hân tích lỗi về cách sử dụng phương tiện liên kết văn bản trong bài viết của học sinh trường THPT Chu Văn An tỉnh Thái Nguyên

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

LÊ THU HẰNG


AN ERROR ANALYSIS ON THE USE OF COHESIVE
DEVICES IN THE WRITING BY THE STUDENTS
AT CHU VĂN AN HIGH SCHOOL,
THÁI NGUYÊN PROVINCE

Phân tích lỗi về cách sử dụng phương tiện liên kết văn bản trong bài viết
của học sinh trường THPT Chu Văn An tỉnh Thái Nguyên


M.A MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

FIELD: ENGLISH TEACHING METHODOLOGY
CODE: 60140111




Hanoi, 2014


VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI

UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES
*********************

LÊ THU HẰNG


AN ERROR ANALYSIS ON THE USE OF COHESIVE
DEVICES IN THE WRITING BY THE STUDENTS
AT CHU VĂN AN HIGH SCHOOL,
THÁI NGUYÊN PROVINCE

Phân tích lỗi về cách sử dụng phương tiện liên kết văn bản trong bài viết
của học sinh trường THPT Chu Văn An tỉnh Thái Nguyên

M.A MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

FIELD: ENGLISH TEACHING METHODOLOGY
CODE: 60140111
SUPERVISOR: Assoc.Prof.Dr. LÂM QUANG ĐÔNG




Hanoi, 2014


i
DECLARATION

This paper is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Arts in the field of English Teaching Methodology. I certify that this thesis is the
result of my own research, and that it has not been submitted for any other degree.





Hanoi, August, 2014

Signature



Lê Thu Hằng

ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This thesis would not have been possible without the assistance and support of
many individuals. I wish to acknowledge and express my appreciation of these people for
their invaluable contributions.
Firstly and foremost, I would like to express my deepest thanks to my supervisor,
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Lâm Quang Đông, Dean of the Faculty of English-University of
Languages and International Studies, Vietnam National University, Hanoi (VNU) who has
enthusiastically helped and encouraged me to finish the research project. Without his
experienced guidance and valuable comments, my research would still be far from
finished. I am also indebted to him for his substantial contributions in proofreading and
helping me make necessary changes.
Secondly, I take this opportunity to show my gratitude to all of my instructors in
my M.A. courses at the Faculty of Postgraduate Studies, University of Languages and
International Studies, Vietnam National University, Hanoi. Their precious and
professional lectures and tutoring have helped me a great deal in understanding profound
concepts of the field of English teaching methodology while I attended the courses.
I am also grateful to my colleagues at Chu Văn An high School for their continuous
help and encouragement.
On the completion of this paper, I must acknowledge my debt to the authors whose
works I used for my reference.
Last but not least, I wish to convey my thanks to my family for their understanding
and supports.

iii
ABSTRACT

This study aimed at investigating common cohesive errors committed by the
students at Chu Văn An High School as well as their sources. An overall number of 50
students at pre-intermediate level participated in this study. To achieve the objectives of
the study, the participants were given three writing tasks requiring them to write a passage
from 100 to 150 words for each task. Then, the compositions were collected and read
carefully to find out all cohesive errors. The errors, after that, were classified according to
the taxonomy developed by Halliday and Hasan (1976). Finally, the data were analyzed
through the appropriate procedure using error analysis approach and quantitative research
methodology. Regarding to the frequencies and percentages of errors, it was found that the
students‟ most frequent errors involved references (55.9%), followed by errors in
conjunctions (22.8%) and collocation (21.2%). Surprisingly, no error was found in
substitution, ellipsis and reiteration. The errors seem to root from both inter-lingual and
intra-lingual sources, in which the former is believed to contribute the greater proportion.
From the data analysis results, pedagogical implications were given to solve the problems.

iv
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

Figures
Figure 1: Types of reference 14
Tables
Table 1: Types of cohesion at linguistic level 12
Table 2: Types of Grammatical and Lexical Cohesion 13
Table 3: Personal reference 15
Table 4: Demonstrative reference 15
Table 5: Comparative reference 16
Table 6: Background information about the students 21
Table 7: The number of errors in the use of cohesive devices 24
Table 8: Errors in the use of demonstrative reference 25
Table 9: Errors in the use of the definite article 25
Table 10: Errors in the use of personal reference 29

v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii
ABSTRACT iii
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS v
PART A: INTRODUCTION 1
1. Rationale 1
2. Objectives of the study 1
3. Research questions 2
4. Scope of the study 2
5. Significance of the study 2
6. Methods of the study 3
7. Structure of the thesis 3
PART B: DEVELOPMENT 5
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW 5
1.1. Errors in language learning 5

