Açılışa Özel %30 İndirim Tüm Materyallerde
Ünite 8 · Cohesion: Reference, Substitution & Ellipsis · Bölüm 1/6

Grammar: Cohesion — Reference, Substitution & Ellipsis

By C2, sentences are no longer the unit that matters. The text is. Cohesion is the invisible thread that turns a heap of true statements into a single, flowing whole.

Cohesion is the thread you never see

At C2 you can already build any sentence you like. What now separates a masterful writer from a merely correct one is cohesion: the network of grammatical and lexical links that tie one sentence to the next so a reader glides through the text instead of stumbling over it. Cohesion is felt only when it fails — when a "this" points at nothing, when a noun is hammered five times, when a "the former" and "the latter" get crossed.

This unit gives you three tools for the job. Reference lets a small word (it, they, this, such) point to something rather than name it again. Substitution lets a stand-in (one, ones, do so, so, not) take the place of a longer item. Ellipsis simply drops what the reader can already recover. Above these sits lexical cohesion — the quiet chaining of synonyms and superordinates. The C2 skill is not knowing these devices but choosing the right one, each time, to keep a text connected and clean.

  • The trip got cancelled at the last minute. This upset the whole class.Reference → "this" points back to the whole event without renaming it.
  • I liked the grey hoodie, so I bought the navy one too.Substitution → "one" stands in for "hoodie".
  • Sara can skateboard, and Tom can too.Ellipsis → "[skateboard]" is dropped after "can" — the reader supplies it.
  • The eagle circled once; then the bird was gone.Lexical cohesion → a superordinate ("bird") replaces "eagle".

1. Reference (pointing instead of repeating)

A reference item does not carry meaning of its own; it borrows meaning from something else in the text. When it points back to a word already used, it is anaphoric — the everyday case. When it points forward to something named later, it is cataphoric — a marked, attention-grabbing move. The word it depends on is its antecedent (looking back) or its referent more generally.

Reference typeTypical itemsExample
personalit, they, this, theseThe project files arrived late; they were incomplete.
demonstrativethis, that, these, suchGrades slipped and stress rose. Such a mix worries parents.
comparativethe same, other, similarShe wanted a quiet corner of the library; I wanted the same.
Anaphoric vs cataphoric
  • Anaphoric (backward): "Ann resigned. It shocked us." — "it" looks back to the resignation.
  • Cataphoric (forward): "Consider this: no plan survives contact with reality." — "this" looks ahead, building suspense.

2. Demonstratives & ordering (this / that / such · the former / the latter)

Demonstratives let you package a whole idea into one pointer. This/these pull the referent close; that/those hold it at a distance; such refers to "a thing of that kind". For two items already named, the former means the first one and the latter means the second — a compact, formal way to sort them without repeating.

DeviceWhat it doesExample
this / thesepoints to the near / just-said ideaOur budget was cut. This ended the club trip.
such"a thing of that kind"Missed messages, lost notes, broken links — such problems mount up.
the former / the latterfirst-mentioned / second-mentionedWe compared the bus and the bike; the former was faster.
C2 subtlety
  • the former = the one named first; the latter = the one named second. Mixing them is a classic C2 slip that reverses your meaning.
  • Use "the former/the latter" only for exactly two items, and only when the reader can still hold both in mind — otherwise just name them.

3. Substitution (one / ones · do so, do that · so / not)

Where reference points at a thing, substitution puts a lightweight stand-in in the same grammatical slot. Use one/ones to replace a countable noun, do so / do that to replace a verb phrase, and so / not to replace a whole clause after verbs such as think, hope, believe, be afraid.

SubstituteReplacesExample
one / onesa countable nounThese pens leak; I need new ones.
do so / do thata verb phraseYou were asked to hand in the form; please do so today.
so / nota whole clause"Will it rain?" — "I hope not."
C2 subtlety
  • do so is neat and formal; do it / do that are lighter and more conversational — pick by register.
  • one substitutes a count noun only: say "I want some" (not "some ones") for uncountables like advice or water.

