An error analysis on the use of cohesi ve devices in writing by english major freshmen at dong thap university

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAININGVINH UNIVERSITY ====***=== NGUYEN THI KIM NHUNG AN ERROR ANALYSIS OF THE USE OF COHESIVE DEVICES IN WRITING BY ENGLISH MAJOR FRESHMEN AT DONG THAP

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

VINH UNIVERSITY

====***===

NGUYEN THI KIM NHUNG

AN ERROR ANALYSIS OF THE USE OF

COHESIVE DEVICES IN WRITING BY ENGLISH

MAJOR FRESHMEN AT DONG THAP

UNIVERSITY

MASTER‟S THESIS IN EDUCATION

NGHE AN, 2017

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

VINH UNIVERSITY

====***===

NGUYEN THI KIM NHUNG

AN ERROR ANALYSIS ON THE USE OF

COHESIVE DEVICES IN WRITING BY ENGLISH

MAJOR FRESHMEN AT DONG THAP

UNIVERSITY

Major: Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL)

Code: 60140111

MASTER‟S THESIS IN EDUCATION

Supervisor: Assoc Prof., Ph.D NGO DINH PHUONG

NGHE AN, 2017

i

STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP

I certify that the thesis entitled “An error analysis of the use of cohesive devices in

writing by English major freshmen at Dong Thap University ” is submitted in partial

fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Art the result of my own work, except where otherwise acknowledge and that this thesis or my any parts of the same has not been submitted to any university or institution

Vinh, August 2017

Author‟s signature

Nguyen Thi Kim Nhung

ii

ABSTRACT

In writing skill, most students at Dong Thap University have many difficulties in using cohesive devices in writing How to help students to use cohesive devices in writing better This is always a triggering question for teachers at Dong Thap University When sentences, ideas, and details fit together clearly and smoothly, readers can follow along easily, and the writing is coherent It is depended on cohesive devices that writers use To establish the links that readers need in a writing, you can use cohesive methods

The study has used quantitative and qualitative data for the investigation finding the types of errors, causes of errors in the use of cohesive devices in writing by English major freshmen at Dong Thap University and suggests some techniques for errors correction

Research in this area has concentrated on two classes of English major freshmen at Dong Thap University They are at the age ranged from 18 to 19 Though they come from different areas in the country, they are considered at the same level of English as they all learned English at high school and have passed the university entrance examination on three subjects including English

To find errors in the use of cohesive devices in students' writing, an experimental design was taken place The students were supposed to write a free topic Students‟ papers were collected every week Their errors in writing were tested and their achievements were recorded This is intended to be a quantitative research study using compositions as a technique of eliciting data for the analysis, statistical counting as measurement of results Any errors in the use of cohesive devices were found and classified according to the cohesion-category by Haliday 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

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my deepest thanks firstly to my supervisor Assoc Prof., Ph.D.Ngo Dinh Phuong, 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 his for his substantial contributions in proofreading and help me make necessary changes

My gratitude is also sent to all of my instructors in my M.A courses at Post-Graduate Studies, Vinh University, Nghe An Their precious and professional lectures and tutoring have helped me a great deal in understanding profound concepts of the field

in English teaching methodology while I attended the courses

Last but not least, I appreciate constant supports from my colleagues, my beloved family, my friends and students of two classes: English 16 and pedagogic English method 16 at Dong Thap University who helped me to finish the study

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP i

ABSTRACT ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS iv

LIST OF TABLES, CHARTS AND FIGURES vii

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Rationale 1

1.2 Objective of the thesis 3

1.3 Scope of the thesis 3

1.4 Significance of the thesis 4

1.5 Methods of the thesis 4

1.6 Organization of the thesis 5

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 7

2.1 Factors affecting language learning 7

2.2 The notion of errors 8

2.3 Errors analysis 10

2.4 Difference between errors and mistakes 11

2.5 Causes of errors 12

2.5.1 First language interference 12

2.5.2 Causes independent from the first language 14

v

2.6 The notion of cohesion 15

2.7 Types of cohesion 16

2.7.1 Grammatical rules 17

2.7.2 Lexical connectors 24

2.8 Cohesive devices in writing 26

2.9 Summary 27

CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 28

3.1 Research participants 28

3.2 Study setting 28

3.3 Data collection 29

3.4 Data analysis 29

CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS 32

4.1 Errors in the use of reference 33

4.1.1 Errors in the use of demonstrative reference 33

4.1.2 Errors in the use of personal references 39

4.1.3 Errors in the use of comparative references 41

4.2 Errors in the use of conjunction 43

4.2.1 Errors in the use of adversative conjunctions 44

4.2.2 Errors in the use of causal conjunctions 46

4.2.3 Errors in the use of additive conjunctions 47

vi

4.3 Errors in the use of lexical cohesion 48

4.4 Recommendation 50

4.4.1.Suggestions for teaching and learning cohesive devices so as to reduce errors 50

