Đề tài Phân tích lỗi trong cách sử dụng phương tiện liên kết văn bản trong bài viết của sinh viên chuyên anh năm thứ nhất tại trường đại học thăng long

Vietnam national university, Hanoi College of foreign languages ====***=== trần thị hải bình An error analysis on the use ofcohesive devices in writing by freshmen majoring in English at thang long university phân tích lỗi trong cách sử dụng phương tiện liên kết văn bản trong bài viết của sinh viên chuyên anh năm thứ nhất tại trường đại học thăng long Course work Field: Methodology Supervisor: vũ thúy quỳnh, m.a hanoi, December 2005 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my deepest thanks firstly to my supervisor, Mrs. Vũ Thuý Quỳnh, M.A. who has enthusiastically helped and encouraged me to finish the research project. Without her experienced guidance and valuable comments, my research would still be far from finished. I am also indebted to her for her substantial contributions in proofreading and help me make necessary changes. My gratitude is also sent to all of my instructors in my M.A. courses at Post-Graduate Studies, College of Foreign Languages, Vietnam National University, Hanoi. Their precious and professional lectures and tutoring have helped me a great deal in understanding profound concepts of the field in English teaching methodology while I attended the courses. Last but not least, I appreciate constant supports from my colleagues at Thang Long University, my beloved family and my friends. Table of contents Acknowledgement Table of contents List of tables, charts and figures Chapter One: Introduction 1.1. Reasons for choosing the topic 1.2. Objectives of the study 1.3. Scope of the study 1.4. Significance of the study 1.5. Methods of the study 1.6. Organization of the study Chapter Two: Literature review Factors affecting language learning 2.2. Errors analysis 2.3. The notion of errors in language learning 2.4. Errors vs. mistakes 2.5. Causes of errors in language learning 2.5.1. First language interference 2.5.2. Causes independent from first language 2.6. The concept of cohesion 2.7. Cohesive devices in writing 2.8. Types of cohesion 2.8.1. Grammatical cohesion 2.8.2. Lexical cohesion 2.9. Summary Chapter Three: Research Methodology 3.1. Subjects 3.2. Instruments of data collection 3.3. Method of data analysis 3.4. Summary Chapter Four: Presentation and Analysis of Data 4.1. Errors in the use of reference 4.1.1. Errors in the use of demonstrative reference 4.1.2. Errors in the use of personal reference 4.1.3. Errors in thes use of comparative reference 4.2. Errors in the use of conjunction 4.2.1. Errors in the use of adversative conjunction 4.2.2. Errors in the use of causal conjunction 4.2.3. Errors in the use of additive conjunction 4.3. Errors in the use of lexical cohesion 4.4. Summary Chapter Five: Implications Chapter Six: Conclusion BibliographyAppendices i ii iv 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 5 5 6 6 7 8 8 9 10 11 11 12 17 18 19 19 20 20 21 22 23 23 29 30 32 33 34 36 36 38 39 44 LIST OF TABLES, CHARTS AND FIGURES Table 2.1 Types of cohesion at linguistic level. Table 2.2. Types of grammatical and lexical cohesion Table 2.3. Personal reference Table 2.4. Demonstrative reference. Table 2.5. Comparative reference Table 4.1. The number of errors in the use of cohesive devices Table 4.2. Errors and their causes Table 4.3. Errors in the use of demonstrative reference Table 4.4. Errors in the use of the definite article. Table 4.5. Errors in the omission of ‘the’ Chart 4.1. Sources of errors Figure 2.1. Types of reference Figure 2.2. The process of recognizing and identifying errors CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1.1. REASONS FOR CHOOSING THE TOPIC Since Vietnam has opened its door to the rest of the world, more and more people with their wish to join world trends have rushed to learn foreign languages, especially English. This demand in language learning has brought about a great amount of positive changes in language teaching in Vietnam. Language teachers have looked for and tried different methods and techniques in teaching and learning in order to find the effective ones. The effectiveness of a teaching method or technique is reflected in the learners’ language competence that is their abilities to perform the four language skills: Reading, Listening, Writing and Speaking. Amongst these skills the two productive skills, writing and speaking, are considered more difficult than the others as the learners need to use the language to convey their messages comprehensibly and accurately in real life communication. When a message is unsuccessfully conveyed, the factor, which is most likely to be blamed for is errors in the use of the language. It is natural in language teaching that learners make mistakes and errors when writing in English. How to cope with and when to give feedback to these errors are vital in teaching language as it may either result in motivation or discouragement in language learning. Some teachers’ concern is directed to contrastive analyses of Vietnamese and English with the hope to predict and prevent errors before they appear. This theory has been supported by Lado (1957). However, Richards (1971) in his research found out that apart from the first language interference, there were other causes which are products of intra-lingual analogies such as overgeneralization, incomplete application of rules or ignorance of rule restrictions as well as false concepts hypothesized. So far, there has been scarily any research on the causes of errors in students’ writing in English in Vietnamese universities. Therefore, I am attempted to carry out a research study applying error analysis in clarifying learners’ errors in the use of cohesive devices in writing at Thang Long University as “cohesive devices are crucial in writing” ( Zamel,1983:1). 1.2. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY The purpose of this study is to obtain quantitative data for the investigation the types and causes of errors in the use of cohesive devices in writing by first year undergraduate students majoring in English at Thang Long University. Thus, it aims to seek answers to the following questions: 1. What are common errors in the use of cohesive devices in the students’ writing? and 2. What are the major causes of these errors? The answers to these questions will serve as help in giving recommendations to reducing and preventing the problems of coherence in students’ writing. 1.3. SCOPE OF THE STUDY It is believed that different types of learners committed different types of errors. Also, the type of errors are various according to different stages in learning process. Errors are made in both of the productive skills: writing and speaking. Due to the limitation of time, the study is confined itself to errors in the use of cohesive devices in the writing by Vietnamese pre-intermediate students. 1.4. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY Many studies on errors have been carried out in the field of teaching English in the world. Researchers like Zamel (1983), Richard (1971) and Corder (1967) among others emphasized the importance of errors in theory as well as in practice of foreign language learning and teaching. According to Corder (1967), errors are traced to their sources are beneficial in different ways. Firstly, they help language teachers know how much progress a learner has made in the target language, in which language area he needs help and what sort of help he needs. Secondly, they provide researchers with evidence in language learning process; therefore, researchers through errors discover strategies applied in acquiring a language. Apart from that, errors can serve as good feedback to learners for self-adjustment. Despite these benefits, few studies on errors derived from Vietnamese learners have been made. For these reasons, this study should be conducted to find out types of errors, specifically errors in the use of cohesive devices in Vietnamese learners’ writing and what their causes are. It is hoped that the findings of the research would be useful to teachers as well as learners of English. Once the type and the causes of a particular error are properly found, teachers will have a better understanding of students’ problem in using cohesive devices in writing and can develop proper solutions. 1.5. METHODS OF THE STUDY The subjects of the study are two classes of first year undergraduate students at Thang Long University. They are at the age ranged from 18 to 19. Their major at the university is English. Though they come from different areas in the country, they are considered at the same level of English as they all learned English at high school and have passed the university entrance examination on three subjects including English. This is intended to be a quantitative research study using compositions as a technique of eliciting data for the analysis, statistical counting as measurement of results. Students’ papers were collected every week. Any errors in the use of cohesive devices were found and classified according to the cohesion-category by Haliday and Hasan (1976). Then the occurrence frequency of each error type was counted. The data and the list of the errors was the source for the analysis. 1.6. ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY The study is composed of six chapters. Chapter one gives reasons for choosing the topic, objectives and methods of the study. It also narrows the scope of the study and briefly presents an overall out-line of the research study. Chapter two reviews the literature related to the study. Firstly, it presents the factors affecting language learning which is divided into two types: external and internal. Secondly, error analysis and errors in language learning are discussed. The literature related to errors is given; it includes the notion of errors in language leaning, the distinction between errors and mistakes, main causes of errors. Lastly, cohesion in writing is mentioned, it consists of the concept of cohesion, cohesive devices and types of cohesion. Chapter three describes in detail the research methodology which comprises the information of the subjects, instruments of data collection and methods of data analysis. Chapter four presents the statistical results and the analysis of the data. The statistical results are shown in the tables which are the basement to determine the causes of each type of errors in the use of cohesive devices in writing. Chapter five named Implication with the recommendations for correcting errors in the use of cohesive devices in writing, suggestions for teaching in order to prevent and eliminate these errors. Chapter six closes the study with a conclusion which gives a summary of the whole study and provides suggestions for further studies. CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW In this chapter, the literature related to errors and cohesive devices in writing is discussed in order to provide the study with the sufficient theory background. 2.1. FACTORS AFFECTING LANGUAGE LEARNING On the basis of language learning process theories, it is clear that language learning bear a lot of influences and the factors affecting language learning are categorized into two types: external factors and internal factors. External factors include: the first language, language environment and the formal teaching. First of all, the mother tongue may be more or less helpful for the learners of a new language as they have already learned how to do with that language. Universal features in languages can assist learners to learn a new language. On the basis of behavior psychology, Lado (1957) and Fries (1965) suggested two types of transfers: transfers are positive when the first language and the target language share similar features, negative when there are different features in the two languages. Language environment is also of great significance to success in learning a foreign language. Lastly, the role of formal teaching was asserted in the research by Littlewood (1980) when he proposed that certain techniques or methods proved to be relevant in particular groups of learners. Dulay et al. (1982) named two internal factors: the filter and the monitor. According to Dulay, language learners do not acquire what is exposed to them, but select what they find suitable, relevant and interesting. Motivation, as he defined, is understood as “incentive, the need or the desire to learn the second language” (Dulay et al., 1982:47), if motivation is low, failure is likely reported. “The monitor is the part of the learners’ internal system that appears to be responsible for conscious linguistic processing” (Dulay et al., 1982:58). It appears when learners try to learn or to apply a linguistic rule or structure or when he is given tasks requiring grammatical judgments. Foreign language learning are influenced both outside from teaching and learning environment, and inside from what and how learners process the language. 