONYMY: two items share identical experiential meaning (e.g., woman vs. lady; buy vs. purchase).
ANTONYMY: opposites in experiential meaning (e.g., silver vs. golden as part of a general metal domain).
HYPONYMY: a general class and its sub-classes (e.g., animal > cat, dog, bear). Hyponymy often overlaps with co-hyponymy and can be seen as a form of weak antonymy in some cases.
MERONYMY: part-whole relations (tree > limb, root; limb and root naming parts of the tree).
REPETITION: repeating the same lexical unit or its morphologically related forms strengthens cohesion (e.g., There were children everywhere; there were children on the swings…).
Note: repetition and sense relations are general lexical devices; there are also device families that are more specific to a text (instantial semblance, etc.). All devices discussed are compunitive (they link message components) rather than whole messages (which would be “organic” cohesion devices).
The distinction between compunitive (linking message components) vs organic (linking whole messages) devices is drawn, with examples such as parallelism and given-new/theme-rheme as other structural cues not exhaustively covered here.
The chapter emphasizes that lexical cohesion depends on the grammatical coherence and vice versa; they work best when both are present in a text.
Two additional points made:
1) All lexical cohesive devices discussed are general in nature, though there exist text-specific cohesive devices (instantial semblance).
2) All devices discussed are compositional; the terms in a tie are message components that form part of messages and are linked to produce cohesion.
Page 5
The section introduces the idea of cohesive chains, which are sequences of items linked by co-reference, co-classification, and/or co-extension. Chains can be classified as:
Identity chains: all members refer to the same thing (co-reference). Example 5.1’s chain around girl, she, etc. This chain is text-exhaustive in the example provided, meaning it runs across the whole text.
Similarity chains: items refer to related or similar things/events within the same semantic field (co-classification and/or co-extension). Example: went, walk, got; these refer to related actions (going/walking/getting somewhere).
The semantic field’s organization is genre-specific; the items that form similarity chains reflect the semantic groupings typical of that genre. This provides a link between the contextual configuration and the text’s internal cohesion patterns.
Identity chains involving specific individuals (e.g., names) are largely accidental with respect to overall textual unity; how they function depends on context (the text) rather than being universal anchors of texture.
The concept of text-exhaustiveness for identity chains is introduced as a tentative feature of short narratives: they typically have one identity chain that runs through most or all of the text.
The chapter emphasizes that similarity chains depend on a broader semantic organization; identity chains depend on referents and can be less central to texture in longer or more diverse texts.
Summary of chain notions:
Chains can be visually represented as threads of continuity (Figures like 5.3 use links to show how elements connect across clauses).
Central tokens: lexical items that participate in chain interaction (overlap with other chains).
Non-central tokens: tokens that are relevant but do not interact with other chains.
Peripheral tokens: tokens that do not enter into any chain.
Chain interaction: when two or more chains share a relation (e.g., actor–action, action–object, etc.). Chain interaction is a necessary component of textual unity; text coherence improves when chains interact more richly.
Page 6
Table 5.1 (Summary of cohesive devices) is introduced, dividing devices into two major categories:
Grammatical cohesive devices
A: Conjunctives (e.g., causal ties, concession ties)
B: Substitution & Ellipsis (Nominal, Verbal, Clausal)
A: Reference (Pronominals, Demonstratives, Definite article, Comparatives)
Lexical cohesive devices
A: General relations (Repetition, Synonymy, Antonymy, Meronymy)
B: Instantial relations (Equivalence, Naming, Semblance)
There is also mention of Non-Structural Cohesion as an overarching category that includes adjacency pairs (e.g., question-answer, offer-acceptance, order-compliance) and continuatives (still, already, etc.). These are described as Organic relations, connecting whole messages rather than just components.
The table distinguishes compontal relations (tie terms as message components) from organic relations (tie terms as whole messages).
The two main families of cohesion are thus:
Non-structural cohesion (grammatical and lexical ties among units that are not whole-message units per se).
Structural cohesion (Theme-Rheme development, Given-New organization) that underpins the broader structure of the text.
The reciprocity between grammatical and lexical cohesion is emphasized: they support and reinforce each other in typical texts. Two example clauses illustrate how the two kinds work in tandem (e.g., John gets up early. We bought him a tie. He loves peaches. My house is next to his.).
The discussion introduces a practical insight: cohesion works best when both forms of cohesion are present and when the lexical items are integrated into chains that connect to the larger message structure.
