hân tích lỗi về cách sử dụng phương tiện liên kết văn bản trong bài viết của học sinh trường THPT Chu Văn An tỉnh Thái Nguyên

Secondly, its purpose is to investigate and find out the types and causes of errors in the use of cohesive devices in the writing by students at Chu Văn An High School in Thái Nguyên pro

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

Phân tích lỗi về cách sử dụng phương tiện liên kết văn bản trong bài viết

của học sinh trường THPT Chu Văn An tỉnh Thái Nguyên

M.A MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

FIELD: ENGLISH TEACHING METHODOLOGY CODE: 60140111

Hanoi, 2014

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

Phân tích lỗi về cách sử dụng phương tiện liên kết văn bản trong bài viết

của học sinh trường THPT Chu Văn An tỉnh Thái Nguyên

M.A MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

FIELD: ENGLISH TEACHING METHODOLOGY CODE: 60140111

SUPERVISOR: Assoc.Prof.Dr LÂM QUANG ĐÔNG

Hanoi, 2014

DECLARATION

This paper is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in the field of English Teaching Methodology I certify that this thesis is the result of my own research, and that it has not been submitted for any other degree

Hanoi, August, 2014

Signature

Lê Thu Hằng

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This thesis would not have been possible without the assistance and support of many individuals I wish to acknowledge and express my appreciation of these people for their invaluable contributions

Firstly and foremost, I would like to express my deepest thanks to my supervisor, Assoc Prof Dr Lâm Quang Đông, Dean of the Faculty of English-University of Languages and International Studies, Vietnam National University, Hanoi (VNU) who has enthusiastically helped and encouraged me to finish the research project Without his experienced guidance and valuable comments, my research would still be far from finished I am also indebted to him for his substantial contributions in proofreading and helping me make necessary changes

Secondly, I take this opportunity to show my gratitude to all of my instructors in

my M.A courses at the Faculty of Postgraduate Studies, University of Languages and International Studies, Vietnam National University, Hanoi Their precious and professional lectures and tutoring have helped me a great deal in understanding profound concepts of the field of English teaching methodology while I attended the courses

I am also grateful to my colleagues at Chu Văn An high School for their continuous help and encouragement

On the completion of this paper, I must acknowledge my debt to the authors whose works I used for my reference

Last but not least, I wish to convey my thanks to my family for their understanding and supports

ABSTRACT

This study aimed at investigating common cohesive errors committed by the students at Chu Văn An High School as well as their sources An overall number of 50 students at pre-intermediate level participated in this study To achieve the objectives of the study, the participants were given three writing tasks requiring them to write a passage from 100 to 150 words for each task Then, the compositions were collected and read carefully to find out all cohesive errors The errors, after that, were classified according to the taxonomy developed by Halliday and Hasan (1976) Finally, the data were analyzed through the appropriate procedure using error analysis approach and quantitative research methodology Regarding to the frequencies and percentages of errors, it was found that the students‟ most frequent errors involved references (55.9%), followed by errors in conjunctions (22.8%) and collocation (21.2%) Surprisingly, no error was found in substitution, ellipsis and reiteration The errors seem to root from both inter-lingual and intra-lingual sources, in which the former is believed to contribute the greater proportion From the data analysis results, pedagogical implications were given to solve the problems

