THIẾT KẾ BÀI TẬP VỀ TÍNH MẠCH LẠC VÀ LIÊN KẾT DỰA TRÊN CÁC BÀI LUẬN IELTS MẪU VÀ NGHIÊN CỨU THỬ NGHIỆM TRONG DẠY HỌC VIẾT LUẬN IELT = designing exercises on coherence and coherence and cohesion on the the basis of ielts model essays and experimenting them

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES
***



NGUYỄN THỊ MINH

DESIGNING EXERCISES ON COHERENCE AND COHESION ON THE
BASIS OF IELTS MODEL ESSAYS AND EXPERIMENTING THEM IN
TEACHING AND LEARNING IELTS WRITING
(THIẾT KẾ BÀI TẬP VỀ TÍNH MẠCH LẠC VÀ LIÊN KẾT DỰA TRÊN
CÁC BÀI LUẬN IELTS MẪU VÀ NGHIÊN CỨU THỬ NGHIỆM TRONG
DẠY HỌC VIẾT LUẬN IELTS)


M.A THESIS
(Program II)


Major: English Linguistics
Code: 60.22.15





Hanoi, August 31
st

, 2010

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE DEPARTMENT
***



NGUYỄN THỊ MINH

DESIGNING EXERCISES ON COHERENCE AND COHESION ON THE BASIS OF IELTS
MODEL ESSAYS AND EXPERIMENTING THEM IN TEACHING AND LEARNING IELTS
WRITING
(THIẾT KẾ BÀI TẬP VỀ TÍNH MẠCH LẠC VÀ LIÊN KẾT DỰA TRÊN CÁC BÀI LUẬN IELTS
MẪU VÀ NGHIÊN CỨU THỬ NGHIỆM TRONG DẠY HỌC VIẾT LUẬN IELTS)

M.A THESIS
(Program II)


Major: English Linguistics
Code: 60.22.15
Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Hoàng Văn Vân



Hanoi, August 31
st
, 2010

vii


TABLE OF CONTENTS
Statement of Authorship
i
Acknowledgements
ii
Abstract
iii
Abbreviation
iv
List of Tables and Diagrams
v
Table of content
vii
Introduction
1
1. Rationale of the Study
1
2. Aims and Objectives
3
3. Scope of the Study
3
4. Significance of the Study
4
5. Methods of the Study
4
6. Organization
5

Chapter 1: Literature Review
6
1.1. Cohesion versus Coherence
6
1.2. Cues for Coherent Representation
7
1.2.1 Cohesion
7
1.2.1.1. Grammatical Cohesion
8
1.2.1.2. Lexical Cohesion
10
1.2.2. Structure
13
1.2.2.1 Essay Structure
14
1.2.2.2. Patterns of Essay Organization
16
1.2.3. Grammar and Mechanics
20
1.3. An Overview on IELTS Writing Tasks
21
Chapter 2: Exercises on Coherence and Cohesion Built on the Basis of IELTS
Model Essays
22
2.1. Subjects of Using the Exercises
22
2.2. Aims and Objectives of the Exercises
22
2.3. Uses of the Exercises

23
2.4. Approaches to Designing the Exercises
23
viii

2.4.1. Product Approach
23
2.4.2. Process Approach
24
2.4.3. Product vs. Process Approaches- Features Applied for
Designing the Exercises
25
2.5. Data for Designing the Exercises
27
2.6. Procedures of Designing the Exercises
27
2.7. Specifications of the Exercises
27
2.7.1. Organization of the Exercises
27
2.7.2. Types of the Exercises
30
2.7.4. Sources of the Exercises
33
2.8. Exercises
39
2.8.1 Presenting an Opinion
39
2.8. 2 Examining Causes and Effects
53

2.8. 3 Outlining Problems and Solutions
58
Chapter 3. Experimental Study
64
3.1. Methodology
64
3.1.1. Participants
64
3.1.2. Design of the Study
64
3.1.3. Data Collection Instrument
65
3.1.4. Data Collection Procedures
67
3.1.5. Data Analysis
68
4.2. Results
70
Conclusion
72
1. Summary
72
2 Contributions
72
3. Recommendations
73
4. Limitation of the Study
74
5. Suggestions for Further Studies
75

References
77
Appendices
I

iv

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

IELTS
HCSs
α
H
0
H1

International English Language Testing System
Holistic coherence scores
Level of significance
Null hypothesis
Alternative hypothesis

v

LIST OF DIAGRAMS AND TABLES

Diagrams
Page
Diagram 1. “Block” Organization- Cause & Effect Organization Pattern (Exercise 13)
54
Diagram 2. “Chain” Organization- Cause & Effect Organization Pattern (Exercise 13)
54


