Problems of Cohesion and Coherence in Mo

Problems of Cohesion and Coherence in Moroccan High School Students’ Writing
ABSTRACT
This study aims at investigating and identifying cohesion and coherence
problems that Moroccan 2nd year baccalaureate classroom students encounter in
written discourse. An overall number of thirty students from two fields of study
(Math Sciences and Economics) participated in the study, producing a total
number of thirty essays. Students’ application of cohesion and coherence were
studied and analyzed based on Halliday and Hasan’s Cohesion in English (1976)
and Oshima and Hogue’s (2006) criteria for achieving coherence. Regarding the
analysis of the corpus, it was discovered that students tend to use more reference
ties, followed by lexical ties and conjunctions. Substitution and ellipsis ties were
scarcely used. Besides, the results clarify that Math Science Students outweigh
their Economic counterparts in using and dealing with cohesion devices. As for
coherence, the findings show slight differences between the two groups in
adhering to coherence techniques. Finally, the study reveals that students lack
important training in using and varying cohesion and coherence linkers.
1
Acknowledgement
The completion and realization of this thesis would not have been possible without the
support of my family, my professors, and my friends.
I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor, Professor Ismail

Kerouad for his insightful suggestions, conscientious advice, and unwavering support.
I would also like to thank Dr. Mohammed Larouz for his immense guidance and
generosity throughout two years of thorough studies. Many thanks also go to the
students and teachers whose priceless contribution was the milestone of the study. I am
also grateful to all my friends who attended to my work and provided me with
resourceful materials.
2
Dedication
I dedicate this paper to my mother, my wife, my child, my brothers
and sisters and to all my teachers.
3
Table of Contents
Abstract ………………………..…….…………………….……………….........I
Acknowledgment ……………………………………...…………………..........II
Dedication ………………...……………………….…….………………….….III
Table Of Contents ………….…..………………………...……………..……..IV
List of Tables …………..…….………………………………………...…........VI
1. Introduction
1.1. Introduction ……………………………………………………...……VIII
1.2. The Rationale …………..………………..………….……………..….VIII
1.3. Importance of the Study ……………………………………..………..IX
1.4. Organization of the Study …………………………………..…..…...…X
2. Chapter one : Review Of The Literature

2.1. Background of Writing …………………………………….…………..XII
2.2. Defining Coherence …………………………………………………...XIII
2.3. Defining Cohesion ……………………………………...…………….XIV
2.4. Halliday and Hasan’s Taxonomy ……………………………...……...XIV
2.5. Relationship between Cohesion and Coherence …………………..…XVII
2.6. Empirical Studies on Cohesion ……………………………………..…XX
3. Chapter two: Methodology

3.1. Research Method in Analyzing Data……………………………..…XXIV
3.2. Participants………………………………………………………..…XXIV
3.3. Data Collection……………………………………………………….XXV
3.4. Instruments for Analyzing Data…………………………………...…XXV
3.5. Data Analysis……………………………………………………..…XXVI
3.6. Research Questions……………………………………………….…XXVI
3.7. Research Hypotheses……………………………………...………...XXVI
3.8. Evaluating Cohesion………………………………….……………..XXVI
3.9. Evaluating Coherence…………………………………………….…XXVI
4. Chapter three: Data Analysis and Interpretation

4.1. Cohesive ties used by students of Math Sciences and Economics…..XXIX
4
4.2. Testing the Relationship between Writing Scores and Cohesive

Ties………………………………………………………………....XXXV
4.3. Comparing the Two Groups’ Uses of Cohesive Ties……..……….XXXIX
4.4. Students’ Problems in Cohesion……………………………………….XLI
4.5. The Use of Coherence in the Two groups Under Study……………..XLIII
5. General Conclusion
5.1. Summary of the Main Findings………………………………………….LI
5.2. Implications and Recommendations…………………...……………….LII
5.3. Limitations of the Study………………………………….……………LIV
5.4. Suggestion for Further Research………………………………...…….LIV
Appendices
Appendix 1: Cohesion Scoring Scale
Appendix 2: Coherence Scoring Scale
Appendix 3: Samples of Students’ Essays
5
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: The number of schools and students participating in the study

Table 2: Number of cohesive ties used by the Math Sciences group
Table 3: Number of cohesive ties used by the Economics group
Table 4: Conjunctive Ties in the Economics group
Table 5: Number of cohesive ties and students’ writing scores in math Sciences
Table 6: Correlating the number of cohesive ties and writing scores in Math Sciences
Table 7: Number of cohesive ties and students’ writing scores in economics
Table 8: Correlating the number of cohesive ties and writing scores in Economics
Table 9: Coherence techniques and scores in Math Sciences
Table10: Correlation between the number of cohesive ties and coherence scores in
Math Sciences
Table 11: Number of cohesive ties and coherence scores in Math Sciences
Table 12: Coherence techniques and scores in the Economics group
Table 13: Number of cohesive ties and coherence scores in Economics
Table 14 : Correlation between the number of cohesive ties and coherence scores in
Economics
6
INTRODUCTION
7
1.1. Introduction
Researchers have long probed the difficulties that EFL learners usually encounter in
writing. Some of the most commonly investigated areas of study in foreign language
writing are cohesion and coherence. According to Halliday and Hasan (1976),
Cohesion involves different grammatical and lexical elements that combine various
parts in written texts as well as between and among sentences. This suggests that
cohesion creates syntactic and lexical relationships through different cohesive ties,
such as the five cohesive categories devised by Halliday and Hasan (1976). As for
coherence, it is broadly viewed as “the relationship that links ideas in a text to create
meaning for readers” (Lee, 2002, as cited in Castro, 2004, p. 216). Coherence then is
constructed as the meaningful interaction that exists between the ideas of a text and the
reader (Castro, 2004).
There is a recurrent belief that EFL students face tremendous problems in writing,
namely in cohesion and coherence. It is believed that when EFL learners write, they
pay more attention to grammatical errors within sentences. They often think that they
will come up with good pieces of writing if their texts are not syntactically deficient.
Such an assumption has been proved wrong, for there is a lot of research (Carrell,
1982, Halliday & Hasan, 1976; Oshima & Hogue, 2006; Renkema, 2009; Taboada,
2004; Tanskanen, 2006) that has asserted the important contribution of cohesive and
coherence linkers in the overall quality of students’ compositions. That is to say,
Cohesive and coherence devices bring sentences, ideas and paragraphs together
meaningfully, as well as construct the overall unity of the text as a whole.
Additionally, students presumably think about cohesion and coherence as hazy
concepts that are difficult to grasp. They also consider them a daunting mission to
accomplish.
With the appearance of Halliday and Hasan’s cohesion theory in 1976,
understanding cohesion and coherence of writing has witnessed a major breakthrough.
They provided a framework that consisted of five types of cohesive devices for
studying and evaluating cohesion and coherence: reference, lexical, conjunction,
substitution, and ellipsis ties. These researchers assert that these ties can be used not
only to examine cohesion, but also to determine the coherence and the general quality
of writing. This view was later confronted by a lot of researchers such as Carrell
(1982) and Brown & and Yule (1983).
1.2. The Rationale

There is a common belief that Moroccan students, at tertiary or lower levels, face a
series of difficulties in writing, especially when it comes to the proper use of cohesion
and coherence ties and devices. The reasons are many, but what may improve their
8
mastery of cohesion and coherence is a combination of thorough studies that need to

closely address those types of problems.
On this basis, this study comes to highlight and examine one of the most common
problematic areas in students’ writing skills; i.e. cohesion and coherence at the
discourse level. They are key rhetorical aspects that specify the correct organization of
written texts. This paper, then, aims at a) investigating 2nd year baccalaureate students’
coherence and cohesion difficulties in writing, b) addressing their instructional and
educational implications, and c) coming up with sustainable recommendations on how
best to help EFL classroom learners develop sufficient awareness and understanding of
coherence and cohesion ties..
The paper will adopt Halliday and Hasan’s (1976) cohesion theory, in which there is
a cohesion taxonomy that is considered a reliable reference in studying cohesive ties.
As for coherence, this study will make use of Oshima and Hogue’s (2006) coherence
conventions in order to evaluate the informants’ use of coherence linkers. As a matter
of fact, students’ cohesion and coherence linkers included in their writing essays are
going to be examined based on Halliday and Hasan’s (1976) cohesion taxonomy and
Oshima and Hogue’s (2006) coherence conventions.
The paper will also center on the following key points that make up the core issues
in the discussion and analysis of cohesion and coherence difficulties that are
encountered by 2nd year baccalaureate students:
a- Explore the problems of cohesion and coherence that students face in writing.
b- Investigate the relationship between baccalaureate students’ poor quality

writing and their inadequate and/or incorrect use of coherence and cohesion
techniques.
c- Find out about the types of cohesive ties used by baccalaureate students.
d- Highlight the influence of students’ first language (L1) on writing.
e- Address the pedagogical implications and suggest a variety of

recommendations on how best to advance the teaching of cohesion and
coherence.
1.3. Importance of the Study

The present study is deemed important for it seeks to explore an area of study that
needs scientific research. There is so much research on cohesion and coherence at
tertiary level. However, based on extensive readings, it can be said that there are not
enough studies that address cohesion and coherence problems encountered by EFL
9
baccalaureate classroom learners. Most of the existing research involves ESL College
writing, whereas EFL writing does not seem to attract substantial investigation.
This study is expected, then, to be an important contribution in the assessment of

students’ cohesion and coherence abilities and in the development of their writing
skills at large. This can be accomplished by outlining pedagogical and instructional
implications to help EFL practitioners choose appropriate procedures and materials for
teaching cohesion and coherence ties better and better.
1.4. Organization of the Study

