An investigation into the ability of using grammatical conhesive devices in oral presentatinos a case of grade 10 students at dau tieng high school

UBND TỈNH BÌNH DƢƠNG
UBND TỈNH BÌNH DƢƠNG
TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC THỦ DẦU MỘT
TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC THỦ DẦU MỘT
(In hoa, cỡ chữ 14, Times New Roman)

HỌ VÀ TÊN
THÙY
(In hoa,ĐÀO
cỡ chữTHỊ
14, Times
NewLINH
Roman)

TÊN
ĐỀ TÀI
AN INVESTIGATION
INTO
THE ABILITY OF USING
(In hoa, cỡ chữ 16, Times New Roman)

GRAMMATICAL COHESIVE DEVICES IN ORAL
PRESENTATIONS: A CASE OF GRADE 10 STUDENTS AT DAU
TIENG HIGH SCHOOL

CHUYÊN NGÀNH: ..............................
MÃ SỐ: ............................
(In hoa, cỡ chữ 14, Times New Roman)

N

N THẠC

CHUYÊN NGÀNH: NGÔN NGỮ ANH
ĐỀ CƯƠNG
N
N THẠC
(In hoa, cỡ chữ 14, Times New Roman)

MÃ SỐ: 8220201

NGƯỜI HƯ NG D N

HO HỌC:

TS. HUỲNH CÔNG MINH HÙNG

BÌNH DƯƠNG - 2018


STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP

I certify that this thesis, entitled “An investigation into the ability of using
grammatical cohesive devices in Oral Presentations: A case of grade 10 students
at Dau Tieng High School”, is the direct result of my own work.
Except where reference is made in the text of the thesis, it does not
contain material published elsewhere or extracted in whole or in part from a
thesis by which I have qualified for or been awarded another degree or diploma.
No other person‟s work has been used without due acknowledgement in
the main text of this thesis.
This thesis has not been submitted for the award of any degree or diploma

in any other tertiary institution.
Binh Duong, October 2018

DAO THI THUY LINH

ii


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This thesis would not have been possible without the participants who
devoted time and effort to the study. I would like to extend my gratitude to my
supervisor Dr. Huynh Cong Minh Hung as well as all the professors that have
instructed me during my course and I sincerely thank all of them for giving me
not only helpful and valuable advice but also a variety of beneficial materials. I
would like to express gratitude to Dr. Nguyen Hoang Tuan and Dr. Vo Kim Ha
who are devoted professors helping me a lot with my thesis. I am also thankful
the managing board of the class and the Faculty of Foreign Language of Thu Dau
Mot University for having created good conditions for me to finish the proposal
on time. In addition, I really want to give my thanks to the authors, researchers
for having given me permission to use the materials.
Binh Duong, October 2018

DAO THI THUY LINH

iii


CONTENTS

STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP .................................................................... ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................ iii
CONTENTS ......................................................................................................... iv
ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................. vi
LISTS OF TABLES ........................................................................................... vii
LISTS OF FIGURES .......................................................................................... ix
ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................... x
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ....................................................................... 1
1. 1. Background to the study ............................................................................ 1
1. 2. Aims and research questions of the study ................................................ 2
1. 3. Significance of the study ........................................................................... 2
1.4. Scope of the study ....................................................................................... 3
1. 5. Overview of the thesis chapters ................................................................. 3
CHAPTER 2: LITERARURE REVIEW .......................................................... 4
2.1. Review of the literature .............................................................................. 4
2.1.1. Oral presentations............................................................................. 4
2.1.2. Types of Oral Presentation .............................................................. 5
2.1.3. Cohesive devices ................................................................................ 6
2.1.4. Grammatical cohesive devices ......................................................... 7

2.2. Related previous studies ........................................................................... 11
2.2.1. In Vietnam ....................................................................................... 11
2.2.2. In foreign countries ......................................................................... 13
2.2.3. Gap of the related studies ............................................................... 15

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY .................................................................... 17
3.1. Research design and data gathering instruments ................................... 17
3.1.1. Research design ............................................................................... 17
3.1.2. Data gathering instruments ........................................................... 18

3.2. The research sites ..................................................................................... 18

iv


3.2.1. Dau Tieng High School ................................................................... 18
3.2.2. The Grade 10 students at Dau Tieng High School ....................... 19
3.2.3. Population ........................................................................................ 19

3.3. Data collection procedures and data analysis ......................................... 19
3.4. Ethical considerations .............................................................................. 20
CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION ................................. 22
4.1. Experiment 1 ............................................................................................. 22
4.1.1. Purpose of the study ....................................................................... 22
4.1.2. Research site, samples and rubric ................................................. 22
4.1.3. Findings and discussion .................................................................. 22