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

Figures

Figure 1: Types of reference 14

Tables Table 1: Types of cohesion at linguistic level 12

Table 2: Types of Grammatical and Lexical Cohesion 13

Table 3: Personal reference 15

Table 4: Demonstrative reference 15

Table 5: Comparative reference 16

Table 6: Background information about the students 21

Table 7: The number of errors in the use of cohesive devices 24

Table 8: Errors in the use of demonstrative reference 25

Table 9: Errors in the use of the definite article 25

Table 10: Errors in the use of personal reference 29

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii

ABSTRACT iii

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS v

PART A: INTRODUCTION 1

1 Rationale 1

2 Objectives of the study 1

3 Research questions 2

4 Scope of the study 2

5 Significance of the study 2

6 Methods of the study 3

7 Structure of the thesis 3

PART B: DEVELOPMENT 5

CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW 5

1.1 Errors in language learning 5

1.1.1 Concept of errors 5

1.1.2 Types of errors 5

1.1.3 Errors v.s mistakes 6

1.1.4 Causes of errors in foreign language learning 7

1.1.4.1 First language interference 7

1.1.4.2 Causes independent from the first language 8

1.2 Error analysis 9

1.3 Cohesion 10

1.3.1 Conceptualization 10

1.3.2 Cohesive devices in writing 12

1.3.2.1 Grammatical cohesion 13

1.3.2.2 Lexical cohesion 18

1.4 Previous studies in Vietnam 19

1.5 Summary 19

CHAPTER 2: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 21

2.1 Participants 21

2.2 Instrumentation 21

2.3 Methods of data analysis 22

CHAPTER 3: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 24

3.1 Errors in the use of reference 25

3.1.1 Errors in the use of demonstrative reference 25

3.1.1.1 Errors in the use of the definite article 25

3.1.1.2 Errors in the use of demonstrative references: this,that,these,those 28

3.1.2 Errors in the use of comparative reference 28

3.1.3 Errors in the use of personal reference 29

3.1.4 Errors in the use of locative reference: here, there 31

3.2 Errors in the use of conjunction 31

3.2.1 Errors in the use of adversative conjunction 32

3.2.2 Errors in the use of causal conjunction 33

3.2.3 Errors in the use of additive conjunction 34

3.3 Errors in the use of lexical cohesion 35

3.4 Summary 36

CHAPTER 4: IMPLICATIONS 38

4.1 Teaching references 38

4.2 Teaching conjunctions 39

4.3 Teaching collocation 40

4.4 Teaching reiteration 41

PART C: CONCLUSION 43

1 Conclusions 43

2 Limitations 44

3 Suggestions for further studies 44

REFERENCES 45 APPENDIX I

to readers, but the conveyance of information from the writer to the audience is not always smooth In other words, writing effectively is not an easy task to master During my process of teaching high school students, I come to realize that students often have difficulty in producing a logical and smooth essay The students‟ low writing competence may result from their lack of vocabulary and limited knowledge of grammatical structures However, one of the important reasons for this is the learners‟ inattention to the use of cohesive devices in their essay which are considered crucial elements that help the movement from sentence to sentence and paragraph to paragraph become logical and smooth Thanks to the cohesive devices, sentences and paragraphs stick together, making obvious and visible the writer‟s line of thought Consequently, the decisive motivation in doing this research derives from the extremely important role of cohesion in texts as well

as the difficulties of my students who lack the ability to use cohesive devices in writing essays However, within limited time and knowledge, this research will focus on error analysis on the use of cohesive devices in writing at Chu Văn An High School and suggest possible solutions

2 Objectives of the study

Firstly, this study aims to help the teachers and students gain an insight into the use

of cohesive devices in writing

Secondly, its purpose is to investigate and find out the types and causes of errors in the use of cohesive devices in the writing by students at Chu Văn An High School in Thái Nguyên province

Finally, the reseacher would like to offer some suggested error correction techniques to prevent and eliminate the errors in the use of cohesive devices in writing

Hopefully, this study will be theoretically and practically helpful to both teachers

of English and students at Chu Văn An High School

2 What are the major causes of these errors?

3 What recommendations should be given to reduce and prevent these errors?

4 Scope of the study

It is believed that different types of learners committed different types of errors Also, the types of errors vary according to different stages in the learning process Within the framework of a minor M.A thesis, the study has confined itself to errors in the use of cohesive devices in the writing by the students at Chu Văn An high school in Thái Nguyên province The investigation and analyses have been based on the data in 150 compositions

by 50 students in grade 10 A4 and 10 A5 in the school, which I presume to provide me with sufficient data

5 Significance of the study

Many studies on errors have been carried out in the field of teaching English in the world Researchers like Samuel (1983), Richard (1971) and Corder (1967) among others emphasized the importance of errors in theory as well as in practice of foreign language learning and teaching According to Corder (1967), the errors which are traced to their sources are beneficial in different ways Firstly, they help language teachers know how much progress a learner has made in the target language, in which language area he needs help and what sort of help he needs Secondly, they provide researchers with evidence in the language learning process; therefore, researchers through errors discover strategies applied in acquiring a language Apart from that, errors can serve as good feedback to learners for self-adjustment Despite these benefits, few studies on cohesion errors derived from Vietnamese learners have been made For these reasons, this study should be

conducted to find out types of errors, especially errors in the use of cohesive devices in the writing by the students in Chu Văn An High School and what their causes are

It is hoped that the findings of the research would be useful to teachers as well as learners

of English Once the types and the causes of a particular error are properly found, teachers will have a better understanding of students‟ problem in using cohesive devices in writing and can develop proper solutions

6 Methods of the study

To accomplish this thesis, we will, firstly, go through a number of materials on discourse analysis and grammar to build up a theoretical background for the research The study takes the theory of discourse analysis as a base on which the most noticeable cohesive devices of the writings by the students at Chu Văn An high school are examined

