luận văn a study of cohesive reference errors in essays written by english major juniors at thu dau mot university
Bạn đang xem bản rút gọn của tài liệu. Xem và tải ngay bản đầy đủ của tài liệu tại đây (6.41 MB, 119 trang )
<span class="text_page_counter">Trang 1</span><div class="page_container" data-page="1">
BINH DUONG PROVINCIAL PEOPLE’S COMMITTEE
<b>THU DAU MOT UNIVERSITY </b>
<b>TONG THI PHUONG THAO </b>
<b>A STUDY OF COHESIVE REFERENCE ERRORS IN ESSAYS WRITTEN BY ENGLISH-MAJOR JUNIORS </b>
<b>AT THU DAU MOT UNIVERSITY </b>
<b>MAJOR: ENGLISH LANGUAGE STUDIES MAJOR CODE: 8 22 02 01 </b>
<b>MASTER THESIS IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE STUDIES </b>
<b>BINH DUONG PROVINCE - 2023 </b>
</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 2</span><div class="page_container" data-page="2">BINH DUONG PROVINCIAL PEOPLE’S COMMITTEE
<i><b>THU DAU MOT UNIVERSITY </b></i>
<b>TONG THI PHUONG THAO </b>
<b>A STUDY OF COHESIVE REFERENCE ERRORS IN ESSAYS WRITTEN BY ENGLISH-MAJOR JUNIORS </b>
<b>AT THU DAU MOT UNIVERSITY </b>
<b>MAJOR: ENGLISH LANGUAGE STUDIES MAJOR CODE: 8 22 02 01 </b>
<b>MASTER THESIS IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE STUDIES SUPERVISED BY PHO PHUONG DUNG, PhD. </b>
<b>BINH DUONG PROVINCE - 2023 </b>
</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 3</span><div class="page_container" data-page="3">i
<b>STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY </b>
I certify that the intellectual content of the thesis “A study of cohesive reference errors in essays written by English-major juniors at Thu Dau Mot University” is my own work
,
and it does not contain materials written or published by other people or other people’s ideas,
except for the information from the references. This thesis has not been submitted to any other institution for the award of a degree or certification.Binh Duong Province
,
2023Tong Thi Phuong Thao
</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 4</span><div class="page_container" data-page="4">ii
<b>ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS </b>
First of all
,
I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor,
Pho Phuong Dung
,
PhD.,
who gave me insightful comments and devoted her valuable time to reading my thesis with great care. Especially,
I am wholeheartedly grateful to her for her unchanging sympathy and unceasing encouragement,
which she has given me so far.My special thanks go to my best friends
,
who gave me helpful advice,
although their majors are not English linguistics. Besides
,
they also accompanied me during my most challenging time. Furthermore,
I am truly grateful to my colleagues at the Office of Science and the Faculty of Education. They took on much of my work,
so I had more time to finish this thesis. Finally,
I also want to thank my friends who supported me and listened to my complaints when I was stuck on ideas.I am greatly indebted to my parents
,
who have always been wholeheartedly supportive and understanding,
so I could devote all my time to finishing my thesis. </div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 5</span><div class="page_container" data-page="5">iii
<b>ABSTRACT </b>
Writing skill is challenging for students in general
,
particularly those who learn English as a foreign language. Due to errors at the discourse level,
even essays with no significant grammatical or spelling errors may give readers a sense of inconsistency and illogic. Besides vocabulary,
grammar,
and ideas,
cohesion is one of the main factors affecting writing quality. Cohesive reference devices are essential components that connect sentences and paragraphs within a text to form a unified whole. This research examined 245 writings produced by English-major juniors at Thu Dau Mot University to determine which cohesive reference errors they constantly commit. A qualitative and quantitative mix-method study is designed to find results that meet research aims. The research findings also show the ratio of the error types. There are three kinds of cohesive reference errors that the participants commit the most. They are definite article errors,
expressing quantity errors,
and comparative reference errors. Based on previous researches,
the study also surmises some reasons for committing those errors. Finally
,
the study provided some recommendations for learners,
teachers,
and English-major curriculum writers to avoid cohesive reference errors. The research helps identify and eliminate cohesive reference errors in order to improve the quality of English writing.<b>Key words: cohesive reference</b>
,
cohesive reference error,
errors in essays </div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 6</span><div class="page_container" data-page="6">1.1. Background to the study ... 1
1.1.1. The importance of writing skills ... 1
1.1.2. The importance of cohesion in writing ... 2
1.2. Statement of the problem ... 4
1.3. Aims of the study ... 5
1.4. Research questions ... 5
1.5. Significance of the study ... 5
1.5.1. Theoretical contributions ... 5
1.5.2. Practical contributions ... 5
1.6. Scope of the study ... 6
1.7. Organization of the study ... 6
CHAPTER 2 - LITERATURE REVIEW ... 8
2.1. Definitions of text and essay ... 8
2.1.1. Definitions of text ... 8
2.1.2. Definitions of essay ... 8
2.2. Definitions of cohesion and cohesive reference ... 9
2.2.1. Definitions of cohesion ... 9
2.2.2. Definitions of cohesive reference ... 12
2.2.3. Studies of cohesion and cohesive reference... 14
2.2.3.1. Studies of cohesion ... 14
2.2.3.2. Studies of cohesive reference ... 15
2.3. Definitions of error and error analysis ... 15
2.3.1. Definitions of error... 15
2.3.2. Definitions of error analysis ... 16
</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 7</span><div class="page_container" data-page="7">v
2.4. Studies of error analysis ... 18
2.4.1. Studies of errors ... 18
2.4.2. Studies of cohesion errors ... 18
2.4.3. Studies of cohesive reference errors ... 19
3.4. Data collection procedure ... 33
3.5. Data analysis procedure ... 33
CHAPTER 4 - RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ... 36
4.1. Cohesive reference errors ... 36
4.2. Personal reference errors ... 37
4.2.1. Personal pronoun errors ... 38
4.2.2. Possessive determiner errors ... 44
4.2.3. Reflexive pronoun errors ... 47
4.3. Demonstrative reference errors ... 48
4.3.1. Definite article errors ... 49
4.3.2. Demonstrative determiner errors ... 55
4.3.3. Demonstrative pronoun errors ... 57
4.4. The comparative reference errors ... 59
4.4.1. Pre- and Post-determiner errors ... 60
4.4.1.1. Quantifier errors ... 60
4.4.1.2. Semi-determiner errors ... 66
4.4.2. Adjectives and adverbs of comparison errors ... 66
</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 8</span><div class="page_container" data-page="8">5.2.3. For curriculum writers ... 74
5.3. Limitations of the study and recommendation for further research... 74
REFERENCES ... 76
APPENDIX ... 83
</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 9</span><div class="page_container" data-page="9">vii
<b>LIST OF TABLES </b>
</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 10</span><div class="page_container" data-page="10"><b>1.1. Background to the study </b>
<b>1.1.1. The importance of writing skills </b>
Writing is a difficult skill in language learning
,
especially for students who learn English as a foreign language. Therefore,
being able to write English essays is one of the primary targets for English-major students. Indeed,
