Hebron University

Faculty of Graduate Studies

English Department

Cohesion and Coherence in the Essay Writing

of
Palestinian College Students

By

Bassem Abusharkh

Supervised by

Professor Ahmad Atawneh

Professor of Applied Linguistics

This thesis is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree

of Master of Arts in Applied Linguistics and TESOL, College of Graduate Studies

& Academic Research, Hebron University.

2012

I
II
 Abstract

The purpose of this study is to examine the problems and difficulties of cohesion

and coherence encountered by Palestinian junior college students in their

argumentative writing. Participants' level was categorized as high, intermediate, and

low. In this study cohesion is evaluated following Halliday and Hasan's (1976)

cohesion theory whereas coherence is evaluated following Grice's maxims. Oshima

and Hogue's (2006) criteria of achieving coherence were also used in the analysis.

The analysis of cohesion shows that the three groups tend to use lexical devices.

In fact, intermediate and low level students overused reiteration as a cohesive device

more than the high level students. In addition, other lexical devices like substitution

and ellipses were rarely used by the three levels of students. Moreover, results reveal

that language transfer is a main factor that impedes cohesion and coherence especially

by intermediate and low level students. The evaluation of coherence shows that high

level students achieve higher scores than intermediate and low level students. Hence,

the low level students violate the criteria of achieving coherence as delineated by

Grice (1976) and Oshima and Hogue (2006). Through examination of cohesion,

cohesive devices do not always lead to achieve coherence. The poor quality of the low

and intermediate students' writing causes lack of persuasive, satisfaction and logical

connection of ideas.

II
 Acknowledgment

I would like to express my deepest gratitude and heartfelt thanks to my supervisor,

Professor Ahmad Atawneh for his conscientious advice, immense support, guidance,

and unwavering effort in bringing to light such an MA thesis. Many thanks also go to

the chairpersons of the English Departments at Hebron University, Bethlehem

University, Al-Quds University, and to Dr. Ahmad Harb who provided me with the

materials of the study. Thanks are due to the external examiner Dr. Samir M.

Rammal, and to the internal examiner Dr. Adel Atawneh for their valuable comments

and suggestions. I am also grateful to the students of the four Palestinian universities

who participated in this study. Without their participation, the study would not have

been possible.

Certainly, I owe gratitude to my mother, wife, and children who were very

supportive while I was working on my thesis.

III
 1. TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................. ІІ

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .......................................................................................... ІІІ

TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................... ІV

TABLES .......................................................................................................... VІІІ

1. CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION...................................................................... 1

1.1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1

1.2. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY ................................................................................... 3

1.3. RESEARCH QUESTIONS .......................................................................................... 3

1.4. HYPOTHESES ......................................................................................................... 4

1.5. SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY................................................................ 4

1.6. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ............................................................................... 4

1.7. DESIGN OF THE STUDY........................................................................................... 5

1.8. IMPORTANCE OF THE STUDY ................................................................................ 5

1.9. PROCEDURES OF THE STUDY .................................................................................. 6

1.10. DEFINITION OF KEY TERMS .................................................................................... 6

1.11. SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. 8

2. CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE.............................. 9

2.1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 9

2.2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ................................................................................ 9

2.3. TYPES OF COHESIVE TIES ..................................................................................... 10

2.3.1 COHESION BY REFERENCE ................................................................................... 10

2.3.2 COHESION BY CONJUNCTION ............................................................................... 11

IV
 2.3.3 COHESION BY ELLIPSES ....................................................................................... 12

2.3.4 COHESION BY SUBSTITUTION............................................................................... 13

2.3.5 LEXICAL COHESION ............................................................................................. 14

2.4. EMPIRICAL STUDIES RELATE TO TESTING COHESION AND COHERENCE IN ESL & EFL SETTING.. 18

2.5. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COHESION AND COHERENCE.................................. 24

2.6. STUDIES SUPPORT HALLIDAY AND HASAN'S COHESION THEORY ......................... 24

2.7. STUDIES AGAINST HALLIDAY AND HASAN'S COHESION THEORY ......................... 26

3. CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ............................................................. 31

3.1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 31

3.2. PARTICIPANTS OF STUDY ..................................................................................... 31

3.3. SAMPLE ............................................................................................................... 32

3.4. DATA COLLECTION .............................................................................................. 32

3.5. SAMPLING TECHNIQUE ........................................................................................ 33

3.6. DATA ANALYSIS .................................................................................................. 33

3.7. EVALUATION OF COHESION ................................................................................. 33

3.8. EVALUATION OF COHERENCE .............................................................................. 34

3.9. PILOT STUDY ....................................................................................................... 35

3.10. RESULTS OF THE PILOT STUDY ............................................................................. 36

3.11. SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 37

4. CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION............................................ 38

4.1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 38

4.2. THE NUMBER OF OCCURRENCES OF COHESION IN THE THREE GROUPS ............... 39

4.3. ANALYZING THE NUMBER OF OCCURRENCES OF COHESIVE TIES IN GROUP A....... 40

4.4. ANALYZING THE NUMBER OF OCCURRENCES OF COHESIVE TIES IN GROUP B ....... 43

V
 4.5. ANALYZING THE NUMBER OF OCCURRENCES OF COHESIVE TIES IN GROUP C ....... 46

4.6. COMPARING THE THREE GROUPS OF STUDENTS .................................................. 49

4.7. COHESION PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED BY PALESTINIAN COLLEGE STUDENTS ...... 55

4.7.1 REITERATION ...................................................................................................... 57

4.7.2 CONJUNCTIONS (CONNECTIVES) .......................................................................... 58

4.7.2.1.THE EXCESSIVE USE OF "AND" ............................................................................ 59

4.7.2.2.UNDERUSE OF CONNECTIVE ............................................................................... 60

4.7.2.3.MISUSE OF CONNECTIVES ................................................................................... 61

4.7.3. REFERENCE ......................................................................................................... 62

4.8. ANALYZING COHERENCE OF PALESTINIAN COLLEGE STUDENTS IN THE THREE GROUPS ........... 64

4.9. COHERENCE PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERING PALESTINIAN COLLEGE STUDENTS ....... 68

4. 9.1.GRICE APPLICATION FOR EXPLAINING THESE PROBLEMS ...................................... 71

4.9.1.1.DISUNITY OF THOUGHT ...................................................................................... 71

4.9.1.2.DISORGANIZATION OF IDEAS AND INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION ......................... 72

4.9.1.3. EXCESSIVE RELIANCE ON REPETITION OF IDEAS................................................. 73

4.10. SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... 74

5. CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................. 75

3.1. SUMMARY OF THE MAJOR FINDINGS OF THE STUDY ............................................. 75

3.1. FURTHER RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................ 77

3.1. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................... 82

REFERENCES ........................................................................................................ 83

APPENDICES .......................................................................................................... 89

APPENDIX A: EXAMPLES OF ERRORS IN COHESION AND COHERENCE .................. 89

APPENDIX B: OSHIMA AND HOGUE'S (2006) CRITERIA OF ACHIEVING COHERENCE ............... 103

VI
APPENDIX C: ESSAY EVALUATION FOLLOWING GRICE'S MAXIMS (1976).......... 104

APPENDIX D: PERMISSION FOR COLLECTING THE DATA ................................... 105

APPENDIX E: SAMPLES OF STUDENTS' ESSAYS .................................................. 106

VII
 Tables

Table 1 Number of Palestinian Universities participated in the study.

Table 2 Number of argumentative essays across four universities.

Table 3 Cohesive ties in relation to number of occurrences.

Table 4 Number of occurrences of cohesive ties in group A.

Table 5 Number of occurrences of cohesive ties in group B.

Table 6 Number of occurrences of cohesive ties in group C.

Table 7 Use of lexical cohesion mechanism in the students' composition.

Table 8 The use of conjunction in the students' composition.

Table 9 The use of reference in the students' composition.

Table 10 Cohesion errors for the three groups of students.

Table 11 Coherence score for each essay in group A.

Table 12 Cohesive items and types of cohesion.

Table 13 Coherence score for each essay in group B and C.

Table 14 The results of Grice's maxims.

VIII
 Chapter One

1.1. Introduction

Writing is a fundamental component of English language learning. In light of this

fact, it is imperative that learners be taught and trained on the conventions of English

writing. Some of these conventions are cohesion and coherence. Cohesion refers to "the

grammatical and/or lexical relationships between the different elements of a text."

(Richard, Platt &Weber 1985:45). Coherence refers to the relationships of ideas and the

ability of those ideas to function together for the purpose of conveying the meaning.

(Mclinn 1988: 15).

It has been noted that EFL learners focus almost exclusively on the sentence level

rather than the level of the whole discourse that is textual coherence. Most of EFL

learners feel that correct grammar is the only tool they depend on in writing English

essays. Therefore, they rely on what they have learned about grammar.

However, EFL writings appear to be poor in coherence and in cohesion. Such

writings may lack persuasiveness, satisfactory and logical connection of ideas. This

problem can be attributed to the fact that learners know the grammar and lexical items

of the language, but they are unaware of the mechanics of coherence and cohesion.

Maqableh (1992) claims that Arab EFL learners encounter serious problems when they

write. These problems involve producing a coherent text and making the produced text

cohesive.

The focus on writing has been on generating grammatically correct sentences

depending on the belief that grammar is the only requirement for learners. That is to say

teaching writing cares about the sentence level rather than the discourse level.

Therefore, teachers judge texts in terms of grammaticality without paying attention to

logic and meaning.

1
 In recent years with the appearance of Halliday and Hassan's book (1976) Cohesion

in English, there has been a shift in focus among researchers from detecting EFL

learners' problems at the sentential level toward diagnosing problems at the

intersentential level. Hence, writing is now seen in terms of cohesion and coherence.

Khalil (1989:359) says" New concepts such as cohesion and coherence have identified

as two major standards of textuality".

Halliday and Hasan (1976) consider the text as a unit of language in use. They do

not see the text only as a grammatical unit but also as a semantic unit since grammar

alone is misleading.

It has been noticed that the conventions of writing may be ignored by Arab EFL

learners. Some of these conventions are cohesion and coherence. English cohesion and

coherence are advanced features for learners. Researches point out three factors that

could contribute to the weakness in writing. These factors are:

1. Language Transfer. Different studies by Kapalan, 1966, Tadros, 1976 and Holes,

1984) indicate that Arab learners transfer the conventions of L1 to L2. Therefore, Arab

learners' writings like other EFL learners show negative transfer. Conner (1996:3) says

"Students often mention that when they write in English, they translate, or attempt to

translate, first language words, phrases and organization into English".

2. Ignorance of the conventions of cohesion and coherence. It has been noted that Arab

learners are unaware of the terms cohesion and coherence in writing. Thus, they have

inadequate knowledge of cohesive devices that are necessary for making a text

cohesive. Even if they have knowledge of these discourse markers, they do not use them

appropriately. This problem can be attributed to the fact that teachers at schools

generally do not emphasize on such devices.

3. Lack of training: students in schools are not well-trained in English writing.

Normally, the focus is laid on the sentence level and in some cases the paragraph level.
2
 To sum up, it can be concluded that Arab EFL learners encounter rhetorical

problems especially in coherence and cohesion. These problems can be attributed to

many factors such as, negative transfer, or rather nonexistence of certain features in the

mother tongue. That is to say, many learners still do not have the adequate knowledge

of using cohesive devices that are necessary for making a text cohesive.

1.2. Objectives of the Study

1. To investigate the problems of cohesion and coherence in essays written by Arab

EFL learners.

2. To evaluate text coherence in terms of coherence conventions.

3. To analyze text cohesion in terms of Halliday and Hassan's cohesion theory.

4. To compare and contrast between the students' high proficiency level and low level

in terms of cohesion and coherence.

5. To make a hierarchy of the most frequent cohesive ties used by Palestinian college

students.

6. To come up with recommendations that could improve EFL writing.

1.3. Research Questions

1. What are the deviations of the Palestinian college students from the conventions of

Halliday and Hasan.

2. What types of cohesive ties do the Palestinian college students actually use in their

writings?

3. What differences are there between high proficiency level and low level in terms of

cohesion and coherence?

3
 1.4. Hypotheses

1. It is hypothesized that essay writing of Palestinian college students has deviations

from the conventions of Halliday and Hassan in cohesion and coherence.

2. It is also hypothesized that Palestinian college students transfer the conventions of L1

to English writing.

3. It is hypothesized that students of high proficiency level will observe the rules of

cohesion and coherence better than those of low level.

1.5. Scope and limitations of the study

The following points can be regarded as limitations of the study:

1. This study is restricted to Palestinian college students in specific universities.

2. It is confined to the analysis of cohesion and coherence written by 60 learners in

different universities.

3. This study deals with problems of writing from a discoursal point of view. It excludes

problems at the sentence level.

4. It is limited to the problems of cohesion and coherence; therefore other errors will be

excluded.

1.6. Statement of the Problem

Descriptive studies in (Halliday & Hassan 1976, Hassan, 1984, Halliday 1985, Hoey

1991, Martin 1992, Halliday and Mathiessen 2004, Tanskanen 2006) developed a

taxonomy for the analysis of all kinds of texts. Due to the development of text

linguistics, the concept of cohesion and coherence has emerged as two major standards

of textuality.

Generally speaking, Arab EFL writing deviates from the conventions of cohesion

and coherence found in native writings. It is noticeable that EFL writing is characterized

4
by the presence of resident problems such as misuse of cohesive ties and underuse of

connectors. The overall text could become disorganized due to the fact that EFL writers

may fail to apply the conventions of English writing and use the conventions of L1.

It has been also noticeable that Arab EFL learners may be unable to produce a

satisfactory writing. They may write disconnected sentences, which might lead to vague

and meaningless text although knowledge of the grammatical rules and the lexical items

of English language are high. Their ignorance of cohesion and coherence play an

essential role in the inability of making a persuasive piece of writing.

1.7. Design of the Study

This thesis consists of five chapters. It begins with the introduction, literature review,

methodology, discussion and findings. It also ends with conclusion and

recommendations. The first and the second chapter shed light on the theoretical

foundations for both cohesion and coherence in EFL and ESL settings. However, the

related literature paves the way for the second part: the field study. Chapter three

includes the methodology, data collection and data analysis. The fourth chapter presents

the discussion and the findings of the study. Finally, chapter five summarizes the results

of the data and it ends with some pedagogical implications and recommendations.

1.8. Importance of the Study

It is hoped that this study will contribute to the field of applied linguistics especially

writing in particular. This study is a practical one since it makes a shift from detecting

Arab EFL learners' problems at the sentential level toward diagnosing problems at the

intersentential level.

This study aims at investigating Palestinian college students' problems in cohesion

and coherence. Therefore, it can be a contribution for evaluating students' writing

performance in terms of cohesion and coherence.

5
 The significance of this study can be stated that it will provide teaching implications

for EFL teachers into the procedures and the teaching material to be used in dealing

with cohesive devices and coherent elements. Witte and Faigley (1981:199) indicated

that cohesion and coherence research can help discover the developmental stages

students undergo in their writing process.

1.9. Procedure of the Study

The informants of the study belong to different Palestinian universities. The problem

of cohesion and coherence will be investigated since it offers insight description to what

extent this problem can affect English writing. Also, it shows the interference of L1 in

students' essays. An instrument will be used for collecting the data. Randomly written

essays by Palestinian college students will be gathered by the researcher. The essays

were corrected by the students' professors and categorized the students according to

their grades.

In addition, these essays will be analyzed following Halliday and Hasan's (1976)

cohesion theory, Grice's maxims (1975) and Oshima and Hogues' (2006) criteria of

achieving coherence.

1.10. Definition of key terms

The following definitions are adopted by the researcher in the study.

Text: it is a passage, spoken or written, that forms a meaningful and unified whole.

(Halliday and Hassan : 1976).

Cohesion: it is the linguistic relationship between clauses and how the surface linguistic

elements of a text are linked to each other in order to create a unified whole text.

(Peterson & McCabe: 1991).

6
Coherence: it refers to the functioning of the text as a unified whole. Moreover,

coherence refers to the relationships of ideas and the ability of those ideas to function

together for the purpose of conveying the meaning. (Mclinn 1988:15).

Cohesive devices: are words and phrases that connect sentences and paragraphs

together, creating a smooth flow of ideas. (Zemach & Rumisek 2003: 78)

Lexical cohesion: it is the cohesive effect achieved by the selection of vocabulary. It is

divided into two main types' reiteration and collocation (Halliday & Hassan. 1976: 274).

Language transfer (also known as L1 interference, linguistic interference, and cross

meaning) refers to speakers or writers applying knowledge from their native language

to a second language.

Cohesive ties: it is a semantic relation between an element in a text and some other

element that is crucial to the interpretation of it (Halliday and Hassan. 1976: 4)

Paragraph: a unit of written communication dealing with a topic within a multi-

paragraph text. It consists of more than one sentence.

Pronominalisation: it refers to the use of pronoun or what De Beaugrande and Dressler

(1981) call pro-form in a place of full lexical item. It is used by writers to avoid direct

repetition of the same lexical item.

Argumentative writing: In this kind of essay, we not only give information but also

present an argument with the PROS (supporting ideas) and CONS (opposing ideas) of

an argumentative issue. We should clearly take our stand and write as if we are trying to

persuade an opposing audience to adopt new beliefs or behaviors.

Holistic scoring: it is the evaluation of the rater which is based on his\her impression of

the entire text.

Collocation: it is a term for expectancy relations between lexical items.

Cohesive errors: they are cohesive statements that refer to either ambiguous or

incomplete information.
7
Exophoric pronoun: it is a pronoun which points to an antecedent within a context but

is not mentioned in the actual text. For example: I want that cookie.

