Rationale of the study
Writing is often the most challenging skill for English learners in Vietnam, despite years of study Many students find writing frustrating and perceive it as a significant hurdle due to limited persuasiveness and weak logical connections in their paragraphs Common issues include the improper use of cohesive devices, which are essential for creating a smooth flow of ideas A well-written paragraph requires that each sentence is interconnected, allowing the intended meaning to be clearly understood Effective cohesion is crucial for students to express their ideas systematically and logically, reducing ambiguity and misinterpretation in their writing.
Written language requires greater accuracy and clarity than spoken language Learners often fear making mistakes in their writing, leading them to focus more on grammatical correctness than on logic and meaning By analyzing the errors students make in their writing, teachers and researchers can identify solutions to writing challenges, similar to how doctors diagnose diseases by examining symptoms This approach is explored in the thesis, "An Investigation into Common Paragraph Cohesion Errors in English."
This article explores the challenges encountered by 11th-grade students at Tùng Thiện High School in their English writing skills The focus is on identifying key issues faced by learners and developing effective strategies for teaching writing composition By addressing these problems, the aim is to enhance the overall writing proficiency of students and improve their learning outcomes in English.
This study examines the errors in cohesive device usage among 11th-grade students at Tùng Thiện High School It aims to identify specific issues related to the application of cohesive devices in their writing.
1 What are the types of paragraph cohesion errors committed by the 11 th grade students at Tùng Thiện high school?
2 Why do students commit those errors?
Answering these two questions implies solutions to remedy paragraph cohesion.
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 11 th 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.
Scopes of the study
This study examines the prevalent paragraph cohesion errors found in the writings of 11th-grade students at Tùng Thiện High School Additionally, it offers solutions to address these issues based on the analysis conducted.
Population: 84 students at class 11A3, 11A6 at Tùng Thiện high school in the academic year of 2012/2013.
Significance of the study
This study aims to enhance the understanding of paragraph cohesion errors and improve writing instruction in schools, addressing a gap in existing research on the topic.
+ Theoretically: This research provides a linguistic description and explanation of cohesive errors
This research highlights common errors made by learners, encouraging them to enhance their understanding of cohesive devices for improved writing For educators, the findings recommend effective teaching strategies to foster the development of better English essays Additionally, this study serves as a valuable reference for future researchers exploring similar topics in the field.
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
Based on the models proposed by Richards (1971) and James (1998), sources of cohesive errors in the paragraphs written by 11th-grade students at Tùng Thiện High School are systematically categorized and analyzed to provide a comprehensive overview.
Organization of the study
This study includes the three main parts:
This article begins with an introduction that outlines the rationale, aims, and methodology of the study It also highlights the scope and significance of the research, along with an overview of the organization of the content.
Part B: “Development” This part will consist of four chapters:
Chapter I provides a comprehensive theoretical background and literature review, focusing on key concepts such as error analysis, the differentiation between errors and mistakes, and the various sources of errors It explores theories of cohesion, detailing the types of cohesive devices and the importance of paragraph cohesion Additionally, this chapter reviews relevant past research, establishing a foundation for the study.
Chapter II: "Research Methodology" outlines the framework for the study, detailing the research approach and type It identifies the subjects involved, sources of data, and the research instruments utilized Additionally, this chapter explains the methods of data collection and the subsequent analysis techniques employed to interpret the findings.
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
This chapter offers insights and recommendations for addressing errors in the use of cohesive devices in writing paragraphs It includes strategies for teaching that aim to prevent and eliminate these mistakes Additionally, the chapter concludes the study and presents suggestions for future research.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEWS
Theoretical background
Cohesion, as defined by Halliday and Hasan (1976), refers to the connections between words and expressions in a text through devices such as reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction, and lexical cohesion It serves as a vital component in the linguistic system, linking structurally unrelated elements for interpretation While cohesion is crucial for text creation, it works alongside other text-forming components to express continuity between different parts of the text This continuity is characterized by semantic relations that enhance meaning and facilitate understanding Halliday and Hasan emphasize that cohesion is fundamentally semantic, defining the text through the relationships of meaning that exist within it This interconnectedness plays a significant role in the interpretation process, allowing readers and writers to infer missing elements from the text.
Cohesion refers to the linguistic connections between clauses that link various elements of a text, creating a unified whole (Peterson & McCabe, 1991) According to Eggins (1994), cohesion encompasses how the different components of discourse are interrelated.
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
Cohesion in language provides continuity in a text, extending beyond mere clause structures (Gerot and Wignell, 1994) It aids readers in interpreting essential elements that may not be explicitly stated According to Halliday and Hassan, cohesion relies on the interdependence of discourse elements, where understanding one requires reference to another They emphasize that cohesion is a semantic concept rooted in the relationships of meaning within a text, rather than structural units Their analysis focuses on cohesive ties between sentences, which are crucial for textual coherence, while acknowledging that structural relations also exist within sentences.
Presupposition plays a crucial role in cohesion by connecting unrelated sentences through their meanings, highlighting how the context influences understanding Cohesion is defined as the potential for linking current sentences to preceding ones, as noted by Halliday and Hasan (1976:10) Meanwhile, coherence pertains to how effectively a text conveys meaning to both readers and writers, relying on the relevance and clarity of its concepts, ideas, and theories.
In summary, cohesion serves as the essential element that unifies a written work, ensuring that it flows seamlessly from one sentence to the next and from one paragraph to another.
Cohesion and coherence are terms that vary in definition among linguists, with some viewing them as interchangeable while others see them as independent concepts Halliday and Hasan's work in 1976 notably highlighted the distinct relationship between the two As Irwin Weiser suggests, understanding this relationship is crucial for effective communication.
Cohesion is a vital textual quality achieved through grammatical and lexical elements that help readers understand semantic relationships within and between sentences It involves connecting sentences through specific words or grammatical features, creating a seamless flow in the text As Tárnyiková notes, cohesion represents a surface structure linkage between text elements, ensuring that statements and paragraphs are cohesively continued.