This thesis comprises three chapters plus an introduction and a general conclusion.
It starts with the introduction, literature review, methodology, data analysis and
interpretation, and ends with a general conclusion.
The introduction highlights the purpose of the study and its important contribution for
the research on cohesion and coherence in Moroccan High School writing. The first
chapter provides and explains the theory governing cohesion and coherence from both
EFL and ESL perspectives. The related literature in the 1st chapter paves the way for
Chapter three (data analysis and interpretation), because it details the foundations and
meanings of cohesive ties and coherence techniques needed in the analysis of data. As
for chapter two, it consists of methodology, data collection and data analysis, and
criteria for evaluating cohesion and coherence in students’ compositions. In chapter
three, there is a thorough discussion and analysis of the findings of the study. Finally,
the thesis concludes with some pedagogical implications and recommendations and
suggestion for further research.
10
Chapter One:
Review of the Literature
11
Introduction
The following chapter starts with a brief introduction of the history of writing, and
then highlights the definitions of both coherence and cohesion in written discourse. It
also illustrates Halliday and Hasan’s (1976) cohesion taxonomy that is made of two
main categories: grammatical and lexical categories. In addition to this, the researcher
explains the existing relationship between cohesion and coherence and pinpoints the
criticism that is directed towards Halliday and Hasan’s (1976) claim that cohesion
constitutes the basis of coherence in writing. Finally, the chapter ends with various
studies about cohesion and coherence in written discourse.
2.1. Background of Writing

During early times, writing as a skill was not given priority. During the early
methods and approaches - the audio-lingual period as an example - it was a bridge that
was meant to enhance listening and speaking (Rivers, 1981, as cited in El-Sadig Ezza,
2010). The focus was, instead, on grammar drills and memorization of words.
Learners’ creativity in writing was not then made important. With the coming of new
trends in teaching and learning, things started to change. Learners’ linguistic creativity,
which is an element that is key to developing good writing skills, was encouraged.
This implies that writing is a creative and generative process whereby writers can
discover and reformulate their ideas as they try to approximate meaning (Zamel, 1983,
as cited in Inmaculada Fortanet-Gomez & Räisänen, 2008).
Actually, there are a number of approaches that provide guidelines for good writing:
the process approach, the product approach, and the functional approach. The process
approach is a process of planning, writing and reviewing. It deals with lexical and
grammatical structures in writing. This was characteristic of the audio-lingual
principles, which made it hard for learners to develop successful writing beyond the
sentence level. So, it was time for another approach: the product approach. It was
primarily concerned with writing at the discourse level. This approach contributed a
great deal to writing, in such a way that it has turned writing into an independent skill,
not dependent on or attached to the other skills (Connor, 1996, as cited in El-Sadig
Ezza, 2010).). The product approach, like the process one, was somehow deficient, for
it was apparently concerned with correctness (Zamel, 1983, as cited in Lina Blanton,
1987).
After these two approaches, came the functional approach. It was considered a
revolution in writing pedagogy, as it put greater emphasis on students’ psychological
functioning. It was also an attempt to do without the socio-cultural context. Following
these changes, a number of approaches, namely the communicative approach,
appeared on the surface. They were in line with the new wave that gave importance to
12
socio-cultural and sociolinguistic factors affecting writing skills; i.e. Hymes’

communicative competence and Halliday’s systemic theory.
Following this brief background, language teachers in writing courses need to take
into their account the existing link between writing and the various language theories,
especially that these theories have a direct impact on enhancing students’ writing skills
(Grabe and Kaplan,1997, as cited in Nguyen Ho Hoang Thuy, 2009),) . These skills
primarily include two of the most common aspects that are problematic in students’
writing: coherence and cohesion.
2.2. Defining Coherence
Coherence is “the outcome of a dialogue between the text and its listener or
reader.” (Tanskanen, 2006). It reinforces the unity of discourse, be it at the sentence,
the paragraph, or at the text level. It is, along with cohesion, a significant criterion that
determines the quality of students’ written texts. Without it, a written text cannot be
properly a text (Hatch, 1992, as cited in Nguyen Thi Le Hang & Le Pham Hoai
Huong, 2012). This explains that coherence, through rhetorical devices, establishes
order and unity in a given discourse.
In language education, coherence is traditionally identified as a challenge to

students’ composition. It is also seen as a permanent concern to language teachers,
because, as reported in Lee (2002), coherence is not easy to teach and difficult to learn.
For such a reason, coherence or texture, as Halliday and Hasan (1976) call it, has been
dealt with by many researchers in order to come up with some recommendations on
how best to teach and learn it.
In order to help students write a coherent text, there are several techniques that need
to be followed to achieve a coherent discourse. They are derived from Oshima and
Hogue (2006). The first one is to use consistent pronouns. They claim that pronouns
should be connected to the same person and number in the text. The second technique
concerns transition signals that are said to add a special meaning to the text; here are
some of them:
a- In addition, similarly, moreover, etc.

b- For example, for instance, etc.
c- As a result, so, etc.
d- In contrast, however, on the other hand, etc.
e- In conclusion, to sum up, etc.
13
Another technique suggested by Oshima and Hogue (2006) is the repetition of

specifically important nouns in the text. It is advisable in this vein to replace a pronoun
by the repetition of a key noun, particularly when the meaning is vague or ambiguous.
In addition to this, there is a fifth technique that “arranges sentences in some kind of
logical order” (ibid., P. 34). It is illustrated by the use of chronological order (order by
time), logical division of ideas, and comparison / contrast paragraph (the similarities
and or differences between two or more items).With such techniques, coherence can
substantially be achieved, but it needs to be correlated with cohesion ties in order to
fully create cohesive and coherent texts.
2.3. Defining Cohesion
Halliday and Hasan’s Cohesion in English is undoubtedly the primary reference for
understanding cohesion. According to these researchers, cohesion or cohesive ties
determine whether a set of sentences make a text. To them, a text is conceived of as
“any passage, spoken or written, of whatever length, that does form a unified whole”.
This leads to the creation of ‘texture’, which entails that the texture of a text is
established by the cohesive ties that the latter includes. In considering the following
example ‘Peter made a delicious meal. He cooks spaghetti’ it appears that, in these
sentences, cohesion is achieved through the cohesive device that connects the
presupposing item (the pronoun he in the second sentence) with the presupposed one
(Peter in the first sentence) across the two sentences. This is a signification of how
cohesive devices can form meaningful relationships between sentences and distinguish
a text from a set of isolated sentences.
2.4. Halliday and Hasan’s Cohesion taxonomy
Halliday and Hasan (1976) put forth a set of cohesive taxonomy that constitutes
various types. They are divided into grammatical (reference, substitution, ellipsis, and
conjunction) and lexical cohesion (reiteration and collocation).
2.4.1. Grammatical Categories
a- Reference Cohesion
Reference cohesion is split into personal, demonstrative, and comparative items.

Cohesion by reference includes the following pronouns:
 Personal pronouns: I, me, you, we, us, him, her, they, them, it.
 Personal determiners (the possessives): my, mine, your, yours, his, her, hers,
their, theirs.
14
 Relative pronouns: who, which, where, etc.

In the example guests are in the meeting room. They are taking their seats, the
pronoun ‘they’ refers to ‘guests’. It is one of the reference ties of the same item; that is
to say ‘guests’.
b- Substitution
Substitution cohesion, as proposed by Halliday and Hasan (1976), is a “relation in

the wording rather than in the meaning” (P. 88). It involves the replacement of a word
or an item by another. As Renkema (2004) states, there are three types of substitution:
 Nominal substitution
Nominal substitution is about replacing nouns by one, ones or same, as in this
example:
The red dress is better than the blue one

One substitutes the word dress in order to avoid repetition of the same noun.
 Verbal substitution
Verbal substitution is attributed to the process of replacing verbs with do, did, and
several other auxiliary verbs, for example:
A: Did you arrange for the meeting?

B: No, I didn’t do it.
Do replaces arrange and both of them have the same structural function.
 Clausal Substitution
Clausal substitution explains the replacement of a clause by so or not, as in:
A: Are you going to deliver your speech tomorrow?

B: No, I don’t think so.
So substitutes the entire interrogative sentence are you going to deliver your speech
tomorrow.
c- Ellipsis
Ellipsis stands for the process of omitting an item (a word or a phrase) in a text or
discourse, or substituting it by ‘zero’ or nothing. It usually takes place when there is a
structure that may not be needed. Ellipsis has three aspects: nominal ellipsis, verbal
ellipsis, and clausal ellipsis.
15
 Nominal Ellipsis
Although the noun is omitted in nominal ellipsis, the text meaning does not change,
because it can be quickly derived and understood from the context, as explained in:
I think we have enough materials, but we need more
The plural noun materials is omitted in the second part of the sentence. The meaning
can still be understood without difficulty.
 Verbal Ellipsis
The verb is omitted, but it can be understood quite easily:
A: Did you have your lunch?

B: yes, we did.
Have your lunch is deleted from the answer; yet, it is implicit and understood.
 Clausal Ellipsis
Clausal ellipsis concerns the omission of a whole clause, as shown in the following:
A: Who were shouting in class?