Endophoric or Anaphoric pronoun: is a pronoun which occurs in relative proximity

to the noun to which it refers and which was previously mentioned in a particular

sentence; e.g., I wrote with the pencil and broke it. (Nicolosi, et al, 1983: 176).

Reference: it is a semantic relation in which a meaning is specified through the

identification of referent. Reference cohesion occurs when one item in a text points to

another for its interpretation.(Halliday& Hasan, 1967). For example: I can see a light.

Let's follow it.

Personal reference: it is personal pronoun and possessive pronoun that refers to the

identity of persons, objects, and events. (Liles, 1985: 132).

Demonstrative reference: it can be defined as a form of pointing, identifying the

referent by location in place or time. (Liles, 1985: 132). For example: this, that, these,

those, here, there, here, now.

1.11 Summary

This chapter begins with a brief introduction of the study, statement of the problem,

purpose of the study, importance of the study, hypothesis, research questions, design of

the study, procedure of the study, limitations of the study and finally definition of key

terms which appeared in the study. In the next chapter, the focus will be about Halliday

and Hasan's (1976) cohesion theory. It will also present the relationship between

cohesion and coherence and the criteria which make the text coherent. Then, studies of

cohesion and coherence on EFL and ESL setting will be reviewed.

8
 Chapter Two

Review of related literature

2.1. Introduction

For the last few years, several theoretical and empirical studies have investigated the

discoursal problems in general and problems with cohesion and coherence in particular.

This review includes three parts; theoretical background, empirical studies that discuss

cohesion and coherence at the discoursal level and studies that investigate the

relationship between cohesion and coherence .

2.2. Theoretical background

Halliday and Hasan (1976) talk about texuality in the written discourse. They believe

that the primary determinant of whether a set of sentences do or do not constitute a text

depends on the cohesive relationships within and between the sentences, which create

texture. Therefore, they think that any text should have a texture. "A text has a texture

and this is what distinguishes it from something that is not a text". (Ibid 1976:1). In this

regard, the texture is provided by the cohesive relation. They define cohesion as the

relations of meaning that exist within the text and that define it as a text. It is displayed

in the ties that exist between the presupposed and the presupposing item. So, cohesion is

displayed in the ties that exist within a text. In the sentences:

John makes a good meal. Last night he cooked spaghetti.

The pronoun he in the second sentence is the presupposing item and John in the first

sentence is the presupposed item.

Colomb (1990) as reported in Masadeh (1995) introduces two ways for making and

producing cohesive passages. First of all, by managing the flow of information,

therefore, we should take into consideration two principles:

9
Principle one: put at the beginning of the sentences those ideas that you have already

mentioned, referred to or implied, or concepts that you can reasonably assume your

reader is already familiar with and will readily organize.

Principle two: put at the end of your sentence the newest and the most surprising and

significant information that you want to stress.

Second, the writer should begin well his essay because to begin well a sentence is surely

harder than to end it well, hence, to begin a sentence we have to juggle the elements that

occur early on to:

1. Connect a sentence to the preceding one by using the transitional metadiscourse such

as, "and, as a result, therefore."

2. Locate the action in place and time, by using words like "then, later, after".

3. Help the reader evaluate what follows by using expressions such as, "fortunately,

perhaps, it's important to note".

4. Announce, at the beginning of a sentence, its topic and concept that we intend to say

something about.

2.3 Types of cohesive ties

Halliday and Hasan (1976) present taxonomy of different types of cohesive ties.

They classify cohesion into two major categories: grammatical and lexical. The former

consists of:

2.3.1. Cohesion by Reference

Reference cohesion constitutes items in the English language "instead of being

interpreted semantically on their own right ------make reference to something else for

their interpretation" Halliday and Hasan (1976: 31). For example:

1. You cannot see the head master now. He is interviewing a teacher.

The pronoun" he" in example (1) is a reference cohesion tie because it shares the

10
same referent as, and refers back to the headmaster. This type of cohesion includes the

following types of pronouns:-

a. Personal pronouns: I, my, you, he, she, it, they, we, our, ours, us, ---------etc.

b. Demonstratives: this, that, these, those.

c. Locative adverbs: here, there.

d. Temporal adverbs: now, then, before, after, earlier, sooner.

. Other interrogative, indefinite, reciprocal, reflexive, or intensive pronouns such

Who, that, which, whom, why, where, whose, whoever, some, any, none, someone,

Halliday and Hasan (1976) divide reference into three types:

1. An anaphoric reference presupposes for its interpretation an element that occurred

earlier in the text, for example:

Tina is a student. She goes to school every day.

The pronoun she in the second sentence is an anaphoric reference for Tina.

2. A cataphoric reference presupposes for its interpretation an element that follows in

the text, for example:

He was tired of writing. Ali had been writing for three hours.

In the first sentence, the pronoun "he" refers to Ali in the second sentence.

3. An exophoric reference presupposes for its interpretation something outside the text,

for example, look at that. (That refers to the car)

2.3.2. Cohesive by Conjunction

Liebere (1981: 201-202) considers reference and conjunctive cohesion as the two

most common areas in which students experience difficulty. This type of cohesion

does not need a specifiable element in a situational context or text for its

interpretation; therefore, it has its own intrinsic meaning.

Halliday and Hasan (1976: 222) point out "conjunctive elements are cohesive not in

themselves but indirectly, by virtue of their specific meanings; they are not primarily
11
 devices for reaching out into the preceding (or following) text, but they express certain

meanings which presuppose the presence of other components in the discourse". For

example: He took a cup of coffee after he woke up.

The word 'after' suggests a sequence, signaling that what is expressed in the first

clause followed what is expressed in the second one. This type of cohesion consists of:

a. additive: and, or, furthermore, similarly, in addition. •

b. adversative: but, however, on the other hand, never the less.

c. causal: so, consequently, for this reason, it follows from this .

d. temporal: then, after that, an hour later, finally, at last.

2.3.3. Cohesion by Ellipsis

This type of cohesion refers to omission of a repeated word or phrase such as:

a. Deleted nouns: The boys went to the school. Both ( ) were late.

b. Deleted verbs: I do not know that man, but you do ( ).

c. Deleted predicate adjective: The elephant is big. The camel is ( ) too.

d. Deleted clauses: Who hit the boy? Ali ( ).

As reported in Ramasawmy (2004), there are three types of ellipsis, depending on the

syntactic category of the presupposed elements:

1. Nominal ellipsis

Nominal ellipsis occurs when a noun or a noun phrase is presupposed, as shown

below:

These are my two dogs. I used to have four.

The word "dogs" has been omitted and can be easily understood or recovered from the

context.

2. Clausal ellipsis

Clausal ellipsis occurs when both a noun or a noun phrase and a verb, or at least

part of a verb phrase, is omitted. It is mostly seen in dialogue yes\no questions.

12
 Mary: Are you going to buy a new dress for my birthday?

Mother: yes.

Here the mother is affirming the entire clause you are going to buy a dress for my

birthday.

3. Verbal ellipsis

Verbal ellipsis occurs where a verb phrase is presupposed, as in:

Teacher: Have you done the homework?

John: yes, I have.

John's answer is elliptical in the sense that done the homework is understood.

2.3.4. Cohesion by Substitution

Substitution cohesion is considered as a relation of sense identity rather than a relation

of reference identity. This type of cohesion refers to the replacement of one word or

phrase within another such as the use of:

a. Verb substitutes: do, does, do the same, do so, do that, don’t, ``so is, so has,

b. Clausal substitutes: so, not.

As reported in Ramasawmy (2004) substitution can be divided into subcategories

such as nominal substitution, verbal substitution and clausal substitution.

1. Nominal substitution

Nominal substitution occurs where the presupposed element is a noun or a noun phrase,

as in the example below:

A: Can you give me a glass?

B: There is one on the table.

The presupposing cohesion element is 'one'.

13
2. Verbal substitution

Verbal substitution occurs when the presupposed element is a verb or a verb

phrase. The presupposing element which denotes the substitution is usually word do and

its various forms. E.g. does, did and done as in:-

Every child likes chocolate and I think my son does too.

Does substitute for the verb phrase likes chocolate.

3. Clausal substitution

Clausal substitution occurs where the presupposed element is an entire clause. The

most frequent presupposing element affecting this kind of substitution is so. For

example:

Latecomers will not be allowed in school after 8.00. The headmaster says so.

'So' in the sentence replaces the whole sentence that "latecomers" will not be allowed in

school after 8.00 pm.

2.3.5. Lexical Cohesion

Halliday and Hasan (1976) indicate that cohesion, an intersentential property of a text,

is achieved through texture, through specific features given to it by the text as can be

seen in the case of lexical cohesion. For example:

Young people act quickly. Old people take their time.

In this example, young and old are antonymous (they bear a relation of semantic

contrast).

Halliday and Hasan (1976: 274-292) maintain that unlike reference, ellipsis, lexical

cohesion is not associated with any special syntactic clauses of elements. It is, therefore,

the most open-ended and least adequately defined of five kinds. In lexical patterning,

successive sentence can be expected to exhibit relationship through their vocabulary.

For example:

14
1. Through repetition of a word phrase.

2. Synonyms (words of almost the same meaning, e.g. commonly, popularly).

3. Antonymy (the relation of semantic contrast, e.g. high. low).

4. Hyponymy (the semantic relation between a more general expression and related

specific relations, e.g. cigarettes\cigars).

5. Collocation (words which tend to occur with one another in certain contents, e.g.

education, classroom, class and so on.

Al-Jarf (2001) maintains that this type of cohesion includes:

a. Lexical sets: oil, natural gas, falling water, energy, power resources, generate.

b. Lexical reiteration: A canary is a bird. All birds have feathers.

c. Lexical collocation. (co-occurrence of words which regularly occur together). E.g.

The pencil costs fifty cents. I had a dollar.

Coherence refers to the functioning of the text as a unified whole. Moreover,

coherence refers to the relationships of ideas and the ability of those ideas to function

together for the purpose of conveying the meaning. (Mclinn 1988:15).

In fact, any piece of writing has coherence if it represents its argument in a

clear, plausible, convincing and comprehensible order. This piece of writing should

have no logical gaps in its line of reasoning and it avoids unnecessary digression.

Any piece of writing is considered coherent if it is understandable, follow a clear line

in presenting facts, arguments and avoid statements which are incomprehensible for the

reader. There is a strong connection between the text and the reader concerning

coherence. So, the writer should cut what is irrelevant or unintelligible for the reader.

Kies (1995) "Any piece of writing can be coherent if the authors:

1. Know their subject well.

15
2. Have an eye on their audience and tailor their writing to what their readers probably

know beforehand and are able to understand.

Oshima and Hogue (2006) indicate that there are four ways to achieve coherence:

1. Repeat key nouns: repeat key nouns or use synonyms or expressions with the same

meaning.

2. Use consistent pronouns: make sure that you use the same person and number

throughout the paragraph.

3. Use transition signals to link ideas: they are like traffic signs; they tell you when to

go forward, turn around, slow down and stop.

4. Arrange your ideas in logical order: arrange your ideas in some kind of order that is

logical to a reader accustomed to the English way of writing.

Halliday and Hasan (1976) prefer the term texture for the kind of text properly that is

mere commonly referred to as coherence. They believe that coherence or texture is the

combination of semantic configuration of two kinds: register and cohesion.

Carrell (1982 ) says Register refers to the variety of language which is appropriate for

the situation of the speech events, and it is not of any particular relevance or interest

here while cohesion refers to the semantic relations in a text which Halliday and Hassan

claim make the text cohere.

Halliday and Hasan believe that coherence does not lead to cohesion, rather cohesion

ties lead to coherence. Carell (1982) Halliday and Hasan's main point seems to be that

mere coherence of content is insufficient to make a text coherent; rather that there must

be some additional linguistic property, such as cohesive ties that contributes to the

coherence of a text.

It has been wrongly believed that we understand the meaning of any text depending

on the words and structures of the sentence only. Brown and Yule (1983) point out that
16
one of the pervasive illusions which persists in the analysis of language is that we

understand the meaning of a linguistic message solely in the basis of the words and

structures of the sentence to convey that message.

It is not only enough for the writer to write perfect grammatical sentences to be

understood but also he/she should supply the suitable information, well-formedness and

empty of fragmentation. Brown and Yule (1983) say "When a writer has produced a

perfectly grammatical sentence from which we can derive a literal interpretation, we

would not claim to have understood, simply because we need more information".

Grice (1975) provides the most comprehensive framework for discussing discourse

coherence. He was interested in the semantics of language and more specifically in how

implicit meaning is conveyed. Campbell (1995:15) says "Grice's cooperative principle

recognizes the cooperative foundation of communication by stating that discourse

participants expect all contributions to be made as required based on the purpose of

their interaction." Therefore, Grice's work classifies the expectations of discourse

participants since expectations have been seen as central to the phenomenon of

coherence. Grice suggests four maxims of his co-operative principle which characterize

the effective use of language. These principles are:

1. Quantity: make your contribution as informative as is required.

2. Quality: do not say what you believe to be false.

3. Relation: be relevant.

4. Manner: be brief, clear and orderly.

To conclude, this section examines Halliday and Hasan(1976) cohesion theory. It

reviews the standards of cohesion in writing as discussed by Halliday and Hasan.

However, it presents taxonomy of different types of cohesive ties that lead to cohesion.

Moreover, it sheds light on coherence and its necessity in writing. It also reviews how

17
coherence meets the maxims of Grice and Oshima and Hogue's criteria of achieving

coherence.

In the following section, empirical studies about cohesion and coherence will be

reviewed.

This part reviews empirical studies about cohesion and coherence in general. These

will examine the problem of cohesion and coherence in Arab EFL and ESL writing.

This section also reviews other empirical studies that deal with the relationship between

cohesion and coherence.

2.4. Empirical Studies related to testing cohesion and coherence in EFL &ESL

setting

Investigation of discoursal problems in general and problems with cohesion and

coherence in particular includes two types of studies: studies examining Arab EFL

learners' problems and studies dealing with ESL learners' problems. The researcher will

start by reviewing the studies examining Arab EFL learners' problems.

In a paper investigating the stylistic features impeding the efficiency of

communication in writing, Atari (1983) examined fifteen essays written by sophomore

class at Birzeit University. He concluded that student-writers tended to extensively

apply strategies of communication typical of the spoken mode of language.

Accordingly, the written products often had no connectives between prepositions or

specification. He also concluded that the students used parallel structures due to

coordination.

Shatarat (1990) conducted a study to investigate some of the errors in using

cohesive devices made by Jordanian intermediate community college students in the

English language section. The sample of the study consisted of 100 students. The

subjects were asked to sit for two tests in two separate sessions. The first test consisted

of 57 multiple choice items and subjects had to choose the best answer. The second test
18
consisted of about 500 words with 28 blanks. Students were asked to fill in these blanks

by using cohesive devices drawn from their own language experience. The result

revealed that nearly 42% of the student's answers were erroneous or inappropriate. The

causes of those deviant responses were the learner's failure to establish grammatical and

lexical relationships or to make logical relationships.

In a study entitled "Processing of Cohesive Ties by EFL Arab Students: identifying

four types of cohesion in reading text. Al-Jarf (2001) investigated difficulties that EFL

college students in Saudi Arabia have in processing four types of cohesion, reference,

conjunction, substitution and ellipsis. The researcher asked students to read a text and

identify all cohesive ties and write the referent or substitute of each anaphor. Also, they

were asked to list all the conjunctions in the text and supply the ellipted words or

phrases. The answers were marked by the researcher according to the operational

definitions of three cohesion types provided by Halliday & Hasan and Irwin. Both

correct and incorrect responses were analyzed. It was found that substitution was the

most difficult to process followed reference and ellipses, whereas conjunction was the

easiest. In resolving the cohesion relationships, the student used the following faulty

strategies:

1. An anaphor was associated with the closest noun whether intersentenential or

intrasentential.

2. When preceded by two potential antecedents, an anaphor was associated with a

synonym.

3. The students matched an anaphor with a word that is identical in pronunciation or

punctuation.

4. Cohesion anomalies were caused by poor linguistic competence especially poor

syntactic and semantic awareness, and poor inaccurate knowledge of the cohesion rules.

19
 In a study entitled "Problems of Writing Composition in E.F.L." Kharma (1985)

examined the difficulties encountered by Arab students in writing English at the

rhetorical (discoursal) level. He mainly concentrated on the difference between the

discoursal principles and devices used in English and Arabic. After analyzing hundreds

of university students' compositions and essays, the result showed that all types of

mistakes and irregular ties in the students' writing were either totally or partially due to

negative transfer from Arabic. For example, the over use of "wa" (and) in Arabic was

caused by negative transfer.

In a paper entitled "A study of Cohesion and Coherence in Arab EFL College

Students' Writing", Khalil (1989) investigated the use of cohesive devices by college

students in their writing. In his analysis of the data, he depended on two forms of

evaluation: the holistic which is based on the general impression of English-speaking

rhetoric instructors, and the analytic which is based on the conventions of coherence. He

adopted Grice's maxims of relevance, quantity, and manner as quantifiable, objective

measure of text coherence. He found out that Arab students overused reiteration of the

same lexical item as a cohesive device, but underused of other lexical and grammatical

cohesive links. He also found that those students' writing was incoherent as it lacked

sufficient information about the topic.

In a recent study that involved EFL Arab learner, among other learners, Derrik &

Gmuca (1986), as reported in Kamel (1989) investigated the concept of unity and

sentence structure in Arabic, Malay, and Spanish language learners. The study

concluded that Arabic speaking students were the group with the greatest problems.

Arab learners have difficulty with the key aspect of the global coherence of English

essays, i.e. the role of the thesis as an organizing principle. Derrik and Gmuca indicated

that Arab students do not support their opinions with facts but instead "elaborate their

topics" through a catalogue of information or through quotation." (p.7).

