Cite this article as: Adamu, B., &Jallaba, A. (2025). The Forms and functions of cohesive devices in select sections of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, Act 2004. Sokoto Journal of Linguistics and Communication Studies (SOJOLICS), 1(2), 263–270. https://www.doi.org/10.36349/sojolics.2025.v01i02.030
THE FORMS AND
FUNCTIONS OF COHESIVE DEVICES IN SELECT SECTIONS OF THE ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL
CRIMES COMMISSION, ACT 2004
By
Bilkisu Adamu,
Ph.D
bilkisu.adamu@arts.fulafia.edu.ng
&
Ali Bukar Jallaba
Department of
English and Literary Studies, Federal University of Lafia.
Abstract
This work sets out to identify and evaluate the use of
cohesive ties in the EFCC Act, 2004. The Economic and Financial Crime
Commission (EFCC) in Nigeria is a law enforcement agency saddled with the
responsibility in the country to enforce laws against crime. It is an
anti-corruption that combats financial crimes and sanitises the Nigerian
economic space. Its Act guides the workings of the commission. It is this Act
and its employ of cohesive devices that guides the interest of this research.
The work evaluates the attainment of cohesion in the text using the perception
of Halliday and Hasan (1976). Two sections of the EFCC Act, 2004 are randomly
selected. They are analysed with the aid of tables. Both structural and
semantic function of cohesive devices employed are evaluated. This is done in a
manner that reveals the semantic implication of a given structural choice of
selected cohesive devices. The work reveals that the dominant cohesive elements
in the selected texts are conjunctions, reiteration, references (both exophora
and endophora), and demonstratives. Each has a unique function being played.
They are deliberate choices employed at specified sections to offer clarity of
meaning, communicate specific information and avoid ambiguities and miscommunications.
Keywords: Cohesive ties, EFCC Act, Text creation, Meaning representation.
1. Introduction
Cohesion is central to maintaining the
interconnectedness and organizational flow of meaning within a text. It is
realized through cohesive devices, which are both grammatical and lexical in
nature. These devices function to link sentences and paragraphs, producing a
semantic unity that allows readers to follow the argument or narrative. In
legal texts such as the EFCC Act, cohesive devices are particularly important
because they ensure that complex provisions are logically connected and
comprehensible, reflecting the precision and formal requirements of legal
language, or legalese. Legalese is the specialized language of law,
characterized by technical vocabulary, archaic terms, complex clauses, and
formalized structures. Although often challenging for non-specialists, this
form of language reduces ambiguity and ensures consistency, covering all
potential scenarios that may arise in legal interpretation and enforcement.
Discourse, in its broadest sense, refers to language
in use. It encompasses actual instances of communication, extending beyond mere
speech to include every situation in which language functions dynamically. A
text, by contrast, is the structured product of discourse, organized into
sentences, paragraphs, or larger units to convey complete messages. While a
text represents the tangible structure, discourse explores how language
functions in context, including interactions, social relationships, and cultural
norms. A text achieves coherence and meaning through the creation of texture,
which emerges from the interplay of cohesive devices and contextual
interpretation. Cohesive ties, such as reference, substitution, ellipsis,
conjunctions, and lexical cohesion, provide the linguistic glue that links
ideas across sentences and paragraphs, giving the text its communicative power.
In the context of the EFCC Act, cohesive devices serve
as essential meaning-making resources. Reference involves pronouns and other
elements that point back to or anticipate other elements in the text, creating
a chain of meaning that the reader can follow. Substitution allows words or
phrases to replace previously mentioned items, preventing unnecessary
repetition while maintaining semantic clarity. Ellipsis omits information that
is recoverable from the context, allowing sentences to remain concise without
losing meaning. Conjunctions explicitly connect clauses and sentences,
signaling relationships such as addition, contrast, cause, or sequence. Lexical
cohesion, on the other hand, is achieved through repetition, synonymy,
antonymy, hyponymy, meronymy, and collocation, forming chains of semantically
related words that unify the text independently of grammatical structure.
