Exploring the use of cohesive devices in argumentative essays by english majored students in a tertiary context in vietnam

HUE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES FACULTY OF ENGLISH LE VIET LONG EXPLORING THE USE OF COHESIVE DEVICES IN ARGUMENTATIVE ESSAYS BY ENGLISH-MAJORED STUDENTS IN A TERTIARY CONTEXT IN VIETNAM GRADUATION THESIS SUPERVISOR: NGUYEN THI BAO TRANG, Ph.D Hue, May 2022 STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP I herewith affirm that this thesis is exclusively the result of my own independent work, except where I have explicitly stated All sources have been carefully acknowledged Hue City, 09th May 2022 Student Lê Viết Long i ABSTRACT This study explored the use of cohesive devices (CDs) in argumentative writing by English-majored students in a university in Vietnam In doing so, 30 argumentative essays written by students within the time constraint of 45 minutes were collected in a writing course The essays were analyzed for CDs that occurred according to the grammatical cohesion taxonomy by Halliday and Hasan (1976) and lexical cohesion taxonomy by Halliday and Matthiessen (2014) In addition, errors pertaining to their use were also analyzed based on the classification of errors from Ong (2011) and Rahman (2013) The findings show that grammatical CDs were more predominant compared to lexical CDs In particular, in the use of grammatical cohesive ties, reference gained the most prevalence, followed by conjunctions and the two least frequently occurring CDs were substitution and ellipsis Meanwhile, of the lexical cohesion means, reiteration reigned supreme over collocation Regarding the frequency of errors, the findings reveal that the highest percentage of errors belonged to unnecessary addition of CDs, whose runner-ups were misuse, omission, and redundant repetition respectively The area in which students made the most errors was reference, specifically demonstrative reference The study has offered some important practical implications for EFL teaching and learning of CDs in written language production ii TÓM TẮT Nghiên cứu khám phá việc sử dụng thiết bị liên kết (TBLK) viết tranh luận sinh viên chuyên ngành tiếng Anh trường đại học Việt Nam Theo đó, 30 viết tranh luận sinh viên viết thời gian 45 phút thu thập khóa học viết Những TBLK xuất viết phân tích theo phân loại TBLK ngữ pháp Halliday Hasan (1976) phân loại TBLK từ vựng Halliday Matthiessen (2014) Thêm vào đó, lỗi liên quan đến việc sử dụng TBLK phân tích dựa phân loại lỗi Ong (2011) Rahman (2013) Kết cho thấy số lượng TBLK ngữ pháp chiếm ưu so với TBLK từ vựng Cụ thể, việc sử dụng TBLK ngữ pháp, tham chiếu chiếm tỷ lệ cao nhất, liên từ hai loại TBLK xuất thay lược bỏ Trong đó, TBLK từ vựng xuất hiện, số lượng phép lặp lại áp đảo cụm từ kết hợp Về tần suất lỗi, kết cho thấy tỷ lệ lỗi cao thuộc thêm vào TBLK không cần thiết, loại lỗi xếp sau sử dụng sai, bỏ sót, lặp lại thừa Loại TBLK mà sinh viên mắc nhiều lỗi tham chiếu, cụ thể tham chiếu định Nghiên cứu đưa số gợi ý sư phạm quan trọng việc dạy học TBLK ngôn ngữ viết iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost, gratitude cannot be further extended to my supervisor, Mrs Nguyen Thi Bao Trang I would love to thank her for every conscientious guidance and constructive feedback she has offered since my thesis was still in its infancy She also granted me permission to use the essays which were part of her research at Hue University level as the data of my study, which greatly facilitated the data collection procedures Without her utmost care and devotion, this thesis could hardly have been successfully completed Second, I am fully appreciative of the valuable assistance from Nguyen Ho Bao Tran, who was the patient and careful intercoder of the essays for cohesive devices and errors, helping me achieve reliability in this study Third, I am greatly indebted to my family members and dearest friends who have always encouraged me throughout the course of completing my research with substantially spiritual support A big thanks must be given to Khanh Ngoc, Anh Thi, Quynh Huong, and Quoc Thach Fourth, I owe a special word of thanks to any indirect support given by the people I may not know during the time I conduct this study Last but not least, I would love to show my appreciation to the Faculty of English at University of Foreign Languages, Hue University for the invaluable opportunity of practicing doing research, marking a significant milestone in my academic life iv TABLE OF CONTENTS STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP i ABSTRACT ii TÓM TẮT iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv TABLE OF CONTENTS v LIST OF TABLES x LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS xiii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Rationale 1.2 Research aims and research questions (RQs) 1.3 Research scope 1.4 Research significance 1.5 Research organization CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Text and texture 4 2.1.1 Text 2.1.2 Texture 2.2 Cohesion and coherence 2.2.1 Cohesion 2.2.2 Coherence 2.3 Cohesive devices 2.3.1 The significance of CDs in writing v 2.3.2 The classification of CDs 2.3.2.1 Reference 2.3.2.1.1 Personal reference 2.3.2.1.2 Demonstrative reference 2.3.2.1.3 Comparative reference 2.3.2.2 Substitution 2.3.2.2.1 Nominal substitution 2.3.2.2.2 Verbal substitution 10 2.3.2.2.3 Clausal substitution 10 2.3.2.3 Ellipsis 10 2.3.2.3.1 Nominal ellipsis 11 2.3.2.3.2 Verbal ellipsis 11 2.3.2.3.3 Clausal ellipsis 11 2.3.2.4 Conjunctions 12 2.3.2.4.1 Additive conjunctions 12 2.3.2.4.2 Adversative conjunctions 12 2.3.2.4.3 Causal conjunctions 13 2.3.2.4.4 Temporal conjunctions 13 2.3.2.5 Lexical cohesion 13 2.3.2.5.1 Reiteration 13 2.3.2.5.2 Collocation 15 2.4 Errors and error analysis 15 2.4.1 Errors 15 2.4.2 Error analysis 16 vi 2.4.3 Error classification 17 2.4.4 Sources of errors 18 2.4.4.1 Interlingual errors 18 2.4.4.2 Intralingual errors 18 2.4.4.3 Communication strategy-based errors 19 2.4.4.4 Induced errors 19 2.5 Argumentative essays 20 2.6 Review of previous studies 20 2.6.1 Focus on the instruction of CDs 20 2.6.2 Focus on the correlation between the use of CDs and writing quality 21 2.6.3 Focus on the use of CDs 22 2.6.4 Research gaps 23 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 25 3.1 Research design 25 3.2 Participants 25 3.2 Data collection tools 25 3.3 Data analysis 26 3.3.1 Identification of cohesive devices 26 3.3.2 Analysis of erroneous use of cohesive devices 30 3.4 Research validity and reliability 35 CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 4.1 Students’ use of cohesive devices 37 37 4.1.1 Students’ use of reference 38 4.1.1.1 The use of personal reference vii 38 4.1.1.2 The use of demonstrative reference 40 4.1.1.3 The use of comparative reference 40 4.1.2 Students’ use of substitution and ellipsis devices 42 4.1.3 Students’ use of conjunctions 43 4.1.3.1 The use of additive conjunctions 43 4.1.3.2 The use of adversative conjunctions 45 4.1.3.3 The use of causal conjunctions 46 4.1.3.4 The use of temporal conjunctions 47 4.1.4 Students’ use of lexical cohesion 48 4.2 Errors in the use of cohesive devices 49 4.2.1 Errors in the use of reference 51 4.2.1.1 Erroneous use of personal reference 52 4.2.1.1.1 Erroneously used personal reference items 53 4.2.1.1.2 Correct versus erroneous use of personal reference 54 4.2.1.2 Erroneous use of demonstrative reference 54 4.2.1.2.1 Erroneously used demonstrative reference items 55 4.2.1.2.2 Correct versus erroneous use of demonstrative reference 55 4.2.1.3 Erroneous use of comparative reference 56 4.2.1.3.1 Erroneously used comparative reference items 57 4.2.1.3.2 Correct versus erroneous use of comparative reference 57 4.2.2 Errors in the use of conjunctions 4.2.2.1 Erroneous use of additive conjunctions 58 59 4.2.2.1.1 Erroneously used additive conjunctions 59 4.2.2.1.2 Correct versus erroneous use of additive conjunctions 60 viii 4.2.2.2 Erroneous use of adversative conjunctions 60 4.2.2.2.1 Erroneously used adversative conjunctions 60 4.2.2.2.2 Correct versus erroneous use in adversative conjunctions 61 4.2.2.3 Erroneous use of causal conjunctions 61 4.2.2.3.1 Erroneously used causal conjunctions 61 4.2.2.3.2 Correct versus erroneous use of causal conjunctions 62 4.2.2.4 Erroneous use of temporal conjunctions 62 4.2.2.4.1 Erroneously used temporal conjunctions 62 4.2.2.4.2 Correct versus erroneous use of temporal conjunctions 63 4.2.3 Errors in the use of grammatical cohesion 63 4.2.4 Errors in the use of lexical cohesion 64 4.3 Discussion 65 4.3.1 Types of cohesive devices used in students’ essays 65 4.3.2 Students’ errors in the use of cohesive devices 66 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION 70 5.1 Key findings 70 5.1.2 Types of cohesive devices in students’ essays 70 5.1.2 Students’ errors in the use of cohesive devices 70 5.2 Implications 71 5.2.1 For EFL teaching of cohesive devices in writing 71 5.2.2 For EFL learning of cohesive devices in writing 72 5.3 Limitations and suggestions for future research REFERENCES 73 75 ix CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION This chapter summarizes key findings of the