还剩17页未读,继续阅读
本资源只提供10页预览,全部文档请下载后查看!喜欢就下载吧,查找使用更方便
文本内容:
Analysis of Cohesion Errors in College Students1English WritingAbstract English writing has always beenconsidered as the mostdifficult oneamong thefive basicskills-listening^speaking,reading,writingandtranslating.FormostEnglish learnersjtisagreatchallengetowriteafully-developedandwell-organizedpieceof work.ManycollegestudentshavealreadymasteredseveralbasicEnglishwritingskills,suchastofinishsomesimplewritingtaskswithvocabulariesandgrammartheyhave learned.Although theycan writewith littlelexical andgrammatical errors,some commonproblemsstillexistintermsofcohesivedevicesandcoherence.ltisataskforEnglish teachersto helpcollege studentssolve thoseproblems andimprove theirwriting.The present thesis,based onHallidays cohesion theory,lays stresson the analysis of cohesionandcoherenceerrorsincollegestudentsEnglishwriting.Thesamplewritings aretakenfromlOOcollegestudentswhoarestudyingEnglishasadualdegreeinHuazhongUniversityofScienceandTechnology.Boththenumberofcohesivedevices and cohesion errors are calculated,meanwhile thepossible causesleading tosome of the cohesion errors areprovided andanalyzed.It isexpected that the analysis of cohesion and coherenceerrorsincollegestudents,Englishwritingcouldstrengthentheawarenessof studentsand teachersin usingthe cohesive devices andachieving the text coherence,and couldoffer somepedagogical implicationsin Englishteaching.Key Words:CohesionEnglish WritingcollegeStudents relationshipbetweenthem,anyinstanceofreiterationmaybelthewordofsame meaning,2a wordof thesynonym ornear synonym,3a wordof asuper-ordinate,or4a generalword.All lexical cohesion which is notcovered byreiteration will be handledunderthegeneralheadingofcollocation.Collocationitemshavethesamelexical environmentand willgenerate acohesive forceaccording toHalliday and Hasan.In aword,this thesismainly willuse thesystematic classification of cohesive devices byHalliday.Thecohesioncanbedividedintothreegroups.Thefirstoneisgrammatical cohesivedevices,andthesecondislexicalcohesivedevices.Thethirdislogical conjunctioncohesive devices.Basing onHalliday andHasan/s cohesion theory,the authoranalyzes the errors of the students/writings,which will discuss indetail in the nextchapter.Chapter ThreeAnalysis of Cohesion Errors
3.1Definition ofError Therehavedifferentdefinitionsgiventodescribezerror z.Corder1967:43gives definitionto an error as a deviationin learnerlanguage thatbecause lackof knowledge.An errorcanovertorcovert.Corder1967alsogivesadistinctionbetweenerrorsz mistakesandlapses.Errorsarenotrecognizabletothelearnerandsoarenotamenableto self-correction,but lapsesare recognizable,being thoseslips oftongue orpen,false startsand confusionsof structureor syntacticblends,typical ofNS orlearners alike.Mistake inCordersschemearewhathecalls inappropriateutterances^wherethereisafailureto makethelanguagesuitabletothesituation.MoredistinctionisofferedbyEdge1989,who subdividesCorders categoryinto two.He retainsthe termserror forterm attempts/fordeviationsinareasoflanguagestilluntaught.Coder,s1981:10distinctionbetween mistakeand errorin anotherbook iseasier to be understood.There hedefines mistakeas the error ofperformance madeby alearner in the process of speakingor writingcaused bylacking attention,fatigue,carelessness,etc.However,it issometimes hardto identifywhether the learners incorrect use resultingfromthelackofknowledgeorthefailureinperformancesinceitispossiblethatthelearnersk nowledgeofthetargetformisonlyapartoftheprocess.What^more^he distinctionbetweenerrorsandmistakesisnotclearinsomecases.Forthesereasonsz thepresent thesiswilldiscusserrors mistakesin the processof analyzing the writing included.