4.2. Experiment 2 ............................................................................................. 28
4.2.1. Purpose of the study ....................................................................... 28
4.2.2. Research site, samples and rubric ................................................. 28
4.2.3. Findings and discussion .................................................................. 28

4.3. Experiment 3 ............................................................................................. 37
4.3.1. Purpose of the study ....................................................................... 37
4.3.2. Research site and samples .............................................................. 37
4.3.3. Findings and discussion .................................................................. 37

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................. 67
5.1. Conclusions ............................................................................................... 67
5.2. Limitations of the study ............................................................................ 67
5.2.1. Participants...................................................................................... 67

5.2.2. Method ............................................................................................. 68
5.2.3. Environment .................................................................................... 68

5.3. Implications .............................................................................................. 68
5.3.1. In teaching ....................................................................................... 68
5.3.2. In learning ....................................................................................... 69
5.3.3. For EF students’ studying ........................................................... 70

5.4. Recommendations for further studies...................................................... 70
PUBLISHED PAPERS
REFERENCES

v


ABBREVIATIONS
DETB

Department of Education and Training of Binh Duong Province

OPs

Oral Presentations

GCDs

Grammatical Cohesive Devices

EFL

English as a Foreign Language

Qs

Questionnaires

ACS

A case study

DCI

Data Collection Instrument

L1

Language 1

L2

Language 2

vi


LISTS OF TABLES
Table 2.1. The summary of grammatical cohesion...............................................10
Table 4.1. The students’ ability in using reference .............................................. 22
Table 4.2. The students’ ability in using conjunction .......................................... 22
Table 4.3. The students’ ability in using ellipsis .................................................. 22

Table 4.4. The students’ ability in using substitution .......................................... 22
Table 4.5. Statistics .............................................................................................. 22
Table 4.6.The students’ ability in using reference ............................................... 28
Table 4.7. The statistics of two groups in using reference ................................... 29
Table 4.8. The students’ ability in using conjunction .......................................... 30
Table 4.9. The statistics of two groups in using conjunction ............................... 31
Table 4.10. The students’ ability in using ellipsis ................................................ 31
Table 4.12. The students’ ability in using substitution ........................................ 33
Table 4.13. Paired samples test for substitution .................................................. 34
Table 4.15. The students’ ability in using the word “so” .................................... 38
Table 4.16. Paired samples test for “so” as substitution .................................... 39
Table 4.17. The students’ ability in using the word “so” as each function ......... 40
Table 4.18a. Paired samples test for “he” .......................................................... 41
Table 4.18b. The students’ ability in using the word “he” ................................. 41
Table 4.19. Paired samples test for “he” as reference ........................................ 42
Table 4.20. The students’ ability in using the word “he” as reference ............... 43
Table 4.21. Paired samples test for “she” ........................................................... 44
Table 4.22. The students’ ability in using the word “she” .................................. 44
Table 4.23. Paired samples test for “she” as reference ...................................... 45
Table 4.24.The students’ ability in using the word “she” as reference .............. 45
Table 4.25. Paired samples test for “do” ............................................................ 46
Table 4.26. The students’ ability in using the word “do”.................................... 46
Table 4.27. Paired samples test for “do” as substitution .................................... 47
Table 4.28. The students’ ability in using the word “do” as each function ........ 47
Table 4.29. Paired samples test for “is not” ....................................................... 49
vii


Table 4.30. The students’ ability in using the words “is not” ............................. 49
Table 4.31. Paired samples test for “is not”as substitution ................................ 50

Table 4.32. The students’ ability in using the words “is not” as each function
............................................................................................................ 50
Table 4.33.Paired samples test for “do not” ....................................................... 52
Table 4.34. The students’ ability in using the words “do not” ........................... 52
Table 4.35. Paired samples test for “do not”as substitution ............................... 53
Table 4.36. The students’ ability in using the words “do not” as each function ....
............................................................................................................ 53
Table 4.37. Paired samples test for “first” .......................................................... 54
Table 4.38. The students’ ability in using the word “first” ................................. 55
Table 4.39. Paired samples test for “first” as conjunction ................................. 56
Table 4.40. The students’ ability in using the word “first” as conjunction......... 56
Table 4.41. Paired samples test for “then” ......................................................... 57
Table 4.42. The students’ ability in using the word “then”................................. 57
Table 4.43. Paired samples test for “then” as conjunction ................................. 58
Table 4.44. The students’ ability in using the word “then” as conjunction ........ 58
Table 4.45. Paired samples test for “next” ......................................................... 59
Table 4.46. the students’ ability in using the word “next” .................................. 59
Table 4.47. Paired samples test for “next “as conjunction ................................. 60
Table 4.48. The students’ ability in using the word “next” as conjunction ........ 60

