An investigation into common paragraph cohesion errors in english language writings by 11th grade students at tùng thiện high school

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

TẠ THỊ THANH LÊ

AN INVESTIGATION INTO
COMMON PARAGRAPH COHESION ERRORS
IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE WRITINGS
BY 11TH GRADE STUDENTS AT TÙNG THIỆN HIGH SCHOOL
(KHẢO SÁT CÁC LỖI LIÊN KẾT ĐOẠN VĂN THƯỜNG GẶP TRONG BÀI VIẾT
TIẾNG ANH CỦA HỌC SINH LỚP 11, TRƯỜNG THPT TÙNG THIỆN)

M.A. MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Field: English Teaching Methodology
Code: 60140111

HANOI – 2015


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

TẠ THỊ THANH LÊ

AN INVESTIGATION INTO
COMMON PARAGRAPH COHESION ERRORS

IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE WRITINGS
BY 11TH GRADE STUDENTS AT TÙNG THIỆN HIGH SCHOOL
(KHẢO SÁT CÁC LỖI LIÊN KẾT ĐOẠN VĂN THƯỜNG GẶP TRONG BÀI VIẾT
TIẾNG ANH CỦA HỌC SINH LỚP 11, TRƯỜNG THPT TÙNG THIỆN)

M.A. MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Field: English Teaching Methodology
Code: 60140111
Supervisor: DR. NGÔ TỰ LẬP

HANOI – 2015


DECLARATION
I, Tạ Thị Thanh Lê, hereby certify that this thesis, which is entitled “An
Investigation into Common Paragraph Cohesion Errors in English Language Writings
by 11th Grade Students at Tùng Thiện High School”, is the sole author of this thesis.
This thesis has not been submitted for a degree to any other university or institution. It
is not containing materials written or has been published by other people and other
people‟s ideas except the information from the references.
Hanoi, 2015

Tạ Thị Thanh Lê

i


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This thesis would not be achieved without the support, guidance, advice, help

and encouragement I received from many individuals and organizations. I would like
to express my deepest thankfulness to:
- my supervisor, Dr. Ngô Tự Lập for his detailed advice, experienced
guidance, invaluable comments and suggestions. Without his support, this thesis
would be impossible.
- all of my lectures and the Post-Graduate staff at the University of Languages
and International Studies, Vietnam National University for their valuable lectures on
aspects of my concern.
- my students and English teachers at Tùng Thiện high school who have
participated and give support in the study with their priceless time, attempt and
keenness.
- my parents and parents-in-law for their wholehearted support and
motivation.
- my small beloved family who has facilitated and encouraged to finish this
study. I could have never thanked you enough and never been able to reply everything
that have done and given to me.

ii


ABSTRACT
This research investigates the common paragraph cohesion errors in 672
paragraphs taken from writings by 11th grade students at Tùng Thiện high school. The
analysis of this research is based on Halliday and Hasan‟s (1976) cohesion
categorization. This study employs both qualitative and quantitative methods to find
out the types of paragraph cohesion errors with a clear linguistic description. Besides,
one aim of this research is to discover the sources of cohesive errors rooted in the
combination of two models described by Richard (1974) and James (1998) together
with the error analysis of Ellis (1997). Results of this study shows a total of 253 errors
are identified in students‟ paragraph that includes errors in the use of reference,

conjunction and lexical cohesion. Errors in the use of substitution, ellipsis, temporal
and collocation are not found. The percentage of errors in the use of conjunction is
53.8 %, followed by reference category 37.9% and lexical ones 8.3%. The dominant
number of error belongs to conjunction; reference is the second dominant error and
lexical cohesion is the last dominant error. The main reasons for committing common
cohesive errors rooted in three main sources: (1) intra-lingual errors (the interference
between English items), (2) inter-lingual (the interference between Vietnamese and
English) and (3) other extra-lingual factors like the performance pressure, false
conceptualization, the limited foreign language environment, learners‟ attitudes,
learners motivation and goal which come both from the teachers and the learners. The
study proposes practical implications for both teachers and students to eliminate these
kinds of errors and improve the quality of students‟ writing.

iii


LIST OF TABLES:
Table 1: The number of errors in the use of cohesive devices.
Table 2. Errors and their causes
Table 3: Errors in the use of demonstrative reference “the”.
Table 4: Errors in the use of demonstrative reference “there”.
Table 5: Errors in the use of comparative reference.
Table 6: Errors in the use of personal reference.
Table 7: Errors in the use of adversative conjunction.
Table 8: Errors in the use of causal conjunction
Table 9: Errors in the use of additive conjunction