The EFCC Act exemplifies how legal texts employ these
cohesive resources to maintain clarity, logical flow, and semantic integrity.
By structuring provisions with precise reference, substitution, ellipsis,
conjunctions, and lexical chains, the Act ensures that its legal directives are
interconnected, comprehensible, and enforceable. This study, therefore, seeks
to examine the forms and functions of cohesive devices within the EFCC Act,
exploring how grammatical and lexical resources operate to tie the text as a
unified whole. Analyzing these devices not only provides insights into the
language of legal discourse but also demonstrates the practical application of
functional linguistics in understanding how textual cohesion supports the
communication of legal meaning. By investigating these cohesive patterns, the
study highlights the intersection between language, law, and governance,
offering a framework for analyzing other legal texts and reinforcing the
importance of clarity and precision in legislative drafting.
2. Literature
Review
Scholars and researchers have given insight about the
implications of cohesive devices in translating one text to another, and their
implications. Bello and Afegbua (2020) studied the EFCC Act and revealed that
the pre-modification of numerous noun phrases in the text contributes to the
complexity. A lot of the noun phrases in the Act are pre-modified by one or
more determiner, adjective, participle, noun and adverbial. At one time or the
other the head of a noun phrase is pre-modified by one (or more) adjective. In
such situations, the adjective appears to be highly important in that fact
pre-modifying adjectives are attributively used.
On another hand, Hatim and Mason(1990) studies on text
type model was analyzes how the discoursal relations evolve in texts. Out of
the five cohesive devices outlined by Halliday and Hasan (2001), Hatim studied
only reference and conjunctions in detail because as she portrays, it would be
difficult for her to explain all the five devices in details. The study focuses
on answering a research question on how shift in cohesion and text-based
coherence which happen in the translation process affect the flow and
connectivity of the target text which she investigated.
Yeh (2004) studies the relationship between cohesion
and coherence by contrasting between Chinese and French texts. He compared
different approached of cohesion by different scholars, such as Halliday and
Hasan (1976), Widdowson (1978), Carrell (1982), Brown and Yule (1983), and
reviewed all their claims on coherence and cohesion. He particularly pointed
out some of the deficiencies of Halliday and Hasan (1976) in Tackling the whole
concept of coherence of a text. There were many instances where other scholars
differ with Halliday and Hasan (1976). For instance, Yeh (2004, p. 245)
mentioned that Carrell (1982) challenges the concept of coherence and cohesion
as discussed by Halliday and Hasan (1976) due to their failure in recognizing
the contribution of the reader (target reader). He further portrayed that not
only Carrell (1982) was in disagreement with Halliday and Hasan (1976) but also
other scholars like Brown and Yule (1983), cited in Yeh, (2004), were also
doubtful about Halliday and Hasan’s (1976) concept of coherence and cohesion.
He analyzed some text from both English and Chinese based on reference and
conjunction and found out that their study has refuted the claim by Halliday
and Hasan (1976) that cohesive devices are the only source of texture. In other
words, according to their findings, coherence and cohesion are not achieved
only by the ties of surface linguistic features.
Mohammed (2013) examines the shift of cohesion in
GandunDabbobi (GD) and Animal Farm (AF). The study discusses how different
kinds of shift of cohesion are identified in the translation of Animal Farm
into GandunDabbobi. He argues that these changes occur as a result of
differences which exist between the two languages. The study was able to
identify various forms of shift relying on Halliday and Hasan (1976), Blum
Kulka (1983) and Catford (1965). However, the study did not properly links its
findings to the frameworks which the researcher claimed to have depended upon.
