Rationale of the study
Writing is often the most challenging skill for English learners in Vietnam, despite years of study Many students find it frustrating and view it as a significant hurdle The quality of their written paragraphs is often hindered by a lack of persuasiveness and logical connections between ideas One common issue is the ineffective use of cohesive devices, which are essential for creating a smooth flow of sentences Each sentence in a well-written text should connect clearly to convey the writer's intended meaning Mastering cohesion is crucial for students to express their ideas systematically and logically, minimizing ambiguity and misinterpretation.
Written language requires greater accuracy and effectiveness than spoken language, leading learners to fear making mistakes in their writing This fear often shifts their focus toward creating grammatically correct sentences at the expense of logic and meaning By analyzing the errors students make in their writing, educators and researchers can identify solutions to writing challenges, similar to how doctors diagnose diseases based on symptoms This is highlighted 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 English learners and developing effective strategies for teaching writing composition.
This study examines the errors made by 11th grade students at Tùng Thiện High School in their use of cohesive devices within paragraphs It aims to identify specific issues related to coherence and cohesion in student writing Key research questions focus on the types of errors observed and their impact on overall paragraph structure and clarity.
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 investigates the common 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 analyses 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 in writing, addressing a gap in existing research By exploring this topic, the research seeks to provide valuable insights that can improve writing instruction in schools, both in theory and practice.
+ Theoretically: This research provides a linguistic description and explanation of cohesive errors
This research highlights common errors made by learners, emphasizing the need for improved understanding and application of cohesive devices in their writing For educators, the findings suggest effective teaching strategies that can enhance the quality of English essays produced by students Additionally, this study serves as a valuable reference for future researchers conducting similar investigations 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 of Richards (1971) and James (1998), this study categorizes and analyzes various sources to provide an overview of cohesive errors found in the paragraphs written by 11th-grade students at Tùng Thiện High School.
Organization of the study
This study includes the three main parts:
The introduction outlines the rationale and objectives of the study, detailing the methodology employed It also highlights the scope and significance of the research, while providing an overview of the organization of the study.
Part B: “Development” This part will consist of four chapters:
Chapter I delves into the theoretical framework and literature review pertinent to the study, defining key concepts such as error analysis and distinguishing between errors and mistakes, as well as identifying their sources The chapter also explores theories of cohesion, detailing various types of cohesive devices and their role in paragraph cohesion Additionally, it reviews relevant past research to provide a comprehensive understanding of the topic.
Chapter II: "Research Methodology" outlines the systematic approach to the study, detailing the research design, type of research conducted, and the study's subject It identifies the sources of data, the instruments used for research, the methods employed for data collection, and the techniques applied for data analysis.
Chapter III: “Data Analysis and Findings” In this chapter, the writer analyzes the data and explains her analysis to get the findings then discusses it
This chapter offers recommendations for addressing errors in the use of cohesive devices in paragraph writing, alongside teaching strategies to prevent and eliminate these mistakes It concludes the study with final insights and proposes directions for future research.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEWS
Theoretical background
Cohesion, as defined by Halliday and Hasan (1976), refers to the connections among words and expressions in a text through devices like reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction, and lexical cohesion It serves as a crucial component in the linguistic system, linking structurally unrelated elements for interpretation While cohesion is essential for text creation, it works alongside other text-forming components to express continuity between different parts of the text This continuity is characterized as semantic, as it establishes meaningful relationships within the text Halliday and Hasan emphasize that cohesion is fundamentally a semantic concept, essential for defining a text and aiding in its interpretation Through this cohesive framework, readers and writers can infer missing elements within the text, enhancing comprehension.
Cohesion refers to the linguistic connections between clauses and the way surface elements of a text are linked to form a unified whole (Peterson & McCabe, 1991) According to Eggins (1994), cohesion describes how the components of discourse are interconnected.
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 clause structures (Gerot and Wignell, 1994) It aids readers in interpreting missing elements essential for understanding Halliday and Hassan emphasize that cohesion relies on the interdependence of discourse elements, where one element's interpretation is contingent upon another They define cohesion as a semantic concept, highlighting the relational meaning within a text rather than its structural components Their analysis focuses on cohesive ties between sentences, which serve as the primary source of textual coherence, while also acknowledging structural relations within individual sentences.
