The anal}1ical frameworks adopted in this research included both micro- and macro-levels of inquiry. The purpose of the micro-level analysis was to establish the frequency and types of errors made by second-language students and to look for trends, in relation to the four performance categories. These results were also used in a comparison of the types and frequency of errors made by first-language students. While the micro-level analysis remained largely at an intra-sententiallevel, the means by which a writer relates and arranges meaning in essay writing is through the use macro structural relationships.
Therefore, the present study aimed at developing an understanding of macro-level relations in student writing, through the use of cohesion and coherence analyses. An examination of these distinct levels oflanguage analyses helped to clearly delineate the areas of difficulty that second-language students experience as opposed to other language groups. Funher, the analyses revealed connections and transitions between these levels, that is, how micro-level issues may impact on and contribute to macro-level problems.
4.3.1, Basic Error Analysis:
One of the key methodological problemsllimitations with error analysis is that it can only provide a panial picture of the difficulties experienced by students because the analysis focuses only on part of the language that second-language learners produce, i.e. the idiosyncratic fonns. Secondly, error analysis examines language difficulties at a particular point in time and cannot, therefore, cast much light on the developmental route that learners take or account for lapses that may occur (EUis, 1994). Furthermore, there is a lack of clarity concerning the effect such errors have on the readers of the text, where academics either claim that they do not take account of these errors or that they are distracted by them.
69
However, such limitations do not rule out the effectiveness of using error analysis altogether and, it must be said that in conjunction with other fonns of analysis. error analysis may point to important areas where second-language students require instruction or mediation. As such. the analysis undertaken in the present study offers a way of showing whether or not the errors produced by second-language students contribute to a generally perceived competence.
In the present study, error analysis was used as a micro-level language analysis to identify trends across second-language students' essays, as well as comparatively to identify differences and/or similarities between the frequency and types of errors produced by second- and first-language students. The present study combined a standard linguistic
classification of errors with a surface strategy taxonomy (Dulay, Burt and Krashen, 1982) as a basic error analysis. A surface strategy taxonomy is divided into four categories and
'highlights the ways surface structures are altered' (1982: 150). Dulay et al. (1982) claim that a surface strategy approach provides a valuable indication of the cognitive processes that underlie the learner's reconstruction of the second-language. Ellis (1994) argues that this is a doubtful claim, however, because it assumes that leamers operate on a surface structure level when engaging with a target language, rather than creating their own unique structures. As mentioned, a surface strategy taxonomy is divided into four categories~
namely omission, addition, misformation and misordering. Omission concerns ''the absence of an item(s) that must appear in a well-fonned utterance" (Dulay et aI., (1982); for
example, 'He _ eating', while addition refers to "the presence afan item which must not appear in a well-fonned utterance" (Dulay et aI., 1982); for example, 'She has got so much of hair'. Misfonnation occurs when the wrong form ofa morpheme or structure is used~ for
70
example, "The cat ated the mouse". while misordering refers to "the incorrect placement of a morpheme or group of morphemes in an utterance" (Dulay et al.. 1982): for example,
"\Vhere mommy ~ going?".
The linguistic classification of errors were contained under the four surface strategy taxonomy categories, viz. omission, addition. misformation. and misordering. In the category of 'orrUssion' the following linguistic classifications were included:
omission: whole words/phrases/clauses have been omitted from a sentence.
ellipsis: incorrect information has been elided.
reference: absence of an obligatory referent or referee.
determiner: absence of a detenniner where one is required.
Similarly, the following linguistic errors were included under the broader category of 'addition';
redundancy: information has been included that is not required or is repetitive.
circumlocution: long clauses have been used to explain one/two words.
anaphoric reference: a reference (pronoun) has been used that is not required. The category of 'misformation' included the following linguistic items:
tense (+ copula): incorrect movement between tenses.
word form: the incorrect form of a word has been used.
determiner: the incorrect detenniner for the noun has been used.
concord: incorrect subject-verb agreement (gender, number, etc.).
relatives: incorrect relative pronoun before relative clause.
lexis: incorrect vocabulary.
split infinitive: splitting of an infinitive verb.
71
preposition: incorrect preposition has been used. while the category of'misordering' combined:
word order: words/phrases/clauses in a sentence were sequenced incorrectly.
punctuation: incorrect punctuation has used both within and across sentences conjunction: conjunctive ties used incorrectly.
This combination ofa surface strategy taxonomy and a linguistic classification of errors provided the opportunity to compare different language groups' types and frequency of errors, without having an overwhelming number of categories with which to contend.
4.3.2. Cohesion Analysis:
Halliday and Hasan (1976) address one of the most prominent concerns of contemporary linguistics; namely cohesion. They define cohesion as what "occurs when the interpretation of some element in the discourse is dependent on that of another. The one presupposes the other, in the sense that it cannot be effectively decoded except by recourse to it" (1976: 4). This means that elements in a discourse form cohesive ties with one another when they are connected either within or across sentences. In this sense, cohesion operates not only at a sententiallevel but also at an inter-sentential level. For example, in sentence [1] below the items la-Anne and her form cohesive links with one another, while in the following two sentences [2] the items lo-Anne, her, her and she all form links with each other.
