LINGUISTICA ANTVERPIENSIA, 2021 Issue-3

www.hivt.be
SSN: 0304-2294
Investigation of Grammatical Cohesion Errors in
Written Paragraphs Made by ESL Students of Khwaja
Fareed University of Engineering and Information
Technology (KFUEIT)
Author1: Bushra Rasheed (M Phil Scholar, KFUEIT, RYK)
E-Mail: bushrarasheed23@gmail.com
Author2: Samina Sarwat (HoD Humanities and Social Sciences, KFUEIT, RYK)
E-Mail: samina.sarwat@kfueit.edu.pk
Author3: Syed Khuram Shahzad* (Ph.D. Scholar in English, Linguistics, University of Sindh,
Jamshoro)E-Mail: Khuramshahzad83@gmail.com
*Corresponding Author

Issue Details Abstract

Issue Title: Investigation of
Grammatical Cohesion Errors in
Written Paragraphs Made by
ESL Students of Khwaja Fareed
University of Engineering and
Information Technology
(KFUEIT)
Received:08 June, 2021
Accepted: 19 July, 2021
Published: 11 August, 2021
Pages: 4996 - 5006
Copyright © 2021 by author(s)
and
Lingüística Antverpiensia
Writing is a vibrant tool in all learning areas. It is a difficult task for ESL
undergraduate students. The literary element of cohesion is essential for
mastering writing. This study aimed to look into the percentages and
frequencies of coherent grammatical devices in KFUEIT ESL students'
written paragraphs. The second-semester studentsat the Department of
Humanities, Health, and Social Sciences were selected randomly. The
mixed method of research methodology, both qualitative and
quantitative were used for analyzation.by adopting the framework of
Halliday and Hassan (1976). The researcher aimed to analyze the errors'
percentages and frequencies of cohesionthat BS students employed in
their written,personal, demonstrative,possessive pronouns,personal
subjective,temporal, additive, and adversative cohesive devices were
selected by the researcher.Each devise's results with frequency and
percentage showed by the researcher in table 3. In these two categories
of cohesion (pronouns and conjunctions), the results revealed that the
students of KUEIT made the most frequent errors in adversative and
personal subjective pronouns with percentages of 31% and 24. As
compared to both categories,conjunctionis the most frequent category of
grammatical cohesive devices errors used in the writing of students of
KFUEIT with a total percentage of 59%. This study recommends that
these ESL students should be more conscious of their writing skills.
They should develop their cohesive grammaticaldevices awareness as
well as they should improve their vocabulary.
Key words: EFL writing, Cohesion, Cohesive devices,Errors, KFUEIT,

4996 LINGUISTICA ANTVERPIENSIA

 LINGUISTICA ANTVERPIENSIA, 2021 Issue-3
www.hivt.be
SSN: 0304-2294
Introduction
(Hassan, Rukaya, & Halliday, 1976), establish five types of cohesion: references, substitution,
ellipsis, lexical, and conjunction. They are categories as the first three references, substitution,
ellipsis fall under grammatical cohesion's categories;in contrast, lexical refers to the relation of
lexical items, and conjunction is considered grammatical devices with lexical components. This
model by Halliday and Hassan is the most comprehensive framework, and it was taken to analyze
students' errors. The very problematic areas of ESL learners are cohesion and coherence. For any
text, structure, the presence of these two devices is essential.

The most challenging skill to master is writing for ESL learners; writing a paragraph in English to
construct a coherent structure between sentences is challenging. The inappropriate statements in text
structuring, limited vocabulary, inadequateexamples, misuse, or improper usage of cohesive devices
are the causes of the poor organization of context writing.

Writing skill is the most important skill in English language learning. Besides speaking, writing is
the second productive skill; ESL students get command over during their English language learning
process. Developing the writing skill through communication is highly complex in each area,
contributing to some of the difficulties EFL students face (Wahiba, 2017).

Writing sentences in an academic paragraph must connect to convey an issue or thought. Sentences
are unified using cohesive grammatical strategies. A paragraph is made up of sentences, and the
number of sentences in a paragraph is determined by the number of sentences in the paragraph. A
paragraph comprises sentences; the number of sentences in a paragraph can range from five to 10,
depending on the topic.

As defined by Savage and Mayer (2006), A subject is a paragraph that contains sentences. A typical
paragraph begins with a topic phrase, which introduces the topic. The supporting notion is followed
by the supporting sentences, including explanations, reasons, and other details.