B: They were.
Shouting in class is dropped, but it does not affect meaning in the dialogue.
d- Conjunction
Conjunction involves the process in which there is an established connection

between what follows (in a sentence, a text, or a discourse) and what has preceded it.
Conjunction usually links the elements of a text or discourse with one another in a
systematically logical order; for instance:
The company has lost most of its indexes; however, it still gains significant annual
profits.
The adversative conjunction however brings the two clauses together, indicating that
there is a sequential order of ideas, actions, or events.
Together with reference, conjunction is said to be the mostly used by language
learners, and it is the cohesive type in which a myriad of problems occur. As
mentioned in Brown and Yule (1983), Halliday and Hasan differentiate between four
types of cohesion by conjunction:
 Additive: and, or, furthermore, similarly, in addition
16
Joyriding on the highway or biking in the mountain is a great joy.
 Adversative: but, however, on the other hand, nevertheless

Tim is vegetarian, but he often orders hamburger when he is in a restaurant
 Causal: so, consequently, for this reason, it follows from this
The athlete made three false starts; so, he was dismissed from the race
 Temporal: then, after that, an hour later, finally, at last
In order to prepare this meal, first cut vegetables into small pieces, add some
mayonnaise, then mix everything together. Finally, serve with enthusiasm.
2.4.2. Lexical Cohesion
As in Maria T. Taboada (2004), Lexical cohesion “contributes to the cohesion of a

text through the selection of vocabulary… ” (p. 274). It refers to the meaning of a text,
where lexical items are connected to one another and to other cohesive ties in order to
establish a flow of ideas and meaning in the text or discourse.
In Halliday and Hasan (1976), lexical cohesion involves two main types: reiteration
and collocation. Reiteration is a “form of lexical cohesion which involves the
repetition of a lexical item, [and] the use of a general word to refer back to a lexical
item” (ibid., p.278). In this manner, reiteration creates relationships and continuity
within a text by means of repetition, synonym, hyponymy, and general word, as
illustrated in:
The gallery is exposing a number of new medieval paintings.
The words new and medieval express an antonym that explains a semantic paradox
between something new but medieval.
Collocation is a type of lexical cohesion that “is achieved through the association of
lexical items that regularly co-occur” (ibid., p. 286). In other words, it deals with
words or items that occur with each other.
It can be deduced from this taxonomy that Halliday and Hasan’s (1976) cohesion types
represent a reference for studying cohesion.
2.5. The Relationship between Cohesion and Coherence
Halliday and Hasan’s (1976) cohesion theory states that cohesion is the basis for
coherence in written texts. They claim, as mentioned in Tanskanen (2006), that
grammatical and lexical devices become cohesive when they are interpreted through
their relations to other elements in the text. Tanskanen illustrates that they have given
17
more importance to explicit markers of cohesion while neglecting the underlying

semantic relations in a text. This means that they ignore the role of coherence in
building the meaning of texts.
They have been severely criticized for this by several researchers. They emphasize
that cohesion alone cannot create unity in a text. In here influential article “Cohesion is
not Coherence” (1982), Carrell says that cohesion is not the essence of coherence. She
contends that a text can be coherent, but not necessarily cohesive. Following the
example ‘the picnic was ruined, no one remembered to bring the corkscrew’, Carrell
explains that coherence in this example is not achieved by cohesive elements of the
‘picnic’ and ‘the corkscrew’, but rather by the reader’s ‘schema’ of picnic. This brings
to light the schema theory that states that cohesive ties can be noticed only when
coherence is accomplished in the text. Therefore, coherence is likely to be observed
before cohesion, because we normally conceptualize and think about the coherence of
texts, which is built based on the common cultural knowledge of the writer and reader,
before we consider texts’ cohesive properties.
Morgan and Sellner (1980), as reported in Castro (2004), also criticized Halliday
and Hasan for claiming that coherence of content does not appear to make a text
coherent, and that for a text to be coherent there should be certain cohesive elements in
it (Morgan and Sellner; as cited in Castro, 2004). They actually stress the significant
role of content in texts, claiming that cohesion heavily involves content.
In addition to this, Tierney and Mosenthal (1983), as reported in Castro (2004),

investigated the relationship between coherence and Halliday and Hasan’s cohesion.
They studied students’ use of cohesive ties in twelfth graders’ written compositions,
and they correlated them with coherence rates that were provided by instructors. The
results demonstrated that content has important effects on “the options a writer has for
using cohesive items” (Carrell, 1982, p. 484).
From their part, McClure and Steffensen (1980) explored the influence of cohesive
links and background knowledge over students’ reading of short texts. The students
were given several passages in their own culture and in a foreign one. They were asked
to read different passages and write about what they have recalled. After investigating
the passages, McClure and Steffensen discovered that students were able to recall
some cohesive links in their native culture more than in the foreign one. The outcome
revealed that textual cohesion may be lost if students’ background knowledge is far
removed from that of the assumed text.
18
As maintained in Tanskanen (2006), Enkvist (1978) provides an example to support

the claim that there is no cohesion without coherence:
The discussions ended last week. A week has seven days. Every day I feed my cat. Cats
have four legs. The cat is on the mat. Mat has three letters.
Enkvist shows that text unity cannot be established if there is no coherence between
the propositions.
Widdowson (1978) (as cited in Tanskanen, 2006, p.28) believes that a text can also
be coherent even if it may not be cohesive. He says that when we engage in a
discourse, we express a proposition, and, through this proposition, we perform an
illocutionary act. According to Widdowson, the communicative value of a sentence
depends on whether it carries a proposition, and this is what makes a cohesive
discourse. And if the reader is unable to identify cohesive devices in a discourse, then
he/she can resort to covert propositional links to make sense of the text. Widdowson
provides an example to show that a text can be coherent although there may be no
cohesive links:
A: That's the telephone.

B: I'm in the bath.
A. O.k.
The three utterances are not attached by any cohesive tie. If each utterance is signaled
out individually, it just does not make any sense. However, ‘that’s the telephone’ is
taken to be a request to answer the phone, whereas ‘I’m in the bath’ is considered a
replay that is meant to be an excuse for not answering the phone. Hence, the non-
cohesive dialogue does indeed bear a communicative objective, which ultimately
explains its coherence.
In a similar regard, Brown and Yule (1983) emphasize the existence of coherence in
order to come up with a meaningful text. They contend that ’meaning relations’ are
important in identifying texts; relying on cohesive elements is not the only option.
They illustrate that when we read texts, we quickly conceptualize ‘semantic relations’.
So, cohesion only does not appear to be the only source for making sense of a
discourse.
The relationship between coherence and cohesion reveals the diversity of opinions
towards the importance of cohesion and coherence in written discourse. Both of them
are key elements in the development and construction of readable sentences and texts.
Cohesion, on the one hand, establishes grammatical and lexical links between written
19
ideas. Coherence, on the other hand, creates semantic build-up within and among those
connected ideas. No matter how disputable it may be, it can be deduced that each one
complements the other. The most comprehensible written discourse is the one that is
both cohesive and coherent. But we can say that cohesion and coherence are less
dependent on one another in spoken dialogues, as previously argued by Widdowson
(1978).
2.6. Empirical Studies on Cohesion
A significant number of researchers have relied on Halliday and Hassan’s (1976)

system of cohesion in order to carry out empirical studies. They aim at investigating
and finding out about the type and amount of cohesive devices that are used by
students in their writings. These researchers seek to examine whether this cohesion
framework contributes to the overall quality of writing produced by language learners.
Derrick and Gmuca (1986), as reported in Kamel (1989), studied unity and sentence
structure among Malay, Arabic, and Spanish language learners. The result of the study
demonstrated that Arab EFL students had more difficulties than their Malay and
Spanish counterparts. Following this study, Arab speaking students face substantial
problems in coherence. They appear to use less factual statements – that normally
support writer’s opinions – and more elaboration and redundancy.
In another study, Neuner (1987) analyzed forty essays written by university

freshmen students. The essays were split into two categories according to their quality:
half of them were poor essays, while the other half was qualified as good. They were
randomly picked up from six hundred essays about giving advice to students at school.
Each of the essays was rated following the use of a four-point scale. The results
showed that there was no significantly apparent difference between the good essays
and the poor ones in cohesive distance. It was also discovered that the percentage of
cohesive devices employed by students did not distinguish good from poor
compositions.
Khalil (1989) studies cohesion and coherence in Arab EFL college students'
writing. He investigated the relationship between cohesion and coherence in twenty
compositions written by Arab EFL students. Multiple correlation statistics was used to
test the relationship between cohesion and coherence. The results of the study revealed
that there was a weak correlation between cohesion and cohesion in students’ essays.
Khalil also discovered that Arab students overused lexical reiteration, but underused
other lexical and grammatical cohesive devices.
20
Jonson (1992) also studied cohesion in Malay and English. He worked on

expository essays written in English and Malaysian native languages and in ESL by
Malaysian writers. Sixty compositions participated in the study: twenty Malaysian
native essays, twenty essays by English native speakers, and twenty essays by Malay
speakers of English. The result suggested that the compositions written in Malay by
native speakers or in English by native English and Malay speakers show no
difference in the amount of cohesion between good and poor essays.
In a study about the relationship of cohesion and coherence, Zhang (2000)

examined cohesive devices in Chinese undergraduate EFL students’ writing. There
were one hundred and seven students who took part in the study. Zhang’s study
concluded that the use of cohesive ties did not necessarily lead to good writing; which
means that the percentage of cohesive ties used and the quality of students’
compositions had no clear-cut connection between them.
Aljarf (2001) examined the difficulties that EFL Saudi college students encounter in
processing four cohesion elements: reference, substitution, conjunction, and ellipsis. In
this study, students were provided with a text and asked to identify its cohesive ties
and write a substitute for each anaphor. In addition to this, students were required to
categorize the various conjunctions used in the text and come up with the necessary
items that are part of ellipsis. After analyzing the correct and incorrect responses, the
researcher found out that the majority of students had serious difficulty processing
substitution, reference, and ellipsis devices. On the other hand, it was discovered that
they did have not singnificant problems in working with conjunctions, which appeared
to be the easiest cohesive tie.
In a study on “Conjunctive Cohesion and Relational Coherence on Students’