in order to properly arrange and express ideas,
not only linguistic understanding of the English language (phonology,
vocabulary,
and grammar) but also knowledge of rhetorical conventions must be acquired. Due to the disparities between the language systems of the target language and the student’s native tongue,
students typically encounter a variety of issues that are manifested in the form of common mistakes or errors in their English essays. “Good writing skills allow learners to communicate their message with clarity and ease to a larger audience than through face-to-face or telephone conversations” (Rajih,
2016,
p. 478). In this sense,
people can inform,
conduct business,
persuade,
infuriate,
and express their thoughts through writing. However,
writing or learning to write in a foreign language is not as straightforward as writing in one’s native tongue. </div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 11</span><div class="page_container" data-page="11">2
According to Ulijn and Strother (1995
),
writing is regarded as “one of the active or productive skills of language usage” (p. 153). It is needed for taking notes,
describing objects or devices and writing essays,
answering written questions,
creating compositions,
writing experimental reports,
etc. As a result,
writing has long been considered an essential component of the curricula for students majoring in English and for use in academic settings. Because English is the key to overcoming the barrier of language and bringing individuals into the global community
,
teaching English in schools should also focus on developing students’ writing skills in the English language.Writing skills are essential for effective communication. They play an important role in everyone’s work. They are special skills to express ideas and communicative intentions through written languages. Some students assume that writing skills are one reason for their success. Moreover
,
they realize that they have to write many types of text in reality.Nevertheless
,
those skills are not innate abilities. They are taken shape and improved through education and practice in reality. In addition,
writers have to organize their ideas so that they are harmonious to reach the main target of writing,
which is conveying their opinions to the readers. For these reasons,
a cohesive text is essential because it decides how much readers understand the writer’s message. Even essays without serious grammatical errors or misspellings can give readers the impression of inconsistency and illogicality,
which is mainly caused by errors at the discourse level.
<b>1.1.2. The importance of cohesion in writing </b>
According to Ghasemi (2013)
,
cohesion is regarded as “an essential textual component” (p. 1615) both in constructing ordered texts and making the material understandable to the reader. It would appear that cohesion is responsible for ensuring that our words,
ideas,
and paragraphs fit together. In </div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 12</span><div class="page_container" data-page="12">Numerous scholars have investigated the relationship between the use of cohesion devices and writing quality. A text is meaningful when its pieces make reference to one another and establish a connection. Reference
,
substitution,
ellipsis
,
and conjunction are some examples of grammatical and lexical cohesiveness that can be used to establish the relation. Therefore,
cohesiveness can also be achieved by the use of lexicon and grammar. There is a widespread belief that essay quality is highly correlated with its cohesion and coherence. It is reflected in the writing literature (e.g.,
Collins,
1998; DeVillez,
2003) as well as in writing instruction textbooks (Golightly & Sanders,
1990). Because the objective of a text is to communicate ideas,
a good text should be easily interpreted by the reader. Consequently,
the cohesion of the text is vital since it clarifies its meaning and allows readers to comprehend what the author intends to convey through the text. </div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 13</span><div class="page_container" data-page="13">4
<b>1.2. Statement of the problem </b>
In reality
,
students’ writing skills face some obstacles. Many linguists are interested in this issue and discuss it in numerous academic forums. Today’s youth frequently fail to clarify their thoughts in writing. Due to a lack of writing skills in their native tongue,
Vietnamese students struggle with writing in the target language,
especially English. Students’ inability to write in English is the greatest obstacle to their worldwide integration and employment opportunities in foreign companies.Although learners study writing skills through many courses
,
they still face a lot of difficulties in the writing process. They cannot organize their ideas for writing,
or they find it difficult to outline their writing. In addition,
they also make many grammatical and lexical mistakes because they have to write in the target language,
not their mother tongue. Besides,
due to lack of knowledge of the target language,
learners sometimes make their writings difficult to comprehend. By using wrong,
or omitting cohesive reference devices,
their writings are not consistent. As a result,
they are difficult for readers to understand or to interpret what the writers want to express.The English-major students at Thu Dau Mot University also face those difficulties. Sometimes
,
they do not recognize the important role of cohesive reference in writing. Hence,
they unconsciously make cohesive reference errors. From that point,
we need a study in order to explore which cohesive reference errors students often make. Then,
according to the findings and many related theories,
the study surmises some reasons and puts forward some suggestions in teaching and learning writing skills. The results of this study are practical because it is studied on the participants who are students of Thu Dau Mot University. Therefore,
the findings of this study will contribute directly to writing the curriculum of English major at Thu Dau Mot University. </div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 14</span><div class="page_container" data-page="14">5
<b>1.3. Aims of the study </b>
From the difficulties which students have faced in writing skills in general
<b>and cohesive reference in particular as the author mentioned above</b>
,
it is necessary to conduct a study in order to investigate which cohesive reference errors committed by the English-major juniors at Thu Dau Mot University in their essays. In addition,
the study also explores the frequency of making those errors. From the findings,
the study also surmises some reasons why the students often make those errors as well as suggests some solutions for limiting those errors. The findings of this study will help students,
teachers and textbook writers have an overlook at the cohesive reference errors committed by students.<b>1.5.2. Practical contributions</b>
Firstly
,
by identifying the cohesive reference errors often made by English-major juniors at Thu Dau Mot University,
teachers have an overview of the problems their students face in this aspect. Acknowledging those errors,
</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 15</span><div class="page_container" data-page="15">6
teachers and those who design the English-major curriculum can revise the content of writing courses and the teaching methodology to help students avoid committing cohesive reference errors.