Halliday and Hassan (1976) establish references, substitution, ellipsis, lexical, and conjunction, five
types of cohesion.The categories fall under as:
the three first defined grammatical cohesion as references, substitution, andellipsis, on the other
hand, lexical refers to the relation between lexical items, and conjunctionis considered grammatical
devices with lexical components.

According to (Tangpermpoon, 2008), learning to write entails more than just mastering a set of
mechanical orthographic skills; it also necessitates new cognitive and social relationships. (Tribble,
1996, p.12) Writing is a massive issue for many students, particularly those whose first language is
not English.

When we write, we usually employ graphic symbols; a combination of letters represents our sound
when we talk, these letters are joined to form words, and words are combined to form sentences
(Byrne, 1988). According to Crystal (2006, p257), writing is a method of communication that
involves making visible marks on a surface; it is one of the graphic expressions (cited in Azzioui,
2009).

4997 LINGUISTICA ANTVERPIENSIA

 LINGUISTICA ANTVERPIENSIA, 2021 Issue-3
www.hivt.be
SSN: 0304-2294
Statement of Problem

KFUEIT (Khwaja Fareed University of Engineering and Information Technology) 's students at the
Department of Humanities, Health, and Social Sciences face numerous problems in developing and
producing well-connected paragraphs. This is the problem that in academic register and written
exams they show low proficiency, their limited store of vocabulary, incoherent paragraph, misuse of
lexical and grammatical devices decreases their proficiency in their test of any kind. As an English
language instructor, the researcher observed that the students failed to use appropriate punctuation,
and mostly, they try to write lengthy statements without linking the sentences; this thing creates
obstruction in the clarity of the message and ambiguous statements created. In this study, the
researcher investigated errors made by BS students of KFUEIT.

Objectives

The following objectives this study intended to address: -

 To identify the errors of cohesive grammatical devices by BS students of KFUEIT.

 To identify the most common errors in the writing of students.

Research Questions

 What are the percentages and frequencies of cohesive grammatical devices errors employed
by BS students of KFUEIT?
 What isthe most frequent category of grammatical cohesive devices errors used in the writing
of students of KFUEIT?

Limitations of the study

As the model of Halliday and Hassan was adopted in this research, many kinds of devices are
described by them in grammatical cohesion. However, in this research, not all kinds are analyzed in
personal pronouns (subjective and demonstrative and possessive), and in conjunction (Temporal,
Additive, and Adversative) are taken into account.

Literature Review

Language' study beyond the sentences is called discourse analysis. In communication, how stretches
of language are used, the quality of coherence is checked in discourse analysis. How do the chunks
of language flow together and their effect on the meaning of sentences?Cohesion is a semantic one
within the text it exists. Through cohesion, sentences link together. The concept of cohesion is found
in the book of Halliday and Hasan named "Cohesion in English."

References

References are used in English grammar to create cohesion in sentences.When something or

someone refers back that has been identified previously, avoid repetition in the text.Two types of
references are used. These are Anaphoric and Cataphoric references.
 Anaphoric refers back to the other idea for its meaning in the text.

4998 LINGUISTICA ANTVERPIENSIA

 LINGUISTICA ANTVERPIENSIA, 2021 Issue-3
www.hivt.be
SSN: 0304-2294
 Cataphoric refers to a word or idea, or phrase later in the text/discourse.
Three Types of references, personal, demonstrative, and comparative, are found in English grammar.
References are used to correspond to the appropriate link between elements.

Table: 1 Category of Reference

Person Personal Personal Possessive Possessive

Pronoun Pronoun Determiner Pronoun
Subject Object
First I Me My Mine
We Us Our Ours
Second You You Your Yours
He Him His His
Third She Her Her Hers
They Them Their Theirs
It It Its Its
(Halliday & Hasan, 2014)

Personal Pronouns (Subjective and Objective) are clearly described in the above table. Possessive
Pronouns describe the concept of possession.

 Personal pronouns

Personal pronouns are used instead of a noun. e.g., I, we, you, He, She, it, they, you are subjective
pronouns, and me, us, your, His, Him, Her, it, there are objective pronouns.

 Demonstrative Pronouns

This type of pronoun describes distance and time in the sentences.

 Possessive Pronouns

Possessive pronouns show ownership. They use in place of a noun. Possessive pronouns are mine,
your, his, hers, ours, and theirs.