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Declaration by author…………………………………………………………………...i
Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………..ii
Abstract………………………………………………………………………………....iii
List of table......…………………………………………………………………...........iv
PART A: INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
1. Rationale of the study.................................................................................................. 1
2. Aims of the study ........................................................................................................ 2
3. Scopes of the study...................................................................................................... 2
4. Significance of the study ............................................................................................. 2
6. Organization of the study ............................................................................................ 3
PART B: DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................... 4
CHAPTER I: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEWS ... 4
1.1. Theoretical background ............................................................................................ 4
1.1.1. Cohesion ........................................................................................................ 4
1.1.1.1. Concept of cohesion ................................................................................. 4
1.1.1.2. Cohesion vs. Coherence ........................................................................... 5
1.1.1.3. Cohesive devices ...................................................................................... 6
1.1.2. Paragraph and paragraph cohesion ......................................................... 10
1.1.2.1. Definition of paragraph ......................................................................... 10
1.1.2.2. Paragraph cohesion ............................................................................... 11
1.1.3. Error and error analysis ............................................................................ 12
1.1.3.1. Errors ..................................................................................................... 12
1.1.3.2. Errors vs. mistakes ................................................................................. 13
1.1.3.3. Sources of errors .................................................................................... 14
1.1.3.4. Error analysis ........................................................................................ 16
1.2. Literature review .................................................................................................... 17
CHAPTER II: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .......................................................... 21

v

2.1. Subject .................................................................................................................... 21
2.2. Data collection instrument and data collection ...................................................... 21
2.3. Methods of data analysis ........................................................................................ 22
CHAPTER III: DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS ................................................ 24
3.1. Errors in the use of reference. ............................................................................. 25
3.1.1. Errors in the use of demonstrative reference. .............................................. 26
3.1.2. Errors in the use of comparative reference. ................................................. 29
3.1.3. Errors in the use of personal reference. ....................................................... 30
3.2. Errors in the use of conjunction. ........................................................................ 32
3.2.1. Errors in the use of adversative conjunction. .............................................. 32
3.2.2. Errors in the use of causal conjunction. ...................................................... 35
3.2.3. Errors in the use of additive conjunction. .................................................... 36
3.3. Errors in the use of lexical cohesion: Errors in the use of repetition .............. 39
PART C: CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 41
1. Research findings ...................................................................................................... 41
1.1 What are the types of paragraph cohesion errors committed by the 11th grade
students at Tùng Thiện high school? ............................................................................. 41
1.2 Why do students commit those errors? ........................................................... 42
2. Implications ............................................................................................................... 43
3. Limitations and suggestions for further research. ..................................................... 45
REFERENCE: ............................................................................................................... 46
APPENDIX:…………………………………………………………………………….I

vi


PART A: INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale of the study

Of all four English skills, writing is always of a great concern to learners. In
fact, it poses the most challenging task for English learners in Vietnam; although most
of them have learned English since primary school, many feel frustrated and consider
writing as a big headache problem for them. Especially, the quality of English written
paragraph is limited due to the lack persuasiveness, satisfactory and logical connection
of ideas. Several problems that students encounter when writing an English paragraph
refers to usage of cohesive device. Besides, a paragraph must flow through a sequence
of sentences. In a good written text, each sentence needs to be connected with one
another to illustrate the meaning intended by writer. To make readers comprehend this
connection, the skillful use of cohesion is demanded to help the students to articulate
ideas systematically, logically as well as to avoid creating ambiguity and
misinterpretations between what are currently said and what already said previously.
Moreover, the written language must be more accurate, more explicit, more
effective than spoken one. Learners fear making errors in their writing, but avoiding
errors, their focus on writing on is often concentrated on generating grammatically
correct sentences rather than on logic and meaning. In fact, basing on the errors that
students make in their writing, the teachers and researchers can find out the solution to
writing problems like the doctors find the symptoms to diagnose a disease. In the
thesis, “An Investigation into Common Paragraph Cohesion Errors in English
Language Writings by 11th Grade Students at Tùng Thiện High School” I want to
investigate into one of major problems faced by English learners as well as to develop
a better teaching writing composition; strategy for teaching.
The present study investigates errors in the use of cohesive devices in the
paragraph by 11th grade students at Tùng Thiện high school. Several specific research
questions addressed by this study are:
1. What are the types of paragraph cohesion errors committed by the 11th grade
students at Tùng Thiện high school?

