VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES
*********************

LÊ THU HẰNG AN ERROR ANALYSIS ON THE USE OF COHESIVE
DEVICES IN THE WRITING BY THE STUDENTS
AT CHU VĂN AN HIGH SCHOOL,
THÁI NGUYÊN PROVINCE

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


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 iii
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.
v
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

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 1
PART A: INTRODUCTION
This part gives rationale, objectives, the research questions and methods, the scope of the
study and the structure of the thesis.
1. Rationale
As an effective means of international communication, English has been brought into
Vietnamese school curriculum as a compulsory subject. It is the great demand for teaching
and learning English of the society that has encouraged educators to look for effective
teaching methods with the aim to improve the learners‟ language competence. The
language competence is the ability to perform four language skills (reading, listening,
writing and speaking). Amongst these skills, writing-a productive skill seems to be more
difficult than the others as the learners need to use the language to convey their messages

the following research questions:
1. What are common errors in the use of cohesive devices in the students‟ writing in 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 3
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.
4
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. 5
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

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 7
about the target language or by incorrect hypothesis about it; mistakes are caused by

language reflect the first language‟s features. Later in 1978 he recasts interference as 8
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

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 10
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

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 12
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
13
Table 2: Types of Grammatical and Lexical Cohesion
GRAMMATICAL COHESION
LEXICAL COHESION
Reference
 Exphoric Reference
 Endophoric Reference
o Personal
o Demonstrative
o Comparative
Substitution
 Nominal Substitution
 Verbal Substitution
 Clausal Substitution
Ellipsis
 Nominal Ellipsis
 Verbal Ellipsis
 Clausal Ellipsis
Conjunction
 Additive
 Adversative
 Causal
 Temporal
 Others
Reiteration
 Same word/Repetition
 Synonymy/ Near-synonym
 Superordinate

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. 15
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
Semantic category
Existential

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
Semantic category
Selective
Non-selective
Grammatical function
Modifier/Head
Adjunct
Modifier
Class
Determiner
Adverb
Determiner

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. 16

Table 5: Comparative reference

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. 17
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