4.4 2 The results 53

4.5 Summary 55

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION 57

5.1 Summary of findings 57

5.2 Limitations and suggestions for further reasearch 58

5.3 Implications 59

REFERENCES 62

APPENDIX A 65

APPENDIX B 71

APPENDIX C 72

vii

LIST OF TABLES, CHARTS AND FIGURES

Table 2.1 Types of cohesion at linguistic level

Table 2.2 Personal reference

Table 2.3 Demonstrative reference

Table 2.4 Comparative reference

Table 2.5 The distinction between substitution and reference

Table 2.6 The difference between natural English and unnatural English

Table 4.1 All errors in grammatical and lexical cohesion

Table 4.2 The number of errors in the use of cohesive devices

Table 4.3 Errors and their causes

Table 4.4 Errors in the use of demonstrative reference

Table 4.5 Errors in the use of the definite article

Table 4.6 Errors in the omission of “the”

Chart 4.1 Sources of errors

Figure 2.1 Types of reference

Figure 3.1 The process of recognizing and identifying errors

1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

This chapter is written with the purpose of giving the rationale, objectives of the study, the scope of the study, the significance of the study, an overview of research methodology and finally introduces the organization of the study

1.1 Rationale

Since Vietnam has expanded cooperation relationship with the world economy, more and more people have the desire to join the trend around the world have flocked to learn foreign languages, especially English In the trend of the current globalization, the importance of English may not be denied and ignored because it is widely used everywhere in the world Along with the development of technology, medicine, engineering and education, so on, English is also the most widespread language on the earth (The Encyclopedia Britannica, 2006b) English is used widely in public or private sphere in more than 100 countries all over the world (The Columbia Encyclopedia, 2006d) Five thousand newspapers i.e more than half of the newspapers published in the world are published in English (Yamaguchi, 2002 c) English learners can also update their knowledge faster and more effectively than others in different areas such as academic, science, technology because most of the

information and knowledge in these areas are transferred in English “Over 70% of the world’s scientists read English” (Hasman, 2007 c) “Following World War II, the economic and cultural influence of the United States increased and English permeated other cultures, chiefly through development to telecommunications technology and became the lingua franca of the world” (Crystal, 1997 a; Brutt-

Griffer, 2002; Seidlhofer, 2003; McKay, 2003; Llurda, 2004; and Ha, 2005 a) In

sum, English plays the most important role

Nowadays, the demand for language learning has brought a large number of positive changes in language teaching in Vietnam Language teachers have searched and tried

This “more tolerant modern approach” is based on the fact that errors are normal

and unavoidable during the leaning process (Ancker, 2000b) Gass and Selinker

(2001) also write, though errors are “likely to occur repeatedly”, they “are not recognized by the learner” (p.102) The fact is that errors are natural and

unavoidable, so the role of teachers to correct students‟ errors is very necessary and important

It is natural in language teaching that they can make mistakes and errors while writing in English In particular, English major freshmen at the university often make errors on the use of cohesive devices in writing How to confirm and when giving feedback to these errors are critical in teaching language as it can make motivation or

it causes depression for learners in language learning The theory by Lado (1957) has been indicated some teachers‟ concern is directed to contrastive analyses between Vietnamese and English with the hope to predict and prevent errors before they appear However, the study by Richards (1971) found out that aside from the first language interference, there are other causes which are products of intra-lingual

3

analogies such as overgeneralization, unfinished application of rules or the lack of knowledge about rule restrictions as well as untrue concepts hypothesized So far, there has been some research on the causes of errors in students‟ writing in English in Vietnamese universities Therefore, it is necessary to carry out a research study applying error analysis in clarifying learners‟ errors in the use of cohesive devices in

writing at Dong Thap University as “cohesive devices are crucial in writing” I put

my attempt to do the thesis, namely “An error analysis of the use of cohesive devices

in writing by English major freshmen at Dong Thap University”

1.2 Objective of the study

The purpose of this study is get quantitative and qualitative data for the investigation finding the types of errors, causes of errors in the use of cohesive devices in writing

by English major freshmen at Dong Thap University and suggests some techniques for errors correction

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

1.3 Scope of the study

Due to the limitation of time, the study is confined itself to errors in the use of cohesive devices in the writing by Vietnamese pre-intermediate students This study

is limited to two English teachers and 80 students of two classes: English 16 and pedagogic English method 16 at Dong Thap University, Dong Thap Province

