cohesive devices in reading texts in the book tiếng anh 12-ban cơ bản = phương tiện liên kết trong các bài đọc trong sách giáo khoa tiếng anh 12 – ban cơ bản

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGE AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POSTGRADUATE STUDIES
= = = = = = = = = = =




BÙI THỊ NGA





COHESIVE DEVICES IN READING TEXTS IN
THE BOOK “TIẾNG ANH 12 – BAN CƠ BẢN”

(Phương tiện liên kết trong các bài đọc
trong sách giáo khoa Tiếng Anh 12 – Ban cơ bản)

M.A. MINOR THESIS



Field: Linguistics
Code: 60 22 15

HÀ NỘI, 2011


VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGE AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POSTGRADUATE STUDIES
= = = = = = = = = = =




BÙI THỊ NGA





COHESIVE DEVICES IN READING TEXTS IN
THE BOOK “TIẾNG ANH 12 – BAN CƠ BẢN”

(Phương tiện liên kết trong các bài đọc
trong sách giáo khoa Tiếng Anh 12 – Ban cơ bản)

M.A. MINOR THESIS


Field: Linguistics
Code: 60 22 15
Supervisor: Nguyễn Thụy Phương Lan, M.A

HÀ NỘI, 2011

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Declaration page……………………………………………………………………… i
Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………ii
Abstract.………………………………………………………………………………iii
Table of contents…………………………………………………………………… iv
Abbreviation ……………………………………………………………………… vi
List of tables and charts………………………………………………………………vii
PART A: INTRODUCTION 1
1. Rationale 1
2. Aims of the study 2
3. Scope of the study 2
4. Significance of the study 2
5. Method of the study 3
6. Design of the study 3
PART B: DEVELOPMENT 5
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW 5
1.1. Discourse 5
1.1.1. The concept of discourse 5
1.1.2. Discourse and text 5
1.1.3. Spoken and written discourse 6
1.1.4. Discourse analysis 7

1.1.5. Context in discourse analysis 8
1.1.5.1. Context of situation 8
1.1.5.2. Context of culture 8
1.1.6. Register and genre in discourse analysis 8
1.2. Cohesion 9
1. 2.1. Definition of cohesion 9
1.2.2. Cohesion vs. Coherence 9
1.2.3. Aspects of cohesion 10
1.2.3.1. Topical cohesion 10
1.2.3.2. Logical cohesion 10
1.2.4. Types of coheison 10
1.2.4.1. Grammatical cohesion 11
1.2.4.1.1. Reference 11
1.2.4.1.2. Substitution 12
1.2.4.1.3. Ellipsis 13
1.2.4.1.4. Conjunction 13
1.2.4.2. Lexical cohesion 14
1.2.4.2.1. Reiteration 14
1.2.4.2.2. Collocation 14
1.3. Textbook and the book for grade 12 in gerneral throughout Vietnam 15
CHAPTER 2: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 17
2.1. Grammatical cohesion 17
2.1.1. Reference 17
2.1.1.1. Anaphoric reference 17
2.1.1.2. Cataphoric reference 20
2.1.1.3. Exophoric reference 21
2.1.2. Conjunctions 22
2.1.2.1. Additive 23
2.1.2.2. Temporal conjunction 24

v
2.1.2.3. Adversative conjunction 24
2.1.2.4. Causal conjunction 24
2.1.3. Substitution 25
2.1.4. Ellipsis 26
2.2. Lexical cohesion 28
2.2.1. Reiteration 28
2.2.2. Collocation 30
2.2.2.1. Lexical collocation 31
2.2.2.2. Grammatical collocation 33
2.3. Summary of cohesive devices in the textbook 34
CHAPTER 3: IMPLICATION FOR TEACHING ENGLISH 36
3.1. Teaching cohesion through teaching reading 36
3.1.1. In terms of grammatical cohesion 36
3.1.1.1. Teaching conjunctions through teaching reading 36
3.1.1.2. Teaching reference through teaching reading 37
3.1.1.3. Teaching collocation 37
3.1.1.4. Teaching reiteration through teaching reading 38
3.1.2. Teaching cohesion through teaching writing 39
3.1.2.1. Teaching grammatical cohesion through teaching writing 39
3.1.2.2. Teaching lexical cohesion through teaching writing 39
PART C: CONCLUSION 40
1. Major findings 40
2. Suggestions for further study 41
REFERENCE 42
SOURCES OF DATA……………………………………………………………… 44
APPENDIX I:…………………………………………………… ………………… I
APPENDIX II: VI
APPENDIX III: VII
APPENDIX IV……………………………………………………………………… X