1.1.1. Concept of errors 5
1.1.2. Types of errors 5
1.1.3. Errors v.s mistakes 6
1.1.4. Causes of errors in foreign language learning 7
1.1.4.1. First language interference 7
1.1.4.2. Causes independent from the first language .8
1.2. Error analysis 9
1.3. Cohesion 10
1.3.1. Conceptualization 10
1.3.2. Cohesive devices in writing 12
1.3.2.1. Grammatical cohesion 13
1.3.2.2. Lexical cohesion 18
1.4. Previous studies in Vietnam 19
1.5. Summary 19


vi
CHAPTER 2: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 21
2.1. Participants 21
2.2. Instrumentation 21
2.3. Methods of data analysis 22
CHAPTER 3: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 24
3.1. Errors in the use of reference 25
3.1.1. Errors in the use of demonstrative reference 25
3.1.1.1. Errors in the use of the definite article 25
3.1.1.2. Errors in the use of demonstrative references: this,that,these,those 28
3.1.2. Errors in the use of comparative reference 28
3.1.3. Errors in the use of personal reference 29
3.1.4. Errors in the use of locative reference: here, there 31
3.2. Errors in the use of conjunction 31

3.2.1. Errors in the use of adversative conjunction 32
3.2.2. Errors in the use of causal conjunction 33
3.2.3. Errors in the use of additive conjunction 34
3.3. Errors in the use of lexical cohesion 35
3.4. Summary 36
CHAPTER 4: IMPLICATIONS 38
4.1. Teaching references 38
4.2. Teaching conjunctions 39
4.3. Teaching collocation 40
4.4. Teaching reiteration 41
PART C: CONCLUSION 43
1. Conclusions 43
2. Limitations 44
3. Suggestions for further studies 44
REFERENCES 45
APPENDIX I


1
PART A: INTRODUCTION
This part gives rationale, objectives, the research questions and methods, the scope of the
study and the structure of the thesis.
1. Rationale
As an effective means of international communication, English has been brought into
Vietnamese school curriculum as a compulsory subject. It is the great demand for teaching
and learning English of the society that has encouraged educators to look for effective
teaching methods with the aim to improve the learners‟ language competence. The
language competence is the ability to perform four language skills (reading, listening,
writing and speaking). Amongst these skills, writing-a productive skill seems to be more
difficult than the others as the learners need to use the language to convey their messages

to readers, but the conveyance of information from the writer to the audience is not always
smooth. In other words, writing effectively is not an easy task to master. During my
process of teaching high school students, I come to realize that students often have
difficulty in producing a logical and smooth essay. The students‟ low writing competence
may result from their lack of vocabulary and limited knowledge of grammatical structures.
However, one of the important reasons for this is the learners‟ inattention to the use of
cohesive devices in their essay which are considered crucial elements that help the
movement from sentence to sentence and paragraph to paragraph become logical and
smooth. Thanks to the cohesive devices, sentences and paragraphs stick together, making
obvious and visible the writer‟s line of thought. Consequently, the decisive motivation in
doing this research derives from the extremely important role of cohesion in texts as well
as the difficulties of my students who lack the ability to use cohesive devices in writing
essays. However, within limited time and knowledge, this research will focus on error
analysis on the use of cohesive devices in writing at Chu Văn An High School and suggest
possible solutions.
2. Objectives of the study
Firstly, this study aims to help the teachers and students gain an insight into the use
of cohesive devices in writing.
Secondly, its purpose is to investigate and find out the types and causes of errors in
the use of cohesive devices in the writing by students at Chu Văn An High School in Thái
Nguyên province.