Besides
,
by surmising the reasons causing those errors,
the study can recommend suggestions to improve the English teaching and learning process,
especially in writing skills
,
to avoid cohesive reference errors. The results of the study will be transferred to the Faculty of Foreign Languages at Thu Dau Mot University in order to contribute as reference material to design the writing courses.<b>1.6. Scope of the study </b>
The scope of this research is to investigate the cohesive reference errors committed by English-major juniors at Thu Dau Mot University
,
thereby proposing some solutions to limit the errors. The participants in this study were English-major juniors in The Faculty of Foreign Languages in the academic year 2020-2021. The subject of this study is 245 final papers of the Essay Writing in<i>English course. By that</i>
,
the author assesses cohesive reference errors committed by the English-major juniors in the university.<b>1.7. Organization of the study </b>
Besides this introductory chapter
,
the study includes four other main chapters,
each dealing with a separate issue.Chapter 2
,
Literature Review,
provides the definition of key terms in this study. This chapter also reviews some previous studies on error analysis and identifies the gap in those studies.Chapter 3
,
Research Methodology,
explains the methodology employed in the research. This chapter clarifies the research participants,
subjects,
instruments
,
and describes how data are collected and analyzed.Chapter 4
,
Analysis and Discussion,
represents characteristics of each kind of cohesive reference errors which the English-major juniors at Thu Dau </div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 16</span><div class="page_container" data-page="16">7
Mot University made in writing essays. From the findings
,
the author compares the frequency of types of cohesive reference errors in order to see which kinds of errors the students commit the most and the least,
thence surmising some reasons which caused those errors.Chapter 5
,
Conclusion and Recommendations,
in this chapter,
the author presents the summary of results,
some suggestions for teaching and learning process in order to avoid and eliminate these errors. Besides,
the author also clarifies the limitations of this research and gives recommendations for further studies in the future.<b>Summary of Chapter 1 </b>
To sum up
,
this chapter presented the study’s background,
rationale,
problem
,
and significance. The chapter will be followed by relevant theoretical underpinnings and related studies into the field. </div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 17</span><div class="page_container" data-page="17">8
<b>CHAPTER 2 - LITERATURE REVIEW </b>
The previous chapter provides the introduction of the thesis. This chapter reviews relevant literature
,
i.e. theories of some terms in the study,
previous studies on cohesion errors in general and cohesive reference errors in particular.<b>2.1. Definitions of text and essay 2.1.1. Definitions of text </b>
Halliday and Hasan (1976
)
state that “text is used in linguistics to refer to any passage,
spoken or written,
of whatever length,
that does form a unified whole” (p. 1). They also claim that text is a “semantic unit” (p. 2) which is characterized by cohesion. It is not a grammatical unit such as a sentence or a clause,
and there is no limit to its size. A text is best regarded as a semantic unit,
a unit not of form but meaning.
Besides those definitions of text
,
there are some studies on the differences between a text and a non-text. A text is an extended structure of syntactic units such as words,
groups,
and clauses and textual units that are marked by the coherence among the elements and completion (Yalỗnkaya & Rzayev,
2017). On the other hand,
a non-text consists of random sequences of linguistic units such as sentences,
paragraphs,
or sections in any temporal or spatial extension (Werlich,
1976). It is a set of mutually relevant communicative functions,
structured in a way as to achieve an overall rhetorical purpose (Hatim and Mason
,
1990).<b>2.1.2. Definitions of essay </b>
Whereas text is a general term which represents “a passage of discourse” (Wang & Guo
,
2014),
an essay is a more specific term to represent a piece of writing that gives the author’s own argument. It has been defined in a variety of ways (Holman & William,
2003). Huxley (1958) noted that the essay is a literary device for conveying writer’s opinions about everything. An essay consists of a group of paragraphs focused on a particular subject. </div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 18</span><div class="page_container" data-page="18">9
The essay is used to evaluate and test the writing skills of a writer as well as his or her abilities to respond personally or critically to an issue. Through an essay
,
the writer presents his or her own arguments in a more sophisticated manner. In academic study,
learners usually write essays as a midterm or final test of a course. Teachers evaluate the essays to check how much knowledge students acquire in the course.<b>2.2. Definitions of cohesion and cohesive reference </b>
Due to the importance of writing in the academic field as well as in life
,
students need to be aware of the features which constitute a text. Besides vocabulary
,
grammar,
ideas,
etc. Cohesion is one of the factors which affects the quality of writings.<b>2.2.1. Definitions of cohesion </b>
In Halliday and Hasan’s (1976
)
opinions,
the concept of cohesion is described as “a semantic one” (p. 4); it refers to relations of meaning that exist within the text and that define it as text. In their consideration,
cohesion is the grammatical and lexical linking within a text or sentence that holds a text together and gives it meaning. In short,
the links that stick different sentences and make the text meaningful can be considered as cohesion in the text.Many studies were conducted by linguists on the cohesion aspect. Hinkel (2003
)
conceptualized cohesion as “the connectivity of ideas in discourse and sentences to one another in text,
thus creating the flow of information in a unified way” (p. 279). Cohesion refers to the range of possibilities that exist for linking something with what has gone before. In other words,
the cohesion focuses on the relation among sentences rather than within sentences. Similarly,
Kwan and Yunus (2014)
assume that cohesion can be said to be the “connectivity and flow within the text that are established through the use of devices that cause the elements within the text to be interrelated and inter-dependent” (p. 131). </div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 19</span><div class="page_container" data-page="19">10
In fact
,
cohesion represents the presence of explicit cues in the text that allows readers to find semantic relations within it as part of the linguistic system enhancing the semantic potentials of text. Ghasemi (2013) realizes that a text is meaningful only when elements referring to each other in the text and those elements set up a relation. Cohesion distinguishes texts from non-texts and enables readers to establish relevance between what was said already,
what is being said now,
and what will be said next,
through the appropriate use of the necessary lexical and grammatical cohesive devices (Castro,
2004).Beside the above opinions about cohesion
,
there are criticisms which are against the cohesive theories. The cohesive theory proposed by Halliday and Hasan (1976) was challenged by Carrell (1982). Carrell (1982)