1

2. Why do students commit those errors?
Answering these two questions implies solutions to remedy paragraph cohesion.
2. Aims of the study
Based on the problems of the study above, the aims of the study are to:
- identify the types of cohesive paragraph errors written by 11th grade students
at Tùng Thiện high school.
- explain the causes of the written errors of English committed by the eleventh
grade students in Tùng Thiện high school.
- provide suggestions for teaching and learning paragraph writing to Tùng
Thiện high school students to reduce and prevent the problems.
- provide suggestions for further research.
3. Scopes of the study.
The study focuses on common paragraph cohesion errors that 11th grade
students at Tùng Thiện high school have made in their writings. Besides, basing on
their analyses, the thesis will present some solutions to these problems.
Population: 84 students at class 11A3, 11A6 at Tùng Thiện high school in the
academic year of 2012/2013.
4. Significance of the study
Given that there haven't been any research on the topic so far, the study
expected to contribute to understanding paragraph cohesion errors and teaching
writing at school both theoretically and practically.
+ Theoretically: This research provides a linguistic description and explanation
of cohesive errors.
+ Practically:
a. For learners, this research shows their common errors, therefore they are
interested to improve their perception on cohesive devices and be able to apply it
appropriately in their writing.
b. For teachers, the findings of this research suggest some teaching approaches
and methods that they should use to produce better English essays.

2


c. For other researchers, this research can be used as references in doing similar
research in the same field in the future.
5. Methods of the study
The procedures of the data analysis are as follows:
1. The students‟ papers were collected every week.
2. Any errors in the use of cohesive devices were found and the types of
cohesive devices error were identified, listed and classified by reading all the
paragraphs.
3. Basing on the models of Richards (1971) and James (1998), each kind of
sources is categorized and calculated to give an overview about cohesive errors in
paragraph of 11th students at Tùng Thiện high school.
6. Organization of the study
This study includes the three main parts:
Part A: “Introduction”. This part will present the rationale, the aims and
the methodology. It will also be discussed to the presentation of the scope, the
significance and the organization of the study.
Part B: “Development”. This part will consist of four chapters:
Chapter I: “Theoretical background and Literature review”. Theoretical
matters related to the study are presented including the definition of error analysis,
the distinction between errors and mistakes, also sources of errors. Theory about
cohesion and the types of cohesive devices and paragraph and paragraph cohesion are
also discussed in this chapter. It also reviews related past research.
Chapter II: “Research Methodology”. This chapter describes research
methodology. It consists of research approach, type of research, subject of the study,
source of the data, research instrument, data collection method and data analysis.
Chapter III: “Data Analysis and Findings”. In this chapter, the writer

analyzes the data and explains her analysis to get the findings then discusses it.
Part C: “Conclusion”.
This chapter supplies implication with the recommendations for correcting
errors in the use of cohesive devices in writing paragraph, suggestions for teaching to
prevent and eliminate these errors. It also closes the study with the conclusion and
provides suggestions for further study.
3


PART B: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER I: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEWS
In this chapter, there are two main sections. Firstly, the concepts of cohesion,
errors paragraph cohesion are reviewed. Secondly, the previous research studies
carried out on cohesion errors in Vietnam and abroad are presented.
1.1. Theoretical background
1.1.1. Cohesion
1.1.1.1. Concept of cohesion
According to Halliday and Hasan (1976), cohesion is how words and
expressions of a text are connected via the use of devices such as: reference,
substitution, ellipsis, conjunction, and lexical cohesion. Cohesion, therefore, is a text
forming component in a linguistic system. It is the means whereby elements that are
structurally unrelated to one another are linked together, through the dependence of
one on the other for its interpretation. (p. 27). Cohesion is an important and necessary
element to create a text, but it is added to other text-forming components. Cohesion
plays the role of expressing the continuity that exists between one part of the text and
another. This continuity is described as: “The cohesive relation themselves are
relations in meaning, and the continuity which they bring about is semantic continuity”
(Halliday and Hasan, ibid, p. 303). In this respect, cohesion is given the following
description by Halliday and Hasan (op.cit): “The concept of cohesion is a semantic
one; it refers to relations of meaning that exist within the text, and define it as a text”

(p. 4). This kind of relation between the parts of a text has an important role in its
interpretation process. Through this continuity the receiver, reader or writer, will be
able to get the missing elements which are absent in the processed text.
In other words, cohesion is the linguistic relationship between clauses and how
the surface linguistic elements of a text are linked to each other in order to create a
unified whole text (Peterson & McCabe: 1991). Similarly, Eggins (1994) define the
term “cohesion” refers to the way of the parts of a discourse are related together.

