Vietnam national university, Hanoi
College of foreign languages
====***===
trần thị hải bình
An error analys is on t he use ofc ohesive
devices
in writ ing by fre shmen majoring in Engl i sh
at t hang l ong unive rsity
phân tích lỗi trong cách sử dụng
phơng tiện liên kết văn bản trong bài viết
của sinh viên chuyên anh năm thứ nhất
tại trờng đại học thăng long
Course work
Field: Methodology
Supervisor: vũ thúy quỳnh, m.a
1
hanoi, December 2005
2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my deepest thanks firstly to my supervisor, Mrs. Vũ Thuý Quỳnh,
M.A. who has enthusiastically helped and encouraged me to finish the research project.
Without her experienced guidance and valuable comments, my research would still be
far from finished. I am also indebted to her for her 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, College of Foreign Languages, Vietnam National University, Hanoi. 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 at Thang Long
University, my beloved family and my friends.

i
ii
iv
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
5
5
6
6
7
8
8
9
10
11
11
12
17
18
19
19
20
20
4
3.4. Summary

LIST OF TABLES, CHARTS AND FIGURES
Table 2.1 Types of cohesion at linguistic level.
Table 2.2. Types of grammatical and lexical cohesion
Table 2.3. Personal reference
Table 2.4. Demonstrative reference.
Table 2.5. Comparative reference
Table 4.1. The number of errors in the use of cohesive devices
Table 4.2. Errors and their causes
Table 4.3. Errors in the use of demonstrative reference
Table 4.4. Errors in the use of the definite article.
Table 4.5. Errors in the omission of ‘the’
Chart 4.1. Sources of errors
Figure 2.1. Types of reference
Figure 2.2. The process of recognizing and identifying errors
6
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1. REASONS FOR CHOOSING THE TOPIC
Since Vietnam has opened its door to the rest of the world, more and more people with their
wish to join world trends have rushed to learn foreign languages, especially English. This
demand in language learning has brought about a great amount of positive changes in
language teaching in Vietnam. Language teachers have looked for and tried different
methods and techniques in teaching and learning in order to find the effective ones. The
effectiveness of a teaching method or technique is reflected in the learners’ language
competence that is their abilities to perform the four language skills: Reading, Listening,
Writing and Speaking. Amongst these skills the two productive skills, writing and speaking,
are considered more difficult than the others as the learners need to use the language to
convey their messages comprehensibly and accurately in real life communication. When a
message is unsuccessfully conveyed, the factor, which is most likely to be blamed for is
errors in the use of the language.

Many studies on errors have been carried out in the field of teaching English in the world.
Researchers like Zamel (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), errors 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 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 errors derived from Vietnamese learners have been made. For
8
these reasons, this study should be conducted to find out types of errors, specifically errors in
the use of cohesive devices in Vietnamese learners’ writing 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 type 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.
1.5. METHODS OF THE STUDY
The subjects of the study are two classes of first year undergraduate students at Thang Long
University. They are at the age ranged from 18 to 19. Their major at the university is
English. 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.
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. Students’ papers
were collected every week. 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.
1.6. ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY

First of all, the mother tongue may be more or less helpful for the learners of a new language
as they have already learned how to do with that language. Universal features in languages
can assist learners to learn a new language. On the basis of behavior psychology, Lado
(1957) and Fries (1965) suggested two types of transfers: transfers are positive when the first
language and the target language share similar features, negative when there are different
features in the two languages. Language environment is also of great significance to success
in learning a foreign language. Lastly, the role of formal teaching was asserted in the
research by Littlewood (1980) when he proposed that certain techniques or methods proved
to be relevant in particular groups of learners.
Dulay et al. (1982) named two internal factors: 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. Motivation, as he defined, 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 the part of the learners’ internal system that
appears to be responsible for conscious linguistic processing” (Dulay et al., 1982:58). It
appears when learners try to learn or to apply a linguistic rule or structure or when he is
given tasks requiring grammatical judgments.
Foreign language learning are influenced both outside from teaching and learning
environment, and inside from what and how learners process the language.
11
2.2. ERROR ANALYSIS
In 1970s and 80s, a large number of papers on error analysis were published. Subsequently, a
more positive attitude towards errors has emerged. In the past, errors were deemed and errors
now are viewed as natural and important part of learning process because they can yield
information about learning language. This positive attitude towards errors is especially
important in the wake of the Communicative Language Learning and Teaching. Many
researches on errors in second language learning have been done by several scholars like
Corder (1967), Richard (1992) and Selinker (1992). Error Analysis is the identification,
description and explanation of errors either in its spoken or written form. Following Corder
(1967), Choon (1993) gives some suggestions on carrying out an error analysis research.