Furthermore, in [2], slower links back to Porsche (the Golfis being compared to the Porsche) and there links back to Durban.
111
Jo-Anne bought her Porscho in Durban.(2) Jo-Anne drove her Porsche to Durban. On her way there, she overtook a slower Golf.
72
Halliday and Hasan's main concern is with cohesive ties that form links across sentences because the reader can no longer rely on the structural relations within the sentence to correlate items. In addition, it is at this inter-sentential level that the cohesive tie fulfils a very important teXt-building role and it is for this reason that Halliday and Hasan (1976) select the orthographic sentence as their textual unit of analysis. They propose a five way classification system for cohesion analysis, including reference cohesion, ellipsis cohesion, substitution cohesion. lexical cohesion and conjunctive cohesion. Reference cohesion
"occurs when certain types of items fonn links with other items in such a way that the same thing enters into the discourse a second time" (Hubbard, 1989: 5). These cohesive ties may be divided into a) pronominal, b) demonstrative, and c) comparative. Ellipsis cohesion occurs when there is a substitution of meaning by zero. Substitution cohesion refers to the situation when '''the presupposing item has the same meaning as the presupposed one(s), but not the same reference" (Hubbard, 1989: 5). This may be used in 2 ways; a) nominal, and b) verbal. Lexical cohesion refers to cohesion by the selection of vocabulary. This may take the form of a) synonymy, b) hyponomy, or c) collocation (HalJiday and Hasan, 1976). Lastly, conjunctive cohesion occurs when items that express a semantic relation specify the way in which what is to follow is connected to what has gone before. Four basic classes of
conjunctives were identified by Halliday and Hasan (1976)~ namely additive, adversative, causal, and temporal.
There are, however, limitations with Halliday and Hasan's (1976) choice of the
orthographic sentence as their basic textual unit. Hubbard (1989) points out that such a textual unit is problematic because it forces the analyst to ignore a certain instance of
73
cohesion (for example. the conjunctive 'so') in one sentence [3] while accepting it another [4], despite the fact that it fulfils an equal role in both sentences
131 Sheila forgot her bag, so she returned home for it.
141 Sheil. forgot her bag. So she returned home for it.
Hubbard (1989) outlines other forms of textual units that have been used by researchers, including the proposition, the T -unit (Hunt, 1965), the clause and the functional unit or F- unit (Lieber, 1981). The present study supports Hubbard's (1989) claim that the F -unit is the most satisfactory unit for analysing students' wTinen discourse such that, for the
purposes oftms study, cohesion was defined as cohesive ties that from links across F-units and not sentences. F-units include clauses as well as certain phrasal structures that are functionally equivalent to clauses because they "serve identifiable rhetorical functions in the development of. discourse (Lieber, 1981: 58).
4.3.3. Coherence Analysis:
Because cohesive errors are not restrictive but have the capacity to affect the coherence ofa text, the macrostructure analysis of this study has examined both the cohesive ties within the texts as well as the overall coherence of the texts. As mentioned, a qualitative analysis (discourse analysis) examining the coherence of students' essays was undertaken to identify the way in which second-language, first-language and foreign-language students developed and tracked themes within their essay writing. To assist this analysis, a framework, adopted ITom Br.dbury et .1. 's (1989) study, was used to analyse students' essays, according to the degree to which they: I) initiated and introduced topics and themes,
2) developed topics/themes - both conceptually and with reference to an example, and 3) integrated and resolved topics.
A scale (ranging from 1-5) was developed to attempt to classify the qualitative results of the coherence in students' essays, such that more succinct comparisons could be made both across performance categories and language groups. Essays may score half marks on this scale. where they appear to fulfil only certain criteria from each score category. This was done as follows.
Essays that score 5/5 : The essay is coherent and logical. The main essay topic is initiated and resolved and there is an integration of the sub-topics. There is very good development of and discussion around the relevant sub-topics and there is the use of an appropriate ex.ample to illustrate the conceptual principles explained.
Essays that score 4/5 : The essay demonstrates logical thought and structure. It should provide an introduction to the essay topic but may not resolve the essay topic on completion. There is good development of the conceptual principles (sub-topics). although these may not be integrated with the main topic on completion. There is good use of the example to illustrate the concepts discussed.
Essays that score 3/5 : Average coherence to the essays. The essay may provide a brief introduction but fails to integrate sub-topics or to resolve the main essay topic. Shows adequate structure and development of the sub-topics and covers the relevant conceptual principleS/infonnation. although these may be embedded within the example.
Essays that score 2/5 : Weak coherence, with a brief. unstructured development of the sub-topics. May attempt an introduction (although unlikely) but fails to integrate the sub-topics or resolve the essay topic. An over reliance on the example with only a brief mention of the conceptual principles involved.
75
Essays that score 1/5 : Very poor coherence, at times illogical and ill-structured Fails to initiate and resolve main essay topic or sub-topics Does not explain or develop the conceptual principles in any detail. Relies almost entirely on explain.ing the example
76