However, with regards to the forms of shift of conjunctive relation, his
findings were not solidly and properly discussed according to catford’s (1965)
categorization of shifts. Muhammed (2013) found twenty-two (22) forms of
cohesion shifts, which include shift of conjunction such as structure shift
intra-system shift, class shifts and level shifts. Finally, Muhammed (2013)
looks at the whole concept of cohesion, including other cohesive devices such
as; reference, substation, ellipsis and lexical cohesion.
Stubb (1996), cited in Clahar, (2002, p. 276)
explained how conjunctions influence register differences in speech and
writing, Conjunctions are normally employed and used both in speech and writing
in order to combine and link one segment to another. However, the way in which
conjunctions are used in combining clauses are entirely different between
speech and writing. The study differentiates between the use of conjunctions in
speech and in writing.
This research work serves its unique purposes,
separate from those reviewed above. It bridges a gap by exploring the
manifestation of cohesive devices in a nationally important document and its
semantic as well as its legal and socio-political implications.
The theoretical framework of this study is the aspect
of cohesion of systemic functional linguistics (SFL) developed by Halliday(1976). SFL is a theory of language focusing on the notion
that language is a social semiotic system. It focuses on how language functions
in different social context and how it is organized to achieve various
purposes. Language is seen not just a set of rules or structures, but a
resource for communicating and constructing social meaning. The specific aspect
of SFL adopted in this paper is the Textual meta function. This aspect concerns
how language is organized in a coherent and cohesive manner. It deals with how
information is structured and the roles of context in interpreting text.
Halliday emphasizes that language consists of system of choices, meaning that
speakers and writers select from various options based on context purpose, and
audience. A key concept in unravelling textual meaning is cohesion which refers
to linguistics element that helps connect sentences and clauses to create a
unified text.
Cohesion and coherence are key components of the
textual meta function. Cohesion refers to grammatical and lexical connections
that hold a text together, while coherence refers to the overall meaning and
logical flow of the text
3.2 Research Methodology
Here, a descriptive qualitative research design is
employed, since the data engaged are displayed in the form of strings of words.
The researchers descriptively evaluate language use in the Economic and
Financial Crime Commission (EFCC) Act in relation to cohesion.
The data is directly extracted from the economic and
financial crime commission EFCC Act 2004.
The sample representatives of this
study are sections of the act based on the subject matters ‘Offences
relating to financial malpractices’, and ‘offences
in relation to terrorism’. The research adopts a purposive sampling technique.
In purposive sampling, data are sampled according to specific needs. The
technique satisfies the specific needs of the work. The selected sample consist
of ample and different cohesive ties. The data are analysed in tabular form.
4. Data
Presentation, Analysis and Interpretation
In this section of the paper, cohesion is evaluated in
the selected sections and sub-sections of the EFCC act, 2004. The analysis is
presented in tabular form. This way, the selected texts are presented, each
cohesive device in a given text is identified and presented also in bold
format. The section and subsection a text is found in the act is given while
the cohesive component the identified cohesive tie belongs to is specified. In
this section the meaning implication and function of an identified cohesive
device is described.
Table 4.1 Offences relating to financial malpractices
(Section 14:1-3)
|
S/N |
Text |
Cohesive Element
|
Source Section |
Cohesive Tie |
Semantic implication |
|
1 |
A person who is an officer of a bank ¹or other financial institution ²or designated non-financial institution. |
¹OR
²OR |
14: (1) |
Adversative conjunction/Reiteration |
The two Adversative conjunctions join the noun phrases in the text.