Composition”, Ramasawmy (2004) investigated the relationship between cohesion by
conjunction and referential coherence. Students were required to write narrative and
expository essays. Using Halliday and Hasan’s (1976) system of achieving cohesion,
the researcher found out that there was convincing influence of both conjunctive
cohesion and referential cohesion on the quality of students’ essays. The narrative and
expository essays, which were given low scores, used more conjunctives and showed
less cohesion than those rated high.
Carolyn D. Castro (2004) compared the degree of cohesion and coherence in thirty
essays written by Filipino college freshmen. She analyzed the presence of the social
construction of meaning in students’ writing. She discovered that low level, mid level,
and high level essays were all equal in using grammatical cohesive devices, whereas
lexical repetition and synonyms represented the most widely used techniques in
21
achieving cohesion. The findings revealed that second language writers, who belong to
similar socio-cultural backgrounds, utilize the same textual and linguistic techniques in
meaning construction.
Summary
The chapter explained and exemplified, in detail, Halliday and Hasan’s cohesion
taxonomy. It categorized it into its main types and sub-types. It also set a lot of studies
that deal with the relationship between cohesion and coherence, on the one hand, and
explore language learners’ use of cohesion and coherence on the other hand.
The following chapter will introduce the methodology adopted by the researcher in
this study in order to investigate Moroccan students’ problems in cohesion and
coherence in writing.
22
Chapter two:
Methodology
23
Introduction
The present study investigates the types of cohesion and coherence ties that
Moroccan EFL students use in writing and the problems they encounter in dealing
with them. To this end, Halliday and Hasan’s (1976) cohesion theory as well as
Oshima and Hogue’s (2006) set of coherence conventions will be adopted. This study
is due to explore the following:
a- Cohesion and coherence errors in Moroccan High School students’ written

work.
b- The adequacy and inadequacy of cohesive ties they use.
c- The adequacy and inadequacy of coherence techniques they use.
d- The relationship between the students’ use of cohesive devices and the overall
score they get in writing.
e- The relationship between the students’ use of cohesive ties and the extent to
which these ties lead to coherence in writing.
f- The differences between High School students in the use of cohesion and
This chapter states and describes the methodology used by the researcher, the
participants taking part in the study, the data analysis, and the criteria employed by the
researcher to evaluate students’ cohesion and coherence techniques.
3.1. Research Method for Analyzing Data
The research method is basically quantitative as it aims at gathering numerical data

from writing tests, which will be administered to students as a measuring instrument.
The collected data are expected to be about various elements of cohesion devices used
by 30 individual second-year baccalaureate classroom learners. The 30 students under
study will be assigned writing tests in which they are required to write an essay. The
tests will be corrected and marked by their classroom teachers, and then studied by the
researcher.
3.2. Participants
The participants are 30 students in 2 high school classes, with 15 students from each
class. All of them are in second year baccalaureate, but from different fields of study:
Math Sciences and Economics. These fields are randomly selected to be
representatives of all baccalaureate students from other fields. Therefore, the
participants can be considered as representatives of the 2nd year baccalaureate students
in Kenitra.
The following table includes information about participants, their classes and schools:
24
Table 1: The number of schools and students participating in the study
Number of
Schools City Students
15
Abderahman Nacer High School Kenitra
Ibn Sina Technical High School Kenitra 15
3.3. Data Collection

The data is collected from writing tests that are assigned to 2nd year baccalaureate
students. The estimated data are going to be 30 written texts from two classes. The two
classes make up two groups with different scoring results. Math Science students were
relatively scored higher than Economic students. Based on these precarious scores, the
two groups will be studied to see if there is a relationship between the apparent scores
attained and the students’ use of cohesive ties.
3.4. Instruments for Analyzing Data

The data obtained from students’ compositions will be analyzed based on two
primary instruments: Halliday and Hasan’s Cohesion in English will be adopted to
analyze and evaluate the learners’ use of cohesive ties, while Oshima and Hogue’s
(2004) criteria for achieving coherence are going to be used in order to analyze and
evaluate students’ application of correct coherence devices.
The following are Halliday and Hasan’s (1976) criteria for studying cohesion:
1) Reference ties: they provide references, such as personal pronouns, personal

determiners, relative pronouns, etc.
2) Lexical ties: they involve repetition of lexical items.
3) Conjunctive ties: they link between sentences, paragraphs and ideas.
4) Substitution ties: they substitute an item by another.
5) Ellipsis ties: they involve omitting certain components from text.
The following are Oshima and Hogue’s (2006) conventions for achieving coherence
that will be taken as a reference for studying coherence in students’ writing:
1) Repetition of key nouns

2) Using consistent pronouns
3) Using transition signals
4) Arranging ideas in logical order
25
3.5. Data Analysis

The SPSS statistical package will be used to analyze and study the correlation
between the students’ use of cohesive ties and their writing scores, on the one
hand, and between their use of cohesive ties and coherence scores.
3.6. Research Questions

The paper attempts to shed light on and answer the following research questions:
a- Is there a relationship between High School students’ use of cohesion
techniques and their writing scores?
b- Is there a relationship between High School students’ use of cohesive
techniques and the coherence of their writings?
3.7. Research Hypotheses
Based on the research questions above, the following hypotheses are going to be
investigated:
a- The use of cohesive ties by students improves writing scores.
b- The use of cohesive ties in students’ writing leads to coherence.
3.8. Evaluating Cohesion

The application of cohesive ties was evaluated based on Halliday and Hassan’s
(1976) taxonomy of cohesion, which consists of reference cohesion, conjunction,
substitution, ellipsis, and lexical cohesion. The researcher obtained the data divided
into two groups of essays: Math Science essays and Economics essays. The research
identified all cohesive ties used in students’ essays, classified them according to the
category they belong to and then counted their frequency in each T-Unit (Hunter,
1964).
3.9. Evaluating Coherence

The use of coherence techniques by students was evaluated following Oshima and
Hogue’s (2006) criteria for achieving coherence in writing mentioned above. The
researcher provided students’ classroom teachers with Oshima and Hogue’s four
criteria, which they used as basis for scoring their students’ correct adherence to the
four criteria under analysis. Each criterion was then scored between 0 and 1. The total
score was 4 out of 4, representing the extent of students’ coherent writing.
Summary
26
This chapter explains the methodology and the procedures that are applied to carry
out the study. There will be 30 participants from two different High Schools. The data
will be 30 essays written by the same participants and corrected by their classroom
teachers in terms of the use of cohesive ties and coherence techniques. In the following
section, the analysis and interpretation of the given data will be discussed in great
length.
27
Chapter Three:
Data Analysis and
Interpretation
28
Introduction
This chapter delves into the type and quantity of cohesive elements students in Math
Sciences and Economics use in writing. Numbers and percentages about cohesion and
coherence devices obtained from students’ essays will be presented to consolidate the
findings. They will be analyzed, discussed and commented on. They will then be
compared in order to see whether the number of cohesive ties used by students has any
relationship with the scores obtained by them.
4.1. Cohesive ties used by students of Math Sciences and Economics
Introduction
The High School students who participated in this research belong to two different
fields of study in the high school level:
a- Math Sciences
b- Economics
Thirty compositions were collected from each field of study. Practicing English
teachers from two different High Schools asked their students to write an essay on
different topics. The total number of written essays is thirty, equaling the number of
students-participants.
After teachers corrected their students’ writings, it was discovered that Math
Sciences students scored higher than Economics students. The objective behind this is
to study the types and amount of cohesive devices that students use more in their
writings and their respective scores.
As mentioned earlier, Halliday and Hasan’s (1976) cohesive taxonomy is taken to

be the reference upon which the researcher studies students’ use of cohesive ties.
Oshima and Hogue’s (2006) conventions of achieving coherence are additionally
considered a guide to measure their coherence techniques. The researcher, therefore,
classifies students’ compositions into their respective field of study in order to study
them better and clearer, as shown and explained in the following sections.
4.1.1. Cohesive ties used by students of Math Sciences

The following analysis provides details and examples about the cohesive ties that
are used by the Math Sciences group of students.
29
Table 2: Number of ties used by Math Sciences
Cohesive Ties Number of Ties Percentage
Lexical 355 36,83%
Reference 439 45,54%
Conjunction 165 17,12%
Substitution 4 0,41%
Ellipsis 1 0,10%
Total 964 100%
The corpus in this field of study appears to have extensive cohesive elements.
Reference ties are amongst the most common ties in students’ essays, particularly
personal pronouns that are highly recurrent: (220 pronouns). The number of relative
pronouns is also very reasonable: (55 counts). Most of students are aware of how best
to use relative pronouns. Let us consider this example:
‘The first thing that I want you to know is that education is one of the most
important things in our life because it gives us more information, which shows the
right way.’
This example shows that personal and demonstrative reference ties (I, that, the, our,)
are correctly used in the sentence.
What is special about this group is that a lot of students can use and correctly
manipulate comparative adjectives and adverbs, as in the following examples:
“You know, your future won’t be better if you don’t complete your studies.”
“You should know that you’re going to suffer because you will have more
problems.”
The two examples demonstrate a carefully meaningful application of ‘better’ and

‘more’. Nevertheless, they still find difficulty using such comparative references
properly.
30
As for lexical cohesion, it was considerably present in this group’s written texts.
Most of the repeated words involve personal pronouns, personal determiners,
demonstrative pronouns, and the conjunction ‘and’ (70 counts). The following is an
example:
“I was worried when I read your letter. I’m sorry for your father. I know he is dead
now and you have to work for your family.”
“You’re smart and you have just three years of hard work and then you will enjoy
and relax.”
In addition, one of the mostly repeated lexical items used by this group is the pronoun
’you’. In this way, students made their writing more personal and subjective, for they
used fewer third person pronouns. Here are some examples:
“I know that you are going through a hard time in your school, and you are very
exhausted”
“I know that you suffer due to the problems that you have, but you must take care of
your future.”
Indeed, this is not everything about lexical repetition. There are also other cases
where students use the same word more than once, which obviously means that L1
conventions are transferred into their English, as in:
“I heard about your last decision, and I want to tell you that the decision is a
mistake.”
Actually, repetition is a recurrent issue in Moroccan students’ composition. These

students usually transfer their knowledge of Arabic into English writing; that is why
there is an excessive use of repeated words and phrases in their written essays.
According to Hoey (1991), Lexical cohesion, which includes repetition, is the most
widely used cohesive device. He said that “lexical cohesion becomes the dominant
mode of creating texture.” (Hoey, 1991; as cited in Tanskanen, 2006). He further
explains his claim by comparing the frequency of repetition to reference, conjunction,
substitution, and ellipsis. He also stresses that lexical cohesion is essential in
establishing cohesion, because it reduces ambiguity between sentences.
What is important again in this group of Math Sciences is the presence of - albeit in a
small number - synonyms and antonyms. This does not only represent the amount and
31
diversity of their cohesive devices, but also their ability to play with words and avoid
redundant repetition, as in this example:
“Motivation can come from seeing the bad situation of other poor children who
don’t have the chance to study or to have a good education.”
As far as conjunctive cohesion is concerned, it comes in the third place. Math