APPENDIX V: XI
APPENDIX VI: XII
APPENDIX VII: XIV
APPENDIX VIII: XV
APPENDIX IX XXI
APPENDIX X: XXII
APPENDIX XI XL
APPENDIX XII: XLI
APPENDIX XIII: XLII
APPENDIX XIV: XLIII
APPENDIX XV: XLIV
APPENDIX XVI: XLV
APPENDIX XVII: XLVI







- 1 -
PART A: INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale
Tracing back to these two national examinations recently, the high occurrence proportion of
cohesive devices can not be denied. Moreover, on the process of mastering language in
general, English in particular, to Vietnamese secondary students, reading is seen as the
crucial tool that aids the learning of the other skills. However, during my process of
teaching high school students, I come to realize that one of the foremost reasons for which
students often make errors at sentence and discourse levels is due to their inattention to the
cohesive devices used in the context of texts. Apart from a variety of mentioned things,

many people have done researches on linguistics and discourse analysis; yet, no suggestions
have been given to high school teachers and students so that they can do tasks relating to
cohesion more successfully.
2. Aims of the study
The study aims to
- describe and analyze lexical and grammatical cohesive devices in the new English
textbook 12
- give some suggestions for teaching reading skill for 11
th
grade students.
The following research questions are raised for exploration while carrying out the study:
1. What are the cohesive devices used in the textbook “Tiếng Anh 12 – Ban Cơ
Bản” for grade - 12 students general throughout Vietnam?
2. How can the findings help teachers and their students in the teaching and
learning the textbook for grade 12 students?
3. Scope of the study
Within the limited time and knowledge, only grammatical and lexical cohesion in the
textbook “Tiếng Anh 12” for grade - 12 students general throughout Vietnam edited by
Hoang, V.V et al (2010), Education Publication House are observed.
4. Significance of the study
 Theoretical significance: It is hoped to prove the existing ideas on cohesion to
satisfy the individual’s question and, to some extent, hopefully to open a new way of
revising and preparing for candidates of the GCSE examination and the entrance
examination to university.
 Practical significance: This research gives out some practical applications, such as
combining linguistic theory and practice in analyzing written English discourses in the
researched textbook.
5. Method of the study

- 2 -

The tackling methods are statistic and descriptive, analytical and synthetic.
6. Design of the study
Part A: Introduction
Part B: Development
Chapter 1: Literature review
Chapter 2: Findings and discussion of textbook observation
Chapter 3: Pedagogical implications of the study
Part C: Conclusion

- 3 -
PART B: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW
1.1. Discourse
1.1.1. The concept of discourse
According to Halliday and Hasan (1989:38), discourse is seen differently in the simplest
way as a text and that “it is language that is functional.” McCarthy (1991: 5), on the other
hands, puts discourse in the relationship between language and the contexts in which it is
used. Crystal, in the book “Introduction to linguistics” (1992:25) considers discourse to be
“a continuous stretch of language larger than a sentence, often constituting a coherent unit
such as sermon, argument, joke, or narrative.”
1.1.2. Discourse and text
In the view of Halliday and Hasan (1976: 23), “text” is employed to refer to “discourse”;
they see “text” as a “semantic unit” characterized by cohesion. Sharing the same ideas,
Brown & Yule (1983) support that text is the representation of discourse and the verbal
record of a communicative act. In other words, they all view the notion of text is the
representation of discourse, text is the form of discourse and they have a close relationship.
1.1.3. Spoken and written discourse
Brown and Yule (1983:13), moving on the same route, differentiate spoken discourses from
written ones in terms of their various functions: the first is used for the establishment and
maintenance of human relationships (interactional use) and the second for the working out
of and transference of information (transactional use).
1.1.4. Discourse analysis
Yule (1996: 139) state in his book study of language

“ in the study of language, some of the most interesting questions arise in connection with the
way language is used”, rather than what its components are (…) we were, in effect, asking how it
is that language-users interpret what other language-users, make sense of what we read in texts,
understand what speakers mean despite what they say, recognize connected as opposed to
jumbled or incoherent discourse, and successfully take part in that complex activity called
conversation, we are undertaking what is known as discourse analysis."
1.1.5. Context in discourse analysis
Nguyen, H. (2000: 39) sees context as “the most elusive and fluid concepts on modern
linguistics.” Nunan (1993:7) emphasizes “Context refers to the situation giving use to the
discourse, and within which the discourse is embedded.”
1.1.5.1. Context of situation
According to Eggins (1994:30), context of situation is usually discussed under three
variables: “what is talked about, what the relationship between the communicators is; what