Secondly, in order to achieve the objectives of the study, we have to follow the error analysis by Gass & Selinker (2008) including 6 steps: (1) collecting data, (2) identifying errors, (3) classifying errors, (4) quantifying errors, (5) analyzing source, (6) remediation (based on the kind and frequency of an error type, pedagogical intervention is carried out) Besides, quantitative research approach is used as a strategic method in the study Students‟compositions were collected every week Any errors in the use of cohesive devices were found and classified according to the cohesion-category by Halliday and Hasan (1976) Then the occurrence frequency of each error type was counted The data and the list of the errors was the source for the analysis Basing on the data analysis, the researcher gave some possible solutions to reduce and prevent cohesion errors in writing

by the students in Chu Văn An High School

7 Structure of the thesis

The thesis is composed of three parts, references and appendices

Part one: Introduction

This part gives rationale, objectives, the research questions, significance, methods, scope and structure of the thesis

Part two: Development

This part consists of three chapters Chapter one reviews the literature related to the study Firstly, it presents errors in language learning which consists of concepts of errors, types of errors, the distinction between error and mistakes and the causes of errors Secondly, error analysis is discussed Next, cohesion in writing is mentioned; it gives the concept of

cohesion, cohesive devices and types of cohesion Lastly, this chapter reviews previous studies in Vietnam

Chapter two describes in detail the research methodology which comprises the information

of the participants, instruments of data collection and methods of data analysis

Chapter three presents the statistical results and the analysis of the data The statistical results are shown in tables which are the bases to determine the causes of each type of errors in the use of cohesive devices in writing

Chapter four names Implications with the recommendations for correcting errors in the use

of cohesive devices in writing, suggestions for teaching in order to prevent and hopefully eliminate these errors

Part C: Conclusion

This part closes the study with a conclusion which gives a summary of the whole study, gives limitations of the study and provides suggestions for further studies

PART B: DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW

In this chapter, the literature related to errors, error analysis, cohesion and previous studies

is discussed in order to provide the study with the sufficient theory background

1.1 Errors in language learning

1.1.1 Concept of errors

In the history of English language teaching, numerous definitions of errors have been proposed by many linguists and researchers in terms of their differences Corder (1973:259) refers to errors as breaches of the code In other words, errors deviate from what is regarded as the norm Dulay et al (1982: 138) stresses that errors are seen as “the flawed side of the learner speech or writing or parts of conversation or a composition that deviates from selected norms” Richards also shares this view, “An error in the speech or writing of a second or foreign language learners is the use of a language item (e.g a word,

a grammatical item, a speech act, etc) in a way which a fluent or native speakers of the language regards as showing faulty or incomplete learning” Similarly, other linguists have said that “an error occurs where the speakers fail to follow the pattern or the manner

of speech of educated people in English speaking countries today” (Liski and Puntamen 1983: 227) From the definitions, it is clear that an error is the unsuccessful use of the target language in speech and writing by the learners in comparison with that by the native speakers

However, when learners come up with a set of rules to produce new patterns in the target language, they cannot avoid committing errors Errors are no longer considered as an evil sign of failure, in teaching and learning, to be eradicated at any cost; rather, they are seen

as a necessary part of the language learning process because they are the evidence showing that the learners are working toward the correct rules

1.1.2 Types of errors

The achievement of language learning and teaching may not be flawless as thought The imperfection derives from the difference between the expected output of the language learning and the real result of such process While the teacher often requires and expects learners to make as few errors as possible, learners in fact commit errors of different extent and levels Due to the variety of errors, it is necessary to classify errors in specific groups The categorization of errors is based on various criteria and aspects

Richards et al (1974) believes that both children learning the first language, and children and adults learning foreign languages are likely to produce errors of following types:

i The omission of grammatical morphemes

ii The double marking of a given semantic feature

iii The over generalized application of irregular rules

iv The use of one form of several required

v The wrong word ordering

Nevertheless, Corder (1973) has a different way to classify errors In his view, it is the expressive and receptive behavior in language learning that cause expressive and receptive errors; learners tend to make more productive errors than receptive errors On the basis of linguistic levels, errors can be categorized into grammatical, discourse, phonological and lexical errors Grammatical errors lay emphasis on grammatical accuracy rather than fluency, which may be obstacles for communication proficiency The immediate teacher correction is not necessary if the purpose of the language course is to provide communicative proficiency Discourse errors are those related to non-observance of the target language conventions, and they are the manifestations of the leaner cultural and pragmatic knowledge of language users Phonological errors are related to incorrect pronunciation, word stress and intonation Lexical errors occur when learners use wrong word class or inappropriate words