iv) The use of one form for several required
v) The wrong word ordering
2.4. ERRORS VS. MISTAKES
The distinction between “errors” and “mistakes” has been given by many linguists though it
is impossible to indicate any sharp differentiation. According to Klassen (1991), the term
“error” is used to refer to a form 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. Later, 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. 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.
13
2.5. 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 and (2) causes independent of the first language interference.
2.5.1. First language interference
The notion of first language interference is understood as negative transfer from the first
language to the target language, it is the way of learning new habits is hindered by
previously learnt ones. 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). Myles
(2002) considers transfer an important cognitive factor related to writing errors .The study of
transfer involves the study of errors (negative transfer), facilitation (positive transfer),

foreign language writers perform better than others.
French (1958) when looking for common errors in English wrote:
The fact that the errors are common indicates that they have a common cause. That
common root is not to be found in a wide 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 in the usages of
English itself; for 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
Causes independent of the first language include: overgeneralization, false concepts
hypothesized, incomplete application of rules, cross association, and fossilization.
Overgeneralization: According to Jakobovist (1969), overgeneralization is the application
of previous available strategies in new situations. Richard (1974), Jain (1969) and
Littlewood (1980) defined the term “intra-lingual interference”. Littlewood (1980) suggests
that overgeneralization and transfer have the same strategy; the difference is the employment
of knowledge of the foreign language in the former and of the first language in the latter.
False conceptualization: Learners’ faulty understanding of distinctions of target language
items leads to false conceptualization, Richard (1971) blames poor presentation or
15
presentation based on contrastive approach for the confusion such as the use of verbs
“come / go”, “was / is”, of past and present markers.
Incomplete application of rules: Richard (1971) noted down two factors leading to
incomplete application of rules as the use of question in 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: The notion of cross association is proposed by George (1972). It is
different from overgeneralization in the way that interference does not come from the prior
learning items, but from the adverse direction. 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).

In writing, cohesive devices are crucial for they turn separate clauses, sentences, and
paragraphs into connected prose, 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 ties are an important property of writing quality
(Witte and Faigleiy, 1981). In fact, these ties may be essential for preserving author’s
meaning (Raimes,1979). While native speakers of English generally learn to use these
cohesive elements as they do other aspects of language, English language learners seem to
have great difficulties in mastering them. Bacha and Hanania (1980) found that learners have
many problems with cohesive devices in writing.
2.8. TYPES OF COHESION
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.
17
Table 2.1: Types of cohesion at linguistic level
Linguistic level at which “phoric” relation is
established
Type of cohesion
Semantic
Grammatical
Lexicogrammatical
Lexical
Reference
Substitution and 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 details as follows:

Referential cohesion
According to Haliday and Hasan (1976), there is referential cohesion in every language, they
are “certain items which have the property of reference (…), instead of being interpreted
semantically in their own right, they make reference to something else for their
18
interpretations” (1976: 31). In English these items are personals, demonstratives and
comparatives.
By contrasting Exophora, or Exophoric reference with Endophoric as a general name for
reference within the text, Haliday and Hasan make the distinction between situational and
textual reference clear.
Reference:
[ situational] [textual]
exophora endophora
[to preceding text] [to following text]
anaphora cataphora
Figure 2. 1: Types of reference
(Source: Haliday and Hasan, 1976: 33)
Exophora is situational reference refering to a thing as identified in the context of situation
and Endophora is textual reference refering to a thing as indentified in the surrounding text.
As general rule, reference items may be exophoric or endophoric, if 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 points the reader or listener ‘backwards’ to a
previously mentioned entity, process or state of affairs. In the following example, the
underlined words are anaphoric reference.
Example:
- The schoolmaster was leaving the village, and everybody seemed sorry. The miller
lended him the small tilted cart and horse to carry his goods.
Cataphoric reference points the reader or listeners forward _ it draws us further into the text
in order to identify the elements to which the reference items refer. They in the example is

[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,
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. 4: Demonstrative reference
Semantic catergory Selective Non-selective
Grammatical function Modifier/Head Adjunct Modifier
Class Determiner Adverb determiner
this these
that those
Here [now]
There then
The
(Source: Haliday 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 2. 5 : Comparative reference
20
Grammatical function Modifier:
Deictic/Epithet

Ellipsis
Ellipsis occurs when some essential structural element is omitted from a sentence or clause
and can only be recovered by referring to an element in the preceding text. “Ellipsis can be
21
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:
- Mary: I prefer the green
It is impossible to tell from the utterance what Mary prefers: the green dress, hat, or bag if
what is said before is not known (for example: Sylvia: I like the blue hat). Therefore, the
green is a elliptical nominal group
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).
Example:
- My kids are very naughty. Both (0) are too small. → Nominal ellipsis
-A: Have you been working?
B: Yes, I have (0) → Verbal ellipsis
- A: Tom is staying for dinner!
B: Is he? He didn’t tell me (0). → Clausal ellipsis
Conjunction
Conjunction differs 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 as they involve closed systems presenting
simple options of presence or absence, and systems such as those of person, number, and
proximity 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 which is known

23
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.
2.9. 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 are influenced both outside from learning and teaching environment, and inside
from 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 temporally 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
Haliday and Hasan (1976) are included in this chapter.
24
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter describes the subjects, instruments of data collection and methods of data
analysis of the study in detail.
3.1. SUBJECTS
The subjects of the study involved in this study were two classes of 42 first year
undergraduate students majoring in English at Thang Long University. There were 85 first
year undergraduate students majoring in English at the University. These 85 students were
randomly divided into four classes at the beginning of the academic year. In terms of the
length of learning time, they all had spent two and a half months taking part in courses for