The study was implemented in this university from November 10th, 2016 to May

10th, 2017

4

1.4 Significance of the study

Many studies on errors have been carried out the field of error analysis to apply in the field of teaching English Researchers are the same as Zamel (1983), Richard (1971) and Corder (1967), they emphasized the importance of errors not only in theory but also in practice of foreign language learning and teaching According to Corder (1967), errors are traced to their sources and they are beneficial in different ways.Firstly, they help language teachers know how much progress that learners have made

in the target language Secondly, they provide researchers with evidence in language learning process; therefore, researchers through errors discover strategies applied in acquiring a language Apart from that, errors can be beneficial for both the learners and the teachers It can provide information to the teachers on students‟ errors, help the teachers to correct students‟ errors, improve their teaching and focus on those areas that need to stimulus Despite these benefits, few studies observed that errors derived from Vietnamese the learners For these reasons, this study should be lead to find out types of errors, specifically errors in the use of cohesive devices in Vietnamese learners‟ writing and what causes of error are This thesis may help the teachers identify their used correction techniques are effective and appropriate, and help them find more effective ways to correct students‟ errors The teachers may also pay more attention to choosing what effective techniques to correct students‟ writing errors and choosing when and how they should give corrections From that, the teachers will have a better understanding of students‟ problem in using cohesive devices in writing and can develop proper solutions The students may not only make minimize their errors but also learn from their errors Furthermore, the students may

be able use both English structure and grammar better in writing or be able use English language fluently in communication thank to some effective and useful cohesive devices errors correction techniques suggested

1.5 Methods of the study

This is intended to be a quantitative and qualitative research study using compositions

5

as a technique of eliciting data for the analysis, statistical counting as measurement of results The subjects of the study are two classes of freshmen student at Dong Thap University They are at the age from 18 to 19 The teachers will require the students write a short paragraph following free topic Students‟ papers were collected every week Then the occurrence frequency of each error type was counted The data collected are sorted into errors group and the compared against the theory of correction techniques in methodology textbooks Any errors in the use of cohesive devices were found and classified according to the cohesion-category by Haliday and Hasan (1976) All of the source for the analysis based on the data and the list of the errors

1.6 Organization of the study

The study comprises five chapter:

Chapter one is the introduction, which consists of rationale of choosing the topic,

objective and scope of the study It also narrows the significance of the study and briefly presents an overall out-line of the research study

Chapter two is literature review Firstly, it presents the factors affecting language

learning Secondly, discussing about error analysis and errors in language learning Thirdly, literature reviews relates to the discrimination between errors and mistakes, main causes of errors Lastly, cohesion in writing is mentioned, it consists of the concept of cohesion, cohesive devices and types of cohesion

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 is findings and discussions It presents the statistical results and the

analysis of the data The statistical results are shown in the tables which are the basement to determine the causes of each type of errors in the use of cohesive devices

6

in writing Also, the recommendations for correcting errors in the use of cohesive devices in writing, suggestions for teaching in order to prevent and eliminate these errors and the results are presented in this chapter

Chapter five named conclusion which gives a summary of the whole study and

provides limitations, suggestions for further studies and implications

7

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter provides theoretical background relevant to the topic such as factor affecting language learning, the notion of errors, errors analysis, the difference between errors and mistakes, cause of errors, the notion of cohesion, type of cohesion, cohesion devices in writing and the last one is summary of chapter

2.1 Factors affecting language learning

Based on the language learning process theories, language learning bear a lot of influences of the kind of factors and the factors affecting language learning are categorized into two types: external factors and internal factors

External factors include: the first language, language environment and the formal teaching First of all, the first language is mother tongue, which has more helpful for the learners of a new language the same as they have already learned how to do with that language Universal features in languages can help learners to learn a new language On the basis of behavior psychology, Lado (1957) and Fries (1965) suggested two types of transfers: Positive transfers when the first language and the target language share similar features Negative transfers when there are different features in the two languages Language environment is also of large significance to success in learning a foreign language Lastly, the role of formal teaching was asserted in the research by Littlewood (1980) when he declared that certain techniques or methods proved to be relevant in particular groups of learners

Dulay et al (1982) named two internal factors; these are the filter and the monitor According to Dulay, language learners do not acquire what is exposed to them, but select what they find suitable, relevant and interesting As he defined that motivation

is understood as “incentive, the need or the desire to learn the second language” (Dulay et al., 1982:47), if motivation is low, failure is likely reported “The monitor is

to act as an engine generating learning and then propelling students forward helping them overcome the difficulties they encounter in learning a foreign language (Cheng and Dörnyei, 2007; Dörnyei and Csizer, 1998) Brown (2007) considers motivation as

an affective factor that plays a central role in learning a second or foreign language Cohen (2010) sees motivation as a dynamic process that is not stable but is in a continuous change Basically, foreign language learning is influenced both outside from teaching and learning environment In addition, it is based on inside factors from what and how learners process the language