- 4 -
role the language plays.” Halliday (2002:52) thought of context of situation as a
determining environment which affects text meaning.
1.1.5.2. Context of culture
As stated by Malinowski (1923) “if you are not a member of the culture, you cannot
understand what is meant”.
1.1.6. Register and genre in discourse analysis
Halliday and Hasan (1976:22) give the concept and components of the context of situation,
which shows the features of register by FIELD, TENOR and MODE.
In terms of genre, Eggins (1994:32) believed
“Genre, or context of culture, can be seen as more abstract, more general - we can recognize a
particular genre if we are not sure exactly what the situational context is. Genre, then, can be
thought of as the general framework that gives purpose to interactions of particular types,
adaptable to the many specific context of situation that they get used in.”
1.2. Cohesion
1. 2.1. Definition of cohesion

Halliday and Hasan in “Cohesion in English” (1976: 4-5) see cohesion as “part of the
system of language”, more exactly as “a semantic one” which refers to “relations of
meaning that exist with the text and that defined it as a text.”
1.2.2. Cohesion vs. Coherence
Cohesion is a formal network which connects or links many parts of a text together by
grammar or words. Meanwhile, coherence is the connections which bring interpretation of
linguistic messages.
1.2.3. Aspects of cohesion
1.2.3.1. Topical cohesion
What topical cohesion concerns about is Theme and Rheme.
1.2.3.2. Logical cohesion
Logical cohesion, in Nguyen, H’s view (2000:28), is also powerful sentence connectors.
1.2.4. Types of cohesion
In his book An A-Z of ELT: a dictionary of terms and concepts used in English Language
Teaching, Thornbury (2006:32) confirms Halliday and Hasan’s idea that by means of
grammar and lexical, cohesion can help connect texts, either spoken or written. The two
types of cohesion, grammatical and lexical, can be classified as follows:
Grammatical cohesion
Lexical cohesion
Reference
Substitution
Ellipsis
Conjunction
Reiteration

Collocation

- 5 -
Table 1.2: Grammatical and lexical cohesion
1.2.4.1. Grammatical cohesion

1.2.4.1.1. Reference
Reference, in Halliday and Hasan’s viewpoint, can be accounted as “exophoric” or
“endophoric” functions.
1.2.4.1.2. Substitution
Halliday and Hasan (1976:89) classify substitution into 3 types: nominal, verbal and
clausal. Most of the substitutes are pro-forms within sentences, which are used across
sentences. In specific words, substitutes may be pro-forms for adverbials, pro-forms for
predicate and predication, and also pro-forms for the direct object clause. According to
Halliday and Hasan (1976: 91), nominal substitution includes “one”, “ones”, “same”,
verbal substitution consists of “do”, and clausal substitutes are “so”, “not”.
1.2.4.1.3. Ellipsis
Hasan’s viewpoint (1976:146), ellipsis is divided into three subtypes, namely, nominal
ellipsis, verbal ellipsis, and clausal ellipsis.
1.2.4.1.4. Conjunction
There are four types of conjunction: Additive , Adversative, Causal , Temporal
1.2.4.2. Lexical cohesion
1.2.4.2.1. Reiteration
Reiteration, according to Halliday and Hasan (1976: 318) is “the repetition of a lexical item,
or the occurrence of a synonym of some kind, in the context of reference; that is, where the
two occurrences have the same referent.” Reiteration involves repetition, synonyms and
near synonyms, super-ordinates, and general words (ibid: 278).
1.2.4.2.2. Collocation
. In terms of structure, there are two types of collocation: grammatical collocation and
lexical collocation (Halliday and Hasan, 1976:284).
1.3. Textbook and the book for grade 12 in general throughout Vietnam
The syllabus for “Tiếng Anh 12” is the continuation of the textbook for grade 10 and 11.
The book is designed under theme-based approach with 16 units. There are 5 parts in each
unit. Each part is carried out in a period of forty-five minutes. They are arranged as follows:
A. reading -> B. Speaking -> C. Listening -> D. Writing -> E. Language Focus
Reading is the beginning part of each unit. Each reading passage is about 300 words in

length.