1.1.3 Errors v.s mistakes

The distinction between “errors” and “mistakes” has been given by many linguists, though

it is impossible to indicate any sharp differentiation Ellis (1997) makes an important distinction between the two concepts In his view, errors reflect gaps in the learner‟s knowledge; they occur because the learner does not know what is correct Mistakes reflect occasional lapses in performance; they occur because, in a particular instance, the learner is unable to perform what he or she knows Additionally, Chomsky (1965) suggests that there are two types of errors: one resulting from verbal performance factors, the other from inadequate language competence Later, Corder (1967) names the former mistakes and the later errors Mistakes are said to be unsystematic in nature and correctable when attention

is drawn to its producers Errors, on the other hand, refer to any systematic deviations from the rules of the target language system In short, errors are caused by lack of knowledge

about the target language or by incorrect hypothesis about it; mistakes are caused by temporary lapses of memory, confusion, and carelessness and so on If we are uncertain whether one of the learners has made an error or a mistake, the crucial test must be: can he correct himself when challenged? If he can, probably it is a mistake; if not, it is an error However, the distinction is by no means easy and clear-cut In that situation, Duskova (1969: 17) suggests a criterion treatment of errors, according to which errors manifest themselves their regular occurrence and the systemic nature they share This is noticeable and well taken for our research: An error analysis should be based primarily on recurrent systematic errors that are made by a number of learners and that can be readily traced to their sources, no matter whether they reflect defects in knowledge or they result from the inadequate habit formation

1.1.4 Causes of errors in foreign language learning

There are a number of reasons for how learners make errors; they take root from both social factors and cognitive factors (Myles, 2002) Basically, two types of causes are classified: (1) first language interference-interlingual source and (2) causes independent of the first language interference - intralingual source

1.1.4.1 First language interference

Whenever an error appears, there is likelihood that the mother tongue is responsible Traditionally, the notion of first language interference is understood as a negative transfer from the first language to the target language It is the way of learning new habits is hindered by previously learnt ones Language is a set of habit, and learning a new language

is a process formulating a new habit Lado (1957) claims that “errors are originated in the learners‟ disposition to transfer forms and meanings, and the distribution of forms and meanings of their native language and culture to the foreign language and culture” (1957:1) Beardsmore (1982) suggests that many of the difficulties a second language learner has with the phonology, vocabulary and grammar of the second language are due to the interference of habits from the first language The formal elements of the first language are used within the context of the second language, resulting in errors in the second language, as the structures of the first and second languages are different Corder (1967) observes that language learners make hypotheses about the language they are learning, try

to compare it with their native language, then come to the conclusion that errors in foreign language reflect the first language‟s features Later in 1978 he recasts interference as

learners‟ reliance on the first language as their strategy of communication, which means learners use literal translation as a learning strategy to overcome their ignorance In fact, Vietnamese beginners learning English have a tendency to transfer the word order of Vietnamese into English, which results in their errors in writing

It is believed that there are four major factors that encourage foreign language learners to use their native language in second language acquisition Firstly, it is the performance pressure When learners are forced to perform tasks they do not want or their linguistic competence fail to meet, they fall back on the language most familiar to them that is their mother tongue Under writing pressure, learners may rely on systematic resources from their native language for the achievement and synthesis of meaning Windowson (1990) Secondly, the limited foreign language environment also contributes to errors in language learning The lack of natural linguistic inputs with native speakers results in learners‟ recourse on their language Moreover, language tasks assigned for the learners have a significant effect on their verbal production Among these tasks, translation is said to

“increase the foreign language learners‟ reliance on the first language structures” (Dulay et

al, 1982:110) Lastly, an important factor associated with the learner‟s use of foreign language acquisition is the monitor (Dulay et al, 1982:110) Learners tend to think in the first language and attempt to put the idea in the target language In short, the first language interference takes place because of four factors: performance pressure, limited language environment, manner of eliciting verbal performance and the monitor use The above four factors are defined as social factors affecting writing in foreign languages (Myles, 2002)

1.1.4.2 Causes independent from the first language

The common root of common errors in English does not only lie in cross-association and instinctive translation of the mother tongue, but also in the usages of English itself; for these usages provide the only factor which is common to all regions, all students and all methods (French, 1958:7) Causes independent from the first language consist of overgeneralization, false concepts hypothesized, incomplete application of rules, cross association, and fossilization

Overgeneralization: In case of overgeneralization, learners apply the strategies they have

learnt to new learning situation More specially, they base on their past learning experience

to produce deviant structures in the target language There are two main reasons for overgeneration; the first one is that learners want to diminish linguistic complexities, and

the other one is the superficial similarities of structures in the target language Overgeneralization is also linked with redundancy reduction This happens when learners find that some grammatical aspects are unimportant in conveying meaning This occurrence is popular in descriptive writing which learners often use the present simple tense instead of past tense though the action happen in the past