Page 7
The notion of cohesive chains is elaborated with a detailed look at Text 5.1 (the little girl narrative). The author isolates four strands of continuity within the first five clauses:
1) The girl/clause 1 element (girl)
2) The verb went (clause 2)
3) The teddy bear (clause 3)
4) The home (clause 4)Each strand is treated as a chain; these chains are mapped visually to show how they interconnect and support texture. The idea is to reveal multiple parallel threads of meaning that run through the text, creating a sense of unity even when individual sentences are simple.
The term cohesive chain is formalized: a chain is a set of items linked by co-reference, co-classification, and/or co-extension. Chains can be classified as:
Identity chains: based on co-reference (e.g., the girl, she, the girl, etc.). These chains can be text-exhaustive (reaching from start to end).
Similarity chains: based on co-classification and/or co-extension (e.g., went, walk, got).
The text argues that similarity chains are genre-sensitive and reflect broader semantic groupings; identity chains are more dependent on specific referents. The identity vs similarity distinction helps explain how different texts can share features of texture yet differ in how coherence emerges.
The notion that identity chains may be less central in longer or more varied texts is stressed; similarity chains reflect the semantic field relevant to a given context or genre.
Page 8
The section returns to Texts 5.1 and 5.2 to compare their texture notably:
Informants consistently judged Text 5.2 as less coherent than Text 5.1.
The two texts have similar numbers of grammatical cohesive devices, but the distribution and interpretation of those devices differ in meaningful ways.
Table 5.2 shows grammatical cohesive devices in Text 5.1; Table 5.3 shows those in Text 5.2. Key points:
The number and distribution of grammatical devices are similar, but interpretation patterns differ (e.g., more exophoric and ambiguous devices in 5.2).
Table 5.4 provides overall cohesion statistics:
For Text 5.1: a high proportion of tokens are explicit lexical tokens; a large percentage of these are interpreted anaphorically (self-sufficient language use).
For Text 5.2: a significant portion of grammatical devices cannot be interpreted by direct reference to the text; a non-trivial portion are exophoric or ambiguous, which reduces coherence.
Lexical rendering is shown in Tables 5.5 and 5.6, illustrating how grammatical devices map to lexical tokens, including those with exophoric markers (+) and those that are ambiguous (?) or exophoric (+).
The quantitative results show Text 5.1 is highly self-sufficient (most devices are anaphoric within the text), whereas Text 5.2 relies more on exophoric interpretation and contains more ambiguity, which affects perceived coherence.
The discussion introduces the idea that exophora does not automatically destroy texture; coherence depends on the presence of other cohesive ties and the ability to interpret implicit devices through lexical relations.
Page 9
The comparison between Text 5.1 and 5.2 is continued with a deeper look at exophoric usage and ambiguity:
Exophora in Text 5.2 occurs via the definite article the and other exophoric forms (e.g., the sailor, the ship, the room, the zoo). Some exophoric references are more opaque than others, but context often helps to connect them semantically.
Ambiguity in Text 5.2 arises when a pronoun such as they could refer to multiple possible nominees (the boy and girl; the dog; the sailor; etc.). The author explores the plausible co-reference of they, considering world knowledge and local context, and notes that ambiguity can coexist with coherence in other aspects of the text.
The author emphasizes that a high level of coherence is not solely a function of lack of ambiguity; rather, coherence emerges from interplay among multiple chains and their interactions.
The section introduces a refined view: lexical cohesion often underpins the interpretation of ambiguous pronouns by anchoring them to semantic groupings; even when exact referents are uncertain, the pattern of relations can still produce texture.
Page 10
The section turns to the idea of chain interaction as a mechanism for cohesion across multiple chains:
Chains interact when multiple member relations (e.g., actor-action, action-object) align across chains, creating a network of connections that fosters coherence.
Three interrelated points are outlined to explain how these interactions contribute to texture:
1) Definite referential domains help anchor tokens across the text; when a domain is well established, more tokens can be subsumed into chains.
2) Identity and similarity must extend beyond token-by-token levels to reflect the content of the messages themselves. Textual unity relies on staying with similar concepts long enough to show their related states of affairs.
3) Coherence involves a gradual blending of topics rather than abrupt topic shifts; transitions between topics are more of a merge than a hard boundary.
The author coins the term COHESIVE HARMONY to describe the sum of these phenomena: texture and coherence arise from the harmony between grammatical and lexical cohesion, and their alignment with the textual and experiential functions of discourse.