- 6 -
CHAPTER 2: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
OF TEXTBOOK OBSERVATION
2.1. Grammatical cohesion
2.1.1. Reference
2.1.1.1. Anaphoric reference
Anaphoric reference means referring to backwards. In this study, reference takes up 357
items. The table below summarizes different patterns of reference in reading texts in the
book.
Anaphoric reference
Number of items
Percentage (%)
Total number
Definite article
166
46.5
357
Personal pronoun
93
26.05
Personal determiner
61
17.09
Demonstrative pronoun
22
6.16
Comparative adjective

8
2.24
Demonstrative adverb
4
1.12
Comparative adverb
3
0.84
Table 2.1: Different types of reference words for anaphoric ties

2.1.1.2. Cataphoric reference
In spite of a small part in inferential ties, cataphoric is proved to be quite necessary to vary
the direction of reference and contribute to the cohesion of the text. The percentage of
different types of reference words for cataphoric ties is illustrated in the table below
Cataphoric reference
Number of items
Percentage (%)
Total number
Definite article
82
59.85
137
Comparative adjective
43
31.39
Comparative adverb
4
2.92
Demonstrative adverb
3

2.1
Demonstrative pronoun
3
2.1
Personal pronoun
1
0.73
Personal determiner
1
0.73
Table 2.2: Different types of reference words for cataphoric ties
2.1.1.3. Exophoric reference
Exophoric reference
Number of items
Percentage (%)
Total number
Personal pronoun
75
45.72
164
Definite article
59
35.98
Personal determiner
22
13.42
Comparative adjective
7
4.27
Demonstrative adverb

1
0.61
Demonstrative pronoun
0
0
Comparative adverb
0
0
Table 2.3: Different types of reference words for exophoric ties
2.1.2. Conjunctions
There are 315 items of conjunctions in total throughout the observed book. The following
chart presents the occurrence frequency of these four types

- 7 -
0
20
40
60
80
100
Additive Temporal Adversative Causal
Chart 2.1: The percentage of conjunctions in the textbook
Additive
Temporal
Adversative
Causal
As can be seen from the chart, the highest frequency, which is up to 75, 24%, among the
four types of conjunctions belongs to additive items. The second next top is temporal
conjunctive devices with 12.06 %. Adversative, with 8.89%, is a low-encounter conjunction
type compared to additive and temporal. However, it is not adversative, but causal, that

stands at the lowest position. Causal items account for only 3.81 %. The details of each type
are discussed in the following texts.
2.1.2.1. Additive
The high percentage of additive items means that the reading texts in “Tiếng Anh 12”
mostly provide students with knowledge by adding information, rather than stating causes
and effects, or contrasts.
2.1.2.2. Temporal conjunction
Temporal conjunction totals 38 items in all texts. The most common temporal words belong
to the simple temporal relations, such as “before” (6 times), “after” (6 times), “since” (2
times), “then” (1 time), specific complex temporal relations like “three years later,”, “at the
same time,” etc. Sequence words such as “first,” “second” are not widely used. This may be
because the texts in the textbook mostly narrate the events to give students information
rather than describe them in order.
2.1.2.3. Adversative conjunction
Adversative conjunction is often used to contrast ideas, illustrate and prove the facts. Yet,
the main purpose of the reading texts in the textbook is to provide information.
Consequently, the expression of contrast is reduced maximum. There are only 27 cases of
adversative conjunction.
2.1.2.4. Causal conjunction
Causal conjunction stands at the end of the scale with only 12 times of occurrence. The
reading texts in the textbook do not focus on any phenomenon; hence, the fact that they
contain few signals of cause and effect is understandable.
2.1.3. Substitution
In the textbook for final year students at upper secondary school, there are only 11 cases of
substitution in total. Their frequency occurrence is expressed in the following chart:

- 8 -
0
20
40

60
80
100
Nominal Verbal Clausal
Nominal
Verbal
Clausal

Chart 2.2: The percentage of substitutions in the textbook
Among these 11 items, the frequency percentage of nominal substitutions is up to 90.9%
with 10 items. Three nominal substitution words are all exploited. Clausal substitutions
account for no percentage in the statistic data. The low frequency rate of substitutions in the
reading texts in the observed book suggests that these texts are, in the authors’ attempt,
made unambiguous. This can help students avoid unnecessary misunderstanding about
texts’ contents.
2.1.4. Ellipsis
Similarly to substitution, it is also analyzed under three subclasses: nominal, verbal and
clausal. The occurrence rate of each type is represented in the following chart:
Chart 2.3: The percentage of ellipis in the textbook
Nominal, 29.41
Verbal, 44.12
Clausal, 26.47
Nominal
Verbal
Clausal