2
Finally, the reseacher would like to offer some suggested error correction
techniques to prevent and eliminate the errors in the use of cohesive devices in writing.
Hopefully, this study will be theoretically and practically helpful to both teachers
of English and students at Chu Văn An High School.
3. Research questions
In order to achieve the objectives stated, the study intends to find the answers to

the following research questions:
1. What are common errors in the use of cohesive devices in the students‟ writing in Chu
Văn An High School?
2. What are the major causes of these errors?
3. What recommendations should be given to reduce and prevent these errors?
4. Scope of the study
It is believed that different types of learners committed different types of errors.
Also, the types of errors vary according to different stages in the learning process. Within
the framework of a minor M.A thesis, the study has confined itself to errors in the use of
cohesive devices in the writing by the students at Chu Văn An high school in Thái Nguyên
province. The investigation and analyses have been based on the data in 150 compositions
by 50 students in grade 10 A4 and 10 A5 in the school, which I presume to provide me
with sufficient data.
5. Significance of the study
Many studies on errors have been carried out in the field of teaching English in the
world. Researchers like Samuel (1983), Richard (1971) and Corder (1967) among others
emphasized the importance of errors in theory as well as in practice of foreign language
learning and teaching. According to Corder (1967), the errors which are traced to their
sources are beneficial in different ways. Firstly, they help language teachers know how
much progress a learner has made in the target language, in which language area he needs
help and what sort of help he needs. Secondly, they provide researchers with evidence in
the language learning process; therefore, researchers through errors discover strategies
applied in acquiring a language. Apart from that, errors can serve as good feedback to
learners for self-adjustment. Despite these benefits, few studies on cohesion errors derived
from Vietnamese learners have been made. For these reasons, this study should be


3
conducted to find out types of errors, especially errors in the use of cohesive devices in the
writing by the students in Chu Văn An High School and what their causes are.

It is hoped that the findings of the research would be useful to teachers as well as learners
of English. Once the types and the causes of a particular error are properly found, teachers
will have a better understanding of students‟ problem in using cohesive devices in writing
and can develop proper solutions.
6. Methods of the study
To accomplish this thesis, we will, firstly, go through a number of materials on discourse
analysis and grammar to build up a theoretical background for the research. The study
takes the theory of discourse analysis as a base on which the most noticeable cohesive
devices of the writings by the students at Chu Văn An high school are examined.
Secondly, in order to achieve the objectives of the study, we have to follow the error
analysis by Gass & Selinker (2008) including 6 steps: (1) collecting data, (2) identifying
errors, (3) classifying errors, (4) quantifying errors, (5) analyzing source, (6) remediation
(based on the kind and frequency of an error type, pedagogical intervention is carried out).
Besides, quantitative research approach is used as a strategic method in the study.
Students‟compositions were collected every week. Any errors in the use of cohesive
devices were found and classified according to the cohesion-category by Halliday and
Hasan (1976). Then the occurrence frequency of each error type was counted. The data and
the list of the errors was the source for the analysis. Basing on the data analysis, the
researcher gave some possible solutions to reduce and prevent cohesion errors in writing
by the students in Chu Văn An High School.
7. Structure of the thesis
The thesis is composed of three parts, references and appendices.
Part one: Introduction
This part gives rationale, objectives, the research questions, significance, methods, scope
and structure of the thesis
Part two: Development
This part consists of three chapters. Chapter one reviews the literature related to the study.
Firstly, it presents errors in language learning which consists of concepts of errors, types of
errors, the distinction between error and mistakes and the causes of errors. Secondly, error
analysis is discussed. Next, cohesion in writing is mentioned; it gives the concept of

4
cohesion, cohesive devices and types of cohesion. Lastly, this chapter reviews previous
studies in Vietnam.
Chapter two describes in detail the research methodology which comprises the information
of the participants, instruments of data collection and methods of data analysis.
Chapter three presents the statistical results and the analysis of the data. The statistical
results are shown in tables which are the bases to determine the causes of each type of
errors in the use of cohesive devices in writing.
Chapter four names Implications with the recommendations for correcting errors in the use
of cohesive devices in writing, suggestions for teaching in order to prevent and hopefully
eliminate these errors.
Part C: Conclusion
This part closes the study with a conclusion which gives a summary of the whole study,
gives limitations of the study and provides suggestions for further studies.


5
PART B: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW
In this chapter, the literature related to errors, error analysis, cohesion and previous studies
is discussed in order to provide the study with the sufficient theory background.
1.1. Errors in language learning
1.1.1. Concept of errors
In the history of English language teaching, numerous definitions of errors have been
proposed by many linguists and researchers in terms of their differences. Corder
(1973:259) refers to errors as breaches of the code. In other words, errors deviate from
what is regarded as the norm. Dulay et al (1982: 138) stresses that errors are seen as “the
flawed side of the learner speech or writing or parts of conversation or a composition that

deviates from selected norms”. Richards also shares this view, “An error in the speech or
writing of a second or foreign language learners is the use of a language item (e.g. a word,
a grammatical item, a speech act, etc) in a way which a fluent or native speakers of the
language regards as showing faulty or incomplete learning”. Similarly, other linguists
have said that “an error occurs where the speakers fail to follow the pattern or the manner
of speech of educated people in English speaking countries today” (Liski and Puntamen
1983: 227). From the definitions, it is clear that an error is the unsuccessful use of the
target language in speech and writing by the learners in comparison with that by the native
speakers.
However, when learners come up with a set of rules to produce new patterns in the target
language, they cannot avoid committing errors. Errors are no longer considered as an evil
sign of failure, in teaching and learning, to be eradicated at any cost; rather, they are seen
as a necessary part of the language learning process because they are the evidence showing
that the learners are working toward the correct rules.
1.1.2. Types of errors
The achievement of language learning and teaching may not be flawless as thought.
The imperfection derives from the difference between the expected output of the language
learning and the real result of such process. While the teacher often requires and expects
learners to make as few errors as possible, learners in fact commit errors of different extent
and levels. Due to the variety of errors, it is necessary to classify errors in specific groups.
The categorization of errors is based on various criteria and aspects.


6
Richards et al (1974) believes that both children learning the first language, and
children and adults learning foreign languages are likely to produce errors of following
types:
i. The omission of grammatical morphemes
ii. The double marking of a given semantic feature
iii. The over generalized application of irregular rules

iv. The use of one form of several required
v. The wrong word ordering
Nevertheless, Corder (1973) has a different way to classify errors. In his view, it is the
expressive and receptive behavior in language learning that cause expressive and receptive
errors; learners tend to make more productive errors than receptive errors. On the basis of
linguistic levels, errors can be categorized into grammatical, discourse, phonological and
lexical errors. Grammatical errors lay emphasis on grammatical accuracy rather than
fluency, which may be obstacles for communication proficiency. The immediate teacher
correction is not necessary if the purpose of the language course is to provide
communicative proficiency. Discourse errors are those related to non-observance of the
target language conventions, and they are the manifestations of the leaner cultural and
pragmatic knowledge of language users. Phonological errors are related to incorrect
pronunciation, word stress and intonation. Lexical errors occur when learners use wrong
word class or inappropriate words.
1.1.3. Errors v.s mistakes
The distinction between “errors” and “mistakes” has been given by many linguists, though
it is impossible to indicate any sharp differentiation. Ellis (1997) makes an important
distinction between the two concepts. In his view, errors reflect gaps in the learner‟s
knowledge; they occur because the learner does not know what is correct. Mistakes reflect
occasional lapses in performance; they occur because, in a particular instance, the learner is
unable to perform what he or she knows. Additionally, Chomsky (1965) suggests that there
are two types of errors: one resulting from verbal performance factors, the other from
inadequate language competence. Later, Corder (1967) names the former mistakes and the
later errors. Mistakes are said to be unsystematic in nature and correctable when attention
is drawn to its producers. Errors, on the other hand, refer to any systematic deviations from
the rules of the target language system. In short, errors are caused by lack of knowledge


7
about the target language or by incorrect hypothesis about it; mistakes are caused by

temporary lapses of memory, confusion, and carelessness and so on. If we are uncertain
whether one of the learners has made an error or a mistake, the crucial test must be: can he
correct himself when challenged? If he can, probably it is a mistake; if not, it is an error.
However, the distinction is by no means easy and clear-cut. In that situation, Duskova
(1969: 17) suggests a criterion treatment of errors, according to which errors manifest
themselves their regular occurrence and the systemic nature they share. This is noticeable
and well taken for our research: An error analysis should be based primarily on recurrent
systematic errors that are made by a number of learners and that can be readily traced to
their sources, no matter whether they reflect defects in knowledge or they result from the
inadequate habit formation.
1.1.4. Causes of errors in foreign language learning
There are a number of reasons for how learners make errors; they take root from both
social factors and cognitive factors (Myles, 2002). Basically, two types of causes are
classified: (1) first language interference-interlingual source and (2) causes independent of
the first language interference - intralingual source.
1.1.4.1. First language interference
Whenever an error appears, there is likelihood that the mother tongue is responsible.
Traditionally, the notion of first language interference is understood as a negative transfer
from the first language to the target language. It is the way of learning new habits is
hindered by previously learnt ones. Language is a set of habit, and learning a new language
is a process formulating a new habit. Lado (1957) claims that “errors are originated in the
learners‟ disposition to transfer forms and meanings, and the distribution of forms and
meanings of their native language and culture to the foreign language and culture”
(1957:1). Beardsmore (1982) suggests that many of the difficulties a second language
learner has with the phonology, vocabulary and grammar of the second language are due to
the interference of habits from the first language. The formal elements of the first language
are used within the context of the second language, resulting in errors in the second
language, as the structures of the first and second languages are different. Corder (1967)
observes that language learners make hypotheses about the language they are learning, try
to compare it with their native language, then come to the conclusion that errors in foreign