4


Cohesion denotes certain features of a text like the semantic tie in a text, the
consistency of participants, and the connection in terms of lexical selections.
Besides, “Cohesion is the resources within language that provide continuity in a
text, over and above that provided by clause structures and clause complexes” (Gerot
and Wignell, 1994:170). Cohesion helps readers or listeners understand some missing
pieces which are not present in the text but necessary to its interpretation. Halliday and
Hassan assert that: “Cohesion occurs where the interpretation of some element in the
discourse is dependent on that of another. The one presupposes the other in the sense
that it cannot be effectively decoded except by resources to it”. They describe cohesion
as a semantic concept that refers to relation of meaning existing within a text, not as a
structural unit. Therefore, their use of the term “cohesion” refers specifically to nonstructure text forming relations and it often occurs where the interpretation of some
element in the discourse is dependent on that of another. Their focus is on the cohesive
ties between sentences because they are the only source of textual, while within the
sentence there are structural relations as well.
In fact, the presupposition is an important aspect in cohesion because it extracts
the unrelated sentences by the connected one. Thus relations in meaning of any
sentence depending on the surrounding elements. In other words “cohesion refers to
the range of possibilities that exist for linking something with what has gone before.
Since this linking is achieved through relations in meaning” (Halliday and Hassan

1976:10). Coherence is the ways that a text makes sense to readers and writers through
the relevance and accessibility of its configuration of concepts, ideas, and theories.
In conclusion, cohesion is the glue that holds a piece of writing together. In
other words, if a paper is cohesive, it sticks together from sentence to sentence and
from paragraph to paragraph.
1.1.1.2. Cohesion vs. Coherence
The terms “cohesion” and “coherence” are defined differently by different
linguists. For some, the two terms are interchangeable or imply each other; for others
they are independent of one another; however, the work of Halliday and Hasan (1976)
stimulated the distinguishable relationship between them. According to Irwin Weiser,

5


“Cohesion is now understood to be a textual quality, attained through the use of
grammatical and lexical elements that enable readers to perceive semantic
relationships within and between sentences”; or cohesion can be described as “the way
certain words or grammatical features of a sentence can connect that sentence to its
predecessors and successors in a text” (Hoey1996: 3). Tárnyiková puts it simply that
the cohesion presents “a surface structure linkage between elements of a text”
(2009:30). A text has to be cohesive in continuation of statements or paragraphs.
Coherence is “the relationships which link the sense of utterances in a
discourse or of sentences in a text” (Richard [74]). Coherence also refers to the
relationships of ideas and the ability of those ideas to function together for the purpose
of conveying the meaning (Mclinn 1988:15). “Coherence is dependent not only on
linguistic and contextual information in the texts but also on readers' abilities to draw
upon other kinds of knowledge, such as cultural and inter-textual knowledge" (Irwin
Weiser). Any piece of writing is considered coherent if it is understandable, follow a
clear line in presenting facts, arguments and avoid statements which are
incomprehensible for the reader.

In summary, cohesion is it is the linguistic relationship between clauses and
how the surface linguistic elements of a text are linked to each other in order to create
a unified whole text (Peterson & McCabe: 1991); whereas coherence is a relationship
between concepts and meanings or the ways a text makes sense to readers. Both
cohesion and coherence establish a connection between an element in one sentence
and an element in a preceding sentence.
1.1.1.3. Cohesive devices
Cohesive devices are clues used by speakers and hearers to find the meanings
which underlie surface utterances” (Schriffin as cited in Rini, 2009:9). In Halliday and
Hasan point of view (1976), there are five major cohesive devices: reference,
substitution, ellipsis, conjunction and lexical cohesion.
a. Reference: Halliday and Hasan (1976:308) define “reference” as “the
relationship between an element of the text or something else by reference to which it
is interpreted in the given instance”. Thompson (1996:148) also provides a very

6


explicit definition. He states “Reference is the set of grammatical resources which
allow the speaker to indicate whether something is being repeated from somewhere
else in the text.
Basing on the definition, Halliday and Hasan devide reference into 3 types:
a1. Personal reference: Items of personal reference are expressed through
pronouns, whether personal (I, you, she, he, it, we, they) or possessive (mine, yours,
hers), and possessive determiners (my, your, our).
Examples: (extracted from Halliday and Hasan, 1976, p. 55):
- John has moved to a new house. He had it built last year. (He is personal
pronoun).
- John‟s house is beautiful. His wife must be delighted with it. (His is
possessive determiner).

