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

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 thì rất thú vị .Chợ đêm thì thú vị hơn - She came near me and scared me. She looked frightening more when she dressed in white. → Cô ấy đến gần tôi và doạ tôi. Cô ấy trông sợ hơn khi cô ấy mặc màu trắng - Little Red Riding Hood saw her ears were big than usual. → Cô bé Quàng Khăn Đỏ nhìn thấy là tai của bà thì to hơn bình thường. - There were a lot of flowers in the forest than in the straight road. → Có 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 khác 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 dù’ 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 máy…lái', 'cuộc đua xe…. khán 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) lái (xe ô tô, xe máy, xe đạp, máy bay) fly (a plane) khán giả (của chương trình truyền hình, trận bóng đá, 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 and made him write a report. Then she phoned my parents. My parents were very surprised and angry so they hit him in the disappointment…. - …Dimitri thought that a thief must have stolen the lamb…Aleko still denied that he wasn’t a thief… - …I didn’t want to go to school so I told the lie to my parents… - An angry scene: the accusation between Dimitri and Aleko broke out… - 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. …. - …She called her granny beautifully and wanted to tell her a story about the wolf… -…When summer comes, it means that a mid autumn festival is coming… - That was the eight of March,…. All of us were very happy in a day that we’ll never forget. - The last mid autumn festival is a most memorable event,…. - …the wolf jumped into bed and pulled the cover over his nose. “Who is it?” he called in the crackly voice…. - ….After eating Little Red Riding Hood, the wolf went asleep and snored. The hunter went across the cottage ….he looked through the window and saw a wolf sleeping… -…She promised with her grandma that she would never speak to the strangers again…. - …I ‘m so eager to meet you again….I’m sure that you’ll have the great summer holiday in Hanoi. …. 1.2. Errors in the use of ‘there’ ….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…. - …Finally, Jimmy and the guard of honor arrived with a great welcome. There was very cheerful and lively… - …So in the next short rest, I decided to go to a park without my teacher’ permission. There played a lot of games…. - …He found himself in Calis. There hitch-hiked to Paris…. - ….That day, we had studied for 5 hours in the morning at university. Moreover, the weather was too hot. So there was tired in the afternoon… - …you said you are going to visit my hometown this summer, didn’t you? Great, there is very beautiful…. ….We went to the market near our school. There sold a lot of junk food… ….It was dark, and there had someone who was sitting on the street… - …When they arrived at the French man’s house, there had a beautiful young girl who is his girl friend…. 1.3. Errors in the use of ‘this’ - …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… 1.4 Errors in the use of possessive personal reference Inter-lingual source: - - ….She lived alone. The cat was the dearest one of her. - …..It resulted in a runaway of them…. - … He knew all information of us… -…He was so surprised at the reaction of them… - …The Headmaster punished him by making him give a talk to the whole school about experience abroad of him… - …fortunately a kind hearted neighbor heard voice of her… - …After introducing themselves they talked about life and business of them…. -….The death of her was the end for all the troubles… -…The owner of it promised to watch over the house of the thief until he came back…. - …Mrs. Ramsay had shared a flat with a cat of her… - …Whenever he went out, Tim came to the house of his… - ….they wrote feelings of them in it because…. - …Eric was very angry. He ran to the place of them… Intra-lingual source: - … 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… - …he was sure that she hadn’t called the police about hers missing cat… - …and killed the fierce-looking wolf to save the dear granny of her… - ..he was sure that the plan of him was successful… -…he recognized and sured that it as him… - …Every day, Mr Robber stood outside the house of her and observed usual actions…. - …the children and the family of them went to Sword Lake… -… They attacked and robed money of me… - …Recognized the stranges of the appearance of her grandmother’s, Little Red Riding Hood continued asking some questions….. 1.5. Errors in the use of comparative reference Inter-lingual source - …Going to market in Hanoi is very interesting. Night market is exciting more. … - …She came near me and scared me. She look frightening more when she…. - …Little Red Riding Hood saw her ears were big than usual. … - …There were a lot of flowers in the forest than in the straight road. … -… Little Red Riding Hood realized that her grand mom’s ears, eyes and mouth were big than usual. … - …the weather in Hanoi is beautiful more now... - …I’ll hope you feel comfortable more when staying in my house… - …I’m imaging of our time and I feel interesting more… - ….He played truant more many times than me. … - …You said you had a lot more friends in my city than in your city. …. - ….That night was memorable the most for us. … - … finally he couldn’t be risky more. … - …. Then he recognized that Dimitri was very furious more. …. - … The view looks beautiful more from the hill…. Intra-lingual source: - …My mother got angry more with me. … - …’My mouth is too big to eat you more easy’… - …they looked more deep their eyes… - …We tried to learn more hard and good. … - … finally he couldn’t be risky more. … - …It was more dark at 12 p.m… - …you should go by bus, it is more safe and comfortable… 2. Errors in the use of conjunction 2.1. Adversative conjunction Inter-lingual source -…. 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 boys were responsible for building the tent, the girls decorated it. Nevertherless, the girls had to cook meal. …. - ….The road was very narrow. However, it was dark. We were very frightened…. - … I was tired, hungry but don’t have any money. … . He gave me some food to eat. On the other hand, he took his wallet and gave me money. … Intra-lingual source: - ….Despite it rained, we went to the party in time. … - ….Although her husband loved her very much, but she didn’t love him. … - ….Despite the Mid autumn festival belongs to children but there are many young people enjoy it. … - ….. .Although that, people enjoyed the party. …. - …. Although all of us were tired, but we felt happy. … - 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 2.2. Causal conjunction - It was really a unforgettable and painful experience so that I must give up playing truant - 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. 2.3. Additive conjunction - …. 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. - …She didn’t say anything. In addition to she wore a mask. … - …He liked the lamb. In addition to Dimitri was his neighbor. . Appendix B SAMPLES OF ERRORS IN THE USE OF LEXICAL COHESION - …He was happy with his plan. …. At last, he completed the plan. … -.. He gave me a present. It was…. I denied it immediately because… -…- ….. 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… - …Luckily, we found the key of our bike…. We drove it to my house…. - …I promised to keep secret the truth. But she said it to my boyfriend. … - …. I had to clean the house, wash dishes, cook meals. I hated these home work. … - … My father liked drinking tea, especially, thick tea. …. - When Dimitri came home, his wife told him about the lamb which is stolen…. Dimitri found it every where but he couldn’t… - …My friend complained me because I was noisy in class. .He gave the complaint to the Headmaster…. - …It was a joke. And she wanted to talk it to make me happy. …. - …. …She shouted at me because she thought I was impolite. I was shy, my face went red. … - …His anger grew fastlly. And he gave it in action: he took out his gun…. Appendix C SAMPLES OF THE STUDENTS’ WRITING