Presupposition plays a crucial role in cohesion by linking unrelated sentences through connected meanings The relationships in meaning of any sentence depend on its surrounding context As Halliday and Hassan (1976) state, "cohesion refers to the range of possibilities that exist for linking something with what has gone before," highlighting the importance of meaning in these connections Coherence, on the other hand, pertains to how a text conveys meaning to readers and writers through the relevance and accessibility of its concepts, ideas, and theories.
In summary, cohesion serves as the essential element that unifies a written work A cohesive paper seamlessly connects ideas from one sentence to the next and maintains a logical flow throughout its paragraphs.
Cohesion and coherence are defined variably by linguists, with some viewing them as interchangeable while others see them as distinct concepts Halliday and Hasan's work in 1976 highlighted the important relationship between the two Irwin Weiser also contributes to this discussion, emphasizing the nuances in their definitions.
Cohesion is a crucial textual quality achieved through grammatical and lexical elements that help readers identify semantic relationships within and between sentences It refers to how specific words or grammatical features connect sentences to each other, creating a seamless flow of ideas As Tárnyiková notes, cohesion provides a surface structure linkage between text elements, ensuring that statements and paragraphs are interconnected and coherent.
Coherence in writing refers to the relationships that link the meaning of utterances or sentences within a text, allowing ideas to function together effectively It is essential for conveying meaning and relies on both linguistic and contextual information, as well as 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 manner, and avoids incomprehensible statements.
Cohesion refers to the linguistic connections between clauses, linking surface elements of a text 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 derive meaning from spoken or written language (Schriffin, as cited in Rini, 2009) According to Halliday and Hasan (1976), there are five primary cohesive devices: reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction, and lexical cohesion Reference, as defined by Halliday and Hasan, refers to the relationship between elements within a text that aids in their interpretation (1976:308) Thompson (1996) further clarifies that reference encompasses grammatical resources that enable speakers to indicate when information is being reiterated from elsewhere in the text (1996:148).
Halliday and Hasan categorize reference into three types, with personal reference being one of them This type is conveyed through pronouns, which include personal pronouns like I, you, she, he, it, we, and they, as well as possessive forms such as mine, yours, and hers, along with possessive determiners like my, your, and 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 acts as a verbal form of pointing, where the speaker identifies a referent based on its proximity This form 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), utilizes adjectives and adverbs to draw comparisons between items in a text, highlighting their identity or similarity This form of cohesion effectively illustrates the relationship between different entities, enhancing the overall 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:
According to Halliday and Hasan (1976), substitution is defined as a grammatical relationship that focuses on wording rather than meaning It involves replacing one item with another and can be categorized into three types: nominal substitution, verbal substitution, and clausal substitution.
+ 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 a grammatical phenomenon where certain elements are omitted from a sentence, relying on context for clarity According to Nunan (1999), this structure allows for the replacement of omitted items with nothing, while McCarthy (1991) emphasizes that ellipsis involves leaving out elements that are typically necessary in grammar, assuming the audience can infer their meaning from the surrounding context.
Literature review
Research on students' cohesion ties in written compositions and the prevalence of cohesion errors globally is essential for improving writing skills Understanding these studies can provide valuable insights into effective writing techniques and error correction strategies.
In his 1987 study, Crowhurst examined the use of cohesion ties in argumentative and narrative essays across three grade levels (6, 10, and 12), categorizing them into five types based on Halliday and Hasan's framework: substitution, ellipse, 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 overall frequency of cohesive ties relative to students' grade levels; however, lexical cohesion types such as collocation and synonyms showed an increase with higher grades, while reference and conjunction types decreased The study's limitation lies in its focus on the frequency of cohesive ties rather than their role in enhancing the quality of students' writing.
Johnson (1992) explored Halliday and Hasan’s (1976) cohesion types—reference, conjunction, and lexical cohesion—in essays by Malayan and native English speakers, categorized as “good” or “weak” by teachers The study revealed that good English essays exhibited more syntactic ties, while good Malay essays relied on semantic ties through word reiteration Overall, the findings indicated no significant difference in cohesion between good and weak essays The research primarily focused on three cohesion categories and did not significantly address how to enhance cohesive ties for effective student writing.
