Cohesión avanzada: cadenas referenciales (C1)
Lectura C1 sobre demonstratives and lexical cohesion in a literature review con demostrativos, anáfora y sustitución. Inglés con traducción.
Demonstratives Across a Literature Review
Lectura para practicar
Lee gratis. Crea una cuenta para traducir palabras, guardar tu progreso y practicar.
Practica cohesión y cadenas referenciales en el contexto de a literature review on climate adaptation funding. Incluye múltiples cadenas referenciales para consolidar forma y registro.
Nivel: C1Tema: Cohesión avanzada; this/that/these/those, pronoun chains, anaphora/cataphora, one/ones, such, the former/the latter; 40+ examples
Dr Chen opened a literature review on climate adaptation funding by naming the interim report as the anchor for later reference. The text centred on demonstratives and lexical cohesion in a literature review, where this, that, these, and those bound paragraphs into a single argument. Marta noted that pronoun chains fail when authors assume readers share unstated background knowledge.
Oleg reminded the group that substitution with one, ones, and such must preserve identifiable antecedents. Farah observed that former and latter work only when two referents remain unmistakably paired. By the end of the first review, advanced cohesion sounded less decorative and more structurally necessary.
Readers expect that every demonstrative in a literature review on climate adaptation funding will point to an identifiable noun phrase. Readers expect that every demonstrative in a literature review on climate adaptation funding will point to an identifiable noun phrase. This is what the policy team feared most: the interim report would collapse once a literature review on climate adaptation funding reached a wider audience.
A shared principle emerged: advanced cohesion devices bind paragraphs only when antecedents stay explicit. The baseline survey raised questions about data comparability; such findings recur whenever authors rely on distant anaphora. The committee approved a revised version of the revision clause, but the earlier one still appeared in the appendix.
The committee approved a revised version of the consultation window, but the earlier one still appeared in the appendix. The draft contrasted the pilot programme with the evidence base; the former received cautious praise, whereas the latter drew sustained criticism. Even experienced authors hesitate when former and latter appear more than once on the same page.
In a literature review on climate adaptation funding, editors often ask whether a pronoun chain remains transparent after the third reference. The editors asked Marta to clarify demonstratives, and Marta did so before resubmitting a literature review on climate adaptation funding. The draft contrasted the implementation timeline with the interim report; the former received cautious praise, whereas the latter drew sustained criticism.
The committee approved a revised version of the interim report, but the earlier one still appeared in the appendix. The draft contrasted the stakeholder forum with the funding gap; the former received cautious praise, whereas the latter drew sustained criticism. Marta and Farah reviewed a literature review on climate adaptation funding, tracking how each paragraph linked back to prior claims.
Having established the main claim, Dr Chen used connective reference to extend the consultation period without breaking the chain. Even experienced authors hesitate when former and latter appear more than once on the same page. Having established the main claim, Farah used connective reference to clarify the reference chain in section four without breaking the chain.
Oleg and Marta reviewed a literature review on climate adaptation funding, tracking how each paragraph linked back to prior claims. Oleg defended the regulatory framework; its implications unsettled Farah, and their debate clarified the reference chain. Reviewers questioned the implementation timeline, yet Oleg argued that that concern rested on an outdated sample.
Oleg reminded the group that substitution with one, ones, and such must preserve identifiable antecedents. Farah observed that former and latter work only when two referents remain unmistakably paired. By the end of the first review, advanced cohesion sounded less decorative and more structurally necessary.
Readers expect that every demonstrative in a literature review on climate adaptation funding will point to an identifiable noun phrase. Readers expect that every demonstrative in a literature review on climate adaptation funding will point to an identifiable noun phrase. This is what the policy team feared most: the interim report would collapse once a literature review on climate adaptation funding reached a wider audience.
A shared principle emerged: advanced cohesion devices bind paragraphs only when antecedents stay explicit. The baseline survey raised questions about data comparability; such findings recur whenever authors rely on distant anaphora. The committee approved a revised version of the revision clause, but the earlier one still appeared in the appendix.
The committee approved a revised version of the consultation window, but the earlier one still appeared in the appendix. The draft contrasted the pilot programme with the evidence base; the former received cautious praise, whereas the latter drew sustained criticism. Even experienced authors hesitate when former and latter appear more than once on the same page.
In a literature review on climate adaptation funding, editors often ask whether a pronoun chain remains transparent after the third reference. The editors asked Marta to clarify demonstratives, and Marta did so before resubmitting a literature review on climate adaptation funding. The draft contrasted the implementation timeline with the interim report; the former received cautious praise, whereas the latter drew sustained criticism.
The committee approved a revised version of the interim report, but the earlier one still appeared in the appendix. The draft contrasted the stakeholder forum with the funding gap; the former received cautious praise, whereas the latter drew sustained criticism. Marta and Farah reviewed a literature review on climate adaptation funding, tracking how each paragraph linked back to prior claims.
Having established the main claim, Dr Chen used connective reference to extend the consultation period without breaking the chain. Even experienced authors hesitate when former and latter appear more than once on the same page. Having established the main claim, Farah used connective reference to clarify the reference chain in section four without breaking the chain.
Oleg and Marta reviewed a literature review on climate adaptation funding, tracking how each paragraph linked back to prior claims. Oleg defended the regulatory framework; its implications unsettled Farah, and their debate clarified the reference chain. Reviewers questioned the implementation timeline, yet Oleg argued that that concern rested on an outdated sample.
Sobre el artículo
Nivel C1Enfoque de lectura
Qué aprenderás
Cohesión avanzada; this/that/these/those, pronoun chains, anaphora/cataphora, one/ones, such, the former/the latter; 40+ examples
Practica cohesión y cadenas referenciales en el contexto de a literature review on climate adaptation funding. Incluye múltiples cadenas referenciales para consolidar forma y registro.
Comentarios
Inicia sesión para dejar un comentario
Iniciar SesiónAún no hay comentarios. ¡Sé el primero!