present study in addition to giving pedagogical implications on EFL teaching and learning of CDs Then, limitations will be addressed and suggestions will be made for future research 5.1 Key findings 5.1.2 Types of cohesive devices in students’ essays Regarding the use of CDs, the findings reveal that students employed the five types of cohesive ties, in which grammatical CDs were more popularly used than lexical ones In comparison among the five types of CDs, reference gained the most prevalence, followed by lexical cohesion, conjunctions and the two least frequently occurring CDs were substitution and ellipsis In addition, certain CDs were used more often than others For example, “They”, “Them”, and “The” were the most employed reference tools, which was true for “And”, “But”, “However”, “So”, “Because/Because of”, and “First/Firstly/First of all” in the use of conjunctions Furthermore, the identification of CDs took place in the absence of other CDs such as “otherwise”, “likewise”, “nevertheless”, “nonetheless”, “apart from”, “thereby”, “albeit”, or “notwithstanding” 5.1.2 Students’ errors in the use of cohesive devices In the application of CDs to argumentative writing, students committed four types of errors, the highest percentage of which was unnecessary addition The runner-ups were misuse, omission, and redundant repetition Between grammatical CDs and lexical CDs, students tended to make more errors of grammatical ones Among the five types of CDs, errors were most frequently made in the use of reference The following ones were lexical cohesion and conjunctions while no errors were found in the use of substitution and ellipsis In the use of reference, errors were most frequently made in the area of demonstrative reference The most dominant type of errors of demonstrative reference was unnecessary addition, which fell mostly in the use of definite article 70 “The” Particularly, the number of errors made when using this cohesive tie was the highest above all items used On the other hand, conjunctions suffered from misuse whereas the other three types of errors were absent The most dominant misused type of conjunctions was additive conjunctions, followed by adversative conjunctions, causal conjunctions, and temporal conjunctions To be more specific, conjunctives were mostly misspelled by students, which could have been slips In regards to lexical cohesion errors, misuse was also the dominant kind of errors besides redundant repetition In particular, there was misuse in the use of repetition, synonymy and redundant repetition in the use of repetition Overall, the proportion of errors made in the use of CDs was rather minimal in comparison with that of the correct use 5.2 Implications 5.2.1 For EFL teaching of cohesive devices in writing First, as lexical cohesion was quite lower in use compared to grammatical cohesive ties, EFL teachers might want to draw students’ attention to this type of CDs, including repetition, synonymy, antonymy, hyponymy, and meronymy by ways of planned lessons, in-class demonstrations, or by exposing students to authentic cohesive texts Further, teachers might need to introduce more lexical items to broaden students’ range of vocabulary, helping them connect their ideas more lexically and more coherently Second, the fact that repetition dominated the use of lexical cohesion indicates that students should be exposed more to other means of lexical cohesion such as synonymy, antonymy, hyponymy, and meronymy As mentioned before, students’ lexical resource should be enlarged Specifically, to increase the use of less used types of lexical CDs as synonymy, antonymy, hyponymy, and meronymy, exercises on synonyms, antonyms, hyponyms, and meronyms could be useful Then students should be provided with opportunities to use these lexical means in their writing 71 Third, what might prompt teachers to pay attention to reminding students of grammatical mistakes and correcting them is the fact that the use of grammatical CDs was much more erroneous than that of lexical CDs This can be done by in-class correction In particular, teachers can choose one essay containing the most typical errors and give constructive feedback for it in front of the class Besides, peerfeedback is also of great importance as students cannot only learn from one another but they can also beware of the types of errors made by their friends Fourth, despite their low frequency, errors pertaining to CDs, especially erroneous use of definite article “The”, misspelling, etc still occurred in students’ essays, suggesting that teachers should incorporate