20
Elkhatib (1983) as reported in Kamel (1989) looked at paragraph and essays produced

by Arab learners: four EFL Egyptian students majoring in English. He performed an

analysis that was "intended to describe inter-sentence structural relationship" (p.2). The

results of the analysis were later examined in relation to rhetorical acceptability of

English paragraphs as well as in the light of linguistic relativity hypothesis". (p.3).

Elkhatib reported that the mean percentage of coordinate sentence produced by the

students was 69% whereas the mean percentage of subordinate sentence was 31%.

Therefore, he indicates that these results reflect a rhetorical preference by the students

to produce coordinate sentences rather than subordinate ones, since he found no

correlation between students' verbal abilities and/or apprehension level and the

production of coordinate sentences. He does not offer a clear conclusion from his

results; however, he explores several possible explanations, including negative transfer

from the students' native language.

The studies cited above were intended to diagnose the writing problems of Arab

learners. However, there are other studies that attempted to identify the writing

problems of ESL learners in general.

Wikborg (1985), in his study "Types of Coherence Breaks in Swedish Students'

Writing", identified different coherence breaks, such as irrelevance, unspecified topic,

drift of topic, misleading paragraph division, uncertain inference ties and misleading

sentence connection. What is noticeable about Wikborg is that he considers cohesion

part of coherence, a point which so many researchers and text linguists do not approve

of.

Cherry and Cooper (1980) conducted a study to investigate the cohesive devices in

the writings of average and superior writers at grades four, eight, twelve and college.

They found that as writers mature, they seemed to rely more on lexis and less on

reference and conjunction. It was also found that the substitution and ellipsis were rare.
21
 In a study entitled "Conjunctive Cohesion and Relational Coherence on Students'

Composition", Ramasawmy (2004) examined the relationship between conjunctive

cohesion and relational coherence in students' narrative and expository composition and

writing quality. The researcher, in the study analyzed 64 composition using Halliday

and Hasan's (1976) cohesion theory and Crombie's (1985) set of interpropositional

relations. The results show that both conjunctive cohesion density and relational

coherence, as defined by the density of contiguous functional relations, affect

perceptions of writing quality. Writers of low-rated narrative and low-rated expository

compositions not only used a more limited range of conjunctive but their compositions

manifested less cohesion density and contiguous relation density than writers of high-

rated narrative and expository compositions did.

Aoui (1989) followed Hallidy and Hasan's model to study cohesion in written

computer science discourse. He administered two tests for the students. One required

the students to fill in the blanks while the other asked students to determine the

reference and referent items. They found that students encounter difficulties in using the

cohesive devices especially at the discourasal level. Also, the students misused and

misinterpreted some of elliptical forms. It has been noted that all the studies mentioned

in this chapter confirmed that cohesion and coherence are two elements that cause

problems for Arab EFL learners in particular and ESL learners in general at the

rhetorical (i.e. discoursal) level.

However, the literature indicates that EFL and ESL learners have problems in using

cohesive ties, global coherence and fail to establish grammatical and lexical relationship

to make logical relations. Moreover, the studies show that Arab EFL learners apply

strategy of communication typical of the spoken mode. Also, several studies attribute

the difficulties of Arab EFL learners in cohesion and coherence to negative transfer.

(Kharma, 1985).
22
 It has been shown throughout the studies that cohesion and coherence are considered

problematic for both EFL and ESL learners. Most of the studies have investigated

cohesion and coherence in expository essays. They delineated with the problem of

cohesion and coherence at the paragraph level.

This study is similar as a replica of other studies which analyze cohesion and

coherence depending on Halliday and Hasan (1976). It also deals with the problem of

writing from a discoursal point of view. In fact, it goes further which examines cohesion

and coherence in argumentative essay writing by Palestinian college students. It aims at

analyzing the essays to highlight the problems of cohesion and coherence depending on

Halliday and Hasan's cohesion theory. It will also analyze coherence depending on

Grice's maxims and Oshima and Hogue's criteria of achieving coherence.

To summarize, this section investigates studies that examined Arab EFL and ESL

learners' problems in terms of cohesion and coherence. It is found that negative transfer

causes difficulties for Arab EFL learners in writing English at the rhetorical (discoursal)

level. In addition, several studies show that Arab EFL learners have difficulty with the

key aspect of the global coherence of English essays.

In the following section the relationship between cohesion and coherence will be

reviewed.

23
2.5. The relationship between cohesion and coherence

There are different views among linguists concerning cohesion and coherence.

Some of them neglected any relation between them (Carrel 1982), others like Halliday

and Hasan (1976) confirmed that they are interrelated. "Cohesion is an index of textual

coherence". (p.1)

2.6. Studies support Halliday and Hasan's cohesion theory

Generally speaking, Halliday and Hasan are considered as the best who wrote and

analyzed cohesion and coherence in writing. Their studies are the most comprehensive

ones in the field. However, there are many studies that supported their theory of

cohesion and coherence. Halliday and Hasan (1976) strongly believe there is a

connected relationship between coherence and cohesion. They consider a text as "a unit

of language in use" (p.1). What distinguishes a text from a non-text is its "texture".

They maintain that the texture is provided by the cohesive relations that exist between

certain linguistic features that are presented in the passage and can be identified as

contributing to its total unity. The texture of a text is shaped by the cohesive ties. For

example,

Wash and core six cooking apples. Put them into a fireproof dish.

According to Halliday and Hasan (1976), the pronoun "them" in the second sentence

refers back to the "six cooking apples" in the previous sentence, thus linking the two

sentences into a cohesive text. This relation is called cohesion by reference.

McCulley (1985) as reported in Ramadan (2003) conducted a study to investigate the

relationships among features of textual cohesion as identified by Halliday and Hasan's

(1976), and primary-trait assessment of writing quality and coherence. A random

sample of 493 papers written by 17 students were analyzed. The results showed that

general coherence is an important element of writing quality and that the lexical

24
cohesive features of synonyms, hyponyms and collocation are important elements of

writing quality and general coherence.

Markels (1983) as reported in Masadeh (1995) tries to prove that there is a relation

between cohesion and coherence. He relates the two terms by saying "the assumption of

coherence is one of the topic rules of the language game in which we all participate.

Cohesion on the other side can appear as a pragmatic sufficiency or an artful tapestry."

(P. 450). In order to prove this relation, he talks about some of the impetuses that make

him believe that coherence is the function of cohesion. The first of these impetuses is

summarized in the fact that composition textbook advocate the creation of coherence by

the repetition of key words or by the substitution of nouns which is really a suitable path

to create unity. The second fact that coherence as traditionally produced by repetitions

and transitions words is not always enough to a produce a unified sensible whole,

cohesion an ordinary day to day level should be judged in terms of the sense or non-

sense. Therefore, cohesion is needed and considered as one of the requirements of

successful writing because it can distinguish the effective text from ineffective one.

Zhu (1992) attempted to explore the features of cohesion and coherence in Chinese

and English. He also investigated the similarities and differences between the two. He

also tested the effect of language transfer and interference in Chinese ESL writings. In

that study he selected four Chinese graduate students and asked them to compose two

expository essays, one essay for each language. After that, the products were scrutinized

for cohesion and coherence features. The results showed that the Chinese language

depended on lexical ties and similarities of structure, reference took the form of lexical

repetitions and semantic zero anaphora and the utility of more ellipses, whereas English

employed more connectors, used more pronouns and deictics. Coherence features

showed that essays written in Chinese were more implicit and more general unlike

25
essays written in English which were more explicit, more writer-centered demanding

more effort of the reader to make sense of the text.

2.7. Studies against Halliday and Hasan's cohesion theory

The theory of Halliday and Hasan about cohesion and coherence led to the

emergence of several studies that either supported or rejected their theory. The

researchers who criticized this theory highlighted the issue of relationship between

coherence and cohesion.

Raimes (1983) considered cohesion and coherence as two different elements. He

maintained "it should be clear that these are not the same thing. That is, a text may be

cohesive (i.e. linked together), but incoherent (i.e. meaningless)." He gave the following

example to defend his point of view:

I am a teacher. The teacher was late for the class. Class rhymes with grass. The

grass is always greener in the other side of the fence. But it wasn't.

He said that each sentence in the example is linked to the one that precedes it, using

both lexical and grammatical means, but the text is ultimately senseless. Tierney and

Mosenthal (1983) investigated the relationship between cohesion and coherence.

Twelfth grade students were asked to write essays on two topics. The results of the

essays showed that cohesive patterning did not rank on general coherence.

Pritchard (1981) as reported in Ramadan (2003) conducted a study to investigate

cohesive devices in the good and poor compositions of eleventh graders. She found that

the average use or frequency of total lexical or grammatical ties did not distinguish the

good essays from the poor ones; so she concluded that counts of cohesive ties are not

measures of their effectiveness.

Spiegal and Fitzegerald (1990) examined the relationship between cohesion and

coherence in children's writing. The results showed that the relation between them is

varied according to the context of the text. Feathers (1981) argued that cohesion theory
26
operates on the superficial surface structure of text in establishing the cohesive ties. He

found that it is useful and more revealing to first analyze a text into its underlying

propositional units and then look for cohesive ties between the propositional rather than

the surface structures.

Neun (1987) as reported in Ramadan (2003) conducted a study to compare cohesive

devices in good and poor freshman essays written on a single topic. The results showed

that none of the eighteen different kinds of cohesive ties was used more frequently by

the good writers than the poor. Therefore, cohesive devices did not distinguish the good

from the poor writing.

Carrell (1982) opposes Hallidy and Hasan's concept of cohesion as the basis of

coherence according to schema-theoretical views of text processing. Schema theory

emphasizes the "interactive process between the text and the prior background

knowledge or memory schemata of the listener or reader". She indicates that "What is

important is not only the text, its structure and content, but what the reader or listener

does with the text". (p.482). Therefore, she believes that Halliday & Hasan failed to take

the contributions of the reader into account. In the process of comprehension, the reader

does not rely solely on the surface linguistic features of the text. Rather, the schemata,

or the world knowledge, that the reader brings to the text play a more important part.

Morgan and Sellner (1980) as reported in Carrell (1982), argues that cohesion of surface

linguistic features is not the case, but the effects of the coherence.

The following is given as an example:

The picnic was ruined. No one remembered to bring a corkscrew.

The coherence of this mini-text does not reside in the linguistic lexical cohesive tie

between "picnic" and "corkscrew." Rather, our recognition of the string of sentences as

a coherent text is based on the fact that we can "access familiar schemata….. in which

picnics and corkscrews go together" (Carell, 1982, p.484) In other words, the lexical
27
cohesion could be the effect, instead of the cause, of the text's coherence.

Widdowson(1978) as reported in Chun-Chun Yeh (2004), says that a text can be

coherent with "overt, linguistically signaled" cohesion. According to Widdowson

(1978), when we utter a sentence in a normal communication activity, we are expressing

a preposition and, at the same time, performing some kind of illocutionary act in

expressing the proposition. Sentences used communicatively in discourse can take on

value when they are in relation to other propositions expressed in other sentences. When

we recognize this relationship, we recognize this sequence of sentences constituting

cohesive discourse. However, when expressing propositions in discourse, we are also

performing illocutionary acts. Where a text does not have overt linguistic cohesive

links, a reader will make sense of it be inferring the covert propositional connections

from an interpretation of the illocutionary acts. This is why we often find discourse

coherent when it does not appear cohesive. Widdowson (1978, p. 29) uses a piece of

dialogue to illustrate his idea:

A: That's the telephone.

B: I'm in the bath.

A. O.k.

In this case, how do readers recognize this dialogue as coherent in spite of the fact that

it contains no cohesive ties at all?. When considered in isolation, the three utterances

cannot take on any particular communicative value. He considered A's remark about the

telephone a request and B's response as an excuse for not being able to comply with A's

request. A's second remark is then understood as an acceptance of B's excuse. By

recognizing the illocutionary acts performed by these sentences, we can supply the

missing prepositions and interpret the text as coherent. Brown and Yule (1983) maintain

that cohesion alone is never sufficient for the identification of a text. They are doubtful

about Halliday and Hasan's idea of cohesion and raise two critical questions (pp: 194-5).
28
 1. Is Halliday and Hasan's cohesion necessary to the identification of a text?

2. Is such cohesion sufficient to guarantee identification as a text?

They contend that a reader will automatically assume "semantic relations" when

encountering a text and interpret sentences in the light of the previous ones. Hence,

texture, the sense of "explicit realization of semantic relations", is not critical to the

identification of text. They conducted a small experiment by scrambling the sentences

in the following text while retaining the formal cohesion (p.197).

[1] A man in white clothes, who could only be the surviving half-breed, was running as
one does run when Death is the pace-maker. [2] The white figure lay motionless in the
middle of the great plain. [3] Behind him, only a few yards in his rear, bounded the
high ebony figure of Zambo, our devoted negro.[4] An instant afterwards Zambo rose,
looked at the prostrate man, and then, waving his hand joyously to us, came running in
our direction. [5] They rolled on the ground together. [6] Even as we looked, he sprang
upon the back of the fugitive and flung his arms around his neck.

(Recognized in the order 1, 3, 6, 5, 4, 2 , this passage is taken from Sir Arther Conan
Doyle's The Lost World, 1912).

The results show that it would not be easy for the reader to interpret such a "collection

of sentences" even with the presence of all the cohesive relationships, so cohesion

alone is not sufficient for the identification of a text, but it could be found outside the

text, instead of in the words on the page (983, p. 198).

In the light of Halliday and Hasan, Carell, Brown and Yule and others, all agree that

semantic relations do exist in a text and help constitute its coherence. However,

Halliday and Hassan emphasize the explicit expressions of semantic relations whereas;

Carell, Brown and Yule advocate the underlying semantic relations.

The studies reviewed in this chapter dealt with cohesion and coherence from two

perspectives. They revealed to what extents both of them can affect the other in writing.

29
Therefore, cohesion and coherence can be considered as two elements that deal with

specific features which lead to organized and developed written paragraphs. Coherence

in one hand deals with understandability and unity that affect the text as a whole. It

refers to the relationship of ideas that hang together to convey a logic meaning. On the

other hand, cohesion deals and represents the importance of the inter and intra-sentential

links between the text units. Also, cohesion reveals the importance of cohesive ties and

other elements that bind texts together such as parallelism and consistency of verb

tense.

Finally, it can be inferred that cohesion and coherence are two considerable elements

in writing. Hence, they complement each other, though, certain studies neglected such

relation. Furthermore, it is noticeable, that there is a relation between them as

mentioned by Haliday and Hasan (1976), but this relation to what extent is varied. That

is to say, it can be showed that they are unrelated in short dialogues as reported by

Widdowson (1978), whereas in writing long discourse, the writer should take into

consideration these two elements which affect the reader's ability to comprehend what

he/she reads.

To summarize, this section examines the relationship between cohesion and

coherence. It represents different views about the relationship between them in the light

of the theory of cohesion and coherence by Halliday and Hasan. It also represents

studies that support and stand against Halliday and Hasan's cohesion theory (1967).

Therefore, some linguists consider them as two different elements; others believe that

they are interrelated.

In the following section, the methodology will be explained in detail.

30
 Chapter Three

Methodology

3.1. Introduction

This study investigates the problem of cohesion and coherence encountered by

Palestinian junior students in their argumentative writing. It is adopting Halliday and

Hasan's cohesion theory (1976) in analyzing cohesion. It is also adopting Grice's

maxims (1975) and Oshima and Hogue's (2006) criteria of achieving coherence.

Furthermore, this study aims at investigating:

1. The cohesive and coherent errors in the written work of Palestinian junior students.

2. The number of occurrences of cohesive ties used in their expository written work.

3. The adequacy and inadequacy of cohesive ties used in their writing.

4. To what extent do the Palestinian college students taking into consideration

coherence in their writing?

5. The role of negative transfer which leads to problems of cohesion and coherence in

their writing.

3.2. Participants/population of study

The subjects' pool of the study consists of junior English major students at Palestinian

universities: Hebron University, Bethlehem University, Birzeit University and Al-Quds

University. The researcher selected the population of the study carefully so as to ensure

that it represents most of the Palestinian universities.

This study was conducted in the second semester of the academic year 2011. The

population of the study was limited to juniors for believing that they are more proficient

in English writing than freshmen or sophomores and consequently can produce well-

organized and coherent essays.

31
 3.3. Sample

The sample of this study is consisted of 60 composition papers written by third year

students, males and females at different Palestinian universities. All of the students were

Palestinian. They had studied English as their major for three years and passed the pre-

requisite courses for writing.

Table 1. The number of Palestinian universities participated in the study

University Male Female Total

Hebron University 7 8 15

Bethlehem University 6 9 15

Al-Quds University 9 6 15

Birzeit University 10 5 15

Total 32 28 60

3.4. Data Collection

To conduct this study, the researcher selected 60 composition exams corrected by

professors in the Palestinian universities. The subjects of these written papers were in

language and literature. All of the papers were classified into three groups:

1. Group A: from 80% - 100%

2. Group B: from 70% - 79%

3. Group C: below 70%

The researcher classified the compositions into three groups in order to see if there is

correlation between competency level and degree of correctness in cohesion and

coherence.

32
 3.5. Sampling Technique

Students from different Palestinian English Colleges were chosen as subjects for the

study. The choices were random to make a representative sample in order to see to

what extent cohesion and coherence are problematic for non-native students and what

kinds of problems regarding cohesion and coherence do the Palestinian English college

students have. Only gender was known and names were not given.

