THE REALIZATION OF COHESION IN THE SUDENTS’ ARGUMENTATIVE WRITING PERFORMANCE.

THE REALIZATION OF COHESION IN

THE SUDENTS’

ARGUMENTATIVE WRITING PERFORMANCE

A THESIS

Submitted as a Partial Fulfillment of

a Requirement for Master’s Degree in English Education

By

H. SAUDIN

NIM 1006912

ENGLISH EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM

SCHOOL OF POSTGRADUATE STUDIES

INDONESIA UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION

DECLARATION

Herewith, I certify truly that this thesis, entitled The Realization of Cohesion in

the Students’ Argumentative Writing Performance, is a piece of my own work. I am completely aware that I have quoted statements and ideas from some sources to support my research reported in the thesis. However, the quotations are properly acknowledged.

Bandung, 15 May, 2013

H.

THE REALIZATION OF COHESION IN THE STUDENTS’

ARGUMENTATIVE WRITING PERFORMANCE

A Case Study

at an English Department of a State Polytechnic in Bandung

By

H. Saudin

NIM: 1006912

Approved by:

Main Supervisor

Hj. Emi Emilia, Ph.D.

Co-Supervisor

THE REALIZATION OF COHESION IN THE

STUDENTS ARGUMENTATIVE WRITING

PERFORMANCE

Oleh H.Saudin

Sebuah tesis yang diajukan untuk memenuhi salah satu syarat memperoleh gelar magister pada Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris

© H.Saudin 2013

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia Juli 2013

Hak Cipta dilindungi undang-undang.

ABSTRACT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.5 Significances of the Study.………7

1.6 Definitions of Terms.………..8 3.1 Research Paradigm and Design...……….37

3.2 Research Site and Participants...………..38

3.4 Data Analysis.….……….41

CHAPTER 4: Data Presentation and Analysis 4.1 Realizations of Cohesive Resources Across the Three Levels ………43

4.1.1 Realization of Reference.………45

4.2 Cohesive Density Across the Three Levels..………66

4.3 Erroneous Employment of Cohesive Resources Across the Three Levels …..69

4.4 Pedagogical Implications.……….77 Appendix 1: Analyses of the Realizations of the Cohesive Resources…………..98

Appendix 2: Analyses of the Students’ Erroneous Employment of the Resources………..172

Appendix 3: The Analysis of Data From the Interview………....197

Appendix 4: The Writing Instructions in the Test……….203

Appendix 5: Document of the Students’ Academic Achievements……….204

LIST OF TABLES Table 4.1 Tabulation of the Realizations of the Cohesive Resources in the High, Middle and Low Achievers’ Argumentative Texts…………...44

Table 4.1.1 Tabulation of the Realization of Reference………45

Table 4.1.2 Tabulation of the Realization of Conjunction………50

Table 4.1.3 Tabulation of the Realization of Lexical Cohesion..………..54

Table 4.1.4 Tabulation of the Realization of Ellipsis……..………..60

Table 4.1.5 Tabulation of the Realization of Substitution..………..61

Table 4.1.6 Tabulation of the Realization of Tense Consistency………..63

and Low Achievers’ Argumentative Texts……….66 Table 4.3 Tabulation of the Erroneous Employment of the Cohesive Resources in the High, Middle and Low Achievers’ Argumentative Texts …...71 Table A.1 Tabulation of the Three High Achievers’ Realizations of the

Cohesive Resources………123

Table A.2 Tabulation of the Contributions of the Cohesive Resources to the Cohesive Density in the Three High Achievers’ Documents………124 Table B.1 Tabulation of the Three Middle Achievers’ Realizations of the

Cohesive Resources………...149 Table B.2 Tabulation of the Contributions of the Cohesive Resources to the

Cohesive Density in the Three Middle Achievers’ Documents…….150 Table C.1 Tabulation of the Three Low Achievers’ Realizations of the

Cohesive Resources………...170 Table C.2 Tabulation of the Contributions of the Cohesive Resources to the

Cohesive Density in the Three Low Achievers’ Documents……….171 Table A Tabulation of the Distributions of Erroneous Employment of the

Cohesive Resources in the Three High Achievers’ Documents……181 Table B Tabulation of the Distributions of Erroneous Employment of the

Cohesive Resources in the Three Middle Achievers’ Documents…189 Table C Tabulation of the Distributions of Erroneous Employment of the

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter contains seven discussions. They consist of Background of the Study, Research Questions, Purposes of the Study, Scope of the Study, Significances of the Study, Definitions of Terms, and Organization of Thesis. The

longest discussion, Background of the Study attempts to portray the present important position of writing in both Indonesia‟s English curriculum and globalized world of economy to which the curriculum is partly addressed. The Background also tries to discuss the complexities of learning writing, and the reasons for the choice of cohesion in writing as the area investigated in the study. Reviews of some research on similar topic and the position of the study in

relation to others are also included in the discussion.

1.1Background of the Study

With the title The Realization of Cohesion in Students’ Argumentative

Writing Performance, this study has two important variables. They are cohesion and writing. As the primary variable, cohesion would certainly take up most of the discussions in this study if it were not to be discussed in this background of

In Indonesia, as Emilia points out, writing occupies an important position too. Indonesia‟s competence-based curriculum of 2003 for secondary schools suggested strongly the teaching of writing to provide the students with the skills for their future success. When the curriculum was replaced in 2007, the new curriculum, KTSP (Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan/Curriculum of Educational Unit), still puts an emphasis on the importance of writing, that is, the mastery of different text types (2010: 104).

However, writing is a difficult skill to master, especially for EFL/ESL students (Widdowson, 1978 in Mukminatien, 1991: 1, in Syafii: 2001: 2; Lengkanawati, 1990: ii in Syafii, 2001: 7; Brown, 2004: 218; and Alwasilah, 2010: 15 & 2007: 5-6). In more robust words, Ahmed (2010: 211; see also Kafes, 2012: 84) claims that ESL/EFL learners writing across the globe is still poor despite numerous approaches to the teaching of writing having evolved from different teaching methods.

Concerning the complexities of writing, in brief they result from the ways of how to make it have coherence and cohesion. This has been suggested by many linguists. Among them are Witte and Faigley (1981), who associate writing quality with the two properties. In a similar vein, Celce-Murcia and Olshtain (2000 in Muto, 2007:127) state that cohesion and coherence are two important

features found in a well-known text. Bloor and Bloor (2004: 84 in Guan, 2009:

337; see also Eggins, 2004: 24) assert that texture, namely coherence and cohesion, is “the quality of being a text.”

In other words, coherence and cohesion, known together as texture, are what the students need in order they can improve their writing skill. That is because texture is how a text should be like, a prerequisite of how bits of language

as evidenced by their poor writing skill mentioned previously. At the same time, research that addresses these properties of texture is still limited. More is needed, especially one that can inspire teaching practitioners, writing teachers more specifically, to teach and help the students improve their writing performance. Aimed as such, this study is therefore expected to fill the gap.

Prior to the explanation of the position of this study in relationship with others, several lines of research having contributed to the field of coherence and

cohesion are first of all provided in the following part.

In her research analyzing lexical cohesion, one major device of cohesion, Stotsky (1983: 431 & 441) pointed out the weaknesses of Halliday‟s and Hasan‟s (1976) two categories of lexical cohesion, Reiteration and Collocation, which were based on conversational and literary text analyses. In her Types of Lexical Cohesion in Expository Writing: Implications for Developing the

Vocabulary of Academic Discourse, she suggested some revisions related to the categories of lexical cohesion. Among the revisions, one is the suggestion to include derivational elements as part of repetition/reiteration. The suggestion is accommodated in Halliday and Hasan‟s later work (1985: 81; see also Halliday and Matthiessen, 2004: 572).

Liu (2000) in his Writing Cohesion: Using Content Lexical Ties in ESOL

indicated that often EFL/ESL students‟ lack of cohesion does not result from an absence of connective words, but from a want of content-lexical ties, his term for lexical cohesion. These deficient content-lexical ties in the students‟ writing often lead to confusion or misunderstanding as the deficiency causes incoherence or illogical meanings. To help them overcome the problem, Liu in his study proposed various exercises. The exercises are proven to benefit the

learners to increase the frequency of occurrences of content lexical ties in their writing production.

bilingual speakers are expressing an utterance in one language, the insertion of an element of another language in the utterance should be viewed as their attempt to establish lexical cohesion to bring about coherence. His analysis suggested to “eliminate the need to distinguish between loanwords, nonce-borrowing, or single-item codeswitches, as a lexical item is no longer defined in relationship to the lexicon of the language in whose context it occurs, but rather by the cohesive tie in which it participates.”

Different from the three linguists whose studies just centered around lexical cohesion, Witte and Faigley (1981) discussed all the cohesive devices outlined by Halliday and Hasan (1976), namely reference, conjunction, ellipsis, substitution and lexical cohesion. In their study Coherence, Cohesion, and Writing Quality, Witte and Faigley (1981) suggested that in addition to coherence, cohesion be an important factor of writing quality although there was no evidence to conclude that a large number of cohesive ties of a particular type would positively affect writing quality (199 & 202). The same conclusion was also indicated by Field and Yip (1992: 27) as saying that EFL learners tended to overuse conjunctive devices and sometimes to misuse them.

Now, to turn to this present study, The Realization of Cohesion in Students’ Argumentative Writing Performance, it attempted to research on one aspect of texture, that is, cohesion. The choice of cohesion as the subject was based at least on the researcher‟s two believes.

The first one is that cohesion in a text reflects the realization of the speaker‟s or writer‟s meaning-making. Eggins (2004: 3) indicates that “language use is functional, and its function is to make meaning.” Halliday and Hasan (1985: 16) have also suggested that this language function to realize meaning is “as a fundamental principle of language.”

fundamental as well. It certainly occupies a central position in the process of someone learning a language, in determining the quality of his/her text while communicating ideas.

The second belief is that focusing on textual cohesion will result in an indirect study of coherence. It is true that there are other factors that contribute to text‟s coherence such as its internal logic, organization, identifiable purpose, distinct generic type, and conformity with its given audience‟s expectation and

knowledge (see the discussion of Coherence in the subheading 2.2.2). However, it is cohesion that contributes to text‟s coherence to a greater extent (Halliday and Hasan, 1985: 48; Stotsky, 1983: 430; Kuo, 1995: 50, Liu, 2000 in Paltridge, 2006: 152; see also Fairclough, 1995 in Angermeyer, 2002: 363). To support this claim more, Hoey (1991: 9-10 in Angermeyer, 2002: 363) indicates that cohesion, especially its most important cohesive resource, lexical cohesion, is “the dominant mode of creating coherence.”

Though this study might be the same with the others which discussed cohesion such as the four ones mentioned above, it has its own differences. While the others just discussed one resource of cohesion such as conjunction or lexical cohesion, this study dealt with not only both but also all the resources of cohesion known as the theories of Patterns of Cohesion, which consist of five cohesive resources, conjunction, reference, lexical cohesion, ellipsis and substitution (see Halliday and Hasan, 1976; Witte and Faigley, 1981: 190-195; Gerot, 1994: 170-183; Halliday and Matthiessen, 2004: 532-578; Eggins, 2004: 33-53; and Paltridge, 2006: 131-145).

This study also has distinct characteristics compared with others which exploited these five resources of cohesion such as ones conducted by Witte and

Faigley (1981), Johns (1980), Crane (2000), Wanyama (2006) and Agustini (2009). They did not adopt the extended version of cohesive resources as this study did. This study applied the extended version of the resources as the result of taking into account their new development.

2.3.6 and 2.3.7) to analyze the students‟ texts. Further, it also expanded the subclasses of the super-ordinate cohesive resources of lexical cohesion. The subclasses adopted consist of not only repetition, synonymy, antonymy,

hyponymy, meronymy, and collocation but also related words proposed by Salkie (1995: 28-31; see also Liu, 2000). More detailed information about this lexical cohesion with its subclasses can be seen in the subheading 2.3.3.

As far as the present researcher is concerned, there has not been any research

yet so far on the application of this extended version. Investigating cohesion in its more complete construct such as this, the study, therefore, is expected to be able to reveal the students‟ profile of writing cohesion more thoroughly.

1.2 Research Questions

This research was guided by how cohesive resources that belong to the extended version of Patterns of Cohesion were realized in written texts. The

texts are of Argumentative genre written in a test by students categorized into the high, middle and low achievers. The research investigated not only their successes but also less successes or failures in resorting to the linguistic means of those cohesive resources. The research also attempted to depict the the density of cohesion realized across the three students‟ categories. By doing all these, the study was then trying to answer the following research questions.

(1) How are cohesive resources deployed in the Argumentative writing performance of the high, middle and low student achievers?

(2) What are the levels of cohesive density these three categories of students achieve in their writing performance?

(3) What cohesive resources do the students fail to conform with in their documents of Argumentative text writing?

1.3 Purposes of the Study

how they were employed erroneously. The two aims above taken together, the results of the study are expected to provide more thorough accounts of how EFL/ESL learners resorted to the cohesive devices. The results are also hoped to inspire teaching practitioners to teach writing more effectively and in turn help their learners with diagnostic feedback to improve the learners‟ writing productions to the most extent.

Further, this study has also an aim to reveal the cohesive density across the

three proficiency levels. Regardless of whether the densities revealed are different or not across the three learners‟ levels of proficiency, it is expected that the results can give an insight into the nature of the learners‟ realization of cohesion in their Argumentative texts.

1.4 Scope of the Study

There are some choices of aspects concerning text to research on. But due to

the limitation of his knowledge, his time and the space, the present researcher just attempted to explore a textual property called cohesion in the students‟ Argumentative writing they produced in an English test. However, the other property, coherence, was discussed too to a certain extent. As the two properties are interwoven, an investigation of one brings a consequence of taking the other into account.

1.5 Significances of the Study

Cohesive resources as a whole have not been fully explored. Just few researchers have resorted to them when doing text analyses. In the light of the fact, it is quite likely that the study, which resorted to the seven cohesive devices in investigating the learners‟ writing texts, will open a wider perspective in the research on cohesion to provide a clearer picture of the achievement of students‟ writing cohesion. The following significant points are, therefore, expected to result from this case study:

(1) It imparts a contribution to the theory of writing cohesion.

(3) It hopefully inspires English teachers, particularly writing teachers, to teach writing more effectively through the knowledge of texture, especially that of cohesion, shared by this study.

(4) Its results might become considerations for policy makers of education to take actions in helping teachers understand texture, especially cohesion, to bring about the best outcomes on the part of the students‟ learning to write.

1.6 Definitions of Terms

The study reported in the thesis uses a number of terms in exploring the phenomenon investigated. The terms need to be defined in order to avoid misunderstanding, misinterpretation, and ambiguity from emerging. The provision of the definitions is also expected to help the readers sharing the same

interest. So, they can obtain much useful information from it. Below is the alphabetical list of the definitions.

1. Coherence is a quality of a text obtained when the text hangs together, meanings or ideas in it form a unified whole to meet the expectation of its listener/reader, and when the text relates to its extra-textual contexts, the social and cultural contexts of its occurrence (see Halliday and Hasan, 1985: 48; and Eggins, 2004: 24).

2. Cohesion is another quality of a text achieved when certain kinds of relations among lexical items in the text are established by lexico-grammatical patterns (Halliday and Hasan, 1985: 71). Similarly, Knapp and Watkins (2005: 47) define cohesion as the linguistic devices available to help link information in writing and help the text flow and hold together.

this study, all those cohesive resources belong to the theories of Patterns of Cohesion (see subheading 2.3).

4. Cohesive tie is the establishment of a semantic relation between one element and another in a text so that the interpretation of one of them depends on that of the other (see Halliday and Hasan, 1976: 8; Witte and Faigley, 1981: 190; Halliday and Hasan, 1985 73; and Eggins, 2004: 29-30). When a cohesive tie or link is established between items, they are then

cohesive.

5. Genre is defined as „a kind of text that derives its form from the structure of a (frequently repeated) social occasion, with its characteristic participants and their purposes' (Kress 1988: 183 in Chandler, 1997). 6. Meaning-making/meaning realization is the construction of a text that is

started with the intention of communicating ideas to be construed (see Kuo, 1995: 48-49).

7. Writing performance is a writing production. The type studied in this research is extensive writing performance in which the writer is expected to meet all the standards applied to native language writers in terms of being able to demonstrate his/her successful management of all the processes and strategies of writing up to the length of an essay (Brown, 2004: 220 & 232).

1.7Organization of Thesis

This thesis consists of five chapters, started with this current chapter, chapter one, which is broken down into seven points starting from the background of the study to the organization of the thesis. Chapter two presents four discussions

CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter discusses the research methodology. The discussions are divided into four subheadings. They are research paradigm and design, research site and participants, data collection, and data analysis.

3.1 Research Paradigm and Design

The study is qualitative research in nature. It is also called interpretive research (Sugiyono, 2010: 7) because it is based on an interpretive paradigm. The term paradigm here is a set of basic beliefs (Richards, 2003 in McKay, 2006: 4). According to Holliday, since phenomenon or reality contains mysteries to which the researcher must submit and can do no more than interpret, interpretivists believe that knowledge and meaning are acts of interpretation. Hence, there is no objective knowledge independent of thinking, reasoning human (2007: 6).

Characteristics of interpretive or qualitative research (Lincoln and Guba, 1985: 39-43 in Alwasilah, 2000: 78-79; McKay, 2006: 7; and Cresswell, 2007: 36-38) are found in this study. Just to mention some, the characteristics are firstly the setting of the study is natural. It was conducted in a natural surrounding of an English class with students and a teacher having a process of teaching and learning to write in a regular class.

Secondly, human is required as the salient instrument. In the study, it was the researcher who became the instrument as he is the human who has the ability to fully interact with the phenomena he observes and investigates. Thirdly, the inductive method in analyzing the data is applied. In line with this, the research

investigated particular data – the student participants’ writing pieces – to arrive at general findings and conclusions.

However, this study also resorted to quantitative method to some extent. Creswell (2003; see also Holliday, 2007: 2) says it is possible to use a combination of qualitative and quantitative method as one method can support the other one by means of elaborating, enhancing or illustrating the results from the other method. Being subsidiary to qualitative one in the study, quantitative method was applied to identify, for example, the frequency of occurrences of the cohesive resources, the percentage of each resource’s contribution to the level of cohesion or cohesive density, and the frequency of the learners’ failures in observing the cohesive resources.

In this research, a case study design was adopted. Creswell (2007: 73), in line with Merriam (1998) and Yin (2003), perceives the design as a research strategy or methodology. He defines case study research as a qualitative approach in which the investigator explores a bounded system (a case), or multiple bounded systems (cases) over time through detailed, in depth data collection involving multiple sources of information such as documents and interviews.

The design has been chosen because it allows the researcher to study the phenomenon deeply to find meaning behind it as Connole (1993: 64 cited in Emilia, 2000: 5) says: “ … the essential feature of a case study is the level of depth it can offer in researching all illustrative examples of some phenomenon”. Another reason is that a case study, which is also known as a triangulated research strategy (Tellis, 1997), uses data triangulation. So, it enables the researcher to obtain more complete and in-depth information about the issue under investigation and at the same time “to confirm the validity of the processes” (Yin, 1984; and Stake 1995 cited in http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/ QR3-3/tellis2.html; see also Alwasilah, 2000: 150 and Emilia, 2009: 197).

Data triangulation employed in this research was the combination of two data sources, the students’ writing documents and the interview with them. How data were obtained by means of these two data sources will be further discussed in the forthcoming section 3.3.

The study was conducted in the English Department of Bandung State Polytechnic (Politeknik Negeri Bandung). The English Department, which is relatively still young compared with the other departments available there, was established in the year of 2007. The site was chosen since it is the place where the researcher works. This guarantees him to get an easy access to the site.

Further, during the processes of the research, the researcher gained assistance from his colleagues, especially from the lecturer of the class in which the

research was conducted, and obtained necessary formal academic documents concerning the student participants of the study. In brief, he found no difficulties in conducting the research in this college for higher education, where graduates of SMA, Sekolah Menengah Atas and SMK, Sekolah Menengah Kejuruan

(Senior High and Senior Vocational School) can continue their study for around three years.

The student participants of the study, twenty seven altogether, were a class of the second year or fourth semester students majoring in English. In general, their English level belonged to higher Intermediate or lower Advanced. They were selected as the participants because they were in the fourth semester students – thus had learned essay writing related to a few genres, one of which was Argumentative, a text type under investigation in this study.

The twenty-seven participants were first asked to write an essay consisting of around 350-450 words in their regular class as scheduled. They had been informed in advance about this writing task. For the writing, they were given some topics to choose. Each topic was provided with writing prompts (see Appendix 4). The participants were also told that the writing was considered to be a test of the subject of Essay Writing that they were taking in that particular

semester.

middle, and high achievers. It is the writing pieces produced by these three categories of learners that constitute the corpus analyzed in this study.

To avoid misleading selection in categorizing the learners, the researcher crosschecked the English grades of these research participants to the teacher who taught them and to the documents of their academic achievements at the administrative section.

3.3 Data Collection

With the purpose to answer the research questions, triangulated data collections, namely students’ writing documents and interview were conducted. The data first collected were the students’ nine Argumentative writing documents. The textual documents were obtained after being written for almost

one hour, fifty-five minutes to be precise in a test. The texts constituted the primary data in this study.

To complement the primary data, another data collection instrument was implemented. That is interview with the student participants of this study. At one appointed time and in an agreed place, three out of nine students whose texts have been taken as the corpus of the study, were asked to attend the interview. Each of them represented each of their proficiency level.

The questions asked during the interview covered three main themes, the students’ general knowledge of the cohesive devices, the sources from where they learned the cohesive devices and the usefulness of knowing the devices for them. To avoid losing the information, the interview was recorded and a note was taken. The transcription and the analysis of the interview can be seen in Appendix 3.

form of questions in order to follow up the answers given and stories told by the subjects (Kvale, 1996: 124).

3.4 Data Analysis

It is said that data analysis is aimed at discovering pattern, ideas, explanations and understanding of data found and collected during research (McMillan 2001: 221). It was an understanding of how cohesion was realized in the students’ documents of Argumentative writing that was sought after in this study. For that purpose, the students’ writing documents, the corpus of the study, were investigated and interviews with the students conducted.

In analyzing the data of students’ writing documents, the theories of Patterns of Cohesion, which are informed by Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) and

discussed in Chapter 2, were applied. The patterns consist of seven cohesive devices, reference, conjunction, lexical cohesion, ellipsis, substitution, tense

consistency and grammatical parallelism. The patterns were used to analyze the documents to find out the realization of cohesion in them. That is how the seven cohesive devices above, one by one including their subclasses, were deployed in the documents to bring about the effects that the writers desired. This analysis involved qualitative and quantitative methods since the discussion of the deployment of the cohesive devices was needed to be tabulated too.

In the analysis of the students’ documents, how the cohesive devices were erroneously employed was involved as well. This way, the realization of cohesion in the students’ texts was seen from two perspectives, from both the correct and erroneous employment of the cohesive devices. Therefore, how cohesion was realized in the texts would be more thoroughly explored. Further, the discussion of this erroneous employment of the cohesive devices was also tabulated. So, the analysis of the students’ errors in employing the cohesive devices was conducted using qualitative and quantitative methods like that of the students’ deployment of the devices.

transcription of the students’ answers to the questions covering the three themes as discussed in section 3.3 above was analyzed. The analysis as seen in Appendix 3 was only qualitatively performed unlike that of the deployment and the erroneous employment of cohesive resources in the students’ documents of Argumentative writing.

Further, in order to answer the research questions, the results of this analysis of the interview were triangulated with those of the analysis of how cohesion

was realized in the students’ document in terms of how the cohesive devices were deployed and erroneously employed by the students. This triangulation of data was aimed to help increase the validity of the research.

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION, LIMITATION, AND RECOMMENDATION

This chapter is split into three subheadings. Each of them describes three aspects which include conclusion, limitation of the study and recommendation, as presented consecutively below.

5.1 Conclusion

The data presented in the previous sections indicate that on the one hand, they

confirm what has been found in some previous studies. On the other hand, the

data suggest several findings that need supports from future research to verify

them. In relationship with what the data of the research confirm and suggest, as

have been discussed in the previous chapters, Chapter 4 especially, some

conclusions can be drawn. They are presented below.

In response to the first research question, the realization of cohesion across

the three proficiency levels showed that lexical cohesion was the most frequent cohesive tie, followed successively by reference, tense consistency, conjunction, grammatical parallelism, ellipsis and substitution. For this reason, the study suggests that lexical cohesion, not reference, be mentioned first in the theory of patterns of cohesion although this is contrary to the common practice. To mention reference first in the theory is misleading as the device is not the most

frequently used cohesive tie.

It is also suggested that one of the subclass of lexical cohesion, repetititon, when relied on heavily, be an indicator of a poor writing achievement. Another subclass, collocation, when predominantly deployed, is the best gauge of highly-rated writing quality.

As for the realization of conjunction, it was found that enhancement was the conjunctive category that occured mostly in the Argumentative texts investigated in this study. This is in line with some linguists’ suggestions. This category of conjunction was in turn followed by extension, elaboration and continuative.

Further, the data showed that ellipsis and substitution turned out to be the rarest two devices to occur in this study. Possibly, the reason comes from the

learners’ lack of language resources to choose from. It is, however, more obvious that the reason is because the two devices are not the linguistic characteristics of an Argumentative text but of a dialogue to exchange ideas or information (see Halliday and Matthiessen, 2004: 536).

Taken together, the realizations of cohesive devices above indicated that the

profiles of cohesion across the high, middle and low achievers were different. In

short, there appears a relation between the number of cohesive ties used in a text

and its quality. As already discussed, this finding is in line with some other

studies which have investigated cohesion in its more complete construct, involving not only grammatical but also lexical cohesion with its subclasses.

Based on the finding above, this research suggests that if a study of cohesion

involves its complete construct (involving lexical cohesion, especially), the

study will come with a consistent result that there is a relation between the number of cohesive ties used in a text and its quality. On the other hand, if a study does not, its results will tend to show inconsistency.

In relationship to the second research question, the data revealed that lexical cohesion has the highest contribution to the total cohesive density. It contributed between 42 and 46 per cent (see Table 4.1). This finding supports what has been found by other researchers (Hasan, 1984 and Hoey, 1991).

Referring to the third research question, the data of students’ errors in employing the cohesive devices indicated that more errors were made as the learners’ proficiency got lower. Though this finding was predictable, it confirmed the assertion that there was a close relation between the realization (not only the right but also erroneous employment) of cohesive devices and the

students’ language development.

The finding was also confirmed by the data derived from the interviews with

the students. The data showed that there was also a relationship between

students’ level of proficiency with their spoken performances in using the devices. The more developed their spoken proficiency was, the less errors they made in resorting to the devices and the more confident they were in their performances.

All in all, it is obvious that the cohesive devices play a pivotal role, especially

in enabling the students to become better writers. Therefore, the cohesive

devices should be taught explicitly in teaching language skills, especially

writing. These devices can be integerated, for example, into the reading

materials usually provided for the the teaching process of writing due to the

close connection between the two skills.

5.2 Limitation

This study, just like many other studies, has some limitations in it. First, besides it is a case study in nature, this study was conducted over limited number of texts and participants. As a result, the findings of this research cannot be claimed to be generally found too across different contexts of time and place.

Second, the texts investigated in this study were the results of writing performances produced in a test with a time constraint. Therefore, the texts may not thoroughly reflect the learners’ default writing skill. It is quite likely that their true writing skill is higher than that reflected in their Argumentative texts which have been analyzed in this study as its corpus.

supported by the formal document of their academic achievements in the subject of Essay Writing I, which is encoded IG2093, as seen in Appendix 5. Based on the the document, only one, the second high achiever, truly belongs to the category. As no other students were listed there as high achievers, the other two, who were actually middle achievers as far as their formal academic performances were concerned, were selected to be high achievers by the researcher though the selection was approved of by their lecturer.

5.3 Recommendation

Based on the results of the research, some recommendations need to be made especially for teaching practitioners and those interested in doing research on texture, cohesion and coherence, in the future.

To start with, teachers should prioritize effective activities or exercises related to cohesion in teaching writing. It is recommended that the activities are

integrated into the process of teaching writing. These activities also need to be complemented with reading materials since reading is closely connected with writing. This way, besides the students are expected to know the content, they can gain the knowledge of how to create a cohesive text.

It would also be a good idea that the policy makers of education provide the teachers with training. This is to ensure that they obtain the ability of how to employ the cohesive devices effectively. That way, they are expected to be able to show their students how these explicit lexicogrammatical patterns work to make meaning in texts.

The second is to research on cohesion that offers explicitly practical suggestions of how teachers should teach the students to overcome their problems of writing. Much research, including this one, does not provide such practical suggestions. There is a wide gap in this area of research. Therefore, next research on the cohesive devices is expected to deal with these pedagogical suggestions that will enable the students to exploit the cohesive ties skillfully.

For this kind of research, it is suggested to conduct a study investigating

collocation. Collocation, which has attracted the attention of many linguist researchers in recent years, is considered as the main element that shows

REFERENCES

Ahmed, A. H. (2010). Students’ Problems with Cohesion and Coherence in EFL

Essay Writing in Egypt: Different Perspectives. Literacy Information and Computer Education Journal (LICEJ), Volume 1, Issue 4, December 2010.

Agustini, D. (2009). A Study on Cohesion in Three Articles of Alwasilah. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. Bandung: Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia (UPI).

Allard, L. and Ulatowska, H.K. (1991). Cohesion in Written Narrative and Procedural Discourse on Fifth-Grade Children. Linguistics and Education, vol. 33(1), 63-79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0898-5898(91) 90024-D.

Alarcon, J. B. and Morales, K. N. S. (2011). Grammatical Cohesion in Students’

Argumentative Essay. Journal of English and Literature Vol. 2(5), pp. 114 - 127, June 2011. [Online]. Available: http://www.academic journals.org/ ijel/PDF/Pdf2011/June/Alarcon%20and%20Morales.pdf

Alwasilah, A. C. (2007). Pokoknya Menulis. Bandung: PT Kiblat Buku Utama.

Alwasilah, A.C. (2010). Language, Culture, and Education: A Portrait of Contemporary Indonesia. Bandung: CV Indira.

Alwasilah, A.C. (2000). Pokoknya Kualitatif. Jakarta: Pustaka Jaya.

Angermeyer, P.S. (2002). Lexical Cohesion in Multilingual Conversation.

International Journal of Bilingualism. Volume 6, No 4. December 2002, 361-393.

Aston, G. (1005). Corpora in Language Pedagogy: Matching Theory and Practice. Cook and Seidlhofer, 257-270.

Avci, G.B. (2006). The Effects of Collocation Instruction on Writing. Unpublished Dissertation, Istambul Technical University, English Preparatory Programme. [Online]. Available: www.bergeler.com.

Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). The Problems of Speech Genres. In Speech Genres and Other Late Essays, edited by Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist and translated by Vernon W. McGee, 60-102. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Benson, M., Benson, E. and Ilson, R. (1997). The BBI Dictionary of English Word Combinations (2nd edition). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Bloor, T. and Bloor, M. (1995). The Functional Analysis of English: A Hallidayan Approach. London: Arnold.

Bloor, T. and Bloor, M. (2004). The Functional Analysis of English. London: Edward Arnold.

Bright, W. (1992). International Encyclopedia of Linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press.

Brown, H. D. (2004). Language Assessment: Principle and Classroom Practices. New York: Pearson Education, Inc.

Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy 2nd Ed. White Plains, NY: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.

Castro, D. (2004). Cohesion and Social Construction of Meaning in College Students Writing in L2 English. Asia Pacific Education Review, 5(2), 215-225.

Callghan, M. and Rothery, J. (1988). Teaching Factual Writing: A Genre Based Approach. Sidney Metropolitan East Disadvantaged Schools Program.

Carson, J.G. (1992). Becoming Biliterate: First Language Influence. In T. Silva and P.K. Matsuda. (2001). (eds). Landmark Essays on ESL Writing. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Carter, R. and McCarthy, M. (1988). Vocabulary and Language Teaching. New York: Longman.

Celce-Murcia, M. and E. Olshtain (2000). Discourse and Context in Language

Teaching: A Guide for Language Teachers. Cambridge, Cambridge

University Press.

Chandler, D. (1997). An Introduction to Genre Theory. [WWW document] URL http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/intgenre/int genre.html [Date of Visit: 20 September 2012].

Chen, J. (2008). An Investigation of EFL Students’ Use of Cohesive Devices.

Asia Pacific Education Review, 5(2), 215-225.

Christie, F. (2005). Language Education in the Primary Years. London: Continuum.

Christie, F. and Derewianka, B. (2008). School Discourse. London: Continuum.

Christie, F. and Misson, R (1998). Framing the Issues in Literary Education. In R. Christie and R. Misson. (2000). (eds). Literacy and Schooling. London: Routledge.

Connole, H. (1993). The Research Enterprise. In H. Connole, B. Smith & R. Wiseman (1993). Reseach Methodology I: Issues and Methods in Reseach. A Study Guide. Melbourne: Deakin University.

Connor, U. (1984). A Study of Cohesion and Coherence in ESL Students’ Writing. Papers in Linguistics: International Journal of Human Communication 17/3: 301-316.

Crane, P.A. (2000). Texture in Text: A Discourse Analysis of a News Article Using Halliday and Hasan’s Model of Cohesion. [Online]. Available: http://www. library.nakanishi.ac.jp./kiyou/gaidai(30)/08.pdf

Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (2nd Ed). California: Sage Publication.

Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry & Reseach Design: Coosing Among Five Approaches (2nd Ed). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publication.

Crystal, D. (1992). Introducing Linguistics. Harlow: Penguin.

De Beaugrande, R. and Dressler, W. U. (1981). Introduction to Text Linguistics. [Online]. Available: http://www.sil.org.

Depdiknas (2003). Kurikulum 2004. Standar Kompetensi. Mata Pelajaran Bahasa Inggris. Sekolah Menengah Atas dan Madrasah Aliyah. Jakarta: Depdiknas.

Depdiknas (2007). Kurikulum Bahasa Inggris untuk Sekolah Berstandar International. Jakarta: Depdiknas.

Derewianka, B. (1990). Exploring How Texts Work. Laura Street Newtown NSW: Primary English Teaching Association.

Driscoll, D. L. (2010). Parallel Structure. [Online]. Available: http://qwl. english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/623/1/ Last Edited: 2010-04-17 05:51:01. Retrieved on 6 September 2012.

Eggins, S. (2004). An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.

Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.

Emilia, E. (2005). A Critical Genre-Based Approach to Teaching Academic Writing in a Tertiary EFL Context in Indonesia. Unpublished Dissertation in Department of Language, Literacy and Arts Education Faculty of Education. Melbourne: The University of Melbourne.

Emilia, E. (2009). Menulis Tesis dan Disertasi. Bandung: Alfabeta.

Emilia, E. (2010). Teaching Writing: Developing Critical Learners. Bandung: Rizki Press.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/cohesion_linguistics Retrieved on 16 of May, 2012.

Esselink, B. (2000). A Practical Guide to Localization 2nd Ed. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Evergreen Writing Center Library. [Online]. Availble: http://www.evergreen. edu/writingcenter/handouts/grammar/parallel.pdf). Retrieved on 6 September 2012.

Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. New York: Routledge.

Feez, S., Iedema, R. and White, P. (2008). Media Literacy. Sydney: New South Wales Department of Education and Training.

Fellbaum, C. (1998). WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database. (ed). MIT Press. [Online]. Available: URL: http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/ ~wn/

Fellbaum, C. et al (1993). 5 Papers on Wordnet. [Online]. Available: URL: http:// www. cogsci.princeton.edu/~wn/

Ferris, D. R. (1994). Lexical and Syntactic Features in ESL Writing by Students at Different Levels of L2 Proficiency. TESOL Quarterly, 28(2), 414-420. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3587446.

Firth, J. R. (1935). The Technique of Semantics: Transactions of the Philological Society (reprinted in J. R. Firth, Papers in Linguistics 1934-1951

(1957), 177-89).

Firth, J. R. (1950). Personality and Language in Society. In Firth 1957: 177-89.

Firth, J. R. (1951). Modes of Meaning. In Firth 1957: 190-215.

Foucault, M. (1984). The Order of Discourse. In M. Shapiro (ed). The Language of Politics. Oxford: Blackwell.

Frankel, J. R. and Wallen, N. E. (1996). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education3rd Ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill, Inc.

Freedman, A. and Medway, P. (1994). Learning and Teaching Genre. Portsmouth, N.H.: Boynton/Cook Publishers HEINEMANN.

Ghadessy, M. (1998). The Use of Vocabulary and Collocations in the Writing of Primary School Students in Singapore. In P. N. a. R. Carter (Ed.),

Vocabulary Acquisition (pp.110-117): AILA Review, No.6.

Gerot, L. and Wignell, P. (1994). Making Sense of Functional Grammar. NSW: Gerd Stabler, Antipodean Education Enterprises.

@Grammarly Inc (2012). [Online]. Available: http://www.grammarly.com/ handbook/grammar/verbs/20/verb-tense-consistency/ Retrieved on 6 September 2012.

Green, C. (2012). A Computational Investigation of Cohesion and Lexical Network Density in L2 Writing. English Language Teaching 5.8 (August 2012): 57-69. Document URL: http://search.proquest.com/ docview/1032660081?accountid=13567.

Guan, D.E.H. (2009). Debbie Systemic Text Analysis in the ESL Writing Classroom: Does It Work? RELC Journal, 40: 333 [Online]. Available: http://rel.sagepub.com/content/40/3/333DOI:10.1177/0033 688209343869.

Gustinefa (2008). Applying Genre-Based Approach to Teaching Expository Writing: A Case Study. Unpublished Thesis in the English Education Program, School of Postgraduate Studies, Indonesia University of Education, Bandung.

Gutwinski (1976). Cohesion in Literary Texts: A Study of Some Grammatical and Lexical Textures of English Discourse. The Hague: Mouton (Janua Linguarum Series Minor 204).

Halliday, M.A.K. (1974). Interview with M.A.K. Halliday. In H. Parret (ed).

Discussing Language. The Hague: Mouton (Janua Linguarum Series Major, 93), 81-120.

Halliday, M.A.K. and Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.

Hasan, R. (1984). Coherence and Cohesive Harmony. In J. Flood (ed.)

Understanding Reading Comprehension. Newark, DE: IRA.

Hasan, R. (1985). The Texture of a Text. In M. A. K. Halliday and R. Hasan (1985), 70-96.

Hatim, B. and Munday, J. (2004). Translation, An Advanced Resource Book. London and New York: Routledge.

Hill, J. and Lewis, M. (2000). Classroom Strategies, Activities and Exercise. In M. Lewis (ed). Teaching Collocation pp. 88-117. London: Language Teaching Publications.

Hoey, M. (1991). Patterns of Lexis in Text. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Holliday, A. (2007). Doing and Writing Qualitative Research 2nd Ed. Thousand Oaks California: Sage Publications Ltd.

Hsu, J. (2007). Lexical Collocations and Their Relations to the Online Writing of Taiwanese College English Majors and Non-English Majors. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 4(2), 192-209.

Humphrey, S. Droga, L. and Feez, S. (2012). Grammar and Meaning. NSW: PETAA Hyde Park Press.

http://www.englishclub.com/vocabulary/collocation.htm. Retrieved on 15 Nov. 2012.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collocation Retrieved on 6 September 2012.

http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/601/04/ Retrieved on 6 September 2012.

Hymes, D. H. (1962/74). The Ethnography of Speaking. In B. G. Blount (ed).

Language, Culture and Society. Cambridge MA: Winthrop, 189-223.

Hymes, D. H. (1964/72). Towards Ethnographies of Communication: The Analysis of Communicative Events. In P. P. Giglioli (ed). Language and Social Context.Hammondswort: Penguin, 21-44.

Hyland, K. (2003). Second Language Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jacobs, H., Zinkgraf, S., Wormuth, D., Hartfiel, V., & Hughey, J. (1981).

Johns, A. M. (1980). Cohesion in Written Business Discourse: Some Contracts.

The ESP Journal, 1, 1, 35-44.

Johnson, A. P. (2003). A Short Guide to Academic Writing. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America.

Jorgensen, M., and Phillips L. J. (2002). Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method. Thousand Oaks, California 91320: Sage Publication Ltd. Thesis in Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. [Online]. Available: http://hdl.handle.net/10356/20300

Kies, D. (2011). Coherence in Writing. [Online]. Available: http://papyr.com/ hypertext books/comp1/coherent.htm Retrieved on 16 February 2012.

Kjellmer, G. (1991). A Mint of Phrases, English Corpuslinguistics: Studies in Honour of Jan Svartvik, 111-127. In G. Kjellmer (ed). (1984). Some Thoughts on Collocational Distinctiveness. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Knapp, P. and Watkins, M. (2005). Genre, Text, Grammar. Sydney NSW 2052: University of New South Wales Press Ltd.

Kress, G. (1988). Communication and Culture: An Introduction. Kengsinton, NSW: New South Wales University Press.

Kress, G. (1993). Genre as a Social Process. In B. Cope and M. Kalantzis. (1993). (ed). The Power of Literacy. A Genre-Based Approach to Teaching Writing. London: The Falmer Press.

Kuzel, A.J. (1992). Sampling in Qualitative Inquiry. In B.F. Crabtree & W.L.Miller (Eds), Doing Qualitative Research (pp.31-44). (Research Methods for Primary Case Series, vol.13). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Lengkanawati, N. (1990). Aspek Logika dan Aspek Linguistik dalam Ketrampilan Menulis: Studi Tentang Profil Komposisi Bahasa Indonesia dan Bahasa Inggris. Unpublished Master’s Thesis.

Bandung: UPI.

Lewis, M. (1993). The Lexical Approach. London: Language Teaching Publications.

Lewis, M. (1997). Implementing the Lexical Approach: Putting Theories Into Practice. London: Language Teaching Publications.

Lewis, M. (2001). There is Nothing as Practical as a Good Theory. In Michael Lewis (ed.), Teaching Collocation: Further Developments in the Lexical Approach (pp. 10-27). London: Language Teaching Publications.

Lincoln, Y.S. and Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Liu, D. (2000). Writing Cohesion: Using Context Lexical Ties in ESOL. English Teaching Forum, 38, 1, 28-35.

Liu, M. and Braine, G. (2005). Cohesive Features in Argumentative Writing Produced by Chinese Undergraduates. [Online]. Available: http:// www.sciencedirect.com/science.

Mahvelati, E. H. and Mukundan, J. (2012). The Role of Cognitive Style in the Collocational Knowledge Development of Iranian EFL Learners through Input Flood Treatment. English Language Teaching 5. 10 (2012): 105-117. ProQuest document ID: 1081341597 Document URL: http://search. proquest.com/docview/1081341597? accountid= 13567.

Malinowski, B. (1923/46). The Problem of Meaning in Primitive Languages. Supplement I to C. K. Ogden and I. A. Richards, The Meaning of Meaning (8th Edition, 1946). New York: Harcourt Brace & World, 296-336.

Vol. 2. The Language of Magic and Gardening. London: Allen and Unwin.

Martin, J. R. (1985). Factual Writing: Exploring and Challenging Social Reality. Geelong: Deakin University Press.

Martin, J.R. (1992). English Text: System and Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamin’s.Publishing Company.

Martin, J.R. (2003). Cohesion and Texture. In D. Schriffin, D. Tannen, and Hamilton H. E. (2007). The Handbook of Discourse Analysis (eds). Blackwell Publishing 2007, Blackwell Reference Online. 03 March 2007 <http://www.blackwellreference.com/subscriber/book?id=g 9780631205968_9780631205968>

Martin J. R. & Rose, D. (2007). Working with Discourse: Meaning Beyond the Clause 2nd Ed. London and New York: Continuum.

Martin, J. R. (2010). Language, Register, and Genre. In C. Coffin, T. Lilis., K. O. Halloran (2010). (eds). Applied Linguistics Methods: A Reader. Milton Park, Abington, Oxon: Routledge.

McCabe, A.M. (1999). Theme and Thematic Patterns in Spanish and English History Texts. Unpublished Dissertation for Doctor of Philosophy at Aston University.

McKay, S. L. (2006). Researching Second Language Classrooms. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers.

McMillan, J.H., Schumacher, S. (2001) Research in Education. A Conceptual Introduction. New York: Longman.

Meisuo, Z. (2000). Cohesive Features in the Expository Writing of of Undergraduates in Two Chinese Univesities. RELC J., 52431(61).

Merriam, S. (1998). Case Study Research in Education: A Qualitative Approach. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mills, S. (1997). Discourse. London and New York: Routledge.

Mirzapour, F. and Ahmadi, M. (2011). Study on Lexical Cohesion in English and Persian Research Articles. English Language Teaching, 4(4), 243-255.

Muto, K. (2007). The Use of Lexical Cohesion in Reading and Writing. [Online]. Available:http://library.nakanishi.ac.jp/kiyou/gaidai%2830%29/07.pdf

Paltridge, B. (2006). Discourse Analysis: An Introduction. London and New York: Continuum.

Richards, J. C., and Schmidt, R. (2002). Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics. Harlow, Essex: Longman, Pearson Education Limited.

Richards, K. (2003). Qualitative Inquiry in TESOL. New York: Pelgrave McMillan.

Salkie, R. (1995). Text and Discourse Analysis. London and New York: Routledge.

Schriffin, D., Tannen D., and Hamilton H. E. (2003). Introduction. The Handbook of Discourse Analysis (eds). Blackwell Publishing 2007, Blackwell Reference Online. 03 March 2007 <http://www. blackwellreference.com/subscriber/book?id=g9780631205968_97806 31205968>

Smith, C. (2005). The Lexical Approach: Collocation in High School English Language Learners. Oregon: George Fox University.

Stake, R. (1995). The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, Calofornia: Sage.

Stotsky, S. (1983). Types of Lexical Cohesion in Expository Writing: Implications for Developing the Vocabulary of Academic Discourse.

College Composition and Communication, Vol. 34, No. 4, Coherence and Cohesion: What Are They and How Are They Achieved? (Dec., 1983), pp. 430-446.

Stubbs, M. (1987). Discourse Analysis: The Sociolinguistic Analysis of Natural Language. Oxford: Blackwell.

Sugiyono (2010). Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif, Kualitatif dan R and D. Bandung: Alfabeta.

Swales, J. (1990). Genre Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Teich, E. and Fankhauser, P. (2005). Exploring Lexical Patterns in Text:

Lexical Cohesion Analysis with WordNet. Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure 02(2005): 129–145. [Online]. Available:

http://www.sfb632.uni-potsdam.de/publications/isis02_7teich-fankhauser. pdf

Tellis, W. (1997, July). Introduction to Case Study [68 paragraphs]. The Qualitative Report [On-line serial], 3(2). Available: http://www.nova. edu/ssss/QR/QR3-2/tellis1.html.

Titscher, Meyer, Wodak and Vetter. (2000). Methods of Text and Discourse Analysis. London: Sage Publications Ltd..

Widdowson, H. (1978). Teaching Language as Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wanyama, M. (2006). Cohesion in the Novel of Alex La Gama: A Dialogic Analysis. [Online]. Availbale: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_ qa3709/is200604/ai_n17184340.

Wei, Y. (1999). Teaching Collocations for Productive Vocabulary Development. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. New York.

Winter, E. (1977). A Clause-Relational Approach to English Texts: A Study of Some Predictive Lexical Items in Written Discourse. Intructional Science, 6, 1, pp. 1-92.

Witte, S. P. and Faigley, L. (1981). Coherence, Cohesion, and Writing Quality.

College Composition and Communication, Vol. 32, No. 2 pp. 189-204, Language Studies and Composing [Online]. Available: http://www. cwrl.utexas.edu/~faigley/work/coherence.pdf. Taken on 16 February 2012 at 20:44.

Wu, S.X. (2010). Lexical Cohesion in Oral English. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 97-101 January 2010.

www.cogsci.princeton.edu/~wn/ _{Retrieved on 15 Nov. 2012.}

Yan, H. (2010). Study on the Causes and Countermeasures of the Lexical Collocation Mistakes in College English. English Language Teaching

3.1 March 2010): 162-165. ProQuest document ID: 839755762 Document URL: http://search. proquest.com/docview/839755762? accountid=13567.

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Method 3rd Ed. Thousand

Oaks: California: Sage.