believes that “processing a text is an interactive process between the text and the prior background knowledge of the listener or reader” (p. 482). It means that both the structure and content of the text and the readers’ knowledge about the text should be considered carefully. Carrell (1982) argued that there is no meaningful relationship between the number of cohesive devices and the coherence of writing. However,
the author does not agree with this idea due to the result of Halliday and Hasan’s (1976) study. They remark that cohesive devices appear to be critical in determining the clarity,
appropriateness,
and comprehensibility in writing. Cohesion helps create text by providing the texture of text through its variety of cohesion linking mechanisms and semantic devices (Abadiano,
1995). Halliday and Hasan (1976) also believe that cohesion explains how meaning was constructed based on the semantic relations that were motivated between and among the lexical and grammatical items in a text. In addition,
Salkie (2001) also reckons that cohesion is an important textual aspect to achieve qualified writing. This aspect of cohesion is built by some features,
namely grammatical and lexical cohesion. Grammatical cohesion refers to the various grammatical devices that can be used to make relations among sentences more explicit (Azzouz,
2009). </div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 20</span><div class="page_container" data-page="20">11
From those definitions
,
it can be concluded that the links that stick different sentences and make the text meaningful can be thought of as cohesion in the text. A text is meaningful only when its elements refer to each other and set up a relation. The relation can be set up through reference,
substitution,
ellipsis
,
and conjunction as grammatical and lexical cohesion. Therefore,
cohesion can be measured and verified through rules of grammar and semantics. Besides the concept of cohesion
,
coherence is also one of the features of an essay but they do not imply each other. Cohesion and coherence are linguistic qualities that are desirable in a text and as such considered important for all students trying to master a language. They are related notions central to text linguistics. McDonough (2002,
as cited in Malgwi,
2016) explains the concepts as two distinct ways of discussing the features of a text. The first concept “cohesion” pertains to the relations of elements which are present in the text,
while the second concept “coherence” refers to the relations which are related to facts outside language. From the definition above
,
it can be said that cohesion defines “those mechanisms that hold a text together,
while coherence defines those underlying semantic relations that allow a text to be understood and used” (Witte & Faigley,
1981,
p. 202).Basically
,
coherence means the connection of ideas at the idea level,
and cohesion means the connection of ideas at the sentence level. In other words,
coherence refers to the rhetorical aspects of the writing
,
which include developing,
supporting an argument,
synthesizing,
organizing and clarifying ideas. It also refers to the relations held between the underlying surface text. Moreover,
the term “coherence” refers to the knowledge which can be activated in the mind whereas relations refer to the connection between the surface texts (Azzouz,
2009). Meanwhile,
cohesion focuses on the grammatical aspects of writing,
“refers to the surface relations between the sentences that create a text .i.e. to create connected sentences within a sequence” (Azzouz,
2009,
p. 18). </div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 21</span><div class="page_container" data-page="21">12
Cohesion and coherence do not imply each other. Brown and Yule (1983) believe that coherence depends primarily on the interpretation of linguistic messages. As a result
,
the listener or the reader will try to interpret a sequence of sentences as being coherent,
even when there is no explicit cohesive element to signal a relationship. It means that cohesion does not lead to coherence,
but coherence is not enough to make a text coherent while there must be some additional linguistic property (like cohesion) that makes a text coherent. A text must have surface cohesion as well as overall coherence,
and sentences in a coherent text must conform to the overall picture based on the experience or imagination of the receiver (Enkvist,
1978). Therefore,
it is possible that a text can be cohesive but not coherent and vice versa; and it is also possible that a text is both cohesive and coherent.<b>2.2.2. Definitions of cohesive reference </b>
Halliday and Hasan (1976) give the most comprehensive description of cohesive devices. There are five major types of cohesive ties: reference
,
substitution
,
ellipsis,
conjunction and lexical ties. The first four types are grouped as grammatical cohesion and the last one is lexical cohesion.Halliday and Hasan (1976)
,
define “reference” as “the relationship between an element of the text and something else by referring to which it is interpreted in the given instance” (p. 308). Reference accelerates the flow of understanding what is presented in a text (McCarthy,
1991). Besides,
Schiffrin et al. (2001) also believe that reference refers to a particular or circumstantial element whose identity is recoverable. In 2004,
Halliday and Matthiessen (as cited in Hidayati,
2014) define that reference means the act of using language to refer to something in a text in order to get the full meaning. Jenei (2014) assumes the items which refer to general entities or to something outside the text as non-cohesive items. In sum,
the readers interpret a referent in a particular text by looking at the referred item in the textual environment or out of the text. </div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 22</span><div class="page_container" data-page="22">13
Reference can be in exophoric and endophoric categories. Exophoric reference is one form of context-dependence since without the context we cannot interpret what is said. Endophoric is a general name for reference within the text. Endophoric is divided into anaphoric (to the preceding text) and cataphoric (to the following text) (Halliday & Hasan
,
1976). Therefore,
if the relation presupposes something that has gone before,
it is called anaphoric. Meanwhile,
if it is presupposed by something in the following part,
it is called cataphoric (Yanti,
2012). In other words,
referring words which make links by referring back to something previously mentioned in the text are called anaphoric reference. It refers back to the item presented before in the text. Meanwhile,
referring words which point forward to something are called cataphoric reference. It refers forward where the referent will appear in the upcoming text (Deraney
,
2015).Most of the reference in the text points back to words in the text itself (Droga & Humphrey
,
2003). Deraney (2015) also reckons that anaphoric reference was by far the most frequently used cohesive devices by the participants. Pronouns refer back to noun groups in the text and the definite article “the” is used to refer to things that are assumed to be part of our general knowledge of the topic. This kind of reference is common in written language and is often used to avoid repetition. However,
the reference that is inconsistent can make a text difficult to follow its flow.Halliday and Hasan (1976)
,
divide reference into “three subtypes namely personal reference,
demonstrative reference and comparative reference” (p. 37). Firstly,
personal reference is the reference “by means of function in the speech situation,
through the category of person”. Secondly,
demonstrative reference is the reference “by means of location,
on the scale of proximity”. Finally,
comparative reference is “indirect reference by means of identity or similarity”. There are some sub-categories which are included in these three categories.