3.6. Data Analysis

The data used for this study have been analyzed according to the following points:

3.7. Evaluation of Cohesion

Cohesion in English specifies five major classes of cohesive ties, nineteen

subclasses, and numerous sub-classes as represented by Halliday & Hasan. In the

analysis of cohesion which follows in the next chapter, the researcher will be concerned

with only the five major classes:

1. Reference.

2. Ellipses.

3. Substitution.

4. Lexical cohesion.

5. Conjunction.

1. A random sample consisting of 60 compositions was selected from different

Palestinian universities.

2. The researcher analyzed cohesive devices using Halliday and Hasan's (1976)

cohesion theory.

3. The researcher considered the following points in analyzing cohesion:

a. The problems of Arab EFL learners in terms of cohesion and coherence.

33
b. The number of ties the students use in their essays whether these ties are lexical,

ellipses, conjunction, substitution or reference.

4. For the analyses of cohesion, the researcher divided the essays into three levels; A, B

and C. They were sequenced by numbers. In each T-Unit (Hunt, 1977), each

cohesive tie was identified, counted and described in terms of the type of cohesion as

represented by Halliday and Hasan (1976).

3.8. Evaluation of Coherence

For the purpose of the study, the researcher examined two ways to evaluate students'

essays in term of coherence:

1. Holistic scoring. This way is based on the evaluator's general impression of the piece

of writing.

2. Analytic scoring. This way is based on making use of a set of criteria pre-selected by

the researcher.

Concerning this study, all of the essays written by Palestinian college students were

typed. Each essay scored by English teachers. They were experienced English teachers

with ten years of experience at secondary schools in Palestine, Tunisia, Algeria, Egypt

and Morocco. Most of the evaluators have MA in applied linguistics. Grice's maxims

and Oshima and Hogu's criteria of achieving coherence were explained to them by the

researcher. Three groups of teachers scored the essays with a score out of five-point

following: (see appendix C)

1. Grice's maxims (1975). These maxims consist of:

a. Relation: make what you say relevant to the topic or purpose of the communication.

b. Quality: be truthful and do not say things you know to be false.

c. Manner: be clear, avoid ambiguity and obscurity.

d. Quantity: do not provide more, or, less, information than is necessary.

34
The first group of teachers scored the high level students, the second group scored the

intermediate students and the third group of teachers scored the low level students.

Moreover, in order to explore the relationship between the number of cohesive ties

and the students' scores, another group of teachers scored the same essays with a score

out of ten following: (See appendix B)

2. Oshima and Hogue's (2006) criteria of achieving coherence:

a. Repeat key pronouns.

b. Use consistent pronouns.

c. Use transition signals to link ides.

d. Arrange your ideas in logical order.

In general, the compositions were ranked and ordered by the researcher from the most

coherent to the least coherent. All of the essays written by college students were

identified by numbers and the subjects' initials and every new paragraph was classified

by means of a cardinal number. However, the researcher excluded the "quality" maxim

from the study since it does not apply to the topic written by EFL learners in the present

study. The other three maxims are considered to be necessary characteristics to measure

coherence in the essays written by Arab college students in Palestine.

3.9. Pilot Study

The researcher conducted a pilot study on a small number of students for the

following purposes:

a. To assess the feasibility and usefulness of the data collection methods and making

any necessary revisions before they are used with the research participants.

b. To check the correct operation of equipment.

c. To check the reliability and validity of the results.

d. To check the comprehensibility of the procedures.

35
 Therefore, a randomly ten essays written by college students at Hebron University

were evaluated by the researcher following Halliday and Hasan's cohesion theory

(1976) and the characteristics of coherence as delineated by Grice (1975) and Oshima

and Hogue's (2006) criteria of achieving coherence. The essays were corrected by the

students' professor. Then, the researcher classified the essays into three groups

according to the students' level:

Level A: 80-100%

Level B: 70-79%

Level C: below 70%

3.10. Results of the pilot study

In order to evaluate cohesion, the researcher followed Halliday and Hassan's (1976)

cohesion theory. The number of cohesive ties was counted to measure their frequency

and percentage. The researcher tried to identify the cohesive errors made by the students

on the five cohesive ties: reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction and lexical

cohesion.

However, to evaluate coherence, the researcher adopted Grice's maxims (1975) and

Oshima and Hogue's criteria (2006).

The findings of the pilot study showed the following points:

1. Most of the students in the three groups A, B, and C have problems in cohesion and

coherence.

2. The results recorded that the informants of the study experience difficulty in both

recognition and the production of cohesive devices.

3. The results have shown that ellipses and substitution are low rated by college

students.

4. The excessive use of the connector "and" which is attributed to negative transfer.
36
5. Most of the students especially groups B and C digress or deviate from the target

topic. (Coherence)

6. The findings also show that students tended to repeat the same idea in different

paragraphs. (Lack of smooth flow of thoughts).

Based on the results obtained in the pilot study, the researcher will follow the same

method in analyzing the students' essays concerning cohesion and coherence.

3.11. Summary

To summarize, this chapter presents the methodology and procedures used in the

study. Three types of instruments were used to analyze the data. The next chapter will

discuss the findings and data analysis.

37
 Chapter Four

Data Analysis and Discussion

4.1. Introduction

This chapter analyzes cohesion and coherence as found in the essay writing of

Palestinian college students. There will be a discussion of occurrences and types of

cohesive ties used by three groups of students: low, intermediate and high level.

There will also be within the framework of Halliday and Hasan (1976), analysis of the

cohesive errors found in the three groups. It will examine to what extent these groups

have the same frequency of errors. Hence, it shows what types of errors and deviations

the Palestinian college students commit in terms of cohesion and coherence.

Moreover, this chapter will investigate coherence as evaluated by Grice's maxims

(1976) and Oshima and Hogu's (2006) criteria of achieving coherence. Therefore, it will

find out to what extent the Palestinian college students in the three groups observe

coherence rules in their writing.

38
4.2. The number of occurrences of cohesive devices in the three groups: A, B and C

Students in the Palestinian universities were divided into three level groups depending

on their grades as mentioned in the methodology section:

A: High

B: Intermediate

C: Low

The sample of this study consisted of 60 argumentative essays. In fact, thirty essays

related to language skills and thirty are related to literature, as in the following table:

Table 1. 60 argumentative essays across 4 universities

University Number of essays Types of essays Related courses

Birzeit 15 Argumentative Literature

Hebron 15 Argumentative Literature

Bethlehem 15 Argumentative Writing

Al-Quds 15 Argumentative Writing

Total 60

The initial aim is to observe which are the most common cohesive devices used

by our students to achieve cohesion as delineated by Halliday and Hasan. In order to do

so, the researcher classified students into three groups to measure the number of the

occurrences of the cohesive devices by the students as the following:

39
4.3. Analyzing the number of occurrences of cohesive ties in group A: High level

students

Table2. Cohesive ties in relation to number of occurrences.

Type of tie Number Percent %

Lexical 142 32.144%

Reference 140 31.697%

Conjunction 130 29.017%

Substitution 25 5.580%

Ellipses 7 1.562%

Total 444 100%

The cohesive ties in this group are counted in all essays and then classified into five

major types using Halliday and Hasan's (1976) taxonomy of cohesion. Results observed

suggest that the high level students tend to use lexical cohesion (32%) which is lower in

comparison with group B and C that show higher frequency of lexical cohesion.

Norment's (1995) assumes that the use of lexical cohesion would be higher than other

types when writing in a second language. In fact, the essays show that the high level

40
students use 122 cohesive items of lexical reiteration. Let us consider the following

example from students' writing:

1. I completely advise my friend to travel to Abu Dhabi. So, to travel to Abu Dhabi
can give you a chance to get a high salary and to get a good house.

The above example shows that this student depends on the repetition of words in order
to join sentences together. For example, the words "to travel" and "to get" are repeated
twice. It is obvious in example number (1) that the student transfers the conventions of
L1 by repeating the same word within the same sentence.
In addition, it has been noticed that the students in this group used twelve words as

synonyms instead of repeating the same item. The use of synonyms in group A shows

that some students in this group have the ability to avoid repeating the same word

within the same sentence which is seen as a better style as in the following example:

2. The people in the past used to travel on foot which is very hard; however it is very
difficult nowadays to move easily from one country to another.

It is very clear in this example that the student did not repeat the same word "hard"

instead he/ she tried to use "difficult" as a synonym of "hard".

However, the students used three words as antonyms which show the relation of

semantic contrast. For example:

3. There are advantages and disadvantages of travelling abroad.

In this example, the student used the word "advantage" and "disadvantage" to show

contrast.

The essays show that hyponymy and collocation were rarely used by this group. All of

the students in this group produced 142 lexical devices, which are about 32% of the five

cohesive devices.

41
 Concerning reference, it is obvious that most of the reference ties used were direct

references which refer to the previous sentence as in the following example:

4. That is because Kurtz obviously symbolizes the savage exploitation of the

colonizers as he completely responds to the deep wilderness. It represents the
ambiguity of his character.

It can be seen in this example that the students extensively relied on using personal

pronouns to join the new sentence with the former one. The pronoun "he" is used to

refer to "Kurtz", "it" refers to "wilderness" and the pronoun "his" refers to Kurtz. The

previous example shows that personal pronouns are the most frequent items of reference

which are used by high level students in order to avoid repetition.

The analysis of the corpus shows that the students extensively used personal pronouns

while demonstrative, interrogative, temporal and locative adverbs were less used.

Conjunctions in this group were successfully used though there were a small number

of errors. The students produced 130 ties rating 29% of the sample. The most common

ties used by the students are additives and adversatives such as and, or, in addition, but,

however while causal and temporal come after them as shown in the following

examples:

5. Nowadays, we see that technology becomes a main part of our life and it affects
people. No doubt that there are many reasons behind that, but -------.
In addition, the field of job has been influenced by technology.

In the above examples, we can see that the student used additive conjunctions like "and"

and "in addition". Moreover, he\she used adversative conjunction like "but."

Finally, it has been noticed that the students in this group have fewer problems of

cohesion in comparison with the other groups. They have fewer problems regarding

42
producing a coherent text and making the produced text cohesive. In fact, the high level

students show adequate knowledge of cohesive devices. They used them appropriately.

This shows that they are in line with the rules of cohesion as mentioned by Halliday and

Hasan.

4.4. Analyzing the number of occurrences of cohesive ties in group B: Intermediate

level students

Table3. Number of occurrences of cohesive ties

Type of tie Number Percent%

Lexical 208 40.130%

Conjunction 151 30.273%

Reference 130 25.291%

Substitution 16 3.135%

Ellipses 6 1.171%

Total 511 100%

43
The results in this group reveal that lexical cohesion is highly rated 40% which is higher

in comparison with group A. In fact, it is noticeable that the students tended to use

reiteration more than synonyms or antonyms. In other words, they relied on the

repetition of the same word. However, the students in this group used 208 cohesive

items of lexical reiteration as in the following example:

6. There are many bad aspects of using technology. The development of

technology cause serious problems, so technology must be used selectively

In the example above, the student tended to repeat the word "technology" three times

in order to make a kind of connection between the sentences.

However, synonyms and antonyms were about 8 words out of 208. This fact shows

that most of the students in this group tended to repeat the same words without using

synonyms or antonyms instead. On the other hand, the writing of the students revealed

that collocation was rarely used. (Only 2 words in fifteen texts).

In addition, the analysis of the corpus in this group showed that cohesive by

conjunction come after lexical cohesion. Therefore, the table reveals that 151

conjunctive ties were used which were about 30%. In fact, additive and adversative

were frequently rated as shown in the following example:

7. Second, the internet network makes the world a small village and connects people
together and can make a call from your computer to any place in the world.

The example above shows that the student extensively used the cohesive tie "and" in

order to make a sequence to what is expressed in the first clause.

Moreover, the causal cohesive ties like so, consequently, for this reason and temporal

like then, after that, finally came after additive and adversative.
44
 Reference ties came third in this group. The students produced 130 ties about 25%.

Most of the ties were direct reference. In fact, personal pronouns were extensively used

by the students as in the following example:

8. Many Palestinian teenagers leave school early because they thought that
having a job is more important than education. They do not think ahead and are
unable to realize the importance of education.

The example above shows that the pronoun "they" is used twice to refer to "many

Palestinian teenagers." Most of the pronouns used in this group are anaphoric reference

type which refers to an element that occurred earlier in the text. Substitution represents

a very small percentage about 3% which is 16 words of the total number as in the

example below:

9. USA is the land of the opportunity. If you go there, you may get the Green Card.

The writer in this example used "there" in order to substitute "USA)

Ellipsis ties were not only rare as well as substitution ones but they also were

accidentally used. The total number of these ties was (6) about 1% as in the following

example:

10. It is not easy to live in USA and Abu Dhabi too.

The mean percentage in the groups shows that the students tend to use cohesive

devices such as lexical, conjunction and reference more than other devices like ellipses

and substitution. In fact, the use of substitution and ellipsis show that they are difficult

for them and often used more in the spoken discourse than the writing one.

Finally, the findings of the results show that the students in this group encounter

problems that deal with cohesion. It has been noticed that they are unaware of the

conventions of cohesion. In fact, most of the students in this group reveal inadequate
45
use of cohesive devices that are necessary for making a text cohesive. In addition, they

have not used these linking devices appropriately which affects cohesion. All in all, this

deviation shows that they are not in line with the conventions of cohesion as represented

by Halliday and Hasan.

4.5. Analyzing the number of occurrences of cohesive ties in group C: Low level

students

Table 4. Number of occurrences of cohesive ties.

Type of tie Number Percent%

Lexical 220 45.361%

Conjunction 140 28.866%

Reference 115 23.711%

Substitution 6 1.237%

Ellipses 4 0.825%

Total 485 100%

46
It is noticeable that lexical cohesion is highly used in this group. In fact, this kind of

cohesion represents a high percentage about 45%. The lexical cohesive ties were about

220. Most of the students tended to use reiteration more than any cohesive ties. They

used repetition very extensively for the same word. The following is an example of

reiteration:

11. When Godman Brown went to the forest with the devil, he remembered that the
devil forced him to be like the devil. In fact, the devil is widely condemned.

The above example illustrates that this writer has heavily depended on the repetition

of the word "devil". Therefore, he/she s repeated the word "devil" four times in order to

join the ideas together.

Some studies on Arabic rhetoric conclude that repetition is one of the main features

of Arabic discourse. Johnston's seminal work on repetition in Arabic (1991) clearly

shows, on the basis of extensive samples of Arabic writing, that "repetition is the

principal text-building strategy and the principal rhetorical strategy in Arabic prose".

(P.107)

Furthermore, Fakhri (1998) indicates that studies of Arabic discourse consistently

note the prevalence of repetition at different linguistic levels and the use of flowery,

high-flown language.

Fakhri (2002) asserts in his article "Rhetorical Properties of Arabic Research Article

Introductions", the excessive use of repetition in Arabic texts. In fact, he reinforces his

opinion through the following example:

47
‫ﯾﻜﻔﻲ أن اﻷﻣﺔ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﯿﺔ ﺗﻤﻠﻚ وﺣﺪة اﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﺼﻨﻊ وﺣﺪة اﻟﻔﻜﺮ واﻟﻌﻘﻞ وﯾﻜﻔﻲ أن اﻷﻣﺔ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﯿﺔ ﺗﻤﻠﻚ وﺣﺪة اﻟﺘﺎرﯾﺦ‬

.‫اﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﺼﻨﻊ وﺣﺪة اﻟﻀﻤﯿﺮ واﻟﻮﺟﺪان وﯾﻜﻔﻲ أن اﻷﻣﺔ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﯿﺔ ﺗﻤﻠﻚ وﺣﺪة اﻟﻌﻤﻞ اﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﺼﻨﻊ وﺣﺪة اﻟﻤﺴﺘﻘﺒﻞ واﻟﻤﺼﯿﺮ‬

yakfii ’anna al’ummata al‘arabiyyata tamliku waHdata allugati allatii taSna ‘u

waHdata alfikri wa al‘aqli wa yakfii ’anna al’ummata al‘arabiyyata tamliku waHdata

attaariixi allatii taSna ‘u waHdata aDDamiiri wa alwijdaani wa yakfii ’anna al’ummata

al‘arabiyyata tamliku waHdata al’amali allatii taSna ‘u waHdata almustaqbali wa

almaSiiri.

The following is an English translation of the above text:

(It is enough that the Arab nation possesses unity of language which produces unity of

intellect and mind, and it is enough that the Arab nation possesses unity of history, which

produces unity of conscience and effect, and it is enough that the Arab nation possesses

unity of hope which produces unity of future and destiny).

The previous example consists of three conjoined sentences each beginning with the

terms yakfii ’anna… “it is enough that…” which exhibit syntactic parallelism consisting

of a main clause followed by relative clause, in addition to the obvious lexical repetition

(e.g, waHdah “unity”, taSna ‘u “produces”).

The analysis of lexical cohesion shows that the students used 210 words out of 220 as

lexical reiteration. On the contrary, synonyms and antonyms are rarely used. They used

only 5 words as synonyms and antonyms.

Moreover, collocation was neglected in their essays. The results revealed that they

used two words as collocation because they are not aware of such cohesive ties.

Conjunctive ties came second according to their frequency in use. The students used

140 ties (29%) as in the following example:

12. The job in Abu Dhabi can afford a very high income, so you can build a good life
for you and for your family. Then you have a high class house.

48
 The example above shows that the student used the conjunctive "so", the additive

"and", and the temporal one "then."

However, many conjunctive references were wrongly used by the students especially

the repetition of "and" which will be discussed later in this chapter. Moreover, reference

ties came third in this group. The students used 115 ties about 24% of the cohesive

devices. Most of the ties used in this group were direct references which were highly

repeated especially personal pronouns as in the following example:

13. There are some people who say that working in the USA is better because of the
high technology. They do not know anything about technology in Abu Dhabi.
They think that technology is only available in the USA. In fact, these should
know that technology is not everything.