4. Ellipsis (dropping what can be recovered)

Ellipsis is cohesion by subtraction: you leave a word out precisely because the reader can supply it from what came before. It is the tightest, most economical link of all — nothing stands in, and yet the connection is unmistakable. It works after auxiliaries, in coordinated clauses, and in short answers.

TypeFull formWith ellipsis
after an auxiliaryShe can swim and he can swim.She can swim and he can [ ] too.
coordinated clauseSome passed the exam; others did not pass.Some passed the exam; others did not [ ].
short answer"Are you coming?" — "Yes, I am coming.""Are you coming?" — "Yes, I am [ ]."
C2 subtlety
  • Ellipsis works only when the recovered words are identical to the earlier ones. If the form would change, keep the words: "She sings well and they dance well" cannot be ellipted to "and they well".
  • Over-eager ellipsis can leave a reader guessing. Drop only what is genuinely recoverable.

5. Lexical cohesion & formal reference (synonym / superordinate chains · the aforementioned / the said)

Beyond grammar, a text is bound together by its vocabulary. Instead of repeating a noun, a skilled writer varies it: a synonym, a superordinate (a wider category word), or a summarising label keeps the topic alive without monotony. In legal and bureaucratic writing, a heavier device — the aforementioned or the said — refers back with formal precision, but it clogs ordinary prose.

DeviceHow it linksExample (first → later mention)
synonyma near-equal worda car → the vehicle
superordinatea wider category worda rose → the flower
formal referenceprecise but heavy; legal registerthe protocol → the aforementioned protocol
C2 subtlety
  • A synonym chain must not shift the meaning: calling a "cottage" a "mansion" two lines later confuses rather than links.
  • Reserve the aforementioned / the said for contracts and notices. In normal prose a plain "it" or "this protocol" is lighter and clearer.

6. Common mistakes (✗ / ✓)

These are the cohesion faults that surface even in fluent C2 writing. Each one is a failure of linking, not of grammar. Audit your own drafts against every row.

Wrong ✗Right ✓Why?
We changed the topic and the deadline. This caused chaos.We changed the topic and the deadline. Both moves caused chaos.a vague "this" points at two things at once — ambiguous reference.
We studied France and Spain; the former has warmer coasts. (meaning Spain)We studied France and Spain; the latter has warmer coasts."the former" = first-named (France); the writer meant the second, Spain.
The essay notes the essay is weak because the essay lacked sources.The essay notes it is weak because it lacked sources.over-repetition; reference ("it") streamlines the sentence.
I have three pens; give me the red ones. (only one is meant)I have three pens; give me the red one.number clash: singular referent needs "one", not "ones".
She wanted to help, and he wanted to. (help = do something different)She wanted to help, and he wanted to as well. (same help)ellipsis works only if the dropped words are truly recoverable and identical.

7. Putting it together (Model Dialogue)

A new club member hands in a stiff, repetitive paragraph for the school magazine; a senior editor coaches the cohesion. Read it twice and watch how each fix swaps a repeated noun for a lighter link — and why each choice keeps the text clear.

J:I wrote: "The student council rejected the plan. The student council said the plan was too costly."Every noun repeated — correct, but clumsy and redundant.
E:Let the second "student council" become "it", and let "the plan" become "it" too: "The student council rejected the plan, saying it was too costly."Anaphoric reference removes the repetition without any loss.
J:Next line I had two options and wrote "the former" for the second one.A very common slip: "the former" is the first-named item.
E:Then it must be "the latter". The former is always the one you named first; reverse it and you reverse your meaning.Order words must match the order of mention.
J:And "The student council will meet again and the student council will vote"?Still repeating the subject unnecessarily.
E:Drop it: "The student council will meet again and vote." Ellipsis. Trust the reader to carry the subject across.Nothing stands in — and the link is still perfectly clear.
Test yourself
  • Why is "saying it was too costly" better than repeating "the plan"? (Anaphoric "it" has one clear referent and removes redundant repetition.)
  • If you name "tea and coffee", which does "the latter" mean? (Coffee — the second-named of the two.)
  • Rewrite "He can code and she can code" using ellipsis. ("He can code and she can too" — the repeated verb is recoverable, so drop it.)