viii


LISTS OF FIGURES
Figure 4.1. The students’ ability in using reference .......................................... 29
Figure 4.2. The students’ ability in using conjunction...................................... 30
Figure 4.3. The students’ ability in using ellipsis .............................................. 32
Figure 4.4. The students’ ability in using substitution ...................................... 35
Figure 4.5. The students’ ability in using the word “so” .................................. 38
Figure 4.6. The students’ ability in using the word “so” as each function ...... 40

Figure 4.7. The students’ ability in using the word “he” .................................. 42
Figure 4.8. The students’ ability in using the word “he”as reference .............. 52
Figure 4.9. The students’ ability in using the word “she” ................................ 44
Figure 4.10. The students’ ability in using the word “she” as reference ......... 45
Figure 4.11. The students’ ability in using the word “do” ................................ 46
Figure 4.12. The students’ ability in using the word “do” as each function.... 47
Figure 4.13. The students’ ability in using the words “is not” ......................... 49
Figure 4.14. The students’ ability in using the words “is not”as each function ..
............................................................................................................ 52
Figure 4.15. The students’ ability in using the words “do not” ........................ 52
Figure 4.16. The students’ ability in using the words “do not” as each function
............................................................................................................ 52
Figure 4.17. The students’ ability in using the word “first” ............................. 52
Figure 4.18. The students’ ability in using the word “first” as conjunction .... 52
Figure 4.19. The students’ ability in using the word “then”............................. 52
Figure 4.20. The students’ ability in using the word “then” as conjunction ... 52
Figure 4.21. The students’ ability in using the word “next” ............................. 60
Figure 4.22. The students’ ability in using the word “next” as conjunction ... 61
Figure 4.23. The students’ ability in using the word “my” ............................... 62
Figure 4.24. The students’ ability in using the word “my” as reference .......... 63

ix


ABSTRACT
The purpose of this research is to investigate grade 10 students‟ ability in
using grammatical cohesive devices of oral presentations at Dau Tieng High
School. There were 44 participants taking part in the study. The method used in
this study is quantitative research with three experiments. After processing the
data, the result shows that the best devices of English grammatical cohesive

devices that these students are capable of utilising in oral presentations are
reference and conjunction.The challenging ones they try to address are
substitution and ellipsis, because of their unpopularity, complicated structures as
well as students‟ attention to the five important elements of an oral presentation.
While recognizing the problems, I put forward some possible solutions to
improve the use of the unusual devices and go on maintaining the popular ones.
Applying critical thinking and using fixed words from the teacher‟s instructions
are two of the best ways for the students to enhance their capacity in using
grammatical cohesive devices in oral presentations.
Key terms: Oral Presentations, grammatical cohesive devices

x


CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1. 1. Background to the study
English plays an important part in society and studying (Dao Thi Thuy
Linh, 2015). In recent years, thanks to the guidelines of the Vietnamese Ministry
of Education and Training in the 2020 national project of teaching and learning
foreign languages (No, D.1400 /QD - TTg, 2008), especially the Department of
Education and Training of Binh Duong Province (DETB), the level of English
proficiency of secondary and upper secondary students in Binh Duong in general,
Dau Tieng High School in particular, has improved remarkably. Previously, the
students at Dau Tieng High School were unable to present anything in front of
the class for some possible reasons.
First, the curriculum as well as the design of examination may be
extremely challenging for students and they do not have enough time to prepare
and review the subjects, especially the ones requiring speaking skill. The
curriculum has heavilyfocused on English grammar and reading comprehension,
so exams have had to be set this way. Therefore, teachers must pay attention to

the content of the exams in order to teach their students the necessary lessons,
except for speaking skill. As a result, the students do not have opportunities to
master this skill. They are able to be considered to be as experts in grammar and
reading comprehension, but they might have poor speaking ability.
Besides, their communicative and linguistic competences are weak. For
instance, their pronunciation is not clear enough for everybody to understand
what they are saying or their vocabulary is limited. Or sometimes the students do
not know how to use the words. This makes them difficult to speak English. Ever
since then, they are fearful of criticism or losing face. Consequently, they lose
confidence to talk in front of their classmates or present something in front of the
class.
However, since 2014, in Binh Duong province, the students‟ speaking
skill, has highly been improved. DETB has had some policy changes for all the
secondary schools in Binh Duong Province to practice speaking skill in
1


