This paper looks at pro-form and cohesion in English writing from the angle of Korean L2 writers' mental script and attempts to suggest an interpretation of their responses in pro-form substitution. In English writing, to boost cohesion repetitive key nouns are typically substituted by pro-forms only if clarity is salvaged. However, how can we explain contrastive cases where Korean L2 writers prefer repetitive nouns to remain as they are without weakening the cohesion of a text? The writers attempt to explain this unsolved question, based on the survey results from Korean L2 writers and by referring to related theories of Oshima and Hogue (2006), Hyland (2009) and Hyun (2015). So far our research indicates that such response is attributable to Korean L2 writers' own schema and then this schema issue subsequently translates into their genre difference.

Vagueness is poison to metaphoric clarity. It frustrates interpreters' effort to decode the coiner's intended message. What causes such vagueness? Quite possibly, it is due to the arbitrary nature that a metaphor has; two disparate entities of focus and frame spin off vagueness throughout the whole metaphoric structure. Most probably, frameshift is an antidote to rid metaphors of thick vagueness. In that sense, extralinguistic information is a good building block for a frameshift. However, extralinguistic information does not always trigger a frameshift, nor does it bring vagueness to bright light. Then, the ball is handed over to the arbitrariness because it is the axis to which all other inexplicable metaphoric phenomena converge.

The term euphemism is not polysemous. However it is frequently employed in a 2-way form; sometimes as a channel to convey Speaker's innocuous indirect message (euphemism) and in other times as a device to hide Speaker's malicious intention (doublespeak). The former is intended to promote politeness from Speaker to Hearer and the other is a manipulated form to secure Speaker‘s unduly profit at the cost of Hearer. This paper discusses what distinguishes benign euphemism from malicious doublespeak. This writer probes into the similarities and dissimilarities between euphemism and doublespeak by comparing Allen & Burridge (1991) and Lutz (1989) and proposes Leech's (1987) cost-benefit module as a possible criterion for telling benign euphemism from malicious doublespeak. Overall this research tries to shed light on how language can be manipulated to Speaker's purposes.