3.2Definition ofError AnalysisError AnalysisEA is the studyand analysisof the errors which is madeby second language learners.Error analysismay beaimed to:I identifystrategies whichlearners usein language learning.II tryto identifythe reasonsof learners errors lllobtaininformationoncommondifficultiesinlanguagelearning^sanaidto teachingor preparingteaching materialsRichards,Jack Cet al,1992:
127.Error analysis has longbeen usedas amethod ofidentifying disadvantagesin secondlanguagelearning.Itisconceptualizedandappliedbasedonthebehavioristtheoryof languagelearningwhichsuggeststhaterrorsaresignsthatalanguagelearnersimplydoesnt learnthe rulesof the target languageeffectively.In theearly1950s,the notionof languageas asystem,and whatis more,the notionof secondlanguage acquisitionasthemeetingoftwolanguagesystemsobtainedmoreacceptanceandlinguistsstartedtosee errorsas evidenceof languagetransfer,or asinter-systematic interferenceRichards,
19844.With thatconceptualization,errors areseen asthe manifestationof ineffectivelanguage learning and arefocused uponby linguistsand teachersintent on their elimination.Errors areseenasanaturalphenomenonthatmusthappenwhenESLstudentslearnfirstorsecondlanguagebefore correctlanguage rulesare totallyinternalized.Much of the workin thefieldofEAisattributedtoCorder/who/inl967/firstmentionedthatabetter understandingoflanguagelearningwouldcomefromamoresystematicinvestigationoflearnerserrorsby discoveringthe built-in syllabusof thelanguage learner.As anintegral partof contrastiveanalysis,error analysisis usedpredominantly tohelp languageteachersexpectwhatproblemalanguagelearnerwouldhavebecauseofthelinguistic differencesbetween the learners/native languageand thetarget language.EA error analysishas been doneat variouslinguistic levels,in differentapproaches,andfromvariousperspectives.ButmostofthestudiesoncompositionswrittenbyESLIearne rshave dealtwith mistakesat word or sentencelevels andsyntactical leveltoo.The resultsof suchstudies mayhelp Chinese students overcomedifficulties in these aspects.In order to excelin writing,it is not enoughfor the students,who havebeen learningEnglishforovereightyearsz toreceiveinstructiononlyatsentencelevel.Asaresultof excessiveemphasis ongrammatical structureand spelling,the students writings areoften shortincoherenceandacleartheme.Sothisstudywillfocusontheerroranalysisof cohesive devices.Therearefivestepsinerroranalysis.Thefirstistocollectsamplesoflearner language.Thishasbeendoneindiversemanners^uchascollectingsamplesinwriting,taping conversationsand soon.The secondstep is to identifythe errorspicked outin thelanguage sample.This thesiswill identifythe cohesionmistakes madeby the students.The nextinvolves not only theidentification of the error;but alsoits description.The fourthis toclassifytheerrorsreferringtotheirhypothesizedcauses.Explanationforerrorsis concernedwith buildingup thesource oftheerror.Like otherlinguistic taxonomy,there ismuch argumentonthetaxonomy of error sources,which willbe discussedin thefollowing part.Thelastevaluatestheseriousnessoftheerrors.Theseincludethefunctionsoferror analysis are notonly todescribe howand explainwhy errorsare theway theyare,but alsoto illustratealternating coursesof actionand identifythe implicationsof choosingamong thosealternatives.Erroranalysishasalreadyledresearchersandteacherstoabetter understandingofinterlanguageinawhole,andthusjtisamorehumanewaytoerror correctionand language teaching.It helpsteachers understand how to deal witherrorsaree仟iciently andeffectively.In thepresentthesis,we followthe measuresoferror analysis with the combinationof thetaxonomyofthecohesiontocollectexamplesofwritings,identify,describe,explain andevaluate the cohesive errorscommitted by the students.