In a study by Palmer (1999), the relationship between cohesion and coherence was explored through an analysis of English essays written by second-year students who had passed their English I examination The students were divided into two groups, with group A (42 students) receiving instruction on textual coherence, including aspects such as overall text length, paragraph organization, lexical reiteration, and the use of pronouns In contrast, group B (47 students) did not receive any guidance on these concepts The findings revealed that while the overall length of the essays was similar, group A utilized pronouns to enhance text coherence, whereas group B relied on lexical reiteration Palmer concluded that teaching cohesive links significantly improves students' writing performance.
Meisuo (2000) explored the connection between cohesive devices and writing quality among Chinese undergraduate EFL students at two universities in the PRC His study examined the improper use of three primary cohesive ties—reference, conjunction, and lexical cohesion—based on Halliday and Hasan's (1976) framework, utilizing both qualitative and quantitative methods The findings revealed that lexical devices were the most commonly used, followed by conjunctions and reference devices Meisuo identified that improper use of 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 He emphasized the importance of teaching EFL students to learn new vocabulary in context to prevent misuse and overuse of lexical items (Meisuo 2000:88-89).
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 delves into additive conjunctions, which introduce additional information, such as "and," "moreover," and "in addition to." The article also examines adversative conjunctions that moderate or qualify information, using examples like "but," "yet," and "on the other hand." Furthermore, it discusses causal conjunctions that establish a cause-and-effect relationship within the text.
The study reveals that students struggle significantly with conjunction usage, particularly with adversative and additive conjunctions, while making fewer errors with causal and temporal conjunctions Many learners tend to use unnecessary additive conjunctions to connect short, simple sentences, and they often confuse the correct order for causal conjunctions Conversely, the errors in using temporal conjunctions were the least prevalent, indicating a relative strength in this area.
A study conducted by Tran (2005) at Thang Long University examined the use of cohesive devices in writing among freshmen majoring in English, focusing on the errors made and their sources through quantitative analysis The findings revealed that grammatical cohesion posed more challenges for students than lexical cohesion, with demonstrative reference errors being the most prevalent Interestingly, no errors were identified in the use of ellipsis and substitution In terms of lexical ties, students struggled with collocation but managed well with reiteration However, the study's limitations include its focus on pre-intermediate students within the same proficiency 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 study by Yanti (2012) examined cohesive device errors in 66 essays written by seventh-semester English department students at STAIN Salatiga, utilizing Halliday and Hasan’s (1976) cohesion framework The research aimed to identify cohesive errors, categorize the types of errors, and describe the predominant mistakes in the essays Findings indicated that students primarily struggled with reference errors, followed by conjunctions and lexical cohesion Notably, the study focused on students who were already familiar with cohesion devices, as they had successfully passed English entrance exams and were trained in essay writing.
This chapter provides an overview of theoretical concepts and reviews relevant previous studies to the research The researcher adopts Halliday and Hasan's model of cohesion due to its clarity for high school learners Recognizing that errors are inevitable in English learning, this error analysis aims to enhance teaching methods, develop appropriate materials, and create suitable assessments tailored to learners' needs Previous studies not only establish a foundation for this research but also highlight limitations to avoid, emphasizing the need for a deeper investigation into cohesive errors, which have been overlooked despite their importance in writing In Việt Nam, there is a notable lack of research on paragraph cohesion errors, particularly concerning high school students This study focuses on analyzing 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 cohesion mistakes and enhancing their writing quality through improved cohesion and coherence Additionally, this research will be valuable for researchers interested in exploring cohesion error analysis further.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Subject
The research focuses on 11th Grade students at Tùng Thiện High School during the 2012-2013 academic year, comprising two classes with a total of 84 students who have studied English for six years All students have utilized the same textbook and learning duration, achieving a similar proficiency level in English, with most aspiring to pass university entrance exams in groups A1 or D, which include English as a major subject Although each unit in the English 11 curriculum includes a writing lesson, students lack knowledge of cohesive devices Therefore, the teacher, who is also the researcher, aims to provide comprehensive instruction on cohesive devices in the optional writing lessons Gradually, students will enhance their writing skills by effectively applying cohesive devices in their work.