the use of CDs into writing lessons and develop the syllabus of writing courses to make sure that students are able to put CDs into appropriate use Fifth, the absence of some CDs such as “otherwise”, “likewise”, “nevertheless”, “nonetheless”, “apart from”, “thereby”, “albeit”, or “notwithstanding” in students’ essays might be an indicator of a lack of awareness In this sense, teachers might also need to expose students to these cohesive tools by giving exercises or incorporating more reading work into writing lessons to familiarize them with the use of the devices Last but not least, many errors are caused by learners’ ignorance of their TL (James, 1998), suggesting that teachers should continuously enrich students’ knowledge of English The types of errors made in the use of CDs, namely omission, unnecessary addition, misuse, and redundant repetition should also be introduced to students, helping them to be more aware of their use of CDs, reflect on their actual use of these devices, and remedy erroneous use if any 5.2.2 For EFL learning of cohesive devices in writing First, students could be encouraged to read and interpret texts based on the connection among a sequence of sentences, which might help them become aware of different types of CDs and understand the rules of cohesion in English in general and 72 in writing in particular The selection of texts should be based on authenticity, meaning that reading texts need to be from authentic corpus, or they are well-written by advanced writers Second, students should engage more in collaborative learning in which they are able to receive feedback from their peers Also, observation of their friends’ good use of CDs is likely to entail more cohesive writing from students Third, as the in-class time is limited, students should spend more time finding supplementary materials to enhance not only their reading but also their writing knowledge, especially knowledge of cohesion Finally, as practice always makes perfect, students should practice writing and apply cohesive means more often Then, the writings may need consulting from their teachers and friends for improvements 5.3 Limitations and suggestions for future research In conclusion, this study has provided more insights into the use of CDs in argumentative essays by Vietnamese EFL students However, there are several limitations to be addressed: Firstly, participants in this research were third-year English majors, constituting quite a small number in comparison with the actual number of Vietnamese EFL students; therefore, the findings are somewhat tentative and cannot apply to all EFL students in Vietnam This suggests that future research might need to extend the number of participants to obtain a larger corpus of written essays for analysis Secondly, this study did not look at the use of CDS by learners of different language abilities, suggesting that comparison between different groups of proficiency levels should be made (e.g., advanced and intermediate EFL learners, non-native and native students) to explore the influence of learner proficiency 73 Thirdly, only CDs in students' argumentative writing were examined Other genres of writing such as descriptive, compare-contrast, problem-solution, or causeeffect essays are also worthy of investigation Fourthly, CDs are not only present in the mode of writing but they also appear in speaking Thus, studies on cohesion in oral communication might also be useful Lastly, the quantitative approach and EA could hardly explain the error avoidance strategies students may have employed The explanations of sources of the errors in this study are tentative Therefore, additional data sources such as stimulated recall interviews should be employed for further understanding of the nature of errors made 74 REFERENCES Alarcon, J B., & Morales, K N S (2011) Grammatical cohesion in students’ argumentative essay International Journal of English and Literature, 2(5), 114-127 Allard, L., & Ulatowska, H K (1991) Cohesion in written narrative and procedural discourse of fifth-grade children Linguistics and Education, 3(1), 63-79 Almutairi, N D (2017) Discourse analysis of cohesive devices in Saudi student’s writing World Journal of Educational Research, 4(4), 516-523 Awad, A (2012) The most common punctuation errors made by the English and the TEFL majors at An-najah national university Arabic Journal Resources Humanities, 26(1), 210-234 Ayub, Seken K, & Suarnajaya W (2013) An analysis of the cohesion and coherence of students’ English writings at the second grade of SMAN Labuapi West Lombok e-Journal Program