Sciences have a noticeably significant use of conjunctive ties, ranging from additive
(83 counts), adversative (22 counts), to causal conjunctions: and, but, because, also, in
addition, etc. Here are two instances:
“Education is one of the necessities of life. It has a lot of benefits, as it guaranties a
good job, and consequently a better life.”
“You should know that you’re going to suffer, because you will have more
problems as in our country if you don’t have a good degree, you can’t do anything
and you can’t have a good job. Moreover, I guess that you forgot your objective of
becoming a doctor.”
These two examples comprise several conjunctions: five additives such as

‘consequently’ and ‘moreover’, and one causal, ‘because’. The student has managed,
through those connectors, to create a logical connection between the sentences above.
Yet, a number of other students still find problems with the additive ‘and’, which they
overused. This is to say that they try to make a sequence and refer to previous clauses,
as in:
“If you study hard, you can have a good job and you can help your family with your
own money and you will learn the skills that you will need in your life.”
Students belonging to Math sciences have undoubtedly demonstrated practical skills

in working with various cohesive devices. Their problems in cohesive ties are
distinctively fewer than Economic students. So, according to Halliday and Hasan’s
(1976) taxonomy and Oshima and Hogue’s (2006) coherence conventions, it might
generally be concluded that this group has succeeded in building cohesion and
coherence.
It should be noted that coherence techniques and applications adopted by the two
groups are going to be analyzed later in this chapter.
32
4.1.2. Cohesive ties used by students of Economics

This part illustrates and exemplifies the type and quantity of cohesive ties used by
the Economics groups of students.
Table 3: Number of ties used by students of Economics
Cohesive Ties Number of Ties Percentage
Lexical 207 29,74%
Reference 281 40,37%
Conjunction 204 29,31%
Substitution 3 0,43%
Ellipsis 1 0,14%
Total 696 100%
This group of students is not greatly different from the Math Sciences group. It can
be easily observed, based on the results, that these students did include in their
writings a significant variety of conjunctions, ranging from Additive (84 counts),
causal (30 counts), temporal (10 counts), to adversative conjunctions (27 counts), as
shown in the following table:
Table 4: Conjunctive ties in the Economics group
Conjunctive Ties
Additive Adversative Temporal Causal
Conjunctions Conjunctions Conjunctions Conjunctions
82 27 10 15
In fact, the number of additive and causal links was more than the number of
adversative and temporal ties, as in the following:
“On the other side, there are some people who are against. First they think that who
‘kill’ can change and ‘become’ a better person than he was. Second they prefer to
33
punish him in order not to kill and give him another chance.”
The use of additive and causal ties in the above example explains the students’
intention to build a logical connection between what has been mentioned in previous
sequences. It is also a good technique that allows them to move from one sequence to
another.
Concerning synonyms, they were counted 6 times, while antonyms were scarcely used.
Here is an example:
“Amnesty international opposes the death penalty … and there is no evidence
showing that capital punishment is a deterrent.”
There is a greater use of lexical ties, particularly reiteration. Connor posits that “The
ESL students have high percentages of lexical reiteration” (Connor, 1984, as cited in
Khalil, 1989). Indeed, the number of repeated words counted is extensively more than
other lexical cohesive items like relative pronouns, synonyms and antonyms. Besides,
comparative adjectives / adverbs are not commonly found. Let us consider the
following:
“Killing is forbidden in our religion and the person who kills must be killed too, and
if the death penalty is implemented, people wouldn’t have to kill.”
“They can just begin to revise their lessons earlier and spend time on preparing
exams and not on preparing papers to cheat.”
These two examples show that this student, like many others in his group, uses
repeated vocabulary to create a logical connection between his ideas. If repetition is
considerably present throughout students’ essays, antonyms and synonyms, even if
their number of occurrence is higher than Math Sciences, are hardly encountered, as in
the following:
“In our religion it’s stated that only god has the right to give and take life.”
The analysis of the corpus in Economics group illustrates that reference ties are more
than lexical ones. Students of Economics focus on personal pronouns and
demonstrative determiners more than other reference cohesive devices. Most of the
pronouns represent the distance between the anaphor and the referent (Al-Jarf, 2001),
as in the following examples:
“We mustn’t accept that because this is not something you can see or you can hear.”
“It’s unacceptable to kill a human no matter what his crime. That is totally against
34
the human right, and especially if he has a family, because they will suffer too.”
As in Math Sciences, substitution and ellipsis are too limited. It is difficult to come
across some of them. Substitution was encountered only three times, while ellipsis was
almost absent:
“All the world is looking for peace. To get this one, we should stop killing each
other.”
Generally, it can be said that most Economics students fail to come up with
cohesive essays for they had little lexical variety. They relied more on reiteration and
repetition of whole sets of expressions. Their non-cohesive texts also result from their
inability to adhere to the coherence criteria set by Oshima and Hogue (2006).
4.2. Testing the correlation between students’ writing scores and the
cohesive ties used
4.2.1. The group of Math Sciences
The analysis of the corpus in this group of students shows that the number of
cohesive ties used by Math Science students does not match the given scores. There is
an extensive discrepancy among individual students in terms of the scores obtained
and the quantity of ties used.
In this regard, the correlation between the scores students obtained in the
administered written tests and their use of cohesion ties was tested by Pearson
correlation statistics. The number of cohesive ties identified in each of the students’
written texts was correlated with the respective grades given by their classroom
teachers. The following table summarizes students’ total number of ties and the scores
they had for each composition.
35
Table 5: Number of cohesive ties and students’ writing scores
Compositions Number of Ties Students' Scores

1 48 5,00
2 60 7,00
3 68 6,00
4 48 5,00
5 72 5,00
6 97 5,00
7 84 5,00
8 67 7,00
9 71 5,00
10 86 6,00
11 43 5,00
12 36 6,00
13 68 7,00
14 90 7,00
15 38 5,00
After analyzing the figures above on the SPSS statistical package, the resulting
correlation coefficient is r = 0, 185, as shown in this table:
36
Table 6 : Correlating number of cohesive ties and writing scores in

Math Sciences
Writing
Number of ties Score
Number of ties Corrélation de Pearson 1 ,185
Sig. (bilatérale) ,508
N 15 15
Writing score Corrélation de Pearson ,185 1
N 15 15
This little figure explains that there is a very weak correlation between the two
variables. This denotes that a text that includes cohesive ties, regardless of their
quantity, cannot necessarily get high scoring. Let us consider some cases:
Student number 2 had a relatively high mark (7/10) even if he used only 60 cohesive
ties.
Student 6 used 97 ties, more than his classmate, but he got no more than 5/10.
The examples demonstrate that a student can obtain a high writing score although he
may have very few cohesive ties, and vice versa. This means that the number of
cohesive ties that students have in their essays does not affect writing scores.
4.2.2. The group of Economics

As the table below shows, the correlation between the two variables is weaker than
expected. Although this group of students had more grammatical ties (more synonyms,
antonyms and collocations), a lot of them failed to establish a logical relationship
between the quantity of cohesive linkers they used and the grades they received in the
written tests. For instance, student number 15 used 49 cohesive ties, but received 4 out
of 10 only as a writing score, whereas student 11 had 45 ties only, but with the highest
score in the group (7/10). Still, there are few other cases where the application of
cohesive linkers appears to match the score obtained in writing.
37
Table 7: Number of cohesive ties and students’ writing scores
Compositions Number of Ties Students' Scores

1 47 5
2 52 5
3 31 5
4 33 5
5 41 4
6 45 5
7 36 4
8 36 4
9 45 4
10 70 6
11 45 7
12 64 7
13 54 5
14 46 8
15 49 4
As illustrated in the following table, the resulting correlation coefficient observed

here (r = 0,420) confirms the figures shown in the table above. It can be deduced from
such a result that the number of cohesive ties used in writing does not strongly affect
writing scores.
Table 8 : Correlating the number of cohesive ties and writing scores