Exercises (Alıştırmalar)

Choose the correct answer. — 10 questions, each one is marked instantly. Questions get harder as you go.

Ünite 8 · Cohesion: Reference, Substitution & Ellipsis · Bölüm 2/6

Speaking: Naming the Threads

Learn the vocabulary of cohesion, then use it to tell a short story or explain a process without stumbling over the same words.

cohesion (n)
the quality of a text's parts being clearly linked (bağdaşıklık, metin bütünlüğü)
Syn: connectedness · Ant: disjointedness
"Good cohesion lets a reader glide from sentence to sentence."
anaphoric (adj)
pointing back to something already mentioned (geriye gönderen, anaforik)
Syn: backward-referring · Ant: cataphoric
"In 'Ann left; she was tired,' 'she' is anaphoric."
cataphoric (adj)
pointing forward to something named later (ileriye gönderen, kataforik)
Syn: forward-referring · Ant: anaphoric
"'Note this: he never called' uses cataphoric 'this'."
referent (n)
the thing a word actually points to (gönderilen şey, merci)
Syn: target · Ant:
"Every 'it' must have one clear referent."
antecedent (n)
the earlier word a pronoun refers back to (öncül)
Syn: forerunner · Ant:
"'The dog' is the antecedent of 'it' in the next line."
substitution (n)
replacing a word with a shorter stand-in like 'one' (yerine koyma)
Syn: replacement · Ant: repetition
"'A red one' uses substitution for 'a red car'."
ellipsis (n)
leaving out words the reader can recover (eksiltme)
Syn: omission · Ant: repetition
"'Sara can swim; Tom can too' relies on ellipsis."
redundant (adj)
repeated needlessly; more than is required (gereksiz, fazlalık)
Syn: superfluous · Ant: essential
"Naming the same character five times is redundant."
ambiguous (adj)
open to more than one interpretation (belirsiz, iki anlamlı)
Syn: unclear · Ant: unambiguous
"A vague 'this' leaves the sentence ambiguous."
cohesive (adj)
sticking together as a connected whole (bağdaşık, bağlı)
Syn: unified · Ant: disjointed
"Her prose is remarkably cohesive and easy to follow."
superordinate (n)
a general word that covers more specific ones (üst terim)
Syn: umbrella term · Ant: hyponym
"'Flower' is a superordinate of 'rose' and 'tulip'."
reiterate (v)
to state again, for linking or emphasis (yinelemek)
Syn: restate · Ant: omit
"He reiterated the key term to link two paragraphs."
streamlined (adj)
made smoother and more efficient (sadeleştirilmiş, akıcı)
Syn: sleek · Ant: cluttered
"Ellipsis streamlined the clumsy, repetitive draft."
REFERENCE it · this · such SUBSTITUTION one · do so · so ELLIPSIS … can [ ] too LEXICAL eagle → bird One thread, four tools — the sentences hold together without repeating.
Cohesion is a single thread drawn through a text: each device links a sentence to the last without naming it again.

Production Task (Üretim Görevi)

Tell a short story or explain a process (a recipe, a journey, a project you ran) in 8 sentences, and use at least 8 of the words above. The goal: keep it cohesive — do not repeat the same noun each time; point back, substitute, or leave out instead.

Style requirement — apply this unit's topic
  • Introduce a noun once, then refer back to it at least twice using reference (it / this / such) — each with one clear referent.
  • Use one substitution (one/ones, do so, or so/not) and one ellipsis ("… and I did too").
  • Vary one repeated noun with a synonym or superordinate (lexical cohesion).
  • End with a sentence naming which device kept your account cohesive rather than redundant.

