INTRODUCTION
Rationale
As Vietnam expands its cooperation with the global economy, an increasing number of people are eager to learn foreign languages, especially English, due to its vital role in globalization English is widely recognized as the most prevalent language worldwide, used extensively in both public and private sectors across over 100 countries More than half of the world's newspapers are published in English, reflecting its dominance in global media Learning English enables individuals to access and update knowledge more efficiently, particularly in fields like science, technology, and medicine, where the majority of information is conveyed in English Over 70% of the world’s scientists read English, highlighting its importance in academic and professional advancement Post-World War II, the influence of the United States fostered the spread of English through technological development of telecommunications, making it the global lingua franca that connects diverse cultures and industries.
Griffer, 2002; Seidlhofer, 2003; McKay, 2003; Llurda, 2004; and Ha, 2005 a) In sum, English plays the most important role
The growing demand for language learning in Vietnam has led to positive changes in language teaching methods, with teachers exploring various techniques to achieve better learner outcomes Effective language teaching is reflected in learners' proficiency in four skills: reading, listening, writing, and speaking, with writing and speaking being particularly challenging Learners need to communicate clearly and accurately in real-life situations, and errors in language use are often the main factor hindering message conveyance Despite the difficulties such as vocabulary breadth, mastering grammar, and applying language appropriately, learners face additional challenges like making inevitable errors during the learning process Embracing a modern, tolerant approach recognizes that errors are a natural and unavoidable part of language acquisition, ultimately fostering a more supportive learning environment.
Errors are a natural and unavoidable part of the learning process, as students are likely to make mistakes repeatedly without recognizing them Therefore, the role of teachers in correcting students' errors is crucial for effective language development and improvement.
Errors in the use of cohesive devices are common among English major freshmen in university writing, impacting motivation and learning outcomes According to Lado (1957), contrastive analysis between Vietnamese and English can help predict and prevent such errors, but Richards (1971) highlights that errors also stem from intra-lingual factors like overgeneralization and incomplete rule application While some studies have explored the causes of writing errors in Vietnamese universities, there is a need for targeted research on cohesive device errors, particularly at Dong Thap University This study aims to analyze these errors through error analysis, emphasizing the importance of cohesive devices in effective writing, and is titled “An Error Analysis of the Use of Cohesive Devices in Writing by English Major Freshmen at Dong Thap University.”
This study aims to gather both quantitative and qualitative data to identify the types and causes of errors in the use of cohesive devices in the writing of English major freshmen at Dong Thap University The research also proposes effective techniques for correcting these errors, enhancing students' writing skills through targeted interventions The findings will provide valuable insights into common challenges faced by students and inform strategies to improve mastery of cohesive devices in academic writing.
The study aims to seek answers to the following questions:
Question 1: What are common errors in the use of cohesive devices in freshmen students‟ writing?
Question 2: What are the major causes for the use of each type of cohesive devices? The answers to these questions will serve as help in giving recommendations to reducing and preventing the problems of coherence in students‟ writing
This study focuses on errors in the use of cohesive devices in writing among Vietnamese pre-intermediate students, highlighting common challenges in English language learning Conducted at Dong Thap University in Dong Thap Province, the research involves two English teachers and 80 students from classes English 16 and Pedagogic English Method 16 The investigation was carried out from November 10th, 2016, to May, providing valuable insights into students' writing proficiency and areas for improvement in English education.
Recent research emphasizes the significance of error analysis in teaching English as a foreign language Scholars like Zamel (1983), Richard (1971), and Corder (1967) highlight that errors play a crucial role not only in understanding language learning processes but also in improving teaching practices Corder, in particular, underscores the importance of analyzing errors to gain insights into learners' interlanguage development and enhance language instruction Incorporating error analysis into language teaching can lead to more effective pedagogical strategies and better learner outcomes.
Errors in language learning, as discussed in 1967, are valuable tools for both teachers and researchers; they help assess learners' progress, provide insights into the language acquisition process, and highlight areas needing improvement Specifically, errors related to the use of cohesive devices in Vietnamese learners’ writing can reveal underlying causes and guide targeted correction techniques This research aims to identify error types and their sources, enabling teachers to implement more effective correction strategies and improve their instructional methods By focusing on appropriate correction timing and techniques, teachers can better support students in mastering cohesive devices, leading to improved writing skills and greater language fluency Ultimately, addressing these errors helps students reduce mistakes, enhance their understanding of English grammar and structure, and develop more confident communication skills.
This study employs both quantitative and qualitative research methods, utilizing student compositions as the primary data collection technique and statistical analysis to measure error frequency The participants are two classes of freshmen at Dong Thap University, aged 18 to 19, who completed weekly short writing assignments on free topics Collected papers were analyzed to identify and categorize errors, particularly focusing on errors in the use of cohesive devices, classified according to Halliday and Hasan's (1976) cohesion categories The error data were compared against correction techniques outlined in methodology textbooks to assess error patterns and the effectiveness of correction strategies.
The study comprises five chapter:
Chapter One introduces the research by outlining the rationale for selecting the topic, clearly stating the study's objectives and scope It emphasizes the significance of the research in advancing understanding within the field and provides a concise overview of the entire study, setting the foundation for the subsequent chapters This chapter highlights the importance of the topic and explains its relevance, establishing a clear direction for the research.
Chapter two reviews key literature on language learning, beginning with the factors that influence language acquisition It then explores error analysis, focusing on common errors in language learning and their underlying causes The chapter also differentiates between errors and mistakes, highlighting their main sources Finally, it discusses cohesion in writing, including the concept of cohesion, various cohesive devices, and the different types of cohesion that enhance coherent writing.
Chapter three describes the research methodology which comprises the information of the subjects, research participants, data collection and methods of data analysis It relates to procedures and schedule
Chapter four presents the findings and discussions, including statistical results analyzed from data tables that identify the causes of errors in the use of cohesive devices in writing These results serve as a foundation for recommending effective correction strategies and teaching methods aimed at preventing and eliminating these errors The chapter also offers practical suggestions for educators to improve students' mastery of cohesive devices, thereby enhancing overall writing quality.
Chapter five named conclusion which gives a summary of the whole study and provides limitations, suggestions for further studies and implications.
Significance of the thesis
Numerous studies have been conducted on error analysis to enhance English language teaching Notable researchers such as Zamel (1983), Richard (1971), and Corder (1967) have highlighted the importance of errors in both theoretical understanding and practical application of foreign language learning and teaching According to Corder, analyzing learner errors provides valuable insights for improving language instruction and facilitating learner progress.
Errors in language learning, as discussed since 1967, are valuable sources of insight for both teachers and researchers They help assess learners’ progress, reveal strategies used in acquiring the language, and provide essential feedback for improving teaching methods Specifically, analyzing errors in Vietnamese learners' use of cohesive devices can help teachers identify effective correction techniques and determine the root causes of these errors By understanding these error patterns, teachers can develop targeted interventions, enhancing their ability to correct students’ mistakes effectively Consequently, students can reduce their errors, improve their grasp of English structure and grammar, and communicate more fluently This approach ultimately supports better language proficiency and more efficient language acquisition among learners.
This research employs both quantitative and qualitative methods, using student compositions as a primary data collection technique and statistical analysis to measure results The study focuses on two classes of freshmen at Dong Thap University, aged 18 to 19, who submitted weekly short paragraphs on various topics Errors in students’ writing were systematically identified, cataloged, and compared against correction techniques outlined in methodology textbooks Special attention was given to errors related to cohesive devices, classified according to Haliday and Hasan’s (1976) cohesion categories The collected data and error frequency were analyzed to understand patterns and evaluate the effectiveness of different correction strategies.
The study comprises five chapter:
Chapter one introduces the research by outlining the rationale for selecting the topic, highlighting its relevance and importance The chapter clearly states the study’s objectives and defines its scope to provide a focused understanding It emphasizes the significance of the research in contributing valuable insights to the field, while also offering a concise overview of the research methodology and structure This introductory chapter sets the foundation for the entire study, guiding readers through the purpose and direction of the investigation.
Chapter two provides a comprehensive literature review on key aspects of language learning It explores the factors influencing language acquisition, including cognitive and environmental elements The chapter also examines error analysis, highlighting common errors in language learning and their main causes Additionally, it differentiates between errors and mistakes, emphasizing the importance of understanding their origins for effective language instruction Finally, the review discusses cohesion in writing, covering core concepts of cohesion, various cohesive devices, and the different types of cohesion that contribute to coherent writing.
Chapter three describes the research methodology which comprises the information of the subjects, research participants, data collection and methods of data analysis It relates to procedures and schedule
Chapter four presents the findings and discussions, including statistical results and data analysis The results, displayed in tables, serve as the foundation for identifying the causes of errors in the use of cohesive devices in writing This chapter also offers recommendations for correcting these errors, along with teaching strategies to prevent and eliminate issues related to cohesive device usage.
Chapter five named conclusion which gives a summary of the whole study and provides limitations, suggestions for further studies and implications.
Organization of the thesis
The study comprises five chapter:
Chapter one introduces the research by outlining the rationale for selecting the topic, highlighting its importance and relevance It clearly states the main objectives and defines the scope of the study, ensuring readers understand the focus and boundaries of the research Additionally, this chapter emphasizes the significance of the study in contributing to the existing body of knowledge and briefly provides an overall outline of the research structure, guiding readers through the subsequent chapters.
Chapter two provides a comprehensive review of relevant literature, beginning with an examination of the key factors influencing language learning It then explores the importance of error analysis, highlighting the distinction between errors and mistakes, as well as the main causes of errors in language acquisition Additionally, the chapter discusses the role of cohesion in writing, covering core concepts of cohesion, various cohesive devices, and different types of cohesion that enhance textual coherence.
Chapter three describes the research methodology which comprises the information of the subjects, research participants, data collection and methods of data analysis It relates to procedures and schedule
Chapter four presents the findings and discussions, including statistical results that analyze the causes of errors in the use of cohesive devices in writing These results, displayed in tables, serve as the foundation for identifying specific error types and their Ursachen The chapter also offers recommendations for correcting these errors and provides practical suggestions for teaching strategies to prevent and eliminate misunderstandings related to cohesive device usage, ensuring improved writing quality.
Chapter five named conclusion which gives a summary of the whole study and provides limitations, suggestions for further studies and implications.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Factors affecting language learning
According to language learning process theories, various factors significantly influence language acquisition These factors are broadly categorized into external and internal influences External factors include environmental elements such as classroom settings, instructional methods, and cultural exposure, while internal factors encompass individual characteristics like motivation, cognitive abilities, and learner attitudes Understanding the interplay of these factors is essential for developing effective language learning strategies and optimizing success.
External factors significantly influence language acquisition, including the first language, language environment, and formal teaching methods A learner’s first language, or mother tongue, provides a foundation that facilitates learning a new language, especially due to shared universal features across languages According to behaviorist psychology, Lado (1957) and Fries (1965) identified positive transfer occurring when the first and target languages have similar features, and negative transfer when they differ, potentially hindering learning The language environment also plays a crucial role, with immersive contexts supporting language development Additionally, formal teaching methods are vital, as Littlewood (1980) emphasized that specific techniques can be particularly effective for certain groups of learners.
Dulay et al (1982) identified two key internal factors influencing language acquisition: the filter and the monitor They explained that language learners do not simply acquire what they are exposed to but select input that appears suitable, relevant, and interesting, emphasizing the crucial role of motivation—described as “the incentive, the need or the desire to learn the second language”—which significantly impacts language learning success Low motivation often results in failure, while high motivation correlates strongly with language proficiency, with successful learners typically being more motivated, and their motivation further enhancing their progress (Dulay et al., 1982; Cheng & Dửrnyei, 2007) The concept of the monitor, responsible for conscious linguistic processing, activates when learners attempt to apply grammatical rules or make linguistic judgments Motivation is widely recognized as a vital variable in second language acquisition, acting as an engine that propels learners forward and helps overcome difficulties Brown (2007) describes motivation as an affective factor central to language learning, whereas Cohen (2010) views it as a dynamic, constantly changing process influenced by both external teaching environments and internal cognitive processing.
The notion of errors
The concept of errors is complex due to its inherent nature, as various researchers have diverse understandings of what constitutes an error These differing perspectives are influenced by their unique considerations and the specific aspects of language they focus on, highlighting the multifaceted nature of defining and analyzing errors in linguistic studies.
Behaviorists view errors as symptoms of ineffective teaching or first language interference, often countered through intensive drilling and over-teaching with correct forms In contrast, Mentalists following cognitiveism see errors as an inevitable part of language learning and development, as learners internalize rules and establish new patterns They regard errors not as failures but as evidence of progress toward mastering the language, fostering a positive attitude that reduces anxiety in the learning process.
Making errors is a natural part of the process of learning and teaching a foreign language While many consider mistakes inevitable, they are often viewed negatively and considered something to be avoided or corrected Dulay et al (cited in Duong Thi Dung) describe errors as flawed elements in a learner's speech and writing that deviate from standard English usage Conversely, Lennon (1991) emphasizes that errors highlight the differences between linguistic forms produced by native speakers and those produced by language learners in similar contexts, viewing them as a valuable focus for linguistic analysis.
Errors are often viewed as systematic deviations that occur when learners have not yet mastered specific language skills, making mistakes a natural part of the learning process (Norrish, 1987:7) These errors are considered deviant, especially in the context of acquiring a foreign language, as they reflect gaps in learners’ knowledge Research by Cunningworth emphasizes that errors typically appear during language learning stages, highlighting their significance in understanding learner development and progress.
According to 1987, errors are considered systematic deviations when compared to the norms of the target language, representing common mistakes learners make during language acquisition Errors are defined as the mistakes learners encounter while trying to master a foreign language, often reflecting deviations from the correct linguistic models (Allwright & Bailey, 1991, cited in Hyang-Sook Park) Richards et al (1974) suggested that both children learning their first language and adults learning a foreign language are prone to producing similar types of errors during the learning process.
- The omission of grammatical morphemes
- The double marking of a given semantic feature
- The over generalized application of irregular rules
- The use of one form for several required
In sum, various definitions of error have been presented by experts the differences lies only on the ways they formulate, consider them and approach language.
Errors analysis
In the 1970s and 1980s, many studies on error analysis were published, leading to a more positive view of errors as a natural and essential part of the language learning process, providing valuable insights into learners' progress Scholars like Corder (1967), Richard (1992), and Selinker (1992) emphasized that error analysis involves identifying, describing, and explaining errors in both spoken and written language, helping teachers address common language challenges According to Choon (1993), effective error analysis requires first identifying errors, then classifying them into categories such as semantic, grammatical, lexical, global, and local errors, and finally assessing their deviation from target language rules and impact on communication Conducting error analysis early in a course enables teachers to correct misconceptions before they become ingrained, facilitating targeted instruction Furthermore, analyzing errors offers insights into the second language acquisition process and reveals learners' strategies, highlighting that making errors is an indispensable device for learners to facilitate language learning, as noted by Selinker (1992).
Errors analysis, as defined by James (1998), is the study of linguistic ignorance, which involves understanding the areas where language learners lack knowledge of target language structures He elaborates that "ignorance" refers to being unaware of specific grammatical structures in the TL, while "incompleteness" describes a broader deficiency across all language areas compared to native speaker competence This distinction emphasizes the importance of identifying both specific and overall gaps in language proficiency for effective language teaching and learning.
The growing support for exploring English Analysis (EA) is driven by the recognition that errors are essential to language learning, rather than simply being undesirable mistakes Many experts argue that errors provide valuable insights into how learners acquire language and the strategies they use, making them crucial for effective foreign language teaching Corder emphasizes that a learner's errors reveal important information about language acquisition processes, highlighting their significance in both research and classroom methodology.
Difference between errors and mistakes
Many linguists distinguish between “errors” and “mistakes,” although a clear-cut difference is difficult to define Klassen (1991) explains that “error” refers to structures perceived as unacceptable by native speakers due to lack of language competence, while Chomsky (1965) proposed that errors stem from either performance factors or insufficient language knowledge Corder (1967) further clarified this distinction by labeling deviations caused by performance issues as “mistakes” and those due to competence limitations as “errors,” noting that mistakes are unsystematic and correctable once identified.
Errors refer to systematic deviations from the rules of the target language, often caused by a lack of knowledge or incorrect hypotheses, while mistakes are temporary lapses such as lapses of memory or carelessness Many consider “error” more severe and suitable for formal contexts, whereas “mistake” is commonly used in casual settings The term “error” originates from Latin, meaning “to wander,” whereas “mistake” comes from Old Norse, meaning “to wrongly take.” To distinguish between them, educators can ask learners to correct themselves; if they can, it’s likely a mistake, but if they cannot, it’s probably an error.
Causes of errors
There are a variety of reasons for how learners make errors According to Myles
According to 2002, language development is influenced by both social and cognitive factors These influences can be categorized into two main causes: first, first language interference, and second, causes that are independent of any influence from the first language Understanding these factors is essential for comprehending the complex nature of language acquisition and learning processes.
First language interference refers to negative transfer from the native language to the target language, which can hinder language acquisition Lado (1957) explained that errors originate from learners' tendency to transfer forms, meanings, and cultural aspects of their native language to the new language Corder (1967) observed that language learners formulate hypotheses about the target language by comparing it to their native language, often reflecting first language features in their errors In 1978, he further described interference as learners relying on their first language as a communication strategy, frequently employing literal translation to bridge gaps in understanding Myles (2002) emphasized that transfer is a significant cognitive factor influencing writing errors, highlighting the importance of studying both negative and positive transfer, as well as strategies to prevent overuse of native language forms, according to Ellis (1994).
Language learners often rely on their native language in second language acquisition due to several key factors Performance pressure in classroom settings can lead learners to default to their mother tongue when faced with tasks they find challenging, as highlighted by Windowson (1990), who noted that under stress, learners tend to base their meaning on familiar native language resources Additionally, a limited foreign language environment lacking natural interactions with native speakers hampers linguistic development, prompting learners to use their first language more frequently The nature of language tasks, such as translation, also significantly influences reliance on native language structures, with Dulay et al (1982) stating that these tasks increase learners’ dependence on their first language during language production.
Dulay et al (1982) identified the monitor as a crucial factor in foreign language acquisition, influencing how learners process and produce the target language When learners think in their first language, they often struggle with interference, which is affected by performance pressure, limited language exposure, elicitation methods, and monitor usage Understanding these factors is essential for improving language learning strategies and reducing native language interference.
Myles (2002) identified four social factors that influence foreign language writing, which are closely linked to learners’ attitudes, motivations, and goals Research indicates that positive attitudes, strong motivation, and clear goals enhance language learning success, while negative attitudes may be reinforced by failure or lack of progress Learners’ attitudes, motivations, and goals help explain why some perform better than others in foreign language writing French (1958) observed that common errors in English tend to have a shared cause, rooted not in native language interference but in the inherent usages of English itself, which are consistent across regions, students, and teaching methods.
2.5.2 Causes independent from the first language
Research indicates that language errors can stem from various causes independent of an individual's first language, including overgeneralization of rules, development of false concepts, fossilization of mistakes, incomplete application of grammatical rules, and cross-association between languages Understanding these factors is essential for effective language learning and teaching strategies.
Overgeneralization is a common writing error involving broad claims that are not entirely accurate According to Jakobovist (1969), it refers to applying previously learned strategies to new situations, which can lead to inaccuracies Researchers like Richard (1974) and Jain (1969) describe overgeneralization as "intra-lingual interference," highlighting how learners transfer rules within the same language Littlewood (1980) explains that overgeneralization and transfer are similar strategies; the main difference is that overgeneralization involves using knowledge of the foreign language, while transfer relies on the learner's first language.
False conceptualization occurs when learners misunderstand the distinctions between target language items, leading to incorrect mental models Richard (1971) identifies that poor presentation methods, especially those based on contrastive approaches, contribute to this confusion For example, learners often struggle with the correct usage of verbs like “get” and “take,” as well as distinguishing between “was” and “is” in past and present tense, due to ineffective teaching strategies.
Fossilization is a phenomenon where learners internalize incorrect language forms, affecting pronunciation, syntax, and vocabulary (Brown et al., 1987) It commonly occurs in both adolescents' and adults' speech, often influenced by factors such as mother tongue interference, communication needs, and teacher feedback These factors collectively contribute to the persistence of fossilized errors, making it a significant challenge in language acquisition.
Incomplete application of language rules often stems from two key factors: the use of questions in the classroom, such as elicitation techniques, and learners' interest in communication These factors enable students to communicate effectively without fully mastering the target language's grammatical rules, highlighting the importance of practical communication over strict rule adherence.
Cross association, as defined by George (1972), refers to the mutual interference between partially learned items where neither is inhibited, but both are affected by each other Unlike overgeneralization, cross association originates from interference caused by opposing or conflicting information rather than previous learning items This phenomenon highlights how partially acquired knowledge can influence other related items through direct interference, impacting learning and recall processes Understanding cross association is essential for effective language acquisition and educational strategies, as it explains the complexities of learner interference in cognitive development.
The notion of cohesion
Text-generating devices—such as specific words or phrases—are essential tools that help speakers and writers establish clear relationships between sentences These devices facilitate the seamless connection of ideas in both written and spoken communication, enabling the creation of coherent and cohesive texts By using these linking words and phrases, authors can effectively combine sentences and improve the overall flow of their content, enhancing readability and comprehension.
According to Yule (1996), a text typically possesses a specific structure that relies on factors distinct from those involved in constructing a single sentence One key aspect of this structure is cohesion, which refers to the ties and connections that link different parts of a text to create meaning Schiffrin (1978) defines cohesive devices as the clues used by speakers and listeners to interpret the underlying meaning behind surface utterances, thereby facilitating understanding and coherence within the text.
Halliday and Hasan (1976) define a text as a semantic unit that possesses meaning without relying on its form, emphasizing the importance of cohesion as a key semantic concept They describe cohesion as the relationship of meaning that exists within a text, highlighting that it is not about the structural aspects but about how different elements within the discourse are interconnected Cohesion involves non-structural relations that enable elements to depend on each other for interpretation, primarily focusing on the links between sentences, which are the main source of cohesive ties in a text Additionally, while cohesion occurs between sentences, they acknowledge that structural relations also exist within individual sentences.
In short, that texts cohere or tie together, this is what distinguishes it compares with something that is not a text, due to the assistance of cohesive devices.
Types of cohesion
Halliday and Hasan (1976) provide a comprehensive analysis of cohesive devices, identifying five major types: reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction, and lexical ties Among these, reference, substitution, ellipsis, and conjunction are classified as grammatical cohesion, with conjunction often debated but best placed within this group due to its primarily grammatical nature with a lexical component Lexical ties, on the other hand, are categorized as lexical cohesion, emphasizing the importance of vocabulary in creating coherence within a text Understanding these cohesive devices is essential for improving text cohesion and enhancing rhetorical clarity in writing.
Table 2.1: Types of cohesion at linguistic level
Linguistic level at which “phoric” relation is established
Cohesion is classified based on linguistic form, encompassing both lexicogrammatical and semantic relations Semantic cohesion can be further divided into referential and conjunctive types, while lexicogrammatical cohesion depends on specific grammatical connections Understanding these categories helps clarify how different cohesive devices function to create coherence in a text, with detailed types outlined within each group to enhance clarity and comprehension.
Grammatical rules are constructed by the grammatical structures each component tie each other Halliday and Hasan (1976) classify grammatical rules into four major classes: Reference, substitution, ellipsis, and conjunction
According to Halliday and Hasan (1976), referential cohesion in language involves specific items that serve as references, which we use to connect ideas and clarify meaning These referential items include personals, demonstratives, and comparatives in English, allowing speakers to refer to previously mentioned or contextually understood entities This form of cohesion helps create coherence within a text by linking sentences through clear and purposeful references.
Exophora, or exophoric reference, refers to pointing outside the text to a situational context, contrasting with endophoric reference, which links to other parts within the text Halliday and Hasan distinguish clearly between situational reference—where meaning depends on external context—and textual reference—where meaning is derived from within the text itself Understanding this distinction is essential for analyzing how references function in communication, enhancing comprehension and interpretive accuracy.
[to preceding text] [to following text] anaphora cataphora
Reference items in language can be classified as exophoric or endophoric Exophoric references relate to objects or entities outside the text, relying on contextual situational information, while endophoric references pertain to elements within the text itself Endophora further divides into anaphoric references, which refer back to previously mentioned content, and cataphoric references, which anticipate and point forward to upcoming information Understanding these distinctions is essential for coherent communication and effective text analysis.
Anaphoric and cataphoric reference indicate two different ways in which reference items can function within a text Anaphoric reference points the reader or listener
„backwards‟ to a previously mentioned entity, process or state of affairs In the following example, the underlined words are anaphoric reference
Scoring in the game occurs when the ball hits the ground within the designated yard boundaries or when an opponent makes a mistake If a team commits a fault, they are charged one point, and the opposing team gains the right to serve the next volley.
Cataphoric reference is a linguistic device that directs the reader or listener forward within a text, encouraging continued reading and helping to identify the elements to which the reference items relate For example, the pronoun “they” functions as a cataphoric reference, requiring readers to read further to understand its referent, which is clarified in the subsequent sentence This technique enhances cohesion in writing by guiding the audience through the narrative and maintaining engagement Understanding cataphoric references is essential for effective communication and contributes to creating clear, coherent texts optimized for SEO.
They said that the dream is a blessing for them Teachers, students, workers and everyone have a different dream
Haliday and Hasan (1976) identify three types of referential cohesion—personal, demonstrative, and comparative—that are essential for establishing coherence in a text These devices allow writers and speakers to make multiple references to people and objects, enhancing clarity and connection within the discourse Incorporating these cohesion techniques improves the overall flow and understanding of any written or spoken content, making it more cohesive and engaging for the audience.
Personal references are conveyed through functions in speech situations, categorized by person (see Table 2.3) These references are expressed using pronouns and determiners, which help identify individuals and objects previously mentioned in the text Proper use of personal references enhances clarity and coherence in communication, ensuring the reader easily follows the referenced entities throughout the discourse.
Pronouns such as I, you, we, us, he, him, she, her, they, them, it, and one play a crucial role in language by replacing nouns to create coherence and avoid repetition Possessive pronouns like mine, yours, ours, his, hers, theirs, and its indicate ownership, enhancing clarity in communication According to Halliday and Hasan (1976), these pronouns are essential in establishing connections between ideas and maintaining cohesion within texts Utilizing proper pronouns and possessives not only improves readability but also aligns with SEO best practices by ensuring clear and engaging content.
Demonstrative references are used to indicate location or proximity, guided by determiners and adverbs, as outlined in Table 2.4 These references can point to a single word, phrase, or even larger chunks of text that span multiple paragraphs or pages They play a crucial role in maintaining coherence and clarity within written content, especially in longer documents Understanding how to effectively use demonstratives enhances both readability and SEO performance by clearly establishing relational context.
Class Determiner Adverb determiner this these that those
The (Source: Haliday and Hasan, 1976: 38)
Comparative references are indirect references by means of identity or similarity
(table 2.5), they expressed through adjectives and adverbs and serve to compare items within a text
Class Adjective Adverb same identical equal similar additional other different else identically similarly likewise so such differently otherwise better, more etc
[comparative adjectives and quantifiers] so more less equally
Substitution involves replacing one item with another, serving as a grammatical relation within the sentence structure Unlike reference, which pertains to the meaning, substitution focuses on the structural aspect of language As outlined in Table 2.6, understanding the difference between substitution and reference is essential for grasping their roles in linguistic analysis This concept is vital for improving grammatical accuracy and clarity in communication.
Table 2.5 The distinction between substitution and reference
Type of cohesive relation Linguistic level
There are three types of substitution: nominal, verbal and clausal They are the words, which can only be interpreted in relation to what has gone before Haliday and Hasan
(1976) give out the following list of the items that occur as substitutes:
The following underlined words are examples of substitution:
- There are some new dresses in the wardrobe These ones have been given by my sister Nominal substitution
- Neither do you. Verbal substitution
Ellipsis is a linguistic process where an element within a text or discourse is omitted, often to create conciseness or avoid redundancy It occurs when a crucial structural component is left out of a sentence or clause, relying on context for interpretation This relation within the text can only be understood by referencing an earlier element in the preceding text As Haliday and Hasan (1976) explain, ellipsis can be interpreted as a form of substitution where the item is replaced by nothing, making it an essential aspect of cohesive and efficient language use.
88) Consider the following discourse fragment illustrates for the point:
It is impossible to determine John's preferences—whether he prefers the red car, shoes, or tie—without additional context, such as previous statements like Catherine's remark, "I like the brown hair." Clear understanding of prior conversation is essential to interpret his true liking.
Therefore, the red is a elliptical nominal group
As with substitution, ellipsis also have three types: nominal, verbal and clausal
In the following examples, the ellipsis which have been left out and marked by (*)
- My friends are very kind Both (*) are too friendly Nominal ellipsis
- Have you been studying? - Yes, I have (*) Verbal ellipsis
- A: Mary is staying for dinner!
B: Is she? she didn’t tell me (*) Clausal ellipsis
Conjunctions differ from other cohesive devices like reference, substitution, and ellipsis because they do not serve to remind the reader of previously mentioned entities, actions, or states—that is, they are not anaphoric Instead, conjunctions function as a cohesive tool by signaling relationships within the text that can only be understood through context Unlike reference, substitution, and ellipsis, which are grammatical devices operating within fixed systems of person, number, proximity, and degree of comparison, conjunctions create connections based on meaning and logical flow, enhancing overall textual coherence.
Cohesive devices in writing
Cohesive devices are essential for creating coherence in writing and speech by linking ideas within sentences and paragraphs These include personal pronouns (he, she, they), demonstrative pronouns (this, that, these, those), articles, and transitional adverbs (therefore, furthermore) Often referred to as linking words, connectors, or discourse markers, they help establish clear connections between ideas Without adequate use of cohesive devices, an essay can become a disjointed collection of sentences, causing a loss of meaning Common transitional words such as “For example,” “In conclusion,” and “However” are vital for guiding readers through your arguments smoothly Proper use of these devices enhances the unity and clarity of your writing.
Cohesive devices, combined with coherence, are essential for creating well-structured, cohesive texts However, many students are not taught how to effectively use these devices, leading to frequent mistakes Mastering the correct use of cohesive devices is crucial for producing clear and cohesive writing that communicates ideas effectively.
Cohesive devices are essential in writing as they guide readers through the text by signaling relationships between ideas, clauses, and paragraphs (Boadhead and Berlin, 1981) Researchers have emphasized that these devices significantly impact writing quality and are crucial for maintaining the author's intended meaning (Witte and Faigleiy, 1981; Raimes, 1979) However, studies show that English language learners often struggle with mastering cohesive devices, unlike native speakers who typically acquire them naturally as part of language learning (Bacha and Hanania, 1980).
Summary
This chapter has presented briefly the literature review, which is relevant for the study According to Lado (1957), Fries (1965), Littlewood (1980) and Dulay et al
Foreign language learning is influenced by both external factors, such as the learning and teaching environment, and internal factors, including how learners process the language As a result, learners' errors are inevitable and reflect these influences Error analysis plays a crucial role in transforming these errors into valuable insights for improving foreign language teaching and learning Numerous studies by researchers like Coder (1967), Richard (1992), and Selinker have demonstrated the importance of error analysis in understanding and enhancing language acquisition.
Understanding language errors is crucial in language learning; these errors are categorized into mistakes caused by lack of knowledge and errors resulting from temporary oversights or carelessness Causes of errors are primarily divided into first language interference and independent factors This study emphasizes errors related to the use of cohesive devices, highlighting the importance of cohesion in effective writing Additionally, it provides a comprehensive analysis of cohesive devices based on the framework developed by Halliday and Hasan (1976).
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Research participants
The participants chosen for the study were included 80 English major freshmen of two classes: English 16 and pedagogic English method 16 at Dong Thap University.
Study setting
This study involved 80 first-year English major freshmen at Dong Thap University, randomly divided into two classes at the start of the academic year Despite coming from different regions, all students had three years of high school English and nine months of university-level English courses, placing them at a similar pre-intermediate level The students had not consistently learned or effectively used cohesive devices in writing, as high school English emphasized grammar over writing skills Two teachers were responsible for teaching writing in the two classes, with each class taught weekly by a dedicated instructor, ensuring similar learning conditions The research aims to inform teachers on focusing more on cohesive devices in upcoming grammar lessons Overall, the students were homogenous in age, ranging from 18 years old, typical of first-year undergraduates.
19 At present, they all have the same learning conditions and have learnt in the same cultural background.
Data collection
Teachers conducted a survey during a writing class to identify common errors made by foreign language learners Students were asked to write a free-topic paragraph of 100-150 words, allowing them to choose familiar topics, fostering natural expression The data for this research were collected from 80 university students’ handwritten paragraphs, providing insights into typical writing challenges faced by learners This approach helps in understanding error patterns and improving language instruction.
All writing techniques are administered under the supervision of the teacher to ensure effective learning Recognizing that errors naturally occur during the learning process, free compositions are collected over an eight-month semester to identify authentic student mistakes Throughout the semester, teachers are instructed to implement a specific guideline: each student is required to write a paragraph of approximately [insert length or detail], encouraging spontaneous and genuine writing practice.
Students are instructed to start with an outline, followed by a first draft, and finally submit a polished final version This process encourages thorough planning and revisions to improve writing quality Additionally, students are required to pass their final draft to another classmate before submitting it to the teacher This peer review step helps identify and correct common errors among freshmen students Furthermore, this practice provides valuable insights for teachers to develop effective error correction techniques Focusing on specific types of mistakes and implementing targeted teaching strategies can significantly reduce errors Overall, a structured writing process combined with peer review enhances students' writing skills and enables teachers to better address their learning needs.
Data analysis
This study employs both qualitative and quantitative methods to analyze errors in the use of cohesive devices, including categorization based on Halliday and Hasan's (1976) cohesion categories Weekly student compositions serve as the primary data source, with errors identified, categorized, and their frequencies calculated to measure both accuracy and prevalence The qualitative analysis involves examining the nature of errors in students’ writings, while the quantitative aspect focuses on statistical counting of error occurrences, providing a comprehensive understanding of cohesive device misuse Data collected from students’ papers form the basis for detailed error analysis, facilitating insights into common issues and patterns in language cohesion.
The techniques are applied in the analysis process are: identifying, labeling, classifying, and transferring to indexes
The analysis of writing will be derived from Corder‟s (1967) method on error analysis This method has three steps:
Step 1: Collection errors Step 2: Identification of errors Step3: Description of errors The outcomes were put forward for comparison the following process of recognizing and identifying errors
31 of the target language? sense in the context? investigation
Is learner available for consultation?
Can a plausible interpretation be put on sentence in context?
Obtain from him authoritative interpretation and make authoritative reconstruction of sentence in target language
Make plausible reconstruction of sentence in target language
Is mother tongue of learner known
Hold sentence in store yes
Translate sentence literally info first language Is plausible interpretation in context plausible? yes
Compare reconstructed sentence with original erroneous sentence to locate error
Translate first language back into target language to provide plausible reconstruction yes
Figure 3.1 : The process of recognizing and identifying errors (Extracted from „Error Analysis‟ Papers in Applied Linguistics Vol.2, edited by Allen, J.P.B and Corder, S.Pit London: OUP 1975: 129)
Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhd 77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77t@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn.Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhddtt@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn
Data was collected using the methods and instruments outlined in chapter three The results are presented through tables highlighting the frequency and percentage of errors associated with different types of cohesive devices, along with their sources Errors are categorized into three groups: intra-lingual (caused by interference within English), inter-lingual (resulting from Vietnamese influence on English), and mixed (stemming from both or unclear sources).
Table 4.1: All errors in grammatical and lexical cohesion
GRAMMATICAL COHESION LEXICAL COHESION Reference o Demostrative o Comparative o Personal
Table 4.2: The number of errors in the use of cohesive devices
Cohesive devices Number of errors
The total number of errors 295 100
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS
Errors in the use of reference
Reference errors constitute the largest portion of all errors, accounting for 62.02%, with demonstrative errors making up 34.23%, comparative errors comprising 16.27%, and personal errors representing 11.52% These error types will be examined in detail in the following sections.
The article highlights common errors in the use of cohesive devices, specifically focusing on the incorrect application of "the," "this," and "there." These errors can disrupt the coherence and clarity of a text, making it difficult for readers to follow the intended meaning The table provided in the article offers detailed examples of these mistakes, emphasizing the importance of proper usage to enhance textual cohesion Addressing these mistakes is crucial for improving overall writing quality and ensuring smooth information flow in academic and professional texts.
Table 4.3: Errors in the use of demonstrative reference
Errors in the use of demonstrative reference “ the ”
Table 4.4: Errors in the use of the definite article
Type of errors with “ the ” Number
Omitting (inter-lingual source) 57 Wrong application (intra-lingual source) 21
According to Table 4.3, errors in the use of the definite article are the most prevalent, highlighting their status as a significant challenge for students These errors occur when students either omit the definite article when it is necessary or use itIncorrectly, with the respective error counts being 57 and 21, as detailed in Table 4.4.
This common error among students often results from first language (mother tongue) interference, particularly in second language learning Specifically, Vietnamese students frequently forget to use the definite article "the" in English noun phrases because this linguistic feature is unfamiliar in Vietnamese, where noun phrases lack elements such as deictic, epithet, and classifier before the head English noun phrases typically include preceding elements like deictic (articles), numerative, epithet, and classifier, which are absent in Vietnamese, leading to difficulties in correctly applying articles in English.
The definite article is often overlooked as a “small word,” leading to errors in its use or omission Although it does not carry meaning on its own, the definite article indicates that the noun it modifies has a specific referent Its proper use relies on contextual clues from the environment, including the structure of the text, the situation, and cultural understanding, which provide the necessary information to identify the referent accurately.
Table 4.5: Errors in the omission of “ the ”
Type of errors in the omission of „ the ‟ Number
Omission of “the” as an anaphoric reference is the most common error, accounting for 53 occurrences, while only 4 errors involve omitting “the” as homophoric and cataphoric references Many students fail to include “the” before noun phrases that are synonyms or near-synonyms of previously mentioned items, indicating a common oversight in maintaining referential clarity This error often occurs when students are focused on the flow of events or new information, leading them to forget the necessity of the definite article Examples from students’ writing demonstrate that missing “the” can hinder coherence and clarity in their texts.
A harmonious and happy family fosters positive development both socially and nationally When family units are stable and united, they contribute to the overall progress of society and the country Building strong family relationships plays a vital role in nurturing a well-developed and prosperous community.
- The first reason is that teachers have bad method I sure that the reason for bad method is mainly how to teach…
The errors with the use of omitting homophoric and cataphoric are:
- First thing I will pay attention is that a motorbike service near my house… (cataphoric is ommited)
- Ant came from Lions’ house… (homophoric is omitted)
- They are also best in the class… (cataphoric is omitted)
In the above examples, students rarely omit the definite article "the," especially when it functions as a homophoric or cataphoric reference Typically, "the" is attached to the noun phrase it modifies, serving as a structural element Examples include phrases like "the director of his company," "the King," and "the strongest country," which demonstrate how "the" consistently accompanies nouns to specify particular entities Proper understanding of the use of "the" enhances clarity and accuracy in English writing and communication.
Table 4.4 highlights that students made 22 errors related to the inappropriate use of the definite article "the" in their writing These errors primarily involve students mistakenly using "the" instead of indefinite articles "a/an" or omitting the article altogether For example, students often incorrectly substitute "the" where an indefinite article or no article is needed, indicating a common misunderstanding of article usage rules This issue underscores the importance of targeted instruction to improve students’ mastery of appropriate article usage in English writing Proper understanding and application of articles are crucial for enhancing overall writing clarity and coherence, making this an essential area for language learners to focus on.
- Ex1: He could not speak English and he did not know about English
So he could not tell with the people here Moreover, he could not read street sign Even if he could not understand the foreigner what spoke
- Ex2: When you meet difficulties, you must settle by own yourselves Moreover, you will feel lonely while living in boarding house So, you are duped by the stranger…
The nouns or noun phrases following the underlined “the” in the above extracts are not previously referred to any items either in the situation or text, therefore it must
Certainly! Please provide the article you'd like me to rewrite.
The word "foreigner" is a singular countable noun, highlighting its specific grammatical usage In the second excerpt, "stranger" appears for the first time and is unrelated to previous context, making the use of "the" before it inappropriate; instead, "a" should be used Misuse of English articles such as "the" and "a" often stems from students' anxiety about correct usage, leading to confusion Additionally, teaching methods that do not clarify the rules of articles can contribute significantly to these common errors among learners.
The articles "a/an" and the zero article are classified based on their definiteness or indefiniteness "The" functions as a definite article, can be followed by singular or plural countable nouns and uncountable nouns, and has no inherent meaning Conversely, "a" is an indefinite article that signifies "the only one" and precedes singular nouns The zero article, used with plural countable nouns or uncountable nouns, indicates the absence of an article When teaching these concepts, educators often contrast the definite article "the" with indefinite articles "a/an" to clarify their different uses However, this contrastive approach may sometimes cause students to confuse "a" with "the," leading to common errors in usage.
“the”, and false conceptualization in their writing is obvious These errors such as the use of “the” in inappropriate places are sorted as intra-lingual errors
Errors in the use of demonstrative references “this”
Table 4.3 highlights that there are 03 errors in the use of selective demonstrative references, indicating the need for increased focus during instruction Although the number of errors is relatively low, teachers should pay careful attention to teaching this aspect of demonstrative references to reduce mistakes The primary reason for these errors is linked to challenges students face in correctly identifying and applying demonstrative references within context Addressing this issue can enhance students' understanding and usage of demonstrative references, ultimately improving their overall language accuracy.
Students quickly grasped the use of demonstrative references at the beginning of elementary level, with clear understanding of their meanings, which appear to be similar to Vietnamese This familiarity may explain why they found it easier to learn and apply demonstratives effectively in their language skills.
Students have concluded that the word "this" can function as the head in noun phrases referring to human referents in various contexts As a result, they have created sentences using "this" appropriately to refer to people, demonstrating its versatility in English sentence structures.
- The second, nonverbal behavior helps us that saving time This is an action to transmit information for others quickly.
- The women usually tend to speak softly, and use nonverbal communication more than men This are better than the men at interpreting nonverbal signals and reading unintentional nonverbal messages…
According to Haliday and Hasan (1976) “a demonstrative as Modifier
Errors in the use of conjunction
Table 4.6: Summary table of conjunction errors
Conjunction External/internal Internal (unless otherwise specified) Adversative Adversative “proper”
Emphatic however, despite, inspite of
Emphatic however, on the other hand
Simple So, so that Emphatic consequently
Dissimilar on the other hand
As shown in Table 4.1, the errors in conjunction takes up of 62.02% all errors in the use of cohesive devices, in which the adversative contributes 8.81%, the causal
In English language learning, conjunctions play a vital role in connecting ideas and creating coherent sentences Among these, causal conjunctions are particularly important for expressing cause-and-effect relationships, while additive conjunctions are used to add information Despite the variety of conjunctions available, learners often focus only on a few simple ones at early stages As a result, common errors occur in the use of these conjunctions, especially with additive ones, which can affect the clarity and coherence of their writing Addressing these typical mistakes is essential for improving English proficiency and effective communication.
4.2.1 Errors in the use of adversative conjunctions
According to Table 4.2, adversative errors are primarily influenced by inter-lingual and intra-lingual sources Specifically, 21 errors originate from inter-lingual interference, while 7 errors stem from intra-lingual factors Understanding these error sources is crucial for improving language learning strategies and minimizing mistakes.
One common error in students' papers is the misuse of "however" and "on the other hand," often caused by confusion between adversative and additive conjunctions due to influence from their native language These errors highlight how language transfer can lead to incorrect conjunction usage, affecting the clarity and coherence of students' writing.
- If we do daily exercises, we can prevent diabetes, obesity and heart disease On the other hand, it also helps us has a balance body
- She is not only a kind neighbor but also a best friend However, she is also a teacher too
Students often struggle with the correct use of adversative and additive conjunctions in English writing Errors occur when students mistakenly use words like "however" or "on the other hand," which typically introduce contrasting ideas, even when the following sentences do not oppose the previous content Instead, in these contexts, additive conjunctions such as "in addition" or "moreover" should be used to smoothly continue ideas without implying contrast Proper use of conjunctions is essential for maintaining clarity and coherence in student writing.