Besides functioning as connectors, they offer and reiterate alternatives. The
sentence structure would have been accurate without their repetition, but
they are repeated to buttress and clarify meaning. |
|
2 |
Fail ¹or neglects to secure
compliance with the provision of this Act; ²or |
¹OR
²OR
|
14:1 (a) |
Adversative conjunction/Reiteration |
The Adversative conjunction or
functions here as connectors. They also serve to show alternatives and
relationship contrary to expectation. |
|
3 |
Subject to the provision of ¹section 174 of ²the
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigerian 1999 which relates to
the power of the ³Attorney-General
of ⁴the Federation to institute continue ⁵or discontinue
criminal proceeding again any person in any court of law), the ⁶Commission may compound
any offence punishable under ⁷this Act by accepting such sum of money as ⁸it thinks fit, not exceeding
the amount of the maximum fine to which ⁹That person would have been
liable if ¹⁰he had been convicted of ¹¹that offence. |
¹section 174
²the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999
³Attorney-General
⁴the Federation
⁵or
⁶this
⁷/¹¹That |
14:2 |
Exophoric reference Exophoric reference
Exophoric reference
Exophoric reference
Adversative conjunction
Demonstrative reference
Demonstrative reference |
Here, exophoric references are employed to indicate entities outside
the text. Interpretation of this section of the EFCC Act requires an
understanding of these mentioned referents. It is imperative to know the
content of section 174, to grasp the meaning of this section in this EFCC
act. To know the content of section 174, one must access the constitution of
the federal Republic of Nigeria. The
referent of ‘the federation’ refers to Nigeria while ‘the Attorney’ is a
specific individual to Nigeria at a given time.
This adversative conjunction ‘OR’ links two contrasting words. It
functions to indicate separate situations.
The demonstrative reference used here points at the specific noun
being referred.
This demonstrative reference is used twice in this section to specify
the person and offence being referred. It functions to offer defined clarity
of referred entity. |
|
⁸Commission |
14:2 |
Exhoporic Reference/Substitution |
The word, ‘commission’ refers to an entity outside the text, the
Economic and Financial Crime Commission (EFCC) Nigeria. It is another word
used in the Act to mean the EFCC. |
||
|
⁹IT |
14:2 |
Anaphoric Reference |
The personal reference ‘’IT’’ anaphorically refers to the commission. |
||
|
¹⁰HE |
14:2 |
Anaphoric Reference |
The personal reference ‘HE’ anaphorically refers back to the noun
‘that person’ mentioned in the text. |
||
|
4 |
All moneys received by the ¹commission under the provision of ²subsection
(2) of this section shall be paid into the consolidated revenue
fund of ³the federation |
¹Commission |
14:3 |
Exophoric reference |
The word, ‘commission’ refers to the Economic and Financial Crime
Commission (EFCC) Nigeria. |
|
|
|
²Subsection (2) |
14:3 |
Endophoric anaphoric reference
|
The expression ‘subsection (2)’ specifies and directs to a particular
part of the text. For the current section to be meaningful, reference has to
be made to the meaning of specified given subsection. The interpretation of
this section requires the information of the specified subsection. |
|
|
|
³this |
14:3 |
Demonstrative reference
|
Here the word ‘this’ functions as a pointer. It demonstrates close
spatial indicator.
|
|
|
|
⁴The federation |
14:3 |
Exophoric reference |
Here, the referent of phrase ‘the federation’ refers to Nigeria. One
needs a contextual evaluation to grasp the meaning. The referent is found
outside the text. |
Table 4.1 above evaluates the workings of cohesive
devices in section 14:1-3 of the EFCC act, 2004. It indicates how cohesive
devices are pervasive in the Act. In this section of the act references are
majorly employed to portray clarity of meaning. Six exophoric references are
used and they are here to guide the reader to the outer world as they become
crucial for the understanding of the act. An endophoric reference is also seen
in this section to guide readers to another subsection for the interpretation
of a given. The demonstrative references are present in this section of the
act, and they provide defined meaning. In addition, the adversative conjunction
‘OR’ is used and repeated 5 times. This stands to provide the means of clearly
stating other options to other provided options. This table showcases how
imperative cohesive devices are in the interpretation of legal texts.