Sentence starters (you can begin with these):

"It all began when ..." "This is what happened next: ..." "Rather than repeat the word, I called it ..." "I could have said it again, but instead I just ..." "The device that held it together was ..."

Değerlendirme öğretmenin tarafından yapılacak. (Your teacher will review your task.)

Ünite 8 · Cohesion: Reference, Substitution & Ellipsis · Bölüm 3/6

Reading: The Invisible Thread

Read the feature, then work through the five tasks.

Before You Read (Okumadan Önce)

Skilled readers prepare before they start. Before you read, think about these three questions (you do not need to write the answers):

  • Think of a paragraph you found hard to follow. Was it the ideas that confused you, or the way the sentences failed to connect?
  • The text profiles a legendary reviser famous for cohesion. Do you expect him to add words, cut words, or both?
  • Writers sometimes repeat a noun to be "clear". Watch for the moment the text argues that repetition can be the opposite of clarity.
How to read
  • First read: read quickly for the whole argument — what Sund is famous for and why it still matters. Don't stop for every word.
  • Second read: track the cohesion signals — each "it / this / such", each substitution ("the body", "one"), each dropped word, and the moments the writer swaps a noun for a wider one. Ask what each choice does.

Words to spot (from the Speaking section): cohesion · referent · ambiguous · redundant · superordinate · streamlined

Ann resigned. It shocked us. ANAPHORIC → points back Note this: he never called. CATAPHORIC → forward The same small word can look back or leap ahead — but it must always find one owner.
Reference reaches in two directions; either way, a pointer with no clear referent breaks the thread.
The Invisible Thread

For years, students across the school have brought their most tangled essays and debate speeches to one desk: that of Halvard Sund, the editor of the student magazine, whose speciality is cohesion — the art of making a piece of writing hold together as a single, seamless thread. He submits almost nothing of his own; nonetheless, the essays he touches read as though they had never been stitched together from separate notes at all. His gift, classmates say, is not a grand vocabulary but connection: knowing exactly which word should point back, which should be dropped, and which should quietly stand in for another.

Consider a clumsy paragraph. A nervous writer repeats "the student council" six times in four sentences; Sund replaces the second mention with "it", the third with "the group", and simply deletes the fourth, trusting the reader to supply it. The facts do not change; the reading, however, becomes effortless. "Repetition is not emphasis," he likes to say. "More often, it is a failure to trust the reader."

What distinguishes his method is restraint. Where a weaker editor might scatter "this" and "that" freely, Sund insists every such word have one unmistakable referent. On the contrary, he warns, a vague "this" — pointing at nothing in particular — does more damage than the repetition it was meant to cure. Moreover, he despises the false elegance of "the aforementioned", reserving such formal reference for official school rules, whereas ordinary writing, he argues, wants lighter threads.

Nowhere is this discipline tested more severely than in the debate speeches that arrive on his desk the night before a tournament. A spoken argument, Sund points out, cannot rely on a listener flicking back a paragraph to recover a lost reference; the audience has only one pass, and a thread once dropped is gone for good. He therefore treats every "this policy" and every "such a claim" as a promise that must be honoured within a sentence or two of being made. When a first-year debater handed him a rebuttal in which the word "it" wandered, over the course of a single minute, from a tax to a treaty to a rival's tone of voice, Sund did not rewrite a word. Instead, he circled each "it" and wrote the same question beside every one: whom does this serve? By the time the debater had answered them all, the speech had quietly rebuilt itself.

The student magazine sharpens the same instinct under a different kind of pressure. Deadlines are unforgiving, and the pieces that land in his inbox are rarely polished; they are, more often, promising ideas buried under repetition and half-finished cross-references. Rather than smother a young writer's voice, he works by subtraction, striking the second and third appearance of a name and letting a pronoun carry the weight the noun once bore. A feature on the school's recycling scheme, he recalls, mentioned "the recycling scheme" eleven times in five hundred words; after his pass the phrase survived twice, and readers later said the article felt not thinner but faster. The lesson, he insists, is that cohesion is frequently achieved by what is removed rather than by what is added.