in Economics
Writing
Number of ties Score
Number of ties Corrélation de Pearson 1 ,420
N 15 15
Writng score Corrélation de Pearson ,420 1
N 15 15
38
The next section highlights the relationship between the two groups under study: Math
Sciences and Economics students
4.3. Comparing the two groups’ uses of cohesive ties
4.3.1. The use of references ties in Math Sciences and Economics
Based on analyzing students’ use of different reference ties, it can be argued that
personal pronouns are the most widely present throughout their essays. Math Sciences
have the biggest number of personal pronouns, with a total number of 220 pronouns.
Let us see some examples from both groups:
“I think that the cause of cheating is the way we study, because you can find that
every class consists of at least 40 students and no one is interested, after that you
can see that the only way to pass exams is to cheat.”
“I was worried when I read your letter. I’m sorry for your father. I know that he is
dead now and you have to work for your family. Your family is suffering of
course.”
It seems that anaphoric pronouns, which are consistent in many of the students’ essays,
outnumber ‘cataphoric’ ones. Students usually find it easier to refer to previous
sequences or expression using anaphoric pronouns.
Personal determiners, demonstrative determiners, and relative pronouns were also used
by all groups with precarious balance. Math sciences and Economics appear to be
similar in using relative pronouns (55 and 60 counts respectively).
What is common in most of the students’ essays is that comparative adjectives and
comparative adverbs are the least used namely in Economics. Math Sciences
respondents seem to be able to include some comparative adjectives, such as more,
better, older, etc.
39
4.3.2. The Use of lexical ties in the two groups
The students’ use of lexical ties is centered on reiteration. Although most of Math
Sciences’ compositions are better in quality and quantity, they have more reiteration
than the other group. Most of their repetitions revolve around personal and possessive
pronouns, which did not affect the general quality of their writing.
Equally important, Economics students used less repetition and redundancy. They had
more synonyms and antonyms, instead, than Math sciences. However, this did not help
them get better scores.
It should also be noted that the repetition of the additive ‘and’, along with a wide
range of conjunctions, constitute a major part of the groups’ lexical cohesive ties. As
for collocation and hyponymy, there were rare examples in both classes.
The following is an example in which there is lexical reiteration of several words.
“I have tried to solve this bad habit but I found it very difficult and my parents
aren’t satisfied with this. Of course I don’t want to lose my relation with my parents
and this bad habit is distracting me from my school homework.”
4.3.3. The use of Conjunctive ties in the groups
The analysis of the corpus illustrates that the additive ‘and’ is constantly used by
students in a bigger quantity. It is a common fact that is shared by all students:
Economics (59 counts) and Math Sciences (50 times). Adversative and causal
elements follow additives in quantity. Math students have more causal (22 counts) and
adversative (19 counts) conjunctions than their Economics counterparts (12 items).
Temporal ties are also used by both groups but in very few cases.
The following table summarizes the percentage of all cohesive ties used by Math
Sciences and Economics group:
To conclude, it can reasonably be confirmed that the relatively precarious scores

attained by Math Sciences and Economics students in writing do not have an obvious
40
relationship with the number of cohesive devices used by students. Therefore, the use
of cohesive ties does not affect writing scores. There are other components that
contribute to that result and that have nothing to do with cohesion.
Although the respondents belonging to Math Sciences did not use enough
conjunctions and linking words, they got higher marks. Their essays are full of
referents (namely personal pronouns) and anaphoric elements, which are then repeated
extensively. Besides, they used very few synonyms and antonyms, let alone
substitution and ellipsis. This category of students is literally believed to have a high
level in almost all school subjects, which implies that they can correctly handle the
cohesive ties at their disposal even if those devices may not be sufficient. Moreover,
what is distinctive in most of their essays is the correct use of grammar and the smooth
flow of ideas, which appear to be logically connected to one another. The following is
an example from one of their essays:
“What’s the aim we all look for: being respected! Besides, if we all make up
excuses to drop out, the schools would be empty, so there is no convincing reason
that makes you take this horrible and frightening decision.”
Such an added value does not generally exist in most essays written by students in
Economics. They seem to have used more conjunctions and less repetition, and still
they got the least grades, though they included more vocabulary. The reason does not
have to do with their inability to make good use of existing conjunctions, but it has
more to do with their apparently weaker grammatical competence, as in the following:
“At second, there’s many criminals who killed innocent people, and they spend 15
or 20 years in gail, but when they get outside they revenge from the victim family.”
4.4. Students’ problems in cohesion
It can be deduced from the analysis and the results of the corpus that students in Math
Sciences and Economics have the following common problems in cohesion:
 They excessively used and misused the conjunctive additive ‘and’;
41
 They overused lexical reiteration;

 They misused references;
4.4.1. They excessively used and misused the conjunctive additive ‘and’
In both groups of students, there are a lot of cases where students exaggerated and
misused ‘and’. Here are two instances from the data:
“You don’t have any reason to give up studying, and you know your future better if
you don’t complete your study. Don’t forget that your family counts on you, and
‘she waiting’ the end of the year to see the result of your and their effort.”
“The death penalty is an order ‘who’ came from the judge and is actually said this
‘order for a man or a woman who killed somebody and the death penalty is a
different way and it so cruel.”
The examples include situations where students transfer the application of ‘and’ from
Arabic into English. In addition to this, instead of using other connectives, they kept
repeating the coordinator ‘and’ over and over, making their sentences look awkward.
4.4.2. They overused lexical reiteration
Reiteration is a constant issue in students’ writings. In his study about cohesion and
coherence in Arab EFL College students’ writings, Khalil (1989) found that repetition
of the same word is highly overused. The two groups under study have similarly
produced the same problem, especially Economics students. A lot of their reiteration
involves similar words, as in the following:
“The death penalty is something that many people do not have a clear decision on.
Many people support the death penalty, while others wish for the death penalty to
be abolished, and there are some that support the death penalty.”
‘Death penalty’ is repeated above four times. Such a problem occurs as a result of
students carrying over their L1 linguistic conventions into English. They negatively
transfer repetition, which is one of the main features of Arabic rhetoric, into English
writing.
42
4.4.3. Absence and misuse of references
The two groups have encountered problems of references, which in turn created non-
cohesive and incoherent sentences and ideas. Most of the weaknesses in this area came
from Math Sciences group. Some examples of wrong reference are given below:
You study languages. It’s help you communicate.
Don’t forget that your family counts on you, and she waiting... .
In the first example, instead of using the correct plural pronoun ‘they’ that refers to
languages, the student wrongly used the third person singular ‘it’. In the second
example, it is the same thing happened.
There were also examples where students did have the presupposing items, but with no
presupposed ones:
I hope you’ll think about before you make a decision.
The student did not include the presupposed item ‘it’ that should normally follow verb
‘think about’; therefore it will look like this:
I hope you’ll think about it before you make a decision.
4.5. The use of coherence in the two groups under study
Introduction
Following Oshima and Hogue’s (2006) conventions of coherence achievement, it is
observed that students in the two groups seem to have substantial differences in
building coherent texts. A lot of them successfully followed and properly managed to
apply the criteria under study, while others did not.
To start with, key pronouns should be repeated and have a clear relation to the same
person and number in text. There should also be transitions that are well included and
that link ideas together meaningfully. Finally, another important technique is to
construct logically connected ideas that flow from one to another without interruption.
4.5.1. The use of coherence in the group of Math Sciences
In this part, the researcher provides detailed and exemplified analysis of the
Economics and Math Sciences’ uses of the coherence techniques that are proposed by
Oshima and Hogue (2006).
43
Table 9: Coherence techniques and scores in Math Sciences
Repeating Key Using Consistent Transition Arranging Ideas

Compositions Nouns Pronouns Signals in logical Order Scores
1 1 1 1 1 4
2 1 1 1 1 4
3 1 1 1 1 4
4 1 1 0,5 1 3,5
5 1 1 0,5 0,75 3,25
6 1 0,75 1 0,75 3,5
7 0,5 1 0,75 0,75 3
8 1 1 1 1 4
9 1 1 1 1 4
10 1 1 1 1 4
11 1 1 1 1 4
12 1 1 1 1 4
13 1 1 1 1 4
14 1 1 1 1 4
15 1 1 0,75 0,75 3,5
N.B. Coherence score is 4 out of 4.
The group of respondents who apply coherence techniques better are Math Sciences
students. Obviously, more than half of their written tests are in line with Oshima and
Hogue’s coherence elements. Most of the pronouns they used are consistent and they
are appropriately used as referents, as in the following:
“I know you have a big problem with study, but every problem ‘have’ a solution,
that’s why you should think a lot before taking this bad decision.”
Furthermore, many students in this group succeeded in smoothly moving from one
idea to another through several transition signals, as shown in this example:
“The first thing you should know, without education you can’t be successful in your
life…. . Another thing you should never forget ….”
44
The student here has two transitions: the ‘first thing’ and ‘another thing’. He managed
then to give meaning to his idea and establish transition between various sequences.
The following is an example of coherence in one of the students’ essays:
“Well you told me that you wanted to drop out of school just to have a new life and
leave all problems of school, but I’m sure you don’t know the value of education
as you’re still an adolescent.”
The student repeated the key pronoun school, used a consistent one you, used exact
and adequate conjunctions, and found no difficulty moving from a sentence to another.
4.5.2. Testing the correlation between students’ number of cohesive ties and
coherence scores in the Math Sciences group
Analyzing Pearson correlation between students’ number of cohesive ties and their
corresponding coherence scores show a negative correlation between the two variables
(r = - 0, 272) as in this table:
Table10: Correlation between the number of cohesive ties and coherence

scores in Math Sciences
Coherence
Score Number of Ties
coherence score Corrélation de Pearson 1 -,272
N 15 15
numebr of ties Corrélation de Pearson -,272 1
N 15 15
Such a result, in fact, suggests that the coherence scores students have are not in
harmony with the number of cohesive devices they used in their compositions. As
shown in the following table, student number 15 had fewer linkers (38), but a higher
coherence grade (4 out of 4), while composition No. 7 had 84 devices, but received a
minor grade, 3 out of 4.
45
Table 11: Number of cohesive ties and coherence scores in Math Sciences
Coherence Scores
3,00 4,00 Total
Number of 36,00 0 1 1
Ties 38,00 0 1 1
43,00 0 1 1
48,00 0 2 2
60,00 0 1 1
67,00 0 1 1
68,00 0 2 2
71,00 0 1 1
72,00 1 0 1
84,00 1 0 1
86,00 0 1 1
90,00 0 1 1
97,00 0 1 1
Total 2 13 15
So, it can be confirmed that the application of cohesive ties does not always contribute
to coherence in writing.
4.5.3. The use of coherence in the group of Economics
In this group, the application of coherence techniques is relatively precarious and

inconsistent. Many students were unable to properly use the coherence criteria
suggested by Oshima and Hogue (2006). The table below shows more.
46
Table 12: Coherence techniques and scores in Economics
Repeating Key Using Consistent Arranging Ideas in