False conceptualization: Learners‟ faulty understanding of the distinctions of the target

language items leads to false conceptualization; Richard (1971) blames poor presentation

or presentation based on the contrastive approach for the confusion such as the use of verbs

“come / go”, “was / is”, of past and present markers It is suggested that effective ways to

minimize learners‟ confusion are choosing non-synonymous contexts for related words or

phrases and not using exercises based on contrast and transformation

Incomplete application of rules: According to Richard (1971), two factors leading to an

incomplete application of rules are the use of question in the classroom as elicitation techniques and learners‟ interest in communication which helps them to achieve efficient communication without a mastery of the target language rules

Cross association: George (1972) proposes that the notion of cross association is different

from overgeneralization in the way that interference does not come from the prior learning items, but from the adverse direction It is “the phenomenon of mutual interference between partially learned items, neither being inhibited, but one or both being affected by the other” (George, 1972:153)

Fossilization: “Fossilization is referred as a phenomenon that takes place as a learner

internalizes an incorrect form” (Brown et al., 1987: 186) This is believed to exist in adolescents and adults‟ pronunciation, and also manifests in some syntactic structures or vocabulary a learner uses Three factors contribute to this phenomenon: mother tongue influence, communication needs, and teachers‟ feedback

To sum up, the five causes above can explain for language learners‟error committing However, it is difficult to decide exactly which process is applied in a certain error, and many processes might operate simultaneously and reinforce each other in causing the learners to produce errors

1.2 Error analysis

Error analysis (EA) is a type of linguistic analysis that focuses on the errors committed by learners EA is the identification, description and explanation of errors either in its spoken

or written form Crystal (2003:165) defines EA as a “technique for identifying, classifying and systematically interpreting the unacceptable forms produced by someone learning foreign language, using any of the principles and procedures provided by linguistics” Similarly, Keshavarz (2012: 168) asserts that EA is “a procedure used by both researchers and teachers which involves collecting samples of learner language, identifying errors, classifying them according to their nature and causes, and evaluating their seriousness” Many researches like Corder (1967), Choon (1993), Gass and Selinker (2008) give different models for error analysis First of all, Corder (1967& 1973) identifies a model for error analysis which includes three stages: data collection, description, and explanation (the ultimate object of error analysis) Secondly, Choon (1993) also gives some suggestions on carrying out an error analysis research According to the researcher, one has

to identify the errors first, then the errors are classified according to categories such as: semantic errors (wrong words, wrong forms, etc.), grammatical errors (tense, preposition, etc.), global errors and local errors The last step is determining how much they deviate from the target language norm, to what extent they affect communication Moreover, Gass

& Selinker (2008: 103) identifies 6 steps in conducting an error analysis: (1) collecting data, (2) identifying errors, (3) classifying errors, (4) quantifying errors, (5) analyzing source, (6) giving remediation (based on the kind and frequency of an error type, pedagogical intervention is carried out)

To sum up, Error Analysis can help language teachers manner the specific and common language problems students have so that he or she can know what should be focused more

in a syllabus Teachers should conduct Error Analysis at the beginning of the course when the items have not been fully learnt and remedy these first By classifying errors that learners make, researchers could learn a great deal about the second language acquisition process by inferring the strategies that the learners are adopting For learners themselves, errors are „indispensable‟ since the making of errors can be regarded as a device the learner uses in order to learn (Selinker, 1992:150)

1.3 Cohesion

1.3.1 Conceptualization

Texts, sequences of sentences or utterances which seem to hang together, contain what are called text-forming devices These devices are words or phrases which enable speakers or writers to establish relationships across sentence or utterance boundaries, and help to tie

sentences in a text together Yule (1996) notes that a text is usually considered to have a certain structure dependent on factors which are quite different from those required in the structure of a single sentence; some factors are described in terms of cohesion, or the ties and connections existing within a text According to Richards et.al (1992:62), “cohesion is the grammatical and/ or lexical relationships between the different elements of a text This may be the relationship between different sentences or between different parts of a sentence” Also, cohesion in its broadest sense is “a semantic relation between an element

in a text and some other element that is crucial to the interpretation of it” (Halliday & Hasan 1994:8) It occurs where the interpretation of any item in a text or discourse requires the making of a reference to some other items in the same text or discourse Cohesive devices are defined as “clues used by speakers and hearers to find the meanings which underlie surface utterance” (Schiffrin 1978:9) In short, that texts cohere or stick together,

“have texture and this is what distinguishes it from something that is not a text” due to the help of cohesive devices Cohesion is a part of the system of language-a semantic one referring to “relations of meaning that exist in the text and that define it as a text” (Halliday and Hasan, 1976:4-5) It is expressed partly through the grammar and partly through the vocabulary