As being stated in the chart, the most prominent type of ellipsis is verbal ellipsis, with
44.12 %. The other type is operator ellipsis, which is ellipsis from the left. In operator
ellipsis, the subject is also omitted from the clause, and it must, therefore, be presupposed.
According to the result of the textbook observation, there is more operator ellipsis than

lexical one.
2.2. Lexical cohesion
2.2.1. Reiteration
. The chart below shows the percentage of each type

- 9 -
General words, 8.9
Synonyms, 12.13
Repetition, 70.07
Superordinate, 8.9
General words
Synonyms
Repetition
Superordinate
Chart 2.4: The percentage of reiteration in the textbook
From this pie chart, we can see that there is a big hole between repetition and the other
types. Its percentage of frequency is up to 70.07 %. Synonym, which includes 35 pairs of
synonym words, is the second most fluent reiteration item. Superordiate and general
words, as being counted, are used equally in 16 texts with 25 items for each type.
2.2.2. Collocation
Collocation totals 605 items in all 16 reading texts. In term of structure, collocation can be
divided into grammatical collocation and lexical collocation. Study the following chart to
have a general picture for these two:

58.35
41.65
0
20
40
60

80
100
Grammatical collocation
Lexical collocation
Chart 2.5: The percentage of
collocation types
Grammatical collocation
Lexical collocation

From the chart, it is clear that lexical collocation outnumbers grammatical collocation.
2.2.2.1. Lexical collocation
The contribution of each pattern in the reading texts in the researched book is illustrated in
the following table:
Types of lexical collocation
Number of items
Percentage
Adj + N
114
32.39
N + N
82
23.30
V + N
79
22.44
Quant + N
35
9.94
V + Adv
10

2.84
V + Adj
8
2.27
V + V
6
1.70
Adv + V
6
1.70
Adv +Adj
3
0.09
N + V
3
0.09

- 10 -
Table 2. 4: Different patterns of lexical collocation
It can be seen the table that collocations with noun is more preferred than ones with verbs.
Adj + N and N + N are the two highest frequency items with the percentage of 32.39 % and
23.30 % respectively. While V + N pattern comes at the third position with 22.44 %, N + V
one accounts for only 3 items, equally to 0.09 %. The other patterns, Quant + N, V + Adv,
V + Adj, V+ V, Adv + V, Adv + Adj, Adj + V, make up of small parts in the reading texts.
However, they are not unimportant in helping students grasp the texts.
2.2.2.2. Grammatical collocation
There are 252 items of grammatical collocation, which accounts for 41.65 % of all
collocations in the 16 units under study. The specific patterns of grammatical collocation are
presented in the table below
Types of grammatical collocation

Number of items
Percentage
Prep + N
131
51.98
V + Prep
84
33.33
N + Prep
23
9.13
Adj + Prep
12
4.76
Prep + Adj
1
0.4
Quant + Prep
1
0.4
Prep + N pattern is the highest frequency with 51.98 %. Next comes V + Prep pattern with
33.33 %. N + Prep pattern is also used in the textbook. However, with only 23 items, the
percentage of frequency of this type is nearly 6 times less than that of the highest pattern,
Prep + N. The left three types of grammatical collocation are Adj + Prep, Prep + Adj and
Quant + Prep. There are 12 items of Adj + Prep pattern, while the number of item of Prep +
Adj and Quant + Adj is equally 1.
2.3. Summary of cohesive devices in the textbook
Basing on this result, major features are picked out to analyze in detail.
Chart 2.6: A comparison of grammatical and lexical cohesion in the textbook
Grammatical cohesion,

54.15
Lexical cohesion, 45.85
Grammatical cohesion
Lexical cohesion

It can be seen from the chart that grammatical cohesion and lexical cohesion almost have
the equal number of items in the textbook. This means that they stand at the same position
of importance.
A closer view at types of grammatical and lexical cohesion can be expressed in the
following tables:

- 11 -
Types
Number of items
Percentage
Reference
658
62.67
Conjunction
315
30
Ellipsis
66
6.28
Substitution
11
1.05
Table 2.6: Different types of grammatical cohesion
Types
Number of items

Percentage
Collocation
605
68.05
Reiteration
284
31.95
Table 2.7: Different types of lexical cohesion
In terms of grammatical cohesion, reference composes of the majority with 62.67 %, among
which endophoric is a dominant part. Conjunction makes up of 30 %, while the occurrence
percentages of ellipsis and substitution are only 6.29 % and 1.05 % respectively. Although
the last three types are not used as widely as the first one, they are worth being taken notice
of, since they contribute a valuable part in giving students thorough understanding of the
passages.
For lexical cohesion, the number of items of collocation, 68.05 %, doubles that of
reiteration, 31.95 %. This shows the important role of collocation in English learning in
secondary school.