3.3Error andMistake NowwebegintocreateadefinitionoferrorJtisagreatchallengetodefineanywordorconcept precisely.Corder1981:10identifies mistakeand error,the formerto himbeing theerrors ofperformance madeby alearner in the courseof speakingor writingcaused by the lackof attention,fatigue,carelessness,etc.That is to say,zit occurswhen learnersfail toperform theircompetence/Ellis/1999:
51.Anerrormeansthesystematicerrorsofthelearners,becauseofhisincompleteknowledgeofthetargetlanguage.whichreflectsCorderstransiti onalcompetence Richards.etal.1985:
95.In otherwords,anerroris aninstance of language that is unintentionally deviant andis notself-corrigible byits author.Nonetheless,a mistakeis eitherintentionally orunintentionallydeviant,or self-corrigible.Corder1967:43upholds zthecompetence versusperformance distinction,insisting thatmistakes areof nosignificance to theprocessoflanguagelearning sincethey donot reflectadefectinourknowledgefe.g.theyarenotcausedbyincompetencejbutare traceableto performancefailure.The learneris normallyimmediately awareof them7and cancorrectthemwithmoreorlesscompleteassurance7Onthecontrary,errorsareof importance,theydoreflectknowledge,theyarenotself-correctable,andonlylearnersof anL2make them.Intermsoftha^wecanseethatmistakestelluslittleaboutlanguagelearning problems,for theycan usuallybe correctedby thelearner themselves.However,sometimes,it isdifficult todistinguish whetherthelearners/incorrectuseis theresult ofthe lackof knowledgeor thefailure inperformance becauseit ispossible that thelearnersknowledge ofthetargetform isonly partial.In additionto this,the distinctionbetweenerrorsandmistakesisunclearinsomecases.Therefore,thepresentthesiswill discusserrors includingmistakes.
3.4Error Analysis at DiscourseLevel Althougherror analysishasbeenused inlanguageteachingfor manyyears and there aremanystandardstoclassifyerrors,thespecificationoferrorsinthepresentresearchis basedonlinguisticcategorieszorintermsofwheretheerrorislocatedintheoverall systemofthetargetlanguage.Grammarhastraditionallybeendiscussedaccordingto morphologyand syntax,the formerhandling wordstructure,the latterhandling structureslarger thanthe word.But inorder to achieve proficiencyin writing,all writersmust successfullydeal withprocess andaspects ofcontent,audience,purpose,word choice,organization,syntax,and grammar.Anyoneoftheseareasmayposeanumberofproblemsforcollegestudents,particularlywhentheyarewritinginanon-nativelanguage.Moststudentspaymore attentiontogrammarandsyntaxatsentencelevel.However,evengainingcontrolof grammarand syntax,or havingmistakes corrected,does notmean thattheir writingswillbeacceptable toreaders whoare nativeEnglish speakers.Writings thatsound awkwardorunnatural becauseit does not meetNSE readersexpectations willnot behighly speeded.They need tobechecked atdiscourse levelMartin,1992:
55.Two separatebut relatedelements ofhow sentencesare arrangedatthediscourse levelcould beseparated from the complexitiesof writing:coherence andcohesion.Somestudieshavesuggestednon-nativespeakersofEnglishNNSEwritingin Englishdonotuseprocedurestocoherenceonspecificcohesivedevicesinthesamemanner asNSE do.For example,based ontheir knowledgeof Arabic,Arabic writersmay prefercoordination,and thuscoordinating conjunction,over subordinationwhen writingin EnglishReid,1993:
34.However;the use of subordinationis regardedas asign ofgood writingwhile excessivecoordination isnot.Now,most ofcollege studentshave somedifficulties incohesion,leading toa greateror lesserloss ofcoherence.They knowfrom experiencethat writingan essayneeds morethangrammaticalknowledge.HoweverjnEnglishclasses^othstudentsandteachers oftenfocusonthegrammarandsyntaxofsinglesentences,whetherwrittenorspoken.Thus,studentsarenotusedtousingconnectingwordsorothercohesiveelementsz forexample,pronouns orthe definitearticle Raimes,1983:
53.Raimes discoversthat ESLstudents alwaysmisunderstand theelements of cohesion inparticular.At theparagraph level,a concentrationon cohesioncould show them whytheir writingsareconfusing.PerhapsESLstudentsoftenhavedifficultymasteringcohesionin Englishwritingbecausewhattheyhavebeenofferedjfcompositiontextsareanyreflection ofour teachingstrategies,are listsof cohesivedevices categorizedaccording tofunction Zamel,1983:
111.Students maynot havebeen suitablytaught therelationships betweenwordsandphrases.Listsoftransitionalwordsanddrillsorexercisesoutof contextdonotletstudentsunderstandtherelationshipsbetweensentences/RatheG improvingESL Englishas aSecond Languagestudents proficiencyat thislevel seemsto requireinstructionthatfostersunderstandingofintrascententialmeaningjelationshipbetween sentences,and howto useconnectors sothat accurate,coherent andrich models,can beproduced GoldmanMurray,1992:
5.In orderto fosterthis understanding,we havea planto investigatehowtheEFL studentshandled cohesionin theirwriting.Research on cohesionerrors in studentswritings hasconcentrated onthe threekinds of cohesive linkoperating inthetextstructure,which wereferred tointhe former part,asgrammatical cohesion,conjunctional and lexical cohesion.Chapter FourData Analysisof CohesionErrors in College Students1English Writing
4.1Instruments
4.