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, a study was conducted on 672 out of 840 writing papers from students, focusing on cohesive errors after teaching cohesive devices from the 11th-grade English textbook The researcher, also a teacher, collected and classified these errors based on Halliday and Hasan's categories (1976), following a reduction of two units in the education program.
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 The research specifically investigates cohesion errors within students' paragraphs.
Methods of data analysis
This research employs a mixed-methods approach, utilizing both quantitative and qualitative techniques The quantitative data are analyzed through descriptive statistics, focusing on frequency and percentages, highlighting a predominant quantitative framework complemented by a secondary 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, as defined by McBurney and White (2007) Quantitative data, which consists of numerical measurements (Punch, 1998: 59), is utilized to calculate error types using a formula provided by Anas (1966:40).
F = Frequency of Errors (for each types of cohesion)
Error analysis, as outlined by Ellis (1997), involves five key processes: collecting learner language samples, identifying, describing, explaining, and evaluating errors This systematic classification of errors aids in diagnosing learners' challenges at various developmental stages and tracking changes in error patterns over time.
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 primary categories to analyze the reasons behind learners' mistakes Subsequently, 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 the participants' cohesive errors can be traced to specific causes, providing insights for improving writing skills By analyzing the origins of these errors, the study will illuminate the challenges learners face in cohesive writing The classification of data will draw on Richards' (1974) and James' (1998) models, along with additional sources, to explore the root causes of common cohesive errors made by 11th-grade students, focusing on intra-lingual, inter-lingual, and mixed error sources.
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 students' paragraphs, the researcher identified several errors in the use of cohesion devices within their essays A table was created to display the total number of errors and categorize them by type The findings revealed that most errors occurred in grammatical cohesive devices, with conjunctions accounting for the highest percentage at 53.8% This was followed by reference devices at 37.9%, while lexical cohesion accounted for only 8.3% Notably, other cohesion types, such as substitution and ellipsis, were not utilized by the students.
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 less prevalent overall.
DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Errors in the use of reference
Errors in the use of references constitute 37.9% of all cohesive device errors, as illustrated in the table These errors manifest as demonstrative, personal, and comparative references 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%
The omission or incorrect application of the definite article "the" is a common error in students' writing, often influenced by their mother tongue Research indicates that the most frequent mistake involves omitting "the" when it serves an anaphoric function.
Intra-lingual errors often occur when students fail to use "the" inappropriately, particularly in anaphoric references These mistakes arise when learners neglect to include "the," which serves as a synonym or near synonym for previously mentioned items in their writing For instance, omitting "the" in such contexts can lead to confusion and disrupt the coherence of the text.
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 ”
The article highlights the use of the definite article "the" to refer to nouns that have been previously mentioned or are known to both the speaker and listener For instance, in the example provided, "red envelopes" is referenced earlier, necessitating the use of "the" in subsequent mentions Similarly, while the phrase "the city" may seem vague, contextually, readers can infer that it refers back to "Ha Noi." This common mistake is often made by weaker students, as they struggle to recall whether a noun has been mentioned before.
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 unsure when to use articles or omit them entirely Understanding the nuances of article usage is essential for improving their writing skills and avoiding common mistakes.
“…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, specific time expressions like "in the morning," "in the afternoon," and "in the evening" necessitate the use of the definite article "the." Conversely, expressions such as "last Sunday" or "next Monday" do not require it, leading to confusion for second language learners, particularly those who struggle to memorize these fixed phrases It is important to note that "the" is not used before certain time-related nouns.
Places like "school," "college," "university," "hospital," "bed," "church," and "prison" are visited for their primary functions, such as education for students in schools Additionally, when discussing modes of transportation, like "bus," and subjects, we typically do not use articles.
“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, English noun phrases include elements like Deictic, Numerative, Epithet, and Classifier, whereas Vietnamese noun phrases lack the Numerative component This discrepancy leads Vietnamese students to frequently omit definite articles in their writing Additionally, their language learning strategies contribute to the persistence of 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, errors often arise in 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 in student writing is the incorrect use of the demonstrative reference "there," which often stems from first language interference Students tend to transfer habits from their native language into English, neglecting the specific rules of English grammar and sometimes adding unnecessary words.