- 12 -
CHAPTER 3: IMPLICATION FOR TEACHING ENGLISH
IN PREPARATION FOR EXAMINATIONS
3.1. Teaching cohesion through teaching reading
3.1.1. In terms of grammatical cohesion
3.1.1.1. Teaching conjunctions through teaching reading
The first kind of exercise is that teacher can supply a text with discourse markers omitted
and replaced by gaps. Similarly, teachers can also give a text as above but do not list the
omitted markers and ask students to find ones themselves to fill in the gaps. Another
exercise which enforces students to study at home is through replacing. Students are
provided with the list of conjunctions. At home, they have to find some sentences
containing some of these conjunctions in the reading texts. Students, then, are required to
replace these conjunctions by all acceptable other conjunctions as long as the sentences are
meaningful. Games can be also applied as warm-up activities.
3.1.1.2. Teaching reference through teaching reading
The most common question to find out the referents is “what does….refer to?” or “what can
be used to replace for {pronouns}?” Teachers can design multiple choice items to the
mentioned questions, in order that students are made acquainted with the examinations.
Another activity is mostly for making students become aware of reference pronouns.
Teachers can put students in small groups. Teachers choose a reading text, maybe among 16
reading texts from the textbook or another book for secondary students, as long as this text
contains various references. Teachers, then, ask students to read the text and circle all
reference pronouns in it.
3.1.1.3. Teaching collocation
Teaching vocabulary is an indispensable part. Teachers can take advantage of this part to

teach collocations. Therefore, rather than wait for students to meet common collocations
themselves during reading process, teachers should present these collocations in context in
advance. Besides, mind map can be used to teach reading and collocation as well. Teachers
may also prepare a list of grammatical collocation in the text book, and then ask students to
learn by heart this list.
3.1.1.4. Teaching reiteration through teaching reading
3.1.2. Teaching cohesion through teaching writing
3.1.2.1. Teaching grammatical cohesion through teaching writing
The first activity teachers may do is to take a text in the textbook and analyze carefully
grammatical cohesive devices in it. Then, teachers may ask students to give other contexts
that these devices are used before students write a whole paragraph or an essay. Besides,

- 13 -
teachers can have students do peer-check on their writings in writing lesson at class,
focusing on the mistakes about conjunctions, reference, etc. and mistake correction.
Sentence paraphrasing is also an effective activity to train students with grammatical
cohesion, especially for conjunctions. For pre-intermediate and intermediate students,
teachers can design multiple choice questions, while rewriting sentences without distracters
are used for advanced students.
3.1.2.2. Teaching lexical cohesion through teaching writing
In the researcher’s experience, students’ writings are often dull due to the monotonous
characteristics of the writings. For example, students seem to use repeated words rather than
synonyms and antonyms to describe the main points of their topics. Compound words and
phrases are not used frequently as well. Therefore, to raise students’ awareness about lexical
cohesion, teachers could help them enlarge their choice of vocabulary by some vocabulary
activities such as word association games in pre-writing activities to elicit and build
students’ vocabulary.


PART C: CONCLUSION

1. Major findings
Of all six subtypes of two categories grammatical and lexical cohesion, reference and
collocation are the most outstanding ones. They are, respectively, followed by conjunction,
reiteration, ellipsis and substitution. In preparing for the examinations, teachers should
equip students with knowledge about these devices, and provide students with practice
relating to these cohesive items, especially reference, collocation, conjunctions and
reiteration.

2. Suggestions for further study
It is, firstly, suggested that more exercises on cohesive devices are designed. Then, to
develop further with the topic of cohesion in the reading texts in “Tiếng Anh 12,” the
following aspects are suggested:
1. Discourse features of the reading texts in the textbook “Tiếng Anh 12”
2. Logical cohesive devices in the textbook “Tiếng Anh 12”