5. CONCLUSIONS
5.4 Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research
Due to the limitations of this study, some important issues regarding Taiwanese EFL learners’ employment of cohesive devices are not addressed in the present study.
To begin with, the study was conducted with only undergraduates from one single university and with samples available for analysis only for thirty eight copies.
This particular sample of subjects cast doubt on the generalization of the research findings to other populations of different educational backgrounds. Therefore, it is suggested that future studies recruit participants of various educational backgrounds to gain more comprehensive insights into Taiwanese learners’ employment of cohesive devices.
Second, the study only investigated Taiwanese college students’ cohesive devices in two genres, narrative and expository genres. Further, the collected data were only from one single topic for each genre. The results of the study may not have wide applications in other topics or discourse types such as argumentative, descriptive and academic writing. As a result of this, it is suggested that future studies explore the cohesive devices in different topics and genres.
Finally, the study is limited by examining cohesive devices from the participants’
essays. Chances are that we may misinterpret writers’ meanings, especially for the low proficiency level writers. Due to their poor command of English, low proficiency writers may not know the correct way to express their ideas. Therefore, to avoid this kind of misunderstanding, it would be better to interview these participants. By understanding their individual problems in person, we may better understand how
123
they select cohesive devices in their compositions.
124
REFERENCES
Ahring, J. (1979-1980). Composition research: problems of entering college freshmen
and implications for teaching. English Teaching and Learning, 4.3, 72-77.
Littlefair, B. A. (1991). Reading all types of writing. USA: Open University Press.
Bamberg, M. G. W. (1987). The acquisition of narratives: Learning to use language.
New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1990). Pragmatic word order in English composition. In U.
Connor & A. M. Johns (Eds.), Coherence in writing (pp. 43-46). Alexandria,
VA: TESOL.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1992). A Second Look at T-Unit Analysis: Reconsidering the
Sentence. TESOL Quarterly, 26.1, 390-395.
Britton, B. K., & Black, J. B. (1985). Understanding expository text: A theoretical
and practical handbook for analyzing explanatory text. New Jersey: LEA.
Carrell, L. P. (1982). Cohesion is not coherence. TESOL Quarterly, 6, 479-487.
Celce-Mricia, M, & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). The Grammar Book. USA: Heinle &
Heinle.
Chang, V. W. (1995). Freshman English composition: An error analysis from the
discourse perspective (NSC84-2411-H003-001). National Science Council of
the Republic of China.
125
Chen, Hui-mi. (2003). An analysis of lexical cohesion in senior high school student’s
composition. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Chengchi University, Taipei,
Taiwan.
Chao, Chi-fen. (2002). An analysis of the usage of personal pronouns in senior high
school students’ compositions. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Chengchi
University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Cherry, R., & Cooper, C. (1980). Cohesive ties and discourse structure: A study of
average and superior texts at four grade levels. Unpublished manuscript,
Department of Learning and Instruction, State University of New York at
Buffalo.
Chou, Min Chieh. (2000). Lexical cohesion and the quality of the EFL writing text.
華岡外語學報, 199-209.
Connor, U., & Kaplan, R. B. (1987). Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text.
Amesterdam: Addison-Wesley.
Cox, B. E.., Timothy, S., & Elizabeth, S. (1990). Good and poor elementary reader’s
use of cohesion in writing. Reading Research Quarterly, 25, 47-65.
Cox, B. E. (1991) Children’s knowledge of organization, cohesion, and voice in
written exposition. Research in the Teaching of English, 25(2), 179-218.
Crowhurst, M. (1981). Cohesion in argumentative prose. Paper presented at the
126
meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Los Angeles, CA.
Crowhurst, M. (1987). Cohesion in argument and narration at three grade levels.
Research in the Teaching of English, 21, 185-201.
Dillon, G.. L. (1981). Constructing Texts: Elements of a theory of composition and
style. USA: Indiana University Press.
Dressler, W. U. (1978). Current trends in text linguistics. Berlin: W. de Gruyter.
Dressler, W. U., & de Beaugrande, R-A. (1981). Introduction to text linguistics.
London: Longman.
Ebbitt, W., & Ebbitt, D. R. (1990). Index to English (8th ed.). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Farghal, M. (1992). Naturalness and the notion of cohesion in EFL writing classes.
IRAL, 30, 45-50.
Fine, J. (1994). How language works: Cohesion in normal and nonstandard
communication (Vol. 51). NJ: Ablex.
Ferris, D. R. (1994). Lexical and syntactic feature of ESL writing by students at
different levels of L2 proficiency. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 414-420.
Frodesen, J, & Eyring, J. (2000). Grammar dimensions: form, meaning, and use.
Boston: Hein & Heinle.
Goldman, S. R, & Murray, D. J. (1992). Knowledge of connectors as cohesion devices
127
in text: A comparative study of native-English and
English-as-a-second-language speakers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 4,
504-519.
Hasan, R. (1984). Coherence and cohesive harmony. In J. Flood (Ed.), Understanding
reading comprehension. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward
Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1989). Spoken and written language. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Ruqaiya, H. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Ruqaiya, H. (1987). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Ruqaiya, H. (1989) Language, context, and text: aspects of
language in a social-semiotic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Halliday, M. A. K., Teubert, W., & Yallop, C. (2004). Lexicology and corpus
linguistics: An introduction. London: Continuum.
Hinkel, E. (2001). Matters of cohesion in L2 academic texts. Applied Language
Learning, 12, 111-132.
Hinkel, E. (2004). Teaching academic ESL writing: practical techniques in
vocabulary and grammar. USA: L. Erlbaum.
128
Huang, Meng-fen. (2003). A study on the use of conjunctions in compositions by
Taiwanese senior-high-school students. Unpublished master’s thesis, National
Chengchi University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Hyland, Ken. (2003). Second language writing. USA: Cambridge University Press.
Hyland, Ken. (2004). Genre and second language writing. USA: Michigan University
Press.
Martin, J. R. (1992). English text: System and structure. USA: John Benjamins.
Jin, W. (2001). A qualitative study of cohesive in Chinese graduate students’ writing:
variations across genres and proficiency levels. Paper presented at the
Symposium on Second Language Writing at Purdue University, Indiana, United
States.
Kaplan, J. D., & Palhina, E. M. G. (1982). Non-native speakers of English and their
composition abilities: A review and analysis. In W. Frawley (Ed.), Linguisitcs
and Literacy (pp. 425-57). New York: Plenum.
Kuo, Chih-hua. (1995). Cohesion and coherence in academic writing: From lexical
choice to organization. RELC Journal, 26, 47-62.
Lee, M. Y.-P. (2003). Structure and cohesion of English narratives by Nordic and
Chinese students. In A. Dahl (Eds.). Proceedings of the 19th Scandinavian
Conference of Linguistics, USA, 31 (2), 290-302.
129
Liang, Li-Ren. (1997). Cohesion in freshman English compositions: A
quantitative-and qualitative analysis. Unpublished master’s thesis, National
Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Liu, Chih-Fang. (2001). Text analysis: Cohesion and coherence. 板中學報, 4, 23-40.
Liu, Meihua. (2005). Cohesive features in argumentative writing produced by Chinese
undergraduates. System, 33, 623-636.
Littlefair, A. B. (1991). Reading all types of writing. USA: Open University Press.
Macken-Horarik, M. (2002). “Something to shoot for” a systematic functional
approach to teaching genre in secondary school science. In A.M. Johns (Ed.),
Genre in the classroom: multiple perspectives (pp. 17-42). NJ: LEA.
Martin, J. R. & Rose, D. (2003). Working with Discourse: Meaning beyond the clause.
London: Continuum.
Moe, J. A. (1979). Cohesion, coherence and the comprehension of text. Journal of
Reading, 16-20.
Neuner, L. J. (1987). Cohesive ties and chains in good and poor freshman essays.
Research in the Teaching of English, 21, 92-105.
Norment, J. N. (1982). Contrastive analyses of organizational structures and cohesive
elements in English, Spanish (ESL-) and Chinese (ESL-) students’ writing in
narrative and expository modes. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
130
ED269764)
Norment, J. N. (2002). Quantitative and qualitative analyses of textual cohesion in
African American student’s writing in narrative, argumentative, and expository
modes. CLA Journal, 46(1), 98-132.
Pritchard, R. J. (1981). A study of the cohesion devices in the good and poor
compositions of eleventh graders (Doctoral Dissertation, University of
Missouri-Columbia, 1980). Dissertation Abstracts International, 42, 688A.
Roen, H. D., & Gene, L. P. (1984). The effects of selected text-forming structures on
college freshmen’s comprehension of expository prose. Research in the
Teaching of English, 18, 8-25.
Saeed, J. I. (1997). Semantics. USA: Blackwell.
Scarcella, R. & J. Brunak. (1981). On speaking politely in a second language.
International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 27, 59-75.
Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in language teaching. USA: Cambridge University
Press.
Stotsky, S. (1983). Types of lexical cohesion in expository writing: Implications for
developing the vocabulary of academic discourse. College Composition and
Communication, 34, 430-446.
Taylor, L. (1992). Vocabulary in action. UK: Prentice Hall.
131
Tannen, D. (1982). Spoken and written language: Exploding orality and literacy.
USA: Ablex.
Tierney, J. R., & Mosenthal, H. J. (1983). Cohesion and textual coherence. Research
in the Teaching of English, 17, 215-229.
Titscher, S., Meyer, M., Wodak, R. & Vetter, Eva. (2000). Methods of text and
discourse analysis. London: SAGE.
Todorov, T. (1990). Genres in discourse. USA: Cambridge.
Vince, M. (2008). Macmillan English Grammar in Context. Oxford: Macmillan.
Witte, S. P., & Faigley, L. (1981). Coherence, cohesion, and writing ability. College
Composition and Communication, 32, 189-204.
132
Appendix A TOEFL Scoring Guide
6: An essay at this level
-effectively addresses the writing task.
-is well organized and well developed.
-uses clearly appropriate details to support a thesis or illustrate ideas.
-displays consistent facility in the use of language.
-demonstrates syntactic variety and appropriate word choice, though it may have occasional errors.
5: An essay at this level
-may address some parts of the task more effectively than others.
-is generally well organized and developed.
-uses details to support a thesis or illustrate an idea.
-displays facility in the use of language.
-demonstrates some syntactic variety and rage of vocabulary, though it will probably have occasional errors.
4: An essay at this level
-addresses the writing topic adequately but may slight parts of the task.
-is adequately organized and developed.
-uses some details to support a thesis or illustrate an idea.
-displays adequate but possibly inconsistent facility with syntax and usage.
-may contain some errors that occasionally obscure meaning.
3: An essay at this level may reveal one or more of the following weakness:
-inadequate organization or development.
-inappropriate or insufficient details to support or illustrate generalization.
-a noticeably inappropriate choice of words or word forms.
133
-an accumulation of errors in sentence structure and/or usage.
2: An essay in this category is seriously flawed by one or more of the following weakness.
-serious disorganization or under development.
-little or no detail, or irrelevant specifics.
-serious and frequent errors in sentence structure or usage.
-serious problem with focus.
1: An essay at this level -may be incoherent.
-may be underdeveloped.
-may contain severe and persistent writing errors.
0: An essay will be rated 0 if it -contains no response.
-merely copies the topic.
-if off topic, is written in a foreign language, or consists only of keystroke characters.
134
Appendix B Writing Prompt (Narrative Writing):
Write an essay entitled "A Special Day to Remember." Write about a special day you remember. Tell the readers how special it is, what happened and how it happened. When narrating your experience of the special day, try to specify where it happened, when it happened and who were involved in the whole event. Word limit: 200 words. Time: 60 minutes
Writing Prompts (Expository Writing)
The cell phone has become the most important part of everyone's life. Most of us have difficulty imagining what it could be like to live without it. Now write to explain to your reader how the cell phone has changed humans life. Word limit: 200 words. Time: 60 minutes.
135
Appendix C
Scores of Writing Samples
Scores Number of Narrative Samples Number of Expository Samples
6 points 1 0
5 points 1 4
4 points 7 10
3 points 11 12
2 points 10 4
1 points 0 0
0 points 0 0
Total 30 30
136
Appendix D
Basic Information of the Narrative Essays
Group Score Words T-units
NH1 6 451 32
NH2 5 199 11
NH3 4 250 18
NH4 4 250 17
NH5 4 336 29
NH6 4 306 26
NH7 4 256 14
NH8 4 209 15
NH9 4 231 15
NL1 2 183 15
NL2 2 168 16
NL3 3 180 15
NL4 2 214 24
NL5 2 137 10
NL6 1.5 165 15
NL7 3 196 19
NL8 3 174 21
NL9 2 208 18
NL10 2 219 26
Note. NH= Narrative samples classified as the high proficiency group.
NL= Narrative samples classified as the low proficiency group.
137
Appendix E
Basic Information of the Expositive Essays
Group Score Words T-units
CH1 5 219 16
CH2 5 240 14
CH3 4 281 25
CH4 4 367 22
CH5 4 243 21
CH6 4 265 18
CH7 4 167 11
CH8 4 236 13
CH9 4 259 23
CL1 2 182 16
CL2 2 105 11
CL3 2 112 10
CL4 2 167 12
CL5 3 165 15
CL6 3 182 17
CL7 3 169 21
CL8 3 178 12
CL9 3 189 19
CL10 3 190 20
Note. CH= Expository samples classified as the high proficiency group.
CL= Expository samples classified as the low proficiency group.
138
Appendix F
High and Low Proficiency Level Writers’ Distribution of Grammatical and Lexical Cohesive Devices in Narration
Appendix G
High and Low Proficiency Level Writers’ Distribution of Grammatical and Lexical Cohesive Devices in Exposition
Appendix H
4.1.1 High and Low Proficiency Groups’ Use of Grammatical Cohesive Devices Table 8
Comparison of Numbers of Pronominal Reference in the Two Groups in Narration Level N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean T-value
Comparison of Numbers of Definite Articles in the Two Groups in Narration Level N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean T-value
Comparison of Numbers of Comparative Reference in the Two Groups in Narration Level N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean T-value
Distribution of Sub-forms of Conjunctive Cohesive Devices in Narration
Conjunction High Low TOTAL
Table 12
Comparison of Numbers of Additive Conjunction in the Two Groups in Narration Level N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean T-value
Comparison of Numbers of Adversative Conjunction in the Two Groups in Narration Level N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean T-value
Comparison of Numbers of Causal Conjunction in the Two Groups in Narration Level N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean T-value
Comparison of Numbers of Temporal Conjunction in the Two Groups in Narration Level N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean T-value
4.1.2.1 High and Low Proficiency Groups’ Use of Grammatical Cohesive Devices Table 28
Distribution of Sub-forms of Conjunctive Cohesive Devices in Exposition
Conjunction High Low TOTAL
Comparison of Numbers of Additive Conjunction in the Two Groups in Exposition Level N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean T-value
Comparison of Numbers of Adversative Conjunction in the Two Groups in Exposition Level N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean T-value
Comparison of Numbers of Causal Conjunction in the Two Groups in Exposition Level N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean T-value
Table 32
Comparison of Numbers of Temporal Conjunction in the Two Groups in Exposition Level N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean T-value
4.1.4 High Proficiency Group in Narrative and Expository Writing Table 46
High Proficiency Group’s Pronominal Reference in the Two Genres
Genre N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean T-value
High Proficiency Group’s Definite Articles in the Two Genres
Genre N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean T-value
High Proficiency Group’s Comparative Reference in the Two Genres
Genre N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean T-value
Table 49
High Proficiency Group’s Distribution of Sub-forms of Conjunctive Cohesive Devices in the Two Genres
High Proficiency Group’s Additive Conjunction in the Two Genres
Genre N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean T-value
High Proficiency Group’s Adversative Conjunction in the Two Genres
Genre N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean T-value
High Proficiency Group’s Causal Conjunction in the Two Genres
Genre N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean T-value
Table 53
High Proficiency Group’s Temporal Conjunction in the Two Genres
Genre N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean T-value
4.1.5 Low Proficiency Group in Narrative and Expository Writing Table 66
Low Proficiency Group’s Pronominal Cohesive Devices in the Two Genres
Genre N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean T-value
Low Proficiency Group’s Definite Articles in the Two Genres
Genre N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean T-value
Low Proficiency Group’s Comparatives in the Two Genres
Genre N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean T-value
Table 69
Low Proficiency Group’s Distribution of Sub-forms of Conjunctive Cohesive Devices in the Two Genres
Low Proficiency Group’s Additive Conjunction in the Two Genres
Genre N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean T-value
Low Proficiency Group’s Adversative Conjunction in the Two Genres
Genre N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean T-value
Low Proficiency Group’s Causal Conjunction in the Two Genres
Genre N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean T-value
Table 73
Low Proficiency Group’s Temporal Conjunction in the Two Genres
Genre N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean T-value
Narration 10 .90 .876 .277
Exposition 10 1.00 .667 .211
T=-.287 P=.777 Note. *p < .05.
Appendix I Samples A Special Day to Remember---NH1
I would never forget the day of my debut on the stage of National Concert Hall. In my life, I longed to be a real musician, performing around and bring beautiful music and happiness to audience. However, in the reality, I am merely an amateur flute player, who studied hard in another academic field, though meanwhile struggled to keep this romantic dream. In order not to get suffocated in the studies, I joined the NTNU school band and played the flute there for four years. But I had never known that my dream should come true until our conductor, mater Yeh Shu-Hau, announced that we were to hold a concert at National concert Hall, the shrine in my heart that is always saved for professional performers and great masters of the art.
The concert was one in memory of the Band’s over-100-year history. And the theme was “Russian Music Pieces.” There were more than 60 band members involved in the instrumentation, and we practiced and rehearsed over and over for more than 4 months. In addition, everyone made contribution in helping in the promotion and ticket selling. To our rejoice, the box was wonderfully hot. Even my parents had traveled from Kaohsiung to see me on the highest stage of the nation. I remembered how late we rehearsed the night just before the concert, and how nervous I was that day at the backstage; I couldn’t eat anything, because I know how important this experience is to me: This could be the only chance ever I could stand on a professional stage like National Concert Hall. I took photos with other players, my best partners with whom we knew we can make great music together. And then I grabbed my pipe, and stepped on to the stage. The spotlight was dazzling and hot. Faces of audience were dark, yet we could feel their excitement in the silence. I remembered the conductor walking onto the stand. Master bowed, and there started the rumbling sound of clapping. Turning back, Master Yeh smiled to us, and suddenly he looked as if a magician. When he looked into my eyes, miraculously I felt confident and relieved. Just at the next moment, his wand began to wave, and our magic show of music started.
The concert was a great success. We had a standing ovasion from our kind and excited audience, and hardly finished the program even after 2 encore pieces. And only when it was all over did I realized how tired I was. However, in my heart I was note tired at all, instead I was full of joice and excitement, knowing that this was the greatest day in my life, with such glory.
A Special Day to Remember---NH2
The most special day to remember in my life so far is March 3rd, 2008. On that specific day, the most unforgettable thing happened to me and it will stay in my mind till I die!
Since I was in elementary school, I had always been crazily in love with this boy band “Backstreet Boys”, and I collected all their albums, singles and of course, the side products. However, I’ve never gotten to see them in person no matter how I prayed.
Much to my surprise, Backstreet boys listed Taiwan as one of the destinations in their world tour, and I was lucky to get a ticket in the concert. The day after the concert, March 3rd, I rose up really early to rush to their hotel “Hyatt” and was determined to get an autograph from my favorite lead singer Brian. In the end, I not only got Brian’s autograph, but also a cheek kiss after I told him in person how his music influenced me to become so interested in learning English! All in all, March 3rd, 2008, it was absolutely the special day for me to remember because I had a personal contact with the Backstreet Boys!!
A Special Day to Remember---NH3
I still remember the day clearly. April 14th in 2008, the very first day I started my
I still remember the day clearly. April 14th in 2008, the very first day I started my