- That new house is John‟s. I didn‟t know it was his. (his is possessive
pronoun).
a2. Demonstrative reference:
Halliday and Hasan (1976) demonstrate that “demonstrative reference is
essentially a form of verbal pointing. The speaker identifies the referent by locating it
on a scale of proximity” Demonstrative reference is realized by determiners: the, this,
there, that, those and demonstrative adverbs: here, there, then.
Example: We are going to take the entrance exam to university. This is the first
embarrassing experience in our life.
a3. Comparative reference:
Comparative reference is realized through adjective and adverb and serves to
compare items within a text in terms of identity, or similarity or comparative reference
is cohesion in the form of reference that shows comparison between one thing another
(Halliday and Hasan, 1976).
Examples taken from (Halliday and Hasan, 1976, p.78):
- It is the same cat as the one we saw yesterday?.
- It is a different cat from the one we saw yesterday.

7


b. Substitution:
Halliday and Hasan (1976) defined substitution as “substitution is a
grammatical relation, a relation in the wording rather than meaning”. (p. 90). the
substitution is the replacement of one item by another. There are three types of
substitution: nominal; verbal, and clausal.
Example:
+ Nominal substitution: the substitute items are as one, ones and same.
A: Can you give me a cup of coffee?
B: There is one on the table.

+ Verbal substitution: it is expressed through do.
Most students feel nervous about the coming exam and so do I.
+ Clausal Substitution: it is realized by using substitute items as: so, not.
A: Is he coming late as usual?
B: I think so.
c. Ellipsis:
Ellipsis involves the omission of an item that is replaced by nothing. The
grammatical structure itself refers to an item or items that can fill the slot in the
question (Nunan, 1999). In addition, McCarthy (1991) also stand in the same flow
together with the definition above by say that ellipsis is the omission of the elements
normally required by the grammar which the speaker or writer assuming are obvious
from the context.
Ellipsis and substitution are treated by Halliday and Hasan (ibid) separately.
However, later on, they are combined into a single category by describing ellipsis as a
form of substitution; that is to say, the original item is replaced by zero. Concerning
their use, Cutting (2002) states that “Both substitution and ellipsis can be only used
when there is no ambiguity as to what is being substituted or ellipted” (p. 12). So,
ellipsis is the process whereby items of a sentence that are predictable from context
can be omitted. Halliday and Hasan (1976) classify ellipsis cohesion into three types of
ellipsis such as: nominal, verbal, and clause ellipsis.
Example:

8


+ Nominal ellipsis:
My children like English very much. Both (0) want to become English teacher
in the future.
+ Verbal ellipsis:
Have you ever been to New York? Yes, I have (0)

+ Clausal ellipsis:
Mary: Are you going to buy a new dress for my birthday? Mother: Yes
(0)
d. Conjunction:
Halliday and Hasan (1976: 227) assert that conjunction is “a different type of
semantic relation”. Halliday and Hasan (1976: 222) also point out "conjunctive
elements are cohesive not in themselves but indirectly, by virtue of their specific
meanings; they are not primarily devices for reaching out into the preceding (or
following) text, but they express certain meanings which presuppose the presence of
other components in the discourse”. In other words, Baker (1992) adds that
conjunction indicates the way the writer wants to the reader to relate what is about to
be said to or what has been said before. Halliday and Hasan (op.cit) classify
conjunction into four categories which express a number of semantic relations, they
are: additive, adversative, causal and temporal
+ Additive: and, or, furthermore, similarly, in addition.
+ Adversative: but, however, on the other hand, never the less.
+ Causal: so, consequently, for this reason, it follows from this .
+ Temporal: then, after that, an hour later, finally, at last.
e. Lexical cohesion:
Lexical cohesion is a type of cohesion which is used to achieve cohesive
relations between the parts of a text by using particular vocabulary items. In lexical
patterning, successive sentence can be expected to exhibit relationship through their
vocabulary. According to Halliday & Hasan (1976: 274-292), lexical cohesion is
defined into five main kinds:
+ Repetition of word or phrase:

9


Example: There is a boy climbing the fence. The boy doesn‟t care being

fallen out.
+ Synonym (words of almost the same meaning):
Example: There is a boy climbing the fence. The lad doesn‟t care being
fallen out.
+ Antonym (the relation of semantic contrast):
Example: I don‟t like high buildings. In contrast, he doesn‟t like low
ones.
+ Hyponymy (the semantic relation between a more general expression and
related specific relations, e.g. cigarettes/cigars).
+ Collocation (words which tend to occur with one another in certain contents,
e.g. education, classroom, class and so on.)
Besides, Al-Jarf (2001) maintains that this type of cohesion includes:
+ Lexical sets: oil, natural gas, falling water, energy, power resources,
generate.
+ Lexical reiteration: A canary is a bird. All birds have feathers.
+ Lexical collocation. (co-occurrence of words which regularly occur together).
Example: The pencil costs fifty cents. I had a dollar.
1.1.2. Paragraph and paragraph cohesion
1.1.2.1. Definition of paragraph
An important key to write a good essay is effective paragraphing. Basically,
when you start a new idea, you should start with a new paragraph. Writing a paragraph
well lays the foundation for mastering writing skill.
According to Baker (1962:16) paragraph is described as a collection of
connected sentences which show building blocks of solid ideas that are organized
smoothly around one single idea in the paragraph. Besides, Elizabeth Cowan (1983)
defined this term as “Paragraph is composed of sentence or chunk of sentence which
the writer has grouped some definite reasons”. Similarly, Alice Oshima and Ann
Hogue (1999) in Writing Academic Writing, a paragraph is a group of related
sentences that discuss one main idea. A paragraph can be as short as one sentence or as

10


long as ten sentences. The number of sentence is unimportant; however, the paragraph
should be long enough to develop the main idea clearly. Owl (2009:40) clarified a
paragraph as a group of closely-related sentences which deal with and develop one
idea. According to him, it is like a family in which all members are related; likewise,
all sentences in the paragraph are related. The paragraph should make the reader feel
that the main idea has been effectively developed. A perfect paragraph is described as
a unified, coherent, developed, and complete one. Solid and specific illustration plays
an important role in supporting and developing the central idea of the paragraph;
besides, such an idea is discussed and supported with evidences. Details and
particulars can also support and develop the topic sentence since a paragraph with little
and general information may not be adequately developed. (Cargill &et al, 1955:8212).
In addition, paragraphs consist of three parts: the topic sentence, body
sentences, and the concluding or the bridge sentence to the next paragraph or section.
Paragraphs show where the subdivisions of a research paper begin and end and, thus,
help the reader see the organization of the essay and grasp its main points.
1.1.2.2. Paragraph cohesion
Paragraph is the basic unit of organization in writing where groups of related
sentences merge to develop ideas to form the whole text. A paragraph with clearly
connected sentences is said to be cohesive. This is because paragraph‟s structures and
its roles cannot be ascertained without reference to cohesion. Paragraph structure and
cohesion are inseparable. Cohesion in paragraph deals with the property of flow and
connection of sentences‟ content in a logical and natural way that stem from the
linguistic links among the surface elements. According to Halliday and Hasand (1976),
the writer is able to hold together meanings in the related sentences in a number of
ways, and cohesion is created to establish the structure of meaning. Cohesion should
be noted to involve with meaning between sentences to create the unity of the
paragraph so that the reader can follow, recognize how one detail leads to the next. It‟s

cohesion that reduces the “danger of a piece of writing being a mere collection of
unrelated sentences” (Toolan, 1996).

11


Cohesion is the relevance of each sentence in the paragraph by way of
embodiment forms. In this study, cohesion means showing the relationship in the form
of paragraph section, within a paragraph. Cohesion has two main elements:
grammatical cohesion and lexical one. In grammatical cohesion contains reference,
substitution, ellipsis and conjunctions while lexical cohesion is cohesion in accordance
with the form of the word, in particular, it‟s repetition. A good paragraph has to fulfill
two elements cohesion and coherence. A paragraph has good cohesion when each
sentence is clearly linked to the next and the topic sentence as a main idea is formed a
united whole with constructive and structural sentences. Cohesion can be called a
form/structure of integration while coherence is integration of the meaning. In
paragraph cohesion is a component with the creation of in-depth integration within the
context of the text unit and individual sentences can have connections within them.
In brief, to write a paragraph with adequate cohesion means how to create the
glue that sticks a sentence to another in a paragraph by determining a theme or a topic
of the paragraph; having supporting sentences based on the topic sentences that
enables readers to perceive semantic relationships within and between sentences
through the use of grammatical and lexical elements.
1.1.3. Error and error analysis
1.1.3.1. Errors
Errors are an integral part of teaching and learning language as Dulay (1982)
puts it “Making errors is an inevitable part of learning. People cannot learn language
without first systematically committing errors”. It provides a window into what is
going on “inside the learner‟s mind”; enables teachers to find out the sources of errors
and to take pedagogical precautions towards them to overcome some questions and

propose solutions regarding different aspects. By analyzing students‟ errors, we
teachers can give comprehensive and considerate feedbacks to students, eventually
help them achieve successful learning.
Over the decades, many researchers have attempted to define what an error is.
Corder (1967) referred to an error as a breach of code, a deviation from what was
regarded as the norm; one definition classifies error as a “form unwanted by the