A practical implication for teaching: coherence cannot be achieved by simplistic prescriptions (e.g., fixed percentages of pronouns or connectives). Instead, one must analyze semantic relations and how language resources serve the community's communicative needs. The teacher’s goal is to help students produce coherent discourse by understanding the meaning relations among concepts in the field of study.
Page 11
The discussion elaborates on cohesive harmony and its role in coherence by illustrating chain interaction with Figures 5.4 and 5.5 (chain interaction in Texts 5.1 and 5.2):
Central tokens: tokens that participate in interaction across chains.
Non-central tokens: tokens that are relevant but do not interact.
Peripheral tokens: tokens that do not enter into any chain.
The three main factors predicting coherence are:
1) The proportion of peripheral tokens to relevant tokens: the smaller the peripheral proportion, the higher the likely coherence. Text 5.1 has 90.5% of tokens in cohesive chains, while Text 5.2 has 76%.
2) The proportion of central to non-central tokens: Text 5.1 has 65% central tokens among relevant tokens, whereas Text 5.2 has only 36% central tokens.
3) The degree of chain interaction: Text 5.1 shows extensive chain interaction with focal chains (a and b) interacting with many others; Text 5.2 shows a break in chain interaction, correlating with reduced coherence.The author emphasizes three conclusions:
A robust semantic grouping and definitive referential domains are necessary for texture to emerge.
Identity and similarity must operate at the content level of the message, not only within isolated tokens.
Coherence results from cohesive harmony across lexical and grammatical devices; texture unites the textual and experiential functions into a coherent whole.
The overall claim: variation in coherence is a function of variation in cohesive harmony, which itself arises from the interaction of semantic relations, chain structures, and the distribution of tokens across chains.
Page 12
The section discusses the implications for teaching and classroom practice:
Coherent discourse is a product of the social functions of language. It cannot be reduced to mechanical prescriptions about word choice or sentence counts.
Teachers should focus on students’ ability to articulate semantic relations among concepts in the field and to build coherent discourse through meaningful connections, rather than relying on simplistic targeting of pronouns or article use.
Non-verbal aspects of communication (gestures, eye contact, posture) support meaning-making, but coherent discourse ultimately depends on the community's shared language resources and the ability to use them to connect ideas.
The author cautions against simplistic teaching strategies that force a rigid distribution of cohesive devices, arguing instead for teaching that helps learners understand and manipulate semantic relations and their textual manifestations.
Page 13
The transition to Chapter 6 (The identity of the text) is announced, signaling a shift from texture to a broader discussion of how the texture of a text relates to its identity within a CC (contextual configuration).
The introduction to Chapter 6 raises two central questions:
How is the identity of a contextual configuration determined? When do we decide CC1 is distinct from CC2? What criteria justify labeling a new CC as a separate configuration?
How far does the identity of a genre extend? What criteria establish generic identity? The answer to these questions will be pursued in the chapter.
The discussion foreshadows a deep link between texture (Chapter 5) and structure (Chapter 4) as part of the broader issue of textual unity and genre identity.
Page 14
Chapter 6 continues the exploration of identity of the text, focusing on:
The identity of the contextual configuration (CC): how to determine when two contexts are the same or distinct, given field, tenor, and mode values.
The identity of a genre: what criteria establish that different texts belong to the same genre, and how to judge genre boundaries.
The chapter sets up a framework for examining contextual configurations and generic identity as foundational to understanding the text’s unity and its social semiotic function.
Page 15
The page shifts to the front matter of the book: a bibliographic and organizational context for the volume Language, Context, and Text, including the authors and the interdisciplinary editors (Halliday & Hasan) and the Open Campus/Deakin University materials.
The material notes that this book is part of a series for language education and social semiotics, linking to a broader set of works and study materials for educators.
It provides information about the unit (ECS805 Specialised Curriculum: Language and Learning) and the editing/production credits for the Deakin University edition, including the editors and consultants who contributed to the material.
Page 16
Short biographical note about M. A. K. Halliday (Michael Halliday): background, education, career highlights, and research interests. This page serves as author background material and situates Halliday within the field of linguistics and language education.
Halliday’s work centers on semantics, grammar of modern English, language development in early childhood, and text linguistics (text, context, and cohesion) as essential components of language teaching and analysis.