2.2. ERROR ANALYSIS In 1970s and 80s, a large number of papers on error analysis were published. Subsequently, a more positive attitude towards errors has emerged. In the past, errors were deemed and errors now are viewed as natural and important part of learning process because they can yield information about learning language. This positive attitude towards errors is especially important in the wake of the Communicative Language Learning and Teaching. Many researches on errors in second language learning have been done by several scholars like Corder (1967), Richard (1992) and Selinker (1992). Error Analysis is the identification, description and explanation of errors either in its spoken or written form. Following Corder (1967), Choon (1993) gives some suggestions on carrying out an error analysis research. According to her, one has to identify the errors first, then the errors are classified according to categories such as: semantic errors (wrong words, wrong forms, etc.), grammatical errors (tense, preposition, etc.), global errors and local errors. She suggested that “the system of classifying errors should be flexible” (Choon, 1993: 2). The last step is determining how much they deviate from the target language norm, to what extent they affect communication. Error Analysis can help language teachers manner the specific and common language problems students have so that he or she can know what should be focused more in a syllabus. Choon (1993) advised teachers to conduct Error Analysis at the beginning of the course when the items have not been fully learnt and remedy these first. By classifying errors that learners made, researchers could learn a great deal about the second language acquisition process by inferring the strategies that the learners were adopting. For learners themselves, errors are ‘indispensable’ since the making of errors can be regarded as a device the learner uses in order to learn (Selinker, 1992:150). 2.3. THE NOTION OF ERRORS IN FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNING On the basis of theory, Behaviorists view errors as symptom of ineffective teaching or as evidence of failure. They also view it as being due to largely to the first language interference. When errors occur they are remedied by a bombardment of correct forms which can be achieved by the intensive drilling or over teaching. On the other hand, Mentalists , who following cognitive principles, suggested that learners process the new data in his mind and come up with a set of rules that produce new patterns in the target language. Consequently, errors are inevitable; in fact, they even become a part in learning process and developing competence. Errors are not regarded as a sign of failure, but evidence that the learner is working toward the correct rules. The attitude of Mentalists is positive toward errors in language learning, it removes the anxiety caused by the behaviorist in classroom. Richards et al. (1974) believed that both children learning the first language, and children and adults learning foreign languages likely to produce errors of following types: The omission of grammatical morphemes The double marking of a given semantic feature The over generalized application of irregular rules The use of one form for several required The wrong word ordering 2.4. ERRORS VS. MISTAKES The distinction between “errors” and “mistakes” has been given by many linguists though it is impossible to indicate any sharp differentiation. According to Klassen (1991), the term “error” is used to refer to a form of structure that a native speaker deems unacceptable because of the lack of language competence. Chomsky (1965) initiated the distinction when he suggested that there were two types of errors: one resulting from verbal performance factors, the other from inadequate language competence. Later, Corder (1967) named the former mistakes and the later error. Mistakes are said to be unsystematic in nature and correctable when attention is drawn to its producers. Errors, on the other hand, refer to any systematic deviations from the rules of the target language system. In short, errors are caused by lack of knowledge about the target language or by incorrect hypothesis about it; mistakes are caused by temporary lapses of memory, confusion, and carelessness and so on. If we are uncertain whether one of the learners has made an error or a mistake, the crucial test must be: can he correct himself when challenged? if he can, probably it is a mistake; if not, it is an error. 2.5. Causes of errors in foreign language learning There are a number of reasons for how learners make errors; they take root from both social factors and cognitive factors (Myles, 2002). Basically, two types of causes are classified: (1) first language interference and (2) causes independent of the first language interference. 2.5.1. First language interference The notion of first language interference is understood as negative transfer from the first language to the target language, it is the way of learning new habits is hindered by previously learnt ones. Lado (1957) claims that “errors are originated in the learners’ disposition to transfer forms and meanings, and the distribution of forms and meanings of their native language and culture to the foreign language and culture” (1957:1). Myles (2002) considers transfer an important cognitive factor related to writing errors .The study of transfer involves the study of errors (negative transfer), facilitation (positive transfer), avoidance of the target language forms, and their over-use (Ellis, 1994). Corder (1967) observed language learners make hypotheses about the language they are learning, tried to compare it with their native language, then came to the conclusion that errors in foreign language reflected the first language’s features. Later in 1978 he recasts interference as learners’ reliance on the first language as their strategy of communication, which means learners use literal translation as a learning strategy to overcome their ignorance. Why do language learners apply their native language in second language acquisition? The answer lies in four major factors. Firstly, it is the performance pressure. In class room setting, the learners may be forced to perform tasks they do not want or their linguistic competence fail to meet; therefore, they fall back on the language most familiar to them that is their mother tongue. Windowson (1990) realized that when learners write under pressure, they may rely on systematic resources from their native language for the achievement and synthesis of meaning. Secondly, the limited foreign language environment also contributes to errors in language learning. The lack of natural linguistic inputs with native speakers results in learners’ recourse on their language. Moreover, language tasks assigned for the learners have a significance affect on their verbal production. Among these tasks, translation is said to “increase the foreign language learners’ reliance on first language structures” (Dulay et al., 1982:110). Lastly, Dulay et al. (1982) considered the monitor as “an important factor associated with the learner’s use of foreign language acquisition” (1982:110). Learners tend to think in the first language and attempt to put the idea in the target language. Thus, the first language interference takes place because of four factors: performance pressure, limited language environment, manner of eliciting verbal performance and the monitor use. Myles (2002) defined the above four factors as social factors affecting writing in foreign language. These factors are closely related to learners’ attitudes, motivations and goals. “Research based on direct and indirect measures generally shows that learners with positive attitudes, motivation, concrete goals will have attitude reinforced if they experience success. Likewise, learners’ negative attitudes may be strengthened by lack of success or by failure” (2002: 2). He concluded that learners’ attitudes, motivations and goals can explain why some foreign language writers perform better than others. French (1958) when looking for common errors in English wrote: The fact that the errors are common indicates that they have a common cause. That common root is not to be found in a wide variety of languages exhibiting innumerable differences in syntax, accidence and idiom. Explanation does not lies in cross-association and instinctive translation of the mother tongue, but in the usages of English itself; for these usages provide the only factor which is common to all regions, all students and all methods (1958: 7) 2.5.2. Causes independent from the first language Causes independent of the first language include: overgeneralization, false concepts hypothesized, incomplete application of rules, cross association, and fossilization. Overgeneralization: According to Jakobovist (1969), overgeneralization is the application of previous available strategies in new situations. Richard (1974), Jain (1969) and Littlewood (1980) defined the term “intra-lingual interference”. Littlewood (1980) suggests that overgeneralization and transfer have the same strategy; the difference is the employment of knowledge of the foreign language in the former and of the first language in the latter. False conceptualization: Learners’ faulty understanding of distinctions of target language items leads to false conceptualization, Richard (1971) blames poor presentation or presentation based on contrastive approach for the confusion such as the use of verbs “come / go”, “was / is”, of past and present markers. Incomplete application of rules: Richard (1971) noted down two factors leading to incomplete application of rules as the use of question in classroom as elicitation techniques and learners’ interest in communication which helps them to achieve efficient communication without a mastery of the target language rules. Cross association: The notion of cross association is proposed by George (1972). It is different from overgeneralization in the way that interference does not come from the prior learning items, but from the adverse direction. George (1972) wrote “cross-association is the phenomenon of mutual interference between partially learned items, neither being inhibited but one or both being affected by the other” (1972:153). Fossilization: “Fossilization is referred to as a phenomenon that takes place as a learner internalizes an incorrect form” (Brown et al., 1987: 186). This is believed to exist in adolescents and adults’ pronunciation, and also manifests in some syntactic structures or vocabulary a learner uses. Three factors contribute to this phenomenon: mother tongue influence, communication needs, and teachers’ feedback. Sometimes it is difficult to decide exactly which process is applied in a certain error. Littlewood (1980:29) concluded that many processes might operate simultaneously and reinforce each other in causing the learners to produce errors. 