Errors often arise from the misuse of "in" before "there" as a demonstrative adverb, or from "there" functioning as a subject These mistakes can be attributed to a limited exposure to foreign languages However, if students engage regularly with native speakers or practice writing in a foreign language, they can significantly reduce these errors.
At Thanh Ba post office, the absence of motorbikes and bicycles is notable, as they have opted for a camera installation to ensure security The post office is staffed by a team of well-trained and courteous employees, providing a pleasant experience for visitors.
In analyzing common errors related to the use of "there," two primary issues emerge First, "there" is often misused as a locative adverb, referring to specific locations like "Thanh Ba post office." Students, influenced by their native language, mistakenly add "in" before "there," resulting in incorrect sentences Second, in phrases like "there had a lot of things " and "there has a safeguard ," students incorrectly use "there" as a pronoun, similar to its usage in "there is a man at the door." However, in these instances, "there" functions as a demonstrative adverb and cannot serve as the subject of 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 these references effectively However, errors stem from both inter-lingual and intra-lingual sources, primarily due to first language interference Vietnamese and English have distinct lexical and grammatical structures for comparisons; in Vietnamese, comparatives are formed by adding "hơn" or "more" 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 one syllable and multiple syllables in comparison, leading to errors among students who overlook exceptions to general rules and struggle to apply their knowledge in real contexts Despite this, the occurrence of errors in comparative references is minimal, indicating that students are generally aware of these distinctions and are developing good habits in their writing These errors often stem from inter-lingual influences and performance pressure Providing students with opportunities for peer editing and feedback can significantly improve 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' strong abilities to create integrative texts and maintain cohesive structures using referential devices, they often make errors with additive, adversative, and causal conjunctions These mistakes stem from confusion over the appropriate use of conjunctions, unnecessary conjunctions within a single clause, and a failure to uphold the theme and rheme relationship between sentences According to Borschev and Partee (2002), the theme represents the topic being discussed, while the rheme conveys information about that topic Consequently, these errors arise from both intra-lingual and inter-lingual factors, influenced by the teaching and learning process as well as practice.
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 primary factors contributing to errors in the use of adversative conjunctions: misuse and overuse These issues stem from both inter-lingual and intra-lingual sources, as illustrated by the following 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
“although” they are using; hence, they repeatedly use another adversative “but”
"Although" and "but" serve to contrast two conditions, but they should not be used together in a sentence To maintain clarity and correctness, one of these conjunctions should be removed, as they convey similar meanings This common error arises from intra-lingual interference, where students mistakenly apply both adversative conjunctions they have learned.
The misuse of the conjunction "but" is a common error among students, largely due to English textbooks presenting conjunctions without highlighting their subtle semantic differences Conjunctions like "on the other hand," "however," and "but" are often categorized together as adversative, leading students to mistakenly believe they are interchangeable However, "but" is a coordinating conjunction that specifically contrasts two independent clauses, as noted by Oshima and Hogue (1988) This misunderstanding arises from a lack of clear distinctions in teaching, which Richard (1971) attributes to inadequate presentation methods Consequently, students incorrectly use "but" at the beginning of sentences to indicate contrast, despite it being intended to connect clauses.
On a typical day when my parents were at work, they entrusted 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.
“…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" does not create an adversative relationship between the connected discourse units Instead, it serves to continue the discussion without opposing the previously mentioned ideas This highlights the importance of understanding the context in which "but" is used to avoid misinterpretation.
To enhance clarity in writing, it's essential to address the use of the conjunction "but," which can disrupt the reader's comprehension Removing "but" can create a more cohesive paragraph Alternatively, students can substitute "but" with other contrastive connectors like "on the other hand" or "however" to maintain coherence and improve the flow of the text.
The misuse of "despite of" or "despite + a clause" often stems from the influence of Vietnamese language structures on English, resulting in inter-lingual errors Vietnamese students frequently add "of" after "despite" due to confusion between "in spite of" and "despite," which sound similar They mistakenly believe that all adversative conjunctions used to express contrast function the same way, leading to the frequent occurrence of these errors.
“ 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 conjunction "on the other hand" posed significant challenges for participants, as it was frequently misused in their responses This misuse is exemplified in the following example.