Pascasarjana Universitas Pendidikan Ganesha Program Study Bahasa Inggris, 1(3), 1-13 Bahaziq, A (2016) Cohesive devices in written discourse: A discourse analysis of a student’s essay writing English Language Teaching, 9(7), 112-119 Biber, D., Connor, U., & Upton, T (2007) Discourse analysis and corpus linguistics Discourse on the move: Using corpus analysis to describe discourse structure, 1-20 Bolton, K., Nelson, G., & Hung, J (2003) A corpus-based study of connectors in student writing International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 7(2), 165-182 Bui, P H., Nguyen, N Q., Nguyen, T L., & Nguyen, T V (2021) A cross-linguistic approach to analysing cohesive devices in expository writing by Asian EFL teachers 3L: Language, Linguistics, Literature, 27(2), 16-30 Bui, T N (2011) Cohesive devices in reading texts in the book Tieng Anh 12 - Ban co ban [Doctoral dissertation, University of Languages and International 75 Studies] VNU Repository http://repository.vnu.edu.vn/handle/VNU_123/39977 Brown, H (2000) Principles of language learning and teaching Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hal Brown, H D (2014) Principles of Language Learning and Teaching New York: Pearson Education Cao, T H N (2012) An analysis of cohesive devices in the ESP textbook on accounting at University of Labor and Social Affairs [Doctoral dissertation, University of Languages and International Studies] VNU Repository http://repository.vnu.edu.vn/handle/VNU_123/39979 Carrel, P L (1982) Cohesion is not coherence TESOL Quarterly, 16(4), 479-488 Carter R (1997) Investigating English discourse: Language, literacy, and literature London and New York: Routledge Castro, C (2004) Cohesion and the social construction of meaning in the essays of Filipino college students writing in L2 English Asia Pacific Education, 5, 215-225 Chiang, S Y (2003) The importance of cohesive conditions to perceptions of writing quality at the early stages of foreign language learning System, 31, 471–484 Cho, H Y., & Shin, J (2014) Cohesive devices in English writing textbooks and Korean learners’ English writings English Teaching, 69(1), 41-59 Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K (2018) Research methods in education Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge Corder, S P (1967) The significance of learners’ errors International review of Applied Linguistics, 5, pp 161-170 and reprinted in J.C Richards (Ed.) (1974) Error Analysis: Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition London: Longman 76 Corder, S P (1974) Error Analysis: Perspectives on second language acquisition London: Longman Corder, S P (1983) The significance of learners’ errors In W.Robinett & J.Schachter (Eds.), Second language learning: Contrastive analysis, error analysis, related aspects (pp 163-172) Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press Cox, B E., Shanahan, T., & Sulzby, E (1990) Good and poor elementary readers' use of cohesion in writing Reading research quarterly, 47-65 Crewe, W.J (1990) The illogic of logical connectives ELT Journal, 44(4), 316-325 Crompton, P (2011) Article errors on the English writing of advanced L1 Arabic learners: The role of transfer Asian EFL Journal professional Teaching Articles, 50, 4-34 Crossley, S A & McNamara, D S (2010) Cohesion, coherence, and expert evaluations of writing proficiency En S Ohlsson & R Catrambone (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp 984–989) Cognitive Science Society Crowhurst, M (1987) Cohesion in argument and narration at three grade levels Research in the Teaching of English, 21(2), 185-201 Darweesh, A D & Kadhim, S A H (2016) Iraqi EFL learners’ problems in using conjunctions as cohesive devices Journal of Education and Practice, 7(11), 175-179 Edge, J (1989) Mistakes and Correction London: Longman Ellis, R & Barkhuizen, G (2005) Analysing learner language Oxford: Oxford University Press Eun, H., & Jeon, B (2009) Reference and substitution as cohesion devices in EFL writing English Language & Literature Teaching, 15(4), 23-36 77 Feng, T (2003) An investigation of cohesive errors in the writing of first-year NUS students from PRC (Unpublished master’s thesis) National University of Singapore, Singapore Ferris, D R (1994) Lexical and syntactic features of ESL writing by students at different levels of L2 proficiency TESOL Quarterly, 28(2), 414-420 Field, Y., & Oi, Y (1992) A comparison of internal cohesive conjunction in the English writing of Cantonese speakers of English RELC Journal, 23, 15-28 Gass, S M., & Selinker, L (1983) Language Transfer in Language