The example above reveals that the personal pronoun "they" was repeated by the

writer to refer to "people". The demonstrative "these" was also used to refer to "people".

Substitution ties were not only rare as well as ellipses ones but they were randomly

used. The total number of these ties was 10 about 2%. All of them occurred without

planning because most of the students relied on other types of cohesive ties.

Finally, the findings reveal that low level students failed to produce cohesive and

coherent essays. They committed more mistakes than the high level students. In fact, the

corpus shows that they deviated from the norms of cohesion and coherence as

delineated by Halliday and Hassan (1976), Grice's maxim and Oshima and Hogue

(2006).

4.6. Comparing the three groups of students.

Regarding the use of lexical reiteration in the students' compositions data seem to

suggest that high, intermediate and low level Palestinian students resort to this device

more than any other type of cohesion. Palmer (1999:73) indicates that "We can assume
49
that the use of lexical cohesion would be higher when writing in a second language if

L1 has this feature".

The analysis of the tables in the three groups above shows similar results to those

arrived at by Khalil (1989) and Connor (1984) in their analysis of cohesion in the

writing of ESL and EFL students. Khalil (1989) in his analysis of cohesion in the

writing of Bethlehem students found that "The compositions have high percentage of

lexical reiteration but a small number of collocations."

However, he discussed cohesion in one paragraph composition written by Arab

freshman students regardless of their level of performance. This study goes further in a

way that discusses cohesion and coherence in essay writing of Palestinian college

students and divides students into three groups: high, intermediate and low in order to

see to what extent the differences are as in the following table:

Table 5. Use of lexical cohesion mechanism in the students' compositions

Group A Group B Group C Total

Instance % Instance % Instance % %

Reiteration 122 22% 198 38% 210 40% 100%

Synonyms 12 56.5% 7 30.4% 3 13.1% 100%

Hyponyms 3 37.5% 2 25% 3 37.5% 100%

Antonyms 3 72.5% 1 9.4% 2 18.1% 100%

Collocation 4 50% 1 25% 2 25% 100%

Total 144 209 220

50
 Regarding the use of lexical reiteration in the students' composition data seem to

suggest that the students in group A, B and C resort to this device. In fact, table 4 and

the graph show that group A used reiteration less than group B and C which reveals that

they have the ability to use synonyms instead of repeating the same word. However, it is

clear that group B and C depended more on repeating the same cohesive item than

group A. The use of collocation was the least frequent by all students in the three

groups.

Conjunctions were used by the three groups of the students. The results show that

additive was the most frequent item used by the students as in the following table:

Table 6. The use of conjunction in the students' composition

Group A Group B Group C Total

Instance % Instance % Instance % %

Additive 80 28.4% 102 36.1% 100 35.5% 100%

Adversative 25 33.4% 29 38.6% 21 28% 100%

Causal 16 38% 13 31% 13 31% 100%

Temporal 9 41% 7 32% 6 27% 100%

Total 130 151 140

51
 The table and the graph above show that the learners in group B and C have overused

additives especially "and." The least frequent conjunctive devices were causal and

temporal for the three groups. Also, the graph shows that high level students used fewer

additives than the intermediate and low level.

It is noticeable that reference as a cohesive device was very frequent in the

compositions written by the three groups as in the following table:

Table 7. The use of reference in students' compositions

Group A Group B Group C Total

Instance % Instance % Instance % %

Personal 91 40.6% 57 25.4% 76 34% 100%

Demonstrative 7 22.5% 15 48.3% 9 29.2% 100%

Locative adv 4 19.3% 12 57% 5 23.7% 100%

Temporal adv 5 22.7% 12 54.6% 5 22.7% 100%

Others 35 39.3% 34 38.5% 20 22.2% 100%

Total 142 130 115

52
 The table above and the graph show that personal reference was the most frequent.

The students in Group A decided to use pronominalisation more than other groups in

order not to repeat information.

It is also observed that pronouns such as who, which, whose -----etc and reflexive

ones were used by the three groups especially group A and B. It is also observed that

demonstrative, temporal and locative adverbs were the least reference devices used by

the groups A and C.

In fact, the corpus reveals that the students in the three groups tended to use

anaphoric references more than the cataphoric ones as in the following example:

(1) Both the characters of Gatsby and Kurtz are similar in many ways. They used to
pursue wealth through illegal ways.

The pronoun "they" in the example above is an anaphoric one which refers back to

"Gatsby and Kurtz". However, it is highly to mention that the high level students in

group A used cataphoric references more than the students in the other groups as in the

example below:

53
(2) Working in Abu Dhabi can provide these: money, high rank social life and
satisfaction.

The demonstrative pronoun "these" in the sentence above is a cataphoric one which

refers to an element that follows; Money, high rank life and satisfaction.

In fact, substitution and ellipses were rarely utilized in group B and C than A because

such kinds of devices are more frequent in informal texts than the written ones. Khalil

(1989:363) indicates that "The non-existence of substitution and ellipses ties may

indicate that the students do not seem to be aware of the use and functions of these two

grammatical tying relationships, which require an advanced knowledge of grammar".

The analysis of the essays shows that the high level students have fewer errors in

literature topics compared to language topics. The researcher thinks that there are fewer

errors in literature topics because students had to produce in paper what they had

memorized or what they had learned from their instructors. Moreover, the corpus

reveals that the low level students showed no significant differences concerning the

number of errors in literary linguistic topics.

The variation in the mean percentage for each category among the three levels of the

students reflects the order of difficulty of cohesion categories. It can be concluded from

the results obtained in the analysis that substitution and ellipses are the most difficult of

the cohesive ties of the three groups under investigation. The low frequency for both of

them reflects this fact. Monson (1982) finds that substitution and ellipses are the most

difficult of the cohesive ties.

54
4.7. Cohesion problems encountered by Palestinian college learners.

This part of the study investigates the difficulty that Palestinian college students

encounter in using the cohesive devices properly. However, the researcher in this study

classified errors as produced by the three groups of students: high, intermediate and low

as in the following table:

Table 8. Cohesion errors for the three groups of students

Types of errors Group A Group B Group C Total %

Instance % Instance % Instance %

Reiteration 5 17.2% 10 34.5% 14 48.3% 29 100%

Excessive use of 7 20.6% 11 32.3% 16 47.1% 34 100%

"and"

Under use of 2 16.7% 4 33.3% 6 50% 12 100%

connectives

Misuse of 5 19.2% 8 30.8% 13 50% 26 100%

connectives

Absence of the 4 20% 7 35% 10 45% 21 100%

presupposed item

Wrong reference 2 9.5% 8 38.1% 11 52.4% 21 100%

55
 The graph shows that group A has the least percentage of problems compared to group

B. Group C goes lower and lower in rank. Therefore, group B and C encounter more

difficulty than group A concerning inability of applying the cohesive ties properly at the

discoursal level. In fact, the problem of cohesion in the corpus falls into three

categories: reiteration, conjunctions and reference. The researcher analyzed the

following problems:

1. Reiteration (lexical)

2. The excessive use of "and"

3. The underuse of connectives

4. Malfunctioning of connectives (misuse)

5. Wrong reference

6. Absence of the presupposed item

56
 4.7.1. Reiteration

Reiteration is a form of lexical cohesion which involves the repetition of a lexical

item, at one end of the scale; the use of a general word to refer back to a lexical item, at

the other end of the scale; and a number of things in between-the use of a synonym,

near-synonym, or superordinate. (Halliday and Hasan, 1976: 278)

It has been noted that the students in group B and C encountered problems in utilizing

reiteration to create cohesion in their writing.

(1)* Forest is considered as a place of evil and a place of darkness and a place of
conflict.

In the example above, the student tended to repeat the word "place" three times. In

fact, it could be deleted to make this example more cohesive.

Forest is considered as a place of evil, darkness and conflict.

However, repetition in English discourse is evaluated negatively. Haiman (1997: 65-

60) argues that English favors economically motivated non-repetition i.e., the use of

pronouns instead of repeating the same word and the use of phrases.

It is clear that this kind of repetition could be attributed to language transfer.

Therefore, the student attempts to make use of the system of his/her native language

which is repetition and transfer it to the English language.

In fact, repetition is widely used in Arabic language as a main text-building device.

Koch (1983) claims:

"As this study has borne out, repetition and paradigms are essentially and
authentically Arabic. They are at the heart of language, the discourse and
rhetoric in a way which cannot simply be disposed of. (p.197)

Koch (1983) indicates that Arabic persuasive texts are characterized by elaborated and

persuasive patterns and lexical, morphological and syntactic repetition and paraphrase.

57
She believes that repetition in Arabic is one of the signs of inimitability of the holy

Quran. AlJarim and Amin as reported in Abu-Zahra (2001) indicate that repetition in

the Quran is highly functional and serves a variety of functions. Hence, it is a style

widely used in Quran as means of eloquence. The purpose of repetition in Quran may

be seen as follows:

1. For emphasis.

2. Impressing the intended meaning in the mind.

3. Element of good style and eloquence.

In fact, this supports the hypothesis that Arab EFL learners transfer the conventions

of L1 to English writing. The corpus shows that the students transfer repetition which is

a feature of Arabic writing style and apply it to English.

4.7.2. Conjunctions (connectives)

Connectives are "Words and phrases or transitions that signal connections between

ides." Hacker (1994: 112). These cohesive devices which link sentences in relation are

vitally important to achieve cohesiveness of discourse. Halliday and Hasan (1976)

categorize words into four major classifications: additive, adversative, causal and

temporal.

The aforementioned table shows that learners in group B and C have serious problems

with connectives. Therefore, the results show that the learners in group A perform better

in using the connective "and". In addition, it is clear that the high level learners were

able to use fewer additives than those of group C. They used more other types of

conjunctions, such as adversative, temporal and causal.

In the corpus under analysis, three types of errors have been identified: overuse of

additive "and", underuse of other connectives and malfunctioning cohesive ties.

58
4.7.2.1. The excessive use of "and"

Arabic is a language that employs coordination much more than subordination.

As reported in Atari (1983), Thompon and Thomas (1983) and Yorkey (1977) say

that infrequent use of subordination and overuse of coordination comprises the chief

characteristics of Arab Speakers' English writer. In the analysis two types of errors

in the use of "and" were identified: overuse of "and" across the sentences (at the

intersentential level).

a. Overuse of "and" at the sentence level.

It can be inferred that the learners in group C lack the ability to establish

logical relationships of addition, contrast causal and temporal. The following are

typical examples:

(1) *we and them have the same religion and the same tradition and the

same language and race.

(2) *Forest is considered as a place of evil and darkness and conflict.

b. Use of "and" across sentences.

The results of the corpus show that the learners in group C overexagerated the

use of coordinating conjunction "and" as a substitute for other connectives. This

excessive use of "and" is noticeable in the Arabic writing style. Arab learners

carry over the use of "and" in Arabic into English. This kind of errors has lower

frequency in group A in comparison with group B and C. The following are

example:

(1) *They should travel to Abu Dhabi. And later on they would travel to

USA. And they can enjoy their life.

(2) *Pearl has been married. And travelled to Europe. And died there.

59
 In the above sentences, "and" has monotonously been used as a substitute for other

connectives in constructions of sentences that are acceptable in Arabic, but not in

English. The students overextended an operative usage of "and" across sentences in

Arabic into English. The overuse of "and" by Arab EFL learners is also attested in

literature in different studies: Elkhatib (1983), and Atari (1983).

4.7.2.2 Underuse of connectives.

The overuse of "and" is the underuse of other connectives, which is the

characteristics of oral style. The table above shows that this type of errors is not found

in group A whereas the learners in group C have tendency not to use lexical linkers that

are necessary to achieve cohesion in the text. As reported by Atari (1984), Chafe (1980)

terms the absence of connectives as "Fragmentation of ideas". This fragmentation of

ideas results in a sequence of choppy sentences which contain disconnected ideas.

Khalil (2000) says that choppy sentences strip the text of its connectivity. The following

exemplify the absence of connectives.

(1) *Graduate people do not have any choice. They spend most of the

time in the street.

As we can see in this example, the student is shifting from one sentence to another

without providing a transitional word or adverbial conjunction. Therefore, the sentence

could be more appropriate if the pronoun "they "is replaced by "and" as the following:

Graduate people do not have any choice; and they spend most of the time in the

street.

60
4.7.2.3 Misuse of connectives.

The aforementioned table shows that students in group B and C have the same

number of errors regarding wrong linking devices. However, the results show that

students in group A have only four errors.

Halliday and Hasan (1976: 226) maintain that "Conjunctive elements are cohesive not

in themselves, but indirectly, by virtual their specific meanings". The corpus shows that

the students in group B and C couldn’t use conjunctions correctly because they were

unable to understand their semantic properties or unable to establish the logical

relationships. The following exemplify wrong use of linking devices:

(1) *They come to Africa in addition to bring civilization for those who

are not civilized.

This sentence could be more cohesive if the conjunction" in addition to" is replaced by

the conjunction "in order to".

(2) *I hope if my friend will change his mind.

In this example 'if' is used wrongly since the information is incomplete. So omitting "if"

makes the sentence more cohesive.

(3) *Although its advantages it has disadvantages.

The student in the above example used the wrong conjunction "although" instead of

despite because "although" must be followed by subject and verb. Therefore, the correct

sentence should be:

Although it has advantages, it has disadvantages.

It should be emphasized that the wrong use of connectors in the above examples are

not absolutely detrimental. Pilus (1996) says in this respect that the wrong choice of

transitional words doesn’t lead to a breakdown in communication; it simply disorients

the reader.
61
4.7.3 Reference

Halliday and Hasan (1976:32) define reference as a semantic relation that demands

the existence of both a presupposed and a presupposing element.

The analysis of the essays shows that Arab EFL learners encounter problems in using

types of reference. In fact, group C and B has shown that they encounter problems in

establishing reference between sentences adequately. The main problems in using

reference were the following:

1. Wrong Reference

In the corpus, the learners in group C and B have misused some reference items

which lead to ambiguity and vagueness of meaning for the reader. They fail to realize

that any inadequately abrupt shift in perspective can affect cohesion and coherence in

discourse. Gula (1980:9) asserts "Such a shift can impede the flow of writing and often

distract and confuse the reader". The following examples illustrate this problem:

(1) *A friend of mine came to ask for my help to decide what job to

choose, should they take the option of USA or Abu Dhabi.

In this example, the occurrence of personal pronoun "they" is confusing and

ambiguous. The pronoun "they" has no antecedent to refer to.

(2) *The opportunity in Abu Dhabi which is given to him is much better

so I advice them to go to Abu Dhabi.

In this example the student used the pronoun "him" and "them" wrongly. She/he

simply disorients the reader. Instead of this, the student should have used them correctly

as the following:

Abu Dhabi which is given to Ahmad is much better so I advice him to go there.
62
 (3) *The problem of pollution which the industrial countries are aware of

it but have not given much attention to solve it.

In this example the student has misused the pronoun "it". She/he used the pronoun "it"

to refer to "the problem of pollution". This problem could be attributed to language

transfer. Tushyeh (1998) asserts "A basic difference between English and Modern

Standard Arabic in relativization is the appearance in MSA of a personal pronoun in the

relativized site. This pronoun is called al-damir-u al-9aa?iu 'the returning pronoun or

resumptive pronoun'. In fact, the sentence would have been more acceptable if the first

pronoun has been omitted as in the following sentence:

The industrial countries are aware of the problem of pollution but they

have not given much attention to solve it.

2. Absence of the presupposed item

The findings of the study show that the students in group B and C encounter problems

in establishing reference between sentences adequately. In fact, the presupposing

reference was used but the presupposed one was absent. The following example

illustrates this problem:

(1) *Abu Dhabi has a very high technology and very high income and

they should care about.

This example shows that the student could not make a reference relationship. Instead,

the students used the pronoun "they" which makes the sentence vague.

To conclude, this section has discussed the number of occurrences of cohesive ties as

revealed by the three groups of students: high, intermediate and low. Moreover, it has

examined the students' mechanism in establishing cohesive ties. In addition, it has

63
presented problems with cohesion that encounter the students and the role of language

transfer in these problems. The following section will investigate coherence in essay

writing of Palestinian college students.

4.8 Analyzing Coherence of Palestinian College Students: group A, B and C.

In order to evaluate coherence in the essays of the three groups: A, B and C, the

researcher followed Oshima and Hogue's (2006) characteristics of achieving coherence

in order to explore the relationship between the number of cohesive devices and the

students' scores as can be seen in Appendix B.

The results observed in the corpus show statistically significant differences among the

three groups in the scores of coherence regarding the abilities in writing coherent

essays.

The findings revealed that group A which includes high level students achieved better

scores than the other groups concerning coherence. To measure coherence in group A,

the researcher counted the number of cohesive ties used by the students in order to

explore the relationship between the number of cohesive ties and the students' scores.

Moreover, each essay scored by three different teachers with a score out of ten. Then

the average of these three scores was calculated as in the following table:

Table.9 Coherence score for each essay in group A

Essay Number Number of ties Coherence Score Average

1 21 9, 8, 9 8.5

2 15 7, 8, 8 8

3 17 8, 8, 8 8

4 16 8, 7, 8 8

64
5 17 8, 8, 8 8

6 28 7, 8, 8 8

7 15 8, 8, 7 8

8 20 8, 8, 8 8

9 23 8, 8, 8 8

10 22 7, 8, 8 8

11 27 8, 7, 8 8

12 27 8, 8, 8 8

13 28 7, 8, 8 8

14 19 8, 8, 8 8

15 27 8, 8, 8 8

16 23 7, 8, 8 8

17 19 7, 6, 8 7

18 16 7, 7, 7 7

19 15 7, 6, 7 7

20 14 6, 7, 7 7

Note: the coherence score is out of 10

By examining table (9), results showed that most of the students in group A achieved

scores ranged between 7 and 8.5. However, the number of ties used by the students has

nothing to do with students' scores of coherence. In fact, it has been noted that the

student in essay (one) used 15 ties and the student in essay (13) used 28 ties, but at the

same time they have got the same score.