His younger apprentices learn to notice three quiet mechanisms at work. The first is reference: a pronoun, or a phrase such as "the group", pointing unmistakably backwards to something already named. The second is substitution, in which a lighter word stands in for a heavier one so that a sentence need not haul the same load twice. The third, and the hardest to trust, is ellipsis — the deliberate silence in which a writer omits a word altogether, confident that the reader will supply it unprompted. Beginners, he observes, cling to reference because it feels safe; the more accomplished learn to substitute; only the truly fluent dare to leave a gap and let the reader fill it. Each device, taken alone, is small; woven together across a page, they become the invisible thread from which the magazine takes its unofficial motto.

Not everyone is persuaded at first. A handful of contributors protest that his cuts leave their work sounding bare, and one indignant writer famously accused him of "editing out the personality". His reply has since become something of a corridor proverb. Personality, he answered, does not live in the tenth repetition of a noun; it lives in the ideas, and needless repetition merely buries them under dust. A cohesive text, far from erasing its author, finally lets that author be heard, because the reader is no longer distracted by tangles and can attend to the argument itself. Whether or not the sceptics are convinced, few of them leave his desk still writing the way they arrived.

By the middle of term, word of these methods had spread well beyond the magazine's own contributors. Teachers began forwarding essays to him not for corrections of fact but for what one of them called "the untangling", and a small after-school circle formed around a single stubborn question: how does a paragraph learn to hold itself together? Sund refused to turn the sessions into lectures. He would project an anonymous draft, ask the room to hunt for every pronoun that answered to no clear owner, and then wait. Silence, he had discovered, taught faster than instruction; a student who tracked down her own dangling "this" rarely wrote another. The circle kept no register and awarded no marks, yet its influence proved difficult to measure and impossible to deny.

He is quick, however, to deflate any suggestion that cohesion is a gift reserved for a talented few. It is, he maintains, closer to a habit than a talent — a matter of rereading one's own sentences as a stranger might, pausing at each pronoun to ask whether a first-time reader could possibly know what it meant. Anyone willing to be that ruthless with their own drafts, he claims, can learn to spin the thread; the only real obstacle is the vanity that mistakes repetition for richness.

Meanwhile, a slim guide to his principles now circulates among younger students. Notwithstanding its brevity, it has been called indispensable. It offers no rules, only a discipline: make every pronoun answer to one owner, cut what the reader can already hear, and let no thread dangle. Cohesion, Sund maintains, is therefore not decoration; it is trust made visible.

A · Multiple Choice

Choose the correct answer.

B · True / False (Doğru / Yanlış)

Are these sentences true or false, according to the text?

C · Gap Fill

Complete each sentence with ONE word from the text. Mind the cohesion term the writer uses.

1" is not emphasis," Sund likes to say. Doğru cevap: repetition
2What distinguishes his method is . Doğru cevap: restraint
3Sund insists every such word have one unmistakable . Doğru cevap: referent
4He despises the false elegance of "the ", reserving it for official rules. Doğru cevap: aforementioned
5His gift, classmates say, is not a grand vocabulary but . Doğru cevap: connection

D · Open-Ended

Write your answer in your own words. These questions are not marked automatically.

1. The writer says Sund's gift is "not a grand vocabulary but connection". In your own words, what is the difference — and why does it matter?

Sample Answer"Connection is the skill of linking sentences so a text reads as one thread — pointing back, substituting or dropping words — whereas a grand vocabulary is only raw material. It matters because knowing many words is useless if the reader cannot follow how one idea leads to the next; Sund is praised for the linking, not the word-hoard."

2. Sund says repetition is "more often a failure to trust the reader". What do you think he means by trusting the reader?