Using conjunctions correctly is essential for clear communication; for example, "furthermore" and "what's more" add information, while "however" introduces contrast It is important to note that "however" should not be followed by "too" in the same sentence, as this creates grammatical errors These mistakes often stem from differences in the meanings of conjunctions between English and Vietnamese Many Vietnamese-English dictionaries highlight that adversative conjunctions like "however" and "on the other hand" have distinct usage rules to ensure proper sentence structure Understanding these nuances helps avoid common errors and improves fluency in both written and spoken English.
According to Quang Ban (1999:190), cohesive devices such as "however" and "on the other hand" are used to indicate contrast and addition of meaning in English, aligning with their function in Vietnamese These transition words effectively connect ideas and clarify relationships between sentences, ensuring coherence in the text Proper use of such cohesive devices enhances the clarity and flow of bilingual communication, making the relationship between ideas more explicit for the reader Incorporating these expressions according to their intended meanings is essential for achieving effective and cohesive writing in both English and Vietnamese.
Language interference often manifests as the direct application of Vietnamese meaning and structure into English Common errors include translating Vietnamese phrases literally and retaining Vietnamese grammatical structures, which can lead to inaccuracies in English communication Students' papers frequently demonstrate these issues, highlighting the importance of understanding and addressing language transfer problems to improve English proficiency.
- Although she is out speaking, but I like her personality
Although most mobile phones share common features, manufacturers strive to differentiate their products by adding unique functions, making them more appealing to consumers and enhancing their market competitiveness.
Many students mistakenly believe that using “although” is equivalent to “mặc dầu… nhưng…” and that the word “but” can be appropriately used in English in these contexts However, this structure is incorrect in English grammar Similarly, some think that “despite” is interchangeable with “mặc dầu/mặc dù,” as it can be followed by a noun phrase, clause, or an adjective/adverb Nonetheless, using a clause like “most mobile phones have a number of features in common” immediately after “despite” is grammatically unacceptable in English.
Other errors in the structure of adversative conjunction start from intra-lingual source These erroneous sentences expose how the English items interfered in the students‟ application of these expressions
- Most people believe in advertising information Despite of this, some advertising are not true with information product
- There are many causes lead to school violence due to a large number of children are affected by bad actions In spite, both
Students often struggle with distinguishing between "despite this/that" and "in spite of this/that," leading to common errors in their use of adversative conjunctions The similarity in pronunciation—"dis'pait" versus "spait"—contributes to confusion, making it difficult for students to memorize correct usage This intra-lingual confusion significantly impacts learners' ability to correctly apply these expressions, highlighting the need for focused teaching on their proper contexts and distinctions.
4.2.2 Errors in the use of causal conjunctions
Table 4.1 shows that all errors in the use of causal conjunctions (7.80% of errors in the use of cohesive devices) come from intra-lingual source
Causal relations in writing are commonly expressed with conjunctions such as so, thus, hence, therefore, consequently, accordingly, and phrases like as a result (of that), in consequence (of that), and because of that While these expressions are popular among students, many make errors, particularly with the correct use of so and the phrases like in consequence (of that) Examples from student writing often highlight these common mistakes, emphasizing the importance of understanding proper causal conjunction usage for clear and coherent communication Mastering these expressions improves the grammatical accuracy and clarity of your writing, making your arguments more compelling.
Aspiring to become a great teacher in the future requires both creativity and the positive qualities mentioned earlier Factors influencing a teacher's creativity can have both beneficial and detrimental effects Therefore, it is essential to cultivate strengths that enhance creativity while addressing and overcoming negative influences that may hinder it Maintaining a balanced approach is key to developing innovative teaching abilities and fostering an inspiring learning environment.
- Ex2: Teachers give assignment at the end of lesson, students don’t do it so that they don’t understand lesson and make affect next lesson
Robots now perform some of the most dangerous jobs, eliminating the need for workers to endure severe working conditions This technological advancement enhances workplace safety and reduces risks for human workers As a result, people enjoy greater freedom and leisure time during their spare hours, improving overall quality of life.
- Ex4: We don’t have to go out we can lie on the coach to watching I knowledge but also helps us to relax
- Ex5: This is a special occasion for us to enjoy the natural view Consequence of that, we can take a boat to travel around the islands
Confusion between "so" and "so that" is a common grammatical error among students, often caused by interference from their native language Many students mistakenly add "that" after "so" to express causality, believing it does not alter the meaning, which leads to 23 errors in their use of conjunctions This misunderstanding is further compounded by the misconception that "that" only functions as a relative pronoun, without affecting the causal relationship conveyed by "so" According to Oxford Dictionary (1998), correct distinction between "so" and "so that" is essential for accurate English sentence structure and clear communication.
The idiom “so that” means “with the aim that” or “in order that,” making it distinct from “so,” which indicates a result Proper use of “so that” ensures clear and precise communication of purpose Common errors include incomplete application of conjunctions, as seen in examples 3, 4, and 5, where the intended meaning is not fully conveyed due to improper conjunction usage Correctly applying “so that” enhances the coherence and clarity of your sentences.
Errors in the use of lexical cohesion
Table 4.1 highlights two types of lexical cohesion, with students exhibiting 54 errors related to collocation use, which accounts for 18.30% of total errors In contrast, no errors were found in the use of reiteration, indicating better accuracy in this area These collocation errors represent the second largest category, following errors in demonstrative reference, and are classified as mixed according to Table 4.2.
The students demonstrated accurate use of reiteration, likely employing near-synonyms or synonyms naturally as cohesive devices in their writing Given that the freshmen writing course emphasizes basic skills such as recital and description, students tended to use simple words, making reiteration through repetition straightforward This approach helped maintain coherence and clarity in their writing, aligning with their level of language proficiency.
According to Halliday and Hasan (1976), collocation refers to the natural association of lexical items that frequently co-occur to create cohesion in language Collocation errors often stem from students choosing inappropriate vocabulary, and these mistakes are influenced by multiple underlying factors rather than a single cause Common examples of student errors include incorrect word pairings that disrupt the natural flow and meaning of sentences, highlighting the importance of understanding collocation patterns for effective language use.
- … I take out my motorbike I drive very carefully across the field to the river so that I can enjoy sightseeing in there… accident, I immediately become audience when I am on the road
Incorrect collocations such as “motorbike…drive” and “an accident…audience” often result from inter-lingual interference, as seen in their Vietnamese translations “xe máy…lái” and “một tai nạn…khán giả.” Students may overlook that while these translations are acceptable in Vietnamese, their English counterparts are incorrect because one Vietnamese item can correspond to multiple English words with specific usage rules English language rules emphasize that synonymous or near-synonymous words belong to particular groups of meaning and must be used correctly with nouns, which can lead to errors if these nuances are neglected.
Drive (a car) Ride (a bike) lái (xe ô tô, xe gắn máy, máy bay) Fly (a plane)
Do (homework) làm (bài tập, bánh, ồn ào) Make (a cake, a noise)
Audiences (a play) Viewers (a TV program) khán giả (một vở kịch, một chương trình Spectators (a boxing match) truyền hình, một trận đấu quyền anh)
The analysis of the above words can root from the source of the first language interference in these errors At the same time, the fact is English vocabulary
Errors often arise from overgeneralization during second language learning, such as when a learner applies a familiar concept like "drive a car" to a similar but distinct activity like "drive a motorbike." This process highlights the importance of targeted practice to distinguish between related actions and improve language accuracy Proper instruction can help learners move beyond broad generalizations, leading to more precise and nuanced language use.