2.6. THE CONCEPT OF COHESION Texts, sequences of sentences or utterances which seem to hang together, contain what are called text-forming devices. These devices are words or phrases which enable speakers or writers to establish relationships across sentence or utterance boundaries, and help to tie sentences in a text together. According to Yule (1996), a text is usually considered to have a certain structure which depends on factors quite different from those required in the structure of a single sentence; some factors are described in terms of cohesion, or the ties and connections which exist within a text. Renkema (1993) considers cohesion as the connection which results when the interpretation of a textual element dependant on another element in the text. In short, that texts cohere or stick together, “have texture and this is what distinguishes it from something that is not a text” due to the help of cohesive devices. Schiffrin (1978) defines cohesive devices as “clues used by speakers and hearers to find the meanings which underlie surface utterance” (1978:9). Halliday and Hasan (1976) regard a text ‘as a semantic unit: a unit not of form but of meaning’ (1976: 2). They describe cohesion as a semantic concept that refers to relation of meaning existing within a text, not as a structural unit. Therefore, their use of the term cohesion refers specifically to non-structure text forming relations and it often occurs where the interpretation of some element in the discourse is dependent on that of another. Their focus is on the cohesive ties between sentences because they are the only source of textual, while within the sentence there are structural relations as well. 2.7. COHESIVE DEVICES IN WRITING In writing, cohesive devices are crucial for they turn separate clauses, sentences, and paragraphs into connected prose, signaling the relationships between ideas, and making obvious and visible the writer’s “line of thought” (Boadhead and Berlin, 1981:306). Researchers have pointed out that these ties are an important property of writing quality (Witte and Faigleiy, 1981). In fact, these ties may be essential for preserving author’s meaning (Raimes,1979). While native speakers of English generally learn to use these cohesive elements as they do other aspects of language, English language learners seem to have great difficulties in mastering them. Bacha and Hanania (1980) found that learners have many problems with cohesive devices in writing. 2.8. TYPES OF COHESION Halliday and Hasan (1976) give the most comprehensive description analysis of cohesive devices five major types of cohesive ties: reference, substitution, ellipsis and conjunction and lexical ties. The first four types are grouped as grammatical cohesion and the later is lexical cohesion. Table 2.1: Types of cohesion at linguistic level Linguistic level at which “phoric” relation is established Type of cohesion Semantic Grammatical Lexicogrammatical Lexical Reference Substitution and Ellipsis Lexical cohesion ( Halliday and Hasan, 1976: 318) Conjunction is believed on the borderline of the two. However, it is better to put it in the group of grammatical cohesion as it is mainly grammatical with a lexical component inside. Types of cohesion in each group are given out in details as follows: Table 2.2: Types of Grammatical and Lexical Cohesion GRAMMATICAL COHESION LEXICAL COHESION Reference Exphoric Reference Endophoric Reference Personal Demostrative Comparative Substitution Nominal Substitution Verbal Substitution Clausal Substitution Ellipsis Nominal Ellipsis Verbal Ellipsis Clausal Ellipsis Conjunction Additive Adversative Causal Temporal Others Reiteration Same word/Repetition Synonymy/ Near-synonym Superordinate General words Collocation (Adapted from Haliday and Hasan, 1976) 2.8.1. Grammatical cohesion Referential cohesion According to Haliday and Hasan (1976), there is referential cohesion in every language, they are “certain items which have the property of reference (…), instead of being interpreted semantically in their own right, they make reference to something else for their interpretations” (1976: 31). In English these items are personals, demonstratives and comparatives. By contrasting Exophora, or Exophoric reference with Endophoric as a general name for reference within the text, Haliday and Hasan make the distinction between situational and textual reference clear. Reference: [ situational] [textual] exophora endophora [to preceding text] [to following text] anaphora cataphora Figure 2. 1: Types of reference (Source: Haliday and Hasan, 1976: 33) Exophora is situational reference refering to a thing as identified in the context of situation and Endophora is textual reference refering to a thing as indentified in the surrounding text. As general rule, reference items may be exophoric or endophoric, if endophoric, they may be anaphoric or cataphoric. Anaphoric and cataphoric reference indicate two different ways in which reference items can function within a text. Anaphoric reference points the reader or listener ‘backwards’ to a previously mentioned entity, process or state of affairs. In the following example, the underlined words are anaphoric reference. Example: - The schoolmaster was leaving the village, and everybody seemed sorry. The miller lended him the small tilted cart and horse to carry his goods. Cataphoric reference points the reader or listeners forward _ it draws us further into the text in order to identify the elements to which the reference items refer. They in the example is cataphoric reference as readers have to read on, and are given their identities in the second sentence. Example: - They pressed round him in ragged fashion to take their money. Andy, Dave, Phil, Stephen, Bob. Haliday and Hasan (1976) classify three sub-types of referential cohesion: personal, demonstrative and comparative. These various devices enable the writer or speaker to make multiple references to people and things within a text. Personal references are reference by means of function in the speech situation, through catergory of person. These items are expressed through pronouns and determiners. They serve to identify individuals and objects that are named at some other points in the text. Table 2. 3 : Personal reference Semantic catergory Existential Possessive Grammatical function Head Modifier Class noun (pronoun) Determiner I me you we us he him she her they them it one mine yours ours his hers theirs [its] my your our his her their its one’s (Source: Haliday and Hasan, 1976: 38) Demonstrative references are references by means of location, on a scale of proximity, expressed through determiners and adverbs. These items can represent a single word or phrase, or much longer chunks of text _ ranging across several paragraphs or even several pages. Table 2. 4: Demonstrative reference Semantic catergory Selective Non-selective Grammatical function Modifier/Head Adjunct Modifier Class Determiner Adverb determiner this these that those Here [now] There then The (Source: Haliday and Hasan, 1976: 38) Comparative references are indirect references by means of identity or similarity, expressed through adjectives and adverbs and serve to compare items within a text. Table 2. 5 : Comparative reference Grammatical function Modifier: Deictic/Epithet Submodifier/Adjunct Class Adjective Adverb same identical equal similar additional other different else identically similarly likewise so such differently otherwise better, more etc [comparative adjectives and quantifiers] so more less equally (Source: Haliday and Hasan, 1976: 39) Substitution Substitution is the replacement of one item by another, as indicated in the Figure 1, the distinction between substitution and reference is that substitution is the relation in the wording rather than in the meaning. There are three types of substitution_ nominal, verbal and clausal. They are the words, which can only be interpreted in relation to what has gone before. Haliday and Hasan (1976) give out the following list of the items that occur as substitutes: Nominal: one, ones; same Verbal: do Clausal: so, not The following underlined words are examples of substitution: Examples: - There are some new books on the shelf. These ones have been given by my uncle. đ Nominal substitution - So do you.đ Verbal substitution - I think so. đ Clausal substitution Ellipsis Ellipsis occurs when some essential structural element is omitted from a sentence or clause and can only be recovered by referring to an element in the preceding text. “Ellipsis can be interpreted as that form of substitution in which the item is replaced by nothing” (Haliday and Hasan, 1976: 88). Consider the following discourse fragment illustrates for the point: Example: - Mary: I prefer the green It is impossible to tell from the utterance what Mary prefers: the green dress, hat, or bag if what is said before is not known (for example: Sylvia: I like the blue hat). Therefore, the green is a elliptical nominal group As with substitution, there are three types of ellipsis: nominal, verbal and clausal. In the following examples, the ellipsis, which have been left out and marked by (0). Example: - My kids are very naughty. Both (0) are too small. đ Nominal ellipsis -A: Have you been working? B: Yes, I have (0) đ Verbal ellipsis - A: Tom is staying for dinner! B: Is he? He didn’t tell me (0). đ Clausal ellipsis Conjunction Conjunction differs from reference, substitution and ellipsis in that it is not a device for reminding the reader of previously mentioned entities, actions and states of affairs. In other words, it is not an anaphoric relation. It is a cohesive device because it signals relationships that can only be understood through reference to other parts of the text. Reference, substitution and ellipsis are clearly grammatical as they involve closed systems presenting simple options of presence or absence, and systems such as those of person, number, and proximity and degree of comparison. The cohesion of conjunction can be interpreted in terms of either experiential function of language that is the relation between the meanings in the sense of representations of content, our experience of external reality or the interpersonal function of language which is known as the relation between meanings in the sense of representations of speaker’s own idea about the situation. Haliday and Hasan (1976) named these relations: external and internal respectably. The two types of conjunctive relation can be exploited whenever conjunction is used as a mean of creating text as the line between the two is not always a clear cut. Basically, there are four main types of conjunction: temporality, causality, addition and adversity. Adversative conjunctions such as however, on the other hand, etc. are adversative because the information in the following sentence of a text moderates or qualifies the information in the preceding. Additive conjunctions signal the presentation of addition information such as and, moreover, in addition to, etc. Temporal conjunctions such as first, then, after that, etc. express the relationships which exit when the events in a text are related in terms of the timing of their occurrence Causal conjunctions interpret the relationship between the cause and consequence such as because, because of, for, etc. 2.8.2. Lexical cohesion Lexical cohesion occurs when two words in a text are semantically related in some way, in other words they are related in terms of their meaning. There are two major categories of lexical cohesion: reiteration and collocation. Reiteration includes repetition, synonym, super-ordinate, and general words. The role of reiterations in the text is referring back to the previously mentioned entity; thus, they fulfill a similar semantic function to cohesive reference. Collocation can cause major problems for discourse analysis because it includes all those items in a text that are semantically related in some cases. This type of lexical cohesion, according to Haliday and Hasan (1976), ‘is achieved through the association of lexical items that regularly co-occur’ (1976: 284). It can be implied that collocation is expressed through open class items. Any pair of lexical items which are in some way associated with each other in the language is capable to bring about cohesion. The cohesive effect of these pair does not depend much on any systematic semantic relationship as on the tendency to share the same lexical environment. This effect even builds long cohesive chains across sentence boundaries. Therefore, there is no limit to these items; this means it is difficult to establish sets of regularly co-occurring words and phrases. 