2.2 The notion of errors

Notion of errors are complicated because of its nature Many different researchers have different concepts of errors which depend on their different considerations and the aspects of language they are approaching

On the basis of theory, Behaviorists consider errors as symptom of ineffective teaching or as evidence of failure They also view it is as largely the first language interference When errors occur they are amended by a onslaught of correct forms which can be achieved by the intensive drilling or over teaching On the other hand, Mentalists, who following cognitiveism, suggested that learners deal with the new data in their mind and come up with a set of rules that produce new patterns in the target language Accordingly, errors are inevitable; in fact, errors even become a part

in learning process and developing competence Errors are not regarded as a sign of

9

failure, but evidence that the learner is working toward the correct techniques The attitude of Mentalists is positive toward errors in language learning, it removes the anxiety caused by the behaviorist in classroom

Making errors seems to be natural during the process of learning and teaching foreign language People consider it natural thing, so it should be avoided and dealt with It is similar to something that is unexpectedly forgotten during the learning

process According to Dulay et al (cited in Duong Thi Dung), he states that “Errors are understood as the flawed side of the learner speech and writing, those part of conversation or composition that deviate from English model of usage assumed by educated” However, other concept of errors, with Lennon (1991) said that errors is

focused on and exploited by the difference between linguistic form or combination

of forms which are produced by native speakers and produced by foreign language learners in the same situation

Errors are also defined as something that learners haven‟t known or learned, so

learners‟ making errors seem as a matter of course “Error is a systematic deviation, when a learner has not learnt something and consistently gets it wrong.” (Norrish, 1987:7) Researcher considers errors deviant ones that appear

while people are learning a foreign language Based on findings, Cunningworth (1987) claim that comparing with the norms of the language learned, errors are systematic deviations Furthermore, errors are defined as something that learners meet when they are trying to master their foreign language Errors have been viewed as language learners‟ speech that deviates from the model they are trying to master (Allwright & Bailey, 1991, cited in Hyang-Sook Park) Richards et al (1974) believed that both children learning the first language, and adults learning foreign languages likely to produce errors of following types:

- The omission of grammatical morphemes

- The double marking of a given semantic feature

- The over generalized application of irregular rules

10

- The use of one form for several required

- The wrong word ordering

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

2.3 Errors analysis

A large number of study on error analysis were published in 1970s and 1980s Afterward, a more positive attitude towards errors has issued In the past, errors were considered as natural and important part of learning process because they could product information about language learning Many studies on errors in second language learning have been done by Scholars like Corder (1967), Richard (1992) and Selinker (1992) Scholars indicated errors analysis is the identification, description and explanation of errors either in its spoken or written pattern Following Corder (1967), Choon (1993) gave some suggestions on carrying out an error analysis researching According to her, one must identify the errors first, and then the errors were classified according to categories such as: semantic errors (wrong words, wrong forms, etc.), grammatical errors (tense, preposition, etc.) or lexical errors (word choice), global errors and local errors The last step is determining how much errors diverge from the target language rules and explains the identified errors; to what extent they affect in writing Error analysis can help teachers correct common language problems students From that, learners realize he or she can know what should be focused more in a syllabus Choon (1993) advised teachers to conduct errors analysis at the beginning of the course when the details have not been fully learnt and remedy these first By classifying errors that learners made, researchers could learn a large number about the second language acquisition process that the learners were adopting by inferring the strategies For learners, errors are indispensable because the making of errors can be regarded as a device the learner

11

uses in order to learn (Selinker, 1992:150)

According to James, errors analysis is the “study of linguistic ignorance” (James

1998: 62) At first sight, this seems to be quite rigorous Nevertheless, James clarifies his definition further on and thus puts his thesis in a more specific context Whereas

ignorance simply means being “ignorant of such-and-such structure in the target language (TL)”, the term “incompleteness” refers to an “overall insufficiency (compared with NS competence) across all areas of the target language (TL) ”

classroom (FLC) Corder, for instance believes that a “learner’s errors … are significant in [that] they provide to the researcher evidence of how language is learned or acquired, what strategies or procedures the learner is employing in the discovery of the language” (Corder in Brown 2000: 217)