Cohesion vs Coherence

While studying cohesion, it is essential to distinguish the terms of cohesion and coherence, which closely connect to discourse but greatly differ from each other While cohesive items are clues or signals as how the text should be interpreted and understood, coherence

is something created by the people in the act of reading or hearing Cohesion is expressed

in grammatical and lexical links meanwhile coherence is the feeling that a text hangs together, and is considered as the quality of being meaningful and unified Cohesion involves the form of language rather than the content and context, whereas coherence refers to the type of semantic and rhetorical relationships that underlie texts In other words, cohesion is a guide to coherence The key concept of cohesion is something which exists in the language, right in the text, but coherence is something which exists in reader/listener‟s mind Although cohesion and coherence, in essence, are different, they have a close relationship with each other They represent the very essential elements that make a text or discourse coherent and different from random ones In short, coherence is

embodied by a system of cohesive devices, and cohesion is mainly used to ensure coherence

Definition of cohesion and its classification by Halliday and Hasan (1976) are the framework for the present study

1.3.2 Cohesive devices in writing

Every writer wishes to make their points clearly to the readers with pieces of writing that are easy to read and have logical links between various points made This coherence-the clarify of expression is created by grammar and vocabulary through cohesion This is the

“glue” that joins the writer‟s ideas together to form a cohesive whole In other words, cohesive devices are crucial elements that turn separate clauses, sentences, and paragraphs into connected prose, and make obvious and visible the writer‟s “line of thought” (Boadhead and Berlin, 1981:306) Consequently, the mastery of cohesive devices is very necessary for effective academic writing Nevertheless, the achievement of cohesion in writing seems to be an indefinable, obstruct, and controversial concept which is difficult to teach and difficult to learn

Halliday and Hasan (1976) give the most comprehensive description analysis of cohesive devices five major types of cohesive ties: reference, substitution, ellipsis and conjunction and lexical ties The first four types are grouped as grammatical cohesion and the later is lexical cohesion

Table 1: Types of cohesion at linguistic level Linguistic level at which “phoric” relation is established Type of cohesion

Semantic

Grammatical Lexicogrammatical

Lexical

Reference Substitution Ellipsis Lexical cohesion

( Halliday and Hasan, 1976: 318)

Conjunction is believed on the borderline of the two However, it is better to put it in the group of grammatical cohesion as it is mainly grammatical with a lexical component inside Types of cohesion in each group are given out in detail as follows:

Table 2: Types of Grammatical and Lexical Cohesion

By contrasting Exophora, or Exophoric reference with Endophoric as a general name for reference within the text, Halliday and Hasan make the distinction between situational and textual reference clear

Figure 1: Types of reference

(Source: Halliday and Hasan, 1976: 33)

Exophora is situational reference referring to a thing as identified in the context of situation and Endophora is a textual reference referring to a thing as identified in the surrounding

text, e.g: I went with Francesca and David, Francesca's roommate, Alice, and a friend of

Alice's from London There were six of us Yeah, we did a lot of hill walking

In the excerpt above, the example was the proper nouns „Francesca‟ and „David‟ pointing

to people not already mentioned in the conversation but in the common cultural background The reference of the „us‟ and „we‟, on the other hand, is not exophoric because the pronouns refer to items within the same text; it is endophoric reference

If reference items are endophoric, they may be anaphoric or cataphoric Anaphoric and

cataphoric reference indicate two different ways in which reference items can function within a text

Anaphoric reference signifies a word or phrase that refers to another or phrase used earlier

in a text (Paltridge and Burton, 2000) In the following example, the underlined words are anaphoric reference

"No woman can call herself free until she can choose consciously whether she will

or will not be a mother." (Margaret Sanger)

In this example, the reflexive pronoun “herself” and the personal pronoun “she” link back

to “woman” that went before in the text; they are anaphoric reference

Cataphoric reference describes the use of a word or phrase that refers to another word or phrase which is used later in a text (Paltridge and Burton, 2000), e.g:

When I told them I got the first prize, my parents smiled happily

In the example above, the pronoun “them” links forward to the noun phrase “my parents”

in the text that comes after, so “them” is cataphoric reference

Halliday and Hasan (1976) classify referential cohesion into three sub-types: personal, demonstrative and comparative These various devices enable the writer or speaker to make multiple references to people and things within a text

Personal references are reference by means of function in the speech situation, through categories of person in form of personal pronouns and determiners

Table 3: Personal reference

I me you

we us

he him she her they them

it one

mine yours ours his hers theirs [its]

my your our his her their its one‟s

(Source: Halliday and Hasan, 1976: 38)