Coherence in writing refers to the relationships that connect ideas within a discourse or text, ensuring that sentences work together to convey meaning effectively It relies not only on linguistic and contextual cues but also on the reader's ability to utilize cultural and inter-textual knowledge A coherent piece of writing is one that is easily understandable, presents facts and arguments in a clear sequence, and avoids incomprehensible statements.
Cohesion refers to the linguistic connections between clauses and how textual elements are interlinked to form a unified whole (Peterson & McCabe, 1991) In contrast, coherence pertains to the relationship between concepts and meanings, influencing how a text resonates with readers Together, cohesion and coherence create connections between elements in one sentence and those in preceding sentences, enhancing overall text clarity and understanding.
Cohesive devices are essential tools that help speakers and listeners understand the deeper meanings behind spoken or written language (Schriffin, as cited in Rini, 2009:9) According to Halliday and Hasan (1976), there are five primary types of cohesive devices: reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction, and lexical cohesion Reference, as defined by Halliday and Hasan (1976:308), refers to the connection between a text element and its interpretation in context Thompson (1996:148) elaborates that reference encompasses grammatical resources that enable speakers to indicate when something is being reiterated from elsewhere in the text.
Halliday and Hasan categorize reference into three types, with personal reference being one of them Personal reference includes pronouns such as personal (I, you, she, he, it, we, they) and possessive forms (mine, yours, hers), as well as 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) explain that demonstrative reference serves as a verbal form of pointing, allowing the speaker to identify a referent based on its proximity This type of reference is expressed through determiners such as "the," "this," "there," "that," and "those," as well as demonstrative adverbs like "here," "there," and "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, as defined by Halliday and Hasan (1976), is achieved through the use of adjectives and adverbs to compare items within a text This form of cohesion highlights the similarities or differences between entities, enhancing the clarity and coherence of the writing.
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 b Substitution:
Substitution, as defined by Halliday and Hasan (1976), is a grammatical relation that focuses on wording rather than meaning It involves replacing one item with another, and there are three main types of substitution: nominal, verbal, and clausal.
+ 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?
Ellipsis is the grammatical phenomenon where an item is omitted and replaced by nothing, allowing the context to imply the missing elements According to Nunan (1999), this structure highlights items that could fill the omitted slot in a sentence Similarly, McCarthy (1991) defines ellipsis as the exclusion of elements typically necessary in grammar, with the assumption that these omissions are clear from the surrounding context.
Literature review
Research on students' cohesion ties in written compositions and the prevalence of cohesion errors globally is essential for understanding effective writing strategies and improving overall writing skills.
In a study by Crowhurst (1987), the use of cohesion ties in argumentative and narrative essays was examined across three grade levels (6, 10, and 12) Based on Halliday and Hasan's (1976) framework, five categories of cohesion were identified: substitution, ellipsis, reference, conjunction, and lexical cohesion Students were tasked with writing one narrative and one argumentative essay within a 45-minute timeframe The findings revealed no significant trend in the frequency of cohesive ties as students progressed through grade levels; however, lexical cohesion types such as collocation and synonyms increased, while reference and conjunction types decreased The study's limitations include its focus solely on the frequency of cohesive ties without exploring their potential to enhance the quality of students' writing.
Johnson (1992) examined Halliday and Hasan's (1976) three types of cohesion—reference, conjunction, and lexical cohesion—in essays by both Malayan and native English speakers, evaluated by Malay and American teachers The study found that high-quality English essays featured more syntactic ties, while strong Malay essays relied more on semantic ties through word reiteration Overall, the research indicated that good essays did not necessarily exhibit greater cohesion than weaker ones, and it limited its focus to only three cohesion categories, ultimately offering little guidance on enhancing cohesive ties for more effective student writing.
Palmer (1999) investigated the relationship between cohesion and coherence in English essays written by second-year students who had passed their English I examination The students were divided into two groups, with group A receiving instruction on textual coherence, including the use of paragraphs, lexical reiteration, and pronouns, while group B did not receive any explanation The results showed that group A tended to use pronouns to avoid repetition and increase coherence, whereas group B relied on lexical reiteration Notably, the overall length of compositions was similar between the two groups The study concluded that teaching cohesive links can improve students' writing performance.
Meisuo (2000) explored the connection between cohesive devices and the writing quality of Chinese undergraduate EFL students at two universities in China Focusing on the improper use of three main types of cohesive ties—reference, conjunction, and lexical cohesion—he employed both qualitative and quantitative analyses based on Halliday and Hasan’s (1976) framework The study revealed that lexical devices were the most commonly used, followed by conjunctions and reference devices Findings indicated that inappropriate reference devices, along with the overuse and misuse of conjunctions and limited use of lexical cohesion, negatively impacted writing quality by creating ambiguous meanings for readers Meisuo (2000) emphasized the importance of teaching EFL students to learn new vocabulary in context rather than in isolation to prevent misuse and overuse of lexical items.
Next, Ting ( 2003) used Halliday and Hasan‟s (1976) taxonomy of cohesive devices to investigate cohesive errors in Chinese tertiary EFL students‟s compostions
This article explores 80 essays primarily centered on various types of conjunctions It highlights additive conjunctions, which introduce additional information, such as "and," "moreover," and "in addition to." The article also discusses adversative conjunctions that contrast or qualify preceding information, including terms like "but," "yet," and "on the other hand." Furthermore, it examines causal conjunctions that establish cause-and-effect relationships within texts.
The study revealed that students struggle significantly with conjunction usage, particularly with adversative and additive conjunctions, leading to a higher frequency of errors compared to causal and temporal conjunctions Many learners tend to use unnecessary additive conjunctions to connect short, simple sentences, and they often confuse the proper order of causal conjunctions Notably, errors related to temporal conjunctions were the least prevalent among the students.