language reflect the first language‟s features. Later in 1978 he recasts interference as


8
learners‟ reliance on the first language as their strategy of communication, which means
learners use literal translation as a learning strategy to overcome their ignorance. In fact,
Vietnamese beginners learning English have a tendency to transfer the word order of
Vietnamese into English, which results in their errors in writing.
It is believed that there are four major factors that encourage foreign language learners to
use their native language in second language acquisition. Firstly, it is the performance
pressure. When learners are forced to perform tasks they do not want or their linguistic
competence fail to meet, they fall back on the language most familiar to them that is their
mother tongue. Under writing pressure, learners may rely on systematic resources from
their native language for the achievement and synthesis of meaning Windowson (1990).
Secondly, the limited foreign language environment also contributes to errors in language
learning. The lack of natural linguistic inputs with native speakers results in learners‟
recourse on their language. Moreover, language tasks assigned for the learners have a
significant effect on their verbal production. Among these tasks, translation is said to
“increase the foreign language learners‟ reliance on the first language structures” (Dulay et
al, 1982:110). Lastly, an important factor associated with the learner‟s use of foreign
language acquisition is the monitor (Dulay et al, 1982:110). Learners tend to think in the
first language and attempt to put the idea in the target language. In short, the first language
interference takes place because of four factors: performance pressure, limited language
environment, manner of eliciting verbal performance and the monitor use. The above four
factors are defined as social factors affecting writing in foreign languages (Myles, 2002).
1.1.4.2. Causes independent from the first language
The common root of common errors in English does not only lie in cross-association and
instinctive translation of the mother tongue, but also in the usages of English itself; for
these usages provide the only factor which is common to all regions, all students and all
methods (French, 1958:7). Causes independent from the first language consist of

overgeneralization, false concepts hypothesized, incomplete application of rules, cross
association, and fossilization.
Overgeneralization: In case of overgeneralization, learners apply the strategies they have
learnt to new learning situation. More specially, they base on their past learning experience
to produce deviant structures in the target language. There are two main reasons for
overgeneration; the first one is that learners want to diminish linguistic complexities, and


9
the other one is the superficial similarities of structures in the target language.
Overgeneralization is also linked with redundancy reduction. This happens when learners
find that some grammatical aspects are unimportant in conveying meaning. This
occurrence is popular in descriptive writing which learners often use the present simple
tense instead of past tense though the action happen in the past.
False conceptualization: Learners‟ faulty understanding of the distinctions of the target
language items leads to false conceptualization; Richard (1971) blames poor presentation
or presentation based on the contrastive approach for the confusion such as the use of verbs
“come / go”, “was / is”, of past and present markers. It is suggested that effective ways to
minimize learners‟ confusion are choosing non-synonymous contexts for related words or
phrases and not using exercises based on contrast and transformation.
Incomplete application of rules: According to Richard (1971), two factors leading to an
incomplete application of rules are the use of question in the classroom as elicitation
techniques and learners‟ interest in communication which helps them to achieve efficient
communication without a mastery of the target language rules.
Cross association: George (1972) proposes that the notion of cross association is different
from overgeneralization in the way that interference does not come from the prior learning
items, but from the adverse direction. It is “the phenomenon of mutual interference
between partially learned items, neither being inhibited, but one or both being affected by
the other” (George, 1972:153).
Fossilization: “Fossilization is referred as a phenomenon that takes place as a learner

internalizes an incorrect form” (Brown et al., 1987: 186). This is believed to exist in
adolescents and adults‟ pronunciation, and also manifests in some syntactic structures or
vocabulary a learner uses. Three factors contribute to this phenomenon: mother tongue
influence, communication needs, and teachers‟ feedback.
To sum up, the five causes above can explain for language learners‟error committing.
However, it is difficult to decide exactly which process is applied in a certain error, and
many processes might operate simultaneously and reinforce each other in causing the
learners to produce errors.
1.2. Error analysis
Error analysis (EA) is a type of linguistic analysis that focuses on the errors committed by
learners. EA is the identification, description and explanation of errors either in its spoken