1.1Questionnaires ThewriterborrowedtwoquestionnairesAppendixllltoinvestigateteachers,and studentscohesion knowledge.To ensurereliability andvalidity thewriter referredto the questionnaires thathad beenimplying tostudents of23classes atBeijingNormalUniversity.Thequestionnairedistributedtotarget studentswas formedof10items and thequestionnaireextended to teachers includedof8items.Thestudentsquestionnaireaimedtofindoutthesituationofcohesioninstruction and their attitudesto writing instruction.And theone giventoteachersaimed toinvestigate seniorhigh schoolteachers viewsoncohesion.Thequestionnaireforstudentsconsistedofl2questions,whichcanbedividedinto fourgroups.ThefirstgroupdealswiththestudentsviewsonlearningEnglishwriting QuestionOne,TwoandThree.Thesecondgroupconcernsaboutthemethodsthat English teachers useto instructwriting andcorrect thecompositions QuestionsSeven andEightJ.ThethirdgroupisabouttheEnglishteachersinstructionofuseofGrammatical andlexicalcohesion.thearrangementofthematicprogressionandinformationtheoryin writingclasstQuestionsFourandFivel.Theforthgroupisaboutthestudentsuseof Grammaticalandlexicalcohesion,thethematicprogressionandinformationstructure QuestionsSix,Nine andTen.The questionnairefor Englishteachers containedtwelve questions,and mostof themwere similar to the questions in students questionnaire.The subjectswere askedto expresstheir viewsby tickingonathree-point Likertscale.Of thetwenty teacherswho tookpartinthissurve^lGteachers^questionnaireswerevalidforthestudy.Withthepurposeof understandingmoreaboutthepresentstatusofcoherenceinstructionfromtheteachers,point ofview,thequestionsdesigned forteachers canbe dividedinto fourcategories.The firstcategory dealtwiththeteachers/opinion aboutimportance ofwriting QuestionsOne.The secondwas aboutthe measuresthey tookin instructingwriting QuestionsThree FourFive andSix.The thirdcategory wasontheissue whetherand howmuch teacherstaught thematicstructurejnformationstructureandgrammaticalandlexicalcohesioninwritingclassesQuestionsSeven,EightandNine.Thelastcategoryexploredtheissueofthe teachers/knowledgeaboutthethreecomponentsoftextualmetafunctionlhematic structure,information structureandcohesionQuestions Ten,Eleven andTwelve.
4.
1.2Procedures oferroranalysisOnhowtostartaerroranalysis,Corder1974putforwarderroranalysisofthe followingfivestepsareincludedthefirstislearnercorpuscollection^hesecondis identificationoftheerror,the thirdis theclassificationoferror,the forthistoexplain thecause oftheerrorandthefifth isto evaluatetheerror.This study isto do erroranalysisofcohesiveclassificationwiththestepsoftheempiricalpart.Theauthorcollectsthirty sampleessays randomlyfromthemock testpackage anddoes thecohesivedeviceanalyses withthem.
4.2Data Analysisof Questionnaires
4.
2.1Data Analysisof StudentsQuestionnaire Fromtheanalysisofthequestionnaire ofstudents,the authorfound theconclusions:first,students thinkto practicewriting abilityis very important.Second,there arekinds ofwriting methodsinstruction andcorrection isconducted byEnglishteachersin class.Third,theteachershavetaughtthestudentsaboutinformationstructureinmostofthestudents,opinions.Forth,studentsuselexicalandgrammaticalcohesionwhenwritingEnglish compositions.Itiscommonthatthestudentsdonotpaylastattentiontothethematic progression and information structure in their compositions.
4.