2.9. SUMMARY This chapter has presented briefly the literature, which is relevant for the study. According to Lado (1957), Fries (1965), Littlewood (1980) and Dulay et al. (1982), foreign language learning are influenced both outside from learning and teaching environment, and inside from what and how learners process the language. Affected by these factors, learners’ errors are inevitable. It is error analysis which helps to turn these errors to the benefit of learning and teaching foreign language. This has been proved by many studies on errors by Coder (1967), Richard (1992), Selinker (1992) and Choon (2002). When analyzing errors, it is necessary to distinguish mistakes and errors. The former are caused by the lack of knowledge about the target language and the latter by temporally lapses of memory, confusion or carelessness. Causes of errors are also presented in two main categories: First language interference and causes independent from the first language. The focus of the study is on errors in the use of cohesive devices so the concept of cohesion, the importance of cohesion in writing and the comprehensive description analysis of cohesive devices by Haliday and Hasan (1976) are included in this chapter. CHAPTER THREE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY This chapter describes the subjects, instruments of data collection and methods of data analysis of the study in detail. SUBJECTS The subjects of the study involved in this study were two classes of 42 first year undergraduate students majoring in English at Thang Long University. There were 85 first year undergraduate students majoring in English at the University. These 85 students were randomly divided into four classes at the beginning of the academic year. In terms of the length of learning time, they all had spent two and a half months taking part in courses for students majoring in English at the university apart from three years of learning English at high school. Thus, they were likely at the same level in English as they had passed the entrance examination to the university and this examination was on three subjects including English. Their English level was equal to the pre-intermediate. Also, the first year students were chosen as subjects of the study because they had not learnt cohesive devices systematically until last semester of the first academic year. Though they had already gained some knowledge of English during school time, they did not have full understanding and be able to use cohesive devices correctly in writing as in high school the focus of learning English is more on grammar than on writing. In the situation that two teachers were responsible for writing lessons in these fours classes and each of them taught had lessons in two classes every week, two classes which were taught by one teacher were chosen; this factor helped to make sure that the teaching and leaning condition was likely similar in two classes. The result of the research is hoped to help teachers have focuses in the following semester when cohesive devices are taught in grammar lesson. In general, the subjects were homogeneous in their age as they all were first year undergraduate students with their age ranged from 18 to 19. At present, they all share the same learning conditions and have learnt in the same cultural background. 3.2. INSTRUMENTS OF DATA COLLECTION Errors researchers have applied a variety of ways to provoke errors from learners of foreign language. They, for example, ask the subjects to translate selected sentences or passages into the target language, to rewrite the sentences with guided words or phrases, or tell a story by looking at pictures. All these techniques are done under control. With the idea that errors will come up spontaneously in the process of learning, free compositions were collected during the semester of 9 weeks as a mean of eliciting natural errors. These compositions selected did not include the writing tests as the students were affected by the psychological factors. During the semester under the study, the teacher was asked to set a rule in her writing classes: each student had to pass their final version to any other student in class before handing it in to the teacher, this rule helped to extract only errors from students’ writing. 3.3. METHODS OF DATA ANALYSIS This research was conducted as a quantitative study. The errors were measured in terms of the frequency of occurrence in various forms of cohesive devices and percentages of the different kinds of errors in the total number of errors were established from this occurrence frequency. The techniques employed in the analysis process are: identifying, labeling, classifying, and transferring to indexes. The procedure was carried out with four steps. First of all, all of the papers were read carefully, deviated forms or structures in the use of cohesive devices were identified and marked. These forms or structures were included those which were wrongly corrected by other students and the model of recognizing and identifying errors by Coder (1975) was applied in this step. (Please Figure 3. 1 for the process of recognizing and identifying errors). Then, an interpretation was made to reconstruct what the subjects intended to express in their writing in order to decide if the form or structure was really erroneous. Having been labeled as wrong use of definite article, conjunction, etc. in accordance with the classification of cohesive devices by Haliday and Hasan (1976), the errors were transferred to separate indexes according to their class of cohesive devices. Finally, occurrence frequency counting was made for each type of errors. The outcomes were put forward for comparison. Is sentence superficially well-formed in terms of the grammar of the target language? Yes Does a normal interpretation according to the rules of the target language make sense in the context? Yes Sentence not apparently erroneous but may be right by chance Hold in store for possible further investigation Sentence is overly erroneous Is learner available for consultation? No Sentence is covertly erroneous No Can a plausible interpretation be put on sentence in context? Obtain from him authoritative interpretation and make authoritative reconstruction of sentence in target language No yes Make plausible reconstruction of sentence in target language No Is mother tongue of learner known No Hold sentence in store yes Translate sentence literally info first language. Is plausible interpretation in context plausible? yes No Compare reconstructed sentence with original erroneous sentence to locate error Translate first language back into target language to provide plausible reconstruction yes IN Figure 2 : The process of recognizing and identifying errors (Extracted from ‘Error Analysis’. Papers in Applied Linguistics Vol.2, edited by Allen, J.P.B and Corder, S.Pit. London: OUP. 1975: 129) CHAPTER FOUR PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA Applying the methods and instruments presented in the previous chapter, the necessary data has been collected. The tables in this chapter show the number of errors in the use of each type of cohesive devices, its percentage in the total number of errors and the source from which it stems. The sources are categorized in three groups: intra-lingual source (errors that are caused by interference between English items), inter-lingual (errors that are caused by the interference of Vietnamese into English), and mixed (errors that are not attributed precisely to any single source). Table 4.1: The number of errors in the use of cohesive devices Cohesive devices Number of errors Percentage (%) GRAMMATICAL Reference Demonstrative 101 34.00 Comparative 50 10.77 Personal 32 16.83 Conjunction Adversative 28 9.42 Causal 25 8.41 Additive 09 3.03 Ellipsis 0 0.00 Substitution 0 0.00 LEXICAL Collocation 52 17.50 Reiteration 0 0.00 The total number of errors 297 100 Table 4.2: Errors and their Causes Cohesive devices Inter-lingual Intra-lingual Mixed GRAMMATICAL Reference Demonstrative 76 25 0 Comparative 35 15 0 Personal 21 11 0 Conjunction Adversative 21 07 0 Causal 0 25 0 Additive 0 09 0 LEXICAL Collocation 0 0 52 TOTAL 153 92 52 297 4.1. ERRORS IN THE USE OF REFERENCE As shown in Table 4.1, reference errors contribute the biggest percentage of 61.6% in all errors, in which 34% belongs to the demonstrative, 16.83% to the personal and 10.77% to the comparative; they will be discussed in detail, one by one from the most to the least popular. 4.1.2. Errors in the use of demonstrative reference The number of errors in the use of demonstrative references accounts for 34% of all the errors in the use of cohesive devices (Table 4.1). These errors are in the use of the, there, this. The table below shows these errors in detail. Table 4.3: Errors in the use of demonstrative reference Reference Number of errors Inter-lingual Intra-lingual Total Demonstrative The 59 22 81 There 17 0 17 This 0 03 03 Total 76 25 101 Errors in the use of demonstrative reference “the” Table 4.4: Errors in the use of the definite article Type of errors with ‘the’ Number Omitting (inter-lingual source) 59 Wrong application (intra-lingual source) 22 Total 81 Refer to Table 4.3, the number of errors in the use of definite article unfolds the fact that this type of errors is the most problematic. Making errors with definite article, the students either omit it when it is required or apply it but in wrong ways, the numbers of these errors are 59 and 22 respectively as shown in Table 4.4 This type of errors is a typical one as it is found in the works of most students in the study. The main reason for these errors is the influence of the mother tongue (or first language interference). As mentioned in the previous chapters, errors in second language learning can arise when a linguistic feature in the target language is unknown in the source language. In this case, definite article in English (the target language) is a linguistic feature unknown in Vietnamese (the source language). Having a look at the structures of noun phrases in English and Vietnamese, the problem seems obvious. In the structure of English noun phrases, the elements preceding Head are: Deictic (including articles), Numerative, Epithet and Classifier; while in Vietnamese, the preceding Head elements do not include Deictic, Epithet and Classifier. This is the reason why Vietnamese students tend to forget articles, especially definite article, when producing noun phrases in English. Definite article does not contain any information in itself, its meaning is that the noun it modifies has a specific referent, and that the information required for identifying the referent is available in the environment including the structure, the text, the situation and the culture. For this reason, definite article can be considered as one of “small words” which one may forget to use it when it is necessary or fail to spot errors in its use when revising his\her work. Table 4.5: Errors in the omission of ‘the’ Type of errors in the omission of ‘the’ Number Anaphoric 55 Cataphoric and Homophoric 04 Total 59 As shown in Table 4.5 in this part, the omission of ‘the’ as the anaphoric reference is the most popular with 55 errors, only 4 errors of omitting ‘the’ as homophoric and cataphoric reference are found. Most of the students some time in their works did not add ‘the’ before the noun phrase which was a synonym or near-synonym of the items they had mentioned earlier in the text. They seem to forget to use definite article once they are caught in the flow of events or information they want to provide. The followings are examples of this type of errors in students’ papers: Example: - …. Mr. X stood outside her garden to follow her cat. …. Now he was sure that the reason for her sadness was mainly cat…. - ….. After a few minutes, Little Red Riding Hood came, knocked at the door and said “Granny, Granny! Open the door for me, please!” The wolf tried to answer by copying her grandmother’s voice. While asking grandmother some questions, little girl found something strange. …. - ….. Suddenly the vampire laughed and I knew that was Jane. She took vampire mask to trick me…. The errors with the use of omitting homophoric and cataphoric are: - …. First thing I will do is that…. (cataphoric is ommited) - He came from United States. (homophoric is omitted) - I tried last time to unlock the door. (cataphoric is omitted) - She was best in the class. (cataphoric is omitted) Students hardly omit ‘the’ as homophoric and cataphoric reference as in these uses ‘the’ is mostly attached to the noun phrase it refers to as a structure. For example, the headmaster of my school, the King, the longest lesson, etc. Table 4.4 also presents the fact that students made 22 errors of inappropriate use of the in their writing. With this type of errors, students tend to use definite article ‘the’ instead of indefinite one (‘a/an’ or zero article). Consider the following extracts from their writing. Example: - In a nice morning, I with three other girls decided to play truant as usual. Suddenly, while climbing over the fence of our school, we heard the whistle with a strong shouting: ‘Stop, girls!’ ‘Oh, the school guard!’ I said. - In a bar one night, Mr. X was talking to a workman who told him that Mrs. Ramsay had a very dear cat. The workman added that Mrs. Ramsay was very interested in it; she even regarded it as the kid. …. The nouns or noun phrases following the underlined ‘the’ in the above extracts are not previously referred to any items either in the situation or text, therefore it must be replaced by 'a' or no article depending on the noun following it. 'Whistle' in the first extract is mentioned the first time in the text, and it is not a synonym, near-synonym of or related to any word in the preceding text, so instead of 'the', there should be the indefinite article 'a' as 'whistle' is a singular countable noun. In the second extract, ‘kid’ appears the first time in the story and it does not have any relation with any word from the beginning if the story, so the use of ‘the’ preceding it is not appropriate, and the should be replaced by ‘a’. Thus, ‘the’ is not required in these examples, the students who committed these errors may be too anxious about how to use English articles correctly in communication, which resulted in a confusion among the use of these items (i.e. English articles). Another factor contributing to the causes of these errors is the way of teaching articles that may confuse students. ‘The’, ‘a/an’ or zero article are members in a class with the relation of being definite or indefinite. While ‘the’ has no meaning in itself and can be followed by a singular or plural countable noun or an uncountable noun, ‘a’ has the meaning of the only one thing so it precedes a singular noun, zero article is followed by a plural countable noun or an uncountable noun. For these reason, some teachers when teaching their students the use of definite article contrast it with the indefinite ones. Being presented the use of definite article based on contrastive approach, the students might produce false conceptualization, and the confusion between ‘a’ and ‘the’ in their writing is obvious. These errors such as the use of ‘the’ in inappropriate places are classified as intra-lingual errors. Errors in the use of demonstrative reference “there” Referring to Table 4.3, there are 17 errors in the use of there as a demonstrative reference. All these errors rooted from the first language interference. Two typical types of these errors are illustrated in the two following examples taken from the students’ writing: Example: - ….You should go to old streets in Hanoi. There sells a lot of things that you can buy…. - ….My family had prepared a party when we got home. There had banana, moon cakes…. It is necessary to distinguish ‘there’ as a demonstrative adverb with its homographs (words written in the same way but have different function in the language). ‘Demonstrative there is to be distinguished from the pronoun there as in there is a man at the door’ (Haliday and Hasan, 1976:74). Clearly, there in the examples is not a pronoun as no adverbs of places supporting it are found; therefore, is a demonstrative adverb. As a reference items, there closely parallel that and the meaning of there in these cases is anaphoric and locative; it refers to “in the old streets in Hanoi” in the first example, “in the party” in the second. Considering its meaning and function, there in the above sentences is incorrectly used. These errors are made because the students are not aware of the fact that “there” in these situations should function as a place adverb and that it cannot be a subject in a sentence. These students might think that “there” is equivalent to “ở đú” in Vietnamese. And since in Vietnamese they have “Ở đú bỏn rất nhiều thứ bạn cú thể mua” or “Ở đú cú chuối, bỏnh trung thu”, the translated versions above are inevitable. To sum up, these errors are of inter-lingual ones. Errors in the use of demonstrative references “this” One of the significant numbers in Table 4.3 is 03 errors in the use of selective demonstrative references. Thought the number of errors is small, there is a reason for this type of errors that need teachers’ attention when teaching this demonstrative reference. It is likely that students learnt to use demonstratives soon at the beginning of elementary level and the meanings of selective demonstrative reference are clear and seem equivalent to Vietnamese, so they made few errors at the pre-intermediate level of English. However, with the oral drill like “- Who is this/that? - This/that is Lien.” Or “- Is that/this Lien? - Yes, that/this is.”, the students may come to a conclusion that ‘this’ can function as Head in noun phrases referring to a human referent in any situation. Thus, the following sentences were made: - ….He was sitting opposite to a French man. This was reading a newspaper… - …She thanked the wolf. This immediately went to her grandmother’s cottage. … -…The boy made a long trip while playing truant. This wanted to surprise his parents… (Extracted from students’ writing) According to Haliday and Hasan (1976), ‘a demonstrative as Modifier (‘demonstrative adjective’) may refer without any restriction to any class of noun. A demonstrative as a Head (‘demonstrative pronoun’), on the other hand, while it can refer freely to non-humans, is restricted in its reference to human nouns; it cannot refer to a human referent except in the special environment of an equative clause.’(1976: 62-63). It means that whether anaphorically or exophorically, demonstratives can only refer pronominally to human referents when it is in relational equative clauses where one element is supplying the identification of the others as in the example of oral drill above. The students who made the error were not aware of the context in which the conversations taken place. The clauses in their writing where they used ‘this’ as a human reference are not equative. Therefore, these errors rooted from intra-lingual source. 4.1.2. Errors in the use of personal references It can be seen in Table 4.1 that errors in the use of personal reference accounts 16.83% of all errors with 32 errors. Regarding types of personal references, no errors are spotted in the use of the existential in the students’ works as they are not very complicated. The source of these errors comes from the interference of both first language and target language items. It is shown in Table 4.2 that the first language interference accounts for 21out of 32 cases. Having a look at some of the errors, the explanation of this interference can be brought to light. Example: - ….She lived alone. The cat was the dearest one of her. - …..It resulted in a runaway of them…. - … He knew all information of us… (Extracts from students’ writing) Vietnamese expresses possession with the word “của” and possessors are placed after things they possess. Whereas, in English, there are four ways to express the notion in accordance with the use of: possessive adjectives, possessive pronoun, “-‘s” and “of”. Nevertheless, students brought their previously-developed habit in their mother tongue into English (the second language) with the thought that the word “của” is equivalent to the word “of”. In the above sentences, the students simply translated word-by-word from Vietnamese into English without being aware of the English rules in expressing possession. According to Quirk (1987), the choice of the two genitives, as he called the two later ones, is related to the gender classes represented by the noun which is to be genitive. “-‘s” is favored by the classes of animated nouns: persons and animals with personal gender characteristics, “of” is favored by the classes of inanimate nouns. Hence, the correct versions of the above errors can be: her dearest one, their runaway and our information. Beside the first language interference, the previously-acquired knowledge in the second language also takes a part in the causes of these errors. The common errors of this type are: Example: - … She asked questions and realized that the person in bed is not her’s… - …. She knew it’s action so she was very worried…. -…he told that the little lamb is him… As English has three more ways to express possession, Vietnamese students have to develop a new habit when learning English, which leads to their confusion among the possession rules. In the first example, the students confused among “’s”, possessive adjectives and possessive pronouns as ways to express possession. ‘’s’, according to Quirk (1987), is used with the class of animated nouns, not with a possessive adjective as in the above sentences; instead of “her’s”, there must be “hers”. Furthermore, the student seems to intend to use ellipsis in “her’s” in his sentence with the omission of the noun “grandmother” (as understood in the context of his story). This error is a kind of cross-association from the drill he has practiced like: ‘An’s hat is black, Ba’s is red’ or ‘This is An’s hat, that is Ba’s’. Again in the second example, it is the confusion between possessive adjective and “’s” that results in the error, “it’s” must be replaced by “its”. And in the last one, the student is not aware of the difference between possessive adjective and objective so he made a unreasonable sentence. The errors of this type are classified as from intra-lingual source. 4.1.3. Errors in the use of comparative references It can be seen from Table 4.1 that inappropriate use of comparative references is quite popular among the subjects with 50 cases equal to 10.77% of all errors discovered in their writing. Table 4.2 shows that these errors take root from both inter-lingual and intra-lingual sources. Inter-lingual source, however, is blamed for the majority with 35 errors. The reason why the first language posed such a bad effect on the students’ use of comparison in English is that Vietnamese and English considerably differ in both lexical items and grammatical structure in expressing comparison. First of all, the inflection of comparative adjectives or adverbs as well as comparative words is not familiar to Vietnamese students whose mother tongue is not an inflection one. In English, “nice” becomes “nicer than”, “dirty” – “dirtier than”, but these rules do not work in Vietnamese. What is more, in terms of syntax, the surface structures of comparison in English and Vietnamese are not identical. Under the pressure of communication, some of the subjects applied Vietnamese structures into English; in other words, they ‘filled’ English lexical items into the surface structure of their mother tongue, resulting in inappropriate English sentences. Vietnamese comparative sentences are formulated with the functional words “hơn” which is thought to be equal to the English “than” or “more”. Thus, Vietnamese students have to develop a quite new habit when expressing comparison in English; needless to say, they cope with difficulties in this area. Due to this reason, the students made the English sentences below: Example: - Going to markets in Hanoi is very interesting. Night market is exciting more. → Đi chợ ở Hà Nội thỡ rất thỳ vị .Chợ đờm thỡ thỳ vị hơn - She came near me and scared me. She looked frightening more when she dressed in white. → Cụ ấy đến gần tụi và doạ tụi. Cụ ấy trụng sợ hơn khi cụ ấy mặc màu trắng - Little Red Riding Hood saw her ears were big than usual. → Cụ bộ Quàng Khăn Đỏ nhỡn thấy là tai của bà thỡ to hơn bỡnh thường. - There were a lot of flowers in the forest than in the straight road. → Cú nhiều hoa ở trong rừng hơn ở con đường thẳng. It is clear that the students who made these types of errors managed word-by-word translation from Vietnamese into English. Intra-lingual source contributes 15 errors (Table 4.2). When acquiring a second language, learners do not only learn by imitation or by heart, they make hypothesis and association as well. Being taught that long adjectives (i.e. adjectives which have more than one syllabus) are usually accompanied with “more” in the structure of comparison in English, students may come to a cross-association that every adjectives of this kind follows the rule. Their cross-association is testified in the followings: Example: - …. We felt more happy when we came home. … - ….. The ground was even more dirty…. - ….He became more good…. The exceptions of general rules were not noticed by the students. In a grammar lesson, these students may not make the error of this type as there is a focus on exceptional cases; in applying the acquired knowledge in real communicative situations, however, they failed to recognize these cases. It can be implied that the students have not developed habit in the use of comparative reference. In short, the use of comparative reference in English is a difficulty for Vietnamese students as they have to encounter both the great differences between the two languages and the complicated rules in English in this area. 4.2. Errors in the use of conjunction Referring to Table 4.1, the errors in conjunction takes up of 20.86% all errors in the use of cohesive devices, in which the adversative contributes 9.42%, the causal 8.41% and the additive 3.03%. It can be understood that inappropriate use of adversative conjunctions is the most popular of these types among the subjects; the second popular is of causal conjunctions followed by errors in the use of additive conjunctions. Although there are a great number of conjunctions in each type, at this level of English, the subjects just use several simple ones. For this reason, the errors focus on some typical conjunctions which are discussed in the following parts. 