10
or written form. Crystal (2003:165) defines EA as a “technique for identifying, classifying
and systematically interpreting the unacceptable forms produced by someone learning
foreign language, using any of the principles and procedures provided by linguistics”.
Similarly, Keshavarz (2012: 168) asserts that EA is “a procedure used by both researchers
and teachers which involves collecting samples of learner language, identifying errors,
classifying them according to their nature and causes, and evaluating their seriousness”.
Many researches like Corder (1967), Choon (1993), Gass and Selinker (2008) give
different models for error analysis. First of all, Corder (1967& 1973) identifies a model for
error analysis which includes three stages: data collection, description, and explanation
(the ultimate object of error analysis). Secondly, Choon (1993) also gives some
suggestions on carrying out an error analysis research. According to the researcher, one has
to identify the errors first, then the errors are classified according to categories such as:
semantic errors (wrong words, wrong forms, etc.), grammatical errors (tense, preposition,
etc.), global errors and local errors. The last step is determining how much they deviate
from the target language norm, to what extent they affect communication. Moreover, Gass
& Selinker (2008: 103) identifies 6 steps in conducting an error analysis: (1) collecting

data, (2) identifying errors, (3) classifying errors, (4) quantifying errors, (5) analyzing
source, (6) giving remediation (based on the kind and frequency of an error type,
pedagogical intervention is carried out).
To sum up, Error Analysis can help language teachers manner the specific and common
language problems students have so that he or she can know what should be focused more
in a syllabus. Teachers should conduct Error Analysis at the beginning of the course when
the items have not been fully learnt and remedy these first. By classifying errors that
learners make, researchers could learn a great deal about the second language acquisition
process by inferring the strategies that the learners are adopting. For learners themselves,
errors are „indispensable‟ since the making of errors can be regarded as a device the learner
uses in order to learn (Selinker, 1992:150).
1.3. Cohesion
1.3.1. Conceptualization
Texts, sequences of sentences or utterances which seem to hang together, contain what are
called text-forming devices. These devices are words or phrases which enable speakers or
writers to establish relationships across sentence or utterance boundaries, and help to tie


11
sentences in a text together. Yule (1996) notes that a text is usually considered to have a
certain structure dependent on factors which are quite different from those required in the
structure of a single sentence; some factors are described in terms of cohesion, or the ties
and connections existing within a text. According to Richards et.al (1992:62), “cohesion is
the grammatical and/ or lexical relationships between the different elements of a text. This
may be the relationship between different sentences or between different parts of a
sentence”. Also, cohesion in its broadest sense is “a semantic relation between an element
in a text and some other element that is crucial to the interpretation of it” (Halliday &
Hasan 1994:8). It occurs where the interpretation of any item in a text or discourse requires
the making of a reference to some other items in the same text or discourse. Cohesive
devices are defined as “clues used by speakers and hearers to find the meanings which

underlie surface utterance” (Schiffrin 1978:9). In short, that texts cohere or stick together,
“have texture and this is what distinguishes it from something that is not a text” due to the
help of cohesive devices. Cohesion is a part of the system of language-a semantic one
referring to “relations of meaning that exist in the text and that define it as a text” (Halliday
and Hasan, 1976:4-5). It is expressed partly through the grammar and partly through the
vocabulary.
Cohesion vs. Coherence
While studying cohesion, it is essential to distinguish the terms of cohesion and coherence,
which closely connect to discourse but greatly differ from each other. While cohesive
items are clues or signals as how the text should be interpreted and understood, coherence
is something created by the people in the act of reading or hearing. Cohesion is expressed
in grammatical and lexical links meanwhile coherence is the feeling that a text hangs
together, and is considered as the quality of being meaningful and unified. Cohesion
involves the form of language rather than the content and context, whereas coherence
refers to the type of semantic and rhetorical relationships that underlie texts. In other
words, cohesion is a guide to coherence. The key concept of cohesion is something which
exists in the language, right in the text, but coherence is something which exists in
reader/listener‟s mind. Although cohesion and coherence, in essence, are different, they
have a close relationship with each other. They represent the very essential elements that
make a text or discourse coherent and different from random ones. In short, coherence is