2.2Data Analysisof Teachers7Questionnaire Theauthorgotconclusionsasmostteachersdidn/tinstructtheirstudentstowritea compositionas acoherent part.Teachers admitthat writing is abasic andimportant abilityof foreignlanguagelearning,but theyseldom teachthe studentsin specificway ofwriting.Theythemselvesevenlackofknowledgeofcohesiontheory.Littleattentionwas giventothematicprogressioninstudentswritinginstruction.Therefore,almostno teachersemphasized thearrangement ofinformation in writinginstruction.The responsestostudyofEnglishteachersknowledgeaboutthelinguisticconceptoftextual metafunctionwerequitenegative,withfive31%responding//notmuch/,andl062%responding“little or nothing.It isclear toconclude fromthe questionnairesthat teacherspaid littleornoattention to the instructionof thematicprogressionand informationstructuremainly becauseof theirlackofknowledgeinthislinguisticfield.Atthesametime,theteachersoftenlaid emphasisonlexicalandgrammaticalcohesioninteachingwriting.lnconsequence.thestudentdidnt usethematic structureandinformationtheory oftenintheirwriting.Instead,they oftenconsciously appliedlexical andgrammatical cohesioninwritingcompositions.In addition,the studentsused conjunctionand lexicaldevices ina monotonousway.Itcouldbeobviouslyseenfromthedataanalysis.Forthestudents.theymustapply theknowledgeofthematicstructureandinformationstructuretotheirwritinginordertocompose coherentcompositions.ChapterFive ConclusionFromtheresearchtheauthordrawstheconclusionofcohesivedevicesinstudents writing ability hasgreat relationship.Students usuallyhave problemsin usageof pronouns,thedefinitearticle^the^attacheditems^hetemporaldevices,connectiveadverbs,prepositionsJexicalitemsandcollocations.Theanalysisofcohesionerrorscanimprove studentswritingability.Thepremiseisthatteachersshouldhavethebasicknowledgeof cohesiontheoryandrelatedteachingconsciousness.Secondly.studentsshouldhavethe knowledgeand abilityof cohesion.The teachershave todo relevantguidance andtraining to improve studentswriting ability.It is necessary andfeasible.References
[1]Bain,A.1980EnglishCompositionandRhetoric:AManual[M].London:Longmans,Green.
164.
164.
184.
184.
[4]Brown,GG.Yule.1983DiscourseAnalysis[M].Cambridge:Cambridge UniversityPress.
[5]Crowhurst,M.1987CohesioninArgumentandNarrationat3GradeLevels[J].Research inthe Teachingof English,2,185-
201.
[6]Fitzgerald』.Spiegel,D.L.1990TextualCohesionandCoherenceinChildrens Writing[J].Research inthe Teachingof English,1,263-
280.
[7]Grabe,W.R.B.Kaplan.1996TheoryandPracticeofWriting[M].London:Longman.[SlHallida^M.A.K.Hasan,Ruqaiya.2001CohesioninEnglish[M].London:Longman.
[9]Hartnett,C.G.1980CohesionandMentalProcessesinWritingCompetence.Pape rpresentedattheAnnualMeetingoftheNationalCouncilofTeachersofEnglish,21-
26.
[10]Hoey,M.2000Patterns ofLexis inText[M].Oxford:Oxford UniversityPress.
[11]Mu Culley,G.A.1985Writing Quality,Coherence andCohesion[J].Research intheTeaching of English,3,269-
282.
[12]Thompson/G.2000lntroducingFunctionalGrammar[M].Beijing:Foreign LanguageTeaching andResearch Press,
[13]Widdowsonz H.G.1978TeachingLanguageasCommunication[M].Oxford:Oxford UniversityPress.
[14]VanDijk,T.A.1977TextandContext:ExplorationsintheSemanticsandPragmatic sof Discourse[M].London:Longman.
[15]ChengXiaotang.
2005.ResearchonDiscourseCoherenceBasedonFunctional Linguistics[M].Bei Jing:Foreign LanguageTeaching andResearch Press.程I凫堂,2005,基于功能语言学的语篇连贯研究,北京外语教学与研究出版社
[16]CuiXuemei.
1997.AResearchonCharacteristicsofCoherenceandCohesionin ChineseStudentsEnglishWriting[J].Journal ofTianjin ForeignStudies University,2,46-
53.(崔学梅,1997,“中国学生英语作文中连贯与衔接语篇特征的研究分析”,《天津外国语学院学报》第2期)
[17]Ding Yanren.
