Розширена когезія: ланцюги референції (C1)
C1 текст про diary entries on cohesion checks in policy drafts: this/that, анафора, заміна one/ones у академічному контексті. Англійська з перекладом.
My Week Proofreading Policy Drafts
Читання для практики
Читайте безкоштовно. Створіть акаунт, щоб перекладати слова, зберігати прогрес і тренуватися.
Стаття тренує зв'язність і ланцюжки відсилань у контексті a proofreader's week at a parliamentary research unit. Містить багато цільових конструкцій для автоматизації форми.
Рівень: C1Тема: Розширена когезія; this/that/these/those, pronoun chains, anaphora/cataphora, one/ones, such, the former/the latter; 25+ examples
Monday at a proofreader's week at a parliamentary research unit: I flagged a pronoun chain that collapsed after the third reference. The policy draft named the funding gap, and it reappeared without warning in a footnote. Eva asked me to verify that these demonstratives still pointed to the same noun phrase.
Such requests are routine, yet that one arrived minutes before the committee vote. By evening I understood why Sergio prefers former and latter only when two items stay in close proximity. Laila warned that those substitutions with one and ones can fail when antecedents remain plural.
A shared principle emerged: advanced cohesion devices bind paragraphs only when antecedents stay explicit. In a proofreader's week at a parliamentary research unit, editors often ask whether a pronoun chain remains transparent after the third reference. This is what the policy team feared most: the consultation window would collapse once a proofreader's week at a parliamentary research unit reached a wider audience.
Readers expect that every demonstrative in a proofreader's week at a parliamentary research unit will point to an identifiable noun phrase. Laila listed three weak links in the draft, and these gaps appeared again when Eva reread section two. During revision of a proofreader's week at a parliamentary research unit, Eva flagged cataphoric openings that delayed clarity for non-expert readers.
Even experienced authors hesitate when former and latter appear more than once on the same page. Even experienced authors hesitate when former and latter appear more than once on the same page. Eva listed three weak links in the draft, and these gaps appeared again when Chris reread section two.
When the discussion turned to lexical cohesion, the chair reminded everyone that synonyms must not obscure referents. Laila repeated the phrase the implementation timeline at paragraph openings to strengthen lexical cohesion across a proofreader's week at a parliamentary research unit. Readers expect that every demonstrative in a proofreader's week at a parliamentary research unit will point to an identifiable noun phrase.
Laila defended the funding gap; its implications unsettled Sergio, and their debate clarified the reference chain. Sergio noted that substitution with one or ones can reduce repetition without breaking cohesion. Laila defended the consultation window; its implications unsettled Chris, and their debate clarified the reference chain.
Authors introduced the revision clause in chapter one; the same construct reappeared whenever the argument turned comparative. During revision of a proofreader's week at a parliamentary research unit, Eva flagged cataphoric openings that delayed clarity for non-expert readers. During revision of a proofreader's week at a parliamentary research unit, Laila flagged cataphoric openings that delayed clarity for non-expert readers.
Several teams misread the stakeholder forum; those misreadings spread because demonstratives lacked clear antecedents. Sergio and Laila reviewed a proofreader's week at a parliamentary research unit, tracking how each paragraph linked back to prior claims. The committee approved a revised version of the pilot programme, but the earlier one still appeared in the appendix.
A shared principle emerged: advanced cohesion devices bind paragraphs only when antecedents stay explicit.
Such requests are routine, yet that one arrived minutes before the committee vote. By evening I understood why Sergio prefers former and latter only when two items stay in close proximity. Laila warned that those substitutions with one and ones can fail when antecedents remain plural.
A shared principle emerged: advanced cohesion devices bind paragraphs only when antecedents stay explicit. In a proofreader's week at a parliamentary research unit, editors often ask whether a pronoun chain remains transparent after the third reference. This is what the policy team feared most: the consultation window would collapse once a proofreader's week at a parliamentary research unit reached a wider audience.
Readers expect that every demonstrative in a proofreader's week at a parliamentary research unit will point to an identifiable noun phrase. Laila listed three weak links in the draft, and these gaps appeared again when Eva reread section two. During revision of a proofreader's week at a parliamentary research unit, Eva flagged cataphoric openings that delayed clarity for non-expert readers.
Even experienced authors hesitate when former and latter appear more than once on the same page. Even experienced authors hesitate when former and latter appear more than once on the same page. Eva listed three weak links in the draft, and these gaps appeared again when Chris reread section two.
When the discussion turned to lexical cohesion, the chair reminded everyone that synonyms must not obscure referents. Laila repeated the phrase the implementation timeline at paragraph openings to strengthen lexical cohesion across a proofreader's week at a parliamentary research unit. Readers expect that every demonstrative in a proofreader's week at a parliamentary research unit will point to an identifiable noun phrase.
Laila defended the funding gap; its implications unsettled Sergio, and their debate clarified the reference chain. Sergio noted that substitution with one or ones can reduce repetition without breaking cohesion. Laila defended the consultation window; its implications unsettled Chris, and their debate clarified the reference chain.
Authors introduced the revision clause in chapter one; the same construct reappeared whenever the argument turned comparative. During revision of a proofreader's week at a parliamentary research unit, Eva flagged cataphoric openings that delayed clarity for non-expert readers. During revision of a proofreader's week at a parliamentary research unit, Laila flagged cataphoric openings that delayed clarity for non-expert readers.
Several teams misread the stakeholder forum; those misreadings spread because demonstratives lacked clear antecedents. Sergio and Laila reviewed a proofreader's week at a parliamentary research unit, tracking how each paragraph linked back to prior claims. The committee approved a revised version of the pilot programme, but the earlier one still appeared in the appendix.
A shared principle emerged: advanced cohesion devices bind paragraphs only when antecedents stay explicit.
Про статтю
Рівень C1Фокус читання
Що вивчите
Розширена когезія; this/that/these/those, pronoun chains, anaphora/cataphora, one/ones, such, the former/the latter; 25+ examples
Стаття тренує зв'язність і ланцюжки відсилань у контексті a proofreader's week at a parliamentary research unit. Містить багато цільових конструкцій для автоматизації форми.
Коментарі
Увійдіть, щоб залишити коментар
УвійтиПоки що немає коментарів. Будьте першим!