Tables
Table 1. Argument Patterns
Table 2: The Writing Process

Table 3: Product Approach vs. Process Approach
Table 4. Structure of an Essay (Exercise 3)
Table 5. Conjunctions and References/ Transition Signals (Exercise 9)
Page
17
25
25
43
48
Table 6. Lexical Cohesive Devices (Exercise 10)
49
Table 7. Signposts of Arguments and Opinions
50
Table 8: Checklist
51
Table 9. Conjunctions and Markers of Causes and Effects (Exercise 19)
57
Table 10. Lexical Cohesive Devices (Exercise 20)
57
Table 11. Sentence Structures of Cause and Effect (Exercise 21)
58
Table 12. Collocations (Exercise 30)
62
Table 13. Quasi-experimental Design
65
Table 14: Experimental group: paired samples statistics (n=10)
70
Table 15: Control group: paired samples statistics (n=11)
70
Table 16: Differences between the experimental and control groups’ mean scores

(n=21)
70
Table 17. Structure of an Essay (Key to Exercise 3)
Table 18. Organization Pattern of Model Essay 1 (Key to exercise 5)
Table 19. Organization Pattern of Model Essay 2 (Key to exercise 5)
Table 20. Organization Pattern of Model Essay 3 (Key to exercise 5)
VII
IX
X
XI
Table 21. Conjunctions and References/ Transition Signals (Key to Exercise 9)
XIII
Table 22. Lexical Cohesive Devices (Key to Exercise 10)
XV
Table 23. Grammatical and Mechanic Mistakes (Key to Exercise 18)
XVII
Table 24. Lexical Cohesive Devices (Key to Exercise 20)
XIX
vi

Table 25: Holostic Coherence Scores on the Pre- and Post-tests of the
Experimental and Control Groups
XXII
Table 26: Experimental and Control Groups’ Pre-tests: F-test Two Sample for
Variances
XXII
Table 27: Experimental & Control Group’ Pre-tests: T-test Two-Sample Assuming
Equal Variances
XXIII
Table 28: Experimental Group’s Pre-test and Post-test: T-test Paired Two Sample

for Means
XXIV
Table 29: Control Group’s Pre-test and Post-test: T-test Paired Two Sample for
Means
XXIV
Table 30: Differences between the Experimental and Control Group’ Mean
Scores: F-test Two-sample for Variances
XXV
Table 31: Differences between the Experimental and Control Group’ Mean
Scores: T-test Two-sample Assuming Unequal Variances
XXVI

1

INTRODUCTION

1. Rationale of the Study
The choice of this study was prompted by both theoretical and practical
inspirational sources.
Theoretically, designing exercises on cohesion and coherence on the basis of
IELTS model essays was inspired by a matter of necessity. Cohesion and coherence
are actually regarded as the important aspects of language use. The knowledge of
cohesion and coherence is very essential in discourse construction and
comprehension for communication. According to McNamara and Kintsch (1996),
text cohesion is a driving factor of comprehension, and moreover, text characteristics
critically interact with readers‟ abilities. In other words, the awareness of these two
elements may help writers to construct good essays with coherence and cohesion so
that readers can understand it more easily. Many researchers also affirm that
coherence backed by cohesion is an important factor in determining essay writing
quality (Stein and Albro, 1997; Shapiro and Hudson, 1997; Hoover, 1997; Grabe and
Kaplan, 1996).
In addition, the preference for this study was also prompted by the fact that
theory of coherence and cohesion and IELTS model essays can be found in a variety
of books, namely Cohesion in English by Halliday and Hasan (1976), What makes a
text coherent? by Bamberg (1984), Coherence, Cohesion, and Writing Quality by
Witte and Faigley (1980), or in studies such as Conjunctions as Devices of
Grammatical Cohesion in English Written Discourse by Thái Thị Bạch Yến (1998),
An Analysis of Topical Cohesion in English Socio-Political news Discourse,
Exploring the Role of Model Essays in the IELTS Writing Test: A Feedback Tool by

Makoto Abe (2008), and on websites like
Nevertheless, there have not been any
works that build and experiment a system of exercises on coherence and cohesion
based on IELTS model essays in the context of Vietnamese learners. The writing
section in the websites or books designed for IELTS usually comprises exercise
questions, useful resources of vocabulary and expressions, practice tests and the
answer keys. Remarkably, the website />2

essays-exercise-in-coherence-and.html, the book Writing Academic English by
Oshima, A and Hogue, A. (1999) have some exercises on cohesion and coherence in
IELT essays, but they are too few, not systematic, and especially they do not cover
the ones that help students recognize and know how to achieve these two elements in
different functions of IELTS essay writing, which are often asked in the IELTS.
Besides, the study on Japanese students named An Analysis of Topical Cohesion in
English Socio- Political news Discourse, Exploring the Role of Model Essays in the
IELTS Writing Test: A Feedback Tool by Makoto Abe (2008) shows that model texts
(sample answers) as a source of feedback in second language writing play a
substantial role. Nevertheless, it does not deal with the role of exercises on coherence
and cohesion in IELTS essays. Therefore, this thesis was conducted with the aims of
building a system of exercises on coherence and cohesion in different functions of
IELTS writing based on IELTS model essays and experimenting them in the
teaching and learning of IELTS writing.
Practically, more and more students attend IELTS courses in Vietnam, and
the writing task of this test system requires coherence and cohesion to be an
important criterion in marking. However, can Vietnamese students write IELTS
essays coherently? After years of study, Vietnamese learners have been capable of
writing an English composition with few grammatical or spelling mistakes, but the
overall coherence have not been satisfactory. This may result from the fact that many
Vietnamese teachers of English still value the grammatical correctness of sentences
over the appropriateness of organising and linking rules in a written text or speech

under the many years‟ influence of Bloomfieldian and Chomskian schools of
linguistics, while Discourse Analysis is still a new subject to most Vietnamese
linguistics though there has been attention from linguistics to this new branch with
several works on Vietnamese discourses such as the ones by Hoang Van Van (2006),
Nguyen Hoa (2000) and this fact, as Hoang Van Van (2006) states, is the result of
„lack of a systematic theoretical framework‟. Besides, students have concentrated
only on learning as much grammar and vocabulary as possible, ignoring the question
of how to build a persuasive speech or writing. Similarly, being familiar with looking
at the sentence level, they seem only to focus on writing correct sentences and
learning new words and phrases from sample essays but not to pay attention to the
3

coherence and cohesion of essays. As a result, they may have a good knowledge of
grammar and vocabulary, and they may be very good at making correct separate
sentences, but they cannot write IELTS essays coherently as required to get good
scores. The systematic exercises on coherence and cohesion in IELTS model essays
could be a solution to this problem of teaching and learning English writing.

2. Aims and Objectives
This thesis mainly aims at designing exercises on coherence and cohesion on
the basis of model IELTS essay for intermediate students, who start an IELTS course
to prepare for taking IELTS to study abroad. To achieve this major goal, the
following objectives are set for exploration:
- reviewing theoretical background of coherence and cohesion,
- building a system of exercises on the basis of IELTS model essays that can help
intermediate students to become aware of coherence and cohesion and to write
coherent essays, and
- testing the hypothesis that a system of exercises on coherence and cohesion built
on the basis of IELTS model essays would have great effects on students‟
performance to write their own IELTS essays coherently.

3. Scope of the Study
This thesis focuses on building exercises on coherence and cohesion on the
basis of IELTS model essays and experimenting them in teaching and learning
IELTS essay writing. The exercises are only concerned with the most common
IELTS essays of Writing Task 2, in which writers present opinions, examine causes
and effects, and outline problems and solutions because of their important role in
IELTS writing and also owing to the constraints of time and page number of this
thesis. Besides, the experiment only checks whether these exercises have an effect on
students‟ performance of writing coherent IELTS model essays in order that further
researches can be decided to be carried on or not.


4

4. Significance of the Study
The exercises on cohesion and coherence of IELTS model essays could be, to
some degree, significant to the teaching and learning not only IELTS essay writing in
particular but also academic writing in general. This study might play a remarkable
role in teaching and learning IELTS writing because coherence and cohesion are an
important criterion of marking in IELTS writing, which the need of studying is
increasing dramatically in Vietnam, yet most Vietnamese students have difficulty in
writing coherent essays.
In addition to this potentially good point, this study might supply materials to
teach not only IELTS writing particularly but also academic writing generally since
the academic writing test of the IELTS includes two tasks of writing Academic
English, which is often required in English-medium academic education.
Furthermore, the experimental study of the effects of these exercises on
students‟ performance to write coherent IELTS essays enables the author of this
study to test her hypothesis by reaching valid conclusions about the relationship
between these two variables. Accordingly, the recommendations to the teaching and

learning of academic writing would be more practical.
Hopefully, the exercises on coherence and cohesion in IELTS model essays
can work as useful teaching as well as learning references, and they can help students
become more aware of these elements and write more coherently. It is also hoped
that pedagogical implications of the study, to some extent, can work well in practice
and make certain contributions to the teaching and learning English as a foreign
language.