</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 23</span><div class="page_container" data-page="23">Halliday and Hasan did a detailed study of cohesion in English. After that
,
many scholars from various branches of linguistics focused on the term “cohesion” and explored it from various perspectives and approaches. Hasan (1984) enlarged the concept of cohesion and divided cohesion into two groups such as structural and non-structural cohesion. Structural cohesion includes “parallelism,
theme-rhyme development and given-new organization” (Xi,
2010,
p. 140). In non-structural cohesion,
it includes partial relations and original relations. After the publication of “Cohesion in English” (1976),
Halliday and Hasan continued to study cohesion and further developed their theories of cohesion in their subsequent works. For instance,
in “An Introduction to Functional Grammar,
” Halliday (1994) regarded substitution and ellipsis as “variants of the same type of cohesive relation” (p. 317) and put them into one category. After the publication of “Cohesion in English,
” the concept of cohesion has been applied to different fields such as stylistics,
discourse analysis,
language teaching and learning,
translation studies
,
psycholinguistics,
and sociolinguistics. Scholars have investigated cohesion in the field of language teaching (e.g.,
McCarthy and Carter,
1994; Liu,
1999; Zhang,
Miao & Li,
2005). </div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 24</span><div class="page_container" data-page="24">15
Besides
,
there are some studies about cohesion’s influence on writing quality. McCulley (1985) carried out a study in that field,
and the result was that writing quality did not correlate with the total number of cohesive ties used in the essays. The results of his study also revealed that particular cohesive ties (e.g.,
demonstratives
,
nominal substitution,
and repetition) contributed to the positive assessment of writing quality. Although the findings of these studies indicate that using more cohesive ties is not sufficient for learners to write a quality essays and get higher grades in writing courses,
we must acknowledge that cohesion is also an essential component of academic writing because it has an immediate impact on the quality of student writings. Cohesive writing does not imply that sentences are grammatically correct. Instead,
cohesive writing is characterized by the connection of our ideas at both the sentence and paragraph levels.<b>2.2.3.2. Studies of cohesive reference </b>
Most cohesive reference studies focus on asserting the vital role of reference in connecting sentences. According to Ahmed (2008)
,
reference constitutes a pillar that contributes to the texture of the text and makes it well-connected. He also admitted that the Cohesion Taxonomy of Halliday and Hasan proves to be adequate in specifying and analyzing the cohesive tie reference. Petkunaite (2013) had the same point of view. He believed that reference is important for creating coherent and cohesive text. It also serves as an economy device,
as it makes the text more compact. Because of the critical role of cohesive reference,
the author chooses to analyze cohesive reference errors committed by students and surmise some reasons from the findings.<b>2.3. Definitions of error and error analysis 2.3.1. Definitions of error </b>
The term error is defined as a mistake that people make when doing something (Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary
,
2008). Although there are many studies on the distinction between “errors” and “mistakes” by many linguists,
it is impossible to indicate any sharp differentiation. James (1998,
pp. </div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 25</span><div class="page_container" data-page="25">whereas a lack of the target language causes errors.
In fact
,
it is difficult to determine if students commit mistakes or errors. If we are uncertain whether students have made a mistake or an error,
we have to identify if they are able to correct themselves or not. If they can correct it,
it is probably a mistake; if not,
it is an error. However,
due to the limited time,
this study does not conduct in-depth interviews with those students to distinguish between errors and mistakes. Therefore,
all detected cohesive reference errors are treated as errors.<b>2.3.2. Definitions of error analysis </b>
Stephen Pit Corder is the key author of error analysis in his journal article “The significance of the learner’s errors
,
” which was published in 1967. He stated that language learners have their syllabus,
which determines the learners’ learning quality and sequence in their language studying (Corder,
1981,
as cited in Bao,
2015). In other words,
rather than reflecting on what the teacher instructs them to learn,
errors show what the students have already learned. He believes that learners’ errors are not bad behavior to be abolished because it is the reflection of the nature of students’ learning process. Therefore,
it can be seen as a way to check learners’ learning process (Corder,
1967,
as cited in Bao,
2015). He argues that linguistic errors are essential components of the learning process </div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 26</span><div class="page_container" data-page="26">17
for students because they reveal the differences between the grammar of the learners’ source language and target language. Making errors or errors is something that both teachers and students will experience so that they can be viewed as an essential and beneficial part of the language-learning process. Corder (1967) concludes that we can learn from our errors
,
and it is better than just learning from the sample without practicing and correcting the errors.Error analysis has a significant impact on the teaching of languages. Johanson (1975) highlighted that error analysis is the most effective method for describing and comprehending language learners’ errors. It is also a technique for enhancing learners’ learning capacity in order to prioritize the resolution of their difficulties based on the frequency of their errors. (Richards & Sampson
,
1974,
as cited in Nonkukhetkhong
,
2013). Error analysis also provides information on the level of language proficiency that the learners have reached,
the expected difficulties in language learning,
and how people learn a language (Sercombe,
2000). Error analysis studies allow educators to learn some of the reasons why students make errors in their work. In point of fact
,
it is not enough for teachers to correct the errors made by their students. Teachers should explain to students why they commit errors and how they can avoid them. Teaching learners how to evaluate their acquisition of the target language is better.There are many studies in this field to take advantage of error analysis. Johanson (1975) studied the uses of error analysis and contrastive analysis. Meanwhile
,
Ancker (2000),
Giri (2010),
and Nonkukhetkhong (2013) attempted to analyze errors in order to explore whether teachers’ expectations toward error correction differed from students’ expectations and found out the learning strategies and mechanisms which learners employed in learning their target language. From the observed errors,
these studies give teachers information to assist them in three ways: first,
in correcting their students’ errors; second,
