An investigation into cohesion in argumentative essays by english majored students at quy nhơn university m a 60 14 10

1 NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF HO CHI MINH CITY UNIVERSITY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES FACULTY OF ENGLISH LINGUISTICS AND LITERATURE * AN INVESTIGATION INTO COHESION IN ARGUMENTATIVE ESSAYS BY ENGLISH-MAJORED STUDENTS AT QUY NHON UNIVERSITY Submitted by TRẦN THỊ BÍCH THUẬN Supervisor: TRƯƠNG HỚN HUY, M.A TESOL Class - Course: 2006 Student Code: 0305180634 A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts April 2011 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No Chapter Introduction 1 Rationale of the Study The Significance of the Study Aims of the Study The Scope of the Study The Organization of the Study 4 Chapter Literature Review 1.Theoretical background 1.1 Introduction to Argumentative Essays 1.1.1 1.1.2 1.1.3 1.1.4 10 What is an Argumentative Essay? Topics for Argumentative Essays Features of an Argumentative Essay Structure of an Argumentative Essay 1.2 The Writing Section of TOEFL Test 11 1.2.1 1.2.2 11 1.2.3 A general view on TOEFL Writing Test Argumentative Essay as a kind of Essay Prompts on the TOEFL Test Criteria for Scoring the TOEFL Essay Test 1.3 Cohesion devices 12 15 17 1.3.1 The review of previous studies on cohesion 17 1.3.2 1.3.3 Cohesion and Written Communication Classification of Cohesive Ties 18 in the view of Halliday and Hasan 20 1.3.3.1 Syntactic cohesion 20 1.3.3.1.1 Reference 20 1.3.3.1.2 Conjunction 22 1.3.3.1.3 Ellipsis 25 1.3.3.1.4 Substitution 27 ii 1.3.3.2 Lexical cohesion 28 1.3.3.2.1 Reiteration 28 1.3.3.2.2 Collocation 30 1.3.4 Effects of Cohesion in Argumentative Essays Summary Chapter 31 31 Methodology 32 The research population and location Data collection Coding Scheme and Data Analysis The procedure of the study Summary 32 33 35 36 37 Chapter 39 Data analysis and discussion 4.1 Data analysis A 39 Data analysis of Phase one: From students’ score values compared with the ones by TOEFL test takers 39 4.1.1 General comparison of cohesive ties in EFL students’ essays at Quy Nhon university and TOEFL test takers’ essays 39 4.1.2 Frequency of occurrence of particular cohesive ties used in EFL students’ essays at Quy Nhon university and TOEFL test takers’ essays 44 4.1.2.1 Frequency of occurrence of Reference used in EFL students’ essays at Quy Nhon university and TOEFL test takers’ essays 46 4.1.2.1.1 Personal Reference 48 4.1.2.1.2 Demonstrative Reference 52 iii 4.1.2.1.3 Comparative Reference 54 4.1.2.2 Frequency of occurrence of Conjunction used in EFL students’ essays at Quy Nhon university and TOEFL test takers’ essays 56 4.1.2.2.1 Additive Conjunctions 57 4.1.2.2.2 Adversative Conjunction 58 4.1.2.2.3 Clausal/Conditional Conjunction 59 4.1.2.2.4 Temporal Conjunction 61 4.1.2.2.5 Other conjunction 63 4.1.2.3 Frequency of occurrence of Lexical Cohesion used in EFL students’ essays at Quy Nhon university and TOEFL test takers’ essays 64 4.1.2.3.1 Same items 65 4.1.2.3.2 Synonymy and near synonymy 66 (including antonymy) 4.1.2.3.3 Superordinate 68 (including meronymy and hyponymy) 4.1.2.3.4 General nouns 69 4.1.2.3.5 Collocation 71 4.1.2.4 Frequency of occurrence of Substitutes and Ellipsis used in EFL students’ essays at Quy Nhon university and TOEFL test takers’ essays 73 4.1.3 Summary 76 B 76 Data analysis of Phase two: From Questionnaires 4.1.4 Results from questionnaires 76 iv 4.1.4.1 The students’ and teachers’ reflections on students’ current writing quality, students’ troubles in writing, and students’ awareness of cohesive devices in writing 4.1.4.2 The students’ and teachers’ opinions for students’ most regular use and most challenging use of cohesive devices 4.1.4.3 The students’ and teachers’ reflections on students’ most regular tie used in reference ties, conjunction ties, and lexical cohesion ties 4.1.4.4 The students’ and teachers’ ideas about the relationship of using cohesive devices effectively and argumentative writing quality 4.1.4.5 The students’ and teachers’ preference 76 78 80 83 for the stage to teach cohesive devices 84 4.1.4.6 The students’ and teachers’ suggestions for a successful argumentative essay 85 4.1.5 Summary 86 4.2 Discussion and possible mistakes of using cohesive ties 4.2.1 Discussion 4.2.2 Possible mistakes of using cohesive ties 4.2.3 Summary 86 86 89 92 4.3 Overall summary 92 Chapter 93 Conclusion Major findings 93 Answers to research questions 95 Implications and suggestions for further studies 97 References Appendix 99 103 v STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP I certify that the minor thesis entitled: AN INVESTIGATION INTO COHESION IN ARGUMENTATIVE ESSAYS BY ENGLISH-MAJORED STUDENTS AT QUY NHON UNIVERSITY And submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts is the result of my own work, except where otherwise acknowledged and that this minor thesis or any part of the same has not been submitted for a higher degree to any other university or institution Signed …………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… Date …………………………………………………………………………… vi LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS EFL: English as a Foreign Language ESL: English as a Second Language ETS®: Educational Testing Service GRE®: Graduate Record Examination NSs : Native Speakers NSSs: Non-Native Speakers SAT®: Scholastic Assessment Test TOEFL: Test of English as a Foreign Language TWE®: Test of Written English™ 