Learning Issues in Second Language Research Rowley: Newbury House Publishers Ghasemi, M (2013) An investigation into the use of cohesive devices in second language writings Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(9), 16151623 Gersbacher, M A., Varner, K R., & Faust, M (1990) Investigating differences in general comprehension skill Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 430-445 Goldman, S., & Murray, J (1989) Knowledge of connectors as cohesive devices in text: A comparative study of native English and ESL speakers Santa Barbara: University of California Granger, S., & Tyson, S (1996) Connector usage in the English essay writing of native and nonnative EFL speakers of English World Englishes, 15(1), 1727 Haliday, M A K., & Hasan, R (1976) Cohesion in English New York: Longman Halliday, M A K., & Hasan, R (1985) Language, context and text: Aspects of language in a social semiotic perspective Victoria: Deakin University Press Halliday, M A K., & Matthiessen, C (2014) Halliday's introduction to functional grammar Oxon: Routledge 78 Hamed, M (2014) Conjunctions in argumentative writing of Libyan tertiary students English Language Teaching, 7(3), 108-112 Hendrickson, J.M (1987) Error correction in foreign language teaching: Recent theory, research, and practice In M.H Long & J.C Richards (Eds.), Methodology in TESOL: A book of readings Boston: Heinle & Heinle Hinkel, E (2001) Matters of cohesion in L2 academic texts Applied Language Learning, 12(2), 111-132 Hoang, T M (2011) An analysis of cohesive devices in reading texts in English 11 [Master’s thesis, Vietnam National University, Hanoi] VNU Repository http://repository.vnu.edu.vn/handle/VNU_123/39988 Hu, Z L (1994) Discourse cohesion and coherence Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press Jabeen, A., Kazemian, B., & Shahbaz, M (2015) The role of error analysis in teaching and learning of second and foreign language Education and Linguistics Research, 1(2), 52-62 Jafarpur, A (1991) Cohesiveness as a basis for evaluating compositions System, 19(4), 459-465 James, C (1998) Errors in language learning and use: Exploring error analysis London: Longman Jin, W (2001, September 15-16) A quantitative study of cohesion in Chinese graduate students’ writing: Variations across genres and proficiency levels [Paper presentation] The Symposium on Second Language Writing, West Lafayette, Indiana https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED452726 Kang, J Y (2009) Referencing in a second language: Korean EFL learners’ cohesive use of references in written narrative discourse Discourse Processes, 46(5), 439-466 79 Kuo, C H (1995) Cohesion and coherence in academic writing: From lexical choice to organization RELC Journal, 26(1), 47–62 Kwan, L S L, & Md Yunus, M (2014) Cohesive errors in writing among ESL preservice teachers English Language Teaching, 7(11), 130-150 Landis, J R., & Koch, G G (1977) An application of hierarchical kappa-type statistics in the assessment of majority agreement among multiple observers Biometrics, 363-374 Lee, I (2002) Teaching coherence to ESL students: A classroom inquiry Journal of Second Language Writing, 11, 135-159 Liu, M., & Braine, G (2005) Cohesive features in argumentative writing produced by Chinese undergraduates System, 33, 623-636 Malmir, B (2014) A comparison of linguistic errors of Iranian EFL learners at two different levels of proficiency Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(4), 850-856 Mawardi (2014) An analysis of the cohesion and coherence of students’ narrative writings in the English language education department of Nahdlatul Wathan Mataram University Journal FKIP of Gunung Rinjani University, 8(1), 8090 McCagg, P (1980) Toward understanding coherence: a response proposition taxonomy In U Connor and A M Johns (eds.) Coherence in writing Alexandria, Virginia: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, 111-113 McNamara, D S., Kintsch, E., Butler-Songer, N., & Kintsch, W (1996) Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of under- standing in learning from text Cognition and Instruction, 14, 1-43 80 Meisuo, Z (2000) Cohesive features in the expository writing of undergraduates in two Chinese universities RELC Journal, 31(1), 61-95 Middleton, F (2022) Reliability vs validity in research | Differences, types and examples Scribbr Retrieved on May 2nd 2022, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/reliability-vs-validity/ Murcia, C., & Olsthain, E (2000) Discourse and context in language teaching: A guide for language