Plans are underway to rebuild our library, sparking a debate on how to allocate funds While some advocate for investing in modern technology to enhance resources, others believe it's crucial to save money 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 stem from two distinct groups, namely "some people," indicating that no actual contrast exists between the sentences.
The conjunction "on the other hand" is misused in this paragraph, as it is intended to contrast two aspects of a single subject (Cowan, 2008) A more coherent passage could be achieved by replacing "on the other hand" with "however" or "but," which would better align with the different ideas presented.
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, making up 11.3% of total errors, just after additive conjunctions These errors are often attributed to interference from elements in the target language As shown in Table 4.7, misuse of causal conjunctions is the most prevalent, with 14 occurrences, accounting for 42.4% of errors The most common misuse involves conjunctions such as "because" and "so."
The use of the causal conjunction "so" often leads to confusion among participants, as it is frequently applied incorrectly to link ideas without a genuine causal relationship This issue was highlighted in a review of participants' writing, revealing instances where "so" was used improperly, demonstrating a misunderstanding of its intended purpose in expressing causality.
“…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 is meant to indicate the result between two independent clauses "So" serves to highlight the result rather than the cause, which is the common usage in English To maintain grammatical accuracy, it is advisable to use alternative connectors that convey a similar meaning, such as "therefore," "as a result," or "consequently."
“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 identified 21 instances of repetition, accounting for approximately 8.3% of total cohesion errors Repetition, a basic form of lexical cohesion, often manifests as redundant usage rather than true errors This redundancy reflects a lack of awareness among students regarding the importance of avoiding monotony in English academic writing While such repetitions do not significantly obscure meaning, they disrupt the flow of ideas and contribute to a sense of boredom (Johns, 1997) The findings indicate that students frequently repeat nearly identical phrases, likely due to limited vocabulary For example, one student redundantly used the word "money" multiple times.
We sincerely appreciate your company's generous monetary donation, which is vital for the reconstruction of our library Your contribution will significantly enhance the educational resources and technology available to our students The funds will be allocated into two portions: one for immediate reconstruction efforts and the other reserved for future needs A receipt for the donation will be issued promptly Thank you once again for your invaluable support.
The excessive repetition of the word "money" in the example—appearing six times—creates redundancy and monotony, indicating a lack of vocabulary among students To improve coherence, students can replace "money" with pronouns like "it" or use synonyms such as "contribution." This issue highlights students' inadequate use of ellipsis devices and suggests that their inability to fully develop ideas stems from limited lexical knowledge Additionally, students may resort to paraphrasing due to their awareness of vocabulary limitations and word count requirements A low motivational intensity further exacerbates vocabulary challenges, as students often neglect reading English texts that could enhance their vocabulary and understanding of sentence structures.
This chapter provides an overview of common cohesive errors in the paragraphs of 11th-grade students, utilizing Halliday & Hasan’s (1976) taxonomy for classification The analysis of these errors is informed by Error Analysis studies from Ellis (1997) and the error sources identified by Richards (1971) and James (1998) Notably, conjunction errors are the most frequent, particularly the use of additive conjunctions, which pose significant challenges for learners Demonstrative references rank second, followed by personal references, causal conjunctions, and adversative conjunctions In contrast, errors related to comparative structures are minimal due to students' familiarity with them The primary sources of these errors stem from intra-lingual and inter-lingual influences, compounded by factors such as performance pressure, limited exposure to foreign languages, and varying levels of learner motivation and attitude.
Research findings
A study analyzing 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.
The analysis reveals that conjunction errors account for the highest percentage at 53.8%, significantly outpacing reference errors at 37.9% and lexical cohesive errors at 8.3% This indicates that conjunctions present the greatest challenge for students when writing essays Notably, errors related to substitution, ellipsis, temporal aspects, and collocation were absent from the findings.
The lack of errors in using the four specified categories does not necessarily indicate that students possess true competence in these areas Many may resort to avoidance strategies or limit their word combinations due to a weak vocabulary foundation When using temporal devices, students often rely on simple cohesive connections to link ideas, which helps them avoid errors However, they struggle to use these devices flexibly and professionally and often have trouble recalling unfamiliar conjunctions.