12


teacher” (George 1972, as quoted by Allwright and Bailey 1991: 85). According to
Brown (1980:165) “an error is a noticeable deviation from the adult grammar of a
native speaker, reflecting the inter language competence of the learner”. Lennon
(1991) regarded an error as a linguistic form or combination of forms which, in the
same context and under similar conditions of production, would not be produced by
the speakers‟ native speaker counterparts. James (1998) defined an error as an
unsuccessful bit of language. However, learners‟ errors can also “provide to
researchers evidence of how language is learned or acquired, what strategies or
procedures the learner is employing in the discovery of the language” (Corder 1967:
167). Moreover, Corder in Richard (1974:25) confirms “errors are significant in three
different ways. Firstly, errors can tell the teacher about the progress of the learner and
how far the leaner can apply the teacher‟s method. Secondly, they tell the researcher
how actually language is learned; therefore researchers through errors discover
strategies applied in acquiring a language. The last, errors can serve as good feedback
to learners for self-adjustment, hence they will not make the same errors again”
1.1.3.2. Errors vs. mistakes
Further, it is necessary to differentiate between error and mistake. Corder (1967
1971 in James, 1998: 78) associates the error vs. mistake distinction to the issue of
competence vs. performance. As a specific linguistic term (Corder, 1967), error
denotes the deviations resulting from lack of knowledge, while mistakes are

performance phenomena (the learner knows the system but fails to use). Error reflects
the systematic competence of the learners (the learner‟s system is incorrect). Corder
argues that, mistakes are of no significance to the process of language learning since
they do not reflect a defect in our knowledge” and “they can occur in L1 as well as
L2” (Corder 1967: 166-167 cited in James 1998: 78-79). On the other hand, errors “are
of significance; they do reflect knowledge; they are not self-correctable; and only
learners of an L2 make them” (James 1998: 79). “an error arises only when there was
no intention to commit one” (James, 1998: 77) The basic distinction between a mistake
and an error is also based on the concept of corrigibility. If the learner is able to selfcorrect after using an incorrect expression or utterance, we are talking about a mistake.

13


On the other hand, when the learner produces an unintentionally deviant utterance and
is not able to self-correct, he or she committed an error (James 1998: 78).
Example:
+ He go to school (Error. The student has not learnt the 3rd person form)
+ He goes to scool (Mistake. The student knows the correct spelling, but wrote
it wrongly)
In short, in the distinction between errors and mistakes it is vital not to forget
about the criterion of correction, which makes a difference, too. As Allwright & Bailey
(1991) point out, “L2 learners can often correct their own mistakes, but the errors they
make are part of their current system of inter-language rules and hence are not
recognizable (to the learners themselves) as wrong” (p. 92). If the learner is inclined or
able to self-correct, we assume that the deviant utterance is a mistake. When, however,
the learner is not able or not inclined to perform self-correction, we shall assume that it
is an error.
1.1.3.3. Sources of errors:
Tracing the sources of language learning errors, according to Richards (1971),
there were three sources of errors:

1. Interference errors: errors resulting from the use of elements from one
language while speaking/writing.
2. Intra-lingual errors: errors reflecting general characteristics of the rule
learning such as faulty generalization, incomplete application of rules and failure to
learn conditions under which rules apply.
3. Developmental errors: errors occurring when learners attempt to build up
hypothesis about the target language on the basis of limited experiences.
According to Richards (1971), intra-lingual errors are also subdivided to the
following categories:
1. Overgeneralization errors: the learner creates a deviant structure on the basis
of other structures in the target language (e.g. "He can sings" where English allows
"He can sing" and "He sings").

14


2. Ignorance of rule restrictions: the learner applies rules to context where they
are not applicable (e.g. He made me to go rest" through extension of the pattern "He
asked/wanted me to go").
3. Incomplete application of rules: the learner fails to use a fully developed
structure (e.g. "You like to sing?" in place of "Do you like to sing?")
4. False hypothesis: the learners do not fully understand a distinction in the
target language (e.g. the use of "was" as a marker of past tense in "One day it was
happened").
James (1998), in his study, showed the different types of learners' errors
relating to omission, overinclusion, misselection (use wrong words not wrong forms),
misordering, blends (blending arises when two alternative grammatical forms are
combined to produce an ungrammatical blend.)Based on this, he stated that there are
four causes of errors:
1. Inter-lingual errors (Mother-tongue influence): these kinds of errors are