This fact shows that the excessive use of ties whether lexical, conjunction or

reference does not always lead to coherence. Hence, essay number two reveals that the

student has used fewer ties than the student number 13, though; he/she has the same

65
score (8). The following paragraph shows an example of coherent paragraph as

evaluated in the corpus:

It can be argued that "Heart of Darkness" and "The Great Gatsby" explore
different themes. In the first, Conrad sheds light on the hypocritical exploitation
of colonizers; whereas, in the second, Fitzgerald portrays the issue of corruption
of the American dream besides the hollowness of the upper class. However, it is
noted that these novel's protagonist, Kurtz and Gatsby, around whom the events
revolve share certain similarities which are embodied in their personalities.
Thus, this essay examines the extent in which mysteries are alike.

It has been noted that the writer in this example organized the ideas and the sentences

flow together as you read the paragraph. The sentences in the paragraph are connected

to each other. He/she makes a good use of cohesive ties such as in "the first, whereas,

however, thus" as a means of linking the ideas together. The following example shows

the number of ties used in the previous paragraph:

Table 10. Cohesive items and types of cohesion

T-Unit No No. of ties Cohesive item Type

2 1 In the first Sub

Whereas Conjunction
In the second Sub
3 2 However Conjunction
Whom Reference
4 3 Thus Conjunction
Which Reference

On the contrary, the results of the corpus revealed that the students in group B and C

achieved lower scores regarding coherence as represented in the table below. In order to

measure coherence in group B and C, the number of cohesive ties was counted by the

researcher. In addition, each essay in the two groups scored by three evaluators with a

score out of ten and the average of these scores was calculated in the two groups as in

the following table:

66
 Table 11. Coherence score for each essay in group B and C

Group B Group C

Essay No No of ties Average of Essay No No. of ties Average of

Coherence Coherence
score score
1 22 4 1 19 3

2 22 4.5 2 24 3

3 23 4 3 16 4

4 26 5 4 19 4.5

5 29 5 5 20 4.5

6 31 4.5 6 29 4

7 18 4 7 20 4.5

8 23 4 8 25 4

9 14 4 9 23 4

10 35 4.5 10 26 4

11 30 4 11 14 4

12 26 5 12 15 4

13 31 5 13 20 4.5

14 23 4.5 14 21 4

15 28 6 15 15 5

16 36 6 16 20 2

17 22 4 17 25 2

18 30 4 18 17 3

19 13 4 19 9 2

20 18 4 20 8 2

Note: the coherence score is out of 10

67
 The table above reveals that group B used more cohesive devices than group C. In

fact, both groups have showed low scores regarding coherence ranging between 2 and 6.

However, it is clear that the number of cohesive ties in both groups does not lead to

coherence. Tireney and Mosenthal (1983) found that a cohesion index is causally

unrelated to a text's coherence.

The results show that the students in group C used several cohesive ties and still their

essays are considered as incoherent as in the following example:

*Internet, for example, is one of these ways. In fact, internet sometimes causes
bad effects on the person himself. Also, internet has some disadvantages like the
bad uses. Moreover, we find most of guys looking for silly and bad things, they
use their cell phones also for the same purpose and this is a waste of time
because they will get nothing from this. Technology is now considered as one of
the most important devices that can change.

In the example above, the student used more than seven cohesive ties, but he/she did

not use them properly. However, he/she used vague words like "one of these ways".

Therefore, the student did not succeed to connect the ideas together. In fact, he/she

repeated the same ideas and failed to supply sufficient information about the topic.

4.9 Coherence problems encountering Palestinian college students.

Coherence is a product of many different factors, which merge to make every

paragraph, every sentence, and every phrase contribute to the meaning of the whole

piece. Kies (1995).

Chih-Hua Kuo (1995: 3) "Coherence refers to the kind of relationships, among

elements of a text, which are not based on surface links, but links derived from thematic

development, organization of information, or communicative purpose of the particular

discourse".

Halliday and Hasan (1976) point out that a writer can construct a passage which is

coherent in a situation and semantic sense for a reader, but lacks intersentence cohesion.
68
 For the purpose of this study, the results obtained through the analysis of Grice's

maxims show that the students in group (C) and (B) have more problems than group (A)

concerning coherence. In order to evaluate coherence following Grice's maxims:

Relevance, Manner and Quantity, three groups of teachers evaluated the essays. Five

teachers evaluated the essays of high level students, five teachers evaluated the

intermediate and another five teachers evaluated the low level students taking into

consideration the three maxims for each group. Each group of teachers evaluated twenty

essays. An evaluation sheet (appendix C) included Grice's maxims presented in question

form. Each question was followed by a five-point scale. The evaluators were asked to

evaluate the essays by giving a score out of five on each of the three maxims. After that,

the points given by the evaluators were calculated by the researcher and turned into

percentages as in the following table:

Table 12. The results of Grice's maxims.

Grice Relevance Manner Quantity

Maxims

Group A B C A B C A B C
Essay No

1 4 2 1.5 3.5 2 2 3 2 1.5

2 4 2.5 1.5 3 3 1.5 3.5 2.5 1.5

3 3.5 2 2 3.5 2.5 2 3 2 2

4 4 2.5 2 4 2.5 3 3 2 2

5 4 2.5 2 4 3 2 4 3 2

6 3.5 2.5 2 4 3.5 2.5 3 3 1.5

7 3.5 4 2.5 3.5 3 3 3 3 2

8 4 3 2 3 3 2 3 2 2

9 4.5 3 3 3.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 3

69
10 4 2.5 2 4 4 3 4 3.5 2

11 4.5 2 2 4.5 4 2 3 3 1

12 4 3 3 4 3.5 3 3 3 2

13 4.5 2.5 3 4 4 3 4 3 3

14 4 3 2 3.5 4 3.5 4 2.5 2

15 3.5 3 2.5 4 4 3.5 3 2.5 2

16 4 3.5 1.5 4 3.5 3.5 3 3 1.5

17 4 3 1.5 3.5 4 3 3 3 2

18 3.5 2 2 4 3.5 2.5 2.5 3 1.5

19 3.5 2 1 3.5 4 2 3 2 2

20 3.5 2 1.5 3 4 2.5 2 2 1.5

Total 78 52.5 40.5 75 69.5 52 62.5 53.5 38.5

Percent% 78% 52.5% 40.5% 75% 69.5% 52% 62.5% 53.5% 38.5%

Note: 5= highest mark

The results of the above table clarify that the students in group A have achieved

higher scores than group B and C. The results were: Relevance 78%, Manner 75% and

Quantity 62.5%. Moreover, students in group B have got: Relevance 52.5%, Manner

70
 69.5% and Quantity 62% whereas group C has got the least scores: Relevance 40.5%,

Manner 52% and Quantity 38.5%.

However, it is clear that the results are similar to those found by Atari's (1983) and

Khalil's (1989) which revealed the same problematic features of coherence in the

writing of university students in this study.

Such problems of Disunity of thought, Disorganization of ideas and Excessive

reliance on repetition of ideas may will be explained by Grice maxims as will be shown

in the following section:

4.9.1 Grice application for explaining these problems

1. Disunity of thought.

2. Disorganization of ideas and insufficient information.

3. Excessive reliance on repetition of ideas.

4.9.1.1 Disunity of thought.

Oshima and Hogue (2006) indicate that unity means that a paragraph discusses one

and only one main idea from beginning to end.

A disunified Paragraph is one that digresses or deviates from its target topic. If a writer

departs from the topic, the resultant paragraph will be choppy; that is abrupt shifts

generate what seem to be gaps in the writer's thought flow.

The corpus shows that Arab EFL student- writers especially in group B and C insert

irrelevant ideas into their writing. Therefore, this insertion influences the unity of

thought, and thus weakening coherence as it diverts the reader's attention and causes

discontinuity in meaning. The following examples reveal some out-of-context ideas

found in the corpus under analysis:

71
 *There are many advantage and disadvantages of using technology.
Japan is considered one of the best countries that pay attention to
technology.

The above example clarifies that the student is deviating from talking about the

advantages and disadvantages of technology to talking about personal attitudes without

preparing the reader for this inadequately abrupt departure.

*Working in Abu Dhabi is better than working in USA. Most of the

people in Abu Dhabi are Arabs, although it has many nationalities but
most of them are Arabs.

The above example lacks coherence because the student is inserting an idea that is of

no relevance to the first idea. He/she talks about the preference of working in Abu

Dhabi but then he/she talks about the people in Abu Dhabi. In fact, this digression is a

violation of Grice's third maxims pertaining to Relation. (See more examples in the

appendix).

The inclusion of irrelevant ideas could be accounted for as a misconception on the

part of students who mistakenly think that the more they write, the higher grade they

expected to get, regardless of any intrusive or irrelevant ideas they include. Pilus (1996)

maintains that the students try to demonstrate the depth of their knowledge to the

examiner. When this occurs, it creates a web of confusion that the reader is unable to

disentangle.

4.9.1.2 Disorganization of ideas and insufficient information

Halliday and Hasan (1976:288)"Discourse does not wander at random; it runs on

reasonably systematical organized patterns with a certain consistency and predictability

of development". A composition should follow a smooth flow of thoughts moving from

72
 general to specific, and supporting ideas should flesh of the main idea. There is an

underlying thread weaving all points in the composition. Oshima and Hogue (2006)

point out that the important point to remember is to arrange your ideas in some kind of

the order that is logical to a reader accustomed to the English way of writing.

The findings show that many Palestinian college students especially in group B and C

are ignorant of this pattern of development. They sometimes rationalize a far-fetched

introduction that has no direct relevance to the target topic, then move to talk about the

assigned topic without a thesis that bridges the introduction with the body paragraphs.

Carpenter and Hunter (1981:426) maintain "The discourse processes in creating a

coherent overall organization for a composition or paper generally prove to be the most

elusive skills to master for students in advanced writing classes." This is compounded

by their inability to elaborate on the main topic by backing up their topics by subtopics

or supporting ideas. This inability to provide insufficient information represents a

violation of the informative aspect of Grice's maxims (Quantity). The following is one

specimen that exemplifies disorganized writing:

* One of the most dangerous phenomena that face the world today is environmental
pollution. Many of the animals that live in the sea are killed because of pollution and we
should stand against pollution. I think there are disadvantages of pollution and the
government should close factories that produce smoke and produce weapons and close
factories that produce weapons to destroy the world.

4.9.1.3 The excessive reliance on repetition of ideas.

The corpus under analysis shows that Arab EFL learners tend to repeat the same idea

within the same paragraph which is a rhetorical strategy that Arab learners use in their

writing. Johnston (1991) claims that repetition in Arabic is highly used to serve

persuasive ends. In fact, the results revealed that the students especially in group B and

73
 C tended to repeat the same idea different times within the same paragraph as in the

following example:

*Working in Abu Dhabi is a good chance for many people. Working in Abu
Dhabi has many aspects that you could not find in USA. However, I prefer to
work in Abu Dhabi because of the high income. Moreover, working in Abu
Dhabi gives you everything you need in life. Therefore, you can get a very high
income which you cannot find it anywhere in the world.

The above example lacks coherence because such digression is a violation of

Grice's maxims Relation and Quantity.

4.10 Summary

This section has shed light on evaluating coherence in the essay writing of the three

groups of students: A, B and C. Moreover, it has discussed the differences among the

three groups in the scores of coherence regarding their abilities in writing coherent

essays. In addition, it has presented the problem of coherence that encounters

Palestinian college students. The following chapter comprises conclusions and

implications that might improve EFL writing.

74
 Chapter Five

Conclusion and Recommendations

Chapter five concludes and summarizes the findings of the study. It also presents

some pedagogical implications and recommendations for teaching cohesion and

coherence.

5.1. Summary of the major findings of the study:

The major findings of the study include the deviations of Palestinian college students

from the conventions of Halliday and Hassan (1976), the types of cohesive ties the

Palestinian college students actually use in their writings, the number of occurrences of

the lexical cohesive ties and the differences between high proficiency level,

intermediate and low level in terms of cohesion and coherence.

Lack of cohesion and coherence in writing is a problem that faces EFL and ESL

students. This problem has been a challenge to teachers and researchers. In fact, many

teachers focus mostly on teaching the uses of functional connectives such as

conjunctions and conjunctive adverbs without paying attention to other important

elements essential for making the text cohesive like content lexical ties. These elements

involve the use of repetition, synonymy, hyponymy, antonym and superordinate.

This study investigated the problem of cohesion and coherence in essay writing of

Palestinian college students. The researcher divided the students into three levels: high,

intermediate and low in order to study the differences between these levels in terms of

cohesion and coherence.

In the current study, it has been proven that the three levels of students tended to show

higher frequency of lexical cohesion. In fact, the results showed that students in group A

used 32% of lexical cohesion while students in group B and C used 40% and 45%.

These findings reveal that the vocabulary repertoire for group A is higher. They are

75
depending on synonyms and antonyms to avoid repetition. In addition, the students in

group B and C have heavily depended on reiteration.

The analysis of the corpus reveals that cohesive devices were confused and misused

particularly by intermediate and low level students. The results also revealed that

substitution and ellipses were the most difficult devices for the three levels of students:

high, intermediate and low.

In addition, results show that the high level students were better than intermediate

and low levels in producing cohesive and coherent text as they have fewer mistakes

than intermediate and low level students.

In fact, cohesive devices were different regarding their number of occurrences in the

three groups of students. Lexical cohesion was the most frequent device for the three

groups. Reference was the second frequent cohesive device for group A and C ,whereas,

conjunction was the second frequent cohesive device for group B and C. Substitution

and ellipses were the least cohesive devices for the three groups.

It has been also proven that the students in the three groups have problems concerning

cohesion. The analysis shows that group B and C encountered more difficulty than

group A regarding inability of applying the cohesive ties properly at the discoursal level.

The findings have also revealed that repetition and the excessive use of "and" were

highly occurring especially in the intermediate and low level students.

However, the findings show that negative transfer is a major cause of problems with

writing in general and with cohesion and coherence in particular. Hence, the analysis of

the essays reveals that the Arab EFL learners transfer to English some strategies or

features of their native language.

Moreover, we should take into consideration that there are other factors that should

not be ignored in addition to language transfer that affect cohesion and coherence such

as:
76
1. Ignorance of the conventions of cohesion and coherence.

2. Lack of training of using cohesive devices.

3. Inadequate learning especially the uses of linking devices.

Concerning coherence the results showed that high level students achieved higher

scores than intermediate and low level students. It has additionally indicated that the

students' writing in group B and C is generally disorganized. This is aggravated by the

fact that this writing lacks sufficient information about the target topic and some of the

information used is irrelevant and ideationally redundant.

However, it has been proven that the students in group B and C have more problems

regarding coherence. The corpus shows that the students in these two groups insert

irrelevant ideas into their writing. In addition, they sometimes rationalize far-fetched

information that has no direct relevance to the direct topic.

Moreover, the corpus reveals that the number of cohesive ties does not always lead to

coherence.

5.2. Further recommendations

Considering the findings above, the following ideas should be taken into account

concerning cohesion and coherence:

1. Teachers are advised to expose their students to models of organized writing in which

cohesive devices are properly used.

2. Teachers should not be disappointed if their students have problems in producing

coherent texts. On the contrary, they should help them to improve their abilities in

coherence by presenting them with copies of their paragraphs that contain sentences

which violate coherence.

3. Teachers should shift their attention from teaching sentences in isolation to a manner

in which they are connected.

77
4. Teachers should view language as a unified whole in which every part supports the

others. They should not pay attention to grammar only but they should view

language in terms of the meaning it tends to convey.

5. Teachers are urged to emphasize the importance of organized compositions, dividing

them into paragraphs and following logical and coherent expressions of ideas.

6. Teachers should shift from teaching cohesive devices out of context to teaching them

communicatively. The teacher can ask students to read a text that contains different

types of cohesive devices. Therefore, the teacher works with the students to

underline and classify the cohesive devices into groups according to their types and

number of occurrences. Finally, the teacher motivates the students to infer the

meaning, the uses of cohesive devices and to what extent these cohesive devices

help the text to be more cohesive.

7. Teachers should teach the students to be aware of cohesive text using content lexical

ties. Liu (2000) in his paper entitled "Writing Cohesion: Using Content Lexical Ties

in ESOL" designed exercises for understanding and using content lexical ties. These

exercises can increase the students' vocabulary and help them understand better the

vocabulary being studied. This is because the exercises enable students to learn the

words in context or in relation to one another as synonyms, antonyms,

superordinate, or hyponyms. Also, a better understanding of these words allows

students to use them to improve cohesion in their writing, hence enhancing their

writing skills. The following are examples of these exercises:

A. Finding/classifying synonyms, antonyms, and so forth.

Liu (2000) this type of exercise does not require complex preparation by the teacher.

The teacher may simply ask students to find synonyms or antonyms for a given word,

find hyponyms for a superordinate, or determine the superordinate for a series of

78
hyponyms. Classifying words is also an easy-to-construct exercise. The teacher may

give students a fairly large number of words—either all known words or some known

and some new words—and have them use various diagrams to classify and arrange the

words either as synonyms, antonyms, or superordinates/ hyponyms. The teacher may or

may not allow the students to use dictionaries in completing the exercise. Here are a few

samples of identification and classification exercises:

Example 1: Find the superordinate for the following words: Exercises, term paper, book

report, composition, research project, lab work, reading (school assignments or

school work).