mainstream classes and to organize speaking exams in grade 10 in the first and
second semester. Therefore, the students, are required to change their ways of
learning English and focusing on Oral Presentations (OPs). Additionally, they
endeavor to learn grammatical and lexical cohesive devices. Moreover, the
teachers in English language must use suitable and flexible methods to help
students improve speaking skill, especially inOPs.
Furthermore, up to now, there is little or no research in Vietnam on using
grammatical cohesive devices (GCDs) in secondary education. When analyzing
the elements to make OPs successful, the researchers usually concentrate much
on such criteria as voice, pacing, body language, pronunciation, communicative
force and audience participation. Meanwhile, it is undeniable that cohesive
devices play an important role in discourse. The researchers less consider OPs as
a type of discourse. So they do not concentrate much on cohesive devices. There

are two types of cohesive devices: grammatical and lexical cohesive devices
(Halliday& Hasan, 1976). In this research, only GCDs are analyzed. This is the
reason why the title “An investigation into the ability of using grammatical
cohesive devices in oral presentations: A case of grade 10 students at Dau Tieng
High School” is chosen.
1. 2. Aims and research questions of the study
The study aim is to evaluate how well the Grade 10 students at Dau Tieng
High School are able to apply GCDs in OPs. Through this case of study, some
suggestions can be given to the students for a more effective application of
GCDs.
In order to carry out the research, the two following research questions
need to be addressed.
1. What kinds of grammatical cohesive devices do the grade 10 students
at Dau Tieng High School use in Oral Presentations?
2. How can the grade 10 students at Dau Tieng High School improve the
grammatical cohesive devices in Oral Presentations?
1. 3. Significance of the study
2


Recently, an outstanding researcher in Vietnam (Nguyen Thi Van Ha,
2007) and some other ones overseas (Alireza, 2015; Sue & Tammy, 2016;
Ratnassari, 2016) have addressed the question of GCDs in OPs. The use of GCDs
in OPs is extremely complicated, so the researchers want to explore and solve
some aspects. All the study reviews at the moment suffer from the fact that too
much attention has not been paid due to difficulties or lack of interest while
many researchers are highly interested in GCDs in writing (Chanawongsa, 1986;
Chen, 2008; Yang & Sun, 2012; Ong, 2011; Rahman, 2013).
In a word, this study plays an important role of explaining and exploring
the data to know students‟ ability of using GCDs in OPs. Furthermore, it finds

both strengths and weaknesses of the Grade 10 students at Dau Tieng High
School in using GCDs in OPs. Thanks to the study, both the students and the
teachers are capable of solving the difficulties for these concerns, including
linguistic and teaching areas.
1. 4. Scope of the study
This study is confined to examine the GCDs in OPs.
1. 5. Overview of the thesis chapters
This current thesis consists of five chapters. The first chapter focuses on
the introduction. This includes statement of the problem, aims and research
questions, significance of the study, the scope, and organization of the thesis. The
second chapter deals with the literature review. This chapter will concentrate on
the definitions of OPs, cohesive devices and GCDs. Besides, types of OPs are
revealed. Related previous studies are presented in this chapter to support the
research. In the third chapter, methodology is included with research design,
research

sites,

data

collection

procedures,

data

analysis

and

ethical

considerations. The fourth chapter tackles the data collection and provides the
results of the data and discussion in experiment 1, 2 and 3. Finally, conclusions,
limitations, implications and recommendations are mentioned in the fifth chapter.

3


CHAPTER 2: LITERARURE REVIEW
In the investigation of the ability of using CDs in OPs of grade 10 students
at Dau Tieng High School, the study needs to present the previous and current
literature about OPs as well as cohesive devices, especially GCDs. Furthermore,
the definitions of GCD and OPs should be shown in order to make the research
clear. Therefore, these issues are the focus of this chapter.
2.1. Review of the literature
2.1.1. Oral presentations
There is a considerable amount of literature on OPs. What is known about
OPs is largely based on Ming (2005) and Nguyen Thi Van Ha (2007). According
to Ming (2005), OPs are defined as typically and partly spoken, partly visual
form of communication. Similarly, OPs have been indicated as being brief
discussions on a focused topic which is delivered to a group of listeners so that
they can impart knowledge or motivate discussion. They have the same
structures as written discourse, consisting of introduction, main body and
conclusion (Nguyen Thi Van Ha, 2007). Besides, OP is an art which involves
attention to the needs of the audience, careful planning and attention to delivery.
OP can be delivered in classes, at conferences, in public lectures or in company
meetings.
Thanks to OPS, presenters are able to improve fluency and accuracy and
enhance confidence (Piccinini, 2010) as well as “gain practice in choosing and