influenced by the native languages which interfere with target language learning,
2. Intra-lingual errors: these types of errors are caused by the target language
itself like: false analogy, misanalysis (learners form a wrong hypothesis), incomplete
rule application (the learners do not use all the rules), exploiting redundancy (this error
occurs by carrying considerable redundancy), overlooking co-occurrence restrictions
(this error is caused by overlooking the exceptional rules), hypercorrection or monitor
overuse (this results from the learners‟ over cautious and strict observance of the
rules), Overgeneralization or system-simplification (this error is caused by the misuse
of words or grammatical rules)
3. Communication strategy-based errors
4. Induced Errors: these errors are the result of being misled by the way in
which the teachers give definitions, examples, explanations and arrange practice
opportunities.
The combination of two models of Richard and James will be applied to find
out the causes of learners in English writing to give some remedies and solutions to the
cohesive errors.

15


1.1.3.4. Error analysis
A better understanding of the errors and the origin of such errors in the process
of EFL writing will help teachers know students‟ difficulties in learning that language;
therefore; error analysis can be considered as a fundamental tool in language teaching
in order to reorganize teacher‟s point of view and readdress his/her methodology for
fixing and fulfilling the students‟ gaps (Londono Vasquez, 2007). “Error analysis is
the study of the learners‟ error which can be observed, analyzed, and classified to
reveal something of the system operating within the learner” (Brown, 1980:166).
It is the study of error that made by students in the process of second language
acquisition. Error analysis "involves a set of procedures for identifying, describing and

explaining errors in learner language" (Ellis, 1994: 701). Error Analysis studies can be
divided into five processes: collection of a sample of learner language, identification,
description, explanation, and evaluation of errors (Ellis, 1997). It provides a
comparison of the language of the learner at some particular point in his course with
the target language (Corder, 1973: 149). Besides, Corder, who is considered the father
of EA, insisted that EA is of two purposes: diagnostic (to in-point the problem) and
prognostic (to make plans to solve a problem; therefore; learner‟s errors are seen as a
useful device in three various aspects. Firstly, basing on the students‟ grasp from the
errors at a given point during the learning process, they can give the teacher a clue as
to how the learner‟s learning process is going. The teacher can modify the learning
material to meet the students‟ problems. Secondly, they show the researcher what the
language learning strategies of learners are. Thirdly, they are regarded as a tool for the
learner to use in learning the language. It deals with how the learner tests his
hypotheses about the nature of the language the learner is acquiring (Corder, 1982).
What Corder points out below summarizes the view of error correction in
language teaching (1973): “Language learning is not parrot learning; we do not „learn‟
or „practice‟ examples. They are the data from which we induce the system of the
language. Skill in correction of errors lies in the direction of exploiting the incorrect
forms produced by the learner in a controlled fashion.”

16


1.2. Literature review
It‟s important to shed the light on some of the studies conducted on student‟s
cohesion ties in written compositions and cohesion errors all around the world to take
advantage of the procedure and ways of account.
Crowhurst (1987) conducted a study to investigate which type of cohesion ties
mostly used at each of three grades levels (grade 6, 10 and 12) in argumentative and
narrative essays. He listed five categories basing on Halliday and Hasan‟s (1976)

categories: substitution, ellipse, reference, conjunction, and lexical cohesion. After
that, students are requested to write two essays, one narrative, on argumentative in
forty five minutes. The result of the study showed that there was no overall tendency
for the frequency of cohesive ties to increase in comparison with grade level of
students. While two kinds in lexical cohesion: collocation, the use of synonyms
increased with grade level, two other kinds: reference and conjunction decreased.
However, this study is limited because it only investigated the frequency using kinds
of cohesive ties in essays without making use of them to improve the quality of
students‟ writing.
In addition, Johnson (1992) conducted a study on three types of Halliday and
Hasan‟s (1976) cohesion: reference, conjunction and lexical cohesion in good and
weak essays written by both Malayan and native speakers in English under a specified
time length and evaluated as “good” or “weak” by Malay teachers and American
teachers. The result suggested that good essays written by English had more syntactic
ties (conjunction and reference) whereas good essays written in Malay had more
semantic ties through reiteration of words. Besides, in general, the findings showed
that there were not more cohesive in good essays than the weak ones. The research
also stopped at investigating three kinds of types of Halliday and Hasan‟s cohesion
categories. The conclusion didn‟t show much contribution to solving how to apply
more cohesive ties to have effective writing for students.
Next, Palmer (1999) examined the relationship between cohesion and
coherence by observing English essays by second year students who had passed their
English I examination. Palmer divided the students into two groups to write about a

17