Key concepts and takeaways (recap across pages)
Texture vs. structure: Texture is about semantic relations and coherence within texts, grounded in the context of situation; structure is a related but distinct source of textual unity.
Cohesive ties: Three primary semantic relations underpin texture: co-reference, co-classification, and co-extension. These ties are realized through different lexico-grammatical patterns and are essential for texture, especially in longer texts with multiple threads of continuity.
Implicit encoding devices: Elements like it, this, yours are relational and require interpretation relative to other text items (endophoric), or relative to context (exophoric); interpretation can be anaphoric or cataphoric depending on position, and exophoric interpretation introduces potential opacity but does not automatically destroy texture.
Sense relations and lexical cohesion: Synonymy, antonymy, hyponymy (and meronymy as part-whole relations) provide the semantic grounding for co-extension; repetition of lexical items also contributes to texture.
Cohesive chains: Identity chains (co-reference) and similarity chains (co-classification/co-extension) form the backbone of texture. Chains interact to produce cohesive harmony, which is the function that variation in coherence reflects.
Cohesive harmony: The integrated interaction of lexical and grammatical cohesion, aligned with the textual and experiential functions of discourse. Texture coherence arises when there is a stable referential domain and multiple chains interact without frequent breaks.
Educational implications: Coherent discourse is a social resource; teaching coherence requires helping students understand semantic relations and how to build cohesive structures that reflect the field's concepts rather than relying on simplistic recipes.
Chapter 6 preview: The identity of the contextual configuration and the identity of a genre, highlighting how texture and structure relate to broader questions of text identity and genre boundaries.
Contextual framing: The material situates texture within a broader social semiotics program and connects it to a wide range of linguistic and educational concerns.
Notable numbers and references to keep in mind (these may appear in exams or summaries):
Example distinctions: 5.1 vs 5.2 — coastal to texture; Text 5.1 contains a high degree of anaphoric interpretation (Table 5.4: 97% anaphoric interpretability), while 5.2 shows significant exophoric interpretation and ambiguity (Text 5.2: about 27% exophoric, 40% not interpretable by text; Table 5.4).
Cohesive chain analysis for Text 5.1 shows 90.5% of lexical tokens are in cohesive chains (67/74); Text 5.2 has 76% in cohesive chains after omitting the sailor/boy/girl/dog identities (33 total tokens, 25 in chains).
Percentage of lexical tokens interpreted via grammatical devices in Text 5.1: 97% anaphoric; Text 5.2 has 40% not interpretable via text, 27% exophoric, 13% ambiguous (Table 5.4).
Central vs non-central vs peripheral tokens: Text 5.1 has 65% central tokens among relevant tokens; Text 5.2 has 36% central tokens; peripheral tokens are higher in 5.2, correlating with lower coherence (Table 5.7, 5.8).
Key percentages of coherence correlates: lower peripheral token proportion, higher central-to-noncentral ratio, and stronger chain interaction correlate with higher coherence.
References and further reading: Halliday & Hasan (1976) on grammatical and lexical cohesion; Hasan (1979, 1984b, 1984c) on endophoric/exophoric interpretation and texture; Fries (1983) on Theme-Rheme and Given-New; Schegloff (1968) and Goffman (1975) on adjacency pairs; Morgan (1978); de Beaugrande (1980) on coherence in discourse. These works underpin the texture/cohesion framework used in this chapter.
Final note for exam preparation: Focus on understanding how texture is constructed through co-reference, co-classification, and co-extension; recognize the difference between endophoric and exophoric interpretation and how they influence texture; be able to explain why two texts with similar grammatical cohesion can differ in coherence due to lexical cohesion distribution and chain interactions; and be prepared to discuss how texture informs teaching and the identity of text in relation to contextual configurations and genres.
Page 15 (contextual context from front matter)
The book is part of a broader suite of language-education materials and situates texture within a social semiotic framework. The edits and contributors reflect an interdisciplinary approach to language, context, and text, with a focus on how this theory informs classroom practice and curricular development.
Page 16 (author bio)
M. A. K. Halliday’s background is summarized (birth in 1925, Chinese language/literature training, Cambridge PhD, career path through UCL and Sydney, major contributions to systemic functional linguistics, and the development of text linguistics and education-focused works).
If you’d like, I can tailor these notes to a specific exam prompt (e.g., focus on cohesive ties, provide a quick-reference cheat sheet for the three tie types, or create a set of practice questions with model answers based on the page-by-page content.