narrowing a topic, gathering information from a variety of sources, organizing
and supporting ideas, expressing the main idea, formulating questions, working
within time limits, preparing audio and/or visual aids, speaking formally in front
of a group, leading a discussion, and answering questions” (Meloni &
Thompson, 1980, p. 503-510). In addition, it is one of the most popular activities
in student-centered classroom (King, 2002; Truong & Storch, 2007; Al-Issa &
Al-Qubtan, 2010; Alwi & Sidhu, 2013).

4


To give a successful presentation and at the same time a good image of the
audiences, Jeff Radel (Ph.D in University of Kansas Medical Center) states that
an OP should have five important elements: rate, opening, transitions, conclusion
and length.
First of all, the optimal rate for an oral presentation is about 100 words

per minute. Pauses, repeat, variation in speed or tone and distracting fillers
like “um‟s, er‟s, like‟s, you know‟s” also contribute to a fruitful talk.
Secondly, opening plays an important part in a good OP. The opening could
immediately catch the interest and attention of the audience, while avoiding
trite filler formal phrases (eg. Thank you for having me. . .) and technical
jargon. Thirdly, it is often said that transitions are the keys making OPs
coherent, logical and persuasive. Presenters need to pay attention to using
transitions with GCDs in order to make an impressive oral presentation.
Moreover, many presenters consider the fourth element, conclusion, to be an
important factor to create a good impression on the audiences. At the end of
OPs, presenters summarize the main concepts just discussed and claim how
their work relates to issues they have raised. Last but not least, length is a
necessary element. The speakers should not run over. Instead, they shorten the

talk by removing details, concepts and information, not by eliminating words.
2.1.2. Types of Oral Presentation
There are various types of OPs, presented individually, in pairs, or in
groups of students depending on the size of the classroom, the topic, and the
objectives of the course. According to Al-Issa and Redha (2010), OPs can be
divided into three types: controlled OP, guided OP, and free OP.
2.1.2.1. Controlled OPs
A teacher can design a controlled oral presentation for students whose
language proficiency level ranges from beginning to elementary. In this type, the
teacher chooses the topics, the content of OPs, and the grammatical and lexical

5


issues that the students have learnt in class. Therefore, the students feel interested
and find it easy to present their OPs.
The aim of this kind of the presentation is to make students confident
when presenting in front of their classmates and teacher (Abdelreheim, 2014;
Piccinini, 2010). In addition, it helps students maximize their meaningful
participation in classroom and develop the target language.
2.1.2.2.

Guided OPs

A guided oral presentation is used with lower-intermediate or intermediate
students' language proficiency level. The students are instructed with the topics
that are suitable for their level of proficiency. Moreover, the students are guided
an appropriate use of grammatical and lexical items and time distribution. They
are encouraged to use overhead projector, handout or PowerPoint to attract other
students‟ attention.

2.1.2.3.

Free OPs

A free oral presentation is suitable for upper-intermediate and advanced
levels of students. Actually, at this level of proficiency, students are able to
present any topic collected froma variety of resources such as transparency or
PowerPoint slides. After presentation, students get ready to self-assuredly answer
simple or challenging questions from their classmates.
In this study, a controlled oral presentation is chosen because of my grade
10 students‟ English level.
2.1.3. Cohesive devices
Cohesive devices consist of grammatical cohesive devices and lexical
cohesive devices (Halliday & Hasan, 1976). According to Definition (2013),
cohesive is defined as an adjective connected in a rational way to form a whole.
In addition, Osisanwo (2005) states that a text is cohesive when the linguistic
means held together a text as a single unit. Halliday and Hassan (1976) affirm
that cohesive devices play a significant role in establishing cohesion in texts.
Hence, it is applicable to do research on the issues that language learners usually