Many errors in students' papers stem from inappropriate co-occurrence, such as the phrase “audience in an accident,” which originates from the proper expression “audience in a theatre.” These mistakes often result from Vietnamese influence on English usage and the interference of English language structures, highlighting the need for careful language learning and correction.
The study's data analysis reveals that pre-intermediate Vietnamese learners of English commonly make errors in using cohesive devices in writing, particularly with reference errors Conversely, no errors were observed in the use of certain cohesive devices such as ellipsis and substitution These errors are influenced by factors including the study's context, students’ language skills, and their overall language knowledge Most errors stem from inter-lingual transfer, though intra-lingual factors also contribute, especially impacting the use of lexical ties The combination of these sources affects some students' ability to effectively apply cohesive devices in their writing.
Recommendation
4.4.1 Suggestions for teaching and learning cohesive devices so as to reduce errors
Based on the findings and discussions in this chapter, several recommendations are provided to enhance the teaching of English cohesive devices These suggestions aim to help students improve their understanding of cohesive devices and minimize common errors Additionally, the study proposes practical methods for students to practice and master cohesiveness in their writing, ultimately fostering better language proficiency.
Students often make errors in using grammatical cohesive devices, particularly with definite articles and possessive pronouns, which stem from intra-lingual sources To address this, teachers should provide clear explanations based on substitution tables and exercises such as recognizing errors, gap-filling, and identifying cohesive devices Incorporating listening, speaking, and reading skills into writing lessons helps create real-life contexts, enhancing students' understanding of cohesive devices in practice For example, after explaining and practicing error identification related to the definite article, teachers can have students describe objects found in the classroom, emphasizing correct use of definite and indefinite articles To develop automaticity in using references, extensive practice through various exercises—such as multiple choice, blank-filling, and identification tasks—is essential These exercises improve students’ ability to use cohesion effectively Recommended activities include filling in personal reference items in sentences and completing sentences with appropriate articles (“a,” “an,” or “the”), which help students consolidate their understanding of reference and article usage, ultimately overcoming common errors and improving overall cohesion skills.
This technique reduces interference from previously learned items, enhancing the acquisition of new language elements Students are given opportunities to practice and memorize the use of cohesive devices, improving their writing skills Teachers can easily identify common errors students make in writing, allowing for targeted feedback Incorporating diverse exercises and activities keeps students motivated and helps them recognize learned items in various contexts, reinforcing their understanding and application.
Secondly, the errors come from inter-lingual source which an analysis of semantic and structural differences among particular features in English and Vietnamese
Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhd 77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77t@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn.Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhddtt@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn
To improve students’ mastery of lexical cohesion, teachers should incorporate exercises that develop proper use of possessive references, conjunctions, and inter-lingual awareness Practice activities such as writing compositions on topics like “Comparing life in the city and in rural areas” can enhance students’ ability to correctly use various references, especially comparative references Translation tasks that highlight similarities and differences between English and Vietnamese references help students avoid inter-lingual errors Sentence rewriting exercises are effective in strengthening writing skills, while translation exercises, particularly translating sentences into English, serve as essential tools in the initial stages of learning cohesive devices, ensuring students develop correct and fluent use of references.
To enhance language learning, translation exercises should be replaced with activities that focus on correct patterns, as reliance on translation can lead to habit formation rather than true language acquisition Raising awareness about specific collocations through contextual exercises is essential, since context is a critical factor for effective learning Teachers should develop detailed, flexible lesson plans tailored to students' error types and proficiency levels In teaching conjunctions, many errors originate from inter-lingual transfer, with some also from intra-lingual mistakes; students often use conjunctions infrequently, mainly due to insufficient instruction on their identification and correct usage Typically, teachers provide lists of conjunctions based on their functions, but more interactive and context-based approaches are needed to improve students' mastery of cohesive devices.
To master the use of grammatical and lexical cohesive devices, students should actively analyze their functions and application in different contexts, moving beyond reliance on teaching methods Practicing various exercises and making the use of cohesion a habitual part of writing helps develop natural cohesion skills in real situations Understanding the key differences between grammatical and lexical cohesion in English and Vietnamese enables students to improve their writing effectively Sharing knowledge, experiences, and challenges with teachers and classmates fosters collaborative learning and better mastery of cohesive devices Exposure to well-written texts and analyzing their use of cohesive devices raises students’ awareness of how to incorporate these elements into their writing As a result, students recognize the importance of cohesive devices and tend to apply them more frequently and effectively in their writing to enhance clarity and coherence.
Intra-lingual and inter-lingual errors are the main causes of mistakes in using grammatical and lexical cohesion, often due to students’ limited language proficiency Effective use of teaching materials aligned with appropriate methods is crucial for helping students master cohesive devices and build confidence in their writing Analyzing errors in cohesive device usage is a complex process that necessitates targeted remedial measures; however, correction and prevention require sustained effort from both teachers and students Teachers must be patient and persistent, while students need consistent practice, as progress varies—some students improve within weeks, while others may need months or a semester to see significant advances.
If the teacher does not know the instructions, the results will not be high
Students have improved their understanding of how to use cohesive devices properly in their writing through consistent practice and various learning strategies They have developed their ability to effectively utilize grammatical cohesion, especially reference and conjunction, by engaging in exercises such as sentence completion, sentence combining, and gap-filling activities that simulate real-life contexts These practices help students recognize the functions of different cohesive devices, including personal, demonstrative, and comparative references, and distinguish their appropriate usage As a result, students can integrate cohesive devices more frequently and accurately, leading to clearer and more coherent writing The use of translation exercises, particularly focusing on comparative references, further enhances their overall writing skills Ongoing practice and targeted exercises have contributed to a reduction in common errors, enabling students to produce more natural and native-like use of cohesive devices in their writing Ultimately, the students' increased experience and consistent application of cohesion strategies have led to noticeable improvements in their writing proficiency.
Another important point worth in this result is classifying cohesive devices according to their grammatical functions, the errors such as “in addition to,…”,
Despite initial challenges, students' use of cohesive devices in writing has significantly improved Classifying these devices by grammatical function helps students avoid common errors, such as confusing “in addition” with “however” or misusing “but” instead of “and.” As a result, students have demonstrated a clearer understanding of the functions and appropriate contexts for different cohesive devices, leading to a reduction in errors related to adversative conjunctions, references, and collocations The percentage of grammatical device errors decreased from 81.68% to 40.50%, indicating that students are becoming more proficient with proper reference and conjunction usage Additionally, errors in lexical cohesion dropped from 18.30% to approximately 5.50%, with students effectively using referents like “this,” “that,” and “there” based on their distinct contributions Data analysis underscores the importance of teaching cohesive devices for producing effective writing, though further adjustments are needed to enhance cohesion and minimize errors further.
Summary
This chapter concludes the findings and discussion of the data analysis, highlighting that errors in grammatical cohesive devices are more prevalent than lexical ones among students’ writings Notably, the use of demonstrative references is identified as the most problematic grammatical cohesive device, while no errors were found in the use of ellipsis and substitution, likely due to their infrequent errors and the short length of students’ compositions (100-150 words), which allowed students sufficient time to choose appropriate words Although students demonstrated error-free use of reiteration in lexical ties, challenges with collocation remain.
This chapter highlights that first language interference significantly contributes to students' errors in language use It also emphasizes that the combined effect of multiple sources influences how students utilize cohesive devices Additionally, the tables and charts demonstrate that the usage of different types of cohesive devices is affected by these language sources The findings presented here provide valuable insights for the subsequent conclusion chapter.