Demonstrative references are references by means of location, on a scale of proximity,

expressed through determiners and adverbs

Table 4: Demonstrative reference

Grammatical function Modifier/Head Adjunct Modifier

this, these that, those

Here now There then

The

(Source: Halliday and Hasan, 1976: 38)

Comparative references are indirect references by means of identity or similarity,

expressed through adjectives and adverbs and serve to compare items within a text

Table 5: Comparative reference Grammatical function Modifier:

Deictic/Epithet

Submodifier/Adjunct

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

(Source: Halliday and Hasan, 1976: 39)

Substitution

Substitution is the replacement of one item by another, as indicated in Figure 1 The distinction between substitution and reference is that substitution is the relation in the wording rather than in the meaning 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 Halliday and Hasan (1976) give out the following list of the items that occur as substitutes:

Nominal: one, ones; same

Verbal: do

Clausal: so, not

The following underlined words are examples of substitution:

-The Polar Bear is unaware

Of cold that cuts me through:

For why? He has a coat of hair

I wish I had one too (Belloc, 1896) Nominal substitution

- A: Have the children gone to sleep?

B: They must have done Verbal substitution

-A: Teenagers‟ behavior is getting worse and worse

B: I think so  Clausal substitution

Ellipsis

While substitution referred to the replacement of one textual element by another, ellipsis is simply characterized by “the omission of an item” (Halliday and Hasan 1994:88) The process can, therefore, be “interpreted as that form of substitution in which

an item is replaced by nothing” or as “substitution by zero” (Halliday and Hasan 1994: 142) The example below illustrates such a cohesive tie of ellipsis

Mary ate some chocolate chip cookies, and Robert [blank] some gummy bears

In the given example the predicate “ate” is left out in the second half of the sentence and is presupposed because it already occurred before

As with substitution, there are three types of ellipsis: nominal, verbal and clausal In the

following examples, the ellipsis, which have been left out and marked by (0)

- Which shirt do you like, the green (0) or the blue (0)? Nominal ellipsis

-A: Have you been swimming?

B: Yes, I have (0) Verbal ellipsis

- A: Tom is staying for dinner!

B: Is he? He didn‟t tell me (0)  Clausal ellipsis

Just like substitution, ellipsis avoids repetition and depends on the hearer or reader‟s being able to retrieve the missing words from the surrounding co-text Both substitution and ellipsis can only be used when there is no ambiguity as to what is being substituted or ellipsed, and the use of grammatical cohesion varies from genre to genre

Conjunction

Conjunction is not a device for reminding the reader of previously mentioned entities, actions and states of affairs like reference, substitution and ellipsis It is called a cohesive device since it signals relationships that can only be understood through reference

to other parts of the text According to Partridge and Burton (2000), conjunctions are words joining phrases, clauses, or sections of the text in ways that express their logical-semantic relationship Halliday and Hasan (1976) classify them into four main types of conjunction: additive conjunctions, adversative conjunctions, causal conjunctions, and temporal conjunctions

Additive conjunctions signal the presence of addition information such as and, moreover,

in addition to, etc

Adversative conjunctions such as however, on the other hand, conversely, etc… contrast

new information with old information or put another side to the argument

Temporal conjunctions express the relationships which exist when the events in a text are

related in terms of the timing of their occurrence, for examples: first, then, after that, etc…

Causal conjunctions interpret the relationship between the cause and consequence, for

illustrations: because, because of, for, since, so that, thus, if, therefore, etc

1.3.2.2 Lexical cohesion

Lexical cohesion is generally understood as “the cohesive effect that is achieved by the selection of vocabulary” (Halliday and Hasan 1994:274) Lexical cohesion occurs when two words in a text are semantically related in some way, in other words, they are related in terms of their meaning There are two major categories of lexical cohesion:

reiteration and collocation

Reiteration has to do with the use of general nouns to create a cohesive effect by replacing

one element with another in the ongoing text/discourse Reiteration consists of repetition, synonym, super-ordinate, and general words The following example shows the different types of reiteration that can create lexical cohesion

John caught a snake underneath a bucket

Repetition: The snake is going to suffocate if it stays there very long

Synonym: The serpent is going to suffocate if he does not let it go

Hyperonym (superordinate): The animal is going to suffocate if he does not let it go