4.2.1. Errors in the use of adversative conjunctions As shown in Table 4.2, both sources of errors are found in the errors of the adversative type. The inter-lingual source is traced with 21 errors, another 07 errors of this type stem from intra-lingual source. The misuse of however and on the other hand in the students’ papers is one example of the errors resulted from the confusion between adversative and additive conjunctions due to the interference of the students’ mother tongue into English. The following erroneous sentences are taken from students’ papers. Example: - Little Red Riding Hood liked flowers and butterflies. On the other hand, the wolf wanted to lead her to pick flowers in the forest. She forgot her mother advice immediately. - Dimitri was a kind neighbor. However, he is a kind husband too. The students who made this type of errors are confused in the use of adversative and additive conjunction in English. The meaning of the sentences following the adversative conjunctions is not contrary to expectation deprived from the content of the text, from communication process, or from the writer-reader situation. Instead of however and on the other hand in the above sentences, there should be an additive conjunction like in addition or furthermore. What’s more, however cannot be accompanied with too in one sentence as in the second example because too is a word that expresses an addition in meaning. The main reason for these errors lies in the differences in meaning of these conjunctions in English and Vietnamese. In some popular Vietnamese-English dictionaries, adversative conjunctions like however and on the other hand are equivalent to mặt khỏc or vả lại which, according to Diep Quang Ban (1999:190), can be used as cohesive devices to inform an addition in meaning in Vietnamese. Consequently, however and on the other hand are applied with Vietnamese meaning in the above English sentences. The interference of the first language is not only found in the application of Vietnamese meaning but also Vietnamese structure into English. These are two examples of this error: Example: - ….Despite it rained, we went to the party in time. … - ….Although her husband loved her very much, but she didn’t love him. … In the first example, ‘despite’ is thought to be equivalent with ‘mặc dầu/mặc dự’ which can be followed by a noun phrase, clause or even an adjective and adverb; therefore, a clause ‘it rained’ follows ‘despite’, which is unacceptable in English. And in the second example, the expression with ‘although’ is thought to be equivalent with ‘mặc dầu….. nhưng…’, so the of but in he expression is assumed to be appropriate in English by large number of students. However, this structure is not a correct one. Other errors in the structure of adversative conjunctions stem from intra-lingual source. These erroneous sentences reveal how the English items interfered in the students’ application of these expressions. Example: - Alesko begged Dimitri not to call the police. Despite of this, Dimitri called the police.. - We felt tired when we arrived at our house. In spite, we tried to sing some songs. The students added of when it is not required and did not use it when it is necessary. What made this type of errors is found in the confusion between despite this/that and in spite of this/that. It is a little hard for students to memorize the use of the expression as they share the same syllabus [spait], which may also take part in the confusion between these expressions. Thus, both sources of errors pose their effect on the students’ use of adversative conjunction. The intra-lingual source, however, has a greater effect. 4.2.2. Errors in the use of causal conjunctions Table 4.2 shows that all errors in the use of causal conjunctions (8.41% of errors in the use of cohesive devices) come from intra-lingual source. The simple form of causal relation is expressed by so, thus, hence, therefore, consequently, accordingly and a number of expressions like as a result (of that), in consequence (of that), because of that. The use of these conjunctions is popular among the students; however, they just made errors with the use of so and as a result (of that), in consequence (of that). The following sentences taken from their works have typical errors of this type. Example: - Our teacher called our parents when we were playing truant. So that when I got home my parents were angry and punished me. - She hadn’t obeyed her mother and had put grandmother in danger so that she felt regret and learned a lesson. - Unfortunately, we lost our key. The result of this, we had to walk home. - Because my parents were on business, I invited some of my close friends to my house. We had big party, danced, sang loudly and bought a lot of wine to drink. Result of this, we were blind drunk. - They felt in love and went to many place together. Consequence of that, they decided to escape on board. These errors are perhaps caused by the interference of the items in the target language. The first type of errors is the confusion between so and so that. Some of the students have the habit of adding that after so whenever they want to express causal relation in English. The confusion in the use of ‘so’ and ‘so that’ results in 14 errors among 25 errors in the use of conjunctions in the students’ works. They may think that ‘that’ is used to refer to a clause in a relative clause so it does not make any change in the meaning when preceding a clause and following so. So that, according to Oxford Dictionary (1998), is an idiom with the meaning of “with the aim that, in order that”; therefore, it is different from so which is used to indicate results. The second type of errors is the incomplete application of the conjunctions as a result (of that) and in consequence (of that), the students paid attention only to the words that carry the meaning they want to express: result of that, consequence of that, not to the words that seem to them to have no meaning in the whole expressions as: as, a, in. From the explanation above, it can be concluded that the errors in the use of causal conjunctions come from intra-lingual source. 4.2.3. Errors in the use of additive conjunctions The only conjunction of this type the students misused is in addition. It means that the errors with the use of in addition accounts for 3.03% of all errors (Table 4.1), and they are all the errors rooted from intra-lingual source (Table 4.2). Committing this type of error, the students made the sentences like: Example: - …. She is the best in the class. In addition to she is very beautiful and kind. - The French man had a very big house like a castle. In addition to, he had a beautiful wife. These errors are traceable to the intra-lingual source as the students could not distinguish the difference between in addition to and in addition; in spite of sharing the two first words, the former ends with a preposition which requires a noun or noun phrase following and the latter is a conjunction which is usually followed by a clause. 4.3. Errors in the use of lexical cohesion In the two types of lexical cohesion, no errors are found in the use of reiteration. However, collocation is really confusing for the student with 52 errors spotted (Table 4.1). These errors take up 17.50%- the second biggest potion (preceded by the potion of errors in the use of demonstrative reference), they are traceable to intra-lingual source (Table 4.2). It is likely that the students used synonym or near-synonym as cohesive devices naturally in their writing; they did not make any errors in the use of reiteration. Since the writing course for the first year students focuses on the skills of simple narration and description, the students tended to use simple words in their writing and it is not difficult for them to find the reiteration of these words. As for the errors in collocation, it is unreasonable to attribute precisely these errors to a single source as there is a combination of different reasons rooted in them. Collocation, according to Haliday and Hasan (1976), is ‘cohesion that is achieved through the association of lexical items that regularly co-occur’ (1976: 284). The students committed errors in collocation when they had wrong choices of vocabulary. The following sentences are typical in this type of errors. Example: - ….. I took out my parents' motorbike. We drove very fast across the field to the river…. - …. It was late, and we saw many motorbikes drive very fast. It was a motor-race, we immediately became audience… The co-occurrence of 'motorbike…drive', 'a motor-race…audience' in the above sentences is not appropriate, they are not collocation. What are the sources of these errors? It can be said that these errors come from the inter-lingual source. Having a look at the translated versions of the above co-occurrences in Vietnamese: 'xe mỏy…lỏi', 'cuộc đua xe…. khỏn giả', the interference of the first language in these errors can be traced. The Vietnamese versions are acceptable while the English ones are not because one item in Vietnamese may be correspondent to several in English; and in their attempt to translate into English the students failed to notice this fact. Example: drive (a car) ride (a bike) lỏi (xe ụ tụ, xe mỏy, xe đạp, mỏy bay) fly (a plane) khỏn giả (của chương trỡnh truyền hỡnh, trận búng đỏ, buổi hoà nhạc ) viewers (in a TV program) spectators (in a football match) audiences (in a musical) The analysis of the above words can well explain the source of the first language interference in these errors. It, at the same time, exposes the fact that English lexical treasure contains a great number of words that are similar in meaning but appear in different collocations; this confused the students. It is reasonable when the errors are said to arise from the generalization in the process of learning the second language. ‘drive a motorbike’ was generalized from ‘drive a car’, ‘audience in a motor race’ from ‘audience in a cinema’. Therefore, there are many others of such inappropriate co-occurrence in the students' papers; they are the result of the interference of Vietnamese into English and of English items themselves. In summary, the data analysis of the study has displayed common errors committed by pre-intermediate Vietnamese learners of English when they use cohesive devices in writing. In some kind of cohesive devices such as substitution or ellipsis, no errors are found; however, in other types such as reference, errors are numerous. This fact is due to some factors such as the language skill under the study, the context of the study and the students’ language knowledge. Though the errors stem from both sources, inter-lingual and intra-lingual, the inter-lingual contributed to the greater portion. The combination of two sources was also found posing effects on a certain number of students’ errors, especially in the use of