A study conducted by Tran (2005) on freshmen English majors at Thang Long University examined the use of cohesive devices in their writing, identifying common errors and their sources through quantitative analysis The findings revealed that students struggled more with grammatical cohesion than with lexical cohesion, particularly noting that demonstrative references were the most frequently misused Interestingly, no errors were found in the use of ellipsis and substitution While students faced challenges with collocation in lexical ties, they managed well with reiteration However, the study's limitations include its focus on pre-intermediate students within a single class level and the lack of exploration into other factors influencing writing skills, despite students being familiar with Halliday and Hasan's (1976) cohesive device categories.
A recent study by Yanti (2012) examined the use of cohesive devices in 66 essays written by seventh-semester students at the English department of STAIN Salatiga, utilizing Halliday and Hasan’s (1976) cohesion framework The research aimed to identify cohesive errors in these essays, categorize the types of errors, and determine the predominant errors in cohesive device usage through qualitative analysis Findings indicated that students primarily struggled with reference errors, followed by conjunction and lexical cohesion errors Notably, this study focused specifically on students who had a solid understanding of cohesive devices, as they were advanced learners majoring in English and had experience in essay writing.
This chapter provides an overview of theoretical concepts and reviews relevant previous studies essential to the research The researcher adopts Halliday and Hasan's model of cohesion, as it is the most comprehensible for high school learners Acknowledging that errors are a natural part of the learning process, error analysis will enable teachers to enhance their teaching methods, create suitable materials, and develop appropriate assessments tailored to students' diverse needs Previous studies not only lay the groundwork for this research but also highlight limitations to avoid, emphasizing the need for a more thorough investigation into cohesion errors, particularly in paragraph writing Despite the critical role of cohesive devices in writing, there has been limited focus on cohesive errors among high school students in Vietnam This study aims to analyze paragraph cohesion in the English writing skills of 11th-grade students at Tùng Thiện High School.
This study aims to identify cohesion errors based on Halliday and Hasan's (1976) cohesion taxonomy The findings will assist EFL teachers and students in Vietnam in avoiding these errors and enhancing their writing quality through improved cohesion and coherence Additionally, this research will be valuable for scholars interested in further exploring cohesion error analysis.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Subject
The research focuses on 11th Grade students at Tùng Thiện High School during the 2012-2013 academic year, involving 84 students who have studied English for six years using the same textbook and learning duration Most students aim to pass university entrance exams in group A1 or D, which include English as a major subject Although each unit in the English 11 curriculum features a writing lesson, students lack knowledge of cohesive devices Consequently, the teacher, also the researcher, aims to enhance their understanding of these devices in optional writing lessons Gradually, students will improve their writing skills by learning to use cohesive devices effectively.
Data collection instrument and data collection
+ Data collection instrument: excerptions of paragraphs taken from students' essays
Due to the purposes and requirements of this research, 10 units among 14 ones
In the 2012-2013 school year, 672 out of 840 writing papers were analyzed for cohesive errors after the instruction of cohesive devices from the 11th English textbook, following the reduction of 2 units in the education program The teacher and researcher classified these errors based on Halliday and Hasan's categories (1976).
After each writing unit, teacher required students to hand in free compositions without marking so that students were not affected by the psychological factors
This case study employs a documentation study technique for data collection, focusing on a descriptive analysis of scripts gathered from respondents It specifically investigates cohesion errors within the students' paragraphs.
Methods of data analysis
This research employs both quantitative and qualitative methods, primarily focusing on quantitative analysis through descriptive statistics, including frequency and percentages While the study leans towards a quantitative approach, it also incorporates a less-dominant qualitative data collection process.
The quantitative research method is appropriate for this study because
“Quantitative research is explaining phenomena by collecting numerical data that are analyzed using mathematically based methods in particular statistics” (Muijs, 2004: 1)
This thesis employs a quantitative method to measure the extent of variation in specific phenomena, situations, problems, or issues (McBurney and White, 2007) Quantitative data is defined as information converted into numerical form through measurements (Punch, 1998: 59) To determine the percentage of error types, the researcher applies the formula provided by Anas (1966:40).
F = Frequency of Errors (for each types of cohesion)
N = Total Number of the Whole Errors
The analysis process from Error Analysis studies consists of five key steps: collecting learner language samples, identifying and describing errors, explaining their causes, and evaluating them (Ellis, 1997) According to Ellis, this classification of errors aids in diagnosing learners' challenges at various developmental stages and tracking changes in error patterns over time This systematic approach is essential for understanding and improving language acquisition.
Omission : Example: A strange thing happen to me yesterday
Addition : Example: In the London, I stayed there during five years ago
Selection : Example: My friend is oldest than me
Ordering : Example: In morphology: „ get upping’ for „getting up‟
In syntax: He is a dear to me friend
In lexicon: „key car’ for „car key‟
The collected errors will be classified into four key categories to analyze the underlying reasons for learners' mistakes Based on this analysis, the researcher will provide teaching implications aimed at addressing and correcting these errors.
A qualitative approach is ideal for addressing the second research question of this study, which seeks to understand the reasons behind errors in cohesive writing The research aims to investigate whether participants' cohesive errors can be linked to specific causes, thereby providing insights for improving writing skills By identifying the origins of these errors, the study will shed light on the challenges learners face in cohesive writing Data classification will be based on a combination of Richards' (1974) and James' (1998) models, along with other identified sources, to explore the common cohesive errors made by 11th-grade students The focus will primarily be on intra-lingual, inter-lingual, and mixed sources of errors.
In short, in order to achieve the aims of this study, both quantitative and qualitative methods are adopted for data analysis However, quantitative method is dominantly used
CHAPTER III: ANALYSIS OF DATA AND FINDINGS
After analyzing the students' paragraphs, the researcher identified several errors in the use of cohesion devices A table was created to display the total errors and the number of errors for each type of cohesion device The findings revealed that most errors occurred in grammatical cohesive devices Notably, conjunctions represented the highest percentage of errors at 53.8%, followed by references at 37.9%, while lexical cohesion accounted for only 8.3% Additionally, substitution and ellipsis were not utilized in the students' essays.