12
embodied by a system of cohesive devices, and cohesion is mainly used to ensure
coherence.
Definition of cohesion and its classification by Halliday and Hasan (1976) are the
framework for the present study.
1.3.2. Cohesive devices in writing
Every writer wishes to make their points clearly to the readers with pieces of writing that
are easy to read and have logical links between various points made. This coherence-the

clarify of expression is created by grammar and vocabulary through cohesion. This is the
“glue” that joins the writer‟s ideas together to form a cohesive whole. In other words,
cohesive devices are crucial elements that turn separate clauses, sentences, and paragraphs
into connected prose, and make obvious and visible the writer‟s “line of thought”
(Boadhead and Berlin, 1981:306). Consequently, the mastery of cohesive devices is very
necessary for effective academic writing. Nevertheless, the achievement of cohesion in
writing seems to be an indefinable, obstruct, and controversial concept which is difficult to
teach and difficult to learn.
Halliday and Hasan (1976) give the most comprehensive description analysis of cohesive
devices five major types of cohesive ties: reference, substitution, ellipsis and conjunction
and lexical ties. The first four types are grouped as grammatical cohesion and the later is
lexical cohesion.
Table 1: Types of cohesion at linguistic level
Linguistic level at which “phoric” relation is established
Type of cohesion
Semantic
Grammatical
Lexicogrammatical
Lexical
Reference
Substitution
Ellipsis
Lexical cohesion
( Halliday and Hasan, 1976: 318)
Conjunction is believed on the borderline of the two. However, it is better to put it in the
group of grammatical cohesion as it is mainly grammatical with a lexical component
inside. Types of cohesion in each group are given out in detail as follows:

13
Table 2: Types of Grammatical and Lexical Cohesion
GRAMMATICAL COHESION
LEXICAL COHESION
Reference
 Exphoric Reference
 Endophoric Reference
o Personal
o Demonstrative
o Comparative
Substitution
 Nominal Substitution
 Verbal Substitution
 Clausal Substitution
Ellipsis
 Nominal Ellipsis
 Verbal Ellipsis
 Clausal Ellipsis
Conjunction
 Additive
 Adversative
 Causal
 Temporal
 Others
Reiteration
 Same word/Repetition
 Synonymy/ Near-synonym
 Superordinate

 General words
Collocation
(Adapted from Haliday and Hasan, 1976)
1.3.2.1. Grammatical cohesion
Referential cohesion
According to Halliday and Hasan (1976: 31), there is referential cohesion in every
language, they are “certain items which have the property of reference (…), instead of
being interpreted semantically in their own right, they make reference to something else for
their interpretations”. In English these items are personals, demonstratives and
comparatives.


14
By contrasting Exophora, or Exophoric reference with Endophoric as a general name for
reference within the text, Halliday and Hasan make the distinction between situational and
textual reference clear.
Reference:

[ Situational] [Textual]
exophora endophora

[to preceding text] [to following text]
Anaphora Cataphora

Figure 1: Types of reference
(Source: Halliday and Hasan, 1976: 33)
Exophora is situational reference referring to a thing as identified in the context of situation
and Endophora is a textual reference referring to a thing as identified in the surrounding
text, e.g: I went with Francesca and David, Francesca's roommate, Alice, and a friend of
Alice's from London. There were six of us. Yeah, we did a lot of hill walking.

In the excerpt above, the example was the proper nouns „Francesca‟ and „David‟ pointing
to people not already mentioned in the conversation but in the common cultural
background. The reference of the „us‟ and „we‟, on the other hand, is not exophoric
because the pronouns refer to items within the same text; it is endophoric reference.
If reference items are endophoric, they may be anaphoric or cataphoric. Anaphoric and
cataphoric reference indicate two different ways in which reference items can function
within a text.
Anaphoric reference signifies a word or phrase that refers to another or phrase used earlier
in a text (Paltridge and Burton, 2000). In the following example, the underlined words are
anaphoric reference.
"No woman can call herself free until she can choose consciously whether she will
or will not be a mother." (Margaret Sanger)
In this example, the reflexive pronoun “herself” and the personal pronoun “she” link back
to “woman” that went before in the text; they are anaphoric reference.
Cataphoric reference describes the use of a word or phrase that refers to another word or
phrase which is used later in a text (Paltridge and Burton, 2000), e.g:
When I told them I got the first prize, my parents smiled happily.