in improving their teaching style; and third,
in focusing on areas that require reinforcement. (Alhaisoni,
2012). </div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 27</span><div class="page_container" data-page="27">Nokukhetkhong (2013)
,
and Yani et al. (2014) detected grammar,
syntax,
lexica,
semantics
,
and other mechanics errors committed by students. They assumed that students commit those errors because they apply their mother tongue’s linguistic system to their target language (English in these cases). While these studies analyzed learners’ writing,
Beltran (2014) focused on the errors students make in their utterances by conducting personal interviews. According to the advantages of error analysis,
linguists surmised some reasons and suggested some methods of avoiding errors (Azzouz,
2009; Yang,
2010; and Penny,
2011).Vietnamese linguists also had some studies on error analysis. Nguyen’s (2011) thesis identified the errors committed by students at Phu Cat 3 high school in Binh Dinh Province. The thesis focuses on the paragraph - one of the levels of text which high school students learn in English class. The study explored morphological
,
lexical,
syntactic,
and mechanical errors. It also showed that the students face difficulty in building a paragraph,
such as identifying a topic sentence,
developing supporting ideas,
and especially making a concluding sentence. Besides,
Dinh (2008) and Pham (2010) also surmised why students commit errors. According to their studies,
the influence of the mother tongue is one of the main reasons. The second reason for making errors is the lack of frequent writing practice. The third reason is the students’ limited knowledge of grammar and writing techniques,
and the final reason is the way that teachers correct errors and provide feedback.<b>2.4.2. Studies of cohesion errors </b>
Besides those studies on errors in students’ writing in general
,
there are many researchers who have been interested in analyzing cohesion errors </div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 28</span><div class="page_container" data-page="28">19
(Hidayati
,
2014; Kwan & Yunus,
2014; Bao,
2015). These studies detected some cohesive errors,
such as overuse,
underuse,
and misuse of cohesive devices. Some linguists focused on each kind of cohesive error. For example,
Azzouz (2009) analyzed particularly grammatical cohesion errors in student writing. Meanwhile,
Vujevic (2006) concentrated on ellipsis and substitution,
believing that those cohesive devices’ purpose is to avoid the burdening repetitions within the text. Darweesh and Kadhim (2016),
on the other hand,
highlighted concerns with conjunction use as cohesive devices among Iraqi learners. In their research,
conjunctions are utilized to indicate logical relationships within a text and to help the reader connect distinct units and paragraphs. In addition
,
through error analysis,
Do and Vo (2014) believed that errors are evidence of the concerned learner in the process of internalizing the target language in use. Through these specifically focused papers,
we have an overall view of the cohesion errors committed by language learners.<b>2.4.3. Studies of cohesive reference errors </b>
It has been shown by research into several languages references can be highly problematic for students who come from non-speaking English countries. For example
,
in Finland,
some studies focused on how reference errors exist due to the difference in language systems (Mauranen,
1990; Ventola & Mauranen,
1991; Connor
,
1996; Flowerdew,
2001). Similarly,
reference was also problematic for Chinese writers who learned English as a foreign language,
particularly the use of articles for maintaining a referential identity (Reid
,
1992; Liu & Braine,
2005). One of the problems Korean students face is that they use pronouns to refer to an extended text set in the preceding discourse,
whereas the pronouns used by native English speakers frequently refer to nominal items (Kim,
2012). In addition,
the learners showed a lack of proficiency in placing referential expressions in proper positions. </div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 29</span><div class="page_container" data-page="29">20
On the other hand
,
Kang (2009),
through the analysis of written narratives,
showed that Korean learners relied heavily on using nominal pronouns more than others to establish textual cohesion. Additionally,
it was discovered that Thai students use references as a cohesive device less often than English native-speaker students. (Indrasuta,
1988). In other studies of cohesive reference,
writers frequently underutilize cohesive lexical devices such as synonyms,
paraphrases,
and collocations. (Crossley & McNamara,
2009). Hinkel (2011) noted that writers frequently overuse or improperly use demonstratives and referential pronouns.Reference is one of the essential types of cohesion because when writers commit cohesive reference errors
,
their writings fail to meet the cohesion standard,
and it needs to be clarified for readers. Reference elements,
which come in the form of pronouns,
demonstratives,
comparatives,
and other text references,
enable the text to link through multiple ways of referencing within a text,
within culturally shared knowledge,
and from the outside recognized context. (Haratyan,
2011). Thence,
the author chooses the cohesive reference as the subject and conducts the current study in order to see which cohesive reference errors students often commit.<b>2.5. Theoretical framework </b>
To analyze errors
,
a framework,
which is a supporting structure for us to use to categorize and analyze,
takes an important role. A framework is a set of principles,
ideas,
or beliefs used to plan or decide something. (Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary,
2008) In other words,
a framework includes a set of concepts that are used to explain and describe a phenomenon. It is built on theories. The theoretical framework is the theoretical basis that researchers rely on to conduct studies. This part is an overview of some related frameworks in this study. Therefore,
the author set the framework for this current study. </div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 30</span><div class="page_container" data-page="30">21
<b>2.5.1. Framework of cohesion </b>
The framework for the majority of cohesion studies is Halliday and Hasan’s (1976) Cohesion Taxonomy because it provides the most exhaustive and systematic analysis of cohesion relations in English. A summary of Halliday and Hasan’s (1976) Cohesion Taxonomy
,
including all its sub-categories,
can be seen in Table 2.1.<i>Table 2.1. Halliday and Hasan’s Cohesion Taxonomy (1976) </i>
Demonstratives Comparative
Verbal Clausal
Verbal Clausal
Adversative Causal Temporal
Collocation
Halliday and Hasan (1976) presented five distinct types of cohesive devices as a guide for analyzing and evaluating the cohesion of writing. In both the lexical and grammatical systems
,
cohesion types can be identified. The first type of grammatical cohesion device is the reference,
which indicates information from another source,
such as personals,
demonstratives,
and </div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 31</span><div class="page_container" data-page="31">22
comparatives (Halliday & Hasan
,
1976). The second type is the substitution,
which replaces one component with another. In other words