6


meet when using cohesive devices (Hinkel, 2002; Indriani, 2012; Karahan,
2015).
2.1.4. Grammatical cohesive devices
Halliday and Hassan (1976) and Brown and Yule (1983) state that
grammatical cohesion refers to a variety of grammatical devices employed to
make more specific relations among sentences. Cohesive devices can show the
close relationship between pieces of text in a specific way. The objective is to

help readers comprehend the referred items, the replaced ones and even the
omitted ones (Harmer, 2004). Furthermore, the combination of sentences using
semantically relational cohesive devices need a shared linguistic environment.
The basic categories of grammatical cohesion such as reference,
substitution, ellipsis and conjunction are listed in details, based on theoretical and
specific grammatical cohesion and provide a practical means for describing and
analyzing texts (Halliday and Hassan, 1976).
2.1.4.1. Reference
Halliday and Hassan (1976) are among the first to do research about
cohesion and the continuity of reference in the discourse.
There are two kinds of references: endophora or situational (referring to a
thing independent of the context of situation) and endophora or textual (referring
to a thing identified in the surrounding text). The endophoric relations have two
types, those which look back in the text for their interpretation (anaphoric
relations) and those which look forward to the text for their interpretation
(cataphoric relations) (Quirk, 1972).
2.1.4.2. Substitution
Halliday and Hassan (1976) show that substitution is the replacement of
one item by another. It is a relation in the wording rather than in the meaning.
This means that, generally, the substitute item has the structural functions
identical to the one it substitutes.
There are three types of substitution. These are nominal, verbal and
clausal substitution.
7


Nominal substitution is used to replace a noun with another word that can
produce the same meaning in a text (Halliday and Hasan, 1989). The following
example will clearly illustrate.
A: Which hat do you like? B: I like the red one.

“One” substitutes for the noun “hat” with the same meaning.
Verbal substitution is used to replace verbs in a text. The verb can be
substituted by “do” (Halliday, 1989).
For instance, A: I like chicken. B: So do they.
In this example, “do” substitutes for “like”.
Clausal substitution replaces a clause in a text with a simpler form. The
clauses are usually substituted by “so” and “not” (Halliday and Hasan, 1989).
Here is an example.
A: I think Lan will win.
B: I hope so.
It is obviously seen that the word “so” substitutes for all the clause “Lan
will win”.
2.1.4.3.

Ellipsis

Ellipsis is known as substitution of zero (Halliday and Hasan, 1989). It
deletes elements in sentences. Although ellipsis is almost similar to reference, an
ellipsis appears in a sentence when it refers back to the previous sentence instead
of a word in reference. Foley and Hall (2003) believe that substitution and
ellipsis are both devices for avoiding the unnecessary repetition of words or
phrases in speech or writing. There are three types of ellipsis: nominal, verbal
and clausal ellipsis.
Brown and Yule (1983) mention that nominal ellipsis is an omission of a
noun in a text as the following example.
My sisters are very kind. Both (0) are willing to help other people if they
have difficulties.

8

The full sentence should be “My sisters are very kind. Both my sisters are
willing to help other people if they have difficulties”. The meaning of the test
does not change although the word “my sisters” are omitted.
Similarly, Brown and Yule (1983) continue to give a definition about
verbal ellipsis. It is defined as an omission of a verb in a text without changing
the meaning. The following example clarifies that view of point.
A: Have you been working?
B: Yes, I have (0). (Nunan, 1993, p. 26)
In the example above, B‟s full sentence should be „Yes, I have been
working‟.
Continuously, Brown and Yule (1983) state that clausal ellipsis is an
omission of a clause in a text to make it simple, as seen in the following example:
A: Why‟d you only set three places? Paul‟s staying for dinner, isn‟t he?
B: Is he? He didn‟t tell me (0). (Nunan, 1993, p. 26)
In the example above, B‟s complete sentence should be „Is he? He didn‟t
tell me that he’s staying for dinner”. The speaker omits the clause „that he’s
staying for dinner”.
2.1.4.4. Conjunction
In their analysis, Halliday and Hasan (1989) define conjunction and
conjunctive adverbs as GCDs. They bound one sentence with another sentence.
There are four types of conjunction: additive, adversative, causal and temporal.
Additive conjunction is used to give more information to a phrase or
clause that already stated (Halliday and Hasan, 1989, p. 244-249). Some words
describing additive conjunctions are “and, also, moreover, furthermore, etc.”
Adversative includes conjunctions which indicate contrast between
different positions or situations. Examples of this type include “but, though,
however, nevertheless.”
Causal conjunctions, the third type, incorporate words and phrases
introducing causes and results, such as so, because, then, therefore.

9


First, next, then, in conclusion, and finally are examples of the fourth type,
temporal conjunctions, used to express relations in time.
In summary, grammatical cohesive devices (grammatical cohesion) refer
to the logical and structural rules that govern the composition of clauses, phrases
and words in any natural language and the following table clarifies them in
detail.