Table 1: The number of errors in the use of cohesive devices
Cohesive devices Number of errors
The total number of errors 253 100
The table reveals the frequency and percentage of inappropriate grammatical cohesive devices utilized by students, highlighting that the misuse of conjunctions surpasses that of references, despite conjunctions being used less frequently overall.
DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Errors in the use of reference
Errors in reference usage constitute 37.9% of all cohesive device errors, as illustrated in the table These errors manifest in three forms: demonstrative reference, personal reference, and comparative reference Notably, demonstrative reference errors are the most prevalent, making up 18.6% of the total, followed by personal reference errors at 15.8%, and comparative reference errors at 3.5%.
3.1.1 Errors in the use of demonstrative reference
The researcher finds that the use of “the” and “there” is commonly made by the students in their writing a Errors in the use of demonstrative reference “the”
Table 3: Errors in the use of demonstrative reference “the”
Type of errors Number of errors Percentage a selection 0 0% b addition 11 37,9% c ordering 0 0% d omission 18 62.1%
Errors in the use of the definite article "the" are common in student writing, often due to the influence of their mother tongue The most frequent mistake is omitting "the" or applying it incorrectly, particularly in anaphoric contexts.
Intra-lingual errors occur when students incorrectly omit "the" in their writing, particularly as anaphoric references This happens when they fail to include "the" to refer back to previously mentioned items, leading to confusion in their text For instance, neglecting to use "the" can disrupt the flow and clarity of their writing.
Example 1: “ My parents often prepare some red envelopes In Lunar New Year, we are received lucky money put inside (the) envelopes ”
Example 2: “ My most unforgettable experience happened four years ago, when I was taken to Ha Noi by my parents I had a wonderful time in (the) city that I have never forgotten ”
In English, "the" is used to refer to nouns that have been previously mentioned or are known to both the speaker and listener For instance, in the earlier example, "the red envelopes" clearly refers to a noun already discussed However, in another example, the reference to "Ha Noi" may not be immediately clear, but within the essay's context, readers can infer that it relates to "the city" mentioned later This common mistake often occurs among weaker students, as they struggle to recall whether a noun has been previously introduced.
Besides, the errors with the use of omitting cataphoric and homophoric account for a small percentage Here are examples:
“…My dream is going abroad to an English speaking country such as (the) United Kingdom…” (homophoric is omitted)
“…She was (the) best among my friends in the class…” (cataphoric is omitted)
Students often struggle with the correct use of articles in their writing, particularly with the Zero Article This confusion leads to frequent errors, as they are uncertain about when to use articles or omit them altogether Understanding the rules surrounding the Zero Article is essential for improving their writing skills.
“…I met her when I went home by the (X) bus at night…”
“…She needed to stay in the (X) hospital for a week…”
“…On that day, I got a bad mark in (the) Maths and failed (the) English semester exam at the (X) school …”
In English, certain fixed time expressions, like "in the morning," "in the afternoon," and "in the evening," necessitate the use of the definite article "the." However, this rule does not apply to all time expressions, such as "last Sunday" or "next Monday." This inconsistency can pose challenges for L2 learners, particularly for those who do not diligently memorize these fixed expressions, as they often mistakenly use "the" before nouns where it is not required.
Places like schools, colleges, universities, hospitals, and churches serve specific primary purposes, such as education, healthcare, and worship For instance, a school primarily caters to students Additionally, when discussing modes of transport, such as buses, we do not use articles to refer to these terms or the subjects associated with them.
“maths” and “English” are mentioned, the articles should be omitted
In short, from the above errors, we can conclude that there are two main reasons for the errors made Firstly, as mentioned before, the learners are influenced by their
Errors often occur when a linguistic feature in the target language, such as the definite article "the," is absent in the source language For instance, the structure of noun phrases in English includes elements like Deictic, Numerative, Epithet, and Classifier, whereas Vietnamese lacks the Numerative component This discrepancy leads to Vietnamese students frequently omitting definite articles in their writing Additionally, their language learning strategies contribute to these errors.
In 1974, it was noted that when materials and exercises lack clarity, students struggle to recognize and apply their learning effectively in writing paragraphs Additionally, there are common errors associated with the use of the demonstrative reference "there."
Table 4: Errors in the use of demonstrative reference “there”
Type of errors Number of errors Percentage a Selection 7 38.9% b Addition 11 61.1% c Ordering 0 0% d Omission 0 0%
A common error observed in students' writing is the incorrect use of the demonstrative reference "there." This mistake often stems from first language interference, where students transfer habits from their native language into English As a result, they tend to add unnecessary words without adhering to English grammatical rules.
The misuse of "in" before "there" often occurs due to the influence of demonstrative adverbs and can be attributed to a limited exposure to foreign languages By fostering habits of writing and communicating with native speakers, students can significantly reduce these types of errors.
At Thanh Ba post office, the absence of motorcycles and bicycles is notable, as security is enhanced with the installation of cameras The facility is staffed by a team of well-trained and courteous employees, ensuring a positive experience for all visitors.
Common errors in the use of "there" can be categorized into two main types The first error occurs when "there" is mistakenly used as a locative adverb; students often add "in" before "there" due to interference from their native language, leading to incorrect sentences The second error involves the misuse of "there" as a pronoun, as seen in phrases like "there had a lot of things " and "there has a safeguard " In these cases, "there" is incorrectly treated as a subject, whereas it functions as a demonstrative adverb and should not serve as a subject in a sentence.