Table 4.2 Offences
relating to Terrorism (section15:1-3)
|
S/N |
Text |
Cohesive Element
|
Source Section |
Cohesive Tie |
Semantic implication |
|
1 |
A person who wilfully provides ¹or
collects by any |
¹OR |
15:1 |
Adversative conjunction |
The Adversative conjunction ‘’OR’’ joins the two noun phrases, to show
contrary relationship, expectation ‘’provides or collects’’ |
|
means, directly ¹or
indirectly, any ²money by any other person with intent that the ³money, shall be used for any act
of imprisonment for life.
|
¹OR
²/³money |
15:1
15:1 |
Adversative conjunction
Reiteration |
The Adversative conjunction ‘’OR’’ joins the two noun phrases to show
contrary relationship expectation ‘’directly or indirectly’’ |
|
|
The repeat of the word, money is employed here to reemphasise the
entity he referred for clarity of meaning. |
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
Any person who commits ¹orattempt
to commit a terrorist act ¹or
participates in ¹or facilitates
the |
¹OR |
15:2 |
Adversative conjunction |
The Adversative conjunction ‘’OR’’ joins structures here. Besides its structural
function, it is employed here to indicate options ‘commit’ and ‘attempt’,
‘participates in’ and facilitates’. This cohesive device function here not to
unify structure alone but provide clarity of meaning. |
|
commission of a terrorist act, commits an offence under this Act ¹and is liable on conviction to
imprisonment for life. |
¹and
|
|
Additive conjunction
|
The additive conjunction “and” binds two clauses. It is used here also
to connect the relationship (consequence) of the information contained in
both clauses. |
|
|
|
Any person who makes funds, financial assets ¹or economic resources ¹or
financial ¹or other related
services available for use of any other person to commit ¹or attempt to commit, facilities ¹or participate in the commission
of a terrorist act is liable on conviction to imprisonment for life. |
¹Or
|
15: 3 |
Adversative conjunction/Reinteration |
The Adversative conjunction ‘’OR’’ not only joins structures in this
instance but also function as pointer to information. It is repeated in what
may seem awkward manner in regular traditional forms. It however is used to
provide clarity in communication. |
|
|
Table 4.2 here showcases the workings of cohesive
devices in section 15:1-3 of EFCC Act, 2004. It shows that three main cohesive
devices- Reintegration, Adversative Conjunctions, and Additive Conjunctions are
employed. The adversative conjunctions are used in reiteration. They are used
this way to provide options of information and clarity of meaning. In this
manner sufficiency of information provision is achieved. The additive
conjunction used here only once provides a connection to act of an offence and
its given consequences. Though it use in this circumstance may not be required
in other regular text as it is not traditionally a form used in portraying
results. It is however used here to communicate the association of offenders of
the specified crime and its punishment.
This work explores the meaning system of cohesive
devices in the Economic and Financial Crime Commission EFCC Act, 2004. Cohesive
devices are text element that provides texture to a text thereby making it a
unified whole. Being a legal text, the EFCC Act, 2004 is one created obviously
carefully, thoroughly and meticulously to communicate specified information. A
conspicuous linguistic element in the text is the cohesive devices
pervaded. Here they areused not to bring
out beauty embellishment but provide appropriate flow of in the text and to
offer clarity of meaning. The cohesive devices used in the Act function
structurally to aid in giving a link between sentences and sentence parts, in
order to create cohesion and coherence to a large extent and texture at the end
of discourse. Cohesion and coherence in any given text impacts both form and
meaning in text. Cohesive devices enhance the readability and interpretative
quality of a text. They enable clearer communication of complex legal ideas,
help establish connections among various parts of a document, and assist in
ensuring that the intended meaning is conveyed accurately to the reader.
In this work it is showcased that cohesive devices
play a critical role in demonstrating the analysis and interpretation of legal
documents by revealing how language elements work together to create meaning,
clarity, and structure within the text. In legal discourse, cohesive devices
help ensure that the document communicates effectively, minimizes ambiguity,
and serves its intended legal purpose.