Table 2.1. The summary of grammatical cohesion
GRAMMATICAL COHESION
Reference
Personals

Substitution
Nominal

Ver

Ellipsis

Conjunction

Nominal

Additive

My sisters are

And, and also,

bal
Existential

Possessive

One /

I, you, we,

My / mine,

ones, the

he, she, it,

your / yours,

same, so

they, one

Do,

have very kind.

nor, or, or else,

Both are

furthermore,

our / ours,

willing to help

by the way, in

his, her /

other people if

other words,

hers, its,

they have

likewise, on

their / theirs,

difficulties.

the other hand,

one‟s
Demonstrative

thus
Verbal

Verbal

Adversative

This / that, these / those,

Do, be, have, do

Have

Yet, though,

here / there, now, then,

the same,

A: Have you

only, but,

here, there

likewise, do so,

been working?

however, at

be so, do it /

B: Yes, I have

least, in fact,

that, be it / that

on the
contrary, I
mean, in any
case

10


Definite article
The

Clausal
So, not

Clausal

Causal

A: Why‟d you

So, then,

only set three

therefore,

places? Paul‟s

because,

staying for

otherwise

dinner, isn‟t
he?
B: Is he? He
didn‟t tell me
Comparative

Temporal

Same, identical,

Then, next,

similar(ly), equal,

before that,

different, other, also,

first, then, at

additional, etc.

first, formerly,
final, at once,
soon, in
conclusion

2.2. Related previous studies
2.2.1. In Vietnam
Before the thesis, there seems to be little or no research on students‟
ability in using GCDs in oral discourse or OPs in Vietnam.
Nguyen Thi Van Ha‟s research is the most remarkable. The study “A
study of oral presentation difficulties of second-year English majors of Phuong
Dong University in the speaking lessons and solutions” was published in 2007. In
an attempt to do the survey research, the researcher utilizes questionnaires with
62 second-year English-majored participants at Phuong Dong University. Most
of the students are twenty years old, except for two students who are twenty-two
since they failed in the previous university entrance examinations. However,
these students‟ English proficiencies are different, the main cause of which may
11


be their different origins from the countryside (32 students) to the town (19
students) and big cities like Hai Phong, Thanh Hoa, Nam Dinh and Ha Noi (11
students).
In the study, there are some various valuable contributions to other theses.

First of all, it discovers that the students have trouble in the organization of their
presentations. They do not know how to highlight the development of the
presentations, for example, I’ll develop 3 main parts. First, I will give you
the……. Second, ……. This means that they have difficulties in using
conjunction. Another challenge for her students is the appropriate usage of
vocabulary and structures. Fifty-seven students have obstacles to this problem
whereas only five are able to use it. This proves ninety-two percent are not able
to use vocabulary and structures in the right way. A few students (8%) are able to
smoothly apply it. From then on, the researcher recommends some practical
solutions for enhancing these students‟ oral presentations.
Beside her positive contributions, some flaws of the study are clearly
recognized. Firstly, because her thesis focuses on “oral presentation difficulties
of second-year English majors of Phuong Dong University in the speaking
lessons and solutions”, the findings should be related to this problem. In spite of
the fact that she pays attention to the ability of the students in using grammar,
structure, and vocabulary, her shortcomings are lack of analyzing the students‟
structural or grammatical errors. She just concentrates on the overview.
Secondly, she applies questionnaires (Qs) in her research surveys. This
technique would be more convincing if she combined questionnaires to persuade
the readers. Some students may not be willing to answer the questions. Bernard
(1994) illustrates that the students might not want to show the information or
they might think that they will not have some advantages from responding,
perhaps even be penalized by giving their real view of point.
With some shortcomings in her research, in my thesis, I try to fill and
analyze which GCDs the students are good at or weak so that the students are

12


well prepared for their OPs. In addition, quantitative research with experimental

research design is used in my thesis so as to make more reliable.
2.2.2. In foreign countries
Not only Vietnamese researchers explore the students‟ ability in using
GCDs in OPs but also many foreign researchers do.
For example, Alireza (2015) investigates “Patterns of Cohesion in Class
Presentations by Native Speakers of English Mobin Motamed”. In his research,
some English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners avoid speaking and do not
participate in class presentations because they are afraid of not being cohesive in
speaking. In coping with such a problem, some crucial solutions of using the
patterns of cohesion in speaking are required to teach the learners of English how
to be cohesive in speaking. An appropriate task in this regard was studying and
analyzing native contexts. The interpretation could be taken from exploring some
class presentations that occur in an English native context. Thus, this study aimed
to examine the cohesive patterns used by native speakers of English in 8 class
presentations which are