Example 2: Find the (situational) hyponyms (i.e., related words) for the word program

(a teaching or learning program).

Example 3: Classify the following words into synonyms/antonyms: difficult,

straightforward, obvious, puzzling, perplexing, clear, confusing, bewildering,

simple, hard, easy, lucid, enigmatic.

B. Identifying content lexical ties (including text-structuring words) or the lack of them

in writing.

Liu (2000) in this exercise students either identify content lexical cohesive ties in

written passages (may be as short as one or two sentences) or determine the lack of such

ties in writing. The best examples may come from your students’ writing. Such

exercises call for the students to read the passage very closely and have some familiarity

with the various types of lexical cohesive ties. This exercise is best conducted during

students’ peer critiques in writing when the teacher can have students identify the use of

79
or lack of content lexical ties in each other’s papers, discuss them, and make

suggestions for improvement. (See more examples in the article).

9. Teachers should provide students with materials that increase their awareness of the

role of coherence in writing. Lee, Icy (2008) in her paper entitled "Helping Students

Develop Coherence in Writing" designed materials that can be employed to teach

coherence in writing in steps like the following:

1. Introductory activities

Lee, Icy (2008) introduce students to the topic and stimulate their interest in the role

of coherence in writing. In the introduction to macrostructure, for instance, students can

take turns retelling a fairy tale that is familiar to them all. Or, they can describe an

embarrassing event. Major aspects of the story structure, such as situation, problem,

solution, and evaluation, are then discussed. In presenting information structure, it is

helpful to teach students how to become more aware of the distribution of information

in texts. I use pairs of sentences like those below and ask students to identify the “old”

information given in the first sentence and then the new information in the second

sentence.

1. a. Near a large forest lived a poor woodcutter with his wife

and two children.

b. The boy’s name was John and the girl’s name was Mary.

2. a. My mother has written a new book.

b. It’s about gardening.

2. Explicit teaching

80
 Lee, Icy (2008) provides students with explicit explanations, preferably using

authentic texts and simple text-analysis tasks. For instance, in teaching macrostructure,

students can analyze texts that contain the problem-solution structure and rearrange

jumbled sentences. For the example below, the teacher checks the students’ answers and

points out the correct problem-solution structure. Statement 2 is the situation, statement

4 is the problem (marked by “However”), statement 1 is the solution, and statement 3 is

the evaluation. Through explicit teaching students can be shown that when they include

the major elements of the macrostructure and order them logically, they are likely to

achieve coherence in their writing.

Instructions: Re-order the sentences so they make sense.

1. I am writing to inquire if it would be possible for you to

include this information as a simple correction in the

next issue.

2. I was glad to see my article called “Advertising

Management Service,” which appeared in the

September issue of your newsletter.

3. This would give my company credit for encouraging the

use of the techniques described in the article and for

allowing me to publish them.

4. However, my affiliation with this company as their

advertising manager was omitted.

3. Student handouts

81
 Lee, Icy (2008) after explicit instruction, prepare student handouts on specific topics

in order to help consolidate students’ understanding of coherence. Unfamiliar

metalinguistic terms can also be explained and illustrated with examples in this stage.

For instance, a handout 1 prepared on macrostructure defines the meaning of

macrostructure in texts and gives examples from typical expository writing. (See more

examples in the article)

5.3. Conclusion

It is hoped that in the light of this study results, the teachers will pay more attention

to the term cohesion and coherence in the writing courses. Furthermore, it is hoped that

there will be a shift in focus among teachers on teaching writing depending on the

discoursal level rather than the sentence level. Finally, it is hoped that the Palestinian

teachers will not only concerned about the local errors, but they should deal with errors

that impede understanding and affect intelligibility.

82
 References

Abu-Zahra, M. J. (2001). Rendering Lexical Repetition in Arabic Fictional Discourse

into English. Unpublished MA Thesis. An-Najah Universit

AL-Jarf, R. Sado. (2001). Processing of Cohesive Ties by EFL Arab College Students.

Foreign Language Annals. Vol2, No2, 141-151.

Ann M. Johns. (1986). Coherence and Academic Writing: Some Definitions and

Suggestions for Teaching. TESOL Quarterly Vol 20, No2, 247-264.

Aoui, M. (1989). Cohesion in Written Computer Science Discourse: A Study of Some

Lexical and Grammatical Features. Unpublished MA Thesis. Algeria

University D' ALGER.

Atari, Omar. (1983). A Contrastive Analysis of Arab and American University Students

in Accomplishing Written English Discourse Functions: Implications for EFL.

Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Georgetown University.

Atari, Omar. (1984). Oral Style Strategies in EFL Written Discourse. Proceedings of the

Third Annual Linguistics Conference. Yarmouk University.

Bhatia, K. V. (2005). Generic Pattern in Promotional Discourse. Amsterdam:

Benjamins.

Brown, G. & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse Analysis. New York: Cambridge University

Press.

Campbell, Kim. (1995). Coherence, Continuity and Cohesion. Hillsdale, New Jersey:

Lowerence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Carrell, P. L. (1982). Cohesion is Not Coherence. TESOL Quarterly. Vol 16, No.

4, 479-488.

Carpenter, C. Hunter. (1981). Functional Exercises: Improving Overall Coherence in

ESL Writing. TESOL Quarterly. Vol 15, No 4, 425-434.

83
Chafe, w. (1984). Integration and Involvement in Speaking, Writing and Oral

Literature. In Tannen D. (ed.), Spoken and Written Language: Exploring Orality

and Literacy. Pp. 35-53. Norwood. NJ: Ablex.

Cherry R. & C. Cooper. (1980). Cohesive Ties and Discourse Structure: A study of

Average and Superior Text. Unpublished Manuscript.

Chih-Hua Kuo. (1995). Cohesion and Coherence in Academic Writing: From Lexical

Choice to Organization. RELC Journal 10. 1177

Chun-Chun Yeh. (2004).The Relationship of Cohesion and Coherence: A Contrastive

Study of English and Chinese. Journal of language and linguistics. Vol.3

No.2.1- 129.

Connor, Ulla. (1984). A Study of Cohesion and Coherence as a Second Language

Students' Writing. Paper in Linguistics: International journal of human

communication 17/3; 301-316

Connor, Ulla. (1996). Contrastive Rhetoric. New York: Cambridge University Press

Crombie, W. (1985). Process and Relation in Discourse and Language Learning.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cristin, C. and Judy, H. (1984). Functional Exercises: Improving Overall Coherence in

ESL Writing. TESOL Quarterly.

De Beaugrande, R. and W. Dressler. (1981). Introduction to Textual Linguistics.

London: Routledge.

Dorthy, E. Zemach & Lisa, A. Rumisek. (2003). College Writing. Macmillan publishers

limited.

El-Khatib, A. S. (1983). Toward a Descriptive Rhetoric of the ESL Paragraph. (ERIC

Document Reproduction Service No. Ed 234622).

84
Fakhri, Ahmed. (1998). Reported Speech in Arabic Journalistic Discourse. In:

Benmamoun, E., Eid, M., HaerDN. (Eds), Perspectives on Arabic Linguistic,

Vol.11. Pp. 167-182.

Fakhri, Ahmed. (2002). Rhetorical Properties of Arabic Research Article Introductions.

Retrieved on 22, Nov, 2011at http:\ www.sciencedirect.com\science\article\pis.

Feathers, K. (1981). Text Unity: A semantic perspective on mapping cohesion and

coherence. Unpublished paper, Indiana University.

Grice, P. (1975). Logic and Convention. In Cole, P and Morgan, J (eds). Syntax and

Semantics III: speech act. New York: Academic Press.

Gula, Robert. (1980). A Reference Handbook for Writers. Massachusetts: Wintrop

Publishers Inc.

Hacker, Diana. (1999). The Bedford Handbook for Writers. Boston: Bedford books of

St. Martin Press.

Haiman, J. (1997). Repetition and Identity. Lingua 100: 57-70.

Halliday, M and Ruqaiya Hassan. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman

Group Ltd.

Halliday, M. A. K. & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2004). An Introduction to Fnctional

Grammar. (3rd ed). London: Arnold.

Holes, C. (1995). The Structure and Function of Parallelism and Repetition in Spoken

Arabic: A sociolinguistic study. Journal of Semitic studies XL/1.

Johnstone, Barbara. (1990). Orality and Discourse Structure in Modern Standard

Arabic. In: Eid, M. (Ed.), Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics, Vol. I. pp. 215-233.

Johnstone, Barbara. (1991). Repetition in Arabic Discourse. Bejamin, Amesterdam.

85
Kamel, Gehan. (1989). Argumentative Writing by Arab Learners of English as a

Foreign and Second Language. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Indiana

University of Pennsylvania.

Khalil, A. (1989). A Study of Cohesion and Coherence in Arab EFL College Students'

Writing. System, Vol. 17, No.3. 359-371.

Khalil, A. (2000). Analysis of Errors made by Palestinian EFL Learners. Bethlehem: Al

Jarashi Press.

Kharma, Nayef. (1985). Problems of Writing Composition in EFL. A Contrastive

Rhetoric Approach. Abhath Al-Yarmouk, volume 3, no.1.

Koch, B. L. (1983). Presentation as Proof: the Language of Arabic Rhetoric.

Anthropological Linguistics 25, 47-60.

Kies. Daniel. (1995).Coherence in Writing. Retrieved on 10, August, 2011 from

http://paper.com/hypertextbooks/com1/coherent.htm.

Lee, Icy (2008). Helping Students Develop Coherence in Writing. Retrieved on

November 20, 2011at http://eca.state.gov/forum/vols/vol40/no3/p32.htm.

Lieber, P. E. (1981). Cohesion in ESL Students' Expository Writing. A Descriptive

Study. Doctoral Dissertation. New York University. Ann Arbor: University

Microfilm International.

Liles, B. (1985). Cohesion in the Narratives of Normal and Language- Disordered

Children. Journal of speech and hearing research, 28: 123-133.

Liu, D. (2000). Writing Cohesion: Using Content Lexical Ties in ESOL. Forum, 83:

1, 28-36.

Magableh, A. M. F. (1992). Rhetorical Problems of Written Discourse of EFL Student-

Teachers at the Higher College for Teachers' Certification. Unpublished MA

Thesis. Yarmouk university.

86
Masadeh, S. Thougan. (1995). Coherence and Cohesion in the Writings of English

Majors at Yarmouk University. Unpublished MA Thesis. Yarmouk University.

Mclinn, J. Betty. (1988). Coherence and Cohesion in the Writing of Eighth Grade

Students. Doctoral Dissertation: University of New Orleans.

Monson, D. (1982). Effect of Type and Direction on Comprehension of Anaphoric

Relationships. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED278003.

Nicolosi, L., E. Harryman and J. Kresheck. (1983). Terminology of Communication

Disorders: Speech-language-Hearing. (2nd .ed) Baltimore. Williams and Wilkins.

Norment, N. (1995). Quantitative Analysis of Cohesive Devices in Spanish and Spanish

ESL in Narrative and Expository Written Texts. Language Quarterly, 33, 133-

159.

Oshima, Alice & Ann Hougue. (2006). Writing Academic English. Pearson Education.

Inc: Longman.

Palmer, J. C. (1999).Coherence and Cohesion in the English Language Classroom: the

use of lexical reiteration and pronominalisation. RELC Journal. Vol. 30 No.3. 30-

61.

Peterson. C. and A. McCabe. (1991). Linking Children's Connective Use and Narrative

Macrostructure. In A. McCabe and C. Peterson (eds). Developing Narrative

Structure, 29-53, Hilsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Pilus, Zahira. (1996). Coherence and Students' Errors. English Teaching Forum, July-

September, Vol 34, No3.

Raimes, A. (1983). Anguish as a Second Language? Remedies for Composition

Teachers. In Freedman, A., Pringle, I., and Yalden, J. (Eds.), Learning to Write:

First Language/Second Language. Longman.

87
Ramadan, M. Saleh. (2003). Cohesion in the Written Works of Literary and Scientific

Streams at State Secondary Schools in Jordan. Unpublished MA Thesis.

GAZI University: Ankara.

Ramasawmy. (2004). Conjunctive Cohesion and Relational Coherence in Students'

Composition. Unpublished MA Thesis. University of South Africa.

Richard, J., Platt, J. & Weber, H. (1985). Longman Dictionary of Applied

Linguistics. London: Longman.

Shatarat, Y. (1990). Errors in Cohesive Devices Made by Jordanian Intermediate

Community College Students in the English Language Specialization.

Unpublished MA Thesis. University of Jordan.

Spiegel, Dixie Lee & Jill Fitzgerald. (1990). Textual Cohesion and Coherence in

Children's Writing. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service no. EJ

405073).

Tierney, R and J. Mosenthal. (1983). Cohesion and Textual Coherence. Research in the

Teaching of English, 17, 215-229.

Tushyeh, H. Y. & Hamdallah, R. W. (1998). A Contrastive Analysis of English and

Arabic in Relativization. Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics 34, pp

141-152.

Wikborg E. (1985). Unspecified Topic in University Students' Essays. Text 5. 1985:

359- 370.

Witte, S. and L. Faigly. (1981). Coherence and the Writing Quality. College

Composition and Communication, 32: 189-204.

Zhu, Hong. (1992). Cohesion and Coherence in Chinese ESL Writing. Doctoral

dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.

88
 Appendices

Appendix A: Example of errors in cohesion and coherence

1. Errors in cohesive devices

1.1 Excessive use of lexical reiteration

(1) * Working in Abu Dhabi is better than working in USA so I prefer working in Abu

Dhabi because of the income and the language.

(2) * Environmental pollution is one of the most dangerous phenomena that faces the

world today because no one cares about environmental pollution.

(3) * Every person hates devil and every person says that devil is not good because

devil is considered as something bad.

(4) * Forest is considered as a place of evil and a place of darkness and a place of

conflict and a place of mistakes.

(5) * She realized that she is a human being, humans have rights, humans are equal,

humans search independence, humans work to develop themselves.

(6) * The novel is blaming the society for the inequality against woman, the society

stands against the rights of the woman, the society degrades the role of the woman so

the society must gives the woman her rights.

(7) * Abu Dhabi is the right place for you. I encourage you to choose the right place

because Abu Dhabi is considered a place of money.

(8) * Visiting Abu Dhabi is good because visiting Abu Dhabi is a good choice so I

advise you to visit that place which gives you money and stability.

(9) * The situation in USA is different. They have different customs, they have different

culture, they have different life and they have different people.

(10) * Unemployment is a serious problem that faces many countries especially and the

reason behind unemployment ignorance, financial circumstances and political situation

which causes unemployment.

89
(11) * Nowadays technology is a great discovery in our life, we find technology in

different houses, no one in the world can live without technology.

(12) * At the current time we face a very huge development, this development can be

useful and helps us on our life, this development makes our life easy and this

development can be bad in some aspects.

(13) * After Chilling worth followed his wife to Boston, he noticed his wife in the

cupboard to go over her because his wife made adultery.

(14) * The most of the individual at that time as a cause of corruption, the corruption of

the society affects other's behavior and this corruption causes destruction of nation.

(15) * the relationship with others is existence for her because she cannot ensure her

existence by any other way so she uses to keep conscious of her existence.

(16)* USA is a good country where you can find a job. I believe you should travel to

USA because USA is a developed country and a free country.

(17) * Foreign people say that America is a racist country so we think that people will

suffer in America because the American people do not love foreigners.

(18) * Everyone needs to live in a healthy environment. We live in environment that is

full of pollution; in fact we need to clean our environment because environment helps to

enjoy nature.

(19) * Travelling to Abu Dhabi is better than travelling to America so travelling to Abu

Dhabi is a good choice for my friend.

(20) * I advice my friend to choose a country like America because this country is full

of opportunities while the other countries are not as America.

(21) * There are some people who say that working in USA is better because of the high

income and technology therefore working is everything they need in life. I thin working

is not everything in life.

90
(22) * USA is attractive place for you for many reasons. The first attractive reason is its

free type of life. Another attractive reason is to free from any kind of occupation in

Arab countries.

(23) * No one can live without money because money is very important in life.

Therefore you should choose a country which provides you money and a beautiful

house.

(24) * Forest is a place of wrong doing for Hester Pryne. She tries to confess her wrong

doing on the final scaffold scene to all people but she could not confess of her wrong

doing.

(25) * The community according to Brown is divided into two parts, evil community

against faith community.

(26) * People in the world are the cause of pollution. Pollution can affect many

creatures in the sea and also pollution can destroy the wild life.

(27) * The Gulf countries are the richest countries in the world. In fact, the work in the

Gulf countries is a wish for many people so I advise my friend to choose the work in the

Gulf countries.

1.2 Excessive use of "and"

(1) * We have the same religion and the same language and the same traditions and the

same life.

(2) * Working in USA is useless because you can't help your country and the life is

difficult there and the language is difficult and the people are strangers.

(3) * Abu Dhabi has a very high technology and a very high income and a wonderful

life and stability.

(4) * Abu Dhabi in the current time is known of its development and industrial field and

economical filed and can provide different kinds of job.

91
(5) * My friend can provide for his children in USA a school and high standard of life

and stability and peaceful.

(6) * Now people can educate themselves and learn through the internet and chatting

and do exams and play games.

(7) * Internet is useful to students and to researchers and to business men and to doctors.

(8) * There are many ships that carry oils sank in the sea and rivers and caused pollution

and made many problems to our Earth.

(9) * Flashback happens when the writer goes back in order to give us a clear

information and details and examples and incidents.

(10) * There are many kinds of irony: verbal irony and situational irony and dramatic

irony.

(11) * People say that USA is the dream land where your dreams come true and it has

money for all citizens and the income is high and the life is beautiful.