3.1.2 Errors in the use of comparative reference
Table 5: Errors in the use of comparative reference
Type of errors Number of errors Percentage a selection 2 22.2% b addition 4 44.4% c ordering 2 22.2% d omission 1 11.2%
The inappropriate use of comparative references in students' research accounts for only 1.9%, indicating that they generally integrate comparative sentences effectively However, errors arise from both inter-lingual and intra-lingual sources, primarily due to first language interference Vietnamese and English differ significantly in their lexical and grammatical structures for comparisons; in Vietnamese, the functional word “hơn” or “more” is added before adjectives This habit leads students to incorrectly add "more" before one-syllable adjectives when expressing comparisons, resulting in typical errors in their writing.
“ I think the plan makes my students very happy The money will help us to build a more big library/ biger library ”
“ In the competition, there are a lot of participants to join in the game than we expected ”
In Vietnamese, adjectives do not differentiate between single and multiple syllables as they do in English, leading to errors among students who overlook exceptions and struggle to apply their knowledge in real contexts Despite these challenges, the occurrence of errors in comparative references is minimal, indicating that students possess a strong awareness and have developed a habit of using comparative structures correctly in their writing These errors often stem from inter-lingual influences and performance pressure Encouraging students to engage in peer editing and providing feedback could further enhance their writing outcomes.
3.1.3 Errors in the use of personal reference
Table 6: Errors in the use of personal reference
Type of errors Number of errors Percentage a selection 9 22.5% b addition 0 0% c ordering 31 77.5% d omission 0 0%
Errors in the use of conjunction
Despite students' proficiency in creating integrative texts and employing referential devices, they often make errors in using conjunctions such as additive, adversative, and causal These mistakes stem from confusion over selecting the appropriate conjunction, unnecessary conjunction usage within a single clause, and a failure to maintain the relationship between theme and rheme in sentences According to Borschev and Partee (2002), the theme represents the topic being discussed, while the rheme conveys the information about that topic Consequently, these errors arise from both intra-lingual and inter-lingual influences, which are linked to the teaching and learning processes as well as practice habits.
3.2.1 Errors in the use of adversative conjunction
Table 7: Errors in the use of adversative conjunction
Type of errors Number of errors Percentage a selection 14 45.1% b addition 2 6.5% c ordering 9 29% d omission 6 19.4%
The researcher identifies two key factors contributing to errors in the use of adversative conjunctions: misuse and overuse These issues arise from both inter-lingual and intra-lingual sources, as illustrated by various examples.
“ Although I try to learn hard but I cannot improve my mark to pass the exam ”
“ Although the weather in Lunar New Year is wet and cold but people still go out to visit their relatives and friends ”
One of the typical errors is the overuse of the adversative conjunction
“although but” In this kind of error, students use two adversative conjunctions together in a sentence to express contrast Students seem to be unaware to the
The overuse of adversative conjunctions like "although" and "but" in contrasting conditions can lead to redundancy in writing To enhance clarity, one of these conjunctions should be removed, as they serve a similar purpose This issue arises from intra-lingual interference, where students mistakenly apply learned expressions of adversative conjunctions without recognizing their overlap.
The misuse of the conjunction "but" is a common error among students, often stemming from English textbooks that present conjunctions in lists without highlighting their nuanced semantic differences Conjunctions like "on the other hand," "however," and "but" are often categorized as adversative, leading learners to mistakenly use them interchangeably However, "but" is a coordinating conjunction specifically used to contrast two independent clauses, as noted by Oshima and Hogue (1988) They emphasize that "but" should connect two contrasting ideas within the structure "independent clause, + but + independent clause." Misunderstandings of conjunctions can result from inadequate teaching methods, as Richard (1971) suggests, placing responsibility on educators for these errors Consequently, the use of "but" as a sentence starter is discouraged, yet students frequently employ it to indicate contrast between sentences.
On a typical day, my parents left for work, entrusting me with the responsibility of looking after my younger sister However, feeling bored at home, I decided to step outside and enjoy a game of soccer with my friends instead.
“…Every morning, I always receive my favorite newspapers on time But there is a point that I feel dissatisfied with is the high price of the service…”
The use of "but" in a sentence does not necessarily indicate a contradiction to the preceding discourse Instead, it often connects ideas without establishing an adversative relationship between them, highlighting the importance of context in its application Misusing "but" can lead to misunderstandings in communication.
The conjunction "but" can disrupt the reader's comprehension of the text To enhance clarity, it is advisable to eliminate "but" from the paragraph Alternatively, students can substitute the adversative conjunction "but" with contrastive connectors like "on the other hand" or "however" to create a more cohesive and unified message.
The misuse of "despite of" or "despite + a clause" often stems from the influence of Vietnamese language structures on English usage This common error, classified as inter-lingual interference, occurs when students mistakenly add "of" after "despite." They confuse "despite" with "in spite of," which sound similar, leading to the assumption that both can be used interchangeably to express contrast This misunderstanding arises from the belief that adversative conjunctions can be followed by a noun phrase, clause, or adjective/adverb without distinction, making such errors difficult to avoid.
“ Despite it rained, we still went camping as planned ”
“ Despite of its high price service, it is the best post office in our neighborhood ”
The use of the conjunction "on the other hand" presented significant challenges for participants, as most instances were incorrectly applied This misuse highlights the need for better understanding and application of this conjunction in writing.
Plans are underway to rebuild our library, sparking a debate on funding priorities Some advocate for investing in modern technology to enhance resources, while others argue for saving funds for future needs.
In this example, the student incorrectly employed the conjunction "on the other hand" to connect two sentences, suggesting a contrastive relationship However, the ideas presented are parallel and pertain to two distinct groups of people, namely "some people," indicating that there is no actual contrast between the sentences.
The use of the conjunction "on the other hand" in this paragraph is inappropriate, as it is meant to contrast two aspects of a single subject (Cowan, 2008) Instead, replacing "on the other hand" with "however" or "but" would enhance the coherence of the passage.