,
a substitution is the replacement of a linguistic element within a text as opposed to its repetition. It performs the same structural function as the component it replaces. The third one is the ellipsis,
which is the omission of a component. It is said to be a form of substitution in which the item is replaced by nothing. The next one is the conjunction,
which indicates specific meaning that presupposes present items in the discourse,
such as additive,
adversative,
causal,
and temporal. According to Abadiano (1995),
conjunction is a type of semantic relation that enables parts of the text to be systematically connected to one another in meaning. Finally,
lexical cohesion is achieved through the choice of vocabulary. It involves the identification of a reference
,
which can occur through the exact repetition of a lexical item. It could also be a synonym,
a superordinate,
or a general term. When vocabulary items share the same lexical environment in order to occur in collocation together,
a semantic relationship is established between them.Besides the above taxonomy
,
Witte and Faigley (1981) use another system to analyze cohesive errors. Their framework includes four types of the tie. They are immediate,
mediated,
remote,
and mediated-remote. Immediate cohesive ties semantically link adjacent T-units. Meanwhile,
mediated links connect items in adjacent T-units. These connections allow writers to introduce a notion in one T-unit and then change or explain the idea in subsequent T-units. When one or more intervening T-units separate two elements of a tie,
the result is remote. Finally,
ties that are both mediate and remote are called mediate-remote. This kind of framework is not familiar with people because it is difficult to determine the distance of elements.<b>2.5.2. Frameworks of reference </b>
From Halliday and Hasan’s (1976) taxonomy
,
Halliday and Matthiessen (2014) updated the framework in the book “Halliday’s Introduction to Functional </div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 32</span><div class="page_container" data-page="32"><b>Nominal or adverbial </b>
<b>group: Submodifier </b>
<b>Adverbial group: Head </b>
Co-reference Personal Personal pronoun as Thing/Head;
possessive determiner as Deictic/Premodifier or Head
Demonstrative Demonstrative pronoun as Thing/Head; demonstrative determiner as
Deictic/Premodifier or Head
Demonstrative adverbs as Head (here, there)
Comparative reference
General Adjective as Deictic (same, similar, other, etc.);
<i>post-Adjective such as </i>
Epithet
<i>Comparative adverb (identically, </i>
<i>similarly, otherwise, etc.) as </i>
Submodifier in nominal, adverbial group or as Premodifier, Head in adverbial group
Specific Comparative adverb
<i>(more, fewer, etc.) as </i>
Submodifier of Numerative;
comparative adverb
<i>(more, less, etc.) as </i>
Submodifier of adjective serving as Epithet (or simply comparative form of that adjective)
<i>Comparative adverb (more, less, </i>
etc.) as Submodifier in nominal, adverbial group or as Premodifier in adverbial group (or simply comparative form of adverb)
Although many researchers have used Halliday and Hasan’s (1976) Taxonomy as their primary framework to identify and categorize cohesive items
</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 33</span><div class="page_container" data-page="33">24
in general and cohesive reference items in particular
,
the taxonomy also has some gaps. Jenei (2014) identifies a weakness in Halliday and Hasan’s (1976) original taxonomy,
i.e.,
the cohesive chains of reference consistently demonstrate linearity,
which is insufficient to convey the complexity of referential links. It is also acknowledged in Hasan’s (1984) analysis of cohesive devices,
where she describes other patterns,
such as chain disjunctions and conjunctions. Thence,
Jenei conducted an empirical study to develop an analytical tool for analyzing references as a cohesive device in 2014. One of the most relevant advantages of the proposed analysis is that it can account for patterns of reference that have posed severe problems and sources of inconsistencies in the analysis for researchers intending to apply Halliday and Hasan’s (1976) taxonomy. For example
,
the patterns of cohesive relationships of more than two ties (chains) can be described by three main patterns: linear,
splitting,
and merging (Jenei,
2014). Table 2.3 shows the referential cohesion analysis which Jenei used as the framework in his dissertation.<i>Table 2.3. The framework in Jenei’s dissertation </i>
(Adopted from Jenei
,
2014,
p. 76)<b>ITEMS </b>
Personal reference
NP Demonstrative reference
</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 34</span><div class="page_container" data-page="34">Pre- and post-determiners (functioning with central determiners)
Many
,
more,
most,
some
,
little,
less,
few,
several + NP
Either
,
neither + NPlatter
,
last,
next + NP Certain,
such + NP Adjectives and adverbsof comparison
Different(ly) Similar(ly) As
,
so<b>2.5.3. Framework of the current study </b>
The author combined two frameworks of Halliday and Matthiessen (2014) and Jenei (2014). In addition
,
the author also added the sub-category “demonstrative pronoun” into the category “demonstrative reference/central determiner” because the framework by Jenei (2014) did not include it,
but it is a sub-category of Halliday and Matthiessen’s taxonomy.In the English syntax book
,
To Minh Thanh (2008) stated that there is a structure that is “between the phrasal level and the lexical level.” She denoted this structure as N’ and called it The N-bar. She also claimed that N’ structure is </div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 35</span><div class="page_container" data-page="35">26
“higher than noun and lower than noun phrase.” Nordquitst (2020) and Noel (2021) call The N-bar by a different name
,
the nominal. Nordquitst (2020) considers that the nominal is a grammatical category that is made up of a noun or groups of nouns and has the function of a noun. Jenei (2014) argues that NP (noun phrase) is followed by cohesive reference devices (see Table 2.3.). The Cambridge Dictionary,
on the other hand,
defines a noun phrase as a phrase composed of dependent words that run before and after the head noun to modify it. Therefore,
in the framework for this study,
the writer uses the concept of “the nominal” (abbreviated as NOM). In sum,
the list of cohesive reference items in Table 2.4 will be used as the cohesive reference framework of this current study.<i>Table 2.4. The framework of cohesive reference in the current study </i>
<b>ITEMS </b>
Personal references
3rd person pronouns
Possessive Theirs, his, hers, its Possessive determiners My, our, your, their,
his, her, its + NOM Demonstrative
</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 36</span><div class="page_container" data-page="36">27
<b>ITEMS </b>
Comparative references
Pre- and determiners (functioning with central determiners)
post-Quantifiers Inclusive
Expressing quantity
Arbitrary member
All, both, each, every + NOM
Many, more, most, some, little, less, few, several + NOM Either, neither + NOM
Semi-determiners Same, other, former, latter, last, next + NOM
Certain, such + NOM
Adjectives and adverbs of comparison Different(ly) Similar(ly) As, so
According to this framework
,
cohesive reference is divided into three categories (personal references,