5. Methods of the Study
As far as the building of exercises is concerned, the Product Approach and
the Process Approach were combined to be applied in a flexible way. After that, to
check whether these exercises realistically would have good effects on students‟
ability to write their own coherent IELTS essays, the researcher carried out an
5

experimental research. The reasons why these methods were chosen and how they
were applied will be detailed in Chapter 2 and 3.

6. Organization of the Study
This study is organized around three chapters.
After the introduction, which introduces the rationale, the aims and
objectives, the scope, the significance, the methods, and the organization of the
study, Chapter 1 provides theoretical background for the researcher to create
exercises on coherence and cohesion basing on IELTS model essays and to do the
experimental research about the effect of these exercises on students‟ performance of
writing coherent IELTS essays.
Chapter 2 presents the subjects of using the exercises, aims, objectives, and
uses of the exercises, approaches to designing the exercises, data and procedures of
designing the exercises, some specifications of the exercises, and a sequence of
exercises on coherence and cohesion built on the basis of IELTS model essays.

Chapter 3 is the experimental study. In this chapter, the section of
methodology gives the details of participants, design of the study, data collection
instrument, data collection procedures, and data analysis. The next section shows the
results of the study.
Finally, the conclusion summarises all the main points of the thesis, and
states its contributions, recommendations, limitations, and suggestions for further
studies.










6

CHAPTER 1
LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter presents theoretical background which constitutes the basis for
designing exercises on coherence and cohesion basing on IELTS model essays and to
do the experimental research about the effect of these exercises on students‟
performance of writing coherent IELTS essays.

1.1. Cohesion versus Coherence
Since cohesion and coherence are the two terms closely connected to
discourse and there seems to be confusing in the use of these different terms, a large

number of linguists and researchers are concerned about separating coherence from
cohesion. Widdowson (1979) defines cohesion as the overt structural link between
sentences as formal items, and coherence as the link between the communicative acts
that sentences used to perform. Besides, Moe (1979:18) observes, “Linguists
consider cohesion as a measurable linguistic phenomenon, whereas coherence is
considered to be more global and is not directly amenable to evaluation”.
Additionally, many researchers think of cohesion as being limited to textual features
while coherence is thought of as including those features that give unity and flow,
not only within the text but beyond it – those features which add in the choice and
instantiation of appropriate schemata by the reader (Carrel 1982, Beaugrande and
Dressler 1981, Phelps 1985, Tierney and Mosenthal 1983, Werth 1984). Similarly,
Mc Carthy (1991:26) remarks: “cohesion is only a guild to coherence and cohesion
is something created by the reader in the act of reading the text. Coherence is the
feeling that a text hangs together, that it makes sense, and is not just a jumble of
sentences”. Graesser, McNamara, and Louwerse (2003) further specify that
coherence refers to the representational relationships of a text in the mind of a reader
or listener, whereas cohesion refers to the cues in the text that help the reader to build
a coherent representation (Foltz, 2007).
Clearly, most linguists and researchers meet the same point that cohesion
refers to the grammatical, lexical and structural links between the different elements
of a text whereas coherence refers to the relationship of the ideas in a text that link
7

together to create a meaningful discourse for the reader; coherence exists in a
sequence of words, sentences and paragraphs in which the reader can feel unity and
smooth flow, perceive connections and understand the structure and therefore the
meaning as he reads, i.e. coherence is the outcome of cognitive processes among text
users while cohesion is a mere feature of texts that assists this process; coherence is
embodied by a system of cohesive devices, and cohesion is mainly used to embody
coherence.

1.2. Cues for Coherent Representation
According to Brostoff (1981) and Flackenstein (1992), coherence is made
possible by the writer‟s provision of cues that guide the reader as he or she reads
through a paragraph or text. After reading documents about coherence and cohesion,
the author of this study has found that there are three major groups of the cues in a
discourse. They can be synthesized and named as cohesion, a good structure, and no
grammatical or mechanical errors.