3.2.2 Errors in the use of causal conjunction
Table 8: Errors in the use of causal conjunction Type of errors Number of errors Percentage e selection 17 47.2% f addition 5 13.9% g ordering 11 30.6% h omission 3 8.3%
Causal conjunction errors rank second in frequency, representing 11.3% of total errors, just behind additive conjunctions These errors are primarily attributed to interference from items in the target language Notably, misuse of causal conjunctions is the most common, accounting for 42.4% of occurrences, with "because" and "so" being the most frequently misused terms.
The use of the causal conjunction "so" continues to pose challenges for participants, as it was observed that they often applied it incorrectly, even when no causal relationship existed between the connected units An example from the participants' writing illustrates this inappropriate use of "so."
“…The plans for modernize the post office have been discussed So, the quality of equipments and service is very good…”
“…The school should do its best to punish violators So, school should enhance its rules…”
Starting a sentence with "so" is generally considered inappropriate because it serves to indicate the result between two independent clauses "So" is used to mark the outcome rather than the cause, which is a common misconception in English To ensure proper usage, consider using alternative connectors that effectively convey the result, such as "therefore," "as a result," or similar phrases.
“for this reason” should be replaced “so”
“…Through the globalization, so the need of speaking English fluently cannot be denied, because of the direct link of all world countries…”
“…Through the revolution of communication, so all the world becomes like or need to speak one language, because of the direct link of all world countries…”
Errors in the use of lexical cohesion: Errors in the use of repetition
The study identifies 21 instances of repetition, accounting for approximately 8.3% of total cohesion errors Repetition, a fundamental aspect of lexical cohesion, is often misused, leading to redundancy rather than effective communication Students frequently overlook the importance of avoiding monotony in English academic writing, resulting in redundant phrases that, while not obscuring meaning, disrupt the flow of ideas and create a sense of boredom (Johns, 1997) The findings indicate that students often repeat nearly identical phrases, primarily due to limited vocabulary knowledge, as exemplified by the repeated use of the word "money."
We sincerely appreciate your company's generous monetary donation, which is essential for the reconstruction of our library Your contribution will significantly enhance our students' educational resources and technology The funds will be allocated into two portions: one for the library reconstruction and the other for future needs A receipt for the funds will be issued promptly Thank you once again for your invaluable support.
The excessive repetition of the word "money" in a student's writing, occurring six times, highlights a lack of vocabulary and leads to monotony in the paragraph To enhance clarity and variety, students can replace "money" with pronouns like "it" or use synonyms such as "contribution." This redundancy suggests insufficient lexical knowledge, as noted by Lennon (1998), which prevents students from employing a diverse range of expressions Additionally, students struggle with ellipsis devices, often due to an inability to fully develop their ideas This issue may stem from their awareness of limited vocabulary, prompting them to paraphrase rather than use concise pronouns to meet word count requirements Furthermore, low motivational intensity and a lack of reading habits hinder vocabulary enrichment and the development of effective writing skills in English.
This chapter analyzes common cohesive errors in the paragraphs of 11th-grade students, utilizing Halliday & Hasan's (1976) taxonomy for classification The study identifies and categorizes these errors based on Error Analysis by Ellis (1997) and sources from Richards (1971) and James (1998) Findings reveal that conjunction errors are the most prevalent, particularly with additive conjunctions posing significant challenges for learners Demonstrative references rank second, followed by personal references, causal conjunctions, and adversative conjunctions Comparative errors are minimal due to students' familiarity with them The primary sources of these errors stem from intra-lingual and inter-lingual factors, compounded by performance pressure, a limited foreign language environment, and varying learner attitudes, motivation, and goals.
Research findings
1.1 What are the types of paragraph cohesion errors committed by the 11 th grade students at Tùng Thiện high school?
A study examining 672 paragraphs written by 84 11th-grade students at Tùng Thiện High School identified common errors in paragraph cohesion The findings indicate that students struggled with the effective use of both grammatical and lexical cohesive devices.
In an analysis of writing errors, conjunction errors accounted for the highest percentage at 53.8%, significantly surpassing reference errors at 37.9% and lexical cohesive errors at 8.3% This notable disparity indicates that conjunctions were the most challenging aspect for students when composing essays Additionally, errors related to substitution, ellipsis, temporal aspects, and collocation were not present in the study.
The lack of errors in the four categories discussed does not necessarily indicate that students possess competence in those areas; they may simply be employing avoidance strategies due to limited vocabulary Additionally, when using temporal devices, students often resort to basic cohesive connections to link ideas, which helps them avoid errors However, they struggle to use these devices flexibly and professionally, and they often face challenges in recalling unfamiliar conjunctions.
The use of conjunctions, particularly additives, presents significant challenges for students, with causals and adversatives following closely behind Research indicates that students often favor certain conjunctions while neglecting others, leading to gaps in their writing This unfamiliarity may cause them to avoid using conjunctions altogether Additionally, students frequently make second reference errors, especially with demonstratives, and misuse definite articles due to a lack of understanding of their functions Consequently, they struggle with reference cohesion, which undermines clarity and consistency in their writing Personal references also create difficulties, resulting in ambiguity and pronoun disagreements Although errors in comparative usage are minimal due to students' familiarity, lexical cohesion remains a weak point, as students tend to overuse repetition stemming from limited vocabulary, hindering their ability to elaborate on ideas with synonyms.