Compoitions Nouns Pronouns Trasnsition Signals Logical Order Scores
1 1 1 1 1 4
2 1 1 1 1 4
3 1 1 0,15 1 3,15
4 1 1 1 1 4
5 1 0,75 1 0 2,75
6 1 1 0,15 0 2,15
7 1 1 0,75 1 3,75
8 1 1 0,5 0,5 2
9 0 1 0 0 1
10 1 1 1 1 4
11 1 1 1 1 4
12 1 1 1 1 4
13 0,5 0,15 0,5 0,75 1,9
14 1 1 0,75 1 3,75
15 1 1 1 1 4
This group’s essays are less coherent. 7 essays out of 15 are less coherent, while 1 is
totally incoherent. The number or type of cohesive ties used has nothing to do with the
scores obtained. Despite the fact that their conjunctions outnumber those of Math
Sciences in quantity and variety, they failed to get the expected results. So, this does
not always lead to cohesion.
Indeed, the improper application of a number of conjunctions did not allow students to
come up with effective transitions between ideas, as in this example:
“The death penalty is firstly an order that came from the judge. And is actually said
this order for a man or a woman who killed somebody. And the death penalty is
indifferent ways and it is so cruel.”
47
The above example shows that the incorrect use of the conjunction ‘and’ did not allow
the student to meaningfully link between his ideas, therefore, he failed to arrange them
in order.
Actually, there are several cases where students were unable to properly create logical
connection between their sentences. Here is another example:
“This is the only way we didn’t try before. For this reason, the totality of countries
trying to stop death penalty in legislations. In my opinion, those who must be
killed.”
This student’s set of sentences are completely disconnected. There is no relation

between the first, the second, and the third sentence.
4.5.4. Testing the correlation between students’ number of cohesive ties and
coherence scores in Economics
The table below shows the number of cohesive ties that each student has in his / her
essay and the score they received in coherence. Grading coherence follows Oshima
and Hogue’s four criteria for achieving coherence (repeating key nouns, using
consistent pronouns, using transition signals, arranging ideas in logical order); so
grading is limited to 4/4.
Table13: Number of cohesive ties and coherence scores in Economics
Coherence Scores
1,00 1,90 2,00 2,15 2,75 3,15 3,75 4,00 Total
Number 31,00 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
of Ties 33,00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
36,00 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2
41,00 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
45,00 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 3
46,00 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
47,00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
49,00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
52,00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
54,00 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
64,00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
70,00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Total 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 7 15
The table demonstrates many differences between the two variables. In considering
one of the most coherent essays (No. 4), it can be noticed that the student used 33
48
cohesive ties only, whereas one of the least coherent (No. 13) had 54 cohesive devices.
This implies that cohesion does not always lead to coherence, and that the number of
ties that exist in compositions may have little to do with coherence. Consequently, the
correlation between the two variables seems to be very weak, as it is confirmed by the
resulting correlation coefficient (r= 0,213) in the table below:
Table 14 : Correlation between the number of cohesive ties and coherence

scores in Economics
Coherence
Score Numebr of Ties
coherence score Corrélation de Pearson 1 ,213
N 15 15
numebr of ties Corrélation de Pearson ,213 1
N 15 15
Yet, there are other students whose written texts were both cohesive and coherent, as
in numbers 10, 11, and 12. However, the above results indicate that the use of cohesive
ties in writing does not strongly affect coherence.
Summary
This chapter has analyzed and discussed the problem of cohesive ties and coherence
techniques in students’ essays. It has tested the relationship between the number of
cohesion and coherence linkers in each composition and the respective score given to
students by their teachers. There was also a correlation testing between the number of
cohesive devices and coherence scoring. The chapter additionally compared between
the two groups under study in order to fully answer the research questions and
ultimately confirm or disconfirm its hypotheses.
It was discovered, in this regard, that the type and quantity of cohesive devices
employed by second year baccalaureate EFL learners have weak correlation with the
grades they got in their English written tests. The relationship between the number of
cohesive elements and coherence grades was also tested, showing weak correlation
between the two variables. The results were confirmed by the SPSS multiple
correlation statistic.
49
General Conclusion
50
This chapter summarizes the findings that were discovered in this study, and suggests
some pedagogical implications and recommendations for EFl teachers on how to boost
students’ knowledge of cohesion and coherence in writing.
5.1. Summary of the main findings
The analysis of the data has clarified that Moroccan 2nd year baccalaureate students
have significant imperfections in the use of cohesive ties and coherence techniques, as
suggested by both Halliday & Hasan (1976) and Oshima & Hogue (2006) respectively.
The analysis has also shown that the type and quantity of cohesive ties used by
students do not strongly affect the scores they receive in writing. In coherence, it was
discovered that students’ application of coherence linkers do not necessarily lead to
cohesion.
As seen in chapter three, Math Science and Economics students used various cohesive
devices, but obtained different writing scores. They mainly had lexical, reference, and
conjunctive ties in their essays. In both groups, reference ties were the dominant type:
45 % in Math Sciences and 40 % in Economics group. The second mostly used type
was lexical devices: 36 % in Math Sciences and 29,74 % In Economics group.
Conjunctions came in the third place with 17 % and 29, 31 % in Math Sciences and
Economics group respectively. The least cohesive techniques used were substitution,
whereas ellipsis ties were rarely encountered in students’ essays.
Given the fact that students used such cohesive linkers, it might presumably be
believed that they would get good scores in writing. However, that was not the case.
There were a lot of examples where students used fewer cohesive devices than others,
but scored higher. There were also examples where some students had many cohesive
ties, but scored lower than others who had fewer ties. These results prove that the
relationship between the use of cohesive devices and writing scores is not systematic;
meaning that cohesive techniques cannot strongly affect writing scores.
Concerning coherence, the two groups (Math Sciences and Economics) made use of a
number of coherence techniques, such as repeating key nouns, using consistent
pronouns, using transition signals, and arranging ideas in a logical order. Following
the application of these linkers, students received scores that were different from a
51
student to another. The students who properly had all these techniques obtained good
coherence scores: 4/4. Such a correct use of coherence techniques was believed to
correlate with the number of cohesive devices used in students’ essays, but it was
found out that coherent essays are not always cohesive. Many students had 4/4 as a
coherence score, but their writings included fewer cohesive ties. Thus, it can be
confirmed that cohesion does not always contribute to coherence.
From another perspective, Math Science students are considered high level classroom
learners. This implies that they were able to use a wider variety of cohesive devices.
They had more reference ties and a wider range of lexical ties. As for the second
group, although most of them used more conjunctions, more synonyms and
collocations, they did get good scores, because they had fewer lexical devices and a
generally improper application of coherence techniques.
In this study, Math Science students used a considerable number of lexical ties. They
could effectively manipulate various lexical items and avoid repetition. In the other
group, the situation is, to some extent, different. The added value they have is the
percentage of conjunctions they employed that is apparently higher in number and
type; that is to say, they varied their use of conjunctions.
Besides, the analysis of the corpus has shown that both groups face considerable
cohesion problems. Both of them used a lot of reiteration and repetition of similar
words, had various wrong references, repeated ‘and ‘quite substantially, and misused
several conjunctions.
Regarding the application of coherence devices, the study discovered that Math
Science students’ essays were more coherent than their counterparts’. Their coherent
texts outnumber those of Economic students. The former made fewer mistakes in
linking between sentences and paragraphs. Their ideas were more arranged in logical
order than their counterparts. Yet, the differences between the two groups in achieving
coherence were very slight. Economic students have also produced well coherent
essays, in which they managed to follow the criteria of coherence achievement set by
Oshima and Hogue.
It should be acknowledged that there are plenty of key elements that contributed to
the imbalanced scores of the two groups under analysis, such as grammatical
incompetence, lack of vocabulary, and lack of training in and understanding of
cohesive and coherence skills. It should also be emphasized that the application of
cohesive ties, regardless of their type and quantity, does not always help students come
up with coherent essays. In addition, the use of cohesive ties in writing does not, again,
guarantee high wiring scores.
52
5.2. Implications and recommendations
The findings of the current study provide EFL teachers and instructors with valuable
insights into the type of written texts that Moroccan 2nd year baccalaureate students
create. These findings also outline crucial details about cohesive and coherence
problems encountered by students. Such information helps practicing teachers and
educators to think and look for ways on how to enhance students’ knowledge of
cohesion and coherence in written discourse.
In this concern, the following suggestions, exercises, and activities need to be taken
into account:
a- Teachers can train their students on how to use different ties by providing some
model paragraphs that have numerous cohesive ties.
b- They can make up activities and design exercises in which there are various
sentences and paragraphs that need to be joined by cohesive devices or coherent
links. This is because students rely mostly on very few and limited
conjunctions, such as ‘and’ and ‘also. So, they should heavily work on
exercises that present them with a wide range of conjunctions and transition
signals. According to Khalil (1989), students should be encouraged to use other
coordinating and subordinating conjunctions, along with substitution and
ellipsis ties. Khalil also reports in his study about coherence and cohesion EFL
problems (1989) that writing instructors should have sufficient understanding of
grammatical and lexical repetition devices in Arabic so that they can deal with
Arab students’ problems in English written discourse. In this regard, they are
likely to tell their students that transferring Arabic rhetorical conventions of
repetition from Arabic to English may result in redundant ideas and texts.
c- Teachers are advised to spend as much time teaching cohesion and coherence as
they do with grammar in order to help students develop writing skills.
d- Teachers are also encouraged to make students aware of the existing types of
cohesive ties and their sub-categories by supplying them with short texts with a
lot of cohesive devices. Students will be asked to classify those ties into given
categories. Then, they will be assigned exercises to practice the cohesive linkers
in communicative context.
e- Teachers should pay attention to the importance of organized and well-

structured compositions. To this end, they are advised to divide them into
paragraphs, use appropriate cohesion and follow coherent flow of ideas.
53
f- Teacher can give students a text that does not have cohesive or coherence ties,
and ask them how each sentence is linked o the previous one? Are ideas clear
and consistent? Is the text meaningful? Then, the teacher can give students the
same text with proper cohesion and coherence techniques included in it in order
for them to compare between the two texts. As a follow up, the teacher may
well give student another text that they should link between its sentences and
paragraphs.
g- Teacher can provide students with reading texts that have plenty of cohesive
and coherence linkers. He can then ask students to classify them into their
corresponding types and use them in written sentences and paragraphs.
h- Instead of writing, teachers can ask their students to use cohesive or coherence
devices communicatively in real life role plays and discussions.
5.3. Limitations of the Study

The study is limited in the scope of two 2nd year baccalaureate groups from two High
Schools. The participants taking part in this research do not appear to consist of a
larger population that may comprise plenty of High Schools from different parts in
Morocco. Also, the researcher has chosen two groups of students (Math Sciences and
Economics) who may be seen by some as having a relatively good level in several
school subjects, including English. In addition, the study is meant to investigate and
analyze students’ problems in cohesion and coherence at the discourse level; it is not
concerned with any other types of errors made by students.
Still, it can be strongly argued that the sampling population does indeed represent,
to a higher extent, the overall population of 2nd year baccalaureate students in
Morocco. This is because High Schools are generally located in populated areas,
where students come from different backgrounds with distinctive levels of
achievement.
From another point of view, the errors of cohesion and coherence found in students’
essays may be a result of the rhetorical discourse of written English used by students.
Other modes (descriptive, expository, etc) might have displayed other patterns of
cohesion and coherence devices that cannot found in the study.
5.4. Suggestion for further research
54
Since the present study is limited to the scope of cohesion and coherence problems that
are encountered by High School students in writing, it will be equally important to
investigate High School students’ problems in other areas that affect students’
composition, such as grammar, punctuation, vocabulary, spelling, to name but a few.
These areas have been substantially studied at the tertiary level, but certainly lack
adequate research at the Moroccan High School level.
Conclusion
Hopefully this study will be a reliable source of information about the problems that
Moroccan second-year baccalaureate learners encounter in written discourse. It is
hoped that it will also serve as a reference to understand the concepts of cohesion and
In addition, this study aims at helping language teachers pay more attention to the
wide variety of cohesion and coherence devices and shift their focus from teaching
writing at the sentence level to the discourse level.
55
References
AL-Jarf, R. Sado. (2001). Processing of Cohesive Ties by EFL Arab College Students.
Foreign Language Annuals, l2, (2), 141-151.
Bárcena, E. (2008). [Review of the book ESP in European Higher Education:
Integrating Language and Content, by Inmaculada Fortanet-Gómez & Christine A.
Räisänen]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Retrieved from
http://www.aelfe.org/documents/16_18_Barcena.pdf
Blanton, L. (1987). Reshaping ESL students’ perceptions of writing, ELT Journal,
41(4), 112-118.
Brown, G. & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse Analysis. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Carrell, P. L. (1982). Cohesion is not coherence. TESOL Quarterly, 16 (4), 479-488.
Castro, C. D. (2004). Effects of L2 writing proficiency levels and thinking aloud on

cohesive device use and composing behaviors of Filipino first-year college students.
(Unpublished MA Thesis). Asia Pacific Education Review, 5(2), 215-225.
El-Sadig, E. (2010). Arab EFL learners’ writing dilemma at tertiary level. English
Language Teaching, 3(4), 33-39.
Halliday, M and Hassan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman

Group Ltd.
Hang, N. (2012). A Study on students’ perception of coherence and its use in essays
written by students at Quang Binh University. Journal of Science, 70(1), 39-54.
56
Retrieved from http://hueuni.edu.vn/portal/data/doc/tapchi/4.pdf
Hymes, D. H. (1972). On Communicative Competence. In Pride, J. B., & Holmes, J.

(Eds.), Sociolinguistics, ( pp. 269-293). Baltimore, USA: Penguin Education,
Penguin Books Ltd.
Jonson, P. (1992). Cohesion and coherence in compositions in Malay and English.

RELC Journal, 23(2), 1-17.
Kamel, Gehan. (1989). Argumentative writing by Arab learners of English as a

foreign and second language (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). Indiana
University of Pennsylvania.
Khalil, A. (1989). A study of cohesion and coherence in Arab EFL students' writing.
System, 17(3), 359-371.*
McClure, E. & Steffensen, M. (1980). A study of the use of conjunctions across grades
and ethnic groups. Centre for the Study of Reading, 19(3), 1-33.
Mellos, V. (2011). Coherence in English as a second language undergraduate writing:

A theme-rheme analysis (Master Thesis). San Diego State University.
Neuuner, J. L. (1987). Cohesive ties and chains in good and poor freshman essays.
Research in the Teaching of English, 21(1), 92-105.
Oshima, A. & Hogue, A. (2006). Writing academic English. Pearson Education.

Inc: Longman.
Ramasawmy. (2004). Conjunctive cohesion and relational coherence in students'
Composition (Unpublished MA Thesis). University of South Africa.
Renkema, J. (Ed.). (2009). Discourse, of course: An overview of research in discourse

studies. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Taboada M. T. (2004). Building coherence and coesion: Task-oriented dialogue in

English and Spanish. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Tanskanen, S-K. (2006). Collaborating towards coherence: lexical cohesion in

English discourse. Philadelphia: John Bejamins.
57
Thuy, N. (2009). Teaching EFL writing in Vietnam: Problems and solutions – a

discussion from the outlook of applied linguistics. VNU Journal of Science, 61-66.
Retrieved from http://tapchi.vnu.edu.vn/nn_1_09/b9.pdf
Widdowson H. G. (1978). Teaching language as communication. Oxford: Oxford

University press.
Zhang, M. (2000). Cohesive features in the expository writing of undergraduates in

two Chinese universities. RELC Journal, 31(1), 61-95.
Appendices
Appendix A: Cohesion scoring scale:
00/10: the lowest mark
10/10: the highest mark
Appendix B: Coherence scoring scale of Oshima and Hogue’s
criteria for achieving coherence:
Repeating key nouns: the lowest mark is 0, the highest mark is 1.
Using consistent pronouns: the lowest mark is 0 the highest mark
is 1.
Transition signals: the lowest mark is 0, the highest mark is 1.
Arranging ideas in logical order: the lowest mark is 0, the highest
mark is 1.
Appendix C: Samples of Students’ Essays
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65

Problems of Cohesion and Coherence in Mo

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Problems of Cohesion and Coherence in Mo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Problems of Cohesion and Coherence in Moroccan High School Students’ Writing

I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor, Professor Ismail

Table Of Contents ………….…..………………………...……………..……..IV

List of Tables …………..…….………………………………………...…........VI

2. Chapter one : Review Of The Literature

3. Chapter two: Methodology

4. Chapter three: Data Analysis and Interpretation

4.2. Testing the Relationship between Writing Scores and Cohesive

Appendix 2: Coherence Scoring Scale

Appendix 3: Samples of Students’ Essays

Table 1: The number of schools and students participating in the study

1.2. The Rationale

mastery of cohesion and coherence is a combination of thorough studies that need to

b- Investigate the relationship between baccalaureate students’ poor quality

d- Highlight the influence of students’ first language (L1) on writing.

e- Address the pedagogical implications and suggest a variety of

1.3. Importance of the Study

This study is expected, then, to be an important contribution in the assessment of

1.4. Organization of the Study

2.1. Background of Writing

socio-cultural and sociolinguistic factors affecting writing skills; i.e. Hymes’

2.2. Defining Coherence

In language education, coherence is traditionally identified as a challenge to

a- In addition, similarly, moreover, etc.

Another technique suggested by Oshima and Hogue (2006) is the repetition of

2.3. Defining Cohesion

2.4. Halliday and Hasan’s Cohesion taxonomy

2.4.1. Grammatical Categories

Reference cohesion is split into personal, demonstrative, and comparative items.

 Relative pronouns: who, which, where, etc.

Substitution cohesion, as proposed by Halliday and Hasan (1976), is a “relation in

The red dress is better than the blue one

A: Did you arrange for the meeting?

A: Are you going to deliver your speech tomorrow?

A: Did you have your lunch?

A: Who were shouting in class?

Conjunction involves the process in which there is an established connection

 Additive: and, or, furthermore, similarly, in addition

Joyriding on the highway or biking in the mountain is a great joy.

 Adversative: but, however, on the other hand, nevertheless

2.4.2. Lexical Cohesion

As in Maria T. Taboada (2004), Lexical cohesion “contributes to the cohesion of a

The gallery is exposing a number of new medieval paintings.

2.5. The Relationship between Cohesion and Coherence

more importance to explicit markers of cohesion while neglecting the underlying

In addition to this, Tierney and Mosenthal (1983), as reported in Castro (2004),

As maintained in Tanskanen (2006), Enkvist (1978) provides an example to support

A: That's the telephone.

2.6. Empirical Studies on Cohesion

A significant number of researchers have relied on Halliday and Hassan’s (1976)

In another study, Neuner (1987) analyzed forty essays written by university

Jonson (1992) also studied cohesion in Malay and English. He worked on

In a study about the relationship of cohesion and coherence, Zhang (2000)

In a study on “Conjunctive Cohesion and Relational Coherence on Students’

a- Cohesion and coherence errors in Moroccan High School students’ written

3.1. Research Method for Analyzing Data

The research method is basically quantitative as it aims at gathering numerical data

Table 1: The number of schools and students participating in the study

Ibn Sina Technical High School Kenitra 15

3.3. Data Collection

3.4. Instruments for Analyzing Data

1) Reference ties: they provide references, such as personal pronouns, personal

1) Repetition of key nouns