2.4 Difference between errors and mistakes

Many linguists have been given the distinction between “errors” and “mistakes”

though it is impossible to indicate any sharp distinction According to Klassen (1991),

the term “error” is used to refer to a type of structure that a native speaker deems

unacceptable because of the lack of language competence Chomsky (1965) initiated the distinction when he suggested that there were two types of errors: one resulting from verbal performance factors, the other from inadequate language competence Then, Corder (1967) named the former mistakes and the later error Mistakes are said

to be unsystematic in nature and correctable when attention is drawn to its producers

12

Errors, on the other hand, refer to any systematic deviations from the rules of the

target language system Many say that “error” is more severe It is due to miscalculation and wrong judgment With “mistake”, on the other hand, is less

serious but people normally make mistakes However, there are also many people

who will argue with this problem The term “mistake” is used more extensively in casual contexts but “error” is more suitable for more formal contexts. In terms of

etymology, “error” was from a Latin word, which means “to wander or stray”, while “mistake” came from an Old Norse word, which means “wrongly take”’ 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, we must give learners the crucial test Can they correct themselves when challenged? If can, probably it is a mistake; if cannot, it is

an error

2.5 Causes of errors

There are a variety of reasons for how learners make errors According to Myles (2002) said that they take root from both social factors and cognitive factors Basically, two types of causes are classified: (1) first language interference and (2) causes independent of the first language interference

2.5.1 First language interference

The concept of first language interference is understood as negative transfer from the first language to the target language, it is the new learning way that is hindered by

previously learnt ones Lado (1957) claims that “errors are originated in the learners’ disposition to transfer forms and meanings, also the distribution of forms and meanings of their native language and culture to the foreign language and culture” (1957:1) Corder (1967) observed language learners make hypotheses about

Language learners apply their native language in second language acquisition because

of in four major factors Firstly, it is the performance pressure In class room setting, the learners may be forced to perform tasks they do not want so their linguistic competences meet fail; therefore, they fall back on the language most familiar to them by the way using their mother tongue Windowson (1990) realized that when learners write under pressure, they may base on systematic resources from their native language for the achievement and synthesis of meaning Secondly, the limited foreign language environment also contributes to errors in language learning The lack of natural linguistic inputs with native speakers results in learner use their language Thistly, the assigned learners' language tasks have a significance affect on

their verbal production One of these tasks, translation is said to “increase the foreign language learners’ reliance on first language structures” (Dulay et al., 1982:110) Lastly, Dulay et al (1982) considered the monitor as “an important factor associated with the learner’s use of foreign language acquisition” (1982:110) Learners not only

tend to think in the first language but also attempt to put the idea in the target language Thus, the first language interference takes place the following four factors: performance pressure, limited language environment, manner of eliciting verbal performance and the monitor use

Myles (2002) defined the above four factors as social factors affecting writing in foreign language These factors are closely related to learners‟ attitudes, motivations

14

and goals Research based on generally direct and indirect methods shows that learners need to combine with positive attitudes, motivation, concrete goals If learners experience success, attitudes, motivation, concrete goals will have reinforced Similarly, learners‟ negative attitudes may be reinforced by lack of success or by failure He concluded that learners‟ attitudes, motivations and goals can explain why several foreign language writers perform better than others When French (1958) looks for common errors in English, he indicated the errors are ordinary indicates that they have a common cause This common root is not to be found in a variety of languages exhibiting innumerable differences in syntax, accidence and idiom Explanation does not lies in cross-association and instinctive translation of the mother tongue but it exists in the usages of English itself; these usages provide the only factor which is common to all regions, all students and all methods (1958: 7)

2.5.2 Causes independent from the first language

There are a variety of causes independent from the first language However, based on findings of some researchers, it includes causes: overgeneralization, false concepts, fossilization, incomplete application of rules, and cross association

Overgeneralization: It is a common error in writing which presents a generalization

that is not fully true as stated Following Jakobovist (1969), he said that overgeneralization is the application of previous available strategies in new situations

Richard (1974) and Jain (1969) defined overgenarations as the term “intra-lingual interference” Littlewood (1980) suggests that overgeneralization and transfer have

the same strategy; the difference is the usage of knowledge of the foreign language in the former and of the first language in the latter

False conceptualization: Learners understand false about distinctions of target

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

15

presentation or presentation based on contrastive approach for the confusion such as

the usage of verbs “get / take”, “was / is”, in past and present sign

Fossilization: “Fossilization is referred to 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' pronunciation and adults‟ pronunciation However, these cases also display in some syntactic structures or vocabulary a learner uses Three factors are mother tongue influence, communication needs, and teachers‟ feedback; all of them contribute to this phenomenon