Table: 2 Categories of Reference

Proximity Singular Plural Adverb

Near This These Here
(new)
Far That Those There
(Then)
Natural The

Adopted from Halliday &Hasan, Cohesion in English (1976, p.3)

4999 LINGUISTICA ANTVERPIENSIA

 LINGUISTICA ANTVERPIENSIA, 2021 Issue-3
www.hivt.be
SSN: 0304-2294
Conjunctions

Devices of conjunctions are additive, adversative, causal, temporal and continuative."

 Additive
When we want to include something in the sentences, we use the additive.e.g., yet,but despite this,on
the other hand, either way, anyhow, neither the less, rather…etc.

 Adversative
The contradictory relationship is shown by adversative. e.g .and,or, also, further, neither, besides, for
example, moreover, additionally, no neither, alternatively, likewise, incidentally, in addition, in the
same way, for instance, this is, either, conversely, etc.

 Causals
The relationship between the two conditions is described by it.e.g
so, thus, hence, therefore, consequently, accordingly, because of, and so on.

 Temporal

Temporal describes successive sentences relation.This type of conjunction makes a sequence in

sentences.e.g., next, meanwhile, at last, to sum up, in short, first, up to now, previously, finally, this
time, henceforward, etc.

 Continuative

It expresses the continuance of thoughts and ideas. It moves a discourse or conversation forward by
joining words, phrases, clauses, and sentences.

Types of conjunction

Three main types are following:

 Coordinating conjunction
 Subordinating conjunction
 Correlative conjunction

Many studies teach English as a foreign language in different countries by focusing on cohesive
devices. On the problems are faced by the ESL learners, the searchers have given considerable
attention. Some researchers, findings are similar, and others are contradictory.

In Saudi Arabia (Saud, 2016),A study on cohesive devices was undertaken using a descriptive
composition authored by Saudi University English majors. The model of Halliday and Hassan (1976)
was chosen as the most comprehensive framework for examining the coherent aspects in student
writing. These devices'relationship, with scores of writings, was analyzed for investigating of data.
The results revealed that cohesive devices were used more by "Good students" in their writing than
weak students.

5000 LINGUISTICA ANTVERPIENSIA

 LINGUISTICA ANTVERPIENSIA, 2021 Issue-3
www.hivt.be
SSN: 0304-2294
Similarly, Salim and Mudwi (2015) explored the usefulness of employing coherent devices in EFL
learners' writing skills and methods. The participants in this study were (100) first-year students
studying English at SUST. The findings demonstrated that the experimental group had various issues
using coherent devices in their writing skills. On the other hand, the control group fared marginally
worse.

In a study conducted by (Lu et al., 2011), conflicting texts were analyzed to find that the frequency
of compatible devices used by Chinese students in their controversial issues was consistent with the
quality of writing as determined by the two characters. Data analysis revealed a correlation, which
means that the high frequency of compatible devices has led to high scores. In addition, it was found
that among the three combined categories analyzed, the marked items are the most common,
followed by the reference items. Conjunctions were very common. In addition, the quality analysis
also revealed other related factors such as the use of various connectors and the misuse of the
connectors(Crossley & McNamara, 2010) cohesion in assessing the quality of an essay, the role of
cohesion is investigated by them. They analyzed the technical dimensions of the features of each
text, including the comparisons, to evaluate their relationship and evaluate the overall quality of the
essay. An essential aspect of the overall quality of the article is coherence; they suggested the result,
those who assess the merits of the experts evaluate the merits in terms of the absence of relevant
symbols in the essays rather than their presence. There are important implications and the role of
these findings in the writing quality combination for understanding the text.

In English writing (Cho & Shin, 2014), Text and corpus analysis were used to look for coherent
devices in textbooks and Korean college students' papers. Learner and native speaker corpora were
evaluated for the frequency of sentence transitions and demonstratives. The propensity of L2 learners
in this study was demonstrated by the overuse of sentence transitions and demonstrative pronouns
compared to native speakers. However, the results also show that by increasing proficiency, fewer
sentence transitions learners tend to use.

Moreover, (HENDRAYANA, 2012), The coherent techniques were studied in a narrative paragraph
authored by English department students by fifth-semester students at the University of
Muhammadiyah Malang. The primary goal of this study was to determine the most common form of
cohesive device employed in students' narrative paragraphs. Three major types of cohesive devices
(reference, conjunction, and lexical cohesion) out of five were the dominant types in the students'
narrative paragraphs. Whereas the other two, substitution and ellipsis, were not found in their
writing.

The difficulties that fourth-year university students had in writing an English paragraph were
investigated by (Elbarani & Abuarrosh, 2012), specifically in writing and generating a topic
sentence. The findings of the studies revealed that students have a low level of creativity and
correctness while writing in their second language, especially when developing a topic phrase.

A study conducted in Saudi Arabia (Wahby, 2014)at Taibah University on the impact of Saud prep-
year pre-intermediate students adopting cohesive devices. Based on the findings, students who
displayed written text had more excellent cohesive knowledge and were more trained by employing
cohesive ties, and they used well-organized cohesive texts correctly.

(Ahmed, 2010) Some study studies in the Arab world have addressed the challenges of student
consistency in English writing. Repetition, parallelism, sentence length, lack of variation, and misuse
of specific cohesive devices, for example, were shown to be incoherent and textual deviation

5001 LINGUISTICA ANTVERPIENSIA

 LINGUISTICA ANTVERPIENSIA, 2021 Issue-3
www.hivt.be
SSN: 0304-2294
'significant sources in Arab students' written writings. Such complex challenges compelled the
researcher to concentrate on the current study and investigating Saudi Arabia university students' use
of coherence in writing.

A study by (Kargozari, Ghaemi, & Heravi, 2012)conducted in 180 compositions, Iranian EFL
university students' usage of coherent devices (argumentative, descriptive, and expository) was
explored. The findings demonstrated that in students' essays, lexical devices were used for more than
only references and conjunctions. Misuse, misuse, and conjunctions, and restriction of reference and
lexical devices were all noted as issues in the students' writings. The results and content of this study
differ from those of the previous studies in that it focuses on grammatical cohesive device faults
committed by Saudi EFL students at the University of Tabuk in their written paragraphs.

(Fareh, 2014) At the macrolinguistic level, the faults that Arab EFL learners made in writing English
essays were detected. She writes that Arab English learners have significant macrolinguistic issues,
including coherence and cohesion. Aguieb and Bouaziz (2017) looked into pupils' difficulties with
using consistent and cohesive language.
(Ariyanti & Fitriana, 2017) observed poor quality of the EFL students' essays, and the writing class
revealed that writing is a more complex than learning skill in acquiring the English language is
reflected in the outcomes. As a result, they discover the obstacles that EFL students encounter when
writing essays and their learning needs to improve the quality of their English composition. The
findings showed students' significant difficulties in terms of grammar, cohesion, and coherence.

Research Methodology

This qualitative-quantitative study investigates cohesive devices errorsmade by EFL students in their
written paragraphs at the BS English Department at the KFUEIT university. The quantitative
analysis of the cohesive errors is regarded as a prerequisite for the qualitative analysis used to
describe errors made by the subject of the study. In addition, it is also used to identify types, reasons,
and frequencies oferrors. However, the analysis was confined to the cohesive devices errors, mainly
reference, substitution, and conjunction. That is to say, otherkinds of errors are not taken into
accountStudents were selectedthrough convenient random sampling for this research. As an
instructor, the researcher gave students a task to write paragraphs on the fatal epidemic disease in
those days,"Covid-19"(Coronavirus). They were instructed to write almost three paragraphs.

Population

The department of Humanities, Health, and Social Sciences students were taken as the study
population as they were above 2000 in number.

Sampling

Four sections chose from the department for data collection; 163 students were in number in these
sections. The researcher collected data from students of the second semester. Then 41 paragraphs
samples written by the ESL learners randomly chose for analysis.

5002 LINGUISTICA ANTVERPIENSIA

 LINGUISTICA ANTVERPIENSIA, 2021 Issue-3
www.hivt.be
SSN: 0304-2294
Data Resources

Data resources for this research were the students of the second semester of BS at KFUEIT. Their
written documents were focused on analysis.
The topic was the same for all students suggested by the researcher, who was their instructor.

Techniques

 By adopting the model of Halliday and Hasan (1976), a comprehensive framework was
developed for analyzing errors in students' written documents.

 40 samples were collected randomly from four sections of BS second semester students.

 After collecting the documents, she marked the errors made by the participants.

 Errors marked and made a list of errors.

 Then, through a reliable source of SPSS, the researcher found the frequencies and
percentages of each participant.
 Through these (SPSS-20), she analyzed each participants' error in frequencies and
percentages.
 Overall findings are illustrated in table 4.2, and its graph clearly describes the results.