1.2 Why do students commit those errors?
The main reasons for committing common cohesive errors rooted in three main sources: intra-lingual errors, inter-lingual and extral-lingual
1) The reason contributed to the inter-lingual errors because of different strategies between topic development of English and Vietnamese Besides, the improper application of grammatical cohesive devices can contribute to the fact that students only focus on using cohesive ones grammatically in isolated sentences, rather than semantically within whole paragraph in meaningful context
2) The sources of intra-lingual errors are rooted from the following categories: ignorance of rule restrictions and incomplete application of rules This kind of errors occurs during the learning process of the foreign language at a stage when the learners have not really acquired the knowledge (Richard, 1974) From the error analysis of students‟ paragraph, students tend to apply cohesive devices rules to context where they are not applicable The learner fails to use a fully developed structure of conjunction they have learned so that they use it wrongly in the paragraph they have written
3) Extral-lingual contributed to the total sources that students commit errors like the performance pressure, false conceptualization, the limited foreign language environment, learners‟ attitudes, learner motivation and goal which come both from the teachers and the learners For performance pressure, because of the limitation of time while practicing writing and their incompetence in their vocabularies, students still have to finish their task, they mainly make errors in repetition or rely on systematic resources from their native language to fulfill their task The limited foreign opportunities to contact with English written text, or feedback from the teachers on each writing paragraph that cohesive devices are often used In reality, they fall back on the language most familiar to them It‟s their mother tongue False conceptualization is the way teachers correct the errors immediately for students The teacher‟s role is to help the students become conscious of their errors and give them incentive to try and find for themselves why they have made the error and how they could avoid repeating it Learners‟ attitudes in studying are often taken place in a passive environment, they need to find out for themselves their motivation and goal to reach that‟s necessary to strengthen and reinforce the writing quality.
Implications
Despite years of English study, students often struggle to write cohesive paragraphs, frequently making cohesion errors The findings of this study highlight the need for focused instruction on cohesive devices and the importance of practicing these skills in student writing.
Teachers should focus on the semantic and structural differences between English and Vietnamese, emphasizing the correct use of conjunctions by having students combine sentences using provided conjunctions or rearranging jumbled sentences with conjunction cues This approach aids students in grasping the semantic functions of conjunctions Additionally, it is crucial for teachers to ensure that students comprehend how writing structures and instructional activities integrate within the writing process Encouraging students to think in English from the outset can help prevent the negative transfer of ideas from Vietnamese, which often leads to errors in sentence order and the emergence of "Vietlish." Furthermore, providing constructive feedback on students' writing is essential for effective writing instruction.
Students benefit greatly from writing opportunities, but teachers equally require the chance to respond to that writing English textbooks effectively provide lists of conjunctions along with their semantic functions and illustrate the differences between them through examples Teachers meticulously introduce these conjunctions in context, ensuring they are used correctly, and then engage students in matching the appropriate conjunctions to the corresponding texts based on their semantic functions.
To address intra-lingual errors in the use of grammatical cohesive devices like articles and pronouns, teachers should adopt a flexible approach to written corrections that combines explicit and implicit methods Explicit corrections involve teachers indicating errors and providing the correct forms, while implicit corrections require students to identify and correct their own mistakes This dual approach encourages problem-solving and helps students develop a habit of error elimination through practice Additionally, teachers can enhance learning by having students compile lists of non-interchangeable conjunctions, such as "but" and "although." Zamel (1983) recommends that ESL/EFL educators categorize conjunctive devices by their grammatical functions and introduce students to the semantic differences among conjunctions within the same category, highlighting the varying levels of formality they convey.
This research emphasizes the importance of teachers systematically observing student performance to identify specific learning needs By focusing on areas where students struggle, educators can implement targeted pedagogical strategies to enhance the coherence of student writing The data reveals that students often overuse words, misuse vocabulary, and repeat phrases, highlighting the need for them to connect their current ideas with previous statements Additionally, teachers should encourage students to explore various forms of words and utilize synonyms or antonyms to enrich their writing style Cultivating a habit of learning new vocabulary, both familiar and unfamiliar, in context is essential to reduce repetition and improve lexical diversity in student work.
Students should cultivate a reading habit to internalize cohesive devices in English academic writing Zamel (1992, 1998) recommends that after each reading session, students update their personal dictionaries with new words and expressions encountered This practice helps them memorize words in context and connect new information with prior knowledge Personal dictionaries enhance understanding by allowing students to deduce meanings from context and recognize word relationships To minimize lexical errors, students should learn new vocabulary in context rather than isolation, which also aids in reducing redundancy and encourages the proper use of synonyms and antonyms Developing an awareness of lexical devices through the analysis of cohesive connectors in well-written texts will make students more sensitive to their correct usage, ultimately improving the quality of their writing.
Students should collaborate in pairs for peer editing, focusing on the cohesive devices they have learned By integrating these suggestions, they can effectively understand and apply cohesive devices in their English writing.
Limitations and suggestions for further research
The study's limitations arise from its small sample size, focusing on 84 11th-grade students at Tùng Thiện High School, which restricts the generalizability of findings regarding cohesive errors in writing To enhance the research, future studies should include a larger and more diverse population Additionally, the writing tasks may lack engagement due to their monotonous nature, leading to fewer cohesive devices being utilized by students The limited time allocated for teaching cohesive devices further hampers effective learning and application Researchers are encouraged to compare different learner groups, such as those proficient in cohesive devices versus beginners, and to explore other influential factors in writing, including learner psychology, teaching materials, and genre types.