Incomplete application of rules: Richard (1971) record two factors leading to

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

Cross association: George (1972) wrote “cross-association is the phenomenon of

mutual interference between partially learned items, neither being inhibited but one

or both being affected by the other” (1972:153) According to George (1972), the

notion of cross association is different from overgeneralization in the way that interference does not come from the prior learning items, but from contrary direction

2.6 The notion of cohesion

In the text, words or sentences seem to be linked together, containing what are called text-generating devices These devices are words or phrases that allow the speaker or writer to establish relationships through sentence by written or voice by spoken, and help to combine sentences in a text with each other

Following to Yule (1996), a text is usually regard to have a certain structure which depends on factors quite different from those required in the structure of a single

16

sentence; some factors are described in terms of cohesion, or the ties and connections

which exist within a text Schiffrin (1978) defines cohesive devices as “clues used by speakers and hearers to find the meanings which underlie surface utterance”

(1978:9) Halliday and Hasan (1976) regard a text is the same as a semantic unit without of form but it has meaning They describe cohesion as a semantic concept that refers to relation of meaning existing within the text, and consider it as a text, without as a structural unit Therefore, the usage of the cohesion term refers specifically to non-structure text forming relations and it often occurs where the interpretation of some element in the discourse is dependent on that of another Their focus is on the cohesive ties between sentence and sentence because they are the unique source of text, while within the sentence there are structural relations as well

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

2.7 Types of cohesion

Halliday and Hasan (1976) give the most comprehensive description analysis of cohesive devices have five major types of cohesive ties: reference, substitution, ellipsis and conjunction and lexical ties The first four types include reference, substitution, ellipsis and conjunction is belong to group of grammatical cohesion Conjunction is believed to classify into two group cohesion However, it is better to put in the group of grammatical cohesion as it is mainly grammatical with a lexical component inside And the later is lexical cohesion

17

Table 2.1: Types of cohesion at linguistic level

Linguistic level at which “phoric” relation

( Halliday and Hasan, 1976: 318)

The classification of cohesion is based on linguistic form The cohesive relations can

be understood as either lexicogramatical in nature or semantic, the latter is either referential or conjunctive In the other words, the type of cohesion is depended on lexicogrammatical relations Types of cohesion in each group are given out in details

as the following:

2.7.1 Grammatical rules

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

Referential cohesion

18

According to Haliday and Hasan (1976), “In every language, there is referential

cohesion they are “certain items which have the property of reference in the specific sense in which we are using the term here” that means we give a reference to

something in our own way in place of our interpretations In English these items are

personals, demonstratives and comparatives

Exophora or Exophoric reference could be contrast it with Endophoric as a general name for reference within the text, Haliday and Hasan make the distinction between situational and textual reference clearly

Figure 2.1 : Types of reference

(Source: Haliday and Hasan, 1976: 33)

As general rule, reference items may be exophoric or endophoric, if endophoric, they may be anaphoric or cataphoric Exophora is situational reference referring to a thing

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

Anaphoric and cataphoric reference indicate two different ways in which reference items can function within a text Anaphoric reference points the reader or listener

charged one mark and will be volley at next turn

Cataphoric reference points the reader or listeners forward it draws us further into the

text so as to identify the elements to which the reference items refer “They” in the

example is cataphoric reference as readers have to read on, and are given their identities in the second sentence

For example:

They said that the dream is a blessing for them Teachers, students, workers and

everyone have a different dream

Haliday and Hasan (1976) classify three types of referential cohesion: personal, demonstrative and comparative These assorted 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 catergory of person (table 2.3) These items are expressed through pronouns and determiners They serve to identify individuals and objects that are named at some other points in the text

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: Haliday and Hasan, 1976: 38)

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

proximity (table 2.4), expressed through determiners and adverbs These items can

represent a single word or phrase, or much longer chunks of text - ranging across several paragraphs or even several pages

Table 2 3: Demonstrative reference

Modifier/Head Adjunct Modifier

Class Determiner Adverb determiner

this these that those

21

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

Table 2 4 : Comparative reference

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

(Source: Haliday and Hasan, 1976: 39)

Substitution

Substitution is the replacement of one item by another, as indicated in the Table 2.6 the distinction between substitution and reference is that substitution is a grammatical relation, a the relation in the wording rather than in the meaning

Table 2.5 The distinction between substitution and reference

Type of cohesive relation Linguistic level

(Source: Haliday and Hasan, 1976:8)

22

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:

Nominal: one, one;, same

Verbal: do, does

Clausal: so, not

The following underlined words are examples of substitution:

Examples:

- There are some new dresses in the wardrobe These ones have been

given by my sister  Nominal substitution

- Neither do you. Verbal substitution

- I think so  Clausal substitution

Ellipsis

Ellipsis is the process in which one item within a text or discourse is omitted or replaced by nothing Ellipsis occurs when some essential structural element is omitted from a sentence or clause It is a relation within the text and can only be recovered by

referring to an element in the preceding text “Ellipsis can be interpreted as that form

of substitution in which the item is replaced by nothing” (Haliday and Hasan, 1976:

88) Consider the following discourse fragment illustrates for the point:

Example:

- John: I love the red

It is impossible to tell from the utterance what John prefers: the red car, shoes, or tie

if what is said before is not known (for example: Catherine: I like the brown hair) Therefore, the red is a elliptical nominal group

As with substitution, ellipsis also have three types: nominal, verbal and clausal

23

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

Example:

- 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

Conjunction

Conjunction is different in nature from the other cohesive relations, from reference, substitution and ellipsis in that it is not a device for reminding the reader of previously mentioned entities, actions and states of affairs In other words, it is not an anaphoric relation It is a cohesive device because it signals relationships that can only be understood through reference to other parts of the text Reference, substitution and ellipsis are clearly grammatical relation as they involve closed systems presenting absence or simple options of presence and systems such as those

of person, number, roximity and degree of comparison

The cohesion of conjunction can be interpreted in terms of either experiential function of language that is the relation between the meanings in the sense of representations of content, our experience of external reality or the interpersonal function of language It is known as the relation between meanings in the sense of representations of speaker‟s own idea about the context Haliday and Hasan (1976) named these relations: external and internal respectably The two types of conjunctive relation can be exploited whenever conjunction is used as a mean of creating text as the line between the two is not always a clear cut

Basically, there are four main types of conjunction: adversity, temporality, causality, and addition

24

Adversative conjunctions is known as contrasting conjunctions which are

coordinating conjunctions used to express comparisons or contrasts The element introduced by the adversative conjunction usually qualifies or expresses a caution with regard to the main clause of the sentence Adversative conjunctions such as

however, but, on the other hand, etc They are adversative because the information in

the following sentence of a text moderates or qualifies the information in the preceding

Temporal conjunctions such as first, then, after that, etc They express the

relationships between theses of two successive sentences which exit when the events

in a text are related in external terms of the timing of their occurrence

Causal conjunctions interpret the relationship between the cause and consequence

such as because, because of, for, etc

Additive conjunctions are coordinating conjunctions used to denote addition The

conjunction indicates that the second word, phrase, clause, or sentence contains an additional fact that is related to the earlier word, phrase, clause, or sentence Additive

conjunctions signal the presentation of addition information such as and, moreover, in addition to, etc

2.7.2 Lexical connectors

Lexical connectors deal with the meaning in text Halliday and Hasan (1976) said that through the selection of vocabulary, it is the most important element to create cohesive effect It concerns the way in which lexical items relate to each other and to other cohesive devices so that textual continuity is created 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

25

Reiteration is “the repetition of a lexical item or occurrence of a synonym of some

kind, in the context of reference; that is, where the two occurrences have the same referent” (Halliday and Hasan, 1976) Reiteration includes repetition, synonym,

super-ordinate, and general words The role of reiterations in the text is referring back

to the previously mentioned entity; thus, they fulfill a similar semantic function to cohesive reference

A collocation is combination of two or more words that often go together These

combinations just sound “right” to native English speakers, who use them all the

time On the other hand, other combinations may be unnatural and just sound

“wrong”

According to table below, having the difference between natural English and unnatural English:

Table 2.6 The difference between natural English and unnatural English

the fast train fast food

the quick train quick food

make a noise

make a phone call

do a noise

do a phone call

(Source: dictionaries of collocations)

Based on corpus linguistics, collocation is defined as a sequence of words or terms that co-occur more often than would be expected by chance Collocation consist of the restrictions on how words can be used together Prepositions are used with

of text and contain “a cohesive force” According to Haliday and Hasan (1976), “This type of lexical cohesion is achieved through the association of lexical items that regularly co-occur” (1976: 284) It can be implied collocation is expressed through

open class items Any pair of lexical items which are in some way associated with each other in the language is capable to bring about cohesion The cohesive effect of these pair does not depend much on any systematic semantic relationship as on the tendency to share the same lexical environment This effect even builds long cohesive chains across sentence boundaries Therefore, there is no limit to these items; this means it is difficult to establish sets of regularly co-occurring words and phrases