lexical ties. 4.4. SUMMARY This chapter has been finished with the presentation and data analysis of the study. All the errors in the use of cohesive devices in the students’ writing have been presented together with the analysis on the source of each type of errors. As shown in the presentation of the data, the errors in the use of grammatical cohesive devices are more common than of lexical ones. Among the types of grammatical cohesive devices, the use of demonstrative reference is the most problematic. There are, however, no errors found in the use of ellipsis and substitution. This may be due to the fact that the frequency in the use of ellipsis and substitution was not high in writing skill, and the students only had to write short compositions from 100 to 120 words so they had time to find and write down the word needed for expressing their ideas. In lexical ties, though the students did not have any trouble in reiteration, collocation is really confusing for them as it is an open class and one error at the same time stems from both sources. The data presented in Table 4.2 & Chart 4.1 has made it clear that the first language interference is the significant factor contributing to the students’ errors. There is even the effect of the mix of the two sources on the students’ use of cohesive devices. Also, the tables and chart in this chapter has presented how each of these sources affects the use of each type of cohesive devices. The outcomes of this chapter are valuable for the next chapter named Implications. CHAPTER FIVE IMPLICATIONS The understanding of students’ common errors in the use of cohesive devices and their causes have been analyzed and discussed in Chapter Four, serve as background knowledge which helps teachers to build sufficient error correction techniques, the focus of teaching as well as teaching strategies to prevent and eliminate these errors. Perhaps one of the most frustrating tasks of language teachers is correcting errors, and then seeing them re-occur in the students’ writing. Despite a great proportion of time consumed in correcting errors, there is often a feeling that the same errors are being corrected again and again. Thus, whether the error correction is beneficial in students’ learning is a big question to many writing teachers. Ferris (1995) emphasizes the importance that gives to writing accurately and their need to obtain corrections from teachers. Most researchers such as Ferris and Robert, 2001; Semke, 1984; Lanlade, 1982 agree that corrections are useful to students as long as they are consistent and systematic. Chastain (1990) in his study about the effects of graded versus ungraded compositions found that although there was no significant difference between the number and types of errors, ‘in some ways, the expectation of a grate may influence students’ writing in some positive ways….Students in this study wrote longer papers containing longer sentences and a higher number of complex sentence’ (1990:14). Thus, there is a connection between active correction of errors and improvement in writing skills. There are different approaches to written correction, which can be separated into two main categories: (a) explicit (direct): the teacher indicates the errors and provides the correction form and (b) non-explicit (indirect): the teacher marks the error in some ways such as underlined, highlighted, coded and the students have to decide the correction. The first strategy is not favorable by many researchers including Coder (1967); he criticizes that ‘simple provision of the correct form may not always be the only or indeed the most effective form of correction’ (1976: 26). This view is shared by French (1958) when he agrees that a ‘hasty scribbling of a correction is quite in sufficient’ (1958: 24). Especially, for the errors that have been fossilized, providing the correct form in error correction can be ineffective as these errors have already become students’ habits, they need a lot of time on drilling, recognizing, eliminating errors and practicing the correct forms. The later seems of better effect as it encourages learning through problem-solving. The fashion that teachers use to correct students’ writing can help students in self-correction. Depending on the purpose and level of each writing course as well as of each writing lesson, teachers develop and focus on a particular fashion. Applying the strategy in the use of cohesive devices, the errors should be put in six main categories according to the level of difficulty and types of cohesive ties: article, other demonstrative references, comparative reference, personal reference, conjunctions and lexicon. Using these six categories, students are able to refer to the set of cohesion they are correcting. For the errors in the use of lexical cohesion, especially collocation, teachers should use direct correction when it is necessary as there is no set of rules that students can consult to avoid making this type of errors. Another way which can benefit students in feedback to errors in the use of collocation is that teachers can make exercises based on typical errors committed, students will not be sometimes as confused as when they are given direct correction and they also have chances to discuss their errors with others without being afraid of loosing face. In conclusion, feedback to errors is of utmost importance to the writing process; without individual attention and sufficient feedback on errors, improvement will not take place. Teachers should have positive attitude toward students’ errors, it means that they must accept that students’ writing contains errors, and it should be their responsibility to help students with their errors, especially to develop strategies for self-correction. The study has discovered the frequency of each error types so that teachers are able to draw focuses on certain cohesive devices when teaching students the target language. The grammatical cohesion is more problematic to the students than the lexical. And in grammatical cohesion, demonstrative references, especially the definite article, is the most troublesome; therefore, much attention should be paid to this area so as to make an effective lesson plans on the use of demonstrative references in general and of the definite article in specific. Lexical cohesion caused troubles to students in the type of collocation which is the second of troublesome level in all types of errors. Since collocation is a very open class of items, the learning is of a long term and teachers should draw students’ attention whenever it is possible. Focusing on the most typical types of errors does not mean that teachers leave aside the cohesive ties that no errors are found, exercises should be sometimes given to retain the already-acquired knowledge. Students commit errors as they have not formed themselves a habit of using the target language correctly in terms of grammatical and lexical cohesion; and it should be language teachers who help them with forming the habit as such. Different approaches in language learning propose different ways to form language learning habit. Behaviorists believe that language learning is a mechanical process; therefore, in their view drills should be designed to develop mechanically automatic, non-thoughtful responses to the stimuli at the same time reducing the possibility of error occurrence. Thus, explanation or analyze is not necessary used in advance of practice. However, Corder (1974) argued that ‘the aim of a structural drill may be defeated if it become entirely mechanical’. In fact, this mechanism is tiring and ineffective in foreign language learning, for students find it boring to repeat the same patterns for several times, and the most problematic is that they hardly realize the meaning lying behind substitution tables or lists. Drills would be more effective and save time if they are made meaningful, this viewpoint is supported by cognitivism, the approach that focuses on the formation of language using habits on the conscious basic. Basing on the above theory background, the types and sources of errors found, some teaching techniques are suggested to reduce the frequency of each type of errors. Firstly, with the errors in the use grammatical cohesive devices rooted from intra-lingual source such as errors in the use of definite articles and possessive personal pronouns, students should be provided with clear explanation first then substitution tables and exercises such as recognizing the cohesive device or identifying errors and gap-filling. Teaching writing does not mean that only writing skills involved, other language skills can be integrated in order to raise students’ awareness. Some speaking, listening and reading games can also be used in writing class so as to put students in real communicative situations in which teachers intend to focus on the correct use of certain cohesive devices. For example, following the explanation and identifying error exercises on the use of definite article, the teacher may ask students give a (black) bag/ a pen/ a book etc. or anything which can be found in the class, then ask them describe those things in details focusing on the use of the definite article and indefinite articles. With this technique, the interference of other already learned items in the acquisition of the new one is reduced. The exercises and activities should be various so that students are motivated and they have chances to recognize the learned items in different contexts. Secondly, with the errors come from inter-lingual source, an analysis of semantic and structural differences among particular features in English and Vietnamese should be made and introduced to the students; this strategy will raise students’ consciousness in the differences in the use of English compared with that of Vietnamese. The errors in the use of lexical cohesion, some possessive personal references, and conjunctions are of this type. Obviously, exercises are administered to form habits. Translation exercises can be a good remedy in the first stage of learning these devices; however, they should be replaced by other kinds of exercises focusing on correct patterns otherwise translation will be formed as a habit of language learning. The awareness on particular collocations should be raised in this way and as context is a critical factor that guarantees effective learning it should be accompanied in exercises on collocation. When applying these techniques, teachers should make detail lesson plans and be flexible depending on types of errors and level of classes. Taking the teaching of conjunctions as an example, most of the errors come from inter-lingual source and some from intra-lingual. The frequency of conjunction in the students’ writing is not high, only some of the simple forms were used. This may be primarily due to the fact that the students had not been taught to identify and to use them correctly in their writing. When teaching conjunctions, teachers tend to handout a list reflecting the function of these cohesive devices. The following list is a representative example given by Bander (1980:8-10). Transition that qualify: but, however, though, yet, except for Example But the clerk refused to answer. The letter came two days later, however. We hope, though, that she should change her mind. Yet there was still a chance that she would win. Except for one girl, all the hikers returned. Such a list can be a misleading as the learners might not recognize the most important characteristic of cohesion which is the fact that it is a set of relation. Cohesive devices are closely related to discourse contexts where they appear, they cannot be understood without the contexts. However, lists of similar logical relationships of the cohesive ties like the example above fail to mention the context, to demonstrate how cohesive devices establish the logical relationship between ideas presented. Another problem which can be created with such a list is the fact that devices categorized together are not necessarily interchangeable: ‘but’ cannot be substituted for ‘though’, though they are usually classified together. If the students, when consulting the list, assume that they are syntactically the same, thus they are successful in connecting ideas but grammatically wrong. Classifying linking devices according to their grammatical functions can be a remedy to the errors such as ‘In addition to,…’, ‘Despite of that,….’