teachers Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Na, Yoon-Hee (2011) Cohesive devices in CMC texts produced by American and Korean EFL writers Linguistics Research, 28(3), 743-771 Nasser, A N A (2017) A study of errors in the use of grammatical cohesive devices in argumentative texts written by Yemeni EFL learners International Journal of Applied Research, 3(10), 172-176 Neuner, J (1987) Cohesive ties and chains in good and poor freshman essays Research in the Teaching of English, 21(1), 92-103 Norment, N (1994) Contrastive analyses of cohesive devices in Chinese and Chinese ESL in narrative and expository written texts Chinese Language Teaching Association Journal, 29(1), 49- 81 Norrish, J (1983) Language learners and their errors London: The Macmillan Press Nunan, D (1993) Introducing discourse analysis London: Penguin English Ngo, T T N (2010) An analysis of prominent grammatical cohesive devices in online news discourse in English by Vietnamese translators VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, 26(1), 51-59 Nindya, M A., & Widiati, U (2020) Cohesive devices in argumentative essays by Indonesian EFL learners Journal on English as a Foreign Language, 10(2), 337-358 81 Nindya, M A., & Widiati, U (2020) Cohesive devices in argumentative essays by Indonesian EFL learners Journal on English as a Foreign Language, 10(2), 337-358 Nirwanto, R (2021) The adoption of cohesive devices (CDs) in the Indonesian students’ opinion essays Premise: Journal of English Education and Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 54-64 Nugraheni, R (2015) Cohesive devices in learners’ writing LLT Journal: A Journal on Language and Language Teaching, 18(1), 51-62 Ong, J (2011) Investigating the use of cohesive devices by Chinese EFL learners The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly, 11(3), 42-65 Oroji, M R., & Ghane, A (2014) The investigation of cohesive ties in English book of Iranian high school Procedia - Social and Behavioural Sciences, 136,144-147 Palmer, J C (1999) Coherence and cohesion in the English language classroom: The use of lexical reiteration and pronominalisation RELC Journal, 30(2), 6185 Pham, P L (2012) A study on lexical cohesive devices from some reading texts of the coursebook English for Business Study" and pedagogical implications for teaching English for third-year students at Trade Union University [Doctoral dissertation, University of Languages and International Studies] VNU Repository http://repository.vnu.edu.vn/handle/VNU_123/39943 Rahman, Z A A A (2013) The use of cohesive devices in descriptive writing by Omani student-teachers SAGE Open, 3(4), 1-10 Rassouli, M., & Abbasvandi, M (2013) The effects of explicit instruction of grammatical cohesive devices on intermediate Iranian learners’ writing European Online Journal of Natural and Social Science; Special Issue, 2(2), 15-22 82 Reid, (1992) A computer text analysis of four cohesion devices in English discourse by native and nonnative writers Journal of Second Language Writing, 1(2), 79-107 Sompong, M (2014) Error Analysis Thammasat Review, 16(2), 109-127 Suwandi (2016) Coherence and cohesion: An analysis of the final project abstracts of the undergraduate students of PGRI Semarang Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(2), 253-261 Tanskanen, S K (2006) Collaborating Towards Coherence: Lexical Cohesion in English Discourse Amsterdam: John Benjamins Thompson, G (1996) Introducing functional grammar London: Edward Arnold Witte, S P., & Faigley, L (1981) Coherence, cohesion and writing quality College Composition and Communication, 32, 189-204 Wu, S R (2006) Connectives and topic-fronting devices in academic writing: Taiwanese EFL student writers vs international writers In 2006 International Conference and Workshop on TEFL and Applied Linguistics (pp 417-425) Yang, W., & Sun, Yin (2012) The use of cohesive devices in argumentative writing by Chinese EFL learners at different proficiency levels Linguistics and Education, 23, 31-48 Yin, R K (2015) Qualitative research from start to finish New York: The Guilford Press Zhang, M (1997) Cohesive features in the expository writing of undergraduates in two Chinese universities (Unpublished master’s thesis) National University of Singapore, Singapore Zhang, M (2000) Cohesive features in the expository writing of undergraduates in two Chinese universities RELC Journal, 30(1), 61-95 83 Zoghipour, E., & Nikou, F R (2016) The impact of explicit instruction of lexicogrammatical devices on EFL learners’ writing fluency and complexity Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods, 1, 677-689 84