Sample Answer"He means assuming the reader can carry an idea forward without being reminded of it in full every time. If a noun has just been named, a simple 'it' or even nothing at all will do; hammering the noun again treats the reader as forgetful. Ellipsis and reference are acts of trust, and they make prose lighter and more cohesive."

3. Sund insists "cohesion is not decoration; it is trust made visible." Do you agree? Give a reason from your own experience.

Sample Answer"I agree, because a badly linked text makes me stop and reread to work out what 'it' or 'this' points to. When I once wrote an essay full of vague 'this' references, a classmate could not tell which fact I meant, and the whole argument felt untrustworthy. Clear cohesion, by contrast, let the reader relax and believe me — exactly as Sund claims."

E · Connector Hunt (Bağlaç Avı)

Find these connectors in the text — each one appears at least once: nonetheless, whereas, however, on the contrary, moreover, meanwhile, notwithstanding, therefore. (You will reuse these same C2 connectors in the Writing section.) Note them down, then check.

Answers nonetheless: "He submits almost nothing of his own; nonetheless, the essays he touches read as though..."
however: "The facts do not change; the reading, however, becomes effortless."
on the contrary: "On the contrary, he warns, a vague 'this'... does more damage..."
moreover: "Moreover, he despises the false elegance of 'the aforementioned'..."
whereas: "...reserving such formal reference for official school rules, whereas ordinary writing... wants lighter threads."
meanwhile: "Meanwhile, a slim guide to his principles now circulates..."
notwithstanding: "Notwithstanding its brevity, it has been called indispensable."
therefore: "Cohesion, Sund maintains, is therefore not decoration..."
Ünite 8 · Cohesion: Reference, Substitution & Ellipsis · Bölüm 4/6

Extra Speaking & Practice

De-clutter a paragraph that hammers the same nouns, then drill your cohesion instincts with 10 quick questions.

Speaking Task 2 (De-clutter the Paragraph)

Below is a paragraph drowning in needless repetition. Every fact is clear, but the same nouns are hammered again and again. Your job is to re-link it into a smooth, cohesive version — using reference, substitution and ellipsis — without changing a single fact.

The photography club started in 2019. The club was founded by an older student. The older student wanted to display the older student's photos. The photos were mostly of the city. The city photos were striking. The club still shares the photos today.
Style requirement — apply this unit's topic
  • Replace repeated nouns with reference ("it", "this", "his") — each with one clear referent.
  • Use at least one substitution ("one/ones" or "do so") and one ellipsis.
  • Vary "the photos" with a synonym or superordinate ("the shots", "the images") — lexical cohesion.
  • Write 4–6 sentences. Keep every fact; cut only the redundant repetition.

Sentence starters (you can begin with these):

"The photography club started in 2019, founded by ..." "She wanted to display her photos, which ..." "They were mostly of the city, and ..." "The club still shares these today." "The device that streamlined it was ..."

Değerlendirme öğretmenin tarafından yapılacak. (Your teacher will review your task.)

Practice Lab (Alıştırma Turu)

10 quick questions on reference, substitution and ellipsis. Each one is marked instantly. Questions get harder as you go.

Ünite 8 · Cohesion: Reference, Substitution & Ellipsis · Bölüm 5/6

Writing: Repair the Thread

Take a repetitive, poorly-linked paragraph and rewrite it as one cohesive whole — then explain the devices you used. Your teacher will review it.

Connectors that carry a text (Linking Words)

Cohesion is not only reference and ellipsis; the right connector signals how one sentence relates to the last. At C2 you deploy formal connectors (nonetheless, notwithstanding, moreover, whereas, consequently, however) precisely, so the logical thread is as clear as the grammatical one. A well-placed connector saves the reader from repeating the whole prior idea.

ConnectorSignal it sendsExample
nonethelessconcession (still true despite)The draft repeated itself; nonetheless, the facts were sound.
whereascontrast between two itemsThe first version was clumsy, whereas the second flowed.
moreoveradding a further pointIt was repetitive. Moreover, its 'this' was vague.
consequentlyresultThe referent was unclear; consequently, readers stalled.
howevercounter-moveThe idea was good. However, the linking failed.
Rule
  • Use a connector to replace a repeated idea, not to decorate: "However" already carries "in contrast with what I just said".
  • Use at least 3 connectors from this table in your rewrite, each doing a real logical job.