This research reveals that the cohesive ties such as anaphora, exophora, conjunction and reiteration are predominantly used to bind different linguistic elements. The findings show that the ample use of cohesive element to refer or bind one linguistic element to another contributes to the intricacy in the act and account for clarity of meaning.
Adedeji, E. (2005) “grammatical Ties in English
Discourse.” In Perspectives on Language and Literature.Aremo, B. International
Law Texts and ITS Fars. Translation.
Austin, J.L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words.
London: Oxford University Press.
Blommaert, J. (2005). Discourse: A Critical
Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Brown, G. and Yule G. (1983) Discourse Analysis.
Cambridge: CUP
Bello U. M., &Zainab R. A .. (2020). Complexity in
the Noun Phrase Structure of the Nigerian EFFC Act. International Journal of
and Translation Studies, 1(1), 54 – 6
Cook, G (1989). Discourse. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
De Beaugrande, Halliday, M.A.K. and Hasan, R. (1976) Cohesion
in English. London: Longman.
De Beaugrande, R., & Dressler, W. U. (1981). Introduction
to Text Linguistics. Longman.
Egin, S (1994) An Introduction to Systematic
Fundamental Linguistics. London: Pinter.
Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and Power. London:
Longman.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and Social Change.
Polity Press.
Fowler, R. (1996). Linguistic Criticism. Oxford
University Press.
Fawcett, P (1997). Translation and Linguistic.
Halliday M.K & Hassan R. (1976). Cohesion in
English: Beijing Foreign Language Teaching andResearch Press
Halliday, M.A.K. and Hasan , R. (1976) Cohesion in
English. London: Longman.
Halliday, M.A.K. and Hasan, R. (1976) Cohesion in
English. London: Longman.
Halliday, M.K &Mattiessen, E. (2004). An
Introduction to Functional Grammar (3rd Ed).London: Hodder Education.
Harris Zellings. (1957). Discourse analysis: A sample
text. Language 28 (4), 474 – 494.
Hatim, B, & Mason, (1990). Discourse and the
translator. London and new York: Longman.
Innajih A. (2007). The effect of conjunctive types on
the English Language reading comprehension of Libyan University student.
Johnstone, Barbara (2002) Discourse Analysis. Blackwel
Publishers
Keratin, S &Jamaivand, A.A (2012). The Corpus
Study of Conjunction Devices in English
Odebunmi, A. (2005) “Cooperation in Doctor-patient
Conversational Interaction in South- Western Nigeria”
Mohammed, S. (2013) A pragmatic study of shife of
cohesion in animal farm (AF) and GandunDabbobi (G.D) phdthesis University of
Maiduguri, Nigeria.
Obuah, E (2012), combating corruption in Nigeria: the
Nigerian economic and financial crimes, African Study quarterly, 12 (1),
17-44
Pustejovsky, James (2006) Language as Action Accessed
from edu/~jamesp/classes/usem40a06/slides/DiscourseAnalysis.ppt – on January 2
2008. Press.
R. and Dressler, W. (1981) Introduction to Text
Linguistics. London: Longman (2004) An Introduction to English Sentences I and
II. Ibadan: Scribo Publishers.
Ribadu N. (2006) Economic and financial crime
commission. A Presentation to united
state congregational house committee on international development Washington
Roy, P. (2017), Anti corruption in Nigeria: A
political settlements Analysis. Working paper 002. London: school of oriental
and African studies, university of London
Schaffner, C. (1996) Political Speeches and discourse
analysis. Current Issues in Language andSociety 3 (3) 201 – 204.
Sinclair,J. Mc H and Coulthard, M. (1975) Towards an
Analysis of Discourse, the English Usedby Teachers and Pupils. Oxford: OUP.
Stubbs, M. (1983). Discourse Analysis: The
Sociolinguistic Analysis of Natural Language. Blackwell.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1980). Macrostructures: An
Interdisciplinary Study of Global Structures in Discourse, Interaction, and
Cognition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associate
0 Comments