(12) * Our principles make us different from others and we should keep these principles

and we should protect them and share them with our children.

(13) * American dream is much different which includes money and love and freedom

and beauty.

(14) * Through the internet we can connect with others and we can make free calls and

we can use the messenger freely and we can send messages quickly.

(15) * Hester Pryne is the protagonist of "The Scarlet Letter", she is the heroine of the

novel and she s a complex character and she is very intelligent.

(16) * Pearl is married and travelled to Europe and lived there and died there.

(17) * In this essay I will explore narration and tragedy and victims and alienation and

the characteristics for both Gatsby and Kurtz.

(18) * He will live in the country of development and improvement and better life and

higher standard of living.

92
(19) * United States of America is one of the most countries to go and to live in and to

find a job in.

(20) * They copy the assignment and paste it and print it and give it to teachers.

(21) * "The Scarlet Letter" is very shocking and very wonderful and vey excited novel.

(22) * Hester becomes a pregnant and she has a daughter and her name is Pearl and

because of that Hester becomes the eye of the society adulterer woman and the society

forces her to wear the scarlet letter.

(23) * The pollution of air and water from factories and from cars causes many

problems of human beings and animals and can cause many problems in breathing to

people who live in this environment.

(24) * In brief I want to ask responsible people to offer work for graduate people and

increase the employed people and to do good things for the society.

(25) * The job offer from USA can give you a possibility of acquiring a citizenship and

luxurious and expensive lifestyle and high income.

(26) * I advise him to take the job in Abu Dhabi to gain wide experience and money and

school for kids and high ranking life.

(27) * And others say it is the best country that gives the employee their rights and it

give a high income and the life is very beautiful.

(28) * And later on they would travel to the USA and enjoy democracy and freedom.

(29) * And usually this happens through irony and irony they use irony questions in

order to reveal the relationship between art and reality.

(30) * The internet is widely used and it is the only way to connect the world and the

internet also can bridge the gaps between cultures.

(31) * If I were you I would go to Abu Dhabi and work there and I would build myself

and my family too.

93
(32) * The political situation In Palestine is not good. And in this case I would select the

job in USA.

1.3 Under use of connectives

(1) * Travelling to Abu Dhabi has many advantages. It saves money. It makes you

happy. It takes you away from troubles.

(2) * USA is better than Abu Dhabi. It is the land of beauty. It is the land of democracy.

It is land of democracy.

(3) * USA is attractive place for you. It considers the leader of the world.

(4) * Graduate people do not have any offer to work. They do not have any choice to

work.

(5) * Environmental pollution is like a monster invading the world. It causes a lot of

side effects.

(6) * Now people can choose what they want. They can choose the vest place to travel,

they can use the internet to look for jobs.

(7) * Working in USA has disadvantages like lack of religion, make people unaware of

their children, the people belong to different cultures.

(8) * Abu Dhabi would be a better choice for my friends for several reasons, it is a rich

country, it is full of opportunities. It can give you the experience in many fields.

(9) * The job offered in Abu Dhabi offers you different things. It offers a house. It

offers a high income. It offers a good educational system.

(10) * I recommend going to USA. It has many advantages.

94
1.4 Miss use of connectives

(1) * Although its advantages it has disadvantages.

(2) * A job in the USA with a possibility of acquiring a citizenship but a job in Abu

Dhabi with a very high income.

(3) * American people will not deal with you as you like and how they like.

(4) * Abu Dhabi is better for you due of the good income.

(5) * Technology in life has advantages in addition disadvantages.

(6) * They come to Africa in addition to bring civilization for uncivilized people.

(7) * There are several advantages of travelling to Abu Dhabi. First of all, you can get a

high income. Finally, you can communicate with others in Arabic.

(8)* Although its way of attracting others, Abu Dhabi is better than America.

(9) * Abu Dhabi is a famous country. So it is an international city.

(10) * Travelling to America has advantages and disadvantages. The advantages are ----

--------------------------. Secondly the disadvantages are ----------.

(11) * The conflict is because between her and the society.

(12) * The corruption of the society affects others and for example it causes destruction

of the nation.

(13) * However, USA is place where you can find a good job and luxurious life.

(14) * I completely advice my friend to choose Abu Dhabi so for many reasons.

(15) * America provides you with different things. On the contrary, it is the land of

democracy.

(16) * You can get a green card. Also you can get driving license.

(17) * But in USA so you can enjoy freedom.

(18) * Travelling to America is a good choice and travelling to Abu Dhabi is a bad

choice.

(19) * Technology is very important for us. But it has good effects.
95
(20) * America is the best place that you can select for work. Secondly, the work in

America is different.

(21) * Travelling to Abu Dhabi is a good choice for example the income there is very

high.

(22) * Travelling to USA has Advantages. Also travelling to USA has disadvantages.

1.5 Absence of the presupposed item

(1) * They should accept the job which is from Abu Dhabi. He can get a very high

income.

(2) * Technology in modern time enables people to communicate through mobiles.

These can also facilitate the life of the people.

(3) * Pollution is like a monster killing the earth; they have side effects which affect the

human life.

(4) * Unemployment can cause problems in the society. For example, violence will

spread because they do not have anything to do.

(5) * There are many programs like Skype and Messenger. It has advantages and

disadvantages.

(7) * Symbol is a word that points to something else beyond their surface.

(8) * The Arabs have a distinguished culture, so they have to protect our culture and

principles.

(9) * The opportunity in Abu Dhabi that is given to my friend is much better so I advice

them to go to Abu Dhabi.

(10) * In my opinion, there are a lot of advantages for technological devices, so we

should use it in the right way.

(12) *Abu Dhabi has a very high technology and very high income and they should

care about.
96
(13) * The life in America is not easy, in fact, they should think before going to

America.

(14) * When Goodman Brown went to the forest with the devil, he remembered that he

forced to be like the devil. It himself like every person.

(15) * When young Goodman Brown decides to search the devil which associated with

dark and gloom, they think that they find the truth in the forest.

(16) * Nathaniel Hawthorne in his literary work "Young Goodman Brown, tries to

celebrate the conflict with community. These can represent the Puritan society.

(17) * Setting in "Miss Brill" is a very important element to help the reader to

understand the story. These include the place.

(18) * The man all over the world needs to live in a healthy environment. Nowadays

they live in environment full of pollution.

(19) * In summary, the government should work hard to stop pollution. They should ban

all things that cause pollution.

(20) * Unemployment and lack of jobs are serious problems that face many countries

especially Palestine and the reason behind this is the political situation.

(21) * The stage direction is very important. They inform the announcer when to leave

the stage.

1.6 Wrong reference

(1) * Of course, these developments are important in our life like computers, cars,

planes because it saves time and make our life easier.

(2) * When someone wants to travel from country to another, he needs many days to do

this because they travel on foot.

(3) * The graduate people used to stay at street without doing anything. He does not

have any choice.

97
(4) * I advice my friends Tamer and Ali to choose Abu Dhabi because this offer for him

is very nice.

(5) * I am asking why to go to America to increase their population as well as to

increase their industrial factors.

(6) * In my opinion there are a lot of advantages for technological devices. It can

facilitate life.

(7) * "The Great Gatsby" by Fitzgerald and "Heart of Darkness" by Conrad encounter

much the same themes. It represents different ideas.

(8) * The job in Abu Dhabi which offered to my friends provides a house and school for

the kids. He shouldn’t worry about these expenses.

(9) * As the gulf countries, such as Abu Dhabi and Doha are still building itself.

(10) * They put the dirty things anywhere instead of put it in a suitable place.

(11) * Cars are dangerous for environment because of the smoke that comes out of it.

(12) * "A Doll House" play has a message about the role of woman in the society and

their frequent effort for liberation.

(13) * "Scarlet letter" is vey shocking and wonderful novel. The external conflict in

these plays reveals the conflict in the society.

(14) * You should accept the job which is from Abu Dhabi; it will be the best for my

friend.

(15) * Moreover, my friend has the opportunity to put the children in American school

where no language is spoken except English so they don’t have to worry about them.

(16) * In addition, unemployment will cause problems in the society; violence will take

part because they don’t have anything to do except going out and staying in streets.

(17) * The situation in Palestine may push them to leave.

(18) * Pollution can destroy life. These things will make the wild life in danger.

98
(19) * The novel represents the conflict between church and the society. In fact, she

suffers a lot due to the power of the religious men.

2. Errors in coherence

2.1 Disunity of thoughts.

(1) * Travelling to Abu Dhabi has many advantages ------------- I think we have to think

of the choice of America.

(2) * Environmental pollution is one of the most problems that we should consider. The

earth should be treated like a child -------------,

(3) * In addition, we can see the bad effects of smoke that appears in the air of big

cities, in fact, we should know that many of the animals which live in the sea are killed

because of pollution.

(4) * First, Abu Dhabi is known for its quick and state development. The life in Abu

Dhabi is completely different.

(5) * People say that USA is the place where your dreams come true. For example, we

should not think that America is the place where you can have happiness and stability.

(6) * Abu Dhabi is the right place for you my friend. Although it is better to go to Abu

Dhabi, the USA IS a practical choice.

(7) * However, if I were you, I would choose the job in Abu Dhabi. USA is not the right

choice for you.

(8) * Working in Abu Dhabi is better than working in USA because of the income and

the population. You can visit many places in America -------------.

(9) * "The Scarlet Letter" is a very wonderful story. In fact, there are many tragically

incidents in this story.

(10) * Hester Pryne was married a person his name is Chilling Worth. The story talks

about the issue of adultery--------------.

99
(11) * The American literature portrays the individual conflict with the community. The

climax of the story begins with Brown who left the village ------------.

(12) * "The Scarlet Letter" is a story that represents the corruption of the church. The

issue of Hester who married a man --------------------.

(13) * The internet network makes the world a small village. I advise you to think

before travelling to Abu Dhabi.

(14) * There are advantages and disadvantages of using technology. Also, there are

different ways to communicate with people who live outside Palestine --------------.

(15) * The job in Abu Dhabi provides house, car and school for children. In fact, the

weather there is very hot and humid for the people who come from Palestine.

(16) * The United States of America is considered as the western country in which the

Arab people do not like to go there. Many Arab people who live there have a lot of

money ---------.

(17) * Hester Pryne represents the individual conflict with the society. The religious

people control everything in the society.

2.2 Disorganization of ideas and insufficient information.

(Only examples are given here)

(1)* First, I advise you to take the job which has been offered by Abu Dhabi. There are

several advantages of working in Abu Dhabi. Also, the job in Abu Dhabi would be

different to you. Therefore, you should go and work in Abu Dhabi. Moreover, the

government in Abu Dhabi works hard to improve the life there.

(2) * Environmental pollution is like a monster invading the world. In fact, it is one of

the most important problems that we should consider. We should confess that human

beings are responsible of environmental pollution. However, environmental pollution

can also affect the sea life.

100
(3) * USA is the land of freedom and beauty. There are some people say that working in

USA is better than working in Abu Dhabi. The job in Abu Dhabi can provide a very

high income and the job in America can provide you an open life. However, the

population in Abu Dhabi can give you the chance to speak Arabic but still America is

better than Abu Dhabi.

(4) * On the other hand, this technology of the internet sometimes causes bad effect on

the person himself. Internet has advantages and disadvantages. We can find most of the

guys spend most of their time in using the internet. Also they use their cell phones for

the same purpose without paying attention to their schools and universities.

(5) * Slavery and the Indians are the common issue in the American literature. Young

Goodman Brown by Nathaniel Hawthorne portrays the individual conflict with the

community. Goodman Brown went to the forest with the devil; he remembered that he

forced to be like a devil. In the story he speaks about slavery and what his father did

with the people.

(6) * Hester Pryne the protagonist of "The Scarlet Letter" is one of the characters that

was in conflict with the social principles. The religious men in the novel represent the

corrupted life of that age. Later one, Hester becomes able to make the symbol "A"

which stands f or ability. At the end of the novel, Hester believes that the adultery she

committed created a good and experienced woman from her.

3.2 Excessive reliance on repetition of ideas.

(Only examples are given here)

1. * You should accept the job in Abu Dhabi because it is the suitable job for you. In

fact, I advise you to accept the job which is from Abu Dhabi because of the income, the

life and the house. However, you will be absolutely happy if you go there and work

there because the job there is very good.

101
2. * USA is attractive country for you. USA is considers the most attractive place in the

world. If you go to USA, you will enjoy your life because it is the most beautiful

country in the world. The life in USA is completely different from the life in other

countries. Therefore, the life of many people there is different from the life foe example

in Palestine because the life here is very difficult.

3. * One of the most dangerous phenomena that face the world today is environmental

pollution. Because nobody cares about environmental pollution in a correct way. For

example, the pollution of the air and water from the factories and cars can cause

problems for human being and animals. The environmental pollution can destroy the

world if we don’t pay attention to it.

4. * Technology is a great discovery in our life. We can find technology in every aspect

of life. No one can live without technology. Moreover, technology can affect out life

positively and negatively. The discovery of technology has advantages and

disadvantages.

5. * "The Scarlet Letter" represents the individual conflict with the society. Hester

Pryne has suffered a lot as a result with her conflict with the society. Her punishment by

standing on the scaffold in the middle of the town represents her first conflict with the

society.

6. * Internet is an example of modern technology. The internet is a network that can

facilitate our life. There are advantages and disadvantage of using the internet.

Moreover, the internet is the result of modern technology that we cannot live without it.

In addition, the internet is very useful for us and can help us in life.

102
 Appendix B: Please read and score the following essays taking into consideration

Oshima and Hogue's (2006) criteria of achieving coherence:

1. Repeat key nouns: repeat key nouns or use synonyms or expressions with the same

meaning.

2. Use consistent pronouns: make sure that you use the same person and number

throughout the paragraph.

3. Use transition signals to link ideas: they are like traffic signs; they tell you when to

go forward, turn around, slow down and stop.

4. Arrange your ideas in logical order: arrange your ideas in some kind of order that

is logical to a reader accustomed to the English way of writing.

Note: 1 = the lowest mark

10 = the highest mark

103
Appendix C: Please read the following essays, then answer the questions below by

circling the appropriate numeral.

Note: 1 = the lowest mark

5= the highest mark
(1)Has the student made his/her contribution relevant to the development of the topic?

1 2 3 4 5

(2) Has the student made his/her contribution as informative as required? Are the ideas

adequately explained?

1 2 3 4 5

(3) Has the student made his/her message clear for the reader?

1 2 3 4 5

104
‫‪Appendix D: Permission for collecting the data‬‬

‫ﺑﺴﻢ اﷲ اﻟﺮﺣﻤﻦ اﻟﺮﺣﯿﻢ‬

‫‪Hebron University‬‬

‫اﻟﻤﻮﺿﻮع‪ :‬ﺟﻤﻊ ﻣﻘﺎﻻت أدﺑﯿﺔ وﻟﻐﻮﯾﺔ ﻟﻄﻼب اﻟﺠﺎﻣﻌﺎت اﻟﻔﻠﺴﻄﯿﻨﯿﺔ‬

‫اﻟﺴﺎدة‪:‬‬

‫‪.1‬رﺋﯿﺲ ﻗﺴﻢ اﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻻﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﺑﯿﺮزﯾﺖ‬

‫‪ .2‬رﺋﯿﺲ ﻗﺴﻢ اﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻻﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﺑﯿﺖ ﻟﺤﻢ‬

‫‪ .3‬رﺋﯿﺲ ﻗﺴﻢ اﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻻﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ اﻟﻘﺪس‬

‫ﺗﺤﯿﺔ ﻃﯿﺒﺔ وﺑﻌﺪ‪:‬‬

‫أرﺟﻮ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻀﺮﺗﻜﻢ ﻣﺴﺎﻋﺪة اﻟﻄﺎﻟﺐ ﺑﺎﺳﻢ اﺣﻤﺪ أﺑﻮ ﺷﺮخ ﺑﺠﻤﻊ ﻣﻘﺎﻻت أدﺑﯿﺔ وﻟﻐﻮﯾﺔ ﻟﻄﻼب ﻗﺴﻢ اﻟﻠﻐﺔ‬

‫اﻻﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺘﻜﻢ اﻟﻤﻮﻗﺮة ﻋﻠﻤﺎ ﺑﺄن ھﺬا اﻹﺟﺮاء ھﻮ أﺣﺪ اﻷﺳﺎﺳﯿﺎت اﻟﻤﺒﻨﯿﺔ ﻋﻠﯿﮫ رﺳﺎﻟﺔ اﻟﻤﺎﺟﺴﺘﯿﺮ اﻟﺨﺎﺻﺔ‬

‫ﺑﺎﻟﻄﺎﻟﺐ ﻓﻲ ﺑﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ اﻟﺪراﺳﺎت اﻟﻌﻠﯿﺎ )اﻟﻠﻐﻮﯾﺎت اﻟﺘﻄﺒﯿﻘﯿﺔ( ﺣﯿﺚ أن ﻣﻮﺿﻮع رﺳﺎﻟﺘﮫ ﺑﻌﻨﻮان‪:‬‬

‫‪Cohesion and Coherence in the Essay Writing of Palestinian College Students‬‬

‫ﺗﺠﺪر اﻹﺷﺎرة ﺑﺄن ﻋﯿﻨﺔ اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ ﺳﺘﺴﺘﺨﺪم ﻷﻏﺮاض اﻟﺒﺤﺚ اﻟﻌﻠﻤﻲ ﻓﻘﻂ‪.‬‬

‫وﺷﻜﺮا ﻟﺘﻌﺎوﻧﻜﻢ‬

‫رﺋﯿﺲ ﻗﺴﻢ اﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻻﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ‬

‫اﻟﺪﻛﺘﻮر ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﻓﺮاح‬

‫‪105‬‬
Appendix E: Samples of students' essays

106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114