taken from Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken

English (MICASE). The analysis begins with the collection of the data, which is
the transcription of the class presentations. Then, the patterns of cohesion,
reference, conjunction, ellipsis and substitution are identified. After tabulating
the findings, they are discussed to see how native speakers of English use these
patterns of cohesion in making their speaking more textual in interaction. The
findings show that the native speakers of English in class presentations
frequently used reference, conjunctions, and ellipsis, and they rarely use
substitutions in the class presentations. The findings could be taken out to act as a
model to guide EFL students to use these patterns to be more cohesive in their
class presentations. Furthermore, this research might be more innovative if the
participants are non – native speakers.
Another noteworthy work in this field is conducted by Sue and Tammy

(2016). They study “Oral Academic Discourse Socialization of an ESL Chinese
Student: Cohesive Device Use”. Data sources for their research include video
13


transcripts of one participant, Haidong, who was a PhD student studying physics
at a university in the American Midwest, and who had been in the United States
for two years at the time of the study. His four presentations presented in the
study were collected from an oral English proficiency test offered at the
university. His four time presentations began in September 2007, December
2007, March 2008 and September 2008. The topics Haidong presented in four
times are the same or similar topics: The discovery of Newton‟s Law / the
discovery of Newton‟s law of universal gravitation. Sue and Tammy (2016)
show the result after exploring Haidong‟s ability in using cohesive devices. He is
able to use references, lexical cohesion and conjunctions well. However, he has
difficulties in using substitution because he only uses it once. Amazingly,
Haidong is unable to utilize ellipsis. In fact, this research is fully justified by its
design. Moreover, the participant in this study is the non native speaker who
considers English as a foreign language. This helps to recognize and evaluate the
participant‟s competence in using cohesive devices clearly and how to improve
the weak devices. Nevertheless, this study also has some limitations. First, there
is only one participant for the research. He is a PhD whose proficiency of English
is rather good. This cannot evaluate accurately the ability of students in general
in using cohesive devices. Meanwhile, there are more participants in my study
than theirs and my students‟ proficiency of English is not as good as Haidong.
Another research that plays an important role in my thesis is conducted by
Ratnasari (2016). This research is conducted to investigate the use of cohesive
devices in the speech. The aims of this research are to identify the types of
cohesive devices used in the speech of students of speaking IV class and to
explain how the occurring types of the cohesive devices reflect the semantic

relation in the speech of speaking IV students in relation to their text clarity. A
qualitative method is utilized in this research consisting of data reduction, data
display, and conclusion drawing. The data is in the form of utterances which are
derived from the transcripts of the speech. The primary instrument of the
research is the researcher herself and the secondary instruments are data sheets.
14


The data is analyzed by categorizing, using the cohesion proposed by Halliday
and Hasan (1976). The results of this research show the most frequently used
cohesions in the speech are conjunction, reference, and lexical reiteration,
whereas the usage of ellipsis, substitution, and lexical collocation is the least.
2.2.3. Gap of the related studies
From the information above, it has been suggested that these works play
an important part for discovering students‟ ability in using GCDs in OPs.
However, one of the major drawbacks to exploit this literature review is that
research has tended to focus on writing (Chanawongsa, 1986; Chen, 2008; Ong,
2011; Yang & Sun, 2012; Rahman, 2013) rather than speaking, especially OPs.
As can be seen, OPs are the best combination of written and spoken discourse.
However, very little is known about GCDs in OPs both in Vietnam (Nguyen Thi
Van Ha, 2007) and overseas (Alizera, 2015; Sue & Tammy, 2016; Ratnasari,
2016).
Moreover, in Vietnam context, the response of students‟ ability in using
GCDs in OPs is not fully understood. Nguyen Thi Van Ha (2007) fails to fully
define what reference, substitution and ellipsis are. The study makes no attempt
to explain the meaning of these key terms and analyse how well the students in
the third year majoring in English apply these useful devices. This means the
nature of GCDs in OPs remains unclear except conjunction. Meanwhile, my
study makes a major contribution to research on GCDs in OPs by demonstrating
the convincing and reliable data in this field as well as providing clear working

definitions about GCDs.
Additionally, in oversea context, recently there has been little discussion
about students‟ ability in using English GCDs in OPs. There are three studies as
mentioned above. Despite the fact that these researchers make efforts to
investigate the ability of students in using GCDs in OPs, their subjects were
mainly students in universities, colleges or PhD, or the students whose English
was considered as a second language or native language. This research
concentrates on the students who are at high schools and their English language
15