. Classifying these devices according to grammatical function is not enough, it just help to avoid the errors rooted from intra-lingual source; students then should be taught to differentiate the linking devices found within each grammatical category semantically. They need to understand what happens, for example, when ‘in addition’ is used instead of ‘however’, when ‘but’ is applied but not ‘and’. At this stage, certain types of exercises including sentence completion, sentence combining and gap-filling exercises are helpful. These exercises assist students learn how a particular connective indicates a particular relationship between ideas presented. Last but not least, students should be exposed to models of written texts. By examining these models, students’ awareness can be raised with regard to the way words and structures of cohesive devices contribute to writing. Once they notice the role and use of these cohesive devices in writing, they will prefer to apply more of the devices in their writing. To sum up, this chapter has just provided some suggestions drawn from the results of the study. These suggestions are hopefully useful for teachers of English when teaching cohesive devices and dealing with students’ errors in this area. CHAPTER SIX CONCLUSION In conclusion, the research has found out some common types of errors in the use of cohesive devices in the use of cohesive devices in the students’ writing. It also pointed out some likely causes of these errors when first year undergraduate students majoring in English at Thang Long University write in English. The most significant outcome of the study is that it gives an awareness of students’ difficulties in using cohesive devices to create their own writing texts. Thus, it benefits both teachers and students majoring in English in general and those at Thang Long University in particular The study has based on thorough review and analysis of appropriate literature. With the aim of giving a full picture of error analysis, the viewpoints of some well known error analysts as Corder (1967, 1971) and Richard (1971) are considered; and some of the latest literature in error analysis, such as the ones by Choon (2002), Brown (2002), have also been reviewed and analyzed. The factors affecting foreign language learning, errors and the causes of errors are all included in literature review of the study. Their positive attitude toward learners’ errors has been expressed in the way they analyze the errors in order to find out the prevention and remedy. The one of the most effective way is to trace the errors to their sources in the process of learning. Several causes of these errors are reported, and they are categorized into two main causes: the interference from the mother tongue and the interference within the system of the target language itself. As the purposes of the study is analyzing students’ errors in the use of cohesive devices, the importance of cohesion in writing has been stated and the comprehensive description of cohesive ties given by Haliday and Hasan (1976) has been briefly introduced. Thus, the study has been supported by sufficient literature review. The findings of the study are believed beneficial for teachers and learners of English. Cohesion is important in writing; however, the study has pointed out a number of errors when the students use cohesive devices in writing. Each of these errors has been traced to its source because this is beneficial for teachers and students of English. Getting to know the errors and their sources, the teacher learns which of the cohesive devices the students need help and what sort of help they need for each type of the errors. The great number of errors has been found in the use of reference, and this be paid attention by the teacher when teaching, correcting these items. Both of the two sources have been traced in the students’ use of cohesive devices; however, the main cause of the errors found is attributable to the interference from Vietnamese into English. Also, a combination of interference and analogy is responsible for the number of errors in the use of lexical cohesive ties. With the help of these sources, teachers are able to develop teaching techniques for cohesion in writing. Apart from that, these errors also can serve as a good feedback for the students’ self adjustment; they can realize their weak and also strong points in their use of cohesive devices in writing. Together with the findings, some suggestions for error correction and prevention are raised. Self-correction should be encouraged; however, direct correction is sometimes necessary, especially for lexical cohesive errors. Preventing the errors needs language learning habit gradually formed since a new item is taught. Other language skills are integrated in writing lessons, exercises are various- these factors help to motivate students, raise their awareness on the item. For the inter-lingual errors, the contrastive technique should be adopted at first to make the difference between English and Vietnamese visible to students, then drills on correct use are applied. Written text models are recommended so that students can appreciate the use of cohesive ties in a text, be exposed to different cohesive ties and their use in contexts. Drills, provided they are meaningful and communicative, are good remedy for these errors. Above all, different language classes and different errors require certain techniques; teachers should be flexible in dealing with these errors. LIMITATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH The study merely investigates the errors in the use of cohesive devices in the writing by pre-intermediate students. Apart from that, some of the important factors affecting students’ writing skills such as their psychological factors, materials used, types of genre have not been dealt with. In order to have a full picture of the learning problems of the learners of English, more studies should be conducted on these fields as well as different types of learners and errors. Bibliography Bacha, N.S and E.A.S. Hanania. Difficulty in Learning and Effectiveness of Teaching Transitional Words: A study on Arabic-speaking university students. TESOL Quarterly. Vol.14. 1980. Bander, R. G. From sentence to paragraph. Hoolt, Rinehart and Winston. 1980.. Broadhead, G.J and J.A. Berlin. Twelve steps to using generative sentences and sentence combining in the composition classroom. College Composition and Communication. Vol. 32. 1981 Bloom, L. Readings in Language Development. John Wiley and Sons. 1976. Boon, C.K. Error Analysis and Composition Marking. Guidelines. Vol. 7 No. 1 June 1985. Brown, J.D & Rodgers, T. S. Doing Second Language Research. OUP. 2002. Brown, H. D. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Prentice Hall. 1978. Bertono, S. Language Acquisition and Learnability. CUP. 2001. Chandrasegaran, A. Problems of Learning English as a Second Language. Seameo Relc. 1981. Chomsky, N. Review of Skinner’s Verbal Behaviour. 1957. Language Learning. No. 35. 1959. Chomsky, N.Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. CUP. 1965 Choon, T.G. Error Analysis and Correction of Written Work in the Classroom. The English Teacher. Vol. XXII. Oct 1993. Cook, V. Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. Macmillan. 1993. Corder, S.P. Error Analysis and Interlanguage.OUP. 1981 Corder, S.P. The significance of learners’ errors. OUP. 1967. Davies, E. Error Evaluation: The Important of Viewpoint. ELT Journal. Vol. 37. No. 4. Oct 1983. Dulay, H. C, Burt, M. K. and Krashen, S. D. Language Two. OUP. 1982 Ellis, R. Second Language Acquisition. OUP. 1997. Ellis, R. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. OUP. 1994 Ferris, D.R. Can advanced ESL students be taught their most serious and frequent errors?. CATESOL Jounal, 1995 Ferris, D. and Robert, B. Error feedback in L2 writing classes. How explicit does it need to be?. Jounal of Second Language Writing. 2001 French, F.G. Commom Errors in English. OUP. 1958. Ghadessy, M. The Role of Development Errors in Assessing Language Competence. ELT Journal. Vol. 39. No.4. Oct 1985. George, H.v. Common Errors in Language Learning. Newbury House. 1972. Halliday, M. A. K & Hasan, R. Cohesion in English. Longman.1976. Hatch, E. Discourse and Language Education. CUP. 1992. Hoa, Nguyen. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. Hanoi National University Press. 2000. Jacobovists, L. A. A Psycholinguistic Analysis of Second Language Learning and Bilingualism. Illinois. 1969. Jain, M. P. Error Analysis: Source. Cause and Significance. Longman. 1974. Lado, R. Linguistic across Cultures. UMP. 1975. Lalande II, J. Redution composition errors: An experiment. The Modern Language Jounal. 1992 Littlewood, W.T. Foreign and Second Language Learning. Cambridge language Teaching Library. 1980. Klassen, J. Using Student Errors for Teaching. The English Teacher Forum, Vol. XXIX. No. 1. Jan. 1991 Krashen, S. The Natural Approach – Language Acquisition in the Classroom. Peganon/Alemany Press. 1983. Myles, J. Second Language Writing and Research: The Writing Process and Error Analysis in Student Texts. TESL-EJ. Vol. 6.No.2. Sept 2002. Nunan, D. Discourse Analysis. Penguin. 1993. O’Malley, J. M . & Chamot, A. U. Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition. CUP. 1990. Plaff, C. First and Second Language Acquisition Processes. Newbury House.1987. Raimes, A. Techniques in Teaching Writing. OUP. 1983. Richards, J. C. & Sampson, G.P. ‘The study of learner English’. Error Analysis: Perspective on second language Acquisition. Longman. 1974. Richards, J. C. A Non-contrastive Approach to Error Analysis. English Language Teaching. Vol. 25. No. 3. OUP. 1971. Renkema, J. Discourse Studies: An Introductory Textbook. John Benjamins. 1993. Schiffrin, D. Discourse Markers. 1978 Scholfield, P.J. Writing, Vocabulary Errors and the Dictionary. Guidelines for Writing Activities. 1981. Seliger, H.W. Second Language Research Methods. OUP. 1989. Semke, H. The effect of the red pen. Foreign language Annals. 1984 Windowson, H. Aspect of Language Teaching. OUP. 1990 Witte, S. P. and L. Faigley. Coherence, Cohesion and Writing Quality. College Composition and Communication. Vol. 32/2. 1981. Zamel, V. Teaching Those Missing Links in Writing. ELT Journal. Vol. 37. No.1. Jan 1983. Appendix A SAMPLES OF ERRORS IN THE USE OF GRAMMATICAL COHESION 1. Errors in the use of reference 1.1. Errors in the use of ‘the’ Omitting ‘the’ - …. Mr. X stood outside her garden to follow her cat. …. Now he was sure that the reason for her sadness was mainly cat…. - ….. After a few minutes, Little Red Riding Hood came, knocked at the door and said “Granny, Granny! Open the door for me, please!” …. While asking grandmother some questions, little girl found something strange. …. - ….. Suddenly the vampire laughed and I knew that was Jane. She took vampire mask to trick me…. - Finally Alleko admitted it and begged Dimitri not to call the police, Dimitri refuse. Twenty minutes later, police come… - …In a bar one night, ….Mrs. Ramsay lived in a block of flat near bar….One evening, as the cat was leaving block of flat. -…I started telling him about my excursion. He was very enjoyable with story… -…we’ll walk to My Dinh stadium in which air is fresh and cool… - …Dimitri took a close look at the lamb….Black lamb became a white one…. - During next three days, he walked past her flat…. - Although going by plane has some dangerous such as…it’s fastest way you can choose… -Last mid-autumn festival, my family invited somebody to join this party. We prepard everything for party sp carefully… -… I will introduce my hometown to you. At the weekend we can go for a picnic on suburb… - The cunning wolf ran quickly to the house of Little Red Riding Hood’s grandmon. He knocked at door… Wrong use -…I stayed at home alone…so a living room soon became messy…. - …He was reading a sport newspaper. “Did you watch a match between American team and French one yesterday?”… - In a nice morning, I with three other girls decided to play truant as usual. Suddenly, while climbing over the fence of our school, we heard the whistle with a strong shouting: ‘Stop, girls!’ ‘Oh, the school guard!’ I said. - …Unfortunately, the Headmaster captured him and took him to the office a