1) Alice Oshima and Ann Hogue (1999) Writing Academic English New York: Longman Group
2) Al-Jarf, Reima (2001) Cohesion Skill Instruction in Junior And Senior Reading Textbooks In Saudi Arabia: An Evaluation Study Risaalat Ul-Khaleej Al- Arabi Arab Bureau of Education for the Gulf States, 87, 73-97 (2001) http://www.abegs.org/trbih/4rsalh/4.htm
3) Al-Jarf, Reima (2001) Processing of Cohesive ties By EFL Arab College Students Foreign Language Annals, 32, 2, 141-151 http://www.yearoflanguages.org/i4a/pages/Index.cfm?pageid@35
4) Allwright, D & Bailey, K (1991) Focus on the language classroom: An introduction to classroom research for language teachers Cambridge: Cambridge
5) Anas, Sudijo (1966) Pengantar Statistik Pendidikan Jakarta: PT Raja
6) Baker, M “Textual Equivalence: Cohesion” In Baker, M In Other Words, London: Routledge, 1992, pp 180-215
7) Baker, Sheridan 1962 The Practical Stylist New York: Thomas Y
8) Betty, Mattix Dietsch (2003) Reasoning and Writing well: A Rhetoric Research Guide, reader and Handbook New York: McGrawHill
9) Brown, H Douglas (1980) Principles of Language Learning and Teaching Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall Regents
10) Cargill, Oscar, Reginald Call, Homer A Watt, & William Charvat 1955 New Highways in College Composition 2nd Edition Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall Inc
11) Corder, S P (1967).The significance of learners' errors IRAL, 5, 161-
170 http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/iral.1967.5.1-4.161
12) Corder, S.Pit (1973) Introducing Applied Linguistics Harmondsworth,
13) Corder, S P (1982) Error Analysis and Interlanguage Oxford: Oxford University Press
14) Crowhurst, M 1987, Cohesion in argument and narration at 3 grade levels Research in the Teaching of English, Vol 21 No.2, l85-201
15) Cutting, J., (2002).Pragmatics and Discourse London: Routledge, 0- 415-25357-8
16) Dulay, H., Burt, M and Krashen, S (1982) Language Two Oxford:
17) Eggins, Suzanne (1994) An Introduction to Systemic Functional
Linguistics London: Pinter Publishers (FG)
18) Elizabeth Cowan, Writing Brief Edition (Glen View: Scott, Foresmen and Company, 1983), p.119
19) Elizabeth Cowan, (1983) Readings for Writing Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Company
20) Ellis, R (1994) The study of second language acquisition London:
21) Gerot, L and Wignell, P 1994 Making Sense of Functional Grammar
22) Halliday, M.A.K; and Ruqayia Hasan (1976): Cohesion in English London: Longman
23) Hoey, Michael 1996 Patterns of Lexis in Text Oxford: Oxford University Press
24) Irwin Weiser, "Linguistics." Encyclopedia of Rhetoric and Composition, ed by Theresa Enos Taylor & Francis, 1996
25) James, Carl (1998) Errors in Language Learning and Use London:
26) Johnson, P (1992) Cohesion and coherence in compositions in Malay and English RELC Journal, 23, 1-34
27) Lennon, P 1991 "Error: some problems of definition and identification", in Applied Linguistic, vol 12, num 2, Oxford, pp 180-195
28) Londono Vasquez, D A (2007) Error Analysis Retrieved October 21,
2008, from http://davidlondono.blogspot.com/search?updated-min 07-01- 01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00&updated-max 08-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-
29) McBurney, D H and T L White 2007 Research Methods USA: Thomson Wadsworth
30) McCarthy, M (1991) Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers
31) Mclinn, J Betty (1988) Coherence and Cohesion in the Writing of Eighth Grade Students Doctoral Dissertation: University of New Orleans
32) Meisuo, Z (2000) Cohesive features in the expository writing of undergraduates in two Chinese universities RELC Journal, 31/1, 61-95
33) Merriam, S B and Associates 2002 Qualitative Research in Practice:
Examples for Discussion and Analysis San Francisco: Jossey- Bass A Wiley Company
34) Muijs, D 2004 Doing Quantitative Research in Education with SPSS
35) Nunan, D (1999) Second language teaching and learning Boston: Heinle & Heinle
36) Oshima, Alice and Hogue, Ann (1988) Introduction to Academic Writing United States: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc
37) Owl, P.,2009 Paragraphs and Paragraphing File://J:/Paragraph/ Paragraphs and Paragraphing.htm
38) Palmer, J C (1999) Coherence and cohesion in the English language classroom: The use of lexical reiteration and pronominalisation RELC Journal, 30, 61-
39) Partee, Barbara, & Vladimir Borschev (2002), Integrating lexical and
Thomas Gamkrelidze (eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd Tbilisi Symposium on Language,
Logic and Computation Tbilisi State University Tbilisi 229–241
40) Peterson C and A McCabe (1991) Linking Children's Connective Use and Narrative Macrostructure In A McCabe and C Peterson (eds) Developing Narrative Structure, 29-53, Hilsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
41) Punch, K F 1998 Introduction to Social Research: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches London: Sage Publications Ltd
42) Richard, Jack, C (1974) Error Analysis: Perspective on Second Language Acquisition London.Longman Group ltd
43) Rini, Setia (2009) Textual Meaning of the Conversational Texts in English Textbooks for the Third Year Students of SMA Salatiga : STAIN Salatiga
44) Swan, M (1980) Practical English Usage New York: Oxford
45) Tárnyiková Jarmila 2009 From Text to Texture Olomouc: FF UP
46) Thompson, Geoff 1996 Introducing Functional Grammar Beijing:
47) Ting, F (2003) An investigation of cohesive errors in writing of PRC dortiary EFL students STETS Language & Communication Review, 2(2), 1-8
48) Ting, F (2003) An Investigation of Cohesive Errors in the Writing of
PRC Tertiary EFL Students (Unpublished Master‟s Thesis, National University of
49) Toolan, Micheal Language in Literature: An introduction to Stylistic London: Hodder Arnold, 1996
50) Trần, T.B (2005) An error analysis on the use of cohesive devices in writing by freshmen majoring in English at thang long university Unpublished Course work Vietnam national university, Hanoi College of foreign languages, Hanoi, Vietnam
51) Yanti (2012) The error analysis on the use of cohesive devices in English writing essay among the seventh semester students of English deparment of
Stain Salatiga in the academic year of 2011/2012 ( Unpublished Master‟s Thesis, Stain Salatiga, Indonesia)
52) Zamel, V (1983) Teaching those missing links in writing ELT journal,
53) Zamel, V (1992) Writing one‟s way into reading TESOL Quarterly, 26(4), 463-484
54) Zamel, V (1998) Strangers in academia: The experiences of faculty and ESL students across the curriculum In V Zamel & R Spack (Eds.), Negotiating academic literacies: Teaching and learning across languages and culture (pp.249-
264) Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Samples of common paragraph cohesion errors in English language writings by 11 th grade students at Tùng Thiê ̣n high school