Lakhasly

A number of points need to be borne in mind here.In English, a temporal relation may be expressed by means of a verb such as follow or precede, and a causal relation is inherent in the meanings of verbs such as cause and lead to. In fact, a language user will often recognize a semantic relation such as time sequence even when no explicit signal of such a relationship exists in the text.There is some uncertainty in the literature as to whether conjunctions which occur within sentences can be considered cohesive, since cohesion is considered by some linguists to be a relation between sentences rather than within sentences (see Halliday and Hasan, 1976: 232; see also note 2 at the end of this chapter).For instance, temporal relations are not restricted to sequence in real time; they may reflect stages in the unfolding text.

A number of points need to be borne in mind here. First, the same conjunction may be used to signal different relations, depending on the context. Second, these relations can be expressed by a variety of means; the use of a conjunction is not the only device for expressing a temporal or causal relation, for instance. In English, a temporal relation may be expressed by means of a verb such as follow or precede, and a causal relation is inherent in the meanings of verbs such as cause and lead to. In fact, a language user will often recognize a semantic relation such as time sequence even when no explicit signal of such a relationship exists in the text. Third, conjunctive relations do not just reflect relations between external phenomena, but may also be set up to reflect relations which are internal to the text or communicative situation. For instance, temporal relations are not restricted to sequence in real time; they may reflect stages in the unfolding text. A good example is the use of first, second, and third in this paragraph.
There is some uncertainty in the literature as to whether conjunctions which occur within sentences can be considered cohesive, since cohesion is considered by some linguists to be a relation between sentences rather than within sentences (see Halliday and Hasan, 1976: 232; see also note 2 at the end of this chapter). This means that subordinators are not, strictly speaking, considered a type of con- junction. For example, Halliday and Hasan (ibid.: 228) do not consider after a conjunction in
After they had fought the battle, it snowed
because it subordinates one part of the sentence to another but does not directly establish a link with another sentence. In the following