demonstrative references,
and comparative references). These categories are also split into sub-categories. In this study,
the author combined the frameworks of Halliday and Matthiessen (2014) and Jenei (2014). The personal reference is divided into three types: nominative,
accusative
,
and possessive. To be more particular,
nominative pronouns are pronouns that usually play the role of the subject of a sentence - and they do the action in that sentence. An accusative pronoun is the object of the sentence,
meaning that it is affected by the subject (the nominative pronoun). Finally
,
a possessive pronoun is a part of speech that attributes ownership to someone or something. </div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 37</span><div class="page_container" data-page="37">28
<b>Summary of Chapter 2 </b>
This chapter has given an overview of the literature related to the thesis’s topic as well as the definitions and the discussions of cohesion in general and cohesive reference errors in particular. The author also clarifies the important role of cohesive reference items and defines the term “reference” in this thesis. The chapter also included a review of previous studies on the topic. The research methodology of this study will be discussed in the following chapter
,
Chapter 3. </div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 38</span><div class="page_container" data-page="38">29
<b>CHAPTER 3 - METHODOLOGY </b>
In the previous chapter
,
the author presented a review of relevant literature on cohesive reference errors. This chapter describes the methodology used in the research project. In this chapter,
the author presented the setting of the research,
described the participants and subjects
,
and clarified the procedure of the research.<b>3.1. Research setting </b>
The study was conducted at Thu Dau Mot University
,
a public university with multiple departments and fields. Thu Dau Mot University was officially established in June 2009,
following the upgrade of Binh Duong College of Pedagogy. The university was formed through many years of founding and development as a research-oriented institution of multi-major and multi-field education. Currently,
over seventeen thousand students are enrolled in eight faculties.The Faculty of Foreign Languages at Thu Dau Mot University is responsible for teaching English
,
Chinese,
and Korean as majors for students of foreign language areas. The faculty’s main principle is teaching linguistic theories and language skills and introducing learners to foreign cultures and societies. The expected learning outcomes of English-major curriculum are that students get knowledge of English linguistics in particular and social science knowledge in general.<b>3.2. Research participants and subjects 3.2.1. Research participants </b>
The participants of this study were English-major juniors of the Faculty of Foreign Languages at Thu Dau Mot University. They were juniors in the academic year 2020-2021. All the participants were homogeneous in terms of their learning condition and educational background. They were likely at the same level of English competence because they passed the entrance examination
</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 39</span><div class="page_container" data-page="39">30
to the university. English is one of the compulsory subjects in this examination. After beginning their studies at the university
,
all students share the same learning conditions and cultural backgrounds.The curriculum of writing courses for the English major at Thu Dau Mot University is designed logically and adequately. In the first semester
,
students<i>learned the Introduction to English Language course. This course was a brief </i>
introduction to the basic skills that a student needs in university
,
such as planning,
teamwork,
presentation,
etc. It also gave students four basic skills when learning foreign languages such as listening,
speaking,
reading,
and writing skills. Writing skills were enhanced through the practice of writing compound sentences. The next semester,
<i> students practiced writing skills through the Reading and Writing Strategies course. This course delved into the development </i>of contextual integrated reading and writing skills and strategies. Writing skills in this course were developed from practicing writing typical paragraph types such as descriptive paragraphs
,
summaries,
and personal response paragraphs. After mastering writing paragraphs,
students began to practice with many types of essays,
such as descriptive essays,
opinion essays,
argument essays,
etc. Students continued to review crucial grammatical principles knowing while also strengthening their paragraph and essay writing skills.During the following two semesters
,
students’ writing skills continued to<i>upgrade with the Morphology and Syntax course and the Academic Reading and Writing course. The Morphology and Syntax course contributed to students’ </i>
understanding of syntax. Through the identification and analysis of different elements of sentences
,
students mastered the grammar knowledge they had learned. In addition,
<i> the Academic Reading and Writing course equipped </i>students with the necessary skills for the academic writing process. Students continued to practice writing essays. In addition
,
grammar points continued to be provided to students. </div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 40</span><div class="page_container" data-page="40">31
In the fifth semester
,
students learned more about some kinds of essays<i>through the Essay Writing in English course. In the course</i>
,
learners developed vocabulary to write essays. Learners continued to practice writing sentences as well as paragraphs with accurate grammar points. Furthermore,
they were given the elements or steps to write an essay. In addition,
students practiced advanced writing skills to write different types of essays in English. After finishing this course,
the students were expected to have good writing skills and could avoid grammatical errors as well as cohesion errors in writing. Therefore,
students who had been finishing all courses were believed to have the full ability to write quality essays. It is not acceptable that they still make errors at this stage. Therefore,
the study helps students learn from the identified errors and improve their writing skills as much as possible.<b>3.2.2. Research subjects </b>
<i>The subjects of the study were the totality of 245 final papers of the Essay Writing in English course. In the academic year 2020-2021</i>
,
there is a total of 245 English-major juniors. The author used all 245 papers collected to optimize the research findings. In this final test,
the students were not allowed to consult any dictionaries or other materials. The test was within 90 minutes and consisted of two parts. Part One asked students to write a paragraph of about 150 words,
and Part Two demanded that students write a five-paragraph essay. Each part had two specific topics for students to choose from. The test content was as follows:
Part One - Choose ONE of the following topics and write a paragraph in about 150 words.
Topic 1: How has the Internet influenced kids?
Topic 2: What are the differences between learning online and learning in the classroom?
Part Two - Choose ONE of the following topics and write a paragraph essay.
</div>