 The next step was to find out the most common error in the written document of the
participants for the answering of the second question.

Discussion and Findings

The primary goal of this study was to look at the errors made by cohesive grammatical devices and
the frequency and percentages of those faults. All category errors are depicted below in the form of
tables and figures.

The frequencies and percentages of subjective, demonstrative, possessive), and conjunction

(Temporal, Additive, and Adversative) are illustrated.

Table:3 The frequencies and percentages of cohesive grammatical errors committed by ESL
students of KFUEIT

Factors/Variables/sub categories Frequencies Percentages

Personal Demonstrative 50 10%
Possessive 36 7%
Personal Subjective 115 24%
Temporal 41 8%
Additive 90 19%
Adversative 152 31%
Total Errors 484 100%

5003 LINGUISTICA ANTVERPIENSIA

 LINGUISTICA ANTVERPIENSIA, 2021 Issue-3
www.hivt.be
SSN: 0304-2294
Table 3 above illustratesReferences' sub-categories frequencies and percentages highest frequency
produced about 115 with 24% of personal subjective in the fundamental errors of paragraphs written
by students. Besides it,personal demonstrative and possessive errors are frequented 50 and 36 with
10% and 7% respectively. The other three are conjunctions' three sub-sub-categories. The highest
errors in these categories in Adversative with 152 frequencies and its 31% was recorded. Rest sub-
categories temporal and additive frequented 90 and 41 with 19% and 8% respectively.

Figure:1 Overall percentages of grammatical cohesive devices errors in written paragraphs

(N-40)
Overall Factor-wise Errors
35% 31%
30% 24%
25% 19%
20%
15% 10% 8%
10% 7%
5%
0%

Figure1 shows grammatical cohesive devices faults in pupils' written paragraphs as a percentage.
Each percentage was collected with the total number of errors committed by participants in forty
paragraphs. This figure presents that most participants committed errors in the usage of Adversative
as 31% was recorded. Then errors of personal-subjective were recorded 24%, which is second in
number. The students committed most of the errors in Adversative (the sub-category of conjunction)
and secondly in personal –subjective (the sub-category of references), whereas errors in additive
were 19% recorded, which were third in number. Personal, demonstrative 10%, temporal 8%, and
possessive pronouns with 7% were last in the number of errors.

Table: 4The frequencies and percentages of grammatical cohesive errors committed by each
respondent
Factors Levels of 0- 1- 2- 3- 4- 5- 6- 7-
agreement Errors Errors Errors Errors Errors Errors Errors Errors

Subjective Frequency 02 04 09 10 13 06 01 01
Pronouns
Percentage 5.0 10.0 19.6 25.0 32.5 15.0 2.5 2.5
Possessive Frequency 13 21 04 00 00 00 00 01
Pronouns Percentage 32.5 52.5 10.0 00 00 00 00 2.5
Demonstrativ Frequency 09 19 09 02 00 00 00 01
e Pronouns
Percentage 22.5 47.5 22.5 5.0 00 00 00 2.5
Temporal Frequency 14 18 05 02 00 00 00 01

5004 LINGUISTICA ANTVERPIENSIA

 LINGUISTICA ANTVERPIENSIA, 2021 Issue-3
www.hivt.be
SSN: 0304-2294
Percentage 35.0 45.0 12.5 5.0 00 00 00 2.5
Additive Frequency 02 14 09 08 04 01 01 01
Percentage 5.0 35.0 22.5 20.0 10.0 2.5 2.5 2.5
Adversative Frequency 01 02 03 15 04 09 04 02
Percentage 2.5 5.0 7.5 37.5 10.0 22.5 10.0 5.0

Note: Most frequently, values are discussed in the interpretation

Table 4.1 showed that approximately 58% (10+13) respondents had made three to four errors about
subjective pronouns in the written document. About 85% (32.5+52.5) of respondents made zero to
one error. In possessive pronouns. In Demonstrative Pronouns, almost 48% (19) participants made 2
errors, and the 45% (18) respondents made zero and three errors. In the next category of conjunction,
80% (14+18) errors are recorded in Temporal. In Additive, approximately 42% (09+08) of
participants commit two to three errors. In adversative 38% (15) participants made three errors, and
the second-highest value of errors is 23% (9) five errors committed by them. Here all respondent's
responses were weighted according to the position in which they occur. The overall attitude of all
participants was calculated by sum/frequency and percentage.