10 TESOL : Teaching English to Students of other languages C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4 22.Tai lieu Luan 66.55.77.99 van Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22 Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an vii LIST OF TABLES AND CHARTS Page No Chapter Table 2.1 Types of Cohesion 20 Table 2.2 Types of Syntactic Cohesion 28 Table 2.3 Types of Lexical Cohesion 30 Chapter Table 3.1 Coding scheme 35 Table 3.2 A summary of words and cohesive ties essays by Group 1, Group 2, Group 36 Chapter A Data analysis of Phase one: From students’ score values compared with the ones by TOEFL test takers Table 4.1 Use of particular cohesive ties and their percentage in poor essays by Group 1, Group 2, Group 40 Table 4.2 Use of particular cohesive ties per 100 words in essays by Group 1, Group 2, Group 41 Table 4.3 Use of particular cohesive ties per 100 words in essays by three distinct groups 42 Chart 4.1 Use of particular cohesive ties per 100 words in essays by three distinct groups 42 Table 4.4 Frequency of occurrence of particular cohesive ties in poor essays by Group 1, Group 2, Group 45 Chart 4.2 Frequency of occurrence of particular cohesive ties in poor essays by Group 1, Group 2, Group 45 Table 4.5 Mean and percentage of reference across argumentative essays by Group 1, Group 2, and Group 46 Chart 4.3 The frequency of reference occurrence in essays by Group 1, Group and Group Table 4.6 Mean and percentage of conjunction across argumentative essays by Group 1, Group 2, and Group Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhd 77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77t@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn.Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhddtt@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn 47 56 C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4 22.Tai lieu Luan 66.55.77.99 van Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22 Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an viii Chart 4.4 The frequency of conjunction occurrence in essays by Group 1, Group and Group Table 4.7 Mean and percentage of lexical cohesion across argumentative essays by Group 1, Group 2, and Group Chart 4.5 The use of Lexical Cohesion: Same items (L1) Table 4.8 The number of key same items per 100 words 57 in argumenative essays by Group 1, Group 2, and Group 65 64 65 Chart 4.6 The use of Lexical Cohesion: Synonymy or near Synonym (including antonymy) (L2) Table 4.9 Examples of Synonym and Antonym in argumenative essays by Group 1, Group 2, and Group Chart 4.7 The use of Lexical Cohesion: Superordinate (L3) 68 Table 4.10 Examples of Superordinate/Hyponymy 67 in argumentative essays by the three distinct groups 69 67 Chart 4.8 The use of Lexical Cohesion: General nouns (L4) 69 Chart 4.9 The use of Lexical Cohesion: Collocation (L5) Table 4.11 Examples of Collocation in argumentative essays by Group 1, Group 2, and Group 71 72 Table 4.12 Mean and percentage of substitution across argumentative essays by Group 1, Group 2, and Group Table 4.13 Mean and percentage of ellipsis across argumentative essays by Group 1, Group 2, and Group Chart 4.10 The use of Substitutes by three groups Chart 4.11 The use of Ellipsis by three groups B 73 73 73 73 Data analysis of Phase two: From Questionnaires Table 4.14.a Students’ reflections on their current writing quality, troubles in writing, and awareness of cohesive devices Table 4.14.b Teachers’ reflections on students’ current writing quality, troubles in writing, and awareness of cohesive devices Table 4.15.a Students’ opinions for their most regular use and most challenging use of cohesive devices Table 4.15.b Teachers’ opinions for students’ most regular use and most challenging use of cohesive devices Chart 4.12.a Ss’ opinions for their most regular cohesive device used Chart 4.12.b Ts’ opinions for the students’ most regular cohesive device used Chart 4.13.a Ss’ opinions for their most challenging cohesive tie Chart 4.13.b Ts’ opinions for the students’ most challenging cohesive tie Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhd 77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77t@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn.Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhddtt@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn 77 77 78 78 79 79 79 79 C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4 22.Tai lieu Luan 66.55.77.99 van Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22 Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an ix Table 4.16.a Students’ reflections on their most regular tie used in reference ties, conjunction ties, and lexical cohesion ties Table 4.16.b Teachers’ reflections on their most regular tie used in reference ties, conjunction ties, and lexical cohesion ties Chart 4.14.a Ss’ opinions for their most regular reference tie used Chart 4.14.b Ts’ opinions for the students’ most regular reference tie used Chart 4.15.a Ss’ opinions for their most regular conjunction tie used Chart 4.15.b Ts’ opinions for the students’ most regular conjunction tie used Chart 4.16.a Ss’ opinions for their most regular conjunction tie used 80 81 81 81 82 82 83 Chart 4.16.b Ts’ opinions for the students’ most regular conjunction tie used 83 Table 4.17.a Students’ ideas about the relationship of using cohesive devices effectively and argumentative writing quality Table 4.17.b Teachers’ ideas about the relationship of using cohesive devices effectively and argumentative writing quality Table 4.18.a Students’ preference for the stage to teach cohesive devices Table 4.18.b Teachers’ preference for the stage to teach cohesive devices Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhd 77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77t@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn.Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhddtt@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn 83 83 84 84 C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4 22.Tai lieu Luan 66.55.77.99 van Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22 Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an 98 the two phases matched each other quite well, which was not out of the author’s prediction before conducting the study From what have been mentioned in this chapter so far, they can help to answer the research questions at the very early stage of the study as well as giving implications and suggestions for further future studies Chapter CONCLUSION Major findings By analysis of the argumentative essays by English-majored students at Quy Nhon university and by TOEFL test takers, together with the survey resulted from questionnaires, the author explored the relationship between cohesive devices and argumentative writing quality, and the major findings of this research included: 1) The three distinct groups all used cohesive devices to bring about connections in their argumentative writing Among the five ties, conjunction and lexical cohesion had high frequency of occurrence in students’ essays, substitution and ellipsis were rarely used 2) Reference, especially personal reference was a certainty presenting in writing One of the differences between poor essays and high-scored essays was the writer’s capacity of employing correct and relevant reference Inappropriate shifts in personal pronouns could distract the reader from the main objects mentioned in argumentative Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhd 77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77t@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn.Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhddtt@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4 22.Tai lieu Luan 66.55.77.99 van Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22 Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an 99 essays Demonstrative and comparative reference also appeared in students’ essays; they were, however, unable to make some distinction from a good essay to a poor essay 3) Conjunction ties had an important role in connecting units in writing, so they were very necessary to help the flow of ideas run smoothly However, either misuse or overuse of conjunction could negatively affect writing quality The quantity of conjunction might not influence the effect of ideas expression in an essay, yet the qualified use of conjunction could tremendously help to increase connective features in argumentative essays 4) Lexical cohesion was related to argumentative writing quality The data analysis of clearly displayed that poor essays differed from good essays both quantitatively and qualitatively in using lexical cohesion According to the mean ties per 100 words employed by the three groups of essays, it could be concluded that the effectively used cohesive ties had great contribution to successful argumentative essays Highscored essays had a wide range of vocabulary development resulted from the writer’s acquisition of vocabulary and deepening of lexical knowledge 5) Among lexical cohesion ties, repetition of same items was popularly used, while other lexical devices were rarely employed in their argumentative essays Due to the limitation of vocabulary and the fear of making mistakes in word choice, both good and poor essays could overuse repetition and general nouns 6) The employment of synonymy, antonymy and superordinate was not easy for students to perform in writing; thus, the frequency of occurrences of those ties was especially low in poor essays Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhd 77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77t@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn.Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhddtt@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4 22.Tai lieu Luan 66.55.77.99 van Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22 Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an 100 7) Although there was no significant difference in using general nouns between poor essays and high-scored essays, high-scored essays could use general nouns with more accuracy and complexity 8) Frequency of collocation proved positive evidence to correlate with writing quality There was a significant difference between poor essays and good essays in their collocation competence Compared with poor essays, high-scored essays just showed greater variety in their choices and the production of collocations in writing The frequency of occurrences of collocation was tremendously raised, though it was quite difficult to identify its reasonable use in word chains Regardless of those difficulties, the more collocation the authors used , the more potential their vocabulary would be 9) Substitution and Ellipsis were rarely used as students were still unfamiliar with these cohesive devices 10) High-scored essays not only contained effective elements of grammatical and lexical relationship but also employed coherent features with an organised and logical sequence of ideas Answers to research questions What kinds of cohesive devices have been used in argumentative essays by English-majored students at Quy Nhon university? English-majored students at Quy Nhon university all use Reference, Conjunction, Substitution /Ellipsis and Lexical cohesion to bring about connections in their argumentative essays However, while Substitution/Ellipsis are rarely used, Reference and Conjunction are very common in Group and Group Lexical cohesion also presents quite often in Group Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhd 77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77t@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn.Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhddtt@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4 22.Tai lieu Luan 66.55.77.99 van Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22 Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an 101 1.1 Which group uses most cohesive devices and what types of cohesive devices used are the most prominent? First, Group (TOEFL test takers) uses the most cohesive devices, and Lexical cohesion is the most prominent Next, group (English-majored students at Quy Nhon city with average, fair and good essays) also gets a lot of cohesive devices with a high percentage of Lexical cohesion Finally, Group (English-majored students at Quy Nhon university with poor essays) has the least cohesive device, in which Conjunction occupies the most 1.2 What are the similarities or differences of the use of cohesive device in argumentative essays by English-majored students at Quy Nhon university and by TOEFL test takers? There are main similarities or differences of frequencies and types of cohesion in argumentative essays by English-majored students at Quy Nhon university and by TOEFL test takers: a Similarities: Firstly, the data analysis shows the significant rise in the use frequency of Reference and Conjunction, in which Personal reference and Other conjunction have great positions It means that the students are very familiar with these kinds of cohesive device, so they are easily able to use them Secondly, the cohesive devices including Substitution and Ellipsis are quite low in argumentative essays by all the three groups It seems that Substitution and Ellipsis are not typical examples in argumentative texts, and they often occur in a question-answer sequence when participants are involved in interaction, which is not encouraged in academic writing b.Differences: Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhd 77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77t@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn.Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhddtt@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4 22.Tai lieu Luan 66.55.77.99 van Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22 Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an 102 Thanks to the results of data, it is obvious that frequencies and types of cohesion vary in argumentative essays by English-majored students at Quy Nhon university and by TOEFL test takers Particularly, while the use frequency of Lexical cohesion is effectively used in high-scored essays by TOEFL test takers, it just takes a small proportion in poor essays by English-majored students at Quy Nhon university On the contrary, in the use of conjunction, there is a big difference among the three groups English-majored students at Quy Nhon university including Group and have high frequencies of Temporal conjunction in their essays, but TOEFL test takers use more other Conjunction That is to say, English-majored students at Quy Nhon university are used to making sentences with Conjunction of time in their essays, and other methods of emphasis and argumentative expressions are still new to them, or maybe they not pay enough attention to those connectors Is there a relationship between the use of cohesive ties and the quality of argumentative essays? Undoubtedly, there is a relationship between the use of cohesive ties, especially Conjunction and Lexical cohesion, and writing quality in argumentative essays Actually, the writing quality of essays may be evaluated with a lot of different measurements such as accuracy in grammar, appropriate levels in word choice, spelling, ideas expression and so forth However, it is the fact that the more Lexical cohesion writers use, the more potential their vocabulary will be Therefore, any writer should be aware that writing quality in argumentative essays may not depend on the quantity of cohesive ties, but the quality of using them Implications and suggestions for further studies The findings of this study have some main implications: Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhd 77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77t@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn.Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhddtt@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4 22.Tai lieu Luan 66.55.77.99 van Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22 Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an 103 The theory of cohesive devices are helpful for EFL teachers of writing in helping EFL learners create cohesion in different ways Teachers acquire various disciplines to guide their students on how to develop ideas, make them flow well and be easily readable According to research results, the most obvious gap between the “good argumentative essays” and “poor argumentative essays” appears in the frequent and effective uses of conjunction and lexical cohesion Especially, the findings provide some useful insights, one of which is the need for the students’ lexical knowledge , including both the acquisition of vocabulary and the deepening of lexical knowledge Well-developed lexical knowledge can equip students in writing with more lexically cohesive papers; hence, it is necessary to spend time teaching those cohesive devices in the writing course of the undergraduate students in Quy Nhon at least in the area of textual cohesion A significant point to consider is the implication of the varying concepts regarding the relationship between cohesion and coherence In fact, unlike coherence, cohesion can be judged rather objectively as there are identifiable linguistic features that can establish cohesive ties Coherence, on the other hand, is viewed to be subjective, as two readers or listeners can have different evaluations of the same text, one possibly judging it as coherent and the other thinking otherwise However, it is always believed that the degree of coherence correlates with the degree of interaction between cohesive chains and that the underlying base for coherence rests on cohesion Thanks to this knowledge, EFL teachers of writing should be more seriously mindful of devising the best strategies in teaching students the possibilities of establishing strong cohesion in their essays The author concludes that English major students should improve their use of cohesive devices to make coherent and tightly organized argumentative essays The author also finds that the overuse of repetition and conjunction is a common Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhd 77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77t@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn.Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhddtt@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4 22.Tai lieu Luan 66.55.77.99 van Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22 Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an 104 phenomenon in their English writing, and the use of other types of lexical devices is far from satisfactory Finally, some suggestions for future studies should go to some possible fields as follows:  The roles of cohesive devices in exploring the meanings of reading texts  The uses of Substitution and Ellipsis in short conversations  The roles of conjunction in Speaking and Writing skills  Lexical chain, Lexical density, Lexical length, Lexical interaction and their relationship with English writing quality should deserve more attention in the future research to gain a more comprehensive interpretation of lexical cohesion Hopefully, future researchers can have more specific studies on the use of Cohesive devices in learning and teaching English REFERENCES Aarts, B 2002 English syntax and argumentation Korean translation by Dong-hwan Seoul: Hankook Publishing company Axelrod, R B., & Cooper, C R 1994 The St Martin's guide to writing (4th ed.) New York: St Martin's Biber, D 1988 Variation across speech and writing Cambridge: Cambridge University Press College Composition and Communication , 32 (205-18) Chesla, E.L 2002 Learning Express’ TOEFL: Exam success in only steps Learning Express, LLC, New York Connor, U., & Lauer, J 1985 Understanding persuasive essay writing: Linguistic/rhetorical approach (309-326) Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhd 77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77t@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn.Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhddtt@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4 22.Tai lieu Luan 66.55.77.99 van Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22 Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an 105 Connor, U 1987 Argumentative patterns in student essays: Cross-cultural differences In U Connor, & R Kaplan (eds.), Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, (57 – 71) Connor, U., & Takala, S 1987 Predictors of persuasive essay writing: Some pilot test results in the United States and England In E Degenhart (Ed.), Assessment of student writing in an international context (187-205) (Institute for Educational Research Publication Series B) Jyvaskyla, Finland: University of Jyvaskyla Connor, U 1990 Linguistic/rhetorical measures for international persuasive student writing Research in the Teaching of English, (67-87) Connor, Ulla and Ann M Johns (eds) 1990 Coherence in Writing Research and Pedagogical Perspectives Alexandria: TESOL 10 Connor, U 1993 Linguistic/rhetorical measure for evaluating ESL Writing In L Hamp-Lyons (Ed.), Assessing second language writing in academic contexts (215225) Norwood, NJ: Ablex 11 Cook, G 1989 Discourse Oxford University Press 12 Cruse, D A 1986 Lexical Semantives Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 13 Diệp, Quang Ban 1998 Văn liên kết tiếng Việt NXB Giáo Dục 14 Đỗ, Hữu Châu 1996 Giản yếu ngữ pháp văn In lần thứ NXB Giáo Dục 13 Enkvist, N 1978 Coherence, Pseudo-coherence and Non-coherence In J Oastman(eds.), Cohesion and Semantics Abo, Finland: Abo Akademi Foundation 14 Fitzgerald, J and D.L Spiegel 1986 Textual Cohesion and Coherence in Children's Writing Research in the Teaching of English 20, 263-280 15 Hà, Thanh Hải 1998 Cohesive conjunction in Vietnamese and ESL texts written by Vietnamese students: A comparative study M.A Thesis 16 Hairston, M 1982 A Contemporary Rhetoric (3rd ed.) Boston: Houghton Mifflin Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhd 77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77t@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn.Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhddtt@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4 22.Tai lieu Luan 66.55.77.99 van Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22 Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an 106 17 Halliday M A K & R Hasan 1976 Cohesion in English London: Longman 18 Haswell, Richard H 1989 Textual Research and Coherence: Findings, Intuition, Application College English, Vol.51, No.3, 305-19 19 Hoey, M 1991 Patterns of Lexis in Text Oxford University Press 20 Hoey, M 2001 Textual interaction: An introduction to written discourse analysis Oxford University Press 21 Holloway, D W 1980 Semantic grammars: How they can help us teach writing College Composition and Communication, 32 (205-18) 22 Hoàng, Ngọc Hùng 1999 Cohesive devices in English and Vietnamese M.A Thesis 23 Hyland, K 1990 A genre description of the argumentative essay RELC Journal, 21 (66-78) 24 Irwin, J W 1980 The effect of linguistic cohesion on prose comprehension Journal of Reading Behavior , 12 (325-32) 25 James, D.B 2005 Testing Language In Programs Prentice-Hall 26 Jin, Wenjun 1998 Cohesion and the Academic Writing of Chinese ESL Students at the Graduate Level Dissertation Abstracts International.59-07, 2475A 27 Jin Wenjun (2000) A quantitative study of cohesion in Chinese graduate students’ writing: variations across genres and proficiency levels Presented in Symposium on Second Language Writing, Purdue University, September 2001 28 Karl, R Wallace.1963 The Substance of Rhetoric Good Reasons Quarterly Journal of Speech, Volume 49, Issue (239 – 249) 29 Liu, D 2000 Writing Cohesion - Using Content Lexical Ties in ESOL Forum, 38 (28-33) 30 Markels, R.B 1981 The cohesive paragraph Cohesion Patterns in English Expository Paragraphs Ohio State University 31 Martin, J R 1992 English text Philadelphia, John Benjamins 32 McCarthy, M 1991 Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers Cambridge University Press Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhd 77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77t@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn.Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhddtt@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4 22.Tai lieu Luan 66.55.77.99 van Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22 Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an 107 33 Myers, G 1989 The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles Applied Linguistics, 10 (1-35) 34 Myles, J 2002 “Second language writing and research: The writing process and error analysis in student texts”, Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language, Vol (2) 35 Oya Ozagac 2004 Argumentative essays Bogazici University SFL 36 Perelman and Olbrechts- Tyteca 1969 The philosophical basis of Chaim Perleman's theory of rhetoric Quarterly Journal of Speech, (213-24) 37 Raskin, V and Weiser, I 1987 Linguistic Applications to Discourse Language and Writing: Applications to Linguistic to Rhetoric and Composition Norwood, New Jersey, U.S.A 38 Reid, M Joy 1982 The Process of Composition Prentice Hall Regents New Jersey 39 Reid, M Joy 1993 Teaching ESL Writing Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall 40 Stotsky, S 1983 Types of cohesion: Implications for developing a vocabulary of academic discourse College Composition and Communication, 37, (276-293) 41 Susan Hunt 1995 Choice in the Writing Class: How Do Students Decide? What to Write? and How to Write It? The Quarterly, Vol 17, No 42 Thêm , Ngọc Trần 1985 Hệ thống liên kết tiếng Việt NXB Khoa học Xã hoäi 43 Tierney R J., and Mosenthal, J 1980 Discourse comprehension and production: : Analyzing text structure and cohesion Technical report No 152 Illinois 44 Toulmin, S E 1958 The Uses of Argument Cambridge, UK: University Press 45 Toulmin, Stephen, Richard Rieke, and Allan Janik 1984 An introduction to reasoning, 2d ed New York : Macmillan University, Urbana: Center for the Study of Reading 46 Van Dijk, Teun A 1977 Text and context London: Longman 47 Varghese and Abraham 1998 Undergraduates arguing a case Journal of Second Language Writing, ( 287-306) Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhd 77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77t@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn.Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhddtt@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4 22.Tai lieu Luan 66.55.77.99 van Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22 Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an 108 48 Witte, Stephen P and Lester Faigley 1981 Coherence, cohesion, and writing quality College Composition and Communication , 32 (189-204)  Website: www.ets.org/toefl/ APPENDIX APPENDIX A SAMPLE TEST FOR ENGLISH-MAJORED STUDENTS AT QUY NHON UNIVERSITY Requirements: Write an argumentative essay of about 250 to 400 words Time allotted: 30 minutes Topic for writing: The young are now more influenced by friends than by family Do you agree or disagree with this statement? Use specific arguments to support your stand Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhd 77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77t@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn.Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhddtt@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4 22.Tai lieu Luan 66.55.77.99 van Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22 Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an 109 APPENDIX B SAMPLE TESTS FOR TOEFL TEST TAKERS Requirements: Write an argumentative essay of about 250 to 400 words Time allotted: 30 minutes Topic for writing: The young are now more influenced by friends than by family Do you agree or disagree with this statement? Use specific arguments to support your stand (Does money equal success?) Does a person need to earn a lot of money to be considered successful? Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhd 77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77t@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn.Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhddtt@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4 22.Tai lieu Luan 66.55.77.99 van Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22 Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an 110 Do you agree or disagree with this statement? Choose a stand and support your argument Do you prefer learning by yourself to learning with a teacher? Do you agree or disagree with this statement? Use specific arguments to support your stand Should governments spend more money on improving roads and highways, or should governments spend more money on improving public transportation (buses, trains, subways)? Why? Use specific reasons and details to develop your essay (Importance of reading and writing in modern and past societies.) Is it more important to be able to read and write today than it was in the past? Do you agree or disagree? "Never stop trying to reach your goals." APPENDIX C QUESTIONNAIRES QUESTIONNAIRES (For the third-year English-majored students) Questions For the third-year Englishmajored students What you think about your current writing quality? When practising argumentative essays, you have troubles with… How well you know about A B Options C D E Extremely good Good Fairly good Normal Poor The organization Idea expression Grammar Vocabulary Others Very well Well enough Pretty well Little Not at all Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhd 77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77t@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn.Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhddtt@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4 22.Tai lieu Luan 66.55.77.99 van Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22 Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an 111 10 11 12 the existence of cohesive devices in your writing? Among the following cohesive devices, which one you use most regularly? Among the following cohesive devices, which one you find most challenging? Among the following reference ties, which one you use most regularly ? Among the following conjunction ties, which one you use most regularly ? Among the following lexical cohesion ties, which one you use most regularly ? In you opinion, can using cohesive devices effectively improve your argumentative writing quality? When you expect to be taught about the use of cohesive devices? Reference Conjunction Lexical cohesion Substitution Ellipsis Reference Conjunction Lexical cohesion Substitution Ellipsis Personal Reference Demonstrative Reference Comparative Reference Additives Adversative Causal/ Conditional Temporal Other conjunction Repetition of same items Synonyms/ Antonyms Superordinate General nouns Collocation Yes, very much Yes, fairly much Yes, average A little Not at all At the beginning of the writing course In the middle of the writing course At the end of the writing course Are you satisfied with your argumentative writing quality? Why or why not? What you expect your teacher to most to help you increase argumentative writing quality? QUESTIONNAIRES (For teachers of writing) Questions For the teachers of writing What you think about your students’ current writing quality? When practising argumentative essays, your students usually have troubles with… In your opinion, how well your students know know about the existence of cohesive devices in their writing? Among the following cohesive devices, which one your students use most regularly? Among the following cohesive A B Options C D E Extremely good Good Fairly good Normal Poor The organization Idea expression Grammar Vocabulary Others Very well Well enough Pretty well Little Not at all Reference Conjunction Lexical cohesion Substitution Ellipsis Reference Conjunction Lexical Substitution Ellipsis Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhd 77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77t@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn.Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhddtt@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4 22.Tai lieu Luan 66.55.77.99 van Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22 Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhd 77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77t@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn.Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhddtt@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn