Low Proficiency Group’s Inappropriate Use of

In this section, we will examine the low proficiency group’s inappropriate use of grammatical cohesive devices. The types of grammatical cohesive devices under scrutiny are (1) Reference, and (2) Conjunction. With regard to substitution and ellipsis, because of their rare occurrence, no errors were found in these two categories.

4.2.1.3.1 Reference

Errors involving low proficiency level writers’ inappropriate use of reference cohesive ties were much greater in number than high proficiency ones’. Compared with high proficiency groups, low proficiency groups not only had problems in supplying a needed referential tie but also had problems in using the correct referential cohesive devices in the discourse. Like high proficiency writers, low proficiency writers had the most errors in the use of demonstrative reference (12 instances), followed by pronominal reference (14 instances) and comparative

81

reference (4 instances). First, in the category of demonstrative reference, like their high proficiency counterparts, the low proficiency group had the problem with the lack of definite articles or addition of definite articles, as shown in (4.10). In t-unit 6, a definite article should be put in front of the word teacher, the use of the definite article here is exphoric, which referred to the teacher in the math class. In t-unit 7, there should not be any definite article before chapter I because there was no prior mention of it in the preceding text.

(4.10) In the morning, I got up late1 so I went to school late.2 When I went on the way to school,the sky suddenly rained dogs and cats.3 To the worst [To make things worse], I forgot to bring my umbrella.₄ How terrible it was!₅ In the math class, [the] teacher did a test which I got a zero point.₆ I stayed up studying the chapter I 7 but the math test is chapter II.8…. (NL8) In addition, unlike high proficiency writers, low proficiency ones had major problems with the appropriate use of deictic demonstrative words like this and that. In (4.11), in t-unit 12, the writer used deictic reference this to refer to the day that she had a date with a boy, which was obviously an inappropriate use of cohesive tie because this is used to associated with a present or future referent and that with a past-time referent. The misuse of this and that could cause serious misunderstanding and confusion for readers.

(4.11)…. On twenty-nineth, February, I was inviting a boy going to see a movie.6

The boy who has chatted with me MSN for a long time,7 and I like him.8

We went to see 曼谷 Love Story in 華納威秀.9 The movie was very, very special,10 it was a love about two boys.11 So you can think how special this [that] day12, I invited the boy I like to see a movie about boys’ love.13

(NL4)

On the other hand, even though some low proficiency writers knew the difference between this and that, they still made minor mistakes in tense so that their demonstrative cohesive device was still inappropriate, as shown in (4.12). The writer in t-unit 8 used done that to anaphorically refer to the fact that her parents never used

82

their hands to teach their children. Although there was a referential link between done that and the preceding text my parents didn’t used [use] their hands to teach their children., the referential tie was not without flaws. The writer did not use the past form of the word do properly in the cohesive ties.

(4.12) …. I have a very happy childhood like yours,6 if [you] want to find something different[,] perhaps it was just only one thing. which was, my parents didn’t used their hands to teach their children.7 But if they never used their hands[,] why my father done that [did that]?8 (NL9)

With regard to inappropriate use of pronominal reference, low proficiency writers had the problem with unclear referents in the text. In (4.13), there was a mismatch between the pronoun it and its referent three kinds of icecream. Instead, the improper cohesive device it should be changed into they.

(4.13) …. We entered a store and bought three different kinds of icecream to eat.

It [They] were very delicious and made me feel cool…. (NL2)

Besides, another problem frequently encountered by low proficiency level writers was that they suffered from wrong sentence structures so that they may fail to supply a needed tie. As in (4.12), the writer failed to supply the pronoun you in the t-unit 7 because of the ungrammatical sentence structure.

Lastly, for the discussion of comparative reference, unlike high proficiency writers who had better control of the structure, low proficiency writers failed to judge when to use comparative reference in the text. In the sample below (4.14), the writer did not behave well and kept making noise so that in the following text the writer was punished by her father with a slap on the face.

(4.14) The day I went to grenpa’s home with my parents, and all my family was came on, too. Mabe they have important thing needed to talk, but I always played around them and make many noises [made much more noise]….

(NL9)

Also, in (4.10), in t-unit 4, the writer used To the worst to indicate that the worst thing that happened to her was forgetting to bring her umbrella. Actually, forgetting to bring

83

her umbrella was not the worst thing because the writer continued to state several terrible things that happened to her afterwards. Therefore, the proper expression should be To make things worse, I forgot to bring my umbrella.

4.2.1.3.2 Conjunction

A total of 16 inappropriate uses of conjunction was found in narration, including 4 additive, 3 adversative, 6 causal and 3 temporal conjunction. The major problems with low proficiency level group’s inappropriate use of cohesive devices were wrong sentence structures, lack of conjunction, and wrong expressions of conjunction. In (4.16), although the writer used because to indicate a causal relationship with the prior text, they continued to suffer from an incomplete sentence structure. As shown in (4.15), t-unit 2 was not a complete sentence structure.

(4.15) November 26th is special very much to me₁.[,] Because [because] it is my birthday day.2 (NL5)

In (4.16), a causal relationship between t-units 15-16 is clearly in place. However, the low proficiency writer failed to supply a needed tie to make the text flow more smoothly.

(4.16) …. We ate dinner in restaurant, and took a walk, waiting the movie started.14 It was a little rain15, [so] we chose a place to sit.16 (NL4)

Another kind of error members of the low proficiency group made was using the wrong expression of conjunction. Errors of this type show that even though low proficiency writers were able to tell the discourse relationship between t-units and applied a conjunctive tie, they still made errors in the expression of the conjunction.

As shown in (4.17), the writer figured out the causal relationship between t-units 11 and 12 and intended to supply a causal cohesive tie. However, she misunderstood resultly as a conjunctive word and the correct form should be consequently.

84

(4.17)…. As soon as she came in room, all of her friends would stay in her room and sang the birthday song for her.9 Then, she came10 and we did all the activities we prepared.11 Resultly [Consequently], she cried and talked us that she thought it was the best birthday that she had [ever] before12 and she felt very lucky to meeting us in the college.13…. (NL1)

4.2.1.4 Low Proficiency Group’s Inappropriate Use of Lexical Cohesive Devices