Conclusion

This study was designed to answer the research questions and to meet the research objectives. Errors
of the students committed in the written paragraphs were investigated on the framework adopted
from Halliday and Hassan (1976). Qualitatively and quantitatively, the data of this study were
analyzed by identifying the frequencies and percentages of the types by evaluating overall and
individual errors of each participant's written paragraphs. Table 4.1 and figure 4.1's results presented
the overall results of errors. Table 4.2's results presented each participant's errors report that how
many times they committed errors. The researcher with the mixed method checked errors frequencies
and percentages of the students.The two categories focused on this research were pronouns and
connections. The sum of their percentages is 41% and 59% respectively. These results showed that in
the first type of this study, the students made fewer errors thanthe second one. These results also
answered the second question that most frequent error category in conjunction by the students of
KFUEIT. These tables and figures answer the first and second queries. The findings revealed that the
students focus on some grammatical devices and neglect others. In the paragraphs, the misuse and
overuse of devices showed their lack of grammatical knowledge and a bad influence onEnglish. As
an instructor, she noticed more influence on them of their mother tongue.
She recommends that ESL studentsbe taught grammatical devices explicitly; they should develop
their reading skills and associate themselves morewiththe English language to get more awareness of
it. The researcher also recommends that the students reduce the influence of their mother tongue as
this makesa hurdle in their learning. Students of KFUEIT should practice cohesive devices to build
cohesion and coherence in their writing.Teachers should give them new ideas to build cohesive and
coherent ties and train their students by regular writing practices.

Future researchers can investigate other cohesive devices to improve the crucial skills of students,
and they can also investigate cohesion by using other techniques and sources to give new input to the
theory of cohesion.

5005 LINGUISTICA ANTVERPIENSIA

 LINGUISTICA ANTVERPIENSIA, 2021 Issue-3
www.hivt.be
SSN: 0304-2294
References
1. Ahmed, A. H. (2010). Students' problems with cohesion and coherence in EFL essay writing
in Egypt: Different perspectives. Literacy Information and Computer Education Journal
(LICEJ), 1(4), 211-221.
2. Ariyanti, A., & Fitriana, R. (2017). EFL students' difficulties and needs in essay writing.
Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research (ASSEHR), 158, 111-121.
3. Cho, H. Y., & Shin, J.-A. (2014). Cohesive devices in English writing textbooks and Korean
learners' English writings. ENGLISH TEACHING (영어교육), 69(1), 41-59.
4. Crossley, S., & McNamara, D. (2010). Cohesion, coherence, and expert evaluations of
writing proficiency. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the
Cognitive Science Society.
5. Fareh, S. (2014). Macrolinguistic errors in Arab EFL learners' essays. Procedia-Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 141, 923-933.
6. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (2014). Cohesion in english: Routledge.
7. Hassan, H., Rukaya, & Halliday, M. (1976). Cohesion in English. P20.
8. HENDRAYANA, R. A. (2012). AN ANALYSIS OF COHESIVE DEVICES USED IN THE
NARRATIVE PARAGRAPH WRITTEN BY THE FIFTH SEMESTER STUDENTS OF
ENGLISH DEPARTMENT IN UNIVERSITY OF MUHAMMADIYAH MALANG. University
of Muhammadiyah Malang,
9. Kargozari, H. R., Ghaemi, H., & Heravi, M. A. (2012). Cohesive devices in argumentative,
descriptive, and expository writing produced by Iranian EFL university students. Modern
Journal of Language Teaching Methods, 2(3), 25.
10. Lu, S., Liu, H.-C., Chen, Y.-D., Yuan, H.-L., Sun, S.-L., Gao, Y.-P., . . . Lu, T. (2011).
Combined pharmacophore modeling, docking, and 3D-QSAR studies of PLK1 inhibitors.
International journal of molecular sciences, 12(12), 8713-8739.
11. Saud, W. I. (2016). Cohesion in the Descriptive Writing of EFL Undergraduates.
International Journal of Humanities and Cultural Studies (IJHCS) ISSN 2356-5926, 2(2),
440-450.
12. Tangpermpoon, T. (2008). Integrated approaches to improve students writing skills for
English major students. ABAC journal, 28(2).
13. Wahby, M. (2014). The effect of implementing cohesive ties by Saudi prep-year pre
intermediate students on their written texts. European Scientific Journal, 10(4).

5006 LINGUISTICA ANTVERPIENSIA