15
In the example above, the pronoun “them” links forward to the noun phrase “my parents”
in the text that comes after, so “them” is cataphoric reference.
Halliday and Hasan (1976) classify referential cohesion into three sub-types: personal,
demonstrative and comparative. These various devices enable the writer or speaker to
make multiple references to people and things within a text.
Personal references are reference by means of function in the speech situation, through
categories of person in form of personal pronouns and determiners.
Table 3: Personal reference
Semantic category
Existential

Possessive
Grammatical function
Head
Modifier
Class
Noun (pronoun)
Determiner

I me
you
we us
he him
she her
they them
it
one
mine
yours
ours
his
hers
theirs
[its]
my
your
our
his
her
their
its

one‟s
(Source: Halliday and Hasan, 1976: 38)
Demonstrative references are references by means of location, on a scale of proximity,
expressed through determiners and adverbs.
Table 4: Demonstrative reference
Semantic category
Selective
Non-selective
Grammatical function
Modifier/Head
Adjunct
Modifier
Class
Determiner
Adverb
Determiner

this, these
that, those
Here now
There then
The
(Source: Halliday and Hasan, 1976: 38)
Comparative references are indirect references by means of identity or similarity,
expressed through adjectives and adverbs and serve to compare items within a text.


16

Table 5: Comparative reference

Grammatical function
Modifier:
Deictic/Epithet
Submodifier/Adjunct
Class
Adjective
Adverb

same identical equal
similar additional
other different else
identically
similarly likewise
so such
differently otherwise

better, more etc
[comparative adjectives and
quantifiers]
so more less equally
(Source: Halliday and Hasan, 1976: 39)
Substitution
Substitution is the replacement of one item by another, as indicated in Figure 1. The
distinction between substitution and reference is that substitution is the relation in the
wording rather than in the meaning. There are three types of substitution: nominal, verbal
and clausal. They are the words, which can only be interpreted in relation to what has gone
before. Halliday and Hasan (1976) give out the following list of the items that occur as
substitutes:
Nominal: one, ones; same
Verbal: do

Clausal: so, not
The following underlined words are examples of substitution:
-The Polar Bear is unaware
Of cold that cuts me through:
For why? He has a coat of hair.
I wish I had one too. (Belloc, 1896) Nominal substitution
- A: Have the children gone to sleep?
B: They must have done. Verbal substitution
-A: Teenagers‟ behavior is getting worse and worse.


17
B: I think so.  Clausal substitution
Ellipsis
While substitution referred to the replacement of one textual element by another,
ellipsis is simply characterized by “the omission of an item” (Halliday and Hasan
1994:88). The process can, therefore, be “interpreted as that form of substitution in which
an item is replaced by nothing” or as “substitution by zero” (Halliday and Hasan 1994:
142). The example below illustrates such a cohesive tie of ellipsis.
Mary ate some chocolate chip cookies, and Robert [blank] some gummy bears.
In the given example the predicate “ate” is left out in the second half of the sentence and is
presupposed because it already occurred before .
As with substitution, there are three types of ellipsis: nominal, verbal and clausal. In the
following examples, the ellipsis, which have been left out and marked by (0).
- Which shirt do you like, the green (0) or the blue (0)? Nominal ellipsis
-A: Have you been swimming?
B: Yes, I have (0) Verbal ellipsis
- A: Tom is staying for dinner!
B: Is he? He didn‟t tell me (0).  Clausal ellipsis
Just like substitution, ellipsis avoids repetition and depends on the hearer or reader‟s being

able to retrieve the missing words from the surrounding co-text. Both substitution and
ellipsis can only be used when there is no ambiguity as to what is being substituted or
ellipsed, and the use of grammatical cohesion varies from genre to genre.
Conjunction
Conjunction is not a device for reminding the reader of previously mentioned
entities, actions and states of affairs like reference, substitution and ellipsis. It is called a
cohesive device since it signals relationships that can only be understood through reference
to other parts of the text. According to Partridge and Burton (2000), conjunctions are
words joining phrases, clauses, or sections of the text in ways that express their logical-
semantic relationship. Halliday and Hasan (1976) classify them into four main types of
conjunction: additive conjunctions, adversative conjunctions, causal conjunctions, and
temporal conjunctions.