How to structure the task (Repair & Reflect Structure)

You will take one repetitive source paragraph, rewrite it cohesively, then reflect on the devices you used. The facts stay fixed; only the linking changes. This is the purest test of cohesion: it forces you to prove you can bind a text without padding or repetition.

PartWhat to writeDevices to reach for
A. Cohesive rewritethe same facts, re-linked into one smooth paragraphreference (it/this/such), substitution (one/do so), ellipsis, synonym/superordinate
B. Reflectionname exactly which devices you used and whereneutral, analytical — use the unit's vocabulary

Task (Görev)

Here is a deliberately clumsy source paragraph. Rewrite it as one cohesive paragraph, then reflect on your choices. Prove you control the thread, not the other way round.

Source: The student built an app. The app helped classmates revise for exams. The classmates liked the app because the app was fast. The student added a feature. The feature let the classmates share their scores. The scores became social. The app spread across the school quickly.

WHAT TO INCLUDE

  • a cohesive rewrite that keeps every fact but removes the redundant repetition of "app", "classmates", "scores", "student"
  • reference with clear referents (it / they / this / such) — no vague or ambiguous pointer
  • at least one substitution (one/ones or do so) and one ellipsis
  • at least one synonym or superordinate for lexical cohesion (app → the tool; classmates → users)
  • at least 3 connectors: nonetheless, whereas, moreover, consequently, however
  • a short reflection naming exactly which devices you used and where, using at least 4 words from the Speaking section (cohesion, referent, substitution, ellipsis, redundant, superordinate, streamlined, cohesive)

EXAMPLE OPENERS

"Rewrite: The student built an app that helped classmates ..." "Reflection: To avoid repeating 'app', I used ..." "The ellipsis after 'spread' let me ..."

Your Rewrite & Reflection (200-240 words / kelime)

0 kelime

Değerlendirme öğretmenin tarafından yapılacak. (Your teacher will evaluate your writing.)

Sample Answer (~220 words) A. Cohesive rewrite
The student built an app to help classmates revise for their exams. Users liked it because it was fast; moreover, it soon gained a feature that let them share their scores with one another. The results quickly became social, and the tool spread across the school with them. The original hammered "app", "classmates" and "scores" again and again, whereas the version above lets lighter threads do the work. Nonetheless, every fact survives intact.

B. Reflection
To avoid the redundant repetition, I leaned on several cohesive devices. The pronoun "it" supplies anaphoric reference back to the app, its clear referent, while "them" and "their scores" point back without renaming. I used the superordinate "the tool" for the app and "users", a synonym for "classmates", giving lexical cohesion, and "the results" varies "scores". Ellipsis appears in "spread across the school with them", where the repeated subject is dropped. The connectors "moreover", "whereas" and "nonetheless" carry the logic so I need not restate each prior point. Crucially, no pointer is ambiguous: every "it" and "them" has one owner. The result is streamlined and cohesive rather than a stack of identical nouns, and the reader now glides from fact to fact instead of stumbling over the same four words.
Ünite 8 · Cohesion: Reference, Substitution & Ellipsis · Bölüm 6/6

Unit Check (Ünite Kontrolü)

Mixed questions from the whole unit, then check what you can do.

Mixed Quiz (Karışık Test)

14 questions: grammar + vocabulary + reading + practice. Each question is marked instantly.

Can-Do Check (Yapabiliyorum Listesi)

Tick what you can do now. Honest answers help your teacher.

İşaretlemediğin madde varsa ilgili bölüme dönüp tekrar çalış — soldaki menüden her bölüme geri dönebilirsin.

Gri English

Bu ünite için giriş gerekli

Oturum kontrol ediliyor...