(2000).Discourse Analysis[M].Nan Jing:Nan JingNormal UniversityPress]丁言仁,2000,“语篇分析”,南京南京师范大学出版社)Chapter Onelntroduction
1.1The existingproblems ofChinesestudentsin Englishwriting ThewriterstudiedthemockteststatusofacollegeinFirst-tier citietofindlocalcollegeEnglishwritingsituationisworrying.First-tier citieislocatedinremoteareaandteachingisrelativelybackward.Theproblemsinstudentscompositionaremore serious.TowriteagoodEnglishcompositionrelatestovariousknowledgeandskills,including thedesign ofgood logicalthinking toorganize statementdiscourse,needtohave enoughvocabulary andaccurate sentencestructure toexpress differentideas.The writingsectionscoresofthemocktestsarenothigh.lnvestigateitsreason,summedupthe followingthree points:first,the studentswritten expressionexists problems.Students mayhaveideasandexamplesrelatedtothethemebuttheydontknowhowtoexpress coherentlythoseideasthatappearedintheirmind.Second^tudentsvocabularyistoo small.They alwaysignore lexicalgrammar rulesintheuseofwords andconvert ChinesethinkingmodeintoEnglishwriting.Spelling,tenseandvoicemistakeisemerginginan endlessstream.Third^tudentsarenotgoodatusingthegrammarJexicalcohesion^nd theyoftenuseofthesimpleconnectionmeansexcessively.Forexamplez theydoesnotknowhowtoreplacethesameconceptofsynonyms^fewsimplerepetitionofthebasic connectivessuch as and,but,so,or etc.The problemof discoursebetween paragraphsand sentencessemanticincoherencearealwaysreducedtofragments.
1.2Purpose andsignificance ofthe presetstudy TheEnglish writtenexpression ofCET4requires the students towriteashortpassageofaboutonehundredandtwentywordsinthirtyminutes.The contentand scopeare definedbythelisting information,so thecontent writingis acontrolmode ofthinking style.The essenceof thiskind ofwritingis a kindof controlledwriting orguidedwriting.ltcantleaveforfreetoplay,butmoreflexibleinaspecifiedrangeof expression.College studentsEnglishwriting ability includingspelling,punctuation,grammar,vocabulary anddiscourse competence,which canenable thestudents towrite achapteroffluent,completeandcoherentarticle.Manyproblemsneedtheteachers zattentionandguidance.Formiddleschoolstudents,especiallyseniorschoolstudents improvediscourse competenceis one ofthemost effectivemeans ofwriting guidanceand necessary.Intheworldglobalizationoftoday.theinternationallanguageofEnglisheducation hasbecomemoreandmoreimportant.WritingabilityinEnglishisoneofthefourbasic skillsofEnglishlearningandalso isthe keyto learnEnglish.It isvery importantto findan effectiveway toimprove studentswritingability.The authorbelieves thatthere isa dealofconnectionbetweencohesionoferroranalysiswithstudentswritingability.Fromthe observationtheauthorfoundthatthereisaproblemwhenstudentsproducewriting.The writerhopes thatthe textualcohesion ofEnglish compositionand errorsanalysis canplay acertain roleintheteaching andlearning ofEnglishwriting.After wholeyears surveyand attentivestud^thewriterwasgladtofindthesubjectstudyofcohesioninwritingis investigableandusable.Theapplicationofcohesiontheoryinseniorwritingiseffective.The authorhopes afterthe studythere isa systematicalmethod thatcan useintheteaching andlearning toimprove thestandard ofthestudentswritingability.The aimofthestudyisto findout what are theoverall errorsofcohesivedevices ofstudentswritingsand whatisthefrequency oferrorsincohesivedevicesthat usedinstudentscompositions.Writing isa timeconsuming practicing.If thereis aneffective methodtoimprove,we haveto calmdown anddo along lastingpractice,and thenthewritingmust getimprovement.Chapter TwoTheCohesion Theory
2.1Definition ofCohesion Likemanyothertermsinlinguistics,thecohesiondefinitionsarevarious.Atthe beginninglinguistswhofirstuseditistosaythedegreeofconnectionbetweentwoormore words,or morphemes,within onegrammatical structure.The publicationofCohesionin Englishby Halliday andHasan1976is establishingthesymbolofcohesiontheory.lnthisbook,HallidayandHasandescribecohesionasa semanticconcept referringto relationof ideathat existswithin acontext andthat definesit asa textHallidayHasan,1976:
4.“The wordtext isbest regardedasasemantic unit:a unitnot oftheformbut ofmeaning.A textdoes notconsist ofsentences;it isrealized by,or encodedin,sentences;HallidayHasan,1976:
2.Halliday andHasan1976:3also definea concreteform asa tie,We needa termto refertoasingleinstanceofcohesion,atermforoneoccurrenceofapairofcohesively relateditems.This wecall atie/Hisdefinitionofcohesionreferstherelationshipbetweenthemeaningsoflinguistic groups.Atfirst,cohesionisexpressedpartlythroughgrammarandpartlythroughwords items.According toHallidays views,cohesion isclassified intogrammatical cohesion and lexicalcohesion.Thedifferencesbetweenthemareonlyindegree.Wecantsaythat cohesion isasimply formalrelation,which meaning isnot involved in.For example:Jenny satdown torest atthe footof ahuge beech-tree.Now hewas sotired thathe soonwas asleep;andtheleaf fellon him,and thenanother,and beforelong hewas covered\^/ith leaves,yellow,golden,red andbrown.Theleaftieswithbeech-tree.Bothareclearlynotidenticalinreferences,sincetree andleaf arenot synonymous;but theexplanation ofleaf dependson beech-tree.We knowthattheleaf wasa beech-leaf,and ifthe sentencehad goneon beforelong hewas coveredwithmaple-leavesweshouldrecognizeitasamistake/Thisillustratestheforceof cohesion,and italso illustratesthe factcohesion dependsnotonthe presenceof explicitlyanaphoric itemslike soand he,but onthe establishmentofasemantic relationwhich maytake anyoneofvarious formsHallidayHasan,1976:
13.Secondly,cohesive relationshave nothingtodowith sentenceboundaries inprinciple.The effectofcohesion is strongerandthemeaning ismore obvious,as cohesiveconnects betweensentencesaremoreclearbecausetheonlysourceofdiscoursearethem,meanwhile,within the sentence thereare alsostructural relationsHallidayHasan,1976:
9.In thedescription ofa passage,the cohesionbetween sentencesis significantbecause thatstands thevariable aspectofcohesion,distinguishing onetext fromanother.Therefore,inthisthesis,wewillinvestigatenotonlytheintrascententialcohesiveties.Cohesion refersspecifically tonon-structural textforming relation.
2.2Definition ofCoherence Inordertomake itpossible for thestudentstodealwith coherence,the thesisaims toinvestigateLZIearnersknowledgeofcoherence^olistthefeaturesofcoherencein studentswriting,it iscrucial todefine coherence in concreteterms sothat studentsknow exactlywhat todo when they attempttoachievecoherence inwriting.We candate thedefine coherencetothe19th century,whenthepredominant emphasiswasputonsentenceconnectionsandparagraphstructure.Bain1980,forexample,defines coherencein terms of connectionsbetween sentencesthat createtightly-structured andautonomousparagraphs.Whicharethenlinkedtogetherintoalargertextby transitionaldevices Suchconceptions,however,construe coherencenarrowly interms ofsentence-levelconnectnessandparagraphunityratherthandiscourseunity.Theyreflect themajor emphasisof manyESL writingtext bookswhich teachsentence-level grammarrather thancoherenceina broadersense.Theemergenceofstudiesindiscourseanalysisinthel960sshiftedtheemphasisof writingresearch fromthesentenceand itsconstituents tothe largerprinciples ofdiscourse-namely,principles thattie sentencesto oneanother andtothecontext in which thetext occursde BeaugrandDressier,1981Textlinguistics,among themany otherbranches ofdiscourseanalysis,has,inparticular;broadenedourunderstandingoftheconceptof coherence.Centraltotextlinguisticresearchisthenotionoftext^whichisa multidimensionalconstructconveyingmeaningatdifferentlevelsfHallidayHasan,
1985.Coherence should,therefore,device itsmeaning fromwhat a text is andhowatext is constructed.Coherencecanbedefinedintermsoftheformalpropertiesofthetext.HallidayandHas an1976pointouttheformalpropertiesoflanguageintheirattemptstoexplain texture\withwhichthenotioncoherenceisoftenquoted.Accordingtothemz thelinguisticsignalsofcohesioncanhelpwritersachieveconnectivityandguidereadersto establishthe writerscoherent interpretationintended.Hoey2000mentions thatboth thelexicalpatternsandthemacrostructurei.e.,discourseorganizationaretoexplainthe coherenceoftexts.Therefore,coherencecanbesaidtobeinternaltothetextmakingit possiblefor usto understandwhatatextis.
2.3Cohesion andCoherence Thedistinguishing betweenthese twotermsofcohesionandcoherence isnecessary.Coherence appearedasaterm laterthan cohesion.In HallidayHasans Cohesionin English,it isonly appearedthree timesasacommon noun.It wasfirstputforwardthispairoftermssoastodistinguishcontextualizedcorpusfrom decontextualizedcorpus.Althoughin Cohesionin EngZ/sh,Hallidaydoestdefinethe coherenceclearly,he definedthe texture,whichissimilartocoherence.Widdowson1973who Theconceptoftextureistotallysuitabletoexpressthepropertyofbeingatexf.A texthas atexture,and thisis whatdifferentiates itfrom somethingthatisnot atext.HallidayHasan,1976:2Althoughvariouslinguistshavevariousviewsordefinitionsofcoherence,they consentthatcohesionisthenetworkofsurfacerelationsthatlinkswords,andfunctional relationsofdiscourse.Andcohesionisarelationalmeaning^asemanticpropertyoftext,realized throughlexical orgrammatical devices.But coherence isanintangible orinvisible network.Thoughmostlinguistsseparatecohesionfromcoherence^herelationshipbetween themisoneofthemajorconcernsoftexttothecross-disciplinarysideofdiscourse analysis.Many linguistshave sofar madecontribution tothis areaof studyfrom allkinds ofperspectives.HallidayandHasan supportthat cohesion isnecessarythough notenough situationforthecreation oftext.A textisapassage ofdiscourse,whichiscoherent inthese tworegards:it iscoherent withrespecttothecontextofsituationandthereforeconsistentinregister;anditis coherentwith respectto itselfand thereforecohesive.HallidayHasan,1976:13They pointout thatcohesionisthe foundationof consistingcoherence.We shouldnot denytheimportantroleofcohesionincoherence.Achievingcoherence,thetextmustbe coherentfrombeginningtoend.lnadditionjtmustbepermittedtouseallkindsof cohesivedevices withinits registersphere HallidayHasan,1976:
318.Cohesionisobjectivesothatwecancalculatethenumberofcohesiveties.Nevertheless,coherenceissubjective andjudgments concerningit maydiffer fromreaders toreaders.It includesmuch morethan cohesion.Since,we havegiven thedefinite topicto thestudentsinoursurveyoftheiruseofcohesivedevices^heregisterhasbeendefined.Thus,the otherelement,cohesivedevicesisaveryimportantelement incoherence.Coherenceisthemostimportantprerequisiteforthetext.ltisusefulforstudentsto investigatethenumberofcohesivetiesandmistakesoftheminordertoimprovetheirwriting skills.
2.4Classification ofCohesion ThemostvaluablecontributiongivenbyHallidayandHasanisthattheirsystematicclassificationofcohesion.ltissaidcohesionisexpressedintwowaysjntha^partly throughgrammarandpartlythroughlexicalitems.Aswehavereferredtoasinlast chapters,the distributionbetween grammaticalandlexicalcohesionisactually onlyat onestage.The writerdoesnothint thatit isa purelyformal relationship,inwhichmeaningisnotinvolvedbecause cohesionisasemantic relationHallidayHasan,1976:
6.HallidayandHasan1976systematizecohesionintothreeclearcategories:grammaticalcohesion^conjunctionandlexicalcohesion.Eachofcohesionisrepresented inthetextbyparticularfeature,suchasomission,repetitions,andoccurrencesofcertain words,patterns andconstructions.The grammaticalcohesionisnamely reference,substitution andellipsis.Referenceinthespecificnatureoftheinformationistypicalforretrieval.Thereare threetypesofreference:personal,demonstrativeandcomparativeinHallidayHasans views.Thenexttwokindsofcohesiverelationaresubstitutionandellipsis,andtheyare dealtwith inthis essayas theyare moretypically foundin dailydialogues Halliday,1994:
337.Conjunction isnot simplyof grammaticalor semanticrelationship.It isontheborder betweenthe twoconcepts.In Language,Context,and TextHalliday,1985,conjunction issortout intoelaboration,extension,and enhancing.The thirdone islexicalcohesion,which bringsthecohesiveeffect gotbythechoice ofwords.It hasbeen dividedinto reiterationand collocationtwo groups.According tothe。