2.8 Cohesive devices in writing

In writing as well as in speech we use certain words and expressions to constitute connections among ideas in a sentence and paragraph These cohesive devices create unity to your answer, without using them often enough and do not establish the connection between them Then, essay will become a collection of disjointed sentences and a great deal of meaning will be lost The most common cohesive devices are personal pronouns (he, she, they), demonstrative pronouns (this, that, these, those), articles and transitional adverbs (therefore, furthermore) Cohesive devices, sometimes it is called linking words, linkers, connectors, discourse markers

or transitional words It is words like “For example”, “In conclusion”, “However” and

“Moreover” Cohesive devices together with coherence, cohesion create fully text

However, most students have not been taught how to use them effectively At the same time, they make mistakes when using the cohesive devices

27

Furthermore, in writing, cohesive devices are crucial to tell the reader what we are going to do in a sentence and help to guide them through our writing They signal to the reader what the relationships are between the different clauses, sentences and paragraphs or signaling the relationships between ideas, and making obvious and

visible the writer‟s “line of thought” (Boadhead and Berlin, 1981:306) Researchers

have pointed out that these cohesive devices are an important property of writing quality (Witte and Faigleiy, 1981) In fact, these cohesive devices may be essential for preserving author‟s meaning (Raimes, 1979) Bacha and Hanania (1980) found that learners meet many difficulties with cohesive devices in writing While native speakers of English generally learn to use these cohesive elements as they do another aspect of language, English language learners seem to have great problems in mastering them

2.9 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 (1982), foreign language learning are influenced both outside from learning, teaching environment, and inside from what and how learners process the language, learners‟ errors are inevitable as it affected by these factors It is error analysis which helps to turn these errors to the benefit of learning and teaching foreign language This study 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 temporally oversight of memory, confusion or carelessness Causes of errors are also presented in two main categories which are 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 this chapter also includes the concept of cohesion, the importance of cohesion in writing and the comprehensive description analysis of cohesive devices by Haliday and Hasan (1976)

28

CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter describes the information research participants, the study setting, data collection and methods of data analysis

of the first academic year During school time, though they had already gained some knowledge of English However, they did not have full understanding and be able to use cohesive devices correctly in writing as in high school The focus of learning English is more on grammar than on writing in high school In the situation, two teacher will responsible for writing lessons in two classes and one teacher will teach lessons in one classes every week, two classes which will be teach by two teachers are chosen; Nevertheless, this factor helps to make sure that the teaching and leaning

29

condition is likely similar in two classes The result of the research is hoped to help the teachers have focused in the following next semester when cohesive devices are taught in grammar lesson In general, the subjects were homogeneous in their age as they all were first year undergraduate the students with their age ranged from 18 to

19 At present, they all have the same learning conditions and have learnt in the same cultural background

3.3 Data collection

The teachers have applied a survey through writing class to find errors in writing from foreign language learners They ask the students to write free topic for a paragraph The source of data used to find answer to the research questions is the written the paragraph of 80 students in university The students were asked to produce their writing by paragraphs (100-150 words) They were free to choose their topic The topic in the students‟ writing which is very familiar to them

All these techniques are done under control of teacher With the idea that errors will come up spontaneously in the process of learning, free compositions are collected during the semester of eight months as a mean of eliciting natural errors that students make During the semester under the study, the teachers were asked to set a rule in their writing classes: each student will be asked to write a paragraph approximately

100 to 150 words in writing with free topic The students were informed that they have to begin with outline, then a first draft and a final draft Each student must pass their final version to any other student in class before handing it in to the teacher; this rule helps to find extract errors from freshmen students‟ writing Another important point worth which helps the teachers to build sufficient error correction techniques, the focus of teaching as well as teaching strategies to prevent and eliminate these errors

3.4 Data analysis

30

This study was conducted using both qualitative and quantitative methods In analysing errors in the use of cohesive devices, that were treated from a qualitative perspective and at the same time their frequency and accuracy was calculated quantitatively The study will be intend to conduct as qualitative and quantitative research study using compositions as a technique of eliciting data for the analysis, statistical counting as measurement of results The data analyses are gathered in papers from students' writing Students‟ papers are collected every week Any errors

in the use of cohesive devices are found and categorized according to the cohesion - category by Haliday and Hasan (1976) Then the occurrence frequency of each error

type are counted The data and the list of the errors are the source for the analysis

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

Is sentence superficially

well-formed in terms of the grammar

of the target language? Yes

Does a normal interpretation according

to the rules of the target language make sense in the context? Yes

Sentence not apparently erroneous but may be right by chance

Hold in store for possible further investigation

Sentence is

overly

erroneous

Is learner available for consultation?

Translate first language back into target language to

provide plausible reconstruction

yes

IN

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)