General words: The poor thing is going to suffocate if he does not let it go

Repetition occurs when a lexical item is repeated with no alteration or when two lexical items share a lexical morpheme A synonym is a word or expression that has the same or nearly the same meaning as another in the same language, used to avoid repeating

the exact same word (snake-serpent) A superordinate is a lexical item whose meaning is included within that of another word (animal-snake, illness-pneumonia) General words

can be characterized by familiarity Many general words carry a connotation of attitude on the part of the speaker (Halliday and Hasan, 1976:280) These can be general nouns like

thing, stuff, person, woman, man or general verbs like do and happen General words are

also described as superordinates of a higher level

A second subcategory of lexical cohesion is collocation Collocations are lexical “items

that regularly co-occur” (Halliaday and Hasan, 1994: 284) and by doing so create cohesion

within a given text/discourse such as a pack of dog, fast food…

1.4 Previous studies in Vietnam

There are many papers related to error analysis conducted in Vietnam Ninh (2008) investigated errors relating multi-verbs in English made by the students at Nguyễn Huệ Gifted High School She pointed out a large number of errors related to verb phrases and phrasal verbs, committed by her students, and she also suggested error correction techniques as one of the effective ways to deal with the problem Anh (2009) conducted a study on common errors in the use of English articles made by the first year students at Hưng Yên Industrial College In her study, she claimed that lack of prepositions is one of the most common errors; other than that, her students often used articles wrongly Contributing to the picture of error analysis is the study conducted by Đỗ Văn Lập (2012)

on common errors made by tenth graders at Thuận Thành II High School in their writing His study showed that most of his students made mistakes related to language use and vocabulary Additionally, Bình (2002) conducted a study on the error analysis on the use of cohesive devices in writing by the first year English major students at Thăng Long University She presented a large number of errors regarding the use of cohesive devices According to Bình, the most significant outcome of the study is that she was aware of the students‟ difficulties in using cohesive ties to create their own writing texts

In general, many of the studies conducted by Vietnamese researchers focus on a grammatical aspect, such as articles, verb use, and cohesive devices

1.5 Summary

This chapter has presented briefly the literature, which is relevant for the study According to Lado (1957), Fries (1965), Littlewood (1980) and Dulay et al (1982), foreign language learning is influenced both outside from learning and teaching environment, and inside of what and how learners process the language Affected by these factors, learners‟ errors are inevitable It is error analysis which helps to turn these errors to the benefit of learning and teaching foreign language This has been proved by many studies on errors by Coder (1967), Richard (1992), Selinker (1992) and Choon (2002) When analyzing errors,

it is necessary to distinguish mistakes and errors The former are caused by the lack of knowledge about the target language and the latter by temporal lapses of memory,

confusion or carelessness Causes of errors are also presented in two main categories: First language interference and causes independent from the first language The focus of the study is on errors in the use of cohesive devices so the concept of cohesion, the importance

of cohesion in writing and the comprehensive description analysis of cohesive devices by Halliday and Hasan (1976) are included in this chapter

CHAPTER 2: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter describes the participants, instruments of data collection and methods of data analysis of the study in detail

2.1 Participants

The number of participants in the study is 50; they were chosen randomly from grade 10 A4 and 10 A5 in Chu Văn An High School All of the participants are at the age of 16, and female students account for 60 % Until the time of the survey, they all have been learning English for nearly five years Although those students have been studying English for nearly five years, their English is at the pre-intermediate level They do not have a full understanding and be able to use cohesive devices correctly in writing because the focus of their learning English is more on grammar than on writing At present, they all share the same learning conditions and have learnt in the same cultural background Table 6 summarizes the background information about the students such as the genders, ages, number of years learning English and their self-assessed proficiency

Table 6: Background information about the students

1 The environment is now seriously polluted What should you do to protect the environment? Write a passage from 100 to 150 words, using the following suggestions

How can we…

 save energy?

 reduce air pollution?

 keep the water clean?

 reduce the amount of garbage we produce?

 keep the surroundings clean?

2 Write a paragraph about your memorable holiday Answer the questions:

 When was your holiday?

 Where did you go? With whom?

 What did you do? With whom?

 What was special about the holiday?

3 Compare life in the city and life in the country Where would you like to live in?

The students were given 45 minutes to write each topic; the length of each paragraph is from 100 to 150 words The words of every composition used in this study were counted to ensure that they complied with the length requirements of the study This was done because some students‟ answers were too short, while others exceeded the required length The reason I choose the topics is that these are familiar topics in the textbook that are appropriate to their competence Another reason is that students may use different essay organization patterns to write three topics such as logical division, chronological order, comparison and contrast; hence, they have to use different types of cohesive devices All of the topics contain hints and organization given in the tasks or in the textbook It means that students only have to follow the organization and produce their ideas As a consequence, I will analyze the students‟ writing papers focusing both on language errors and organization errors Within a limited time, to achieve the objectives stated in the thesis, the researcher only examines language errors in terms of cohesion errors

2.3 Methods of data analysis

This study utilized both error analysis approach and quantitative research methodology

Error analysis is used both as a method of analyzing data and a theory It is a technique for identifying, classifying, and systematically interpreting the unacceptable