The study highlights that students struggle most with additive conjunctions, followed by causal and adversative ones, leading to a tendency to favor certain conjunctions while omitting others This lack of familiarity with conjunctions may cause students to avoid using them altogether Additionally, errors related to demonstrative references are prevalent, with definite articles often misused due to a misunderstanding of their functions Students also face challenges in maintaining clarity and consistency in personal references, resulting in ambiguous pronoun usage Although issues with comparative structures are minimal due to student familiarity, lexical cohesion remains a significant weakness, as students frequently rely on repetition instead of expanding their vocabulary with synonyms, hindering their ability to elaborate on ideas effectively.
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 language environment also contributes to errors in cohesive type Students have few 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 learning, 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 their practical application in student writing.
Teachers should focus on the semantic and structural differences between English and Vietnamese to address inter-lingual errors related to conjunctions They can enhance students' understanding by having them combine sentences with provided conjunctions or rearrange jumbled sentences using conjunction cues It's essential for teachers to clarify how writing structures and instructional activities interact during the writing process Additionally, encouraging students to think in English from the outset can help prevent the negative transfer of translating thoughts from Vietnamese, which often leads to errors in sentence order and "Vietlish." Providing constructive feedback on students' writing is also crucial for their development.
Students require opportunities to write, while teachers need the chance to respond to that writing effectively English textbooks provide lists of conjunctions categorized by their semantic functions and illustrate their differences with examples Teachers meticulously introduce these conjunctions in context and then engage students in matching the correct conjunctions to the appropriate texts based on their semantic roles.
To address intra-lingual errors in grammatical cohesive devices such as articles and pronouns, teachers should adopt a flexible approach to written corrections that combines explicit and implicit methods Explicitly, teachers should indicate errors and provide correct forms, while implicitly, they should mark errors for students to self-correct This dual approach encourages problem-solving and helps students develop a habit of practice to eliminate errors Additionally, teachers can guide students to create lists of non-interchangeable conjunctions, like "but" and "although." Zamel (1983) recommends that ESL/EFL teachers categorize conjunctive devices by their grammatical functions and highlight the semantic differences among conjunctions within the same category, thereby increasing students' awareness of the varying levels of formality in conjunction usage.
This research emphasizes the importance of systematic observation of student performance by teachers to effectively identify learner needs By focusing on areas where students struggle, educators can implement targeted pedagogical strategies to enhance the coherence of student writing The findings reveal that students often overuse and misuse words, leading to lexical repetition; thus, teachers should encourage them to connect their current thoughts with previous statements Additionally, promoting the use of synonyms and antonyms can enrich students' vocabulary and style To minimize repetition, students should cultivate the habit of learning new words within various contexts, ensuring that vocabulary acquisition is both structured and contextualized.
Students should cultivate the habit of reading entire paragraphs to better understand cohesive devices in English academic writing Zamel (1992, 1998) emphasizes the importance of adding new words and expressions to personal dictionaries after each reading session, which aids in memorizing vocabulary in context and connecting new information with prior knowledge Personal dictionaries are beneficial as they enable students to infer word meanings from context and recognize relationships among words To minimize lexical errors, it is crucial for students to learn new vocabulary within context rather than in isolation, guiding them to avoid redundancy and use synonyms and antonyms appropriately An understanding of lexical devices through the analysis of connectors in well-written texts will enhance students' sensitivity to the correct usage of lexical ties, ultimately improving the clarity and quality of their writing.
Students should engage in peer editing with a partner, focusing on the cohesive devices they have learned By incorporating these suggestions, they will be able to understand and effectively apply cohesive devices in their English writing.
Limitations and suggestions for further research
The study's primary limitation arises from its small participant pool, focusing on cohesive errors in writing among 84 11th-grade students at Tùng Thiện High School To enhance the generalizability of findings, future research should involve a larger and more diverse population Additionally, the writing tasks presented to students are often perceived as monotonous and uncreative, failing to engage them effectively, which results in a limited use of cohesive devices The time allocated for teaching these devices is also insufficient Therefore, it is recommended that subsequent studies compare different learner groups, particularly those well-versed in cohesive devices versus beginners Furthermore, other influential factors affecting writing, such as students' psychological states, teaching materials, and genre types, should also be explored.
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- 08%3A00&max-results=4
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 formal semantics: Genitives, relational nouns, and type-shifting In Robin Cooper,
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