1.2.1 Cohesion
The term coherence is defined in Lee (2002a) as the relationship of the ideas
in a text that link together to create a meaningful discourse for the reader. This will
help the reader to move easily from one sentence to another without feeling
that there are gaps in the thought, puzzling gaps, or points missing.
Meanwhile, cohesion consists of certain linguistic devices such as pronouns,
conjunctions, lexical items and so on which enables the writer or speaker to make
relationships between entities and events explicit and to follow the writer‟s ideas
more easily. In other words, cohesion helps to create the interconnection of ideas in
the text, which is crucial in the production of a coherent text. According to Halliday
and Hasan (1976), coherence is recognized by the overt presentation of
cohesive devices to connect sentences or paragraphs in the text. Jane Morris and
Graeme Hirstt (1991) also affirm, “cohesion is a useful indicator of coherence”. In
addition, the fifth criterion of a fully coherent essay in Bamberg‟s (1984) four-point
holistic coherence scale is the skillful use of cohesive ties. Furthermore, as
mentioned in 2.1 above, cohesion refers to the cues in the text that help the reader to
8

build a coherent representation (Foltz, 2007), coherence is embodied by a system of
cohesive devices and cohesion is mainly used to embody coherence. Thus, the role of
cohesion or cohesive devices in the establishment of coherent discourse must be of

significance.
Halliday and Hasan (1976) considered cohesion as a semantic concept which
refers to relations of meaning that exists within the text, and which defines it as a
text. Although they do not make a clear distinction between cohesion and coherence,
their detailed classification of the cohesive devices in English are highly appreciated.
They distinguish between grammatical and lexical cohesion.

1.2.1.1. Grammatical Cohesion
According to Halliday and Hasan (1976), grammatical cohesion embraces
four different devices: (i) reference, (ii) substitution, (iii) ellipsis and (iv)
conjunction.
(i) Reference
Halliday and Hasan (1976) characterize reference as “the specific nature of
the information that is signaled for retrieval”. They state, “In the case of reference
the information to be retrieved is the referential meaning, the identity of the
particular thing or class of things that is being referred to; and the cohesion lies in
the continuity of reference, whereby the same thing enters the discourse a second
time”.
On the criterion of reference potential without regard to
endophoric/exophoric distinction, Halliday and Hasan classified reference as three
types: personal reference, demonstrative reference, and comparative reference.
Firstly, personal reference is reference by means of function in the speech situation,
through the category of person, which includes personal pronouns, possessive
determiners (usually called „possessive adjectives‟), and possessive pronouns.
Secondly, demonstrative reference is considered as a form of verbal pointing; that is,
the speaker identifies the referent by locating it on a scale of proximity. Finally,
comparative reference is indirect referent by means of identity or similarity.
(ii). Substitution
9

As Halliday and Hasan defined, substitution is replacement of one linguistic
item by another. When we talk about replacement of one item by another, we mean
replacement of one word/phrase with another word or phrase. We can say
substitution is a relation on lexicogrammatical level, the level of grammar and
vocabulary, or linguistic „form‟. It is used to avoid repetition of a particular item. For
example, in
My axe is too blunt. I must get a sharper one.
You think John already knows? - I think everybody does.
(Halliday and Hasan, 1976:89)
One and does are both substitutes: one substitutes for axe, and does for knows.

(iii).Ellipsis
Ellipsis is known as the leaving out of words, phases or clauses from
sentences where they are unnecessary because they have been referred to or
mentioned in order to avoid repetition.
Here is an example:
Take these pills three times a day. And you‟d better have some more of those
Φ, too.
(Halliday and Hasan, 1976:157)

(iv) Conjunction
Conjunction, as described by Bloor and Bloor (1995: 98) acts as a “cohesive
tie between clauses or sections of text in such a way as to demonstrate a meaningful
pattern between them”, though Halliday and Hasan indicate that “conjunctive
relations are not tied to any particular sequence in the expression”. Therefore,
amongst the cohesion forming devices within text, conjunction is the least directly
identifiable relation. Conjunction acts as a semantic cohesive tie within text in four
categories: additive, adversative, causal and temporal. Additive conjunction acts to
structurally coordinate or link by adding to the presupposed item and are signaled
through “and, also, too, furthermore, additionally”, etc. Additive conjunction may

also act to negate the presupposed item and is signaled by “nor, and not, either,
neither”, etc. Adversative conjunctions act to indicate “contrary to expectation” and
10

are signaled by “yet, though, only, but, in fact, rather”, etc. Causal conjunction
expresses “result, reason and purpose” and is signaled by “so, then, for, because,
for”, etc.

1.2.1.2. Lexical Cohesion
Lexical cohesion differs from the other cohesive elements in text in that it is
non-grammatical. Lexical cohesion refers to the cohesive effect achieved by the
selection of vocabulary. The two basic categories of lexical cohesion are reiteration
and collocation.
According to Halliday and Hasan (1976), reiteration is a phenomenon that
“one lexical item refers back to another, to which it is related by having a common
referent”. They classify reiteration into four types: (i) the same word (repetition), (ii)
a synonym/near-synonym, (iii) a superordinate (hyponym), and (iv) a general word.

(i) Repetition:
The repetition of the same word can occur with identity of reference as in:
“Mary bit into a peach. Unfortunately the peach wasn't ripe” or without identity of
reference as in: “Mary ate some peaches. She likes peaches very much.” However,
it is worth noting that in many cases where the repeated items are not clear to be the
same referent, the repetition is advised to avoid. The pronoun he is a better choice
than the repeated John in the following example as it is not clear whether it is the
same John:
John took Mary to the dance. John was left all alone.
(Halliday and Hasan, 1976:281)
It is also avoided to repeat the same words constantly if it is possible when making a
discourse because it shows a speaker or a writer‟s poor vocabulary and it makes the

listener or reader feel bored with his/her product. Therefore, a reference item,
ellipsis, substitution or synonym/near-synonym, a superordinate, and a general word
can be the alternative.

(ii) a synonym/near-synonym
A synonym is a word which has the same or nearly the same (near-synonym)
meaning as another word. Here lexical cohesion derives from the choice of a lexical
11

item that is synonymous with a preceding one in some sense. For example, lad is
synonymous with boy and both of them refer to the same entity in the real world as in
the following example:
There‟s a boy climbing that tree. The lad‟s going to fall if he doesn‟t take
care.
(Halliday and Hasan, 1976:279-280)

(iii) a superordinate (hyponym)
Hyponym is understood as a relationship between two words, in which the
meaning of one of the words includes the meaning of the other. For example, in
English the words animal and cat are related in such a way that cat refers to a type of
animal, and animal is a general term that includes cat and other types of animal. In
this case, the general term animal is called a superordinate, and the specific term cat
is called a hyponym. Another example is: “There‟s a boy climbing that tree. The
child‟s going to fall if he doesn‟t take care.” (Halliday and Hasan, 1976:279-280). In
this instance, child is a superordinate and boy is a hyponym.

(iv) a general word.
The general words correspond to major classes of lexical items. General
words such as thing, person, make, and do, although limited in number, are not
clearly bounded and it is hardly possible to compile a definitive list of them. They do

function more or less as lexical items, so when they occur cohesively, they can be
treated as instances of lexical cohesion. That is, not all general words are used
cohesively; in fact, only the nouns are, for the reason that a general word is cohesive
only when in the context of reference- that is, when it has the same referent as
whatever it is presupposing, and when it is accompanied by a reference item. For
example, the general word idiot refers back to boy; in other words, they both denote
the same entity in the real world as in:
There‟s a boy climbing that tree.
The idiot‟s going to fall if he doesn‟t take care.
(Halliday and Hasan, 1976:279-280)
12

The second basic category of lexical cohesion, collocation, refers to the
semantic and structural relation among words, which native speakers can use
subconsciously for comprehension or production of a text. Halliday and Hasan argue
the case of collocation as follows: “The cohesive effect … depends not so much on
any systematic relationship as on their tendency to share the same lexical
environment, to occur in COLLOCATION with one another. In general, any two
lexical items having similar patterns of collocation – that is, tending to appear in
similar context – will generate a cohesive force if they occur in adjacent sentences.
(Halliday & Hasan 1976: 286). Halliday and Hasan understand that collocation is a
relationship between lexical items that occur in the same environment, but they fail
to formulate a more precise definition. Later, some linguists narrowed down the
meaning of collocation to refer only to restricted type of collocations, whose
meaning cannot be completely derived from the meaning of their elements. For
example, Manning and Schütze (1999) defined collocation as grammatically bound
elements occurring in a certain order which are characterised by limited
compositionality, i.e. the impossibility of deriving the meaning of the total from the
meanings of its parts. We recognise two major types of collocation:
1. Collocation due to lexical-grammatical or habitual restrictions. These

restrictions limit the choice of words that can be used in the same
grammatical structures with the word in question. Collocations of this type
occur within short spans, i.e. within the bounds of a syntactic structure, such
as a noun phrase, (e.g. “rancid butter”, “white coffee”, “mad cow disease”).
2. Collocation due to a typical occurrence of a word in a certain thematic
environment: two words hold a certain lexical semantic relation, i.e. their
meanings are close semantically; therefore, they tend to occur in the same
topics in texts. O. Vechtomova et al. (2008) report examples of long span
collocates identified using the Z-score such as “environment– pollution”,
“gene–protein” [4].

To sum up, cohesion is an important cue of coherent representation.
Therefore, it was considered when exercises on coherence were created and when the
13

experiment research was done. However, ellipsis and substitutions are not common
in academic writing, so they were not a focus in this thesis.

1.2.2. Structure
Van Dijk (1977) makes a further contribution to coherence as part of writing
quality by introducing the concept of structure. This model of coherence entails „the
ordering of sentences‟ and „the ordering of facts‟. For example, for actions and
events the discourse ordering will be called normal if their temporal and causal
ordering corresponds to the linear order of the discourse (p.97). He further asserts
that „essays, in addition to being unified around a theme or topic must have an
overall form or structure if readers are to find them coherent over the whole
discourse (p 149). O‟Brien (1992) also states that „the structure, plan or schema is
the procedure that guarantees coherence and therefore communication‟ (p107).
Structure is a necessary attribute of coherence. In addition, the summary offered by
Grabe and Kaplan (1996) suggests that coherence encapsulates the concepts of topic

(Bereiter and Scardamalia, 1987; Halliday and Hasan, 1989; Martin, 1992), theme
(Britton and Gulgoz, 1991; Singer, 1990), logic (Mann and Thompson, 1988; Singer,
1990; Van Dijk and Kintch, 1983), and structure (Britton and Gulgoz 1991; Martin,
1992; Singer, 1990; O Brien, 1992). Among these terms, structure refers to the
organization of content or information in a text. They posit that coherence is defined
(implicitly or explicitly) as:
 having a discourse theme (overall topic or discourse),
 comprising a set of relevant assertions relating logically among themselves
by means of subordination, coordination, and or superordination from the
level of the sentence to the top level of structuring of a text, and
 being organized by information structure imposed on assertions most
effectively to guide the reader in understanding the theme or the intent of the
author.
Besides, Lautamatti (1990) writes that “propositional coherence can be considered as
a means of linking different parts of a [… ] frame by proceeding most commonly
from top to bottom in the structure of hierarchically ordered information, that is,
14

from more general to more particular concepts” (1982:35). So, generally speaking,
the creation of a “unified whole” (i.e. the connection of meaning relationships) in
written discourse might be achieved structurally by linking main ideas, that is
framing ideas (macro-structures) with supporting ideas (micro-structures), and so
increasing the accessibility of the text to its reader.
Furthermore, among the following criteria of a fully coherent essay listed by
Bamberg (1984):
i. identifies topic
ii. does not shift topics or digress
iii. orients the reader by describing the context or situation
iv. organizes details according to a discernible plan that is sustained
throughout the essay

v. skillfully uses cohesive ties such as lexical cohesion, conjunction, and
reference to link sentences and paragraphs together
vi. concludes with a statement that gives the reader a definite sense of
closure
vii. makes few or no grammatical or mechanical errors that interrupt the
discourse flow or the reading process
the first, the second, the fourth, and the sixth criteria are those aspects of essay
structure and organization patterns. From these points of view, it can be affirmed that
structure of an essay and the organization of information are the elements
guaranteeing coherence in text.
With the support of these views, in this study the structure is dealt with in
terms of essay structure and patterns of essay organization in IELTS writing.
1.2.2.1 Essay Structure
According to Oshima and Hogue (1999), an essay is structured by three major
parts: an introductory paragraph, a body and a concluding paragraph.
An introduction is the opening of an essay, so it should be clear, simple,
interesting and informative to arouse the reader‟s interest. An introduction has two
parts: a general statement and a thesis statement. A general statement introduces the
15

theme or topic of the essay and gives general background information on the topic. A
thesis statement states the main focus of the essay or the specific topic that will be
discussed in the body; it may indicate the method of organisation of the entire essay;
and it is usually the last sentence in the introductory paragraph. Whatever the final
sentence of the introduction is, it must lead naturally into the first body paragraph.
Following an introduction are body paragraphs, which develop the main idea
or topic of the essay. A body paragraph has three main parts: a topic sentence,
supporting sentences, and a concluding sentence. Firstly, the topic sentence states the
main idea of the paragraph. It has two essential parts: the topic and the controlling
idea. The topic names the subject or main idea of the paragraph. The controlling idea

limits the topic to one or two areas that can be discussed completely in the space of a
single paragraph. The topic sentence should not be too general or too specific and
too many unrelated topics and ideas should not be mentioned here. Secondly,
supporting sentences develop the topic sentence. That is, they support the topic
sentence by giving details, reasons, examples, descriptions, facts, statistics, and
quotations. Every supporting sentence must directly explain or prove the main idea,
which is stated in the topic sentence. Finally, concluding sentence signals the end of
the paragraph and leave the reader with important points to remember with the
summarised main idea or a given final comment about the topic. It is optional to
include this one in a paragraph.
The conclusion in an essay, like the concluding sentence in a body paragraph,
is a summary of review of the main points discussed in the body; especially, in
argument essays it must be made sure to answer the question clearly. It does not
usually contribute a new idea, unless it is a minor point. However, Adams G. and
Terry Peck (2001) advise IELTS candidates: “It is a good place to make
recommendations or suggestions, to give advice and offer solutions, if you are asked
to do so” (p.71). The conclusion usually begins with a special concluding phrase that
links it to the rest of the essay such as in general, to sum up, to conclude and in
conclusion.


16

1.2.2.2 Patterns of Essay Organization
The link between clear, logical organization and effective communication is
powerful, both for the "sender" and the "receiver." For the writer, a well organized
outline of information serves as a blue print for action. It provides focus and
direction as the writer composes the document, which helps to ensure that the stated
purpose is fulfilled. For the reader, clear organization greatly enhances the ease with
which one can understand and remember the information being presented. People

seek out patterns to help make sense of information. When the reader is not able to
find a pattern that makes sense, chaos and confusion abound. Effective
communication, then, begins with a clearly organized set of ideas following a logical,
consistent pattern. Thus, one of the most important decisions a writer makes
concerns the pattern of organization that is used to structure and order information.
There are many patterns a writer can use to organize his/her ideas. The
specific pattern (or combination of patterns) chosen depends upon the particular topic
and the objectives the writer has identified for the document. There is no rule to
follow in choosing a pattern of organization; one must simply think carefully about
which pattern makes the most sense in helping the reader to better understand and
remember the information. There are many different ways of organizing the same
information, and often two or more different organizational patterns are combined to
create a final outline of information.
Below is the description of the most commonly used patterns of organization
for essays in which the writer presents an opinion, examines causes and effects, and
outlines problems and solutions, which are the focus of this thesis. These are (i)
argument patterns, (ii) cause-effect patterns, and (iii) problem-solution patterns.

(i) Argument Patterns
In an argumentative essay, the writer not only gives information but also
presents an argument with the PROS (supporting ideas) and CONS (opposing ideas)
of an argumentative issue. He/She needs to clearly take his/her stand and writes as if
he/she is trying to persuade an opposing audience to adopt new beliefs or behavior.
17

The primary objective is to persuade people to change beliefs that many of them do
not want to change. The argument pattern is effective for this kind of essay. There
are three possible organization pattern variables:

Pattern 1:

Pattern 2:
Introduction

Introduction
Body
CON idea 1 > Refutation
CON idea 2 > Refutation
CON idea 3 > Refutation

Body
PRO idea 1
PRO idea 2
PRO idea 3
Conclusion

Conclusion

Pattern 3:

Pattern 4:
Introduction

Introduction
Body
PRO idea(s)
CON(s) + Refutation(s)

Body
CON(s) + Refutation(s)

PRO idea(s
Conclusion

Conclusion

Pattern 5:

Pattern 6:
Introduction

Introduction
Body
PRO idea(s)
CON(s) + No refutation(s)

Body
CON(s) + No refutation(s)
PRO idea(s)
Conclusion

Conclusion


Table 1. Argument Patterns
In variables 4 and 5, the writer does not show his/her disagreement about the
con ideas. That is, he/she gives and supports the reasonable aspects of the con ideas
in the body. In another way, he/she discusses the opposing ideas directly in the body
paragraph and then gives alternatives to the con ideas to compromise in the
conclusion.
18

(ii) Cause-Effect Patterns
This pattern is used to show the different causes and effects of various
conditions. This pattern is particularly effective when writing a persuasive document
in which the writer traces the reasons why an event occurred, determines the results
of something, and predicts the results of an event or action
There are two major variations to this pattern: “block” organization and
“chain” organization. In “block” organization, all the causes are discussed as a block
(in one, two or more paragraphs, depending on the number of causes), then all of the
effects are discussed as another block. In “chain” organization, the writer discusses
a first cause and its effect, a second cause and its effect, a third cause and its effect,
and so on. Usually, each new cause is the result of the preceding effect. The
discussion of each new cause and its effect begins with a new paragraph.
Suppose a writer's stated purpose is to explain the causes of conflict
escalation and their effects. He/she could organize the information in one of the
following two ways. Again, notice that either method could work equally well.
Cause and Effect Pattern Example One: “Block” Organization
I. Causes of Conflict Escalation
1. Expanding the issues
2. Personal attacks
II. Effects of these causes
1. Lose focus on original issue
2. Cycle of defensive responses
3. Win-Lose orientation
4. Negative emotions
Cause and Effect Pattern Example Two: “Chain” Organization
I. Cause: Expanding the issues
3. Effect: Lose focus on original issues
4. Effect: Cycle of defensive responses
II. Cause: